If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. Part II

If a bridge collapses, what do you want the investigators to investigate? How the bridge collapsed, or or how every single part of the bridge ended at their final position?

Both. You need to investigate everything to determine what happened. Apparently, the NTSB agrees with me. This is from the investigation of the I-35 bridge collapse.

www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/HAR0803.pdf

From pages 119 and 120

As part of a determination of the sequence of collapse, the Safety Board evaluated fractures, deformations, damage patterns, and recovery positions of the bridge truss members to understand how the damage was produced and to differentiate between damage that occurred on impact with the ground or the river and damage that occurred before impact.

So, yea, they need to investigate everything.

If a plane crashes, do you want to investigate how each and every single part ended on the ground, or what caused the plane to crash?

You can't understand what caused a plane to crash if you don't find as many parts as possible, notate where they were found, and then reconstruct what you can.

130619083314-05-twa-0619-horizontal-large-gallery.jpg


0624_twa-reconstruction.jpg


TWA%20800%20reconstruction.jpg


image.JPG


article-2344246-1A64A60B000005DC-714_634x418.jpg


twa.jpg



Seven people died when the bridge collapsed. Two hundred thirty people died when TWA exploded. Our government launched immediate and thorough investigations into those events.

Almost three thousand people died on 9/11. Did our government launch an immediate and thorough investigation? No.

Hmmmmm. Nothing to see here. Move along.
 
Both. You need to investigate everything to determine what happened. Apparently, the NTSB agrees with me. This is from the investigation of the I-35 bridge collapse.

www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/HAR0803.pdf

From pages 119 and 120



So, yea, they need to investigate everything.



You can't understand what caused a plane to crash if you don't find as many parts as possible, notate where they were found, and then reconstruct what you can.

[qimg]http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/130619083314-05-twa-0619-horizontal-large-gallery.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]https://s3.amazonaws.com/media.wbur.org/wordpress/12/files/2013/06/0624_twa-reconstruction.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.wnd.com/images2/TWA%20800%20reconstruction.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://cdn.newsday.com/polopoly_fs/1.3844240.1371646179!/httpImage/image.JPG_gen/derivatives/display_600/image.JPG[/qimg]

[qimg]http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/06/19/article-2344246-1A64A60B000005DC-714_634x418.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.2184707.1429027797!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_635/twa.jpg[/qimg]


Seven people died when the bridge collapsed. Two hundred thirty people died when TWA exploded. Our government launched immediate and thorough investigations into those events.

Almost three thousand people died on 9/11. Did our government launch an immediate and thorough investigation? No.

Hmmmmm. Nothing to see here. Move along.

Lets see. First off, it does not say what you think it says about the bridge. Does it mention on how they need to figure out exactly how each part came in its recovery position(so did it move at a certain speed or direction)? And it was to differentiate between 2 parts of the incident.

Secondly. are you kidding me? You sure love to cherry pick, because the TWA incident is the only crash where they had to try to rebuild the plane. And they didn't have to note where every piece of the plane was, because that serves no purpose. And again, its only the recovery position. What you want them to investigate is how each part of the plane came in its resting position. So how did plane part A fall exactly from the moment the plane started to have problems at 30.000 feet until it hit the ground.
 
Both. You need to investigate everything to determine what happened. Apparently, the NTSB agrees with me. This is from the investigation of the I-35 bridge collapse.

www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/HAR0803.pdf

From pages 119 and 120



So, yea, they need to investigate everything.



You can't understand what caused a plane to crash if you don't find as many parts as possible, notate where they were found, and then reconstruct what you can.

[qimg]http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/130619083314-05-twa-0619-horizontal-large-gallery.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]https://s3.amazonaws.com/media.wbur.org/wordpress/12/files/2013/06/0624_twa-reconstruction.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.wnd.com/images2/TWA%20800%20reconstruction.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://cdn.newsday.com/polopoly_fs/1.3844240.1371646179!/httpImage/image.JPG_gen/derivatives/display_600/image.JPG[/qimg]

[qimg]http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/06/19/article-2344246-1A64A60B000005DC-714_634x418.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.2184707.1429027797!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_635/twa.jpg[/qimg]


Seven people died when the bridge collapsed. Two hundred thirty people died when TWA exploded. Our government launched immediate and thorough investigations into those events.

Almost three thousand people died on 9/11. Did our government launch an immediate and thorough investigation? No.

Hmmmmm. Nothing to see here. Move along.

What a bunch of nonsense and you're telling lies again.

9/11 was investigated more than any crime in the history of the planet.

This is just the FBI portion alone:

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/ten-years-after-the-fbi-since-9-11/by-the-numbers


The FBI responded to September 11 in extraordinary fashion.

More than 4,000 special agents and 3,000 professional employees helped in the recovery and subsequent investigation.

A single crime scene at the Pentagon in Virginia or at the World Trade Center alone likely would have eclipsed any previous investigative effort.
The combination—along with the crash site in Pennsylvania—challenged the FBI to deploy its assets efficiently and in innovative ways. All FBI Headquarters divisions, field offices, and nearly every unit at the FBI Laboratory contributed. Among the efforts:

◾In New York, more than 1,000 FBI employees from 55 of the 56 field offices worked to recover victims, evidence, and personal belongings.
◾At the Pentagon, 155 FBI employees from eight field offices recovered evidence.
◾In Pennsylvania, 152 FBI employees from eight field offices recovered evidence.
◾Special Agents and personnel in at least 30 of the FBI’s foreign offices tracked down leads and worked with international partners.
◾The FBI responded to more than 500,000 investigative leads.
◾Special agents conducted more than 167,000 interviews.
◾The FBI collected and processed more than 150,000 pieces of evidence.
◾Photographers took more than 170,000 pictures.
◾Computer experts examined more than 35 terabytes of data in the first 30 days of the investigation alone.
◾More than 70 agents and professional staff worked on the core investigative team.
◾Scores of Laboratory personnel helped identify victims and hijackers through DNA.
◾Dozens of document experts reviewed more than 1,600 small or damaged pieces of paper.
◾Dozens of fingerprint examiners received more than 3,800 pieces of evidence and conducted more than 126,600 comparisons.
◾Five FBI cadaver dogs worked at the Pentagon.
◾Highly skilled FBI artists developed models of the sites and produced dozens of graphics.
◾Hazardous materials specialists from numerous field offices worked the three sites.
◾Explosives experts examined plane wreckage and building debris for evidence of bombs.
◾FBI pilots transported teams, equipment, and specialists to different locations.
◾Technical specialists restored the New York Office’s computer and phone systems and provided emergency communication systems in Virginia and Pennsylvania.
◾FBI SWAT teams provided security at all three sites, and Hostage Rescue Teams evaluated security at several locations.
 
Freefall was observed during the collapse of WTC7. When freefall is mentioned, we are talking about WTC7.

Yes and stone walls often free fall after the steel topples sideways and hulls the building, free Fall of building 7 only became relevant to truthers after it was proven mathematically that the towers did not free fall.
Your uneducated ranting about something inconsiqincial the fall of a stone granite facade,
is of no Scientific merit.
 
Seven people died when the bridge collapsed. Two hundred thirty people died when TWA exploded. Our government launched immediate and thorough investigations into those events.

Almost three thousand people died on 9/11. Did our government launch an immediate and thorough investigation? No.

Yes, actually. They did. Plus, it's not like we didn't see the airliners ram the buildings. People who know a little something about buildings aren't surprised that the towers collapsed afterwards.
 
The more interesting question is why do intelligent people cling to stupid ideas? One could be cynical and say they are scamming others for money.... snake oil salesmen, cult behavior... but other legitimate motivation would there be to abandon reason?

Straight Jackets, and rubber padded rooms are in short supply.:D

That's the only reason I could think of.
 
How is what you wrote any different from someone from <pick your favorite truth group> claiming the NIST report is filled with lies, and when pressed for an example, responds, "Open your eyes, and read the report. I'm not going to do your homework for you"?
I see quite some differences. This is a specific claim that something in particular is not present in the report, not a vague one like "full of lies".

This one is very similar to the claim that WTC7 is not mentioned at all in the 9/11CR. It reveals that the claimant has not read the report they criticize, because the mention is there in black and white. I posted proof once. Then I realized that it's better to be quiet about it, because it exposes who hasn't read the report at all. And if someone asks me to point out where does the 9/11CR mention WTC7, I will say "do your homework". I don't have to quote the 5+ mentions.
 
I see quite some differences. This is a specific claim that something in particular is not present in the report, not a vague one like "full of lies".

This one is very similar to the claim that WTC7 is not mentioned at all in the 9/11 Commission Report. It reveals that the claimant has not read the report they criticize, because the mention is there in black and white. I posted proof once. Then I realized that it's better to be quiet about it, because it exposes who hasn't read the report at all. And if someone asks me to point out where does the 9/11CR mention WTC7, I will say "do your homework". I don't have to quote the 5+ mentions.

I would call that being lazy or just plain obstructive.

For those visitors here who would like to find references to 7 WTC in the 9/11 Commission Report, you can find it referred to on pages 284, 293, 302 and 305.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/sept11/911Report.pdf

Search under keyword “7 WTC”.

Page 284 makes no mention of its collapse and refers to it housing the OEM headquarters.

Page 293 makes no mention of its collapse and refers only to the 8:48 am activity in the OEM headquarters.

Page 302 makes no mention of its collapse and refers only it as the location where an EMS paramedic spoke to the FDNY Chief of Department about the Twin Towers.

Page 305 makes no mention of its collapse and refers only to OEM activities at 9:30 am.

I could find nothing at all in the 9/11 Commission Report discussing how the 7 WTC office tower itself was effected by the events of 9/11.
 
LOL. Freefall can only happen under certain conditions. These conditions contradict the official explanation given by NIST.
Good grief!

Using your own ignorant, inept style of argument please provide credible proof of the above claim and show, using valid experimental data, that free fall could NOT happen in a gravity driven collapse caused by fire.

Your meme would only be accepted at face value in a room full of 9/11 "truthers" which is why no credible organization has asked the same question and/or came to the same conclusion.

(Now you can run in the opposite direction to your hearts content, goalposts tied to your intellectually lazy ***)

*Note the word valid excludes re-posting Cole's previously debunked video.
 
I would call that being lazy or just plain obstructive.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/sept11/911Report.pdf

Search under keyword “7 WTC”.
Page 284 makes no mention of its collapse and refers to it housing the OEM headquarters.
Page 293 makes no mention of its collapse and refers only to the 8:48 am activity in the OEM headquarters.
Page 302 makes no mention of its collapse and refers only it as the location where an EMS paramedic spoke to the FDNY Chief of Department about the Twin Towers.
Page 305 makes no mention of its collapse and refers only to OEM activities at 9:30 am.
I could find nothing at all in the 9/11 Commission Report discussing how the 7 WTC office tower itself was effected by the events of 9/11.
That is because the 9/11 Commission Report was about up to the event. Leading up to the event. You don't know what the report was for, the same as your knowledge on 9/11. You can't figure out what hit the Pentagon, and if follows you can't figure out what the 9/11 Commission Report was about.
And you posted in a thread where Cole's idiotic experiments are exposed as proof of failure.

Then you quibble, 9/11 truth says 7 WTC was not mentioned, and you proved them wrong, but quibble, not knowing the purpose of the 9/11 Commission. Sort of like using MM to ask an idiot about flying issues, Balsamo, and calling Balsamo your aviation authority. And posting in Cole's failure thread.

Summary, the 9/11 Commission was not about 7 WTC, or the Collapse of the WTC, but it was about the lead up to 9/11. Which leads me to believe you failed to read the Report, NIST, FEMA, and the many studies done by Universities... What about Cole's failed experiments?

FalseFlag has no idea the biggest investigation in history was started on 9/11 by the FBI, he keeps posting Flt 800 putting together Flt 800, and has no clue that was an accident, and they did not know the cause; whereas on 9/11 the aircraft are the cause, the first link in the chain. Fires caused the collapse, we know this, an there was no damage to steel from thermite, beam weapons, nukes, or explosives - they did inspect steel. Thus you and FalseFlag are ignoring real investigations and fail to comprehend reality.

FBI did the criminal investigation, if you and FlaseFlag have evidence, go to the FBI now, or you are just spreading lies you plagiarized from a failed movement.
Are you going to the FBI, or expose more ignorance on 9/11? FBI, or it is Fail.

A lot of fail.
 
Last edited:
B.S. it's a bit of minutia. It's no more important than determining exactly why steel beam X ended up at xyx coordinates.

So, again why is it important to know why an already fully moving structure collapsing at less than g later achieved g.?

LOL. Freefall can only happen under certain conditions. These conditions contradict the official explanation given by NIST.

Atta boy, keep spouting truther platitudes instead of answering the question.

The entire building was already moving well before the ~2 seconds of +/- free fall. Why is it important to explain this bit of minutia?
 
I would call that being lazy or just plain obstructive.

For those visitors here who would like to find references to 7 WTC in the 9/11 Commission Report, you can find it referred to on pages 284, 293, 302 and 305.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/sept11/911Report.pdf

Search under keyword “7 WTC”.

Page 284 makes no mention of its collapse and refers to it housing the OEM headquarters.

Page 293 makes no mention of its collapse and refers only to the 8:48 am activity in the OEM headquarters.

Page 302 makes no mention of its collapse and refers only it as the location where an EMS paramedic spoke to the FDNY Chief of Department about the Twin Towers.

Page 305 makes no mention of its collapse and refers only to OEM activities at 9:30 am.

I could find nothing at all in the 9/11 Commission Report discussing how the 7 WTC office tower itself was effected by the events of 9/11.



The 9/11 Commission report wasn't tasked with explaining WTC 7 any more than it was WTC 5 or 6. It's irrelevant to the day's events. A footnote.
 
Atta boy, keep spouting truther platitudes instead of answering the question.

The entire building was already moving well before the ~2 seconds of +/- free fall. Why is it important to explain this bit of minutia?

Free Fall is a meaningless term when referring to building 7, as it is explained by the structure of the building, and the energies exerted upon it.
 
Please show me where NIST explains freefall. Thanks.
Anyway, OK, here's the quote.

In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as exterior column buckling progressed and the columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face. This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s.
...This does not explain why the exterior columns buckled.

Moving the goalposts. You asked for where they explained free-fall, that was provided, now you're switching to asking a different question, why the exterior columns buckled.

https://pseudoastro.wordpress.com/2009/12/01/logical-fallacies-moving-the-goalpost/

Everyone on the board can see right through this.

Hank
 
Last edited:
No. We are talking about the freefall that anyone can see for 2.25 seconds. We are talking about building 7.
The "exterior columns" meme is in relation to the twin towers, not WTC 7.
That's what I was responding to.
You weren't talking about WTC 7. You were talking about the twin towers.

So he moved the goalposts yet again!

I see why Ozeco41 said:

So we face three options:
1) Ignore the trolling/poeing;
2) Play whack-a-mole and chase him down the rabbit burrows of his derails; OR
3) Carve up and spit out the false foundation of his non argument.

:)
Hank
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom