|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
9th October 2010, 01:54 PM | #1 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
David Chandler forced NIST to admit "free-fall"
Why do "truthers" continue to make this claim? I've been re-reading the "draft" version of NCSTAR 1-9 and have seen several references to this portion of the collapse. Chapter 12 for instance has several (including graphs).
Where did this "forced to admit" come from? |
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
9th October 2010, 01:56 PM | #2 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
|
I am still waiting for Cooperman or RedIbis to produce proof of this canard. I suspect I will see little evidence, but I am sure someone (I wonder) will be along shortly with another irrelevant comment.
TAM |
9th October 2010, 01:59 PM | #3 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
9th October 2010, 03:00 PM | #4 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
I just want to add, For those that consider a "keyword" search reading a report. "Free-fall" is not going to get you anywhere. This is one of those times you'll have to suck it up and actually read the damn thing. Trust me, it won't kill you.
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
9th October 2010, 04:55 PM | #6 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
One of the central premises of truther mythology is that "free fall" must mean demolition and that free fall cannot occur in "natural" collapses. Utter nonsense of course but they are not targeting the physics literate sector of society.
So there it is up front in so many of their claims "free fall", implying or explicitly stated as proof of demolition and the complementary part of alleged denial by authorities such as NIST. |
9th October 2010, 06:16 PM | #7 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
|
Because the Truth Movement isn't about finding answers to valid questions. It's about "teh Pwnage." All they want, all they care about is validation of their own beliefs and self image.
This is part of the reason the Truth Movement is almost entirely confined to the Internet. |
12th October 2010, 11:51 PM | #8 |
Thinker
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 206
|
Not true, just hit CTRL F
I was just now looking through the draft to find references to "free fall" after I had heard from several truthers that NIST had been "forced" to accept freefall by Chandler. I was also searching this forum to see if any truthers had regurgitated it here. |
13th October 2010, 12:02 AM | #9 |
Penguilicious Spodmaster.
Tagger Join Date: May 2005
Location: Ponylandistan Presidential Palace (above the Spods' stables).
Posts: 45,217
|
Free-fall was supposed to be evidence of explosives. Thermite is not an explosive. Yet truthers still want to have their cake and eat it too.
|
13th October 2010, 06:35 AM | #10 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,374
|
mmmmmm....cake......
|
__________________
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison |
|
13th October 2010, 11:41 AM | #11 |
Thinker
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 206
|
I think they're talking about the NIST preliminary report for public comment. I can't link it here because I'm under 15 posts.
The claim is that they were somehow "forced" by Chandler to include a few seconds of freefall in the final report, which they omitted in the prelim. Spooky huh? It's not clear exactly how he "forced" NIST though. It sounds like more "truth" mythology and rumor. |
13th October 2010, 12:04 PM | #12 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
|
|
__________________
Heiwa - 'Anyone suggesting that part C structure can one-way crush down part A structure is complicit to mass murder!' 000063 - 'Problem with the Truthers' theories is that anyone with enough power to pull it off doesn't need to in the first place.' mrkinnies 'I'm not a no-planer' 'I don't believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon' |
|
13th October 2010, 12:26 PM | #13 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
|
Well yes, and the PERFECT example of this is from the Thermite High Priest himself.
As I have linked to, and discussed many times, Steven Jones, when confronted and debunked by Dr. Greening via email, in desperation, described that the thermite must have been used simply as FUSES for more TRADITIONAL EXPLOSIVES. Of course, the problem with this, is that traditional explosives still go BOOM!!!! TAM |
13th October 2010, 12:30 PM | #14 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
|
|
__________________
Heiwa - 'Anyone suggesting that part C structure can one-way crush down part A structure is complicit to mass murder!' 000063 - 'Problem with the Truthers' theories is that anyone with enough power to pull it off doesn't need to in the first place.' mrkinnies 'I'm not a no-planer' 'I don't believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon' |
|
13th October 2010, 12:32 PM | #15 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
|
|
13th October 2010, 01:04 PM | #16 |
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
|
That should tell you something right there.
Well maybe you might explain how and where the NIST admitted the existence of free fall from; August 21st, 2008, approximately 7 years after 9/11 NIST NCSTAR 1-9 Vol2 cs for Public Comment SUMMARY OF FINDINGS "The theoretical time for free fall (i.e., neglecting air friction), was computed from, where t is the descent time (s), h is the distance fallen (ft), and g is the gravitational acceleration constant, 32.2 ft/s2 (9.81 m/s2). Upon substitution of h = 242 ft. in the above equation, the estimated free fall time for the top of the north face to fall 18 stories was approximately 3.9 s. The uncertainty in this value was also less than 0.1 s. Thus, the actual time for the upper 18 stories to collapse, based on video evidence, was approximately 40 percent longer than the computed free fall time and was consistent with physical principles. The actual collapse time of the upper 18 floors of the north face of WTC 7 (the floors clearly visible in the video evidence) was 40 percent greater than the computed free fall time. This was consistent with physical principles." PRINCIPAL FINDINGS "The collapse time of the upper 18 stories of the north face of WTC 7 (the floors clearly visible in the video evidence) was 40 percent greater than the computed free fall time. This is consistent with physical principles." The NIST did not make the free fall acknowledgement until their final report after public comment; NIST WTC7 FINAL - 1A Report 1-29-09_FINALREV SUMMARY "The observed descent time of the upper 18 stories of the north face of WTC 7 (the floors clearly visible in the video evidence) was 40 percent greater than the computed free fall time. A more detailed analysis of the descent of the north face found three stages: (1) a slow descent with acceleration less than that of gravity that corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns at the lower floors, (2) a freefall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s, and (3) a decreasing acceleration as the north face encountered resistance from the structure below." MM |
13th October 2010, 01:12 PM | #17 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
13th October 2010, 01:21 PM | #18 |
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
|
How does this represent an admission that there was a period of free fall?
"Thus, the actual time for the upper 18 stories to collapse, based on video evidence, was approximately 40 percent longer than the computed free fall time and was consistent with physical principles." BTW A simple understanding of what you just posted would help. MM |
13th October 2010, 01:23 PM | #19 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
The "draft" version is the version that they are talking about. The problem is NIST did not show enough emphasis for them. The data has always been there. (Just not in "truther" speak). Chandler did in fact "force" them to explain it more thoroughly (put more in to layman's terms).
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
13th October 2010, 01:30 PM | #20 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
13th October 2010, 01:30 PM | #21 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
|
if by forced, you mean "cause them generously provide elaboration for those few people claiming that freefall is significant", then yes...he forced them.
There was no gun to their heads, no large body of science countering their theory, no large contingent of scientists demanding answers (sorry, the 1300 mix bag of paranoids, twats, and occasional misled person over at Ae911 dont count). TAM |
13th October 2010, 01:34 PM | #22 |
0.25 short of being half-witted
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,282
|
|
__________________
"AND ZEPPELINS!!! We haven't even begun to talk about Zeppelins yet! Marauding inflatable Teutonic johnsons waggling their way across the sky! Indecent and flammable all at once." |
|
13th October 2010, 03:04 PM | #23 |
Thinker
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 206
|
Draft Report NIST NCSTAR 1-9: “Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of World Trade Center Building 7”, issued by NIST August 21st, 2008
The implication that "truthers" were giving me was that NIST was forced to divuldge information that they were trying to withhold. Are you saying the data was in the draft version, or existed elsewhere? I haven't read the entire thing, I was just looking for indications of this 2.25 seconds of free fall that "truthers" are foaming at the mouth over. |
13th October 2010, 03:26 PM | #24 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
The data in the draft (for public comment) that Chandler responded to did not change. Specifically the data that went into and came out of the model. What Chandler did was made them brake down what they already had into individual segments of the total collapse. NIST treated it as one event, "truthers" wanted to focus on one aspect and view it in isolation. NIST obliged and broke it down (in the final) into 3 segments and elaborated on the middle (free-fall) more.
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
13th October 2010, 03:38 PM | #25 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
One plus side to Chandlers criticism. It did make the wording in the conclusions a little more "laymen" friendly.
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
13th October 2010, 03:44 PM | #26 |
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
|
Denial appears to a problem with you.
I have no problem with legitimate numbers. In their final report, the NIST conceded to 8 storeys of free fall. In their pre-release for public comment, they made no such concession. You and T.A.M. can think what you like, but such free fall is an extraordinary event and not something of minor interest. MM |
13th October 2010, 03:50 PM | #27 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 14,423
|
I think we have our answer to why twoofers think Chandler forced NIST to admit to free fall. They simply have a different way of looking at reality than us. We see this as something that was apparent from NIST's reports from the beginning but not seen as significant. Twoofers see this as something that NIST tried to hide from the public - i.e, INSIDE JOBBY JOB!!!
It's the conspiracy mindset acting up. Nothing more. |
13th October 2010, 04:09 PM | #28 |
Thinker
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 206
|
I agree, I don't see the great scandal behind all this. The more I look into their preposterous claims, the more skeptical I become of their "truth" cult. They seem to be flooding the internet with extremely embellished facts- like 2.25 seconds of free fall. woooo, spooky!
|
13th October 2010, 04:13 PM | #29 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
|
Name anyone outside truthers and those interested in building safety, who are interested in WTC7?
There is no one. And even if you, and Gage, and DRG, and the others get on the rooftops and yell it. Even if Rand and Ron Paul take over the USG, NO ONE ELSE WILL GIVE A **** ABOUT WTC7, freefall or not. TAM |
13th October 2010, 04:24 PM | #30 |
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
|
|
13th October 2010, 04:40 PM | #31 |
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
|
The data was neither the NIST's or Chandler's. It was always there for anyone who had a decent copy of the WTC 7 collapse video.
Chandler forced the NIST to admit something they clearly did not wish to admit. Of course the NIST knew that a period of free fall occurred and of course they knew such an occurrence was an extraordinary event. By not breaking the collapse sequence down, they could use the whole period from the start of the east penthouse collapse and ignore the 8 storeys of free fall. After Chandler's video went viral and embarrassed them, the NIST came up with a "detailed analysis" which they only referred to in their summary. Unlike the many pages they wrote about the global collapse as described by their computer model, the NIST did not go into any additional detail explaining the 8-storey free fall mechanism. Given the NIST's penchant for details, that omission is also quite extraordinary. MM |
13th October 2010, 04:47 PM | #32 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
|
|
13th October 2010, 04:55 PM | #33 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
|
13th October 2010, 05:07 PM | #34 |
Thinker
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 206
|
Why don't you explain it then? What do you think caused the 2.25 seconds of freefall? Hush-bombs? Nanothermite? Roswell aliens?
Quote:
|
13th October 2010, 08:57 PM | #35 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,425
|
|
__________________
My boss told me to stop procrastinating. I think I will… tomorrow. |
|
14th October 2010, 11:46 AM | #36 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
|
MM,
Originally Posted by Miragememories
Do you agree that this applies to any & all video & photo evidence taken by anybody on 9/11 (other than copyrights)? That the government has neither the opportunity nor the technology to reach out to all those private & news service videos & photographs & alter them somehow?
Originally Posted by Miragememories
Furthermore, I'll agree that they did so as a result of Chandler's comments & its high profile as a result of truthers' vocality. I will admit that, while I strongly disagree, this is one possible interpretation of the sequence of events. My interpretation is that they may, or may not, have known about those details. Someone clearly examined the video in detail, & extracted the timing of several events, including the east penthouse fall, the swaying of the building, the start of the north wall collapse & the time that the wall disappeared from sight. [BTW, you need to fix one of your assertions. The 40% greater time does NOT reach back to the collapse of the East Penthouse. It only includes the Stage 1, 2 & 3 fall, all of which represent north wall collapse time to disappearance from view, and took 5.4 seconds. Free fall would be 3.9 seconds, so 5.4 / 3.9 seconds = 1.38 ≈ 40% longer than free fall. The EP fall began 6.9 seconds before the start of the fall of the north wall. If NIST had stretched the clock back that far, then they would have claimed that it took (6.9+5.4) / 3.9 = 3.16 ≈ 320% longer than free fall. Clearly they did not do this. [See Table 12-2 in NCSTAR1-9, vol 2.] Perhaps someone plotted out the height versus time for the fall. Perhaps not. It is distinctly possible that someone simply provided the start & stop times for those events. My point is that it is very likely (IMO certain) that, if they did see that curve, structural engineers would not find the near free fall to be surprising in the slightest. Especially in view of the slow (1.75 second Stage 1) onset, which serves to clearly distinguish this collapse from a CD. (A CD would go into near free fall immediately, not after a 1.75 second delay. And since they would not find this timing to be significant, they would very likely leave it out of the report. Just like they've left out many thousands of details that they've judged to be not significant. (Signal to noise ratio, don't ya know.) I would like you to concede this point, that they may have left it out because they did not judge it to be significant, as I have conceded the point above. As a POSSIBILITY, even if you don't believe it to be true.
Originally Posted by Miragememories
I find it highly probable that the NIST engineers didn't find it extraordinary before the final draft came out, or after. Do you have any evidence to suggest that NIST engineers considered it to be "extraordinary"? Or is this just your belief because you think that it is extraordinary?
Originally Posted by Miragememories
Originally Posted by Miragememories
Originally Posted by Miragememories
Perhaps, as I stated above (& I believe that I could make a compelling case to another engineer, anyway) that they simply didn't think that it was important. But I'd ask you to concede that, IF NIST simply didn't think this was all that significant, then all the events that you've found "extraordinary" become perfectly ordinary. ___ Supporting the idea that NIST may have thought that it was not hugely significant, it strikes me, for several reasons, that they may have put a junior engineer on this task. Now, I might be wrong about all of this. Perhaps one of the senior guys produced this analysis & these figures. But I don't think so.
Originally Posted by Miragememories
Their job was primarily two-fold. Find out why it collapsed and how to change the building codes to decrease the probability that progressive collapses happen in the future. Neither one of these goals would have been furthered in the slightest by more manpower applied to the question of "what did the 2.25 seconds of near free fall signify?" Especially since they all already know exactly what it signifies: nothing unexpected. tom |
14th October 2010, 11:54 AM | #37 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,374
|
I just think somebody should alert those who have implemented any of the building code changes that the NIST suggested to the fact that the NIST has no idea what they are talking about, and just may be covering up mass murder. Lives are at stake, people!!11!!!
|
__________________
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison |
|
14th October 2010, 12:13 PM | #38 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
|
|
14th October 2010, 12:30 PM | #39 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
It isn't surprising. The ONLY reason we discuss free fall is because the truth movement has attempted to set up the false situation where free fall means demolition; where free fall cannot happen naturally. Utter nonsense and those engineers who support the dishonesty should seriously consider why they choose to be professionally untruthful.
There is no reason why they or you should see it as extraordinary other than for purposes of responding to truth movement lies. And, for my money, responding to lies is risky because it tends to give those lies credibility which they do not warrant. ..and, by going along with "truthers" allowed more opportunities for truther lies. Maybe they shouldn't have tried to explain. Who knows - no matter how far you go appeasing truther dishonesty the goalposts simply move. I am one engineer doesn't need you to make a compelling case. How could any reasonable engineer predict the extent to which truthers would misrepresent natural physics phenomena? |
14th October 2010, 03:13 PM | #40 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
|
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|