20 9/11 Questions Remain Unanswered over 8 Years Later

Originally posted by bsbray11

When something accelerates at the rate of gravity, it necessarily means all contacts to structural supports have been removed.

Obviously, You never bothered to watch this video:

WTC 7 Collapse with Debris Impact Damage – Physics Based Model
Credit: NIST

www.nist.gov... (Video at upper right)

Get back to us only after you support your claims of "controlled demolition" and have refuted the NIST report.

Or do the right thing and admit you cannot do either.

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by Joey Canoli

 

Wow. Yet the exact same "competent individuals" are unable to explain it or even say where in the report an explanation can be found.

As long as there is no answer, I'll just keep posting threads like this for 8 more years.

As long as you refuse to support your claims and pretend you don't have to you certainly will stay stuck here for at least 8 more years.

But that is the nature of 9/11 "Truth."

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by rush969

 

Once again, what does that have to do with an 8-mile debris spread or the witness testimonies of hearing missiles, all of that?

Do you know what kind of distance 8 miles is, off the top of your head?

Sorry but this is not what I was discussing. I guess these would be questions 21 and 22.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
It would be a waste of time and bandwidth.

Would "be a waste of time and bandwidth" to explain how WTC7 could accelerate at the rate of gravity as it was still in the middle of "collapsing," yet even more pointless bickering about isn't a waste of bandwidth?

Originally posted by jthomas
You need to support your claim that "I just realize that the only way to accomplish this is with a controlled demolition."

You will find the proof when you realize there is no good answer to the question that I keep asking you. That YOU keep evading and refusing to look at seriously. So bear with me and try to demonstrate how a building can "collapse" at the rate of gravity, as if all of it's structural support had already been removed beforehand.

Originally posted by rush969
Sorry but this is not what I was discussing. I guess these would be questions 21 and 22.

Haha, well nice try anyway I suppose.

I'd like to get to the 20 on the OP before we start making up more of them to respond to, that I haven't even asked.

reply to post by jthomas


I just watched that entire video and I did not see anything at all that could be interpreted as an answer to my very specific question,

How could WTC7 accelerate at the rate of gravity, as it all of the structural support had been compromised and removed ahead of the falling building?

Is there a specific quote or time mark in the video you would like me to look at in particular?



It looks like the video actually debunks their own position. Two reasons:

(a) NIST admits there was still a lot of structure left under the collapsing building when their theoretical initiating event occurred, meaning there was still structure that would have provided force against the falling building and prevented it from accelerating at the rate of gravity,

and

(b) Sunder's only argument against explosives is that it would have made a noise and someone would have heard it. Well, would you like for me to post the video testimony of people who did hear explosions in WTC7, including one that erupted from the lobby the very instant before it began "collapsing"???

Gross and NIST have simply displayed the arrogance that pervades many many federal and sate agencies after watching that video of Gross trying to ignore the molten steel coming out of one of the towers it only convinces me more that much like the Kean Commission,FEMA and NIST wanted all these questions to just go away.

Originally posted by jthomas
As long as you refuse to support your claims and pretend you don't have to you certainly will stay stuck here for at least 8 more years.

I would say the same to you.

There were people who did have the responsibility of investigating 9/11 criminally, but you keep confusing those people with me for some reason. Was there a letter in the mail from the federal government informing me of this responsibility that I missed, jthomas?

I am addressing aspects of that investigation (not mine, which I never carried out), and they are not giving a full account, and you are doing nothing to help their case. I wouldn't say it was your responsibility to do an investigation, either, but since you take it upon yourself to defend what these people say, it becomes your burden to prove. But still not mine. The only burden I have to prove is that I have a grievance with the official investigation, explain why, which I have, and then you would counter it, if such a thing can be done. But you haven't, and remain unable to do so. Trying to convince me it was my responsibility all along is never going to work, I can see through that lame excuse from a mile away.

The one difference, is that while things won't get any easier for you and your position 8 years down the road, based on the past 8 years, what you erronously call "9/11 truth" has made great strides over the last 8 years. I remember right after 9/11, when there were no outspoken professionals on board, at least that had not gone to various media. Now there are hundreds that have done so, and they keep mounting. Call it what you want but the fact remains: "we" are growing, as disorganized and grassroots as we private citizens may be. It remains to be seen how this "movement" will climax.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by jthomas
You need to support your claim that "I just realize that the only way to accomplish this is with a controlled demolition."

You will find the proof when you realize there is no good answer to the question that I keep asking you.

Sorry, that dodge is silly. YOU need to provide POSITIVE evidence for your claim.

Originally posted by jthomas
Sorry, that dodge is silly. YOU need to provide POSITIVE evidence for your claim.

If you want to talk about silly, prove that it was ever my responsibility to perform a criminal investigation as to what happened on 9/11.

I'm still waiting for you to address this assertion you keep making, that it is my responsibility to provide an account that makes sense.

All I have to do is show you that the account you believe, doesn't make sense. That's all. Any more responsibility than that, is just you flapping fingers.

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by jthomas

 

I just watched that entire video and I did not see anything at all that could be interpreted as an answer to my very specific question,

You didn't watch it carefully, did you?

How could WTC7 accelerate at the rate of gravity, as it all of the structural support had been compromised and removed ahead of the falling building?

We see that that it didn't HAVE to meet the criteria you insisted it must. Note how that the entire structural beams and floors on the right came down as a whole while you claimed they had to have all been "exploded" out of the way.

You should have read the report before making claims about it, don't you think, Bsbray11?

It looks like the video actually debunks their own position. Two reasons:

(a) NIST admits there was still a lot of structure left under the collapsing building when their theoretical initiating event occurred, meaning there was still structure that would have provided force against the falling building and prevented it from accelerating at the rate of gravity,

We can clearly see why and how a period of "freefall" could happen during the collapse sequence.

and

(b) Sunder's only argument against explosives is that it would have made a noise and someone would have heard it. Well, would you like for me to post the video testimony of people who did hear explosions in WTC7, including one that erupted from the lobby the very instant before it began "collapsing"???

First, that is not the "only" argument against explosive demolitions. And I'll remind you that we do not accept your evasions on that matter. YOU are required to refute the entire NIST report AND you must deal with ALL of the implications of making the claim that only explosive demolition could be responsible.

As we see from your failure to read or refute the NIST report, your failure to understand the collapse sequence and mechanism, and your failure to provide any POSITIVE evidence for explosive demolition, you are still stuck at square one with not a stitch of evidence for your claims.

This is why your so-called "question" never had any validity to begin with.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by tezzajw
I don't expect you to be able to explain it, Joey.

Not to you, correct.
It would be a waste of time and bandwidth.

Again, Joey lives in denial, as he fails to admit that he can't explain how WTC 7 fell for 2.25 seconds at free fall rate.

It would be easier for him to be honest and admit that he can't do it.

Originally posted by jthomas
What still confuses you about what I already quoted you, tezzajw?:

Again, jthomas lives in denial, as he fails to admit that he can't explain how WTC 7 fell for 2.25 seconds at free fall rate.

It would be easier for him to be honest and admit that he can't do it.

Your NIST quote does not explain how it happened, jthomas. Please try again and continue to bump the thread.

Originally posted by jthomas
You didn't watch it carefully, did you?

I listened to every single word. I understand exactly what Sunder was saying. However, that does not mean what he was saying made any sense in light of the law of conservation of energy that I keep posting, and that you keep ignoring, and that even these same engineers that you are linking me to ignore every time they are asked to address these same questions in public venues.

We see that that it didn't HAVE to meet the criteria you insisted it must.

It's not me insisting it, it's the law of conservation of energy and that law's implications as far as an object accelerating at the rate of gravity. Meaning none of its energy is doing any work, except to fall.

Note how that the entire structural beams and floors on the right came down as a whole while you claimed they had to have all been "exploded" out of the way.

Can you see what's going on at the bottom of the building? No? Didn't think so.

We can clearly see why and how a period of "freefall" could happen during the collapse sequence.

Then how?

First, that is not the "only" argument against explosive demolitions.

Then what else?


If I am really having such a hard time understanding this, then why can't you just simply explain it in conservation of energy terms? Why is all of the energy being conserved if there was additional structure left after the initiating column failed, as Sunder claimed? He didn't explain that in the video; he can't explain it when confronted in public; can you?

[edit on 28-10-2009 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by jthomas
As long as you refuse to support your claims and pretend you don't have to you certainly will stay stuck here for at least 8 more years.

I would say the same to you.

There were people who did have the responsibility of investigating 9/11 criminally, but you keep confusing those people with me for some reason. Was there a letter in the mail from the federal government informing me of this responsibility that I missed, jthomas?

You are making claims HERE. You are required to support your claims HERE or retract them if you refuse to support them.

I am addressing aspects of that investigation (not mine, which I never carried out), and they are not giving a full account, and you are doing nothing to help their case. I wouldn't say it was your responsibility to do an investigation, either, but since you take it upon yourself to defend what these people say, it becomes your burden to prove.

There is no point in your evasions, Bsbray11, none at all. You have completely failed to refute the NIST report, evidence, methodology and conclusions. No one in the world has any reason to accept your claims until and unless you demonstrate them. Trying to shift the burden of proof to me is laughable. There is nothing I have to defend. I have no burden of proof to defend anyone. You know that, of course, and you know that you have no ability to refute the NIST report otherwise you would have done it months ago instead of constantly evading your responsibility.

But still not mine. The only burden I have to prove is that I have a grievance with the official investigation, explain why, which I have, and then you would counter it, if such a thing can be done. But you haven't, and remain unable to do so. Trying to convince me it was my responsibility all along is never going to work, I can see through that lame excuse from a mile away.

We're still waiting for you to demonstrate your claims. Clearly, you've never understood the burden of proof is solely on your shoulders. Which is why you are stuck where you were eight years ago somehow thinking quite irrationally that the rules of evidence and argumentation are going to change especially for you.

The one difference, is that while things won't get any easier for you and your position 8 years down the road, based on the past 8 years, what you erronously call "9/11 truth" has made great strides over the last 8 years. I remember right after 9/11, when there were no outspoken professionals on board, at least that had not gone to various media. Now there are hundreds that have done so, and they keep mounting. Call it what you want but the fact remains: "we" are growing, as disorganized and grassroots as we private citizens may be. It remains to be seen how this "movement" will climax.

The only "strides" your so-called "Truth" Movement has made in eight years is going around in circles. When it becomes clear to you that you "Truthers" have to convince the world with evidence, maybe you'll actually start doing something. But you have made it startlingly clear that you will do no more than yell from a street corner expecting something to happen.

Since you refuse to support your claims after repeated requests to support them, your question is dismissed as invalid and unsupported.

Originally posted by jthomas
You are making claims HERE. You are required to support your claims HERE or retract them if you refuse to support them.

I will retract any and all statements I have made if it will get you back on topic, which is 20 questions that remain unanswered by official reports.

Not my responsibility to answer them, their responsibility (the ones who did the investigation).

And if you want to defend them, it becomes your burden, too.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Can you see what's going on at the bottom of the building? No? Didn't think so.

That's the part you missed.

Amazing.

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by jthomas
What still confuses you about what I already quoted you, tezzajw?:

Again, jthomas lives in denial, as he fails to admit that he can't explain how WTC 7 fell for 2.25 seconds at free fall rate.

It might be a good idea for you to read the NIST report and refute it..

Why are you so afraid to support your claim?

Originally posted by jthomas
The only "strides" your so-called "Truth" Movement has made in eight years is going around in circles.

Right, and these circles have drummed up hundreds of engineers, architects, pilots, and all number of other professionals over the course of 8 years.

Keep it coming. These discussions are why the numbers are increasingly growing against the official reports and the people trying to defend them.