Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[NoahFence]

No, according to NIST, the collapse began when the thermal expansion pushed the girder between columns 79 and 44 on the 13th floor off its seat.

My head's a spinnin'

So...why is the fire on the 12th floor relevant? The damage was already done.

 

[Dog Town]

My head's a spinnin'

Welcome to C7, just walk away slowly.

 

[TruthMakesPeace]

This is off topic but to respond...

"missing 2.3 trillions"

Talk to Donald Rumsfeld and CBS News about it
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/29/eveningnews/main325985.shtml
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUKJNxdmX6Y

"85 missing tapes" from the pentagon

Not missing, but they won't let us see all the videos and judge for ourselves if we can see a plane.

September 9, 2005: Special Agent Jacqueline Maguire of the FBI's Counterterrorism Division files a DECLARATION describing her search for records responsive to Bingham's FOIA request. Maguire admits to determining that 85 videotapes in the FBI's possession are "potentially responsive" the request, that she personally viewed 29 of the tapes, and that she located only one videotape that showed the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon. Maguire also refers to "one videotape taken from a closed circuit television at a Doubletree Hotel in Arlington Virginia," but states that it did not show the impact of Flight 77.​

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/footage.html

Also see:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/lofiversion/index.php?t14873.html
http://infowars.net/articles/may2006/170506Pentagon_videos.htm
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/12/1211_wirepentagon.html
Jose Velasquez, Citgo Supervisor: "The FBI was here within minutes and took the film."

 

[dafydd]

1) Just because you are not capable of understanding the meaning, implications and merit of what you term *pictures with squiggly lines on them an[d] meaningless graphs* does not mean they are without meaning, implication or merit.

2) The recent discussion of simplistic physical term usage has not only highlighted that I am most certainly not ignorant of the arena (though I would certainly not profess to be all-knowing), but has highlighted that many of those who make such accusations, such as yourself, are, to put it mildly, more than a little lacking in the very areas they are asserting upon. Quite ironic really.


I'm afraid that you make your level of technical understanding very clear by the mode of your dialogue, and I have neither interest nor intention of facilitating your continnual demands for me to provide you with general information outside the bounds of the specific area I comment upon, especially personal information. I have made my reasons for spending time looking at the features I do very clear in numerous discussions within this forum, and have absolutely zero intention of wasting my time repeating it to every lazy and rude member of this forum who is obsessed with *twoofer baiting*.

You've said on several occasions that I have made mistakes, and yet when challenged to state what you think the issue actually is you have repeatedly dodged the question and changed the subject. Poor.

I understand what happened on 911,you do not. The collapse of the building was just a small part of the story. You have no full story. Asking you to explain what you think happened on that day is not truther baiting. You have the cheek to comment on my level of technical understanding. Your knowledge of engineering could be written on the back of a postage stamp. You are very coy about stating your qualifications,if you have studied formally then you should ask for your money back.

 

[Animal]

This is off topic but to respond...

Talk to Donald Rumsfeld and CBS News about it
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/29/eveningnews/main325985.shtml
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUKJNxdmX6Y

Try ready what he actually said, not relying on "proof by youtube"

http://www.defense.gov/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=430

 

[dafydd]

10 years of nonsense on 911 (you get extra credit for posting wiggly gifs), and the best you have is youtube videos titled "Demolition". 911 truth is not capable of understanding 911. The CD claims are as crazy as the beam weapon, thermite, and nukes. What frame of reference did you pick and when will you present your work?

OMG, you posted the wiggle lies on your study with no goal, save asking questions. What was the point and how does it support your CD claims, your Demolition claims?

NIST was wrong, fire did not do it? No, NIST is right fire did it. When will you publish your work? Never? Next Week? In 20 years when it complete? You study 0.01 percent of the collapse of WTC7 and pronounce NIST is wrong. Why do want-to-be engineers attack NIST when all they have to do is publish their work and provide evidence for their claims, in your case a covert delusion of "Demolition".
Did you fix the 4g and 2g discontinuity on your data for 175?

Vanity publishing,maybe. A serious scientific journal? No way. Maybe on April Fool's day.

 

[Christopher7]

My head's a spinnin'

So...why is the fire on the 12th floor relevant? The damage was already done.

You fail to grasp the fact that NIST says the fire caused thermal expansion after it had gone out.

Read this again.
"According to NIST, the collapse began when the thermal expansion pushed the girder between columns 79 and 44 on the 13th floor off its seat."

The collapse began at 5:20 PM but the fire on floor 12 had gone out over one half hour earlier. Therefore, it did not cause the beams to expand to the point where they pushed the girder off its seat at 5:20 PM.

 

[Dave Rogers]

1) Just because you are not capable of understanding the meaning, implications and merit of what you term *pictures with squiggly lines on them an[d] meaningless graphs* does not mean they are without meaning, implication or merit.

And yet you continually decline to describe this meaning, implication or merit in plain language. All you present is observations, never conclusions. What, from your analysis, do you conclude about the cause of collapse of WTC7, other than that it was not caused by explosives going off immediately prior to the penthouse collapses?

Dave

 

[NoahFence]

You fail to grasp the fact that NIST says the fire caused thermal expansion after it had gone out.

Read this again.
"According to NIST, the collapse began when the thermal expansion pushed the girder between columns 79 and 44 on the 13th floor off its seat."

The collapse began at 5:20 PM but the fire on floor 12 had gone out over one half hour earlier. Therefore, it did not cause the beams to expand to the point where they pushed the girder off its seat at 5:20 PM.

Ok, so the collapse began between columns 79 and 44 on the 13th floor.

Remind me again why I care about the 12th floor?

 

[NoahFence]

And yet you continually decline to describe this meaning, implication or merit in plain language. All you present is observations, never conclusions. What, from your analysis, do you conclude about the cause of collapse of WTC7, other than that it was not caused by explosives going off immediately prior to the penthouse collapses?

Dave

I guess he's Just Asking Questions...

 

[Dave Rogers]

This is off topic but to respond...

Talk to Donald Rumsfeld and CBS News about it

This is the same $2.3 trillion of unresolved transactions that was reported in March 2000 by Associated Press, and again in August 2000, January 2001, February 2001, June 2001 and July 2001, right? It wasn't exactly news by September 2001. And, of course, the majority of it has since been traced.

Cicorp, everything you bring to the table is long debunked and discarded, and you appear to have picked it up from the usual truther sources and believed every word of it without the slightest hesitation. Have you ever thought of... well, thinking for yourself?

Dave

 

[dafydd]

I guess he's Just Asking Questions...

Almost ten years and he and his ilk still have no answers,only no planes,energy beams,controlled demolitions and now even nuclear devices. No answers. that is not very good going.

 

[femr2]

What, from your analysis, do you conclude about the cause of collapse of WTC7, other than that it was not caused by explosives going off immediately prior to the penthouse collapses?

Dave

Within context, what more is required ? I have extracted verifiable data from the video record of the events which is presented in easily digestible graphic form proving the timescale, magnitude and behaviour of early motion of the structure, and thus highlighting that which you mention...that it was not caused by explosives going off immediately prior to the penthouse collapses.

That detail alone requires the majority of that group you call *twoofers* to re-think their position at a number of fundamental levels, and you criticise me for doing so ? What a joke

There may be other behavioural details which can be confirmed by such data, but until there is no doubt about a conclusion I'm far from inclined to state one. If you have an issue with that stance it's really not my problem.

It does shine light on certain levels of inaccuracy and misinterpretation NIST fell foul of, but again, unless there's a specific element I feel inclined to highlight I simply will refrain from doing so. I've highlighted numerous issues within the NIST reports, and am likely to continue to do so.

And yet, despite presentation of such details as early motion multiple times the (frankly witless) minions cannot seem to understand the importance of such data and respond with utterly nonsensical accusations about my motives, personal viewpoint of the events and suggestion that I'm *backing in CD*, *suggesting hush-a-booms*, all manner of useless banter.

It's ridiculous. Laughable.

 

[dafydd]

Within context, what more is required ? I have extracted verifiable data from the video record of the events which is presented in easily digestible graphic form proving the timescale, magnitude and behaviour of early motion of the structure, and thus highlighting that which you mention...that it was not caused by explosives going off immediately prior to the penthouse collapses.

That detail alone requires the majority of that group you call *twoofers* to re-think their position at a number of fundamental levels, and you criticise me for doing so ? What a joke

There may be other behavioural details which can be confirmed by such data, but until there is no doubt about a conclusion I'm far from inclined to state one. If you have an issue with that stance it's really not my problem.

It does shine light on certain levels of inaccuracy and misinterpretation NIST fell foul of, but again, unless there's a specific element I feel inclined to highlight I simply will refrain from doing so. I've highlighted numerous issues within the NIST reports, and am likely to continue to do so.

And yet, despite presentation of such details as early motion multiple times the (frankly witless) minions cannot seem to understand the importance of such data and respond with utterly nonsensical accusations about my motives, personal viewpoint of the events and suggestion that I'm *backing in CD*, *suggesting hush-a-booms*, all manner of useless banter.

It's ridiculous. Laughable.

Yes,you are ridiculous and laughable.

 

[TruthMakesPeace]

Try ready what he actually said, not relying on "proof by youtube"
http://www.defense.gov/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=430

Thanks for providing the link to his speech, so I can copy and paste Donald Rumsfeld's sentence as proof he said in his 20th paragraph: "According to some estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions."

This validates the video version and vice versa: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kpWqdPMjmo&feature=related

Some people assume transactions are only expenses. But it includes revenue and inter-departmental fund transfers. One dollar may be part of 10 transactions. That explains why the DOD with a budget of half a trillion can lose track of 2.3 trillion. Still, American taxpayers deserve to know their money is being used wisely.

Senator Robert Byrd grilled Rumsfeld on this: "How can we seriously consider a $500 billion increase in the defense budget when DOD's own auditors - when DOS"s own auditors - say the department cannot account for $2.3 trillion in transactions in one year, alone?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rRqeJcuK-A

"proof by youtube"

Text and Videos both work together to provide better proof of what transpired, than either Text or Video alone. Text provides the complete statement, quicker to read. The audio and visual info from services such as YouTube, provide the tempo, voice inflections, facial expressions (Donald's is priceless) and visual environment, that more fully communicate what happened. Of course, being there is even better. But thanks to the internet, we can now easily convey sufficient text, audio, and visual information.

 

[Animal]

You fail to grasp the fact that NIST says the fire caused thermal expansion after it had gone out.

Read this again.
"According to NIST, the collapse began when the thermal expansion pushed the girder between columns 79 and 44 on the 13th floor off its seat."

The collapse began at 5:20 PM but the fire on floor 12 had gone out over one half hour earlier. Therefore, it did not cause the beams to expand to the point where they pushed the girder off its seat at 5:20 PM.

Ok, so the collapse began between columns 79 and 44 on the 13th floor.

Remind me again why I care about the 12th floor?

The fire on the 12th floor would effect the 13th floor beams and girders.
What C7 ignores is the fact that the fire could have done the damage, but the final collapse did not start for another 1/2 hour. There is this little thing called CREEP and structural engineers are quite aware of.

Though I am not a fan of wiki....they have a decent description
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creep_(deformation).

 

[newton3376]

No,look at the title of this thread.

No, you are misunderstanding what I am referring to.

Within the context of MY post and the discussion I was having at the time....it is indeed a seperate issue.

That is the context my comment was written in.

 

[carlitos]

Laughable indeed. Only femr2 can grasp the importance of his data. Like a beacon illuminating a dark world, he stands alone in possession of the truth. The engineers working for NIST are witless minions, powerless to explain away the youtube videos and jiggly graphics that will ultimately cost them jobs, prestige, and perhaps even their own lives.

 

[Toke]

Laughable indeed. Only femr2 can grasp the importance of his data. Like a beacon illuminating a dark world, he stands alone in possession of the truth. The engineers working for NIST are witless minions, powerless to explain away the youtube videos and jiggly graphics that will ultimately cost them jobs, prestige, and perhaps even their own lives.

And it makes perfect sense for him to hold back until the world is ready for his genius.

 

[beachnut]

... I have extracted verifiable data from the video record of the events which is presented in easily digestible graphic form proving the timescale, magnitude and behaviour of early motion of the structure, and thus highlighting that which you mention...that it was not caused by explosives going off immediately prior to the penthouse collapses.

WTC Demolition - WTC7 Shockwave Visible

... That detail alone requires the majority of that group you call *twoofers* to re-think their position at a number of fundamental levels, and you criticise me for doing so ? What a joke

WTC Demolition - WTC1 Smoke #1

... There may be other behavioural details which can be confirmed by such data, but until there is no doubt about a conclusion I'm far from inclined to state one. If you have an issue with that stance it's really not my problem.

FEMR2 911 Links #2 - WTC Demolition

... It does shine light on certain levels of inaccuracy and misinterpretation NIST fell foul of, but again, unless there's a specific element I feel inclined to highlight I simply will refrain from doing so. I've highlighted numerous issues within the NIST reports, and am likely to continue to do so.

The Forever Demolition theory. Another gravity collapse labeled, "Demolition". kul

... And yet, despite presentation of such details as early motion multiple times the (frankly witless) minions cannot seem to understand the importance of such data and respond with utterly nonsensical accusations about my motives, personal viewpoint of the events and suggestion that I'm *backing in CD*, *suggesting hush-a-booms*, all manner of useless banter.

Importance of making up an analysis? You have no motives, no goals besides asking questions. Another mislabeled gravity collapse.

... It's ridiculous. Laughable.

Yes the 4g and 2g discontinuity in the data for 175 is. Going to fix it, or keep misleading people with made up conclusions based on bad data?
WTC Demolition - WTC7 Stabilised Base Visible
WTC Demolition - WTC1 North Low Angle
WTC Demolition - WTC1 Diagonal Slice Deinterlaced
WTC Demolition - WTC7 NE Corner
WTC Demolition - WTC7 Shockwave Visible ..., over 20 seconds to collapse. Wow, fire did it, and your work has what goal? Demolition?