What evidence would accept to prove 9/11 was an inside job?

Originally posted by jthomas
Actually, if you recall, bsbray11 is claiming with "certainty that all 3 towers fell at free fall and therefore it could happen no other way than by 'explosive demolition'." Despite being shown the evidence that none of the towers fell at "free fall." You cannot deny what bsbray11 has claimed; neither can he. None of you can support the claims you make unless you demonstrate it.

I never said all three buildings free-fell, so you're lying about that part.

I said WTC7 fell at free-fall, which even NIST had admitted, so if you're saying that building didn't accelerate at free-fall then by all account you're wrong.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
The "off" side wall was bending. The core structure was collapsing down and couldn't serve as a fulcrum.

While the upper block was tilting the core structure was "collapsing down"? Can you give me some sources to back that one up, please?

Saying that wall was the fulcrum of the rotation is literally saying that the building was swinging around that wall. Look up the definition of fulcrum.

I don't know if this has been discussed in this thread. But....


Why did WTC7 collapse?

At the risk of immediate suspension if this is an NSA "Protocoled" site,which is why the consistent negative trouble makers are on all of the science,conspiracy etc.sites,here is something I know:
Saddams german built underground facility and several banks had pallet after pallet of gold bars stored in them and the had to have a "New Pearl Harbor" as you know to get a multi-faceted operation engaged.
Every bit of that gold was extracted which is why 50 or so trucks were reported coming and going from that facility. Some went one way,and some went another.
Some was confiscated by the "Seat Master" and they killed him last year to get it out of the German "Consortium seat office" for Europe.
When a large cabal works together to engage an operation,everybody but them will suffer of course.
Because of a certain function I have process with as the Phd. in Hyperdimensional Physics and as a system officer pushed out of an office here in the US prior to 9-11 for to us now very obvious reasons,our science boys in the system are under deep siege and have all of our funding taken and technological property worth trillions itself,we are just one step or cog in that process.
Sometimes I cant use my puter for months and months and have "special visits" from their operatives.This is just a great place to live with the terrorism being even more deeper than you suspect and operatives that you do not have any clue about,and the hyperdimensional protocoling over this system that engages everyone to be "Right in Line" or depleted with pain and death to anyone not following Consortium rules and operations. Well,there you go,put just this little bit into the mix,as they cannot arrest me physically for breaking my security clearence contract.. So I SNITCH,from time to time,little tidbits.

Originally posted by bsbray11

While the upper block was tilting the core structure was "collapsing down"? Can you give me some sources to back that one up, please?

So you never studied the NIST report, or Greening's study of rotation/sink, did you? They detail these facts.

Saying that wall was the fulcrum of the rotation is literally saying that the building was swinging around that wall.

Yup, only there was no fulcrum. The far side wall acted as a hinge for a few degrees, until it exceeded its capacity to hold up load, then it collapsed down.

The fulcrum is a feature of the Valhal's delusional belief that there was tilting/tension, etc.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
The far side wall acted as a hinge for a few degrees

And I've explained to you that a plastic hinge relates to bending which relates to tension.

The fulcrum is a feature of the Valhal's delusional belief that there was tilting/tension, etc.

Either or, there was still tension involved. The only delusional ones are the ones who deny this fact.

Originally posted by Nutter

You will still have the outside edge of that ] in tension. There is no other way in physics to "bend".

Ok, I'll agree with this.

But here's the deal, you're not comprehending what bsbray/Valhall believe, and what I've been saying is bs to all that maintain any logical thinking skills.

They're saying this:

This side of the building - [ - was in compression.
The core - II -acted as a fulcrum.
This side of the building - ] was in tension and carried zero vertical load.

They ascribe to the thought that the core acted as the fulcrum of a teeter totter does.

That's insane to believe that in the face of massive video evidence that says otherwise. It's clearly seen that in the moments after the ext wall buckled, that the perpindicular walls collapse right across their face onto the far side. This is undeniable proof that the cores didn't support jack. Only a troll would argue that it didn't happen that way.

If what the dynamic duo believe is true, you'd see what they believe. You'd see the far side wall ripping apart while the middle remains intact.

It's truly one of the most bizarre and delusional beliefs stated by the truth movement.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
This side of the building - [ - was in compression.
The core - II -acted as a fulcrum.
This side of the building - ] was in tension and carried zero vertical load.

OK. I think we have a miscommunication here.

You are taking my [] as the building, I was not.

The outer columns were box columns....hence []

That represents one column on the exterior side (the side that you are saying was the hinge).

I'm not talking about the core or other sides of the building at all. Just the outer columns that became the hinge.

Somewhere in this part ] of those columns there would be tension. There is no other way to bend.

That's insane to believe that in the face of massive video evidence that says otherwise. It's clearly seen that in the moments after the ext wall buckled, that the perpindicular walls collapse right across their face onto the far side. This is undeniable proof that the cores didn't support jack. Only a troll would argue that it didn't happen that way.

This brings up the question.......why did the core collapse when NIST thinks the floors pulled in the exterior columns?

If what the dynamic duo believe is true, you'd see what they believe. You'd see the far side wall ripping apart while the middle remains intact.

It's truly one of the most bizarre and delusional beliefs stated by the truth movement.

Have your dynamic duo (NIST and Greening) explained how the outer part of those box columns were in tension but still failed in compression?

It's truly one of the most bizarre and delusion beliefs stated by the counter truth movement.

[edit on 21-11-2009 by Nutter]

Originally posted by NIcon
reply to post by jthomas

 

I have yet to see you explain why you believe the question "How did WTC7 fall at free fall acceleration for 2.25 seconds?" is not based on a sound premise when nearly everyone including NIST agrees it happened. If NIST had answered the question it would be a simple question to answer. But rather you seem to be trying to undermine the whole reasoning of the asking.

Let me help you out of your present angst:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Nutter

OK. I think we have a miscommunication here.

I agree. It's obvious that you failed to read the other posts, and instead, constructed a strawman argument, rather than address what was actually being discussed.

This brings up the question.......why did the core collapse when NIST thinks the floors pulled in the exterior columns?

Proof that you have no idea what's in the report. It's discussed there.

Have your dynamic duo (NIST and Greening) explained how the outer part of those box columns were in tension but still failed in compression?

Prove that the amount of tension they were under would offset the compressive forces from gravity. If you can't then you have your answer.

reply to post by jthomas

Thank you for your concern about my angst, mr. thomas. But I would like you to know that I responded to your post in that thread. In that post I believe I demonstrated how you have not read the NIST report, nor do you understand their evidence, methodology, computer simulations and conclusions. I really hope you take the time to read this fascinating post. And I will most warmly welcome a reply as long as it's not the dogmatic ramblings of a neophyte NIST cultist.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
I agree. It's obvious that you failed to read the other posts, and instead, constructed a strawman argument, rather than address what was actually being discussed.

No strawman is needed in this discussion.

Proof that you have no idea what's in the report. It's discussed there.

Please point out where they discuss WTC 2's core when this tilt was happening.

Prove that the amount of tension they were under would offset the compressive forces from gravity. If you can't then you have your answer.

Since they held the gravity load from day one, where would this extra compresive force come from?

BTW, the tension would be equal but opposite the compression. Hence Newton's third law of motion that every action has an equal but opposite reaction.

[edit on 22-11-2009 by Nutter]

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by bsbray11
While the upper block was tilting the core structure was "collapsing down"? Can you give me some sources to back that one up, please?

So you never studied the NIST report, or Greening's study of rotation/sink, did you? They detail these facts.

Where? And don't just tell me to look it up myself, because I don't think it's there in the first place. I'm calling your bluff. Show us where they cover this stuff.

Saying that wall was the fulcrum of the rotation is literally saying that the building was swinging around that wall.

Yup, only there was no fulcrum. The far side wall acted as a hinge for a few degrees, until it exceeded its capacity to hold up load, then it collapsed down.

So despite there being an obvious tilt, of the entire top portion of WTC2, at an obvious angle, you say there was no fulcrum. In physics, that means there would also be no rotation, but we know there was obviously rotation.

Originally posted by NIcon
reply to post by jthomas

 

Thank you for your concern about my angst, mr. thomas. But I would like you to know that I responded to your post in that thread. In that post I believe I demonstrated how you have not read the NIST report, nor do you understand their evidence, methodology, computer simulations and conclusions. I really hope you take the time to read this fascinating post. And I will most warmly welcome a reply as long as it's not the dogmatic ramblings of a neophyte NIST cultist.

I see that your angst has increased substantially, NIcon.

You are no more successful in trying to portray NIST and NIST's report as a religious belief system as Creationists are trying to do the same with evolutionary biology. It only reveals your dogma, ignorance, and prejudice.

reply to post by jthomas

I think I've shown very nicely how some people here support the NIST report as if it were the Gospel of Sunder or Gross and believe all answers can be found within.

I think I've shown how some people here when confronted with a problem know nothing more than to spout phrases such as "evidence", "methodology", "computer simulations", and "conclusions" as if they were superlative catch-all terms to solve all problems, much like the religiously bent use terms such as "faith", "trust", and "God's will."

I think I've shown how some people here when confronted with a problem know nothing more than to misquote the opposite side rather than quote from, what they find to be, the "sacred" text, much like the "Catholics" do to the "Protestants" and vice versa.

I think I've shown how some people here when confronted with a problem know nothing more than to regurgitate their own bastardized version of events which actually contradicts the "sacred" text, much like the armchair religious scholars who misconstrue the words and intentions of Jesus.

But I leave it to others to determine the success or failure of what I was trying to portray. I only hope that with careful reading those others will realize that it was not I that put my faith in four "mystical" terms, that it was not I that misquoted the alternative view, that it was not I that failed to quote from the text, and that it was not I that offered contradictions to the text.

Originally posted by NIcon

But I leave it to others to determine the success or failure of what I was trying to portray. I only hope that with careful reading those others will realize that it was not I that put my faith in four "mystical" terms, that it was not I that misquoted the alternative view, that it was not I that failed to quote from the text, and that it was not I that offered contradictions to the text.

I perfectly understand why you have to resort to the same methodology as Creationists - and why you have to leave it to others to try to bail you out. You can't come up a reason for anyone to be surprised by 2.25 seconds of free fall acceleration during the collapse of WTC 7 - much less support the claim that "only explosive demolition" could explain the free fall acceleration and the collapse.

It's the nature of the beast.

reply to post by jthomas

Why should I try and support the "only explosive demolition" claim, as I have never made that claim? But I see what's going on. It's what psychiatrists call projection. I believe unconsciously you realize that you're arguments are so shallow, maybe as shallow as Creationist arguments, that you're projecting them on to me. But that's just my opinion.

But anyway I'll put my argument as succinctly as possible:

If a phenomenon occurs I think it's science's duty to try to explain it.

It has nothing to do with being surprised. It has nothing to do with explosive demolition. It has all to do with explaining something which occurred. Simple as that.

And you have yet to show where in the NIST report this has been explained.

Originally posted by NIcon
reply to post by jthomas

 

Why should I try and support the "only explosive demolition" claim, as I have never made that claim?

You don't have to.

But I see what's going on. It's what psychiatrists call projection. I believe unconsciously you realize that you're arguments are so shallow, maybe as shallow as Creationist arguments, that you're projecting them on to me.

Yes, you are projecting since I wrote: "You can't come up a reason for anyone to be surprised by 2.25 seconds of free fall acceleration during the collapse of WTC 7."

If a phenomenon occurs I think it's science's duty to try to explain it.

It has been. But you want us to believe there is something special about 2.25 seconds of free fall in the explanation. You can't explain why. In the meantime, the others here are claiming that it is "special" and can be only explained by "explosive demolition." Such was the basis of David Chandler's claim of the effect, to begin with, as well as bsbray11's claim, despite the fact that Chandler's refined observation supports NIST's conclusions. Whatever your reason, you have had to resort to the Creationist tactic of demeaning NIST for what you can't refute and evading supporting claims by failing to give us any reason to question the 2.25 second free fall acceleration which is already consistent with NIST's collapse sequence.

It has nothing to do with being surprised. It has nothing to do with explosive demolition. It has all to do with explaining something which occurred. Simple as that.

And it was. Even before the refinement showed that 2.25 second free fall interval.

And you have yet to show where in the NIST report this has been explained.

On the contrary, you have yet to refer to the NIST document to show us what is wrong with it and how it changes NIST's conclusion. If you can't tell us why we should be surprised or concerned and show us the relevant parts of NIST's report that you don't understand, that do not follow, or that are wrong, then you're not likely to make any convincing case.

Originally posted by bsbray11

So despite there being an obvious tilt, of the entire top portion of WTC2, at an obvious angle, you say there was no fulcrum.

Yup. There was a hinge point. It's obvous to anyone willing to examine videos honestly. Only a troll would refuse to.

In physics, that means there would also be no rotation, but we know there was obviously rotation.

There was rotation in conjunction with sink. The movement wasn't in the 9:00 direction. It was in the 7:00 direction.

You're forgetting/blocking out that gravity works in one direction - down.

What you're ascribing to would require this force to be applied to the upper structure:

Originally posted by Nutter

Since they held the gravity load from day one, where would this extra compresive force come from?

No additional load is needed.

Do you even have a clue why not?