revisiting 911 truth in the Obama days...

[rhys 0]

Quote

Try answering the questions I gave you.

You could try asking them, or using a simple link, you could link us also to your expanation of how a 'steel framed skyscraper' can fall at freefall speed through the path of greatest resistance as well while you are at it?

you claim it is there somewhere?

Quote

Betcha can't.

we'll see?

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

[billvon 3,090]

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

To claim that you need better than 1% timing accuracy.

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

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.

You don't mention that the first second showed a perios of very slow accel, then quite a long time with zero accel, THEN their analysis shows an acceleration that is about 1% GREATER than gravity! The early parts of the collapse show exactly the type of delay that you assert should have happened. That the analysis shows accel greater than 1g should cause some hesitation. The raw data of your guy's analysis shows a LOT of "steps", which indicate to me that the structure was in fact resisting the fall. Just because it wasn't resisting as much as YOU expect means nothing. You only say it should have been slower, not by how much. The methods used to measure the accel may have been as accurate as physically possible given the data, but that does NOT answer the question of how accurate was it - very important when comparing the observed to what would be predicted by analysis. So, you have nothing, no prediction, and no way to know if the observed result departs from that prediction by an amount that should raise questions.

The narrator of the video you posted makes many mistakes, especially the assertion that it was only after 3 seconds that the building departed from freefall - it showed similar slope segments along the way, just not for long periods. He throws around terminology that might impress you, but he sounds very uneducated when he claims that what was observed could only have happened if there was no resistance. One can only say that by an analysis of how fast it should have fallen, and you don't have that. All in all, a very bullshit video in many, many ways. The fact that you don't know, or ignore the bullshit in this video is very telling.

I will at least give you credit for trying to answer the questions.

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

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

Try answering the questions I gave you.

You could try asking them, or using a simple link, you could link us also to your expanation of how a 'steel framed skyscraper' can fall at freefall speed through the path of greatest resistance as well while you are at it?

you claim it is there somewhere?

Quote

Betcha can't.

we'll see?

Why don't you try reading the posts in your own thread!

Tip: I posed my questions to you within the last 48 hours.
Now go find them and answer them.

To answer your question: No steel framed skyscraper has ever fallen through the path of greatest resistance.
Never.

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

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

To claim that you need better than 1% timing accuracy.

Seems like they've calculated the acceleration to be 1.01G, +/- .5g.

[timmyfitz 0]

Quote

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

Your logic (or lack of) is so flawed.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

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

Your logic (or lack of) is so flawed.

I'll bite.
How flawed is it?

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.

[jakee 1,571]

Quote

Quote

Quote

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

Your logic (or lack of) is so flawed.

I'll bite.
How flawed is it?

I saw a Youtube video that proved Rhys's logic was 63.5% more flawed than would be expected if the truthers were right.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[DJL 235]

Quote

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.

It did not take 6.5 seconds to collapse and it did have a gradual collapse. See the video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLHwvwJCmgk

Quote

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.

You're not a professional fire safety inspector. Your "may be possible" is supported by this video of the fires and damage in the building: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afb7eUHr64U There's even a point where someone says "Look at the hole in that building... 7 world... that might come down" Additionally, another first responder is quoted: " "You see where the white smoke is? You see this thing leaning like this? It's definitely coming down. There's no way to stop it. Cause you have to go up in there to put it out and it already - the structural integrity is just not there in the building. It's tough, it's.. it's.. You know we can handle just about anything, this is beyond...(audio ends)"

Here it took me all of a a little looking around to find two independent people who where there and stating that there were visible signs that it was going to come down. It then came down.

What more do you need?

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[timmyfitz 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

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

Your logic (or lack of) is so flawed.

I'll bite.
How flawed is it?

I saw a Youtube video that proved Rhys's logic was 63.5% more flawed than would be expected if the truthers were right.

I read that 74.6% of facts are made up on the spot.

[jakee 1,571]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

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

Your logic (or lack of) is so flawed.

I'll bite.
How flawed is it?

I saw a Youtube video that proved Rhys's logic was 63.5% more flawed than would be expected if the truthers were right.

I read that 74.6% of facts are made up on the spot.

In his case, that actually sounds about right!

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[sundevil777 102]

Of course bldg 7 had much more than just fire that brought it down, it had significant structural damage from the towers. Of course truthers don't like to acknowledge that.

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

[rhys 0]

Quote

Of course bldg 7 had much more than just fire that brought it down, it had significant structural damage from the towers. Of course truthers don't like to acknowledge that.

Well considered actually,

So in your opinion; was the main catalyst for the collapse fire or structural damage?

What does the NIST have to say about it? that is who you believe isn't it?

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

[rhys 0]

Quote

It did not take 6.5 seconds to collapse and it did have a gradual collapse. See the video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLHwvwJCmgk

, the calculation of 6.5 seconds was take from the perimeter wall, and was intended to show the freefall accelleration, never the time of the entire collapse.

It is clearly stated in the presentation I have shown you before, but the presentation you just posted there twists what was said and uses false analysis of the information to promote a false assertion that 13 seconds is a long time for a 47 story high steel framed structure to completely collapse in.

Regardles of the total collapse time anybody has calculated, the fact remains that the main proportion of the building maintained freefall acceleration for at least 2.5 seconds, that is unprecedented for fire damage to a steel building and requires further investigation to prevent further occurances.

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

[rhys 0]

Quote

According to a document obtained by the ACLU under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) on Tuesday March 16, the 9/11 commission was warned on Jan. 6th, 2004 by high-level administration officials to "not cross the line" in the investigation of the events that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001.

The document is available here

Here's a copy of the letter in question (page 26 of the PDF document).

From:

Department of Defense
Department of Justice
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)

To:

National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States

Your staff has advised us that the Commission seeks to participate in the questioning of certain enemy combatants detained in the war against terrorists of global reach. Such action by the Commission would substantially interfere with the ability of the United States to perform its law enforcement, defense and intelligence functions in the protection of the American people.

Your legislative commission has had extraordinary — indeed, unprecedented in the annals of American history — access to many of the Nation's most sensitive secrets in the conduct of its work, including detainee information. In response to the Commission's expansive requests for access to secrets, the executive branch has provided such access in full cooperation. There is, however, a line that the Commission should not cross — the line separating the Commission's proper inquiry into the September 11, 2001 attacks from interference with the Government's ability to safeguard the national security, including protection of Americans from future terrorist attacks. The Commission staffs proposed participation in questioning of detainees would cross that line.

As the officers of the United States responsible for the law enforcement, defense and intelligence functions of the Government, we urge your Commission to not further pursue the proposed request to participate in the questioning of detainees.

Respectfully,

John Ashcroft, Attorney General
Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
George J. Tenet, Director of Central Intelligence

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

[rhys 0]

Cheney verbal diarrhea and right wing brainwash propoganda

These guys are translucent and only the meek could believe such bullshit.

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

[jakee 1,571]

Quote

According to a document obtained by the ACLU under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) on Tuesday March 16, the 9/11 commission was warned...

I'm confused. Was the 9/11 commission part of the cover up?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rhys 0]

Quote

I'm confused. Was the 9/11 commission part of the cover up?

It doesn't seem like it to me but draw your own conclusions.

Tis a very deep subject.

I would pick there is only a select few and the rest simply think they are doing thier job to spec, and/or are too scared to mention anything, but that is purely speculation.

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

[jakee 1,571]

Quote

Quote

I'm confused. Was the 9/11 commission part of the cover up?

It doesn't seem like it to me

Oh. So you think they were all incompetent morons, then?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Care to answer my questions anytime soon, rhys? Or are you just going to ignore them like you do everything else that goes against your fantasy of what happened that day?

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.

[DJL 235]

Quote

Quote

It did not take 6.5 seconds to collapse and it did have a gradual collapse. See the video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLHwvwJCmgk

, the calculation of 6.5 seconds was take from the perimeter wall, and was intended to show the freefall accelleration, never the time of the entire collapse.

It is clearly stated in the presentation I have shown you before, but the presentation you just posted there twists what was said and uses false analysis of the information to promote a false assertion that 13 seconds is a long time for a 47 story high steel framed structure to completely collapse in.

Regardles of the total collapse time anybody has calculated, the fact remains that the main proportion of the building maintained freefall acceleration for at least 2.5 seconds, that is unprecedented for fire damage to a steel building and requires further investigation to prevent further occurances.

I was responding directly to your statement that it took 6.5 seconds to collapse and did not have any gradual collapse occur. Ok, so now we're at 13 seconds for total collapse. Can we agree on that?

Now to get to your response to Sundevil: "
So in your opinion; was the main catalyst for the collapse fire or structural damage? " The answer is both. I had included in my post that there was damage to the building including fires that could not be fought. In addition I provided two quotes from emergency responders on site on that day because of their jobs, not because they were selected by George Bush to be there. As the building is still standing one says,
"Look at the hole in that building... 7 world... that might come down"

The other says,
"You see where the white smoke is? You see this thing leaning like this? It's definitely coming down. There's no way to stop it. Cause you have to go up in there to put it out and it already - the structural integrity is just not there in the building. It's tough, it's.. it's.. You know we can handle just about anything, this is beyond...(audio ends)"

This is eyewitness documentation that there was gradual and visible damage to the building structure.

Now the question for you: Do you feel that building 7 fell as a result of structural damage and fire?

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[DJL 235]

Rhys, I've also noticed something else missing from every report about WTC7. There were no explosions. Just to see how a building demo is done in the real world I went to a source that I know you can hang your hat on, Youtube. Here are a variety of structures with audio. Do you still think that WTC7 came down as a result of demolition charges?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qk06ax1SRIM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsePUn5-88c

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRaNwPGcQcM&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khD2gZkkSu0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ks-3k8-Ac1c&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20FKED_COhw&feature=fvsr

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Y4zCNv00OQ&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVTVRS1mBG4

What I have to ask is where is the missing audio?

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[billvon 3,090]

>to promote a false assertion that 13 seconds is a long time for a 47 story
>high steel framed structure to completely collapse in.

13 seconds? Wow, you're admitting that it wasn't freefall most of the time!

So if the building was demolished, how do you account for the slow collapse before the fast collapse?

[pbwing 0]

Quote

So if the building was demolished, how do you account for the slow collapse before the fast collapse?

Maybe because these are the guys they hired?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlMRD2mj5OQ

[rhys 0]

Quote

Oh. So you think they were all incompetent morons, then?

They were not allowed to do their job, when one investigates something, acess to the relevant information is paramount in obtaining the correct conclusion.

The only reason to not allow acces to the suggested suspects was to hide the complicity of those involved.

holding the KSM trial behnd closed doors is exactly the same.

you are not very bright are ya? just s well there are other peope tpo do you thinking for you.

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