Poll

What is the truth about the 911 attack on the World Trade Center?

Hijacked Planes were flown into the two towers.  Resulting fires caused the collapse.
14 (60.9%)
The planes were CGI and it was controlled demolition
2 (8.7%)
Something other than planes were flown into the twin towers,  missiles drones etc.
2 (8.7%)
The planes were holographic projections from a special satellite, and it was a directed energy weapon
1 (4.3%)
Something else.
3 (13%)
Denspressure
1 (4.3%)

Total Members Voted: 23

Voting closed: March 06, 2017, 10:56:40 PM

911 What is the truth?

  • 6866 Replies
  • 467789 Views
*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 19891
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #510 on: February 18, 2017, 05:28:23 AM »
Quote from: NIST
In a video, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free fall, something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you describe. How can you ignore basic laws of physics?
In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail.
To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video. Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent displacement data. The instant at which vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was determined by tracking the numerical value of the brightness of a pixel (a single element in the video image) at the roofline. This pixel became brighter as the roofline began to descend because the color of the pixel started to change from that of the building façade to the lighter color of the sky.
The approach taken by NIST is summarized in Section 3.6 of the final summary report, NCSTAR 1A (released Nov. 20, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf) and detailed in Section 12.5.3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-9%20Vol%202.pdf).
The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:
Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.

I don't think my views are that detached from reality.

My tone with Rayzor was due to his dishonesty.



I have been explicitly clear that I believe the official story doesn't address the 2.25 second free-fall, I have posted multiple experiments and logical points to explain this.

The only possible explanation for a collapse of gravitational acceleration is controlled demolition.

This is my position.

Edit, sauce.

https://www.nist.gov/pba/questions-and-answers-about-nist-wtc-7-investigation
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #511 on: February 18, 2017, 06:04:19 AM »
-Controlled demolitions look, sound and occur much differently than the collapse of the WTC buildings

Oh really?

Please post evidence that controlled demolitions look and occur differently from the demolitions of WTC 1, 2, and 7.

I would really like to see that.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2017, 06:25:11 AM by totallackey »

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28338
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #512 on: February 18, 2017, 06:14:24 AM »
Let's get real and let's all look at it from a realistic point of view, regardless of who may know a certain story.

So here's the script.
We were told that fully fuelled passenger planes hit two towers.
We were shown something hitting one tower, which we were told by mainstream news, plus two film makers (Naudet brothers) who happened to be filming a day in the life of NY firefighters.

The second tower was shown to us as being hit by some kind of jet.
Basically this is what we have to go on, because this is what we were shown.

We then listen to witnesses who are so varied in what they heard, seen and knew for sure/or didn't...that we once again have to take in what the mainstream reports deduced from it.

Ok, so let's play it as real as we can and try and figure out what went on, against what we were told went on.

We know that the towers stayed intact and basically true to sight. (level)
We also know that the towers were burning black smoke, which indicates oxygen starved and not fierce.
We only know this because we have to follow what was shown to us on TV.

We also know that a firefighter radioed that there were only two ISOLATED pockets of fire and he/they should be able to knock it down with ONE hose..

We only know all of this because this is what mainstream reports played out to us.

By watching videos of the towers being built, many of us know that they had  FORTY SEVEN (47) central steel support columns.
We also know that there were WELDED and BOLTED floor trusses attached from these columns to the outer frame, (box section steel).

We also know that the entire floors were covered in metal sheets and then concrete.
The lifts were incorporated inside the central core columns.

Ok so let's apply some real definitive logic and common sense to what we can take from this as a basic truth or so close to it as to garner little to no argument against it by GENUINE people.

Note the word GENUINE.

Ok, we were told that the floor trusses weakened due to the plane knocking off the asbestos fire resistant material.
Let's say it all fell off on every floor, all around. I'm trying to be as fair as possible.

Ok so the floor trusses and the steel floor plates all warp ALL around the building and all give way, snapping all the bolts and welds.
Apparently this caused a pancake collapse, somehow.

Now let's think about the warping trusses.
They fall onto the next trusses but first must hit concrete floor and steel under plate, then transfer that entire floor onto the next, snapping all of the bolts and welds in that floor.

. Ok, so we have a few floors pancaking, but now we have a bigger resistance of floors that are not warped and are at premium strength from that point downwards.
We have to accept that the outer frame of box section just sheared off as this pancake is in motion.

Ok, fair enough, let's go with it.
Let's forget why the concrete just turns to dust, as well.

So what is left?
The 47 central steel core columns that were holding the trusses, because there is no way in hell that trusses can snap away from these columns and take down the columns with them.
There was no weight on the columns to crush them down.

But let's throw all that out of the window and accept that the entire building pancaked and pulverised as we were shown, all caused by pockets of fire and apparent steel slicing by plane wings and engines.

This still leaves a building to fall against it's own resistance of floors and actual core columns, plus floor pans and concrete.
This means a building over 1000 feet tall just collapses floor by floor as if the floors were made of polystyrene, because going by the mainstream filming we were all shown, we know that the towers fell in about 15 seconds...and I'm being very generous.

No matter which way you want to view it...one thing you can't dismiss and that is, you know for a fact that you could not have a building fall against the resistance that would give out and see it fall to the floor in 15 seconds or less.

UNLESS.......

Unless the towers had floors already weakened to take the drop, then detonated in order to make a close to free fall destruction.

I don't even want to look on that as me being a conspiracy theorist. I look on that as wondering what could cause that effect, considering what we were told begs massive questioning overall but at the very least, given as much lee-way to the official explanation, we will know that a free fall collapse cannot happen.

The only  way that I can see a free fall collapse happening is if it was controlled by certain strategically placed  explosives and shape cutting charges .


The leaning top of one tower that we were shown on TV and in pictures would never be able to crush the floors below. It would have toppled off but weirdly fall back as the tower below disintegrated.
This would be impossible unless it was a controlled weakening and demolition of the rest of the tower.

As for WTC 7... this requires absolutely no thought as to what happened to that, once you understand the other towers.
TV once again shows a classic controlled demolition.

There's a reason why demolition companies are so expert at what they do. It's because they understand the structural integrity of buildings and can take them down in many ways, depending on the surrounding areas.


On this day we have to look at the amount of coincidences that go so far beyond actually being accepted as the word COINCIDENCE for the way everything happened.
It borders on the ridiculous.

3 towers collapse into their own basements due to fire on the very same day. It's a coincidence.
WTC7: a fireman tells filming person to watch out as the building will be coming down. It's just a coincidence.
Larry Silverstein tells the fire commander that maybe the smartest thing to do is "pull it" when referring to WTC7 and he said "so they made that decision to PULL. Later told to us as him saying pull the firemen out of the building.  Just a coincidence it fell on it's own.

I could go on and on with so called coincidences. Probably over 50 that very day, but that's basically all they were according to those that stick to mainstream explanations.
It's up to people to ask themselves whether they want to genuinely question or think on these so called coincidences or just accept what's said even if they know there's massive discrepancies involved.

All of the so called excuses made that day is akin to a person being brought in for questioning about robbing banks and using all kinds of alibi's and coincidences to show his innocence, even though he has a striped burglar shirt on, wearing a lone ranger style burglar mask and carrying  a sawn off shotgun, with " this is a stick up, hand over the loot" written on his palm, then telling the police he was rehearsing for a play his friend was making.
You know the rest.

There's just a few things to think about out of so many. It's all about 4 things from this point on, in answering and admitting that you are:

1: Accepting of the official story no matter how many weird coincidences and almost impossible feats performed. You weren't there and you trust official sources no matter what, in total naivety and gullibility.

2:Accepting of the official story no matter how many weird coincidences and almost impossible feats performed. You weren't there and you trust official sources no matter what, by basically refusing to get into arguments with those you consider conspiracy loons, even though they have a legitimate cause to do so.

3: You are paid to sell the official story and will say and do anything required to ensure it stays as the official story says.

4: You know it begs questions in so much and you simply cannot accept the official story with so much that does not even begin to add up.


All I can say is, whichever way you choose to go; as long as you are genuine in your choice, with no agenda; then I say fair enough.



?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #513 on: February 18, 2017, 06:54:50 AM »
Quote
No matter which way you want to view it...one thing you can't dismiss and that is, you know for a fact that you could not have a building fall against the resistance that would give out and see it fall to the floor in 15 seconds or less.

You can't have a building fall against something that is going to give out?
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

*

Heiwa

  • 9358
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #514 on: February 18, 2017, 07:14:35 AM »
Let's get real and let's all look at it from a realistic point of view, regardless of who may know a certain story.

So here's the script.
We were told that fully fuelled passenger planes hit two towers.
We were shown something hitting one tower, which we were told by mainstream news, plus two film makers (Naudet brothers) who happened to be filming a day in the life of NY firefighters.

The second tower was shown to us as being hit by some kind of jet.
Basically this is what we have to go on, because this is what we were shown.

We then listen to witnesses who are so varied in what they heard, seen and knew for sure/or didn't...that we once again have to take in what the mainstream reports deduced from it.

Ok, so let's play it as real as we can and try and figure out what went on, against what we were told went on.

We know that the towers stayed intact and basically true to sight. (level)
We also know that the towers were burning black smoke, which indicates oxygen starved and not fierce.
We only know this because we have to follow what was shown to us on TV.

We also know that a firefighter radioed that there were only two ISOLATED pockets of fire and he/they should be able to knock it down with ONE hose..

We only know all of this because this is what mainstream reports played out to us.

By watching videos of the towers being built, many of us know that they had  FORTY SEVEN (47) central steel support columns.
We also know that there were WELDED and BOLTED floor trusses attached from these columns to the outer frame, (box section steel).

We also know that the entire floors were covered in metal sheets and then concrete.
The lifts were incorporated inside the central core columns.

Ok so let's apply some real definitive logic and common sense to what we can take from this as a basic truth or so close to it as to garner little to no argument against it by GENUINE people.

Note the word GENUINE.

Ok, we were told that the floor trusses weakened due to the plane knocking off the asbestos fire resistant material.
Let's say it all fell off on every floor, all around. I'm trying to be as fair as possible.

Ok so the floor trusses and the steel floor plates all warp ALL around the building and all give way, snapping all the bolts and welds.
Apparently this caused a pancake collapse, somehow.

Now let's think about the warping trusses.
They fall onto the next trusses but first must hit concrete floor and steel under plate, then transfer that entire floor onto the next, snapping all of the bolts and welds in that floor.

. Ok, so we have a few floors pancaking, but now we have a bigger resistance of floors that are not warped and are at premium strength from that point downwards.
We have to accept that the outer frame of box section just sheared off as this pancake is in motion.

Ok, fair enough, let's go with it.
Let's forget why the concrete just turns to dust, as well.

So what is left?
The 47 central steel core columns that were holding the trusses, because there is no way in hell that trusses can snap away from these columns and take down the columns with them.
There was no weight on the columns to crush them down.

But let's throw all that out of the window and accept that the entire building pancaked and pulverised as we were shown, all caused by pockets of fire and apparent steel slicing by plane wings and engines.

This still leaves a building to fall against it's own resistance of floors and actual core columns, plus floor pans and concrete.
This means a building over 1000 feet tall just collapses floor by floor as if the floors were made of polystyrene, because going by the mainstream filming we were all shown, we know that the towers fell in about 15 seconds...and I'm being very generous.

No matter which way you want to view it...one thing you can't dismiss and that is, you know for a fact that you could not have a building fall against the resistance that would give out and see it fall to the floor in 15 seconds or less.

UNLESS.......

Unless the towers had floors already weakened to take the drop, then detonated in order to make a close to free fall destruction.

I don't even want to look on that as me being a conspiracy theorist. I look on that as wondering what could cause that effect, considering what we were told begs massive questioning overall but at the very least, given as much lee-way to the official explanation, we will know that a free fall collapse cannot happen.

The only  way that I can see a free fall collapse happening is if it was controlled by certain strategically placed  explosives and shape cutting charges .


The leaning top of one tower that we were shown on TV and in pictures would never be able to crush the floors below. It would have toppled off but weirdly fall back as the tower below disintegrated.
This would be impossible unless it was a controlled weakening and demolition of the rest of the tower.

As for WTC 7... this requires absolutely no thought as to what happened to that, once you understand the other towers.
TV once again shows a classic controlled demolition.

There's a reason why demolition companies are so expert at what they do. It's because they understand the structural integrity of buildings and can take them down in many ways, depending on the surrounding areas.


On this day we have to look at the amount of coincidences that go so far beyond actually being accepted as the word COINCIDENCE for the way everything happened.
It borders on the ridiculous.

3 towers collapse into their own basements due to fire on the very same day. It's a coincidence.
WTC7: a fireman tells filming person to watch out as the building will be coming down. It's just a coincidence.
Larry Silverstein tells the fire commander that maybe the smartest thing to do is "pull it" when referring to WTC7 and he said "so they made that decision to PULL. Later told to us as him saying pull the firemen out of the building.  Just a coincidence it fell on it's own.

I could go on and on with so called coincidences. Probably over 50 that very day, but that's basically all they were according to those that stick to mainstream explanations.
It's up to people to ask themselves whether they want to genuinely question or think on these so called coincidences or just accept what's said even if they know there's massive discrepancies involved.

All of the so called excuses made that day is akin to a person being brought in for questioning about robbing banks and using all kinds of alibi's and coincidences to show his innocence, even though he has a striped burglar shirt on, wearing a lone ranger style burglar mask and carrying  a sawn off shotgun, with " this is a stick up, hand over the loot" written on his palm, then telling the police he was rehearsing for a play his friend was making.
You know the rest.

There's just a few things to think about out of so many. It's all about 4 things from this point on, in answering and admitting that you are:

1: Accepting of the official story no matter how many weird coincidences and almost impossible feats performed. You weren't there and you trust official sources no matter what, in total naivety and gullibility.

2:Accepting of the official story no matter how many weird coincidences and almost impossible feats performed. You weren't there and you trust official sources no matter what, by basically refusing to get into arguments with those you consider conspiracy loons, even though they have a legitimate cause to do so.

3: You are paid to sell the official story and will say and do anything required to ensure it stays as the official story says.

4: You know it begs questions in so much and you simply cannot accept the official story with so much that does not even begin to add up.


All I can say is, whichever way you choose to go; as long as you are genuine in your choice, with no agenda; then I say fair enough.

Hm, not only two tall towers #1&2 and a small tower #7 beside were completely destroyed. Also all buildings around #3, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 were flattened. Imagine doing all this by landing two planes in the tops of the towers. With plenty people watching and reporters doing live TV broadcasts with towers falling behind them. Amazing! Magic. It could only have been created at Hollywood. Years before hand. Bill and Hillary come to mind. What a couple.


*

onebigmonkey

  • 1623
  • You. Yes you. Stand still laddie.
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #515 on: February 18, 2017, 07:59:05 AM »
Let's get real and let's all look at it from a realistic point of view, regardless of who may know a certain story.

So here's the script.
We were told that fully fuelled passenger planes hit two towers.
We were shown something hitting one tower, which we were told by mainstream news, plus two film makers (Naudet brothers) who happened to be filming a day in the life of NY firefighters.

The second tower was shown to us as being hit by some kind of jet.
Basically this is what we have to go on, because this is what we were shown.

We then listen to witnesses who are so varied in what they heard, seen and knew for sure/or didn't...that we once again have to take in what the mainstream reports deduced from it.

Ok, so let's play it as real as we can and try and figure out what went on, against what we were told went on.

We know that the towers stayed intact and basically true to sight. (level)
We also know that the towers were burning black smoke, which indicates oxygen starved and not fierce.
We only know this because we have to follow what was shown to us on TV.

We also know that a firefighter radioed that there were only two ISOLATED pockets of fire and he/they should be able to knock it down with ONE hose..

We only know all of this because this is what mainstream reports played out to us.

By watching videos of the towers being built, many of us know that they had  FORTY SEVEN (47) central steel support columns.
We also know that there were WELDED and BOLTED floor trusses attached from these columns to the outer frame, (box section steel).

We also know that the entire floors were covered in metal sheets and then concrete.
The lifts were incorporated inside the central core columns.

Ok so let's apply some real definitive logic and common sense to what we can take from this as a basic truth or so close to it as to garner little to no argument against it by GENUINE people.

Note the word GENUINE.

Ok, we were told that the floor trusses weakened due to the plane knocking off the asbestos fire resistant material.
Let's say it all fell off on every floor, all around. I'm trying to be as fair as possible.

Ok so the floor trusses and the steel floor plates all warp ALL around the building and all give way, snapping all the bolts and welds.
Apparently this caused a pancake collapse, somehow.

Now let's think about the warping trusses.
They fall onto the next trusses but first must hit concrete floor and steel under plate, then transfer that entire floor onto the next, snapping all of the bolts and welds in that floor.

. Ok, so we have a few floors pancaking, but now we have a bigger resistance of floors that are not warped and are at premium strength from that point downwards.
We have to accept that the outer frame of box section just sheared off as this pancake is in motion.

Ok, fair enough, let's go with it.
Let's forget why the concrete just turns to dust, as well.

So what is left?
The 47 central steel core columns that were holding the trusses, because there is no way in hell that trusses can snap away from these columns and take down the columns with them.
There was no weight on the columns to crush them down.

But let's throw all that out of the window and accept that the entire building pancaked and pulverised as we were shown, all caused by pockets of fire and apparent steel slicing by plane wings and engines.

This still leaves a building to fall against it's own resistance of floors and actual core columns, plus floor pans and concrete.
This means a building over 1000 feet tall just collapses floor by floor as if the floors were made of polystyrene, because going by the mainstream filming we were all shown, we know that the towers fell in about 15 seconds...and I'm being very generous.

No matter which way you want to view it...one thing you can't dismiss and that is, you know for a fact that you could not have a building fall against the resistance that would give out and see it fall to the floor in 15 seconds or less.

UNLESS.......

Unless the towers had floors already weakened to take the drop, then detonated in order to make a close to free fall destruction.

I don't even want to look on that as me being a conspiracy theorist. I look on that as wondering what could cause that effect, considering what we were told begs massive questioning overall but at the very least, given as much lee-way to the official explanation, we will know that a free fall collapse cannot happen.

The only  way that I can see a free fall collapse happening is if it was controlled by certain strategically placed  explosives and shape cutting charges .


The leaning top of one tower that we were shown on TV and in pictures would never be able to crush the floors below. It would have toppled off but weirdly fall back as the tower below disintegrated.
This would be impossible unless it was a controlled weakening and demolition of the rest of the tower.

As for WTC 7... this requires absolutely no thought as to what happened to that, once you understand the other towers.
TV once again shows a classic controlled demolition.

There's a reason why demolition companies are so expert at what they do. It's because they understand the structural integrity of buildings and can take them down in many ways, depending on the surrounding areas.


On this day we have to look at the amount of coincidences that go so far beyond actually being accepted as the word COINCIDENCE for the way everything happened.
It borders on the ridiculous.

3 towers collapse into their own basements due to fire on the very same day. It's a coincidence.
WTC7: a fireman tells filming person to watch out as the building will be coming down. It's just a coincidence.
Larry Silverstein tells the fire commander that maybe the smartest thing to do is "pull it" when referring to WTC7 and he said "so they made that decision to PULL. Later told to us as him saying pull the firemen out of the building.  Just a coincidence it fell on it's own.

I could go on and on with so called coincidences. Probably over 50 that very day, but that's basically all they were according to those that stick to mainstream explanations.
It's up to people to ask themselves whether they want to genuinely question or think on these so called coincidences or just accept what's said even if they know there's massive discrepancies involved.

All of the so called excuses made that day is akin to a person being brought in for questioning about robbing banks and using all kinds of alibi's and coincidences to show his innocence, even though he has a striped burglar shirt on, wearing a lone ranger style burglar mask and carrying  a sawn off shotgun, with " this is a stick up, hand over the loot" written on his palm, then telling the police he was rehearsing for a play his friend was making.
You know the rest.

There's just a few things to think about out of so many. It's all about 4 things from this point on, in answering and admitting that you are:

1: Accepting of the official story no matter how many weird coincidences and almost impossible feats performed. You weren't there and you trust official sources no matter what, in total naivety and gullibility.

2:Accepting of the official story no matter how many weird coincidences and almost impossible feats performed. You weren't there and you trust official sources no matter what, by basically refusing to get into arguments with those you consider conspiracy loons, even though they have a legitimate cause to do so.

3: You are paid to sell the official story and will say and do anything required to ensure it stays as the official story says.

4: You know it begs questions in so much and you simply cannot accept the official story with so much that does not even begin to add up.


All I can say is, whichever way you choose to go; as long as you are genuine in your choice, with no agenda; then I say fair enough.

Hm, not only two tall towers #1&2 and a small tower #7 beside were completely destroyed. Also all buildings around #3, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 were flattened. Imagine doing all this by landing two planes in the tops of the towers.

This is typical of the shit you come out with, and you are surprised when people don't believe a word you say. If you can't tell the difference between a plane slamming into the side of a building and 'landing on top of it', then I thank God that you don't design planes.

Quote
With plenty people watching and reporters doing live TV broadcasts with towers falling behind them. Amazing! Magic.

Yep. Plenty witnesses.

Quote
It could only have been created at Hollywood. Years before hand.

Yep, years before the technology existed to create a live TV event like this in front of thousands of eye-witnesses, you think somehow that's what happened.

Quote
Bill and Hillary come to mind. What a couple.

What a dick.
Facts won't do what I want them to.

We went from a round Earth to a round Moon: http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/apollo.html

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #516 on: February 18, 2017, 08:31:46 AM »
-Controlled demolitions look, sound and occur much differently than the collapse of the WTC buildings

Oh really?

Please post evidence that controlled demolitions look and occur differently from the demolitions of WTC 1, 2, and 7.

I would really like to see that.

Controlled demolitions fall in their footprint and the WTC collapses damaged building all around them, so there's the look that differs. Yes, they fell fairly cleanly down for structures of their size, but it was not indicative of a controlled demolition in that regard.

As for the sound, in a controlled demolition, there is a clear and sequence of explosions that can be heard at quite a distance away which is noticeably absent from the WTC collapses. 

Sound of a controlled demolition:



If you can come up with a working theory that explicitly explains these facts, then I would be interested.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

hoppy

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 11730
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #517 on: February 18, 2017, 08:32:57 AM »
Onebigmarkjo ::)
God is real.                                         
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9665708/Flat-Earth-Bible-02-of-10-The-Flat-Earth

*

onebigmonkey

  • 1623
  • You. Yes you. Stand still laddie.
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #518 on: February 18, 2017, 09:43:07 AM »
Facts won't do what I want them to.

We went from a round Earth to a round Moon: http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/apollo.html

*

Heiwa

  • 9358
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #519 on: February 18, 2017, 10:37:01 AM »

This is typical of the shit you come out with, and you are surprised when people don't believe a word you say. If you can't tell the difference between a plane slamming into the side of a building and 'landing on top of it', then I thank God that you don't design planes.

Hm, long before 911 we established at the IMO around 1990/2 that oil tankers involved in collisions at sea were mostly structurally damaged above water line, which led to acceptance of better collision protection of oil tankers than double hull, i.e. my famous Coulombi Egg tanker. USCG agreed, by law and conventions, to everything but when approval was finally granted 1997, USA announced that my design was not allowed in USA. USA (GWB/Condi) decided that probably by some secret executive order, bla, bla, bla.
So I know what happens when ships slam into the sides of laden oil tankers. In no case the striking ship disappears into the stricken tanker. In most cases it bounces or gets stuck in the side. As it didn't happen 911 I conclude any footage of the collisions are fake.
Donald Trump will maybe change the situation 2018 with some executive order. Trump is like dictator Khadaffi of Libya in the past surrounded by pretty women firing staff right and left, some even before they are appointed, deciding everything. What a joke. Maybe Donald in spite of this will clarify the truth of 911. We will see!
« Last Edit: February 18, 2017, 11:41:43 AM by Heiwa »

Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #520 on: February 18, 2017, 10:52:51 AM »
Controlled demolitions fall in their footprint and the WTC collapses damaged building all around them, so there's the look that differs. Yes, they fell fairly cleanly down for structures of their size, but it was not indicative of a controlled demolition in that regard.

As for the sound, in a controlled demolition, there is a clear and sequence of explosions that can be heard at quite a distance away which is noticeably absent from the WTC collapses. 

Sound of a controlled demolition:



If you can come up with a working theory that explicitly explains these facts, then I would be interested.

There were plenty of reports from people on the scene, including firefighters, of explosions going off.

If you are claiming the towers and building 7 did not look like a controlled demolition to you, I cannot help you.

That is just denial.

As far as collateral damage, these were the tallest buildings to date ever brought down and the expectation is there would be collateral damage. Other controlled demolitions have areas cleared out and safeguards (windows boarded up, tall walls erected in the vicinity, etc.) in place to minimize the fallout.

You will definitely need to try again.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #521 on: February 18, 2017, 11:26:52 AM »
There were plenty of reports from people on the scene, including firefighters, of explosions going off.

Listen to it yourself.  There are no sounds resembling what a real controlled demolition sounds like.

Quote
If you are claiming the towers and building 7 did not look like a controlled demolition to you, I cannot help you.

If you can't make your case, I guess not.

Quote
That is just denial.

No, it is me using the facts at my disposal and making my best judgement.

Quote
As far as collateral damage, these were the tallest buildings to date ever brought down and the expectation is there would be collateral damage. Other controlled demolitions have areas cleared out and safeguards (windows boarded up, tall walls erected in the vicinity, etc.) in place to minimize the fallout.

WTC 7 was not the tallest building in the world and caused significant damage to building across the street from it.  This is more than the dust and small debris.  30 West Broadway suffered significant damage from the collapse of WTC 7, far beyond what you would expect from a controlled demolition.

Quote
You will definitely need to try again.

Not for you.  You aren't bringing much to the conversation for me.  Get back to me when you figure out how they masked the sound of the demolition charges.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #522 on: February 18, 2017, 02:45:52 PM »

Listen to it yourself.  There are no sounds resembling what a real controlled demolition sounds like.

Yeah, there were.

Plenty of witnesses and even footage of squibs going off as the 1 and 2 came down.


If you can't make your case, I guess not.

Not interested in making a case for you.

You remain convinced of your version and Hip fucking Hooray for you.

No, it is me using the facts at my disposal and making my best judgement.

Your best judgment is being demonstrated as toeing the OS line.

And signing on to the NIST reports which are demonstrably proven to be non-scientific.

WTC 7 was not the tallest building in the world and caused significant damage to building across the street from it.  This is more than the dust and small debris.  30 West Broadway suffered significant damage from the collapse of WTC 7, far beyond what you would expect from a controlled demolition.

Listen, I already wrote there were ZERO safeguards in place when these buildings went down.

Seems you are claiming other controlled demolitions take place without any safeguards to mitigate collateral damage and other buildings can remain unscathed.

Not for you.  You aren't bringing much to the conversation for me.  Get back to me when you figure out how they masked the sound of the demolition charges.

Fine by me.

You act as if sounds cannot be muffled or silenced when they can.

Those buildings came down in the same form and fashion as any other controlled demolition I have ever witnessed.

I know what I saw.

I know what I believe.

And all the pompousness, megalomania, conceit, misplaced derisiveness, and utter asshattery, you can muster will not change my mind one bit.

To borrow from Poppa...

Toodle Pip...
« Last Edit: February 18, 2017, 03:00:24 PM by totallackey »

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11120
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #523 on: February 18, 2017, 02:52:10 PM »
Oh man....Why does Rama set and master evar have to join in...They were people I actually liked....Sigh... :(

All I keep hearing is "I believe"...This isn't a Disney show, nor can we click our heals.

Let's stick in reality.....This is where I like to be...

So, planes hitting a building, this is why they wouldn't fall....Simple facts...No thrills...Simple structural engineering...

Please....Someone debunk these with facts, no one has yet...

Let's assume I entertain the model your video shows (which I don't)...

So the plane is allowed to enter without restriction...Pass through the outside vertical exoskeleton and horizontal exoskeleton to the core.

Ok, those few floors are compromised on the 91-93 floors...That would not cause a collapse.

But let's say it did in that area.

It would collapse on itself at the path of least resistance...However, there is not enough damaged and removed material.

So you would have a situation such as this..



However, even if by magic it started a free fall collapse at that 90th floor, it would not make it past the 44th floor because of the doubled core stacking (this building did not have CG sway compensation like newer buildings so CG directional load was set up like older scrappers, more like a sea bowie), the lower 40 was built like a tank compared to the upper sections...Multiples of the mass of the upper decks.

However, if we keep using magic....Let's say it collapsed this area too....We would have this...



Just multiped by a factor 3.8

And not at a free fall...

Would have taken anywhere from minutes to hours..

Stress junctions, their cert load in the 60s was anywhere from 5 times to 100times less than what it could take before complete failure...Not to mention, since the CG was controlled in a more simple "old school" design (as stated, like a sea bowie), the more mass you keep removing from the upper area, the more robust the bottom becomes as well as the CG continues to get lower.

If you had a 40 story WTC center with the same structural design, you would never knock that damn building over, you would have to dismantle that thing  piece by piece.

Unless we are using magic again.


If someone can, I will present 5 more facts to be debunked....If y'all can't, then it's done..


This is how robust buildings are (this didn't fall fyi, not even a bit)


This is how buildings fall when they aren't demoed



Reality....
Watch the tower at 2:39.....This destroys the official story right there without having to know a single thing of structural design.



This here proves that a building close to free fall hits solid ground can land without damage...It doesn't even flinch. It doesn't vaporize itself

Please people...Open your minds. Who perpetrated this is using a combo of y'all's ignorance in structural design and dynamics and fear of marching against mainstream to control you.

But ignoring this...Please, someone debunk these facts with clear concise answers please
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

Rayzor

  • 11331
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #524 on: February 18, 2017, 02:55:57 PM »
This corrosive and evil conspiracy theory  must not be allowed to go unchallenged.  As others have pointed out,  the consequences of that attack on western civilization are still being played out in Syria, Iraq and even places like France and Germany.  Osama Bin Laden wanted to start a global war.  The clash of cultures. Unless saner heads than MIller/Bannon/Trump prevail.  He might get it.  Let's hope not for all our sakes.

Let's start with the demolition theory.

1. There is no direct evidence of explosives or thermite or any other exotic mechanism having been involved with the collapse of the WTC buildings,  no chemical residue,  nothing.
2. If you were going to use explosives,  why would you place the charges so high up in the building?   Nobody in the demolition business does that.
3.  The collapse started from the area where the planes hit. 
4.  On WTC7 the fire department,  knew as early as 2 in the afternoon that WTC7 was likely to collapse due to the fires, it eventually did collapse around 5.  They measured the walls bulging. 

So why did WTC1 and WTC2 collapse,  if you read the NIST reports, and study their data,  the primary reason for the collapse was the fires which weakened the steel structure to the point that several floors in the middle of the building collapse,  that meant that the potential energy and momentum of all the floors above the collapse point was applied to the floors below, and as the floors below collapsed their weight and momentum added to the total,  so the loading increased as each floor collapsed.  You can see this progression in the video.   It doesn't look like demolition,  at least not the ones that BHS posted.

As for the free fall argument,  it doesn't stack up,  the debris was falling faster than the collapse,  that should tell you right away that the collapse wasn't free fall.

There is ample evidence that various US government intelligence agencies knew enough bit and pieces of the attack plan,  but,  due to lack of inter-agency cooperation failed to connect the dots.

Another area that intelligence agencies failed was the over-reliance on electronic survielance rather than personal contacts and boots on the ground intelligence gathering.  You could have probably unravelled the whole plot if the spooks weren't so busy relying on satellite eavesdropping.

Since I know totallackey is going to ask,  he seems fixated on it.   
Why didn't NIST release some specific model data,   The cited "Public Safety" as the reason,   That may or may not be the truth?   There is no way to tell what the motivation was.

I should add, they released pretty much everything, ( 10,000 pages ) certainly more than enough for their report to be questioned and falsified.   And there are plenty of parts of the report that are open to critisism,  there is room for conjecture about some of the details of the collapse,  but that's nit picking around the edges,  the central thrust of the report stands. 

Large commercial aircraft  hit the WTC,  the subsequent fires weakened the steel structure to the extent that a few floors in the middle of the structure collapsed, from then on the collapse was unstoppable. 

Let's hope the conspiracy theorists are eventually exposed for the lying cherry-picking pseudo scientifc frauds that they are.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2017, 02:59:48 PM by Rayzor »
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #525 on: February 18, 2017, 03:04:34 PM »
This corrosive and evil conspiracy theory  must not be allowed to go unchallenged.  As others have pointed out,  the consequences of that attack on western civilization are still being played out in Syria, Iraq and even places like France and Germany.  Osama Bin Laden wanted to start a global war. 

What entity bankrolled Osama Bin Laden?

I should add, they released pretty much everything, ( 10,000 pages ) certainly more than enough for their report to be questioned and falsified.

This must be the most idiotic thing ever written on these boards.

The NIST conclusions were based on modeling in a computer.

In other words, the NIST stated they could provide a computer model replicating the collapses of all three buildings according to planes, then fires, then collateral damage and fires.

Of course you can.

But does the INPUTS/RESULTS data being entered MATCH the parameters of PHYSICAL REALITY!?!?

If it does, fine.

Release the data and let models be repeated and subject to falsification.
Let's hope the conspiracy theorists are eventually exposed for the lying cherry-picking pseudo scientifc(sic) frauds that they are.

Aside from forgetting the OS claims it was a conspiracy...

That would be the most apt description you could apply to yourself and I could not write it any better.

You are the one trumpeting the reports of the NIST when you know damn well the conclusions of those reports are not testable and thereby not subject to falsification; therefore, you are the one who can be labeled as pseudo-scientific in this arena.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2017, 03:10:23 PM by totallackey »

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11120
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #526 on: February 18, 2017, 03:06:46 PM »
As for sound of the demos....There were 1000s of people including first responders that heard explosions....You can hear them on video evidence as well.

Here
One of the world's most expensive structural fuck ups (bedrock stacking fuck up)


This is an old school demo, using close to a 1000 charges. Dead silence, not a bustling city area, no windows nor sound deadening completely open. The demo is pretty quiet huh??

(Most demos they remove windows and sound deadening material fyi, it is never a fully intact building ::) )

Now, let's put charges that were designed to be quiet and fool people, in a fully intact building windows and all, in a bustling city with chaos panic sirens etc etc etc AND people still heard explosions lol.....

Let's not get distracted on the hypothetical, this is a typical tactic....Let's stay on known facts
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

Rayzor

  • 11331
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #527 on: February 18, 2017, 03:10:18 PM »
You are the one trumpeting the reports of the NIST when you know damn well the conclusions of those reports are not testable and thereby not subject to falsification; therefore, you are the one who can be labeled as pseudo-scientific in this arena.

Not true,   plenty of their report is under active debate,  has been for years,  maybe you just aren't paying attention.   Maybe your understanding of how science works is flawed.

Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #528 on: February 18, 2017, 03:13:43 PM »
Not true,   plenty of their report is under active debate,  has been for years,  maybe you just aren't paying attention.   Maybe your understanding of how science works is flawed.

Maybe you will notice I have described the scientific method in exact detail.

Maybe you will notice all aspects of models including the inputs and results data must be subject to peer review in order to determine whether they can be repeated and/or falsified in order for actual debate to take place.

Actually, your disingenuous behavior here is beginning to make me sick.

I am trying very hard to avoid a bam hammer, but if you keep this lying _ _ _ _ _ _ _ shit up I think I may go for a perma ban.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2017, 03:56:35 PM by totallackey »

*

Rayzor

  • 11331
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #529 on: February 18, 2017, 03:16:00 PM »


This looks nothing like any video that BHS has posted,   note the way the collapse progresses down the building, does't look anything like free fall demolition.
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11120
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #530 on: February 18, 2017, 03:23:04 PM »
1. There is no direct evidence of explosives or thermite or any other exotic mechanism having been involved with the collapse of the WTC buildings,  no chemical residue,  nothing.
2. If you were going to use explosives,  why would you place the charges so high up in the building?   Nobody in the demolition business does that.
3.  The collapse started from the area where the planes hit. 
4.  On WTC7 the fire department,  knew as early as 2 in the afternoon that WTC7 was likely to collapse due to the fires, it eventually did collapse around 5.  They measured the walls bulging. 

Silence troll...You had your chance and failed...You choose to believe a fairy tale, and stick up for a model we know nothing about. Nor can you speak for yourself or form a single rebuttal except for NIST said it, so it's true.

Oh as for your list above...

1. There is nano thermite in the dust, simple fact. Peer reviewed... Mainstream explanation, from the compression of the towers coming down. This is irrelevant though to the fact the collapse as stated is impossible.

2.One, they weaken the upper areas in demos, two who said they had explosives up there, three in normal demos they aren't trying to make it look like something else.

3.This is dumb...If you are trying to make it look like something?

4. Why would they not?!? They didn't know, they were fucking scared, I would be to. They lost hundreds of men in something that shouldn't of happened... The should or should not would not happen, they were not engineers, they were firemen...Confused and scared... I am an engineer, but if I was in their shoes at that exact moment, I would be scared anything with any fire was going to collapse. "We didn't know what was going on, we just didn't want anymore loss of life, and we didn't know if anything else was going to collapse"...Exact words...They knew nothing, they were scared and rightfully so. Fortunally they haven't had a tower collapse before this or after this from fire (or anything ) in NYC..It's because of trolls like you these people will never find justice.

5. Dumb from too many levels to respond
« Last Edit: February 18, 2017, 03:24:35 PM by Babyhighspeed »
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #531 on: February 18, 2017, 03:24:36 PM »


This looks nothing like any video that BHS has posted,   note the way the collapse progresses down the building, does't look anything like free fall demolition.

I say it looks exactly like a 1300 foot tall building coming down in a controlled demolition.

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11120
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #532 on: February 18, 2017, 03:28:14 PM »


This looks nothing like any video that BHS has posted,   note the way the collapse progresses down the building, does't look anything like free fall demolition.

I have already explained the extra time in previous posts...We weren't starting at free fall, I am not retyping things I have already said to you....Will you please give it up, I want to hear what people who are not trolls have to say. You have proven you have nothing.

Thanks
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

Rayzor

  • 11331
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #533 on: February 18, 2017, 03:50:59 PM »


This looks nothing like any video that BHS has posted,   note the way the collapse progresses down the building, does't look anything like free fall demolition.

I have already explained the extra time in previous posts...We weren't starting at free fall, I am not retyping things I have already said to you....Will you please give it up, I want to hear what people who are not trolls have to say. You have proven you have nothing.

Thanks

No problem,  I'm interested to see what others think of your incoherent ramblings as well.   
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11120
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #534 on: February 18, 2017, 03:59:46 PM »
Wait....Hold on...I knew something looked funny...

I just watched that video you posted.... It's slowed down mother fucker!!!

I was watching the movement of the people at the bottom of the screen..And it was bugging me, I time lapsed it with other footage from a different angle...It's fucking slowed down.

Get out of here rayzor......I never really believed in Internet shills, but you are making me a believer.

You are disgusting
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11120
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #535 on: February 18, 2017, 04:04:04 PM »
Now....Anyone care to address these... I would be happy to entertain them...

Oh man....Why does Rama set and master evar have to join in...They were people I actually liked....Sigh... :(

All I keep hearing is "I believe"...This isn't a Disney show, nor can we click our heals.

Let's stick in reality.....This is where I like to be...

So, planes hitting a building, this is why they wouldn't fall....Simple facts...No thrills...Simple structural engineering...

Please....Someone debunk these with facts, no one has yet...

Let's assume I entertain the model your video shows (which I don't)...

So the plane is allowed to enter without restriction...Pass through the outside vertical exoskeleton and horizontal exoskeleton to the core.

Ok, those few floors are compromised on the 91-93 floors...That would not cause a collapse.

But let's say it did in that area.

It would collapse on itself at the path of least resistance...However, there is not enough damaged and removed material.

So you would have a situation such as this..



However, even if by magic it started a free fall collapse at that 90th floor, it would not make it past the 44th floor because of the doubled core stacking (this building did not have CG sway compensation like newer buildings so CG directional load was set up like older scrappers, more like a sea bowie), the lower 40 was built like a tank compared to the upper sections...Multiples of the mass of the upper decks.

However, if we keep using magic....Let's say it collapsed this area too....We would have this...



Just multiped by a factor 3.8

And not at a free fall...

Would have taken anywhere from minutes to hours..

Stress junctions, their cert load in the 60s was anywhere from 5 times to 100times less than what it could take before complete failure...Not to mention, since the CG was controlled in a more simple "old school" design (as stated, like a sea bowie), the more mass you keep removing from the upper area, the more robust the bottom becomes as well as the CG continues to get lower.

If you had a 40 story WTC center with the same structural design, you would never knock that damn building over, you would have to dismantle that thing  piece by piece.

Unless we are using magic again.


If someone can, I will present 5 more facts to be debunked....If y'all can't, then it's done..


This is how robust buildings are (this didn't fall fyi, not even a bit)


This is how buildings fall when they aren't demoed



Reality....
Watch the tower at 2:39.....This destroys the official story right there without having to know a single thing of structural design.



This here proves that a building close to free fall hits solid ground can land without damage...It doesn't even flinch. It doesn't vaporize itself

Please people...Open your minds. Who perpetrated this is using a combo of y'all's ignorance in structural design and dynamics and fear of marching against mainstream to control you.

But ignoring this...Please, someone debunk these facts with clear concise answers please

As for sound of the demos....There were 1000s of people including first responders that heard explosions....You can hear them on video evidence as well.

Here
One of the world's most expensive structural fuck ups (bedrock stacking fuck up)


This is an old school demo, using close to a 1000 charges. Dead silence, not a bustling city area, no windows nor sound deadening completely open. The demo is pretty quiet huh??

(Most demos they remove windows and sound deadening material fyi, it is never a fully intact building ::) )

Now, let's put charges that were designed to be quiet and fool people, in a fully intact building windows and all, in a bustling city with chaos panic sirens etc etc etc AND people still heard explosions lol.....

Let's not get distracted on the hypothetical, this is a typical tactic....Let's stay on known facts


Everyone is welcome except for confirmed trolls which only excludes rayzor so far.

Directly please, no circular talk or hypothetical. Thanks.
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

Rayzor

  • 11331
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #536 on: February 18, 2017, 05:43:31 PM »
Wait....Hold on...I knew something looked funny...

I just watched that video you posted.... It's slowed down mother fucker!!!

I was watching the movement of the people at the bottom of the screen..And it was bugging me, I time lapsed it with other footage from a different angle...It's fucking slowed down.

Get out of here rayzor......I never really believed in Internet shills, but you are making me a believer.

You are disgusting

You want to double check that claim  before you make yourself look totally stupid.   I'll wait.

Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

Rayzor

  • 11331
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #537 on: February 18, 2017, 05:48:09 PM »
Now....Anyone care to address these... I would be happy to entertain them...

It's so distorted and confused I sincerely doubt anyone actually knows what you are trying to say,  I tried to unravel it several times,  you seem to be saying the building didn't collapse because a totally different building in different circumstances didn't collapse.    Got news for you BHS,  they did actually collapse,  check the video.

As for the demolition videos you keep posting,   what can I say, that's just brain damaged.  If you had a demolition video showing the progressive collapse like we saw on WTC1 and 2,  that might be relevant.



Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 19891
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #538 on: February 18, 2017, 06:35:16 PM »
Quote from: NIST
In a video, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free fall, something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you describe. How can you ignore basic laws of physics?
In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail.
To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video. Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent displacement data. The instant at which vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was determined by tracking the numerical value of the brightness of a pixel (a single element in the video image) at the roofline. This pixel became brighter as the roofline began to descend because the color of the pixel started to change from that of the building façade to the lighter color of the sky.
The approach taken by NIST is summarized in Section 3.6 of the final summary report, NCSTAR 1A (released Nov. 20, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf) and detailed in Section 12.5.3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-9%20Vol%202.pdf).
The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:
Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.

I don't think my views are that detached from reality.

My tone with Rayzor was due to his dishonesty.



I have been explicitly clear that I believe the official story doesn't address the 2.25 second free-fall, I have posted multiple experiments and logical points to explain this.

The only possible explanation for a collapse of gravitational acceleration is controlled demolition.

This is my position.

Edit, sauce.

https://www.nist.gov/pba/questions-and-answers-about-nist-wtc-7-investigation

Rama Set, what do you think of this?

Rayzor, use your words man.
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11120
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #539 on: February 18, 2017, 07:15:03 PM »
Wait....Hold on...I knew something looked funny...

I just watched that video you posted.... It's slowed down mother fucker!!!

I was watching the movement of the people at the bottom of the screen..And it was bugging me, I time lapsed it with other footage from a different angle...It's fucking slowed down.

Get out of here rayzor......I never really believed in Internet shills, but you are making me a believer.

You are disgusting

You want to double check that claim  before you make yourself look totally stupid.   I'll wait.

I did troll...Read the post again.
Now....Anyone care to address these... I would be happy to entertain them...

It's so distorted and confused I sincerely doubt anyone actually knows what you are trying to say,  I tried to unravel it several times,  you seem to be saying the building didn't collapse because a totally different building in different circumstances didn't collapse.    Got news for you BHS,  they did actually collapse,  check the video.

As for the demolition videos you keep posting,   what can I say, that's just brain damaged.  If you had a demolition video showing the progressive collapse like we saw on WTC1 and 2,  that might be relevant.

Usual twisted rayzor bullshit. I never said the buildings never collapsed, what the fuck are you talking about? I posted videos to show how structures absorb stress and impact in the real world for those that are not in that line of work.

The one I said specifically to look at was a still frames/reinforced concrete building of similar design of the trade center. The upper weaker area reached a high speed, then impacted a stationary object...It showed how these structures really react.


Just because you lack the needed mental abilities to debate me does not mean others don't. Now quit responding to me, let others try, they might have what it takes.


Though I will leave you with a few of these

 “I don’t believe for a minute we got everything right”, that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, and that the 9/11 debate should continue"

"White house obstructed our investigation"

Co chair of commission report Lee Hamilton

“There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn’t have access . . . .”

Commissioner Bob Kerry

“It is a national scandal”; “This investigation is now compromised”; and “One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up”.

Max cleland before he resigned from the commission...

This is from the report you idolize... I have plenty more quotes, but know it won't matter to someone like you. Just figured i would let those you idolize argue for me.
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir