Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 11:14 pm Post subject: Debunkers line up to dispute this evidence of controlled dem
Sorry if it's a repost, but much time is wasted debating megaphone people. This should finish them off.
Point 1. There is no way a building can drop at freefall speed if it is collapsing on top of an existing structure. The existing structure must be forced to yield to the descending mass.
When responding to this OP please state whether you agree with point 1.
I AGREE
I DISAGREE
Point 2. WTC7 collapsed at freefall speed. Now, please, no lawyers tricks about the penthouse . I am talking about the subtantial mass of the building.
When responding to this OP please state whether you agree with point 2.
Joined: 24 Sep 2007 Posts: 515 Location: London, England
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 3:23 am Post subject: Re: Debunkers line up to dispute this evidence of controlled
Agree and disagree, in that order.
As for the video, where inaccurate measurements are compared with a science website's simulation of freefall - I went on the same website and fiddled about with the wind and size and whatnot and was able to get different figures for freefall. How any of that compares to the outside structure of a building collapsing is beyond me. It's a poor substitute for genuine analysis, which is hopefully what we will get out of NIST eventually.
I went on the same website and fiddled about with the wind and size and whatnot and was able to get different figures for freefall.
why not go back and fiddle with it untill you get a time that matches the speed of wtc 7?
i think that was the point, not just fiddling about to see what different times you get. obviously you will get different times if you move sliders, but that dos'nt make them match the speed of the collapse does it?
Quote:
It's a poor substitute for genuine analysis, which is hopefully what we will get out of NIST eventually.
i would'nt count on it, people are still waiting, theres no reason to assume anything will change.
Joined: 24 Sep 2007 Posts: 515 Location: London, England
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 11:20 am Post subject:
marky 54 wrote:
why not go back and fiddle with it untill you get a time that matches the speed of wtc 7?
i think that was the point, not just fiddling about to see what different times you get. obviously you will get different times if you move sliders, but that dos'nt make them match the speed of the collapse does it?
I wouldn't dream of doing that. It just goes to show how unscientific this video is - this is somebody who uses an educational website gizmo for high school students to make his analysis. If NIST were to refer to a similar authority for their data I'd expect them to be laughed off the planet...
marky 54 wrote:
Quote:
It's a poor substitute for genuine analysis, which is hopefully what we will get out of NIST eventually.
i would'nt count on it, people are still waiting, theres no reason to assume anything will change.
So the lack of a NIST report points to a conspiracy? On what basis? Feel free to speculate wildly .
why not go back and fiddle with it untill you get a time that matches the speed of wtc 7?
i think that was the point, not just fiddling about to see what different times you get. obviously you will get different times if you move sliders, but that dos'nt make them match the speed of the collapse does it?
I wouldn't dream of doing that. It just goes to show how unscientific this video is - this is somebody who uses an educational website gizmo for high school students to make his analysis. If NIST were to refer to a similar authority for their data I'd expect them to be laughed off the planet...
marky 54 wrote:
Quote:
It's a poor substitute for genuine analysis, which is hopefully what we will get out of NIST eventually.
i would'nt count on it, people are still waiting, theres no reason to assume anything will change.
So the lack of a NIST report points to a conspiracy? On what basis? Feel free to speculate wildly .
are you suggesting children are taught lies in high school? the only thing is shows is the level of pychics needed inorder to understand the collapse was freefall. ie: highschool grade knowledge. its just a pity some critics did'nt pay more attention.
are you also suggesting a lack of explaination in the form of a report on the wtc 7, proves the offical story is correct and it did'nt fall due to CD, which it matches so well?
Joined: 24 Sep 2007 Posts: 515 Location: London, England
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 2:52 pm Post subject:
marky 54 wrote:
are you also suggesting a lack of explaination in the form of a report on the wtc 7, proves the offical story is correct and it did'nt fall due to CD, which it matches so well?
I'm suggesting that the lateness of the report doesn't necessarily prove anything.
are you also suggesting a lack of explaination in the form of a report on the wtc 7, proves the offical story is correct and it did'nt fall due to CD, which it matches so well?
I'm suggesting that the lateness of the report doesn't necessarily prove anything.
i would agree, but untill the report is out disproving CD or confirming CD its still an open debate. just because i commented on the lateness of it, dos'nt mean i presume it has to CD and there are no other possibilities it could be. but any sensible person would include CD in the list of possibilities, untill its disproved or more is known to beable to ferther form an opinon.
Joined: 24 Sep 2007 Posts: 515 Location: London, England
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 3:14 pm Post subject:
marky 54 wrote:
i would agree, but untill the report is out disproving CD or confirming CD its still an open debate. just because i commented on the lateness of it, dos'nt mean i presume it has to CD and there are no other possibilities it could be. but any sensible person would include CD in the list of possibilities, untill its disproved or more is known to beable to ferther form an opinon.
Fair enough. I must admit I don't see much point debating it until NIST have had their say.
i would agree, but untill the report is out disproving CD or confirming CD its still an open debate. just because i commented on the lateness of it, dos'nt mean i presume it has to CD and there are no other possibilities it could be. but any sensible person would include CD in the list of possibilities, untill its disproved or more is known to beable to ferther form an opinon.
Fair enough. I must admit I don't see much point debating it until NIST have had their say.
again i would agree, but then none of us know when that will be. and if it was CD and there is something to hide, it could well be to late by the time the report comes out if ever. so i would'nt expect people to sit around waiting for eternity.
..............any sensible person would include CD in the list of possibilities, untill its disproved or more is known to beable to ferther form an opinon.
NIST say in relation to their report "While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements."
So they are going to look at it.
The draft of the report is now expected in July 2008.
No one has ever doubted that WTC7 fell at close to freefall speed, the difference in time in dispute is going to be very small. The methodology used in the video is nowhere near precise enough to determine it accurately. An event with an unclear start is observed on a bleary video, an uncheckable number of floors is measured against an unnamed building for which no dimensions are given; it is simply propaganda.
I particularly like the way they skew their figures so much they end up claiming it fell faster than freefall, and then explain that as due to some mythical vacuum effect pulling it down. Hilarious!
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
.