Data About 9/11 I'd really like to see...

I appreciate the point you are trying to make with asking these answers. There are a lot of ATS members trying to defuse your questioning and that is how these things work. Sometimes this can be helpfull to make your case water-tight. It is a like debuggng a program...

I didn't read the 911-commision report so I do not know if their investigation did include your wish list. Because you cannot find any answers to your questions this was probably not investigated or not made public in the media or in the commision report.

The crime that happened that day of is such an immense proportion that it deserves the countries best investigators on it. Your questions should have been covered by these investigators because such information is important to know for who was where, doing what..

If your questions were never investigated it will confirm once more that a bunch of amateurs were leading the investigation or that they didn't consider it being worth the time........the outcome of the report was already known so why bother.

Now that I have put on my tin-foil hat I would like to add that .....it is nice to ask yourself all these questions and to gather more evidence but if nobody has the authority and will to open-up a new official independent investigation nothing will happen.

The organisers responisble for 911 have spent decades to put men on strategic positions in militairy, industry and government and have become so powerful and organised that they will get away with everything and anything they want.

I know that it is off topic and i am sorry for that but last but not least.......it will not surprise me if the entire election procedure for the president of the US and other important elections in the US are designed in such a way that is can be controlled.

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by GoldenFleece

 

Maybe should show the DAMAGED SIDE of the building

Here is video of south face of WTC 7

www.911myths.com...

I see smoke and a few small fires. Nothing that would cause a steel-framed building to collapse and certainly nothing like the Hotel Mandarin fire that engulfed the ENTIRE building:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2578d659fda1.jpg[/atsimg]

Certainly nothing like the Madrid Windsor fire:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/70dc791270ae.jpg[/atsimg]

Certainly nothing like The Beijing CCTV tower fire:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/989c5146c439.png[/atsimg]

Certainly not like any steel-framed, high-rise fire in HISTORY.

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by jthomas

 

Trace the posts back to what I was originally asking. I asked to see specific data relevant to WTC7.

You wanted to know what the "massive forces" were. Now you have learned.

And yes, physics applied to WTC 7 as well.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by jthomas
"Deserve" is not very meaningful when you are trying to convince someone to get a new investigation that there are valid reasons for your questions.

Fortunately I will never have to convince you, before we get a new investigation. You are not an authority.

Yes, indeed. That makes two of us. Correct me if I am wrong, have you not been trying to convince all of us that there are "reasons" for a new investigation?

And no, not all the experts already agree with you. Hundreds of them from every major field of science and engineering, and other fields to boot. Just give it time.

Yes, there is that group, "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth", which is trying to approach physics and structural engineering by a petition to Congress expressing "doubt":

TO THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND
OF THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Please Take Notice That:

On Behalf of the People of the United States of America, the undersigned Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and affiliates hereby petition for, and demand, a truly independent investigation with subpoena power in order to uncover the full truth surrounding the events of 9/11/01 – specifically the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7. We believe there is sufficient doubt about the official story to justify re-opening the 9/11 investigation. The new investigation must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that might have been the actual cause of the destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7.

Sincerely,

www.ae911truth.org...

- They are claiming that the "full truth" has not been "uncovered."
- They are claiming the need to investigate the "possible use of explosives."

As I've said before, expressions of "doubt" won't get anyone very far. They will actually have to demonstrate the validity of those claims.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think you agree with them and their approach.

Maybe in the mean time you can go learn what a logical fallacy is!

I am always happy for anyone to point out any logical fallacies I have made. Feel free to point them out.

Come on, go Google the NIST report and try to find their evidence so you can actually prove something for once.

I have nothing I need to prove. Looking at what A&E is trying to do shows you that.



[edit on 6-4-2010 by jthomas]

Originally posted by jthomas
You wanted to know what the "massive forces" were. Now you have learned.

Really?

All you did was copy and paste generic equations you found on Google. You never even plugged a single variable into them or did a single operation.


I don't think you read back and found the question I originally asked.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by jthomas
You wanted to know what the "massive forces" were. Now you have learned.

Really?

Yes.

All you did was copy and paste generic equations you found on Google. You never even plugged a single variable into them or did a single operation

I didn't plug in any variables. I showed you how to do it. You can plug in those variables yourself and show us how much physics actually supports your own claims.

Originally posted by jthomas
I didn't plug in any variables. I showed you how to do it. You can plug in those variables yourself and show us how much physics actually supports your own claims.

You're confused. I made no claim about WTC7. I asked to see the energy conservation analysis of the falling body.

If it's in the NIST report then it would be simple to post a link. Don't link me to the acceleration curve though because I know the difference.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by jthomas
I didn't plug in any variables. I showed you how to do it. You can plug in those variables yourself and show us how much physics actually supports your own claims.

You're confused. I made no claim about WTC7. I asked to see the energy conservation analysis of the falling body.

Let's review what you wrote above:

"That's right, free-falling as it does this, I want to see an energy calculation for what would otherwise automatically be considered extremely impossible. Not the actual acceleration curve measured, and just forcing the energy calculations to fit around that, but the acceleration curve for a building that is simultaneously performing all of the work that would actually be necessary for so much destruction. This is something else you'd think NIST would have already thought of and explained in great depth since it makes absolutely no sense, but no, instead they just ignore and down-play the issue and naturally a legion of numbskulls who don't understand this and probably have never had a physics course in their lives assume everything is okay and has been answered already. Welcome to America I guess."

So, yes, you have made claims about WTC 7.

If it's in the NIST report then it would be simple to post a link. Don't link me to the acceleration curve though because I know the difference.

You have made claims that something is missing from the NIST Report that you claim should be there.

I am simply questioning the validity of your claim. Show us how and why you claims are valid.

reply to post by jthomas


Have you ever read the NIST report on WTC7, jthomas?

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by jthomas

 

Have you ever read the NIST report on WTC7, jthomas?

Not in its entirety. I am waiting for you to show what's wrong with it and why.

reply to post by jthomas


I am asking you to help me find something from the WTC7 report that I don't see anywhere in it, despite looking since it was released.

Can you comprehend that?

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by jthomas

 

I am asking you to help me find something from the WTC7 report that I don't see anywhere in it, despite looking since it was released.

Can you comprehend that?

Did you miss my response above? Let me repeat:

"You have made claims that something is missing from the NIST Report that you claim should be there.

"I am simply questioning the validity of your claim. Show us how and why you claims are valid."

reply to post by jthomas


I am explaining to you the validity of my claim that something is missing from the WTC7 report.

Let me repeat to you, I am looking for a conservation of energy analysis on the falling building. I have looked in NIST's WTC7 report since it's been out and haven't been able to find it. Have you seen this data and can you show me where to find it please?

Thank you.

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by jthomas

 

I am explaining to you the validity of my claim that something is missing from the WTC7 report.

Sorry, you have not shown us that "what is missing" is valid.

Let me repeat to you, I am looking for a conservation of energy analysis on the falling building. I have looked in NIST's WTC7 report since it's been out and haven't been able to find it. Have you seen this data and can you show me where to find it please?

Thank you.

You still haven't shown us why what you claim is "missing" should be there to begin with. Sorry, just because YOU claim something is "missing" doesn't mean that it "should" be there. You have to demonstrate WHY it is valid.

I keep asking you for that. Do you intend to do that or not?

reply to post by jthomas


If I am going to prove that it shouldn't be there in the first place, does that mean you are admitting that what I'm asking for, is not in the report?

If not, then I would like to know what page you found this energy analysis of the falling mass on.

reply to post by GoldenFleece

Ahhh, I see. So this steel-framed building collapsed neatly on it's footprint...

Except that it didn't really do that.

What has happened is, certain "truth" sites keep repeating that adage. Contrary to the actual photographs of the aftermath. Have you not seen those? It is clear that much WTC 7 debris was well outside what I think you are claiming as its "footprint".

Unless your definition of "footprint" is different than what I think you mean? To clarify, to me (and I assume most) "footprint" implies within the boundaries and confines of the original perimeter of the building, as it stood.

Sadly for the (collapsed within its own footprint" crowd, photographic evidence shows otherwise.

Here is the Verizon building, all the way accross the street from WTC 7:



Conspiracy-related sites don't want people to see that fact.

...which would've required every structural support column to have failed within milliseconds of each other)...

Care to support that claim?

"EVERY" support? Nah, that goes beyond logic and reason. Just as you see other building failures, and how they progress, you see it with WTC 7.

Comparing to CD is the red-herring, though. They LOOK much alike, but only because once initiated, they procedure is about the same.

CD charges don't destroy EVERY structural support column "within milliseconds of each other" either. Certain critical, load-bearing junctures. Gravity does the rest. Just as gravity overwhelmed the already weakened structure of WTC 7, eventually. Heat from the fires contributed to the failures of over-stressed structural members.


I had a though this PM...I wish there were an ACTUAL person who owns a CD company, and has experience who would come here and explain from their point of view.

BECAUSE, I'd like to ask him/her just HOW a 47-story building could be pre-rigged (since it would have had to be pre-rigged, right? Hundreds or thousands of man-hours of work involved. Not possible to do it in just a few hours, that morining....).

HOW could the darn thing be rigged with explosives, THEN have the unpredictable debris from North Tower fall on it, THEN have out of control fires rage, on multiple floors, for better part of a day, and NOT affect, nor interfere, with any of the "pre-rigged" explosive charges!?

How?


[edit on 6 April 2010 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by GoldenFleece

I see smoke and a few small fires. Nothing that would cause a steel-framed building to collapse and certainly nothing like the Hotel Mandarin fire that engulfed the ENTIRE building:

Maybe should get eyes examined?

Explain how can see smoke pouring out from almost every floor does not
equal serious fires ?

Also what experience do you have in fire science or structural engineering
to make such a conclusion?

Video analysis on You Tube does not qualify.....

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by jthomas

 

If I am going to prove that it shouldn't be there in the first place, ...

No, you are going to tell us why it should be. Don't you know?

reply to post by weedwhacker


well since you are defining footprint as such, can you provide any example of any collapse or CD that has fell within its own footprint? From your definition I wouldnt think that it was even possible.....

Your picture of the verizon building would actually lead one to believe that building 2, which you state was across the street from it, had projectiles flying from it as if there was an explosion from within....right?



[edit on 6-4-2010 by jeffiriff]

Originally posted by jthomas
No, you are going to tell us why it should be

No, first you are going to admit this data isn't there.

Then we can talk about whether or not it "should be."