20 9/11 Questions Remain Unanswered over 8 Years Later

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by jthomas

 

In all your posts you have repeatedly shown you have yet to even understand question #6 from the OP.

I understood it completely and I have addressed it repeatedly.

You keep distorting it and trying (intentionally, I believe) to misconstrue it to a question of how long the building was in free-fall, which is not what I asked. I clearly asked for an explanation as to how total free-fall of that building is possible.

And I addressed it repeatedly. I can't help it if you find the answer inconvenient - the facts are the facts.

To comprehend the question one should have an understanding of what "free-fall" implies in physics.

To comprehend the answer one needs to pay attention to those who answered it. If you still do not like the answer, or you understand physics and structural engineering differently, you need to explain why and how. That's why we have repeatedly asked you to demonstrate how and why you do not accept the evidence, methodology, computer simulations, and conclusions of those who explained it to you - NIST. You've been completely incapable of articulating any reason whatsoever why we should not accept the NIST report. It's very sad to watch.

And to answer my question per the OP, means you need to find somewhere in the NIST report where this is explained.

To refuse to accept the answer either means you know something about physics and structural engineering that no one else does and you don't want to share it with us, or you're blowing hot air knowing you have nothing to offer.

No one has to do anything except you. We accept the NIST report and until someone can refute it, we have no reason to accept any of your claims to the contrary.

You have certainly demonstrated that you are quite incapable of supporting any of your claims. And every one of your attempts to shift the burden of proof to someone else hits the wall of reality and reason, your avowed enemies.

Come out of your conspiratorial fog, bsbray11, and just admit that you have NOTHING to support your claims. You fool no one. You're just being incredibly silly.

Originally posted by bsbray11
It does not matter how long the free-fall period was when the building is supposed to be in the middle of "collapsing." Any period of free-fall at all of the entire upper half of the building indicates that the building was being totally compromised before the mass even dropped.

Yes, NIST showed the internal structure of WTC 7 being compromised, but not totally compromised when the external walls were collapsing. NIST also confirmed that the 2.25 second period of free fall acceleration was both preceded by, and followed by, periods of slower than free-fall acceleration, in fact 40% slower during the 5.4 second measurement. Even your AE911info.net "expert", David Chandler, who found the free fall period, agrees with that.

So, WTC 7 had not been totally compromised as it collapsed and it did not fall at free-fall except for 2.25 seconds.

So your answer does not have a point.

Are there any other examples of buildings falling like this?

Or even anything near freefall?

Besides controlled demolition of course...

Originally posted by Jezus
Are there any other examples of buildings falling like this?

Or even anything near freefall?

Besides controlled demolition of course...

"This was the first known instance of the total collapse of a tall building primarily due to fires."

NIST NCSTAR 1A p. xxxv

Originally posted by bsbray11
I can post many eyewitness accounts for which bodies hitting the ground is a totally unacceptable explanation of the explosions they heard and/or witnessed.

Uh huh. Knock yerself out. Make sure that they can't be explained away with ease.

Originally posted by bsbray11
I wonder what makes it so hard for you to believe there were bombs detonating underground and elsewhere in the building when the police were even reporting at the time, and reporting vehicles exploding underground. Is it because the mainstream media didn't pound it for 6 months straight after all that was originally reported?

Maybe because the collapse was top-down? Aside from that, nothing of note in particular.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Not having a notable effect is a different beast from "significant effect". In the collapse system of WTC7, arguing drag is analogous to arguing angels on the head of a pin. The measuring data isn't going to resolve down to the sort of precision you want (even if it were relevant).

You missed the point I was making entirely. I was never in my post arguing that drag should have significantly slowed the collapse.

So why even mention it if it's insignificant? Even a casual observer would've recognised that from the get-go.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Only that the structure should provide significantly more "resistance" and that you can't even see EITHER of these things within the margin of error from absolute free-fall in a vacuum.

Why should it if the design wouldn't have introduced it?

Originally posted by bsbray11
So when you DO account for the negligible amount of drag, what is even left over? Are you saying the structure below was basically equivalent to air to begin with?

Why are you so focused on an effector that wouldn't have been in play? That strikes like grasping at straws.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by fitzgibbon
Where do the massive steel columns and braces on every single floor and all of that come into play?

Evidently they didn't in this particular even.

You're right, they didn't. But you don't know why.

Nor would it seem do you. But I don't pretend to know all, see all as you do. Therein lies the difference betwixt thee and me.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by fitzgibbon
Given the unique design of the building, I find that less challenging than you seem to.

"Unique design" is the biggest bunch of bull I have ever seen in place of legitimate science and investigation.

Given that you've provided not one whit of either it's a little disconcerting that you would attempt to call down anyone who presented either.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by fitzgibbon
Two elements that you've been singularly lacking in putting forward. Instead, you expect the reading public to accept on face value your unsupported assertions. Just like every other truther. Precisely because in your own small world, you're right (outside reality notwithstanding).

Every single building in the world is "unique."

Me hind quarters. If you don't appreciate the difference betwixt WTC7 and other buildings then your arguments aren't worth the phosphors to display them.

Originally posted by bsbray11
You aren't telling me squat about the building, and especially nothing about why the building did not provide resistance as it dropped straight to the ground, free-falling. Please be more specific as to how a "unique design" allowed no resistance from the building at all.

Essentially because it was a hollow building. Kind of unique, wouldn't you say?

Originally posted by bsbray11
It's obvious that you aren't looking at it. The energy required for that just is not there.

In your humble, layman's opinion.

Originally posted by bsbray11
You can call me whatever you want but the fact remains that no one has figured out how much "resistance" so much intact structure should theoretically have offered and applied to the collapse model.

Are you a layman or are you not? Your argument suggests you are. If not, please correct me accordlingly.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Instead, NIST and everyone else works ass-backwards saying, well, it obviously wasn't resisted, so the structure itself must have played a negligible role in the collapse of this building. But without bothering to find out why. As if that makes a damned bit of sense. NIST only published garbage like that because someone knew there are tons of stupid Americans who will buy it instantly and without a second thought.

Says the layman. I trust you trust the bus driver whilst thou is riding?

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by fitzgibbon
You'll excuse me if what I've read from more experienced sources doesn't join in lockstep with your disbelief.

Just remember that it was all the experts telling Copernicus why he was so dead wrong about the Earth revolving around the Sun.

Copernicus had evidence on his side. What's your excuse?

Originally posted by bsbray11
Right after 9/11, "experts" also said the steel must have melted.

Absent an opportunity to satisfy themselves otherwise, I guess they did. Are they still saying the same thing?

Originally posted by bsbray11
I am talking about tenured professors, including structural engineers. I can post the relevant quotes and sources if you want to see the ugliness. Or you can just take my word for it, for something that should be obvious anyway, that no number of people that believe something ever make that thing true simply by believing in it. I base my observations on my own knowledge only and my own common sense.

And in retrospect, your experience trumps tenured professors 24/7? If not why're we going down this dead-end street?

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by fitzgibbon
It bears some interesting surface similarities absent two glaring omissions: explosion shockwave and ejecta.

Not all demolitions eject material (besides dust), ......

Dust is ejecta genius. And where's the shockwave?

Originally posted by bsbray11
and plenty enough explosions occurred well before the building actually free-fell to account for the structure being compromised,

You talking about Dylan's explosions? You know....compressed air being forced out of weak spots?

Originally posted by bsbray11
without even bothering to bring up all the steel observed to suffer extreme corrosion from a eutectic reaction.

How about you explain that for the crowd in the third row?

Originally posted by bsbray11
See, I just answered my own question #6 very simply and elegantly, except it doesn't come from a government source: the explosions were what compromised the structure and allowed a total free-fall when the final column went. It was all obviously already out of the way, or else it would not have literally fell as if NOTHING was under it.

To translate, "I'm involved in some mental masturbation that has not a whit of substance behind it". If the government-induced free-fall was what you claim it to be, then why does the speed of collapse only partially match what you claim it should be?

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Originally posted by tezzajw
Fitzgibbon, when you try to claim that a 30% time period during the collapse should be considered 'momentary', it reveals much about your inability to correctly make an informed analysis of what happened.

No. It reveals your clear inability to accept that a flexibly-defined word can mean something other than you choose it to mean.

If this comes up one more time, you'll be a member of my killfile, something reserved for the truly dense

Originally posted by tezzajw
Instead, you tried to disguise the free fall time period as being 'momentary', when it is in fact significant. 30% is a significant result.

In your world. Not necessarily in anyone else's. Get used to it; I suspect it happens more often than you'd care to admit.

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
No. It reveals your clear inability to accept that a flexibly-defined word can mean something other than you choose it to mean.
If this comes up one more time, you'll be a member of my killfile, something reserved for the truly dense.

It revealed your inability to use a mathematically precise term. Describing time as a moment, is an instantaneous point on the contiuum. A continuous 2.25 second time interval bounds infinitely many moments.

Allegedly, the NIST report is supposed to be a mathetically and scientfically precise report. Therefore, your loose and incorrect use of the term 'momentary' to describe a 2.25 second time interval is not appropriate.

You tried to disguise the free fall time period as being 'momentary', when it is in fact significant. 30% (your number) is a significant result.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Any period of free-fall at all of the entire upper half of the building indicates that the building was being totally compromised before the mass even dropped.

Before? No. At the moment of? Yes.

If you can't get your head around this straightforward bit of physics, I can't imagine how you can pretend to understand anything more complicated0

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
No. It reveals your clear inability to accept that a flexibly-defined word can mean something other than you choose it to mean.
If this comes up one more time, you'll be a member of my killfile, something reserved for the truly dense.

It revealed your inability to use a mathematically precise term.

Earth to Tezz. What is the scientifically defined duration of a "moment"? Until you can demonstrate what that might be (beyond your personal assumption) then your continuing assertion is meaningless.

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
Earth to Tezz. What is the scientifically defined duration of a "moment"? Until you can demonstrate what that might be (beyond your personal assumption) then your continuing assertion is meaningless.

A moment in time is an instantaneous point on the contiuum.

It is not, as you claimed, a 2.25 second continuous period. Even more deceptive is when you tried to claim that same time period, representing 30% (your number) of the collapse time, was only momentary!

Laughable. Your deception has been well and truly exposed, Fitzgibbon.

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
Earth to Tezz. What is the scientifically defined duration of a "moment"? Until you can demonstrate what that might be (beyond your personal assumption) then your continuing assertion is meaningless.

A moment in time is an instantaneous point on the contiuum.

It is not, as you claimed, a 2.25 second continuous period. Even more deceptive is when you tried to claim that same time period, representing 30% (your number) of the collapse time, was only momentary!

Laughable. Your deception has been well and truly exposed, Fitzgibbon.

Earth to Tezz. What is the scientifically defined duration of a "moment"? Until you can demonstrate what that might be (beyond your personal assumption) then your continuing assertion is meaningless.

Still waiting for the scientific (non-Tezz) definition

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
Earth to Tezz. What is the scientifically defined duration of a "moment"?

It's been defined, so you'll need to read and understand the answer.

Your deception, in trying to define a 30% (your number) time period as being 'momentary' has been exposed, Fitzgibbon.

A continuous 2.25 second time period is not momentary, it is significant.

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
Earth to Tezz. What is the scientifically defined duration of a "moment"?

It's been defined, so you'll need to read and understand the answer.

Your deception, in trying to define a 30% (your number) time period as being 'momentary' has been exposed, Fitzgibbon.

A continuous 2.25 second time period is not momentary, it is significant.

Earth to Tezz. What is the scientifically defined duration of a "moment"?

You can keep dodging and avoiding but that won't make you seem any more knowledgeable.

Your opinion is your opinion alone. Unless there's a scientific qualifier on what constitutes a "moment" then you're urinating into the wind.

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
Earth to Tezz. What is the scientifically defined duration of a "moment"?

I've scientifically and mathematically defined for you what a moment in time is. A moment in time is a single point on the time contiuum.

Your deception, in trying to define a 30% (your number) time period as being 'momentary' has been exposed, Fitzgibbon.

A continuous 2.25 second time period is not momentary, it is significant.

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
Earth to Tezz. What is the scientifically defined duration of a "moment"?

I've scientifically and mathematically defined for you what a moment in time is.

No, you've told the world about your personal definition. Not the same thing. Please provide the world with an accepted scientific definition of what constitues a "moment". Either that or STFU on the matter until you canm.

Pretty simple stuff there Tezz old man.

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
Please provide the world with an accepted scientific definition of what constitues a "moment". Either that or STFU on the matter until you canm.

I've scientifically and mathematically defined for you what a moment in time is. A moment in time is a single point on the time contiuum.

Your deception, in trying to define a 30% (your number) time period as being 'momentary' has been exposed, Fitzgibbon.

A continuous 2.25 second time period is not momentary, it is significant.

Further repition of this answer will attract the attention of the Moderators, so I will refrain from reposting the same definition of what a moment in time is, as you're clearly unable to understand the definition provided for you.

Your documented confusion, trying to distort a 30% (your number) time period as being momentary is clearly preserved on the screen for all ATS viewers to see.

WTC 7 fell for 2.25 seconds at free fall rate. This is not momentary, as you claimed. It is a significant portion of the collapse time.

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
Please provide the world with an accepted scientific definition of what constitues a "moment". Either that or STFU on the matter until you canm.

I've scientifically and mathematically defined for you what a moment in time is. A moment in time is a single point on the time contiuum.

No. You just keep repeating what you feel a moment should be as if your definition should bind the world. Nice ego, Tezz.

Originally posted by tezzajw
Your deception, in trying to define a 30% (your number) time period as being 'momentary' has been exposed, Fitzgibbon.

You keep repeating that you don't agree, Fine. Your right to disagree, Not your right to define for all and sundry what a flexible term should be.

Originally posted by tezzajw
A continuous 2.25 second time period is not momentary, it is significant.

Further repition of this answer will attract the attention of the Moderators,

So long as you insist that all others must bow down to your definition of a user-definable term, you will meet contradiction. Polite contradiction is well within the MA of ATS. If I called you a blithering idiot, that would be over the line. Asserting that you are incorrect to demand that your definition of "moment" should be all-encompassing and binding is a difference of opinion which you will not trump on.

Originally posted by tezzajw
so I will refrain from reposting the same definition of what a moment in time is, as you're clearly unable to understand the definition provided for you.

You could silence this dispute by simply finding a universal definition for "momentary" that doesn't doesn't include my usage. Should be quite easy all in all shouldn't it?

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
You could silence this dispute by simply finding a universal definition for "momentary" that doesn't doesn't include my usage. Should be quite easy all in all shouldn't it?

The dispute has been finalised, many posts ago.

Your deception, in trying to define a 30% (your number) time period as being 'momentary' has been exposed, Fitzgibbon.

A continuous 2.25 second time period is not momentary, it is significant.

Your documented confusion, trying to distort a 30% (your number) time period as being momentary is clearly preserved on the screen for all ATS viewers to see.

WTC 7 fell for 2.25 seconds at free fall rate. This is not momentary, as you claimed. It is a significant portion of the collapse time.

Originally posted by bsbray11

I'm left to figure out how the top part of the building could free-fall while the part below is supposed to be crushing and grinding into the ground?

Yes, if you can understand what NIST says, go ahead.

Isn't educating yourself, and learning something much better than having this stuff spoon fed to you?

Or are you not interested in educating yourself?

Personally, I'd feel embarassed if I was told that everything I need to learn, and given directions and portions to read to educate myself about something I was interested in....... and then refused to actually put some effort into it.

But I guess you're not.

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
You could silence this dispute by simply finding a universal definition for "momentary" that doesn't doesn't include my usage. Should be quite easy all in all shouldn't it?

The dispute has been finalised, many posts ago.

Your deception, in trying to define a 30% (your number) time period as being 'momentary' has been exposed, Fitzgibbon.

A continuous 2.25 second time period is not momentary, it is significant.

Your documented confusion, trying to distort a 30% (your number) time period as being momentary is clearly preserved on the screen for all ATS viewers to see.

WTC 7 fell for 2.25 seconds at free fall rate. This is not momentary, as you claimed. It is a significant portion of the collapse time.

Tezz,

Are you or are you not going to find that scientific/mathematical definition of "moment" so you can stuff it down my throat in glory? And clearly your obsession with the 30% figure points out your lack of understanding of the underlying argument that propagated it.

Sad really