IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


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.
Tags David Chandler , free fall , wtc 7

Reply
Old 9th October 2010, 01:54 PM   #1
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
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
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2010, 01:56 PM   #2
T.A.M.
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
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2010, 01:59 PM   #3
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by T.A.M. View Post
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
I quoted the specific section and paragraph (for one of many) for cooperman. He never responded.

Doesn't look good for this "truther" lie.
__________________
"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
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2010, 03:00 PM   #4
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
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
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2010, 03:05 PM   #5
Sam.I.Am
Illuminator
 
Sam.I.Am's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,627
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
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.

But it will kill your fantasies of majikal termites and hush-a-boom bombs...
__________________
"Swift, silent and deadly" was a part of my job description Upon hearing me say that my friend asked me "So you're a fart?"...

About my avatar.
Sam.I.Am is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2010, 04:55 PM   #6
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
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?
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.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2010, 06:16 PM   #7
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
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?
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.
R.Mackey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2010, 11:51 PM   #8
adkinsjr
Thinker
 
adkinsjr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 206
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
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.

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.
adkinsjr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2010, 12:02 AM   #9
Orphia Nay
Penguilicious Spodmaster.
Tagger
 
Orphia Nay's Avatar
 
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.
Orphia Nay is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2010, 06:35 AM   #10
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
 
twinstead's Avatar
 
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
twinstead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2010, 11:41 AM   #11
adkinsjr
Thinker
 
adkinsjr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 206
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
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?
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.

Last edited by adkinsjr; 13th October 2010 at 11:44 AM.
adkinsjr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2010, 12:04 PM   #12
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
I quoted the specific section and paragraph (for one of many) for cooperman. He never responded.

Doesn't look good for this "truther" lie.
Can you link me to this? The draft versions I have include one dated October 2008, but original draft release was August 08.
Final was November 08 IIRC.

thx
__________________
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'
alienentity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2010, 12:26 PM   #13
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
Originally Posted by Orphia Nay View Post
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.
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
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2010, 12:30 PM   #14
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
Originally Posted by T.A.M. View Post
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
And they still get detected by bomb-sniffing dogs. Another canard chases its own tail into oblivion
__________________
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'
alienentity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2010, 12:32 PM   #15
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
Originally Posted by alienentity View Post
And they still get detected by bomb-sniffing dogs. Another canard chases its own tail into oblivion
and they still take up a crapload of space...not easy to hide, even when dressed up in disguise like a windowwasher or the like.

TAM
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2010, 01:04 PM   #16
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
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.
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
Miragememories is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2010, 01:12 PM   #17
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
That should tell you something right there.

Well maybe you might explain how and where the NIST admitted the existence of free fall

NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 2 Chapter 12.5.3

Hope this helps you.

BTW A simple understanding of what you just posted would help.


__________________
"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

Last edited by DGM; 13th October 2010 at 01:14 PM.
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2010, 01:21 PM   #18
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 2 Chapter 12.5.3

Hope this helps you.

BTW A simple understanding of what you just posted would help.


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
Miragememories is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2010, 01:23 PM   #19
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by adkinsjr View Post
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.
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
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2010, 01:30 PM   #20
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
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
I know numbers and math are a problem for you. You do have to actually read the chapter.

BTW: Were you thinking the whole building when you posted what you did?
__________________
"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
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2010, 01:30 PM   #21
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
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).
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
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2010, 01:34 PM   #22
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
 
ElMondoHummus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,282
Originally Posted by T.A.M. View Post
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
Bingo.
__________________
"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."
ElMondoHummus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2010, 03:04 PM   #23
adkinsjr
Thinker
 
adkinsjr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 206
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
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).
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.
adkinsjr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2010, 03:26 PM   #24
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by adkinsjr View Post
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.
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

Last edited by DGM; 13th October 2010 at 03:30 PM.
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2010, 03:38 PM   #25
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
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
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2010, 03:44 PM   #26
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
I know numbers and math are a problem for you. You do have to actually read the chapter.

BTW: Were you thinking the whole building when you posted what you did?
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
Miragememories is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2010, 03:50 PM   #27
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 14,423
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
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
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.
uke2se is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2010, 04:09 PM   #28
adkinsjr
Thinker
 
adkinsjr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 206
Originally Posted by uke2se View Post
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.
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!

Last edited by adkinsjr; 13th October 2010 at 04:11 PM.
adkinsjr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2010, 04:13 PM   #29
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
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
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
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2010, 04:24 PM   #30
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by T.A.M. View Post
Name anyone outside truthers and those interested in building safety, who are interested in WTC7?
People like yourself who are more interested in the status quo than the truth
are of little interest to me.

I believe the thread is David Chandler forced NIST to admit "free-fall".

Why are so many of your posts derails?

MM
Miragememories is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2010, 04:40 PM   #31
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
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.
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
Miragememories is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2010, 04:47 PM   #32
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
People like yourself who are more interested in the status quo than the truth
are of little interest to me.

I believe the thread is David Chandler forced NIST to admit "free-fall".

Why are so many of your posts derails?

MM
I believe that Chandler did not force NIST to admit anything.

Now, just as you did in the post I responded to, I am adding some irrelevant quip at the end. I was responding to your quip that involved my username in the question.

TAM
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2010, 04:55 PM   #33
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
...
Chandler forced the NIST to admit something they clearly did not wish to admit.

... MM
False.
When will you prove it?
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2010, 05:07 PM   #34
adkinsjr
Thinker
 
adkinsjr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 206
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
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.

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.

MM
Why don't you explain it then? What do you think caused the 2.25 seconds of freefall? Hush-bombs? Nanothermite? Roswell aliens?

Quote:
Chandler forced the NIST to admit something they clearly did not wish to admit.
This is called an embellishment. Only followers of the "truth" cult seem to believe that 2.25 sec of free fall = demolition & conspiracy.
adkinsjr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2010, 08:57 PM   #35
fess
Graduate Poster
 
fess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,425
Originally Posted by T.A.M. View Post
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
Thanks for making this statement TAM, I wanted to say the same thing, but the way I had it written would have gotten me suspended.
__________________
My boss told me to stop procrastinating. I think I will… tomorrow.
fess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2010, 11:46 AM   #36
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
MM,

Originally Posted by Miragememories
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.
Agreed.

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
Chandler forced the NIST to admit something they clearly did not wish to admit.
Let's first agree on the sequence of events: NIST did not describe the 3 stages of fall, including stage 2 ("near free fall") in their draft, and did provide that detail in their final report.

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
Of course the NIST knew that a period of free fall occurred and of course they knew such an occurrence was an extraordinary event.
I gotta tell ya that I do not think that it's "an extraordinary event" in the slightest.

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
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.
They didn't do this, as explained above. They used only the collapse time of the north wall from when it started descending until it disappeared from sight.

Originally Posted by Miragememories
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.
Yup.

Originally Posted by Miragememories
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.
First, they did go into extra detail. Not a huge amount.

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
Given the NIST's penchant for details, that omission is also quite extraordinary.
No, it fits quite comfortably into the concept that they just didn't think that this was all that significant.

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

Last edited by tfk; 14th October 2010 at 11:50 AM.
tfk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2010, 11:54 AM   #37
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
 
twinstead's Avatar
 
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
twinstead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2010, 12:13 PM   #38
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
Originally Posted by fess View Post
Thanks for making this statement TAM, I wanted to say the same thing, but the way I had it written would have gotten me suspended.
You are welome. Sometimes you just have to throw your hands up in the air and shout "Noone cares damn it!!"

TAM
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2010, 12:30 PM   #39
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Originally Posted by tfk View Post
...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....
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.
Originally Posted by tfk View Post
...I gotta tell ya that I do not think that it's "an extraordinary event" in the slightest.

I find it highly probable that the NIST engineers didn't find it extraordinary before the final draft came out, or after....
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.
Originally Posted by tfk View Post
...First, they did go into extra detail. Not a huge amount....
..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.
Originally Posted by tfk View Post
...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....
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?

Last edited by ozeco41; 14th October 2010 at 12:31 PM.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2010, 03:13 PM   #40
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
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?
Well, Oz, you know what that means, don'tcha?

It's Miller time.!

Whose turn to buy...?


tom
tfk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:32 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.