revisiting 911 truth in the Obama days...

[rhys 0]

Quote

Tell me, how fast does a building fall when you take away its supports? See if you can use logic for a moment.

Can you rephrase that question determining the sequence of which each column is removed or do we assume they all fail simultainiously?

The perfect collapse so to speak?

To use logic I would need a logical question. Otherwise there could be any number of outcomes.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[rhys 0]

Quote

Yep. Of course, I'm not the one risking my students to make a little extra cash. In that case, it's your students who are fucked.

You have a real chip on your shoulder with the whole night tandem thing, how about you keep that in the S & T thread.

It is perfectly legal here (in oz) and as much as you may not agree with it, that is the case.

Get over it, or yourself or whatver it is that urges you to keep bringing it up everywhere but in the correct forum.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[billvon 3,090]

>watch this video if you understand aircraft or are interested in them . . .

Just watched it and it contains many factual errors. For example:

" . . . they claim to have used ASR radar, which is much more accurate than RADES for calculating speed and altitude especially when mode C is available. The speed cited for the strike aircraft exceed aircraft limits set by the manufacturer for the aircraft reportedly used, an unmodified airline fleet stock 767's."

He is confusing radar speed estimates with indicated airspeed measurements. They are not the same. Wind, for example, will show up as increased or decreased speed, and is not compensated for by radar systems. Heck, radar returns will sometimes show commercial aircraft exceeding Mach 1 - because they have a tailwind that lets their _groundspeed_ exceed 760mph.

" . . . .86 mach, 568 knots at low altitude has the same effect on an aircraft that 805 knots or 1.32 mach at 22,000 feet on a standard day. . . ."

This is pure bullshit. The _indicated_ airspeeds are equivalent, but breaking the sound barrier has a few other effects upon the airframe of an aircraft, usually including destruction. 805 knots IAS at 22,000 feet is nothing like 568 knots IAS at 1000 feet.

" . . .Researchers may want to inform boeing that 767's can attain Concorde-like supersonic speeds . . ."

A foolish statement, indicating that he thinks supersonic flight is equivalent to subsonic flight.

This movie was apparently made by someone with a little knowledge about aviation. Someone with more experience would not have made such errors.

[billvon 3,090]

>Can you rephrase that question determining the sequence of which
>each column is removed or do we assume they all fail simultainiously?

Let's assume they all are weakened to the point that the failure, when it eventually happens, reduces their resistance to near-zero. What speed will the building fall?

>You have a real chip on your shoulder with the whole night tandem thing,
>how about you keep that in the S & T thread.

No, I could really care less what you do down there. I am just very amused that you are using exactly the same logic of those you are disgusted by here. (Of course, you stand to profit by it, just as the truthers stand to profit from their theories.)

>Get over it, or yourself or whatver it is that urges you to keep bringing it
>up everywhere but in the correct forum.

I'm not bringing up truther theories in other forums; that sort of nonsense belongs here.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

"Actually there is no (publicly available) way of determining the complete time of the entire collapse of any of the buildings due the the view of the events being obsured in all available footage."

Yet you and the truthers use the timeline of the collapse as some sort of evidence.

"It is however possible to determine how long it took for the section of the building from the 29th floor upwards. The interesting thing about this data, is that it is one of the few things (the) NIST and the truth movement are in agreeance with."

So then why do you argue with everything else in the report? If they can get one thing right, surely there are other items. You can't pick-and-choose the truth.

"The building accelerated for 2.5 seconds at the rate of gravity (in New York). "

I'd like to see you prove that. I sincerely doubt you have the understanding of physics to perform those calculations.
To go with that, just how fast do you think it should have fallen?

I am certain you re not that stupid, yet your questions reak of evidence you do not understand what it is you are arguing about?

One would think you'd realise the 2.5 second thing is written in the NIST's final draft, we have been through this and you have failed, time and time again, to understand what is being said. You obsure the information with bullshit about how it is all been debunked, but you cannot follow your rants up with evidence and it appears you simply do not get it!

Your government story 'now' (since november 2008) claims freefall acceleration for a perid of 2.5 seconds and that was being as conservative as physically possible due to the evidence that is openly avaialble.

For years NIST denied freefall, as you did, but now that they admit it you still fail to acknowledge it.



Now you are running your own hypothesis, maybe you can latch onto Bills bridge and walkway argument and get your own conspiracy theroy happening.

what a fucking joke!

The only joke is you trying to argue engineering principles and physics with people who make their living with them.

I never acknowledged not denied that any or part of the collapse was ever at freefall acceleration, only that it was possible.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Rhys, according to your knowledge on engineering, thermodynamics, and physics....how fast should the buildings (either the towers or #7, pick one) have collapsed? Why or why not at "freefall" acceleration and speeds?

I am asking you a serious question and I expect a serious answer. Since you don't have an extensive education or background in engineering, I will accept an answer using the basic physics and maths you learned in high school.
Oh, and please show your work.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[champu 1]

Quote

I am certain you re not that stupid, yet your questions reak of evidence you do not understand what it is you are arguing about?

Whereas your haphazard use of question marks makes me feel like Adam West and Burt Ward are going to break down the door any minute now and haul you off.

Quote

To use logic I would need a logical question.

Indeed?

[rhys 0]

Quote

>watch this video if you understand aircraft or are interested in them . . .

Just watched it and it contains many factual errors. For example:

" . . . they claim to have used ASR radar, which is much more accurate than RADES for calculating speed and altitude especially when mode C is available. The speed cited for the strike aircraft exceed aircraft limits set by the manufacturer for the aircraft reportedly used, an unmodified airline fleet stock 767's."

He is confusing radar speed estimates with indicated airspeed measurements. They are not the same. Wind, for example, will show up as increased or decreased speed, and is not compensated for by radar systems. Heck, radar returns will sometimes show commercial aircraft exceeding Mach 1 - because they have a tailwind that lets their _groundspeed_ exceed 760mph.

" . . . .86 mach, 568 knots at low altitude has the same effect on an aircraft that 805 knots or 1.32 mach at 22,000 feet on a standard day. . . ."

This is pure bullshit. The _indicated_ airspeeds are equivalent, but breaking the sound barrier has a few other effects upon the airframe of an aircraft, usually including destruction. 805 knots IAS at 22,000 feet is nothing like 568 knots IAS at 1000 feet.

" . . .Researchers may want to inform boeing that 767's can attain Concorde-like supersonic speeds . . ."

A foolish statement, indicating that he thinks supersonic flight is equivalent to subsonic flight.

This movie was apparently made by someone with a little knowledge about aviation. Someone with more experience would not have made such errors.

looks like your attention span is not long enogh to ingest the information that is given to you.

or you watched the start and failed to finish it.

This is according to the person that produced the video, he has the backing and support of numerous pilots that have plenty of experience in the said equipment.

His simple reply to your particular comments was this;

Quote

Tell him to keep watching the film as his groundspeed argument is already addressed.

He also doesn't have a clue regarding airspeed as "indicated airspeeds" are NOT equivalent. Tell him to watch the film again and pay more attention.

You can begin a discussion with him and his supporters if you like, just reply to me here and i'll be sure to pass it on to my collegues that have more expertise in the field, you'll find they will openly discuss any subject they have personal experience in.

I can imagine with the plethora of discussions you are simultaniously in, that you will only focus on each subject proportional to your available time and desire to do so.
I do suggest that you do not skip the content and conclusions of these presentations and pass them of as truther bullshit in the first 5 mins and fail to ingest the 'punchline'.

Thats how you got into this hole in the first place.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[jakee 1,581]

Quote

This is according to the person that produced the video, he has the backing and support of numerous pilots that have plenty of experience in the said equipment.

His simple reply to your particular comments was this;

Tell him to keep watching the film as his groundspeed argument is already addressed.

He also doesn't have a clue regarding airspeed as "indicated airspeeds" are NOT equivalent. Tell him to watch the film again and pay more attention.

So his reply to Bill's criticisms was basically "Nuh-uh, is too true!!!" - and that's enough to convince you?

Have you ever come across a truther theory that you didn't want to believe?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Anybody's attention span can get cut short by listening to a bunch of fucking retards.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[rhys 0]

Quote

Let's assume they all are weakened to the point that the failure, when it eventually happens, reduces their resistance to near-zero. What speed will the building fall?

Before we get into any calculations, it must be determined in this hypothetical scenario, what the catalyst is/or was. Are we talking about a random fire or are we talking about controlled demolition?

The results of the two said catalysts would be significantly different.

Just to save a few un-necessary calculations you see...

I want to deliver the exact answer you require.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[rhys 0]

Quote

No, I could really care less what you do down there. I am just very amused that you are using exactly the same logic of those you are disgusted by here. (Of course, you stand to profit by it, just as the truthers stand to profit from their theories.)

There is difference between having fun and earning a couple of hundred bucks and earning billions and murdering innocent people. I don't quite get your bizzare logic?

The truth merchandise is very cheap and it is widely distributed, the organisations need some funding to operate and they, generally run at a loss, but for reason and ethic, not profit and power.

You want to believe these people are bad but the reality is that they are simply concerned citizens that are asking some very relevant questions to very relevant topics.

Refusing to discuss the subject is a sure sign of complicity and anyone that cannot see that is fooling themselves.

A simple truth is that those of your ilk that strongly oppose the truth movement is in the same realm of those that support it, the vast minority...

The vast majority are simply apathetic or unaware, those minds are easily swung as long as it 'appears' that the majority share the same belief. If it is in thier best interests to support the cause they will do so.

That however is restricted by the controlled and censored media, though propoganda. That is also rapidly changing.

9/11 truth is massive, it brings a rapid halt to the need for your current wars and it brings into question the treasonous tyrants that have no limit on what they desire.

You could claim you countries' recources and finances back through a simple investigation with subpoena power, and fry the cunts that have screwed your amazing country with thier corrupt, selfish and immoral ways.

But that truth would be too huge for everyone to ingest wouldn't it!

There is a mountain there, I am well aware, but the apathy is well on its way to concern with simple education.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[pirana 0]

Quote

The emotion has worn off now and people are more open to discussion.

Your rants are grounded in nothing but emotion. Get help.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[rhys 0]

Quote

Your rants are grounded in nothing but emotion. Get help.

Ha Ha, I'm livin the dream buddy, no need for help here.

Couldn't be happier with where I am at, but I am not so selfish to consider only myself...

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[rhys 0]

Quote

The only joke is you trying to argue engineering principles and physics with people who make their living with them.

These said experts need to put thier money where their mouth is and start explaining rationally and concisely their standpoint then, rather than quoting hypothetical answers with absolutely no substance or evidence, and resort to name calling and knee jerk comments.

You can start by explaining how the freefall acceleration of a steel framed strcture is possible from random fires, and random damage.

You can use whatever link or cut and paste any journal or reference you please. You can even ask you collegues and see if they don't laugh at you.

If you don't even mention 9/11 so they actually listen, and ask them if they believe a building could collase at freefall acceleration from a fire, see what they say. You will sound like a fool, as soon as you mention 9/11, they won't even want a conversation with you.

Imminent global collase is about as thourough of an explanation we have had to date.

some fancy computer graphics looked nice but didn't really explain anything.

How about you explain it to us?

You could repeat; "I have answered that before", "you just don't get, do you", "you are a bunch of morons" , "tin hatter conspiracy nut"... or similar like you normally do, but how about an explanation or a link to your previous one, that would better actually, as it clarify whether or not you have been talking shit about you alleged previous explanation.

Quote

I never acknowledged not denied that any or part of the collapse was ever at freefall acceleration, only that it was possible.

Everyone that was not a truth advocate denied freefall, everybody for years when it was clear that freefall or very close to freefall speeds were recorded on multipule separate recording devices, and we watched it numerous times...

It was not until my birthday, the 20th of November 2008 that the NIST final report included freefall acceleration as a part of thier observations.

This was _AFTER_ the report was released for public comment excluding freefall in any description, and years of denial of it from the NIST. It was pointed out to them, as pointed out to you numerous times, that freefall acceleration occured. A matter of a few weeks later, freefall appeared in their hypothesis with nothing else to back it up.

Since that point, 20/11/08 (or should I say, so you ingest it; 11/20/08), you have been forced to accept the freefall of the structures, and you have no way of explaining it.

I know I sound like a scratched record, but until you stop avoiding the inevitable and begin to explain why you beleive that the freefall accceleration of a steel framed skyscraper is acceptable and not worth considering, The question will continue to be raised.

To this date many of the debunking 9/11 conspiracy sites and articles still deny freefall accelerating occured (in faux detail), even though it is now determined to be 'FACT', you fail to question the motive behind the people that refuted it incorrectly?

I know I am talking to a brick wall, but this excersise is successful in exposing the fact that you cannot refute directly the claims and questons the truth movement has, even with your (alleged) vast knowledge and experience in the engineering field, yet you are quick to call the people you cannot answer, retards?


hmmm.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[rhys 0]

Quote

So his reply to Bill's criticisms was basically "Nuh-uh, is too true!!!" - and that's enough to convince you?

Have you ever come across a truther theory that you didn't want to believe?

I understand what he had to say, I'm sure bill does too, I am certain he cross checked the data and information with people_that_actually_fly_these_machines, because these people are a part of the presentation.

Bill is a self professed Guru that apparently knows everything and does not need not to study the subject matter to draw conclusions.

He refuted people questions that have studied the NIST report comprehensively while he admited he had not even looked at it himself.

I will watch it again, considering Bills queries and the producers reply and get back to you further.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

Refusing to discuss the subject is a sure sign of complicity and anyone that cannot see that is fooling themselves.

You have been refusing to discuss the following simple questions that are crucial to your position:

How close to "near" freefall did it fall?

How accurate was the measurement?

How fast should it have fallen?

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[sundevil777 102]

No need to rely on speed indication from radar, etc. I expect that the speed could be estimated within about 50 mph easily from the video evidence. What does that evidence show? If it supported the truther's claims, I would expect you guys to have it already figured.

Finding pilots that support your conclusions is not any more convincing than the architects/engineers that are truthers.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[billvon 3,090]

>This is according to the person that produced the video, he has the
>backing and support of numerous pilots that have plenty of experience in
>the said equipment.

Then they are mistaken. Breaking the sound barrier is really not the same as doing 568 knots at sea level. Ask anyone who designs supersonic aircraft. Heck, watch a History Channel special on breaking the sound barrier. There's a reason it was difficult.

>You can begin a discussion with him and his supporters if you like . . .

No thanks. I've already taken a few courses on aeronautical engineering; that was a better place to spend my time when it comes to learning about things like Mach numbers vs. indicated airspeed.

[rhys 0]

Quote

How close to "near" freefall did it fall?

it accelerated for a period of 2.5 seconds to within 1% of the rate of gravity in New York. The majority of its collapse is indistiguishable from freefall by observation, but there was some resistance after 2.5 seconds from the rapid onset of the collapse. it took approximately 6.5 seconds to collapse compleately and it was a 47 story steel framed skyscraper.

Quote

How accurate was the measurement?

The measurements taken by David chandler using physics toolkit were almst identical to the measurements taken by the NIST, one could conclude that the measurements were as close to accurate as physically possible.

Quote

How fast should it have fallen?

How fast should it have fallen from random fires?

Not at freefall acceleartion, you would expect a more gradual collape in stages as each part of the structure reached its critical point, if at all. I would expect a steel framed skyscraper to withstand an office fire actually. it 'maybe' possible for a fire to make it collapse, but the evidence shows that is that this is not the case.

Freefall is only possible if all of the structures support is removed simultainously.

The probability of this happening from fires is very, very low indeed.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[matthewcline 0]

Quote

Freefall is only possible if all of the structures support is removed simultainously.

The probability of this happening from fires is very, very low indeed.

And yet it happened, weird huh?

But hey Nat Geo is doing a story on 9-11 right now, to bad it probably is not on down under right now. The show could be enlightening.
So far it doesn't support your theories, though.

Matt

An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!

[billvon 3,090]

>it accelerated for a period of 2.5 seconds to within 1% of the rate of
>gravity in New York.

What is the "rate of gravity in New York" and how does it differ from other places that buildings and bridges have collapsed?

> it took approximately 6.5 seconds to collapse compleately and it was a
>47 story steel framed skyscraper.

How do you explain the sudden resistance?

>How fast should it have fallen from random fires?

Anywhere between very slowly (i.e. over the course of hours) to freefall speeds depending on the extent of the damage. WTC collapsed over the course of 37 seconds after sagging for hours.

>Freefall is only possible if all of the structures support is removed
>simultainously.

How did the I-35 bridge in Minneapolis and the Atlanta walkway come down at freefall speeds then? Who removed all the support simultaneously?

>It 'maybe' possible for a fire to make it collapse . . .

Indeed. But for this to happen the fire would have to burn for hours, and you'd probably also need other damage to the building. In the case of WTC7 this is exactly what happened.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Try answering the questions I gave you.
Betcha can't.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

The building accelerated for 2.5 seconds at the rate of gravity (in New York).

it is clearly pointed out in This Presentation . I have posted it before and you have chosen to ignore it.

Yes. I will forever ignore youtube as a reference for any serious matter. It's purpose is for showing clips of TV shows and commentary for yahoos who think we give a shit what they have to say to their Flip cams.

If you can't even put your materials on a halfassed website in text form, it can't be serious.

I'm amazed that your people claim to be able to measure this 2.5s down to 1% accuracy. That's amazing. Or bullshit. And you still have no idea how much slower it should have been, if it weren't the work of thousands of remarkably discreet patriots under Bush.

[rhys 0]

Quote

I'm amazed that your people claim to be able to measure this 2.5s down to 1% accuracy.

No, they measured the acceleration to be withing 1% of the acceleration of gravity. that is different.

NIST claims their model recreated the collapse timespan perfectly/exactly.

Do you beleive that is possible?

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix