You rely on some geeky scientist who clearly doesn't have public speaking skills (no doubt you are a brilliant public speaker :roll instead of noting the final report. Where does the NIST report claim the time is wrong? Where in the NIST report can you demonstrate it is, for a fact, incorrect?Originally posted by: event8horizon
Originally posted by: JD50
How is this thread still going? What a bunch of bullshit from the OP.
bullshit from the OP or bullshit from sunder/NIST? sounds like the OP is on to something!
Regarding the Q & A at the Tech Briefing:
My question:
"Any number of competent measurements using a variety of methods indicate the northwest corner of WTC 7 fell with an acceleration within a few percent of the acceleration of gravity. Yet your report contradicts this, claiming 40% slower than freefall based on a single data point. How can such a public, visible, easily measurable quantity be set aside?"
Dr. Shyam Sunder replies:
"Could you repeat the question?"
[the question is repeated by the moderator, leaving out the word, "competent" as well as the last sentence]
"Well...um...the...first of all gravity...um...gravity is the loading function that applies to the structure...um...at...um...applies....to every body...every...uh...on...all bodies on...ah...on...um... this particular...on this planet not just...um...uh...in ground zero...um...the...uh...the analysis shows a difference in time between a free fall time, a free fall time would be an object that has no...uh... structural components below it. And if you look at the analysis of the video it shows that the time it takes for the...17...uh...for the roof line of the video to collapse down the 17 floors that you can actually see in the video below which you can't see anything in the video is about...uh... 3.9 seconds. What the analysis shows...and...uh...the structural analysis shows, the collapse analysis shows that same time that it took for the structural model to come down from the roof line all the way for those 17 floors to disappear is...um... 5.4 seconds. It's...uh..., about one point...uh...five seconds or roughly 40% more time for that free fall to happen. And that is not at all unusual because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had...you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place and everything was not instantaneous."
--------
Note that:
--He acknowledges that freefall can only occur if there is no structure under the falling section of the building.
--He acknowledges that their structural modeling predicts a fall slower than freefall.
--He acknowledges that there was structural resistance in this particular case.
--He acknowledges that there was a sequence of failures that had to take place and that this process was not instantaneous.
The problem is that you make imaginary arguments to ignore the facts I present you with. This is why you keep claiming this 95% consensus even though you have absolutely no evidence to support anything of the sort, or even a reasonable estimate of how much of the the scientific community has seen WTC7 fall at all. You are so dishonest that you can't even admit you are doing this though, I doubt even to yourself, so I can't rightly expect to have any reasonable conversation with you until that changes.Originally posted by: Number1
That would explain how he can dismiss 95% of the scientific community who found nothing fundamentally wrong with the NIST report.
And yours to refute me simply doesn't exist.Originally posted by: DrPizza
Also, at OP's "math" that was found online.
Eat your heart out with the specs, you aren't going to get it to work, and I feel sorry for your students if you waste their time trying.Originally posted by: DrPizza
Thanks for the lab idea though... I'll see if my class wants to build a building out of plywood and cans, then melt one of the lower cans with a blow torch. We'll use video analysis, spark timers, etc., to measure the rate of acceleration of different parts of the building.
Any specifications you'd like us to adhere to?
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Can you provide proof this beam was attached to a column in the first place? 5/8" thickness is not indicative of a large I-beam that would've been integral to the supporting structure where it would have been attached to a column. How do you know this wasn't part of the floor truss bracing or a similar member of the support structure?Originally posted by: event8horizon
Originally posted by: Number1
To BeauJangles, TastesLikeChicken. Jonks, ElFenix, DLeRium, Cogman, TheSkinsFan, Common Courtesy.
I just want to thank you gentleman for the great work you did in debunking those bozos.
Well done and keep it up.
to those mentioned above, do you guys agree with the following, some of the only forensic work done on wtc 7:
"One piece Dr. Astaneh-Asl saw was a charred horizontal I-beam from 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story skyscraper that collapsed from fire eight hours after the attacks. The beam, so named because its cross-section looks like a capital I, had clearly endured searing temperatures. Parts of the flat top of the I, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized.
Less clear was whether the beam had been charred after the collapse, as it lay in the pile of burning rubble, or whether it had been engulfed in the fire that led to the building's collapse, which would provide a more telling clue.
The answer lay in the beam's twisted shape. As weight pushed down, the center portion had buckled outward.
''This tells me it buckled while it was attached to the column,'' not as it fell, Dr. Astaneh-Asl said, adding, ''It had burned first, then buckled.''http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/02/science/scarred-steel-holds-clues-and-remedies.html
No, I'm questioning his conclusions. I don't have to question his expertise in this thread, you already have. On one hand you love to quote him and otoh you claim he doesn't have enough information.Originally posted by: event8horizon
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Can you provide proof this beam was attached to a column in the first place? 5/8" thickness is not indicative of a large I-beam that would've been integral to the supporting structure where it would have been attached to a column. How do you know this wasn't part of the floor truss bracing or a similar member of the support structure?Originally posted by: event8horizon
Originally posted by: Number1
To BeauJangles, TastesLikeChicken. Jonks, ElFenix, DLeRium, Cogman, TheSkinsFan, Common Courtesy.
I just want to thank you gentleman for the great work you did in debunking those bozos.
Well done and keep it up.
to those mentioned above, do you guys agree with the following, some of the only forensic work done on wtc 7:
"One piece Dr. Astaneh-Asl saw was a charred horizontal I-beam from 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story skyscraper that collapsed from fire eight hours after the attacks. The beam, so named because its cross-section looks like a capital I, had clearly endured searing temperatures. Parts of the flat top of the I, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized.
Less clear was whether the beam had been charred after the collapse, as it lay in the pile of burning rubble, or whether it had been engulfed in the fire that led to the building's collapse, which would provide a more telling clue.
The answer lay in the beam's twisted shape. As weight pushed down, the center portion had buckled outward.
''This tells me it buckled while it was attached to the column,'' not as it fell, Dr. Astaneh-Asl said, adding, ''It had burned first, then buckled.''http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/02/science/scarred-steel-holds-clues-and-remedies.html
so now your questioning dr astaneh asl's expertise?
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
You rely on some geeky scientist who clearly doesn't have public speaking skills (no doubt you are a brilliant public speaker :roll instead of noting the final report. Where does the NIST report claim the time is wrong? Where in the NIST report can you demonstrate it is, for a fact, incorrect?Originally posted by: event8horizon
Originally posted by: JD50
How is this thread still going? What a bunch of bullshit from the OP.
bullshit from the OP or bullshit from sunder/NIST? sounds like the OP is on to something!
Regarding the Q & A at the Tech Briefing:
My question:
"Any number of competent measurements using a variety of methods indicate the northwest corner of WTC 7 fell with an acceleration within a few percent of the acceleration of gravity. Yet your report contradicts this, claiming 40% slower than freefall based on a single data point. How can such a public, visible, easily measurable quantity be set aside?"
Dr. Shyam Sunder replies:
"Could you repeat the question?"
[the question is repeated by the moderator, leaving out the word, "competent" as well as the last sentence]
"Well...um...the...first of all gravity...um...gravity is the loading function that applies to the structure...um...at...um...applies....to every body...every...uh...on...all bodies on...ah...on...um... this particular...on this planet not just...um...uh...in ground zero...um...the...uh...the analysis shows a difference in time between a free fall time, a free fall time would be an object that has no...uh... structural components below it. And if you look at the analysis of the video it shows that the time it takes for the...17...uh...for the roof line of the video to collapse down the 17 floors that you can actually see in the video below which you can't see anything in the video is about...uh... 3.9 seconds. What the analysis shows...and...uh...the structural analysis shows, the collapse analysis shows that same time that it took for the structural model to come down from the roof line all the way for those 17 floors to disappear is...um... 5.4 seconds. It's...uh..., about one point...uh...five seconds or roughly 40% more time for that free fall to happen. And that is not at all unusual because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had...you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place and everything was not instantaneous."
--------
Note that:
--He acknowledges that freefall can only occur if there is no structure under the falling section of the building.
--He acknowledges that their structural modeling predicts a fall slower than freefall.
--He acknowledges that there was structural resistance in this particular case.
--He acknowledges that there was a sequence of failures that had to take place and that this process was not instantaneous.
Please, enlighten us all.
It's not "my man." It's a scientist with poor public speaking skills.Originally posted by: event8horizongeeky scientist?? thats YOUR man Sunder from NIST speaking. this was after yrs and yrs of research. this was before a highschool physics teacher had to teach him and nist a thing about freefall:
NISt admits freefall part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0GHVEKrhng
part 2- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...Uiww80&feature=related
part 3- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...cKYBm4&feature=related
Answer the question and do your best not to pose as a YouTube University freshman while you're at it. Your posing is getting tiresome.Where does the NIST report claim the time is wrong? Where in the NIST report can you demonstrate it is, for a fact, incorrect?
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
No, I'm questioning his conclusions. I don't have to question his expertise in this thread, you already have. On one hand you love to quote him and otoh you claim he doesn't have enough information.Originally posted by: event8horizon
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Can you provide proof this beam was attached to a column in the first place? 5/8" thickness is not indicative of a large I-beam that would've been integral to the supporting structure where it would have been attached to a column. How do you know this wasn't part of the floor truss bracing or a similar member of the support structure?Originally posted by: event8horizon
Originally posted by: Number1
To BeauJangles, TastesLikeChicken. Jonks, ElFenix, DLeRium, Cogman, TheSkinsFan, Common Courtesy.
I just want to thank you gentleman for the great work you did in debunking those bozos.
Well done and keep it up.
to those mentioned above, do you guys agree with the following, some of the only forensic work done on wtc 7:
"One piece Dr. Astaneh-Asl saw was a charred horizontal I-beam from 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story skyscraper that collapsed from fire eight hours after the attacks. The beam, so named because its cross-section looks like a capital I, had clearly endured searing temperatures. Parts of the flat top of the I, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized.
Less clear was whether the beam had been charred after the collapse, as it lay in the pile of burning rubble, or whether it had been engulfed in the fire that led to the building's collapse, which would provide a more telling clue.
The answer lay in the beam's twisted shape. As weight pushed down, the center portion had buckled outward.
''This tells me it buckled while it was attached to the column,'' not as it fell, Dr. Astaneh-Asl said, adding, ''It had burned first, then buckled.''http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/02/science/scarred-steel-holds-clues-and-remedies.html
so now your questioning dr astaneh asl's expertise?
Of course, I knew you couldn't actually answer my previous questions. If anyone takes you off your copy & paste script you're completely lost. You don't know what the fuck to do because you clearly are lacking in analytical skills, fact finding skills, or logical reasoning skills. You're nothing more than a truther parrot, just like most truthers are. They make a noise that can be somewhat comprehended but really have no clue what they are actually saying when pressed to explain. That's why you can't explain shit in here and run away when asked to provide any explanation.
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
It's not "my man." It's a scientist with poor public speaking skills.Originally posted by: event8horizongeeky scientist?? thats YOUR man Sunder from NIST speaking. this was after yrs and yrs of research. this was before a highschool physics teacher had to teach him and nist a thing about freefall:
NISt admits freefall part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0GHVEKrhng
part 2- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...Uiww80&feature=related
part 3- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...cKYBm4&feature=related
You've avoided answering my question as well so I'll ask it again.
Answer the question and do your best not to pose as a YouTube University freshman while you're at it. Your posing is getting tiresome.Where does the NIST report claim the time is wrong? Where in the NIST report can you demonstrate it is, for a fact, incorrect?
Dr Astaneh-Asl is claiming that the beam was in perfectly good health prior to its corrosion. iow, he basing his findings on a beam with no prior corrosion and claiming that it corroded a certain amount in a certain time. I'm asking that you show the I-beam was in such a perfect condition prior to the collapse to make such an assertion. Seems a very reasonable question to me.Originally posted by: event8horizon
logic? i know exacatly what im saying. extremely high temps were experienced during the wtc collapse. see the link below. i believe you lack the logic skills. dr astaneh asl is saying the steel burned(vaporized 15.9mm of steel) then buckled. he was there 8 days after the collapse and saw this.
that makes complete since considering that sisson could only dissolve "little metal" in 24hrs. it happened while the building was on fire (as dr astaneh said). not in the rubble pile!!! i dont think dr astaneh has said anything concerning the wtc 7 collapse?
an excelerant was used. get it through your think skull.
just a sample but it should sound very familiar since dr astaneh asl and dr barnett saw "vaporized" and "evaporated" steel at the wtc 7site.
"The presence of lead oxide on the surface of mineral wool indicates the existence of extremely high temperatures during the collapse which caused metallic
lead to volatilize, oxidize, and finally condense on the surface of the mineral wool [1].
The temperature required to volatilize/boil lead is 1,740 C or 3,164 F [8]. No explanation for the origin of
the indicated ?extremely high temperatures during the collapse? is offered in the RJ Lee report."
http://www.journalof911studies...icles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf
iow, you don't have a copy & paste script and can't answer the questions I asked. Thought so. Stop wasting my time with your foolishness, poser.Originally posted by: event8horizon
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
It's not "my man." It's a scientist with poor public speaking skills.Originally posted by: event8horizongeeky scientist?? thats YOUR man Sunder from NIST speaking. this was after yrs and yrs of research. this was before a highschool physics teacher had to teach him and nist a thing about freefall:
NISt admits freefall part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0GHVEKrhng
part 2- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...Uiww80&feature=related
part 3- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...cKYBm4&feature=related
You've avoided answering my question as well so I'll ask it again.
Answer the question and do your best not to pose as a YouTube University freshman while you're at it. Your posing is getting tiresome.Where does the NIST report claim the time is wrong? Where in the NIST report can you demonstrate it is, for a fact, incorrect?
if you read sunders response, he noted that:
--He acknowledges that freefall can only occur if there is no structure under the falling section of the building.
--He acknowledges that their structural modeling predicts a fall slower than freefall.
--He acknowledges that there was structural resistance in this particular case.
--He acknowledges that there was a sequence of failures that had to take place and that this process was not instantaneous.
then in the final update of the wtc 7 nist report, they admitted freefall thanks to a highschool physics teacher schooling sunder at the press conferance.
Originally posted by: event8horizon
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Can you provide proof this beam was attached to a column in the first place? 5/8" thickness is not indicative of a large I-beam that would've been integral to the supporting structure where it would have been attached to a column. How do you know this wasn't part of the floor truss bracing or a similar member of the support structure?Originally posted by: event8horizon
Originally posted by: Number1
To BeauJangles, TastesLikeChicken. Jonks, ElFenix, DLeRium, Cogman, TheSkinsFan, Common Courtesy.
I just want to thank you gentleman for the great work you did in debunking those bozos.
Well done and keep it up.
to those mentioned above, do you guys agree with the following, some of the only forensic work done on wtc 7:
"One piece Dr. Astaneh-Asl saw was a charred horizontal I-beam from 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story skyscraper that collapsed from fire eight hours after the attacks. The beam, so named because its cross-section looks like a capital I, had clearly endured searing temperatures. Parts of the flat top of the I, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized.
Less clear was whether the beam had been charred after the collapse, as it lay in the pile of burning rubble, or whether it had been engulfed in the fire that led to the building's collapse, which would provide a more telling clue.
The answer lay in the beam's twisted shape. As weight pushed down, the center portion had buckled outward.
''This tells me it buckled while it was attached to the column,'' not as it fell, Dr. Astaneh-Asl said, adding, ''It had burned first, then buckled.''http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/02/science/scarred-steel-holds-clues-and-remedies.html
so now your questioning dr astaneh asl's expertise?
The results presented here will show that if the towers were designed following the code and using the traditional structural framing systems used in almost any other building structure, such as moment frames, braced frames, shear walls or tube systems, instead of the unique and unusual system used in the collapsed WTC towers, the terrorist attacks most likely would have resulted in only local damage and not complete and catastrophic collapse of both towers where 3,000 people who were trapped in them perished. It must be stated that those 19 murderers who flew the passenger planes into the WTC Towers and their organizers and backers are fully and directly responsible for this murderous act. However, by learning from this criminal act, it is hoped that we can prevent these criminals in the future from committing mass-murder using our structures.
From his research, Astaneh showed that the towers? supporting columns withstood the original impact of the planes.
They remained structurally sound until the heat of flaming jet fuel reached 1,000 degrees Celsius and began to melt the steel. The softened columns could no longer support the floors above, and the entire structure began to collapse.
One of Astaneh?s main concerns was the collapse of Building Seven of the WTC, because there are several hundred similar buildings throughout the United States, including a few in San Francisco.
?Why did Building Seven collapse?? he asked. ?What made it burn for eight hours??
There have been some reports that there was fuel stored in the upper floors of the building, possibly for a small electrical power plant, which intensified the heat and duration of the fire. Astaneh refused to speculate on how well the building would have fared if the fuel had not been present.
Astaneh spent some of his time in New York training iron and steel workers at the recycling yards to scan the 300,000 tons of steel wreckage for pieces of metal that may contain valuable clues to the structural collapse.
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: munky
Originally posted by: jonks
You still haven't addressed my two last posts about the eyewitnesses. The reason I didn't address your points is because they are irrelevent until you can refute the threshold question raised by the eyewitnesses. All evidence is not equal. Your layman opinion about the minutae of a crash site doesn't stand against eyewitness testimony of the crash itself from dozens of verified sources.
So says you... you have no proof that your witness testimony is more valid than the one I mentioned. And don't bother replying to my posts with diversions.
I've addressed your WTC eyewitness testimony at least twice already despite you not addressing mine. Your eyewitnesses (earwitnesses) heard noises. Ok, I believe them. We don't know what those noises were. You choose to believe those noises were explosions. I say they are of unknown origin. Call it a stalemate if you like.
You have not yet provided even one alternative to explain the dozens and dozens of people who saw unambiguiously, a jet plane fly low and fast towards and ultimately into a fireball as it struck the pentagon. Address this or go away.
Imagine this is a court case and I call 50 people to the stand who each testify to seeing the plane crash into the pentagon. You have no cross examination for any of them, but instead put on a case claiming "there isn't enough wreckage." Which way do you expect a reasonable juror to lean on the events of the day?
Explain the eyewitness testimony. Give ONE explanation. If you think they are ALL lying, say that so we know where you stand.
Originally posted by: jonks
Imagine this is a court case and I call 50 people to the stand who each testify to seeing the plane crash into the pentagon. You have no cross examination for any of them, but instead put on a case claiming "there isn't enough wreckage." Which way do you expect a reasonable juror to lean on the events of the day?
Originally posted by: munky
Oh, I missed this little brilliant rebuttal. How do you KNOW that those witnesses saw a plane crash? It's possible that they did, but it's also possible that they are planted witnesses. What's that, you never heard of planted witnesses? You know, there were planted witnesses who reportedly "saw" North Vietnamese gun boats attack a US destroyer in Gulf of Tonkin. On the other hand, there were sailors aboard the USS Liberty who got killed or wounded by an attack ordered by the US govt, and the survivors were later threatened to never talk about it under the penalty of court martial.
Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Memphis. I would love to set date right now . But 1 more man made event remains . Than and only than shall that seal be broken and a date set . It must occur in this order as commanded by GOD. I am not allowed to cut short the time only God can do such a thing . I hope he does it soon tho . Its getting harder to stay safe. But 2010 is ugly for you all. Much death hunger no shelter from elements . Good times not . Promised times fact.
No no my fine enemy friend. I am talking 100 of thousands dead . I am talking major earth quake the likes which have never been seen . Would you choose to have a date set . I will give it thought . I have choice in these matters.
Other than My wife and My family I have not got one friend not one. It has to be this way . I have to take care of someone very important to many of us . Thats part of what I was intended to do . I am the tree. He is the fruit. together you will not like us fact is you will hate us . Friends would get in the way. All must be =. Or no balance .
Ya spelling grammer. It has to be this way I could take the time to neatly prepare things and state things in a statesmen speak . But than you guys might think I not a nut case . Better for ya to believe what ya believe. I just trying to guide ya to do your own thinking and research .
Man you guys are thinking all wrong . D. U.M.B Is real . Who gets in who is locked out . The governments are exspecting great heat in 2012 . So they did exactly what scriptures says not to do Hide underground . Sorry scriptures cover this . These people will lie for a spot in the tunnels a chance to live.
But this is futal I am witnessing for the lord these underground Arks will be destroyed . We will make sure of it none that hide will survive .
This so called lie the rapture. Many will believe it happened as the people choosen will infact dissappear from the surface of the earth . You guys left on the surface with us follow scripture here . DO not envoke Christ name Scripture is clear on this . You must use GODs name . Make sure ya use the correct name . One of them isn't going to work and your heart must be repentent . Thats all ya have to do . Don't panic don't run . We will take care of those decievers threw GOD. D.U.M.B. was infact stupid. I have a wonderfulfully stocked bunker . Its to be used if man does something really stupid only.
Something very interesting just occurred . D.U.M.B. must be a word that gets big time attention . I was just probed for 15 min. PC barely responding . I was exspecting this .
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Dr Astaneh-Asl is claiming that the beam was in perfectly good health prior to its corrosion. iow, he basing his findings on a beam with no prior corrosion and claiming that it corroded a certain amount in a certain time. I'm asking that you show the I-beam was in such a perfect condition prior to the collapse to make such an assertion. Seems a very reasonable question to me.Originally posted by: event8horizon
logic? i know exacatly what im saying. extremely high temps were experienced during the wtc collapse. see the link below. i believe you lack the logic skills. dr astaneh asl is saying the steel burned(vaporized 15.9mm of steel) then buckled. he was there 8 days after the collapse and saw this.
that makes complete since considering that sisson could only dissolve "little metal" in 24hrs. it happened while the building was on fire (as dr astaneh said). not in the rubble pile!!! i dont think dr astaneh has said anything concerning the wtc 7 collapse?
an excelerant was used. get it through your think skull.
just a sample but it should sound very familiar since dr astaneh asl and dr barnett saw "vaporized" and "evaporated" steel at the wtc 7site.
"The presence of lead oxide on the surface of mineral wool indicates the existence of extremely high temperatures during the collapse which caused metallic
lead to volatilize, oxidize, and finally condense on the surface of the mineral wool [1].
The temperature required to volatilize/boil lead is 1,740 C or 3,164 F [8]. No explanation for the origin of
the indicated ?extremely high temperatures during the collapse? is offered in the RJ Lee report."
http://www.journalof911studies...icles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf
Dr Astaneh-Asl also claims that the beam was connected to a column, as he claims. Please show that as well. If you can prove those claims it helps to substantiate his others. That's what logic is all about. If you can't demonstrate what I have asked then you apparently aren't familiar with the concept of logic, or scientific inquiry.
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
iow, you don't have a copy & paste script and can't answer the questions I asked. Thought so. Stop wasting my time with your foolishness, poser.Originally posted by: event8horizon
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
It's not "my man." It's a scientist with poor public speaking skills.Originally posted by: event8horizongeeky scientist?? thats YOUR man Sunder from NIST speaking. this was after yrs and yrs of research. this was before a highschool physics teacher had to teach him and nist a thing about freefall:
NISt admits freefall part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0GHVEKrhng
part 2- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...Uiww80&feature=related
part 3- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...cKYBm4&feature=related
You've avoided answering my question as well so I'll ask it again.
Answer the question and do your best not to pose as a YouTube University freshman while you're at it. Your posing is getting tiresome.Where does the NIST report claim the time is wrong? Where in the NIST report can you demonstrate it is, for a fact, incorrect?
if you read sunders response, he noted that:
--He acknowledges that freefall can only occur if there is no structure under the falling section of the building.
--He acknowledges that their structural modeling predicts a fall slower than freefall.
--He acknowledges that there was structural resistance in this particular case.
--He acknowledges that there was a sequence of failures that had to take place and that this process was not instantaneous.
then in the final update of the wtc 7 nist report, they admitted freefall thanks to a highschool physics teacher schooling sunder at the press conferance.
Originally posted by: kylebisme
And yours to refute me simply doesn't exist.Originally posted by: DrPizza
Also, at OP's "math" that was found online.
Eat your heart out with the specs, you aren't going to get it to work, and I feel sorry for your students if you waste their time trying.Originally posted by: DrPizza
Thanks for the lab idea though... I'll see if my class wants to build a building out of plywood and cans, then melt one of the lower cans with a blow torch. We'll use video analysis, spark timers, etc., to measure the rate of acceleration of different parts of the building.
Any specifications you'd like us to adhere to?
Originally posted by: kylebisme
Rather, it will sag a bit towards that corner as the can heats up, as the three other cans take on more of the load, still being able to hold considerably more weight than they are left to carry. So lets take your example and put 800 pounds is on top of it instead, as the one can is heated up the others on that same level are forced to take more load than they can, and hence crumple under the weight, the resistance the cans provide while doing so keeping the rate of acceleration below that of free fall, and that redistribution of weight likely crumpling some of the structure elsewhere. However, nothing of the sort would result in a pile of rubble at the bottom like what became of WTC7.Originally posted by: Number1
Lets assume each can can support the weight of a man let say 200 pounds and we build your structure 4 level high with 4 cans on each level. The structure should be able to support about 800 pounds. Now eat up one of the cans until it fails, your structure will lean to one side and crumble at free fall speed.Originally posted by: kylebisme
Anyway, try your suggestion with multiple cans spaced apart from each other and with a board on top of them to stand on. Then try that again with a few additional stacks of the same setup on on top of each other. Then try gluing those cans to the boards so they have lateral support. Then try to get all that to come down with a period of free fall by lighting a fire in it. You could put it all in a blast furnace for that matter, you still aren't going to get free fall.
Originally posted by: munky
Originally posted by: jonks
I've addressed your WTC eyewitness testimony at least twice already despite you not addressing mine. Your eyewitnesses (earwitnesses) heard noises. Ok, I believe them. We don't know what those noises were. You choose to believe those noises were explosions. I say they are of unknown origin. Call it a stalemate if you like.
You have not yet provided even one alternative to explain the dozens and dozens of people who saw unambiguiously, a jet plane fly low and fast towards and ultimately into a fireball as it struck the pentagon. Address this or go away.
Imagine this is a court case and I call 50 people to the stand who each testify to seeing the plane crash into the pentagon. You have no cross examination for any of them, but instead put on a case claiming "there isn't enough wreckage." Which way do you expect a reasonable juror to lean on the events of the day?
Explain the eyewitness testimony. Give ONE explanation. If you think they are ALL lying, say that so we know where you stand.
Oh, I missed this little brilliant rebuttal. How do you KNOW that those witnesses saw a plane crash? It's possible that they did, but it's also possible that they are planted witnesses. What's that, you never heard of planted witnesses? You know, there were planted witnesses who reportedly "saw" North Vietnamese gun boats attack a US destroyer in Gulf of Tonkin. On the other hand, there were sailors aboard the USS Liberty who got killed or wounded by an attack ordered by the US govt, and the survivors were later threatened to never talk about it under the penalty of court martial.
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: jonks
Imagine this is a court case and I call 50 people to the stand who each testify to seeing the plane crash into the pentagon. You have no cross examination for any of them, but instead put on a case claiming "there isn't enough wreckage." Which way do you expect a reasonable juror to lean on the events of the day?
To my knowledge there is but one video of the first aircraft hitting a tower... IT IS evidence of what it purports to be.
The key is the conditions under which the first video was taken. that condition enhances that evidence.
Everything about that video fits. The reaction to the noise of the jet and the rest.
IF one plane hits then all planes are true! [in my logic, anyhow]
I think the hypothesis for an alternative something hitting the towers is not supported by the evidence.
Nice try at dodging my questions, as usual. I'm asking some very cogent and pertinent questions here that throw cold water on your own claims. For that 15.9mm (btw folks, that's approximately 1/2". Don't you love it how truthers suddenly switch to metric in this case, because "15.9" sounds more impressive than "1/2?" That's typical of the kind of shenanigans truthers employ.) to have magically disappeared it's assumed it was THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE. iow, the steel was perfectly healthy prior to the attack. It hadn't corroded even one iota in decades. I'm asking you to prove that assertion. I'm asking you to show that the steel was in perfectly good shape before the collapse happened. If you cannot then the claim that 1/2" suddenly evaporated doesn' have any basis in fact and is merely speculation.Originally posted by: event8horizon
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Dr Astaneh-Asl is claiming that the beam was in perfectly good health prior to its corrosion. iow, he basing his findings on a beam with no prior corrosion and claiming that it corroded a certain amount in a certain time. I'm asking that you show the I-beam was in such a perfect condition prior to the collapse to make such an assertion. Seems a very reasonable question to me.Originally posted by: event8horizon
logic? i know exacatly what im saying. extremely high temps were experienced during the wtc collapse. see the link below. i believe you lack the logic skills. dr astaneh asl is saying the steel burned(vaporized 15.9mm of steel) then buckled. he was there 8 days after the collapse and saw this.
that makes complete since considering that sisson could only dissolve "little metal" in 24hrs. it happened while the building was on fire (as dr astaneh said). not in the rubble pile!!! i dont think dr astaneh has said anything concerning the wtc 7 collapse?
an excelerant was used. get it through your think skull.
just a sample but it should sound very familiar since dr astaneh asl and dr barnett saw "vaporized" and "evaporated" steel at the wtc 7site.
"The presence of lead oxide on the surface of mineral wool indicates the existence of extremely high temperatures during the collapse which caused metallic
lead to volatilize, oxidize, and finally condense on the surface of the mineral wool [1].
The temperature required to volatilize/boil lead is 1,740 C or 3,164 F [8]. No explanation for the origin of
the indicated ?extremely high temperatures during the collapse? is offered in the RJ Lee report."
http://www.journalof911studies...icles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf
Dr Astaneh-Asl also claims that the beam was connected to a column, as he claims. Please show that as well. If you can prove those claims it helps to substantiate his others. That's what logic is all about. If you can't demonstrate what I have asked then you apparently aren't familiar with the concept of logic, or scientific inquiry.
nice try at handwaving some of the only forensic observations of wtc 7 steel. the steel holds clues as to why it fell. and as he said, it vaporized (15.9 mm gone) and then buckled and fell. that would make perfect sense considering other "steel member" (thats pleural) were also seen in the debris pile partly "evparated" and why the building fell at frefall speed. an excelerant was used.
Nice attempt at conflation. The collapse of the entire building was not at free fall. The final report STILL notes that the entire collapse sequence still took 40% longer than free fall speed, which is precisely in line wit what NIST originally stated. You are trying to confuse a scant couple of seconds with the entire collapse, act as if some high scool teacher is a genius, and then make an assumption that NIST was hiding something. How completely assinine. Your kind of response demonstrates the paranoid world that truthers live in and the willfull dishonesty they employ in the claims.Originally posted by: event8horizon
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
iow, you don't have a copy & paste script and can't answer the questions I asked. Thought so. Stop wasting my time with your foolishness, poser.Originally posted by: event8horizon
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
It's not "my man." It's a scientist with poor public speaking skills.Originally posted by: event8horizongeeky scientist?? thats YOUR man Sunder from NIST speaking. this was after yrs and yrs of research. this was before a highschool physics teacher had to teach him and nist a thing about freefall:
NISt admits freefall part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0GHVEKrhng
part 2- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...Uiww80&feature=related
part 3- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...cKYBm4&feature=related
You've avoided answering my question as well so I'll ask it again.
Answer the question and do your best not to pose as a YouTube University freshman while you're at it. Your posing is getting tiresome.Where does the NIST report claim the time is wrong? Where in the NIST report can you demonstrate it is, for a fact, incorrect?
if you read sunders response, he noted that:
--He acknowledges that freefall can only occur if there is no structure under the falling section of the building.
--He acknowledges that their structural modeling predicts a fall slower than freefall.
--He acknowledges that there was structural resistance in this particular case.
--He acknowledges that there was a sequence of failures that had to take place and that this process was not instantaneous.
then in the final update of the wtc 7 nist report, they admitted freefall thanks to a highschool physics teacher schooling sunder at the press conferance.
i gave you my answer. first he said freefall did nt happen, a highschool teacher had to school him, then low and behold the final report says freefall happened. so the fianl report completly contradicts sunder and his prior statements. i copy and paste to show people his exact words.