ozeco41
Philosopher
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
David Chandler forced NIST to admit "free-fall"
- Thread starter DGM
- Start date
-
- Tags
- david chandler free fall wtc 7
cantonear1968
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2009
- Messages
- 1,657
I will stand to be corrected on this, but it was my belief that NIST released their WTC7 Draft report and the NCSTAR 1-9 report at the same time. So while they had the draft report for public comments, which did not include the 3 phases of collapse, they did describe this in the NCSTAR 1-9 report. This was not a case of Chandler "forcing" them to admit free fall; he merely raised the issue enough for NIST to include information in their WTC7 Final Report that they had already released. Therefore, they were not trying to hide this and Chandler forced nothing.
However, if I am wrong, I will accept being corrected.
Last edited:
Cantoneer,
The release dates that I have:
For all the "Draft for public comment" docs: Incl NCSTAR1A, 1-9 vol.1 & 1-9 vol.2: Aug 08
For all the final versions: Nov 08.
tom
cantonear1968
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2009
- Messages
- 1,657
Again, maybe I'm wrong on this, but I thought NIST released 2 separate documents on the WTC7 collapse in Aug. of 2008: the WTC7 Draft Report, which was more a summary of the collapses and did not outline the 3 phases of collapse, and was what they opened for public comments, and the NCSTAR 1-9, which was a more detailed analysis of the collapse and included the these 3 phases, outlining one which was free fall. So when Chandler made his comments about his free fall anlysis, it's true it was not inlcuded the Draft Report they were discussing, but had been released, at the same time, in their NCSTAR 1-9 report.
I will accept being corrected on this.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
I think you might be confusing the "summary" with the "draft" report. NSCTAR 1-9 was released in two versions, the "draft" (for public comment) and the final. There was also a "summary" that was a condensed version (I'm not sure of the release date).
So? What is your point. No matter how much crap is presented by 911 truth, it does not make Chandlers idiotic CD claims more than moronic delusions and nonsense. How can people support the dirt dumb delusion of CD?
adkinsjr
Thinker
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2010
- Messages
- 206
"Truth" cult followers believe freefall=CD.
They embellish that NIST is part of the conspiracy, and was trying to to "hide" this freefall.
cantonear1968
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2009
- Messages
- 1,657
Ok, I can see I was incorrect. Thank you for the correction Femr.
fixed that for ya.
theshillbarrett
Scholar
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2010
- Messages
- 70
TruthMakesPeace
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2007
- Messages
- 291
>Because the Truth Movement isn't about finding answers to valid questions
On the contrary. It is all about getting answers to valid questions, such as:
Why can't we see the photos from the 85 security cameras at the Pentagon?
Who was making so many put options on AA and UA (and not other airlines) just before 9/11?
and hundreds more.
Is it right to lump millions of people you never met together and impute motives to them?
Just because they want answers, you say they don't want answers?
I, for one, am interested in the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
That's why I came to this Forum, to get alternative views, not to be insulted.
If it turns out, from a new investigation, that my Government was not complicit in 9/11,
then I would be very happy and relieved.
On the contrary. It is all about getting answers to valid questions, such as:
Why can't we see the photos from the 85 security cameras at the Pentagon?
Who was making so many put options on AA and UA (and not other airlines) just before 9/11?
and hundreds more.
Is it right to lump millions of people you never met together and impute motives to them?
Just because they want answers, you say they don't want answers?
I, for one, am interested in the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
That's why I came to this Forum, to get alternative views, not to be insulted.
If it turns out, from a new investigation, that my Government was not complicit in 9/11,
then I would be very happy and relieved.
Last edited:
The Big Dog
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2007
- Messages
- 29,742
Holy zombie threads!!
First, your request for information from "all 85 security cameras" is grossly overbroad. What possible basis COULD YOU NEED ALL 85 CAMERAS? Further, releasing security videos provides information regarding confidential Surveillance strategies, information that may well be useful to circumventing the cameras, don’t you agree?
Further, your comments about the “put options,” indicate to me that you have not fully researched this issue. Have you reviewed the interview notes from the 911 commission? Do you know the identity of the newsletter that recommended a hedge strategy? Do you know how this hedge strategy worked?
In other words, the "put question," to name one, was squarely addressed by the 911 Commission, yet you appear not to be aware of this, or don't care.
Either way, keep on JAQ'ing off.
Animal
Master Poster
Not to mention that 85 security cameras mean one camera per 78,000 s.f. of building, or one per 6.8 acres of land area. And I doubt any of them were pointing skyward
You are your government, or did you forget to vote?
Have you heard of the SEC? If you were in on 911 and did put options you would be as dumb as Martha Stewart who only lied about her stock transactions. Gee, there could not be a dumber crook than to blow up the stock exchange and leave a trail easy to follow. I have traded stocks and when I break the rules there is a trail and they fine you, find you, etc. The Put Options is the dumbest one you can come up with. Like shooting someone and standing over the body with a gun forever (paper trail to your door stupid), too simple to solve.
All the stuff you come up with has already been solved, debunked, most over 9 years ago. You missed it, were you in the womb?
Last edited:
ozeco41
Philosopher
You can take it as given that no-one here who opposes "trutherism" will believe that you are an honest seeker for truth until you establish some credibility. That is reality. And it will remain reality whilst ever you persist in asking "truther styled questions".
Why? Because "truther styled questions" are not intended to elicit truth. They are framed to force those providing answers into logical corners supporting the truther's pre-determined answers.
So, with that disclaimer, lets see if we can determine what your concern is.
This thread was about the events in which NIST provided further detailed information on a phase of WTC7 collapse. The outcome was that NIST explained a brief period of free fall in the collapse of WTC7 and certain elements of the "truth movement" have represented that as David Chandler "forcing" NIST to make "admissions".
Let me address two aspects of this matter for your assistance.
First is the technical issue of whether or not there was free fall. And I will make two bold assertions for your consideration.
"A" the occurrence of stages of free fall in the collapse of a large building is not surprising to qualified structural engineers which includes me. So much so that in writing a report targeting professionals I would not even bother to mention the issue unless there was some specific reason.
"B" The "truth movement" has established a belief which underpins many statements about demolition that free fall always means demolition (or on some rare occasions "almost certainly means demolition".) That belief is false.
Given those two I put two questions to you.
1: Do you comprehend that those two "bold assertions" are part of the background to the discussion 0f this topic?
2: If, and only if, you agree that the two assertions exist move on to the second question of "Do you accept both as true statements?"
If you can say yes to both those questions we can progress. If you cannot say yes there is some preliminary explanatory work we need to go through.
The second aspect goes to your claim "I, for one, am interested in the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."
If you are a genuine truth seeking sceptic you will need to be aware of those aspects of "truther styled questions" which are near certain to get you ignored or insulted. On this forum, if you look like "just another truther", you will be treated with at least the disdain which truthers attract. Probably worse. That is reality and not something that either you or I can change.
Now I have been following your posts on other threads and you seem to have fallen for a number of standard truther traps. I won't attempt a post mortem on them rather ask you to consider why you are interested in this topic of "David Chandletr forced...etc".
And I suggest that whether or not David Chandler forced something is probably not the question which should be your #1 priority. Your attention should be directed to the underlying technical issue - that of "free fall" and the implication of demolition.
Within that focus ask yourself:
"Do I accept that free fall is something which is to be expected in the collapse of a large building? Do I accept that free fall does not mean demolition?"
If you can answer "Yes" to both those you are at least mentally clear of the trap that the truth movement has set. Otherwise we have some further explaining to do.
You can then progress to the real question - "Do I agree that there was no demolition of WTC"X"? Where "X" can be 7 or 1 or 2.
Then your final comment leads us to another minefield of truther trickery which you may not have intended:
The "happy and relieved" is OK but the problem is with the "...my Government was not complicit..." which is far too broad.
I won't discuss in detail at this stage but consider a much narrower concern:
"Are you concerned that the US Government was implicated in planning or execution of demolition of WTC7?"
That is one of potentially hundreds of such questions - each with a specific and narrow focus.
Why go that track? Because very few people would claim there were not shortcomings on US Government handling of 9/11. But does that mean active participation? And in what aspects?
I will leave it there as my first response to your claim "I, for one, am interested in the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."