Friday, May 25, 2012

Any questions?



Video streaming by Ustream

The problem with recording an event without the old-fashioned Vu-Meters. Even funnier than the idea that somebody screwed up the recording is that somebody posted it over at 9-11 Flogger without listening to it. Although I can sympathize; after all who wants to hear Gage and his inane "experts" drone on.

The bad news is that after about 15 minutes of the sounds of silence, somebody apparently figures out that they aren't being recorded.

73 Comments:

At 25 May, 2012 05:13, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

"It is your job to awaken the American people...for the low low price of $19.95!"

 
At 25 May, 2012 05:17, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

My bad he wants you to walk away with 10 DVDs. Man that's some marketing ploy. Most film companies hope you buy 1 copy of whatever movie, this guys is trying to dupe people into buying 10 of the exact same film. I guess he realizes there are less and less people to fleece so he's got to look at what already exists to increase the profit margin.

I think I heard someone chuckle at that point. At least there was 1 sane person in the room.

 
At 25 May, 2012 14:09, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

And Pat's favorite 'expert' said that free-fall acceleration was impossible for WTC 7, then published a report that said that FFA had occurred.

Pat can't explain it, and flees like a coward from even attempting to.

Talk about inane...

 
At 25 May, 2012 14:21, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

And Pat's favorite 'expert' said that free-fall acceleration was impossible for WTC 7, then published a report that said that FFA had occurred.

What about that is confusing to you?

 
At 25 May, 2012 15:13, Blogger Len said...

Did any one copy the vid? Da roof squad already pulled it.

 
At 25 May, 2012 15:15, Blogger Len said...

Who said FFA was impossible for PART of the collapse?

 
At 25 May, 2012 17:43, Blogger snug.bug said...

FFA (free fall acceleration) is impossible for ANY part of the collapse, Len, by the 1st law of thermodynamics which requires that energy out = energy in.

As PC pointed out, Shyam Sunder told the world that free fall acceleration can happen only if there is no structural resistance whatsoever. Sunder then claimed that in the case of WTC7 there was structural resistance. But then he published a report that showed that there was no structural resistance for 2.25 seconds at the beginning of the collapse of WTC7.

 
At 25 May, 2012 18:25, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"FFA (free fall acceleration) is impossible for ANY part of the collapse, Len, by the 1st law of thermodynamics which requires that energy out = energy in. "

The problem is each of the three WTC buildings which went down took 15 to 20 minutes to collapse. All the videos show is the final collapse.

Which is reason #1 the free-fall argument is bullshit.

 
At 26 May, 2012 07:31, Blogger Len said...

FFA (free fall acceleration) is impossible for ANY part of the collapse, Len, by the 1st law of thermodynamics which requires that energy out = energy in.

As PC pointed out, Shyam Sunder told the world that free fall acceleration can happen only if there is no structural resistance whatsoever. Sunder then claimed that in the case of WTC7 there was structural resistance. But then he published a report that showed that there was no structural resistance for 2.25 seconds at the beginning of the collapse of WTC7.


OK if a janitor says so it must be true. Get back to us when you can cite a qualified scientist or engineer.

The core had collapsed, so had the lower floors and perhaps even the southern part of the building. That didn't leave much structure to provide resistance.

 
At 26 May, 2012 10:00, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, your claim that the buildings' collapses took 20 minutes is a deluded invention. Shyam Sunder told NOVA that Tower 2 came down in 11 seconds and Tower 1 came down in 9 seconds. None of the official WTC reports say anything about your 15-minute collapses.

NIST acknowledges 2.25 seconds of freefall in WTC7. If you think this is bullshit then you should be joining us on calling for new investigations.

Len, I did cite a qualified engineer. Shyam Sunder has a PhD in structural engineering from MIT. He said a structure can collapse at freefall acceleration only when there is no structural resistance whatsoever. "De minimus" is a pragmatic argument that does not apply to scientific propositions. No violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics can be considered trivial.

 
At 26 May, 2012 10:27, Blogger Ian said...

MGF, your claim that the buildings' collapses took 20 minutes is a deluded invention. Shyam Sunder told NOVA that Tower 2 came down in 11 seconds and Tower 1 came down in 9 seconds. None of the official WTC reports say anything about your 15-minute collapses.

Stop lying about Dr. Sunder, Brian.

NIST acknowledges 2.25 seconds of freefall in WTC7. If you think this is bullshit then you should be joining us on calling for new investigations.

Nobody cares. It's certainly not a reason to seek new investigations.

Len, I did cite a qualified engineer. Shyam Sunder has a PhD in structural engineering from MIT.

And, as usual, you're lying about him.

He said a structure can collapse at freefall acceleration only when there is no structural resistance whatsoever.

That's nice.

No violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics can be considered trivial.

It's amusing to be lectured on the 1st law of thermodynamics by a mentally ill unemployed janitor and pervert.

 
At 26 May, 2012 12:49, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I didn't lie about Dr. Sunder. Anybody can google SUNDER NOVA and read the transcript where he says "The measurements have indicated that Tower One collapsed in about 11 seconds, and Tower Two collapsed in about 9 seconds."

 
At 26 May, 2012 14:20, Blogger Pat said...

What a surprise! Brian trusts Dr Sunder on the one thing he is wrong about, and not on everything he gets right.

Here's a clue as to why he's wrong; what does he mean by "measurements"? I know what he means, and it's a fundamental and mistaken assumption that those measurements give us the collapse time.

 
At 26 May, 2012 14:30, Blogger snug.bug said...

Pat, I didn't say I trusted Dr. Sunder. I said Dr. Sunder said "Tower One collapsed in about 11 seconds, and Tower Two collapsed in about 9 seconds." That's a fact. He did say that.

MGF claims that "each of the three WTC buildings which went down took 15 to 20 minutes to collapse." Nobody in NIST said any such thing. MGF made it up.

 
At 26 May, 2012 14:34, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

" Anybody can google SUNDER NOVA and read the transcript where he says "The measurements have indicated that Tower One collapsed in about 11 seconds, and Tower Two collapsed in about 9 seconds."

...and anybody can read where he also say the reason the buildings collapsed as fast as they did was because they were 70% air due to their structural design.

So combined with the gradual internal collapse the speed is no mystery.

 
At 26 May, 2012 14:43, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, freefall collapse requires 100& air, not 70% air. You obviously don't know the first thing about energetics.

For you to blithely declare that there is no mystery when dozens of expert structural engineers and physicists say there is a mystery is just stupid.

Shyam Sunder himself told the world that a freefall collapse meant there was no structural support at all. He claimed that was not the case here. But it is the case with WTC7, as NIST has acknowledged.

 
At 26 May, 2012 16:50, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"MGF, freefall collapse requires 100& air, not 70% air."

Something 100% air? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA...that's rich....

"For you to blithely declare that there is no mystery when dozens of expert structural engineers and physicists say there is a mystery is just stupid."

No, those guys are idiots, have an egenda (taking stupid people's money) or both.

"Shyam Sunder himself told the world that a freefall collapse meant there was no structural support at all."

Yes, hence the collapse.

 
At 26 May, 2012 17:31, Blogger Len said...

“MGF, your claim that the buildings' collapses took 20 minutes is a deluded invention. Shyam Sunder told NOVA that Tower 2 came down in 11 seconds and Tower 1 came down in 9 seconds. None of the official WTC reports say anything about your 15-minute collapses.”

The NIST report said those were thes time for the first exterior panels to hit the ground so he obviously misspoke. Speaking of which MGF obviously meant “15 to 20 SECONDES to collapse” Here’s a link to the NOVA transcript.


“Len, I did cite a qualified engineer. Shyam Sunder has a PhD in structural engineering from MIT. He said a structure can collapse at freefall acceleration only when there is no structural resistance whatsoever.”


Get back to us with a link to where he said this.

Also still waiting for you to name a single truther was respects you, we’ve already been over why this wouldn’t constitute ‘name dropping’ so that lame excuse won’t wash.

 
At 26 May, 2012 17:35, Blogger Len said...

"MGF, freefall collapse requires 100& air, not 70% air."


LOL So explosives or thermite or mininukes or whatever transformed 7 WTC into pure air for at least 2.25 sec.?

 
At 26 May, 2012 18:45, Blogger Pat said...

Brian, you're dancing around the point. The collapses did not happen in 9 or 11 seconds. And the notion that controlled demolition = freefall acceleration is wrong anyway. Time some controlled demolitions and you'll see that they don't collapse in anywhere near freefall time, for the exact same reason that the WTC buildings did not collapse at freefall acceleration; there is still resistance that has to be overcome.

 
At 26 May, 2012 20:41, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"peaking of which MGF obviously meant “15 to 20 SECONDES to collapse”

No, Len, I meant 20 minutes.

At 9:37 a.m., an occupant on the 105th floor of the South Tower reported to a 9-1-1 dispatcher that floors beneath him "in the 90-something floor" had collapsed.

At 9:52 a.m., the NYPD aviation unit reported over the radio that "large pieces may be falling from the top of WTC 2. Large pieces are hanging up there"

So the the south tower began to fail 22 minutes before the collapse.

NYPD helicopters relayed information about the deteriorating conditions of the North Tower. At 10:20 a.m., the NYPD aviation unit reported that "the top of the tower might be leaning," and a minute later reported that the North Tower, "is buckling on the southwest corner and leaning to the south". At 10:28 a.m., the aviation unit reported that "the roof is going to come down very shortly."

So there is an 8 minute lead of internal failure before the North Tower comes down. This is explainable by the higher impact zone of WTC as compared to WTC2.


Source:

^ a b c Lawson, J. Randall, Robert L. Vettori (September 2005). "NIST NCSTAR 1-8 - The Emergency Response Operations" (PDF). National Institute of Standards and Technology. p. 37.

"At approximately 2:00 pm, firefighters noticed a bulge in the southwest corner of 7 World Trade Center between the 10th and 13th floors, a sign that the building was unstable and might collapse. During the afternoon, firefighters also heard creaking sounds coming from the building. Around 3:30 pm FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro decided to halt rescue operations, surface removal, and searches along the surface of the debris near 7 World Trade Center and evacuate the area due to concerns for the safety of personnel."

So the building began to fail 3 hours and 20 minutes before it finally came down.

Source: "WTC: This Is Their Story, Interview with Chief Peter Hayden". Firehouse.com. September 9, 2002. Retrieved March 3, 2011.

"WTC: This Is Their Story, Interview with Captain Chris Boyle". Firehouse.com. August 2002. Retrieved March 3, 2011.

"Oral Histories From Sept. 11 – Interview with Chief Daniel Nigro". The New York Times. October 24

The collapse times most troofers use are usually incorrect. There is a lot of stuff going on within those dust clouds which are not obvious on initial viewings of one or two angles. They NEED it to be suspicious, so they MAKE it suspicious.

 
At 27 May, 2012 01:38, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

The collapses did not happen in 9 or 11 seconds.

"But Shyam Sunder said..."

 
At 27 May, 2012 09:27, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, I'm sorry it's too complicated for you, but read it slowly: freefall requires 100% air, not 70% air. Shyam Sunder said so at the NIST technical briefing on its final draft WTC7 report: "A free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it." Do you doubt that true statement? The energetics of building collapses are the same as the energetics of chemical reactions in that the same laws of physics and thermodynamics must be observed. It's pretty obvious that you need to do freshman chemistry over.

Len, please tell me where the NIST report talks about panels striking the ground in 9 seconds and 11 seconds. The NIST report says in section 6.14.4 that because the lower structure provided negligible resistance, the building section above came down "essentially in free fall". It doesn't say anything about panels, and it doesn't provide any time measurements other than "essentially in free fall".

Freefall requires the complete absence of structural resistance, same as 100% air.

Pat, Dr. Sunder said the collapses happened in 9 seconds and 11 seconds, and he has never issued a correction. Until NIST produces an official collapse time, those numbers stand.

MGF, so you define buckling on one corner as "collapse"? Did you notice that the report is cited in a timeline in NIST 1-8--Emergency Response? Did the section on structural response cite that report? If not, why not?

If there was a bulge in the SW corner of WTC7, then why did FEMA leave it out of its report? Why did NIST leave it out of its computer models? Did NIST mention the bulge at all in its reports? I don't remember seeing it. Do you consider a "bulge" to be a "collapse"? Also, how could there be a bulge in an area where the corner had been sheared away?

RGT, Shyam Sunder said the towers collapsed in 9 seconds and 11 seconds, and NIST has never to my knowledge issued any other official estimate. We need a credible official estimate, not a bunch of poorly educated pseudo-skeptics falling all over each other trying to handwave away Dr. Sunder's uncontested statement.

 
At 27 May, 2012 10:18, Blogger Pat said...

Okay, Brian, pleased to see you accept Dr Sunder's word for everything.

 
At 27 May, 2012 10:22, Blogger kameelyun said...

"Not much is happening on the Truther front,"

Enjoy...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XE8oPaqaQ78&feature=player_embedded

 
At 27 May, 2012 11:06, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Gentlemen, have a look at kameelyun's link. I think you'll enjoy the content.

"Not a relative," indeed.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Don't you just love troofer cat fights?

 
At 27 May, 2012 11:14, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

NIST acknowledges 2.25 seconds of freefall in WTC7. If you think this is bullshit then you should be joining us on calling for new investigations.

Of course any of the so called scholars for truth could simply publish a paper in any of the reputable journals on the planet showing as such. Wonder why that doesn't happen?

Seems in trutherland only a "new investigation" could yield as much.

 
At 27 May, 2012 11:23, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

I love how truthers parade around the 2.5 FFA, which only accounts for a small fraction of the total collapse time all 3 buildings. Based on that non logic on those 2.5 secs are due to explosives.

What Brian fails to recognize free fall is no way special. If it was he in all his glory could simply publish a study while he tells everyone else they are not an expert.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BV7TPvk__kE

 
At 27 May, 2012 11:30, Blogger GuitarBill said...

GMS, the goat fucker is misrepresenting the content of the NIST report.

E.g.,

"...For discussion purposes, three stages were defined, as denoted in figure 3-15:

"[1] In stage 1, the descent was slow and less than that of gravity. This stage corresponds to the initial buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the North face. By 1.75 sec. the North face had descended approximately 2.2 meters (7 feet).

"[2] In stage 2, the North face descended at gravitational acceleration as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the North face. The free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 meters (105 feet), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 and t= 4.0 seconds.

"[3] In stage 3, the acceleration decreased somewhat as the upper portion of the North face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below. Between 4.0s and 5.4s, the North face corner fell an additional 39.6 meters (130 feet).

"As noted above, the collapse time was approximately 40 percent longer than that of free fall for the first 18 stories of descent. The detailed analysis shows that this increase in time is due primarily to stage 1. The 3 stages of collapse progression described above are consistent with the results of the global collapse analysis discussed in Chapter 12 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9."
-- NCSTAR1A--WTC 7 Collapse Report.

So much scum.bag's propaganda.

 
At 27 May, 2012 13:21, Blogger snug.bug said...

Pat, Dr. Sunder is a liar. I don't take his word for anything. I only reported what he said, and I pointed out that his time estimates are the only official estimates for the collapse times. If you think he's wrong, then instead of trying to handwave his wrongness away you should join the honest truthseekers in calling for further investigations of the many inconsistencies, irrationalities, impossibilities, and omissions in the official reports.

GMS, what need is there of a published paper when NIST acknowledges the 2.25 seconds of freefall?

GMS, freefall is special because, as Dr. Sunder points out, it can only happen when there is no structure holding the building up. He then goes on to claim that in this case there was a structure holding the building up, and thus it was not freefall. But then NIST turns around and acknowledges that there was freefall, Freefall in the absence of added energy inputs (such as explosives or incendiaries) would violate the 1st law of thermodynamics.

UtterFail, would you mind showing us the evidence NIST cites for its claim that at 1.75 seconds the north wall of WTC7 had fallen 2.2 m?

 
At 27 May, 2012 14:03, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"Pat, Dr. Sunder is a liar. I don't take his word for anything"

Yet you quote him all the time as if his word is gospel.

You can't have it both ways, and this is why nobody takes your seriously. You lack basic logic and critical thinking skills.

 
At 27 May, 2012 14:07, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"MGF, I'm sorry it's too complicated for you, but read it slowly: freefall requires 100% air, not 70% air."

Please, pretty please explain how you make a building out of 100% air.

Fucking retard. I'm starting to think you didn't finish high school.

 
At 27 May, 2012 15:12, Blogger snug.bug said...

You can't make a building out of 100% air. That's the point. You can't have freefall if there's a building--even a damaged building--in the way. Thus, the fact that a building is 70% air is irrelevant.

You should have had all this in chemisty. You're lying about your college background.

 
At 27 May, 2012 15:59, Blogger Len said...

“NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A)”
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_faqs_082006.cfm
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_faqs_082006.cfm
. “At 9:58:59 a.m. WTC 2 began to collapse, and roughly ten seconds later debris reached the ground.”

NCSTAR 1-5A pg 328
http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=101356

I believe there are other citations but I’m tiring of being jerked off

 
At 27 May, 2012 16:20, Blogger Ian said...

So to sum up, Brian says Dr. Sunder is a liar, but he clings to a throwaway line from the good doctor about the collapse times even though said throwaway line is contradicted by all the evidence.

I guess that makes sense when you're a mentally ill unemployed janitor who failed out of San Jose State and was thrown out of the truth movement for stalking Carol Brouillet.

To normal people, however, it's just hilarious insanity.

 
At 27 May, 2012 17:24, Blogger Ian said...

Oh, one more thing:

MGF, I'm sorry it's too complicated for you, but read it slowly: freefall requires 100% air, not 70% air. Shyam Sunder said so at the NIST technical briefing on its final draft WTC7 report: "A free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it." Do you doubt that true statement? The energetics of building collapses are the same as the energetics of chemical reactions in that the same laws of physics and thermodynamics must be observed. It's pretty obvious that you need to do freshman chemistry over.

Len, please tell me where the NIST report talks about panels striking the ground in 9 seconds and 11 seconds. The NIST report says in section 6.14.4 that because the lower structure provided negligible resistance, the building section above came down "essentially in free fall". It doesn't say anything about panels, and it doesn't provide any time measurements other than "essentially in free fall".

Freefall requires the complete absence of structural resistance, same as 100% air.

Pat, Dr. Sunder said the collapses happened in 9 seconds and 11 seconds, and he has never issued a correction. Until NIST produces an official collapse time, those numbers stand.

MGF, so you define buckling on one corner as "collapse"? Did you notice that the report is cited in a timeline in NIST 1-8--Emergency Response? Did the section on structural response cite that report? If not, why not?

If there was a bulge in the SW corner of WTC7, then why did FEMA leave it out of its report? Why did NIST leave it out of its computer models? Did NIST mention the bulge at all in its reports? I don't remember seeing it. Do you consider a "bulge" to be a "collapse"? Also, how could there be a bulge in an area where the corner had been sheared away?

RGT, Shyam Sunder said the towers collapsed in 9 seconds and 11 seconds, and NIST has never to my knowledge issued any other official estimate. We need a credible official estimate, not a bunch of poorly educated pseudo-skeptics falling all over each other trying to handwave away Dr. Sunder's uncontested statement.


Nobody cares.

 
At 27 May, 2012 17:45, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

So to sum up, Brian says Dr. Sunder is a liar, but he clings to a throwaway line from the good doctor about the collapse times even though said throwaway line is contradicted by all the evidence.

That afflicts all Truthers to some extent. They tend to miss the (in)significance of statements, because they find the existence of the statement itself significant.

Take a break from this crap. It's Memorial Day. Go outside, grill something, observe fire not melting steel, etc.

 
At 27 May, 2012 19:23, Blogger snug.bug said...

Len, the FAQs are not the NIST report. Since Dr. Sunder's statement to NOVA a few days later totally contradicted what was said in the FAQs, and since no author is listed for the FAQs, Dr. Sunder's statement must take precedence as listing NIST's position: the towers fell in 9 seconds and 11 seconds.

Please explain your citation of NCSTAR 1-5A p. 328. Its discussion of fires in WTC2 appears to have no relevance to collapse times.

Ian, Dr. Sunder's statement that the towers fell in 9 seconds and 11 seconds is a throwaway line only to someone like yourself who is unwilling to examine the facts.

RGT, Dr. Sunder's statement is significant because it constitutes the only existing official statement about the collapse times of the towers.

 
At 27 May, 2012 20:26, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

Brian, if you'd only finished high school your life would be so different. You'd be someone, instead of a hippie-wannabe burnout.

 
At 27 May, 2012 20:52, Blogger snug.bug said...

What gives you the idea that I didn't finish highschool?

 
At 27 May, 2012 22:02, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

You said you never went to college, I assume it's because you dropped out of high school, or the machine shop your parents sent you to out of shame.

 
At 28 May, 2012 01:44, Blogger snug.bug said...

I never said I never went to college. I said I never attended San Jose State.

 
At 28 May, 2012 06:48, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, Dr. Sunder's statement that the towers fell in 9 seconds and 11 seconds is a throwaway line only to someone like yourself who is unwilling to examine the facts.

Squeal squeal squeal!

Poor Brian. He's so hysterical that he thinks anyone cares what Dr. Sunder said.

He thinks this because he's a pathetic failed janitor who lives with his parents, and 9/11 truth is the only thing that gives his failed life meaning. Of course he'd cling to something as irrelevant as a throwaway line from someone that Brian himself dismisses as a liar.

Sometimes I think your ridiculous homeless-mullet haircut is the least of your problems, Brian.

 
At 28 May, 2012 07:11, Blogger Mike Rosefierce said...

*sigh*

NIST NCSTAR 1-5A, p.23:
"The times based on visual analysis refer to the time when the collapse of a tower first became evident, while the times based on seismic records likely indicate the time when the falling debris first struck the ground. The differences between the two times were estimated to be approximately 9 s for WTC 2 and approximately 11 s for WTC 1 based on videos of the collapses."

Now petgoat will tell us that Sunder's off-the-cuff comment takes precedence over NIST's published report.

Because in TrutherWorld, and the conspiracy theorist world in general, nobody ever misspeaks. There are no poorly worded statements, no poorly remembered details -- only truths and lies. Even the most offhand comment must be taken exactly as stated. When one of the lying bad guys appears to say something truther-friendly, no disagreement is allowed -- the statement carries the weight of holy scripture.

 
At 28 May, 2012 10:51, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, some of us do not find it necessary, as you do, to constantly run to the beauty parlor for remedial work.

MR, you have no grounds for "sigh"ing at me simply because you cited the wrong page number.

Isn't it interesting that this essential information is buried in two throwaway sentences at page 8,000 or so of a 10,000-page report in a section called "Absolute Time Accuracy" and not "Time Span of Collapse". It's not included in the section of the report about the collapse.

Does NIST explain how it is that the seismographs are sensitive enough to detect the first panels striking the ground when they were not sensitive enough to detect the 1993 truck bomb?

I don't have time to deal with this right now, but I'll look into it. Do you have a source for the document NIST cites,"Analysis of Seismogram Data Recorded on September 11, 2001 during the World Trade Center, New York City Disaster, Final Technical Report to the Building and Fire Research Laboratory"?

Also, who is the author, W.X. Kim? I can't find anything on him or her either.

Also, the Popular Science book "Debunking 9/11 Myths" says in its 2011 edition that the towers fell in 10 seconds and 12 seconds. Do you know where they got these times?

Dr. Eduardo Kausel of MIT said the towers fell in 9 seconds each. Dr. Thomas Eagar of MIT estimated that both fell in under 10 seconds. Did either of these ever correct their estimates?

 
At 28 May, 2012 11:13, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, some of us do not find it necessary, as you do, to constantly run to the beauty parlor for remedial work.

Poor Brian. I've humiliated him so many times by pointing out how he's unemployed and lives with his parents, and this is the best he can come back with.

Isn't it interesting that this essential information is buried in two throwaway sentences at page 8,000 or so of a 10,000-page report in a section called "Absolute Time Accuracy" and not "Time Span of Collapse". It's not included in the section of the report about the collapse.

Does NIST explain how it is that the seismographs are sensitive enough to detect the first panels striking the ground when they were not sensitive enough to detect the 1993 truck bomb?

I don't have time to deal with this right now, but I'll look into it. Do you have a source for the document NIST cites,"Analysis of Seismogram Data Recorded on September 11, 2001 during the World Trade Center, New York City Disaster, Final Technical Report to the Building and Fire Research Laboratory"?

Also, who is the author, W.X. Kim? I can't find anything on him or her either.

Also, the Popular Science book "Debunking 9/11 Myths" says in its 2011 edition that the towers fell in 10 seconds and 12 seconds. Do you know where they got these times?

Dr. Eduardo Kausel of MIT said the towers fell in 9 seconds each. Dr. Thomas Eagar of MIT estimated that both fell in under 10 seconds. Did either of these ever correct their estimates?


Poor Brian. He's delusional enough to think any of us care about his hysterical babbling about collapse times.

Brian, get a better haircut, and then maybe someone will listen to you.

 
At 28 May, 2012 13:33, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

GMS, what need is there of a published paper when NIST acknowledges the 2.25 seconds of freefall?

Nice dodge Brian. One that demonstrates that NIST's analysss is incorrect. You don't need a new investigation to show where they faulted.

GMS, freefall is special because, as Dr. Sunder points out, it can only happen when there is no structure holding the building up. He then goes on to claim that in this case there was a structure holding the building up, and thus it was not freefall. But then NIST turns around and acknowledges that there was freefall, Freefall in the absence of added energy inputs (such as explosives or incendiaries) would violate the 1st law of thermodynamics.

Yawn...Brian we have covered this before and I am glad to see GB covered it again. Your cherry picking & misrepresentation is not imrepssive.

This would be another one of those things that could be shown in a real study about how they must be assisted by whatever super duper secret technology your appealing to this week.

 
At 28 May, 2012 13:35, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

We need a credible official estimate, not a bunch of poorly educated pseudo-skeptics falling all over each other trying to handwave away Dr. Sunder's uncontested statement.

Like you would care anyway. The fact is that we can observe the debris in FFA while the bulk of the collapse was not.

 
At 28 May, 2012 13:39, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

The fact is Brian that it depends on what you consider the beginning of the collapse. Are we talking about the first signs of structural fatigue? If that's the case we are talking minutes instead of seconds. If we are talking about the falling of the upper block we are talking in seconds but as I already noted its not FFA by simple observation. If we are talking about the fall of the block until the remainder of the core collapsed then we are still not in FFA.

No matter what it was not in FFA. Dance all you want the facts won;t change.

 
At 28 May, 2012 15:21, Blogger snug.bug said...

NIST acknowledged the presence of 2.25 seconds of freefall collapse. There is no need to correct this, and thus no need for a published paper.

GMS, I suppose by "cherry picking" you mean invoking the 1st law of thermodynamics instead of any of the 10 billion things that are not the 1st law of thermodynamics? How is one to stick to the relevant if one does not pick cherries and discard boogers?

The 1st law of thermodynamics does not talk about super duper secret weapons. It talks about energy inputs. Energy in must equal energy out.

Dr. Sunder, Dr. Kausel, Dr. Eagar, and Popular Science's 2011 edition of the Debunking 9/11 book all said it was a collapse time near freefall.

 
At 28 May, 2012 16:48, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"Dr. Sunder, Dr. Kausel, Dr. Eagar, and Popular Science's 2011 edition of the Debunking 9/11 book all said it was a collapse time near freefall."

Yes, and they explain why. A fact you consistently because it undermines your jackass theories.

 
At 28 May, 2012 17:11, Blogger snug.bug said...

They don't explain why. Dr. Sunder's observation that the buildings were 70% air is irrelevant. The buildings have to be 100% air to fall at freefall.

 
At 28 May, 2012 17:20, Blogger Ian said...

Poor Brian. He's still babbling about his 9/11 delusions as if anyone cares.

 
At 28 May, 2012 21:16, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, there is nothing delusional about the 1st law of thermodynamics. Bush was not able to nullify it with a signing statement.

 
At 29 May, 2012 04:42, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, there is nothing delusional about the 1st law of thermodynamics. Bush was not able to nullify it with a signing statement.

See what I mean? He's babbling about thermodynamics even though he has no idea what the term means.

 
At 29 May, 2012 08:16, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I'm not babbling about anything. The 1st law of thermodynamics requires that energy in must equal energy out. Potential energy and kinetic energy must be the same. Any structural resistance will consume kinetic energy and slow down a free fall collapse. Thus a state of pure free fall, such as NIST has acknowledged in the case of WTC7, can not happen unless all structural resistance is removed through the agency of added energy inputs.

 
At 29 May, 2012 17:30, Blogger ConsDemo said...

Mitt Romney is rubbing elbows with birther lowlifes.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/mitt-romney-to-supporters-dine-with-donald-trump/2012/05/24/gJQAmQbpnU_blog.html

Can a twoofer be next? How low will Mitt go?

 
At 29 May, 2012 18:11, Blogger snug.bug said...

Will he go so low as to claim that the 9/11 widows have no questions?

 
At 29 May, 2012 21:37, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

I have questions too:

On 9/10/2001 no buildings collapsed in NYC, yet on 9/11 3 did. Why?

Why didn't the designers of the World Trade Center envision the rise of Islamic terror and the invention larger Boeing passenger jets back in the 60s? It's almost like they designed them not to be hit by flying aircraft instead of making them into giant bunkers.

Why isn't there an Air Force base IN Manhattan?

Why is it Champ's Gourmet Deli when it's just a deli?

With all the great sea battles of WWII, why did they make the movie "Battleship" about aliens?

How does Justin Bieber beat up anybody? How does that guy live that down?

Why does Brian Goode think hanging out at UC Berkeley is the same thing as attending UC Berkeley?

Why is Riddley Scott considered a great director? His movies never explore their characters in any depth, and he never finishes his stories well.

See, I have questions, and like most of the widows' questions they have little or nothing to do with 9/11

 
At 29 May, 2012 23:41, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, the towers were designed to survive a hit from a 4-engine 707 at 600 mph. The 767 was only slightly larger than a 707, it had only 2 engines, and it was slower than 600 mph.

I never hung out at UC Berkeley. I never hung out at SJSU or UCSC or CSUMB either.

Please advise which of the widows' 273 unanswered questions have nothing to do with 9/11.

 
At 30 May, 2012 04:37, Blogger Ian said...

MGF, the towers were designed to survive a hit from a 4-engine 707 at 600 mph. The 767 was only slightly larger than a 707, it had only 2 engines, and it was slower than 600 mph.

Nobody cares.

I never hung out at UC Berkeley. I never hung out at SJSU or UCSC or CSUMB either.

Correct. You failed out of San Jose State. You told us this yourself. Now you live with your parents because you're unemployed.

Please advise which of the widows' 273 unanswered questions have nothing to do with 9/11.

The widows have no questions, so this request makes no sense.

 
At 30 May, 2012 04:39, Blogger Ian said...

Why is Riddley Scott considered a great director? His movies never explore their characters in any depth, and he never finishes his stories well.

I think he's overrated too, but he did make "Alien" and "Blade Runner", which are both classics, so I imagine his repute is based on those two films.

 
At 30 May, 2012 08:38, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, if your SLC colleagues had any integrity at all they would object to your continued lying about the widows' 273 unanswered questions.
http://justicefor911.org/Appendix4_FSCQuestionRatings_111904.php

 
At 30 May, 2012 10:06, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

Ian,

I object to your lying about the widows 273 unanswered questions.

They are clearly NOT questions but anti-American conspiracy-baiting by a laywer who's using them to further some asshat agenda.

Plus Brian's a retard so he doesn't know any better.

(for the record I love Ridley Scott)(Not in that way)

 
At 30 May, 2012 13:44, Blogger snug.bug said...

What is conspiracy-baiting about these questions?

At specifically what time did you become aware that America was under attack? Who informed you of this fact?

On the morning of 9/11, who was in charge of our country while you were away from the National Military Command Center? Were you informed or consulted about all decisions made in your absence?

What defensive action did you personally order to protect our nation during the crisis on September 11th?

In your opinion, why was our nation so utterly unprepared for an attack on our own soil?

Is it normal procedure for the Director of the White House Situation Room to travel with you?

At what time were you made aware that other planes were hijacked in addition to Flight 11 and Flight 175?
Who notified you? What was your course of action as Commander-in-Chief of the United States?

 
At 31 May, 2012 04:41, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, if your SLC colleagues had any integrity at all they would object to your continued lying about the widows' 273 unanswered questions.
http://justicefor911.org/Appendix4_FSCQuestionRatings_111904.php


Squeal squeal squeal!

At specifically what time did you become aware that America was under attack? Who informed you of this fact?

On the morning of 9/11, who was in charge of our country while you were away from the National Military Command Center? Were you informed or consulted about all decisions made in your absence?

What defensive action did you personally order to protect our nation during the crisis on September 11th?

In your opinion, why was our nation so utterly unprepared for an attack on our own soil?

Is it normal procedure for the Director of the White House Situation Room to travel with you?

At what time were you made aware that other planes were hijacked in addition to Flight 11 and Flight 175?
Who notified you? What was your course of action as Commander-in-Chief of the United States?


Brian, you can look these things up on the internet.

Also, nobody is interested in your delusional, paranoid questions. You're a failed janitor who lives with his parents and of no importance.

 
At 31 May, 2012 07:34, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, those are not my questions. Those are the 9/11 widows' questions. Unlike you, the widows are not interested in answers presented by lying propaganda websites. They want real answers provided by a real investigation of the sort that a real democracy deserves.

 
At 31 May, 2012 12:45, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"At specifically what time did you become aware that America was under attack? Who informed you of this fact?"

The same time the rest of the country did...unless it wasn't a real attaack and was an inside jobby job.

"On the morning of 9/11, who was in charge of our country while you were away from the National Military Command Center? Were you informed or consulted about all decisions made in your absence?"

President Bush. The White House has had telephones since the 1920s. Shit, I forgot to answer in the for of a question. Anyway, he was on the phone the whole time.


"What defensive action did you personally order to protect our nation during the crisis on September 11th?"

Other than order the USAF into the air, and authorize the grounding of the entire civilian air fleet?

"In your opinion, why was our nation so utterly unprepared for an attack on our own soil?"

Ten years of cuts to national defence. A lax attitude by civilian leadership in DoD.

"Is it normal procedure for the Director of the White House Situation Room to travel with you?"

Nobody was expecting an attack, so why not have the guy along? (see telephone use)

"At what time were you made aware that other planes were hijacked in addition to Flight 11 and Flight 175?"

Nobody really knew for sure. If you listen to the recordings of coverstaions AND testimony nobody was sure AA77 was a hijack, and they simply guessed United 93 was. Nobody was sure about anything on 9/11. Anyone who says different is a lair and a fool.

"Who notified you? What was your course of action as Commander-in-Chief of the United States?"

Already answered

See Brain, you're a retard.

Just because you wish the answers were different doesn't make it so.

 
At 31 May, 2012 13:14, Blogger snug.bug said...

Oh wow! An irrational ideologue who lies about his college background has responded to the widows' questions!

And he seems to think his guesses and assumptions constitute the kind of real investigation that a real democracy deserves!

And then he calls ME a retard! Sheesh!

 
At 31 May, 2012 17:35, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, those are not my questions. Those are the 9/11 widows' questions. Unlike you, the widows are not interested in answers presented by lying propaganda websites. They want real answers provided by a real investigation of the sort that a real democracy deserves.

Brian, as I've pointed out to you many times, the widows have no questions, no matter how much spam you posy trying to convince people otherwise. Nobody cares about your questions, since you're a failed janitor who believes in magic thermite elves.

Oh wow! An irrational ideologue who lies about his college background has responded to the widows' questions!

And he seems to think his guesses and assumptions constitute the kind of real investigation that a real democracy deserves!

And then he calls ME a retard! Sheesh!


Squeal squeal squeal!

Brian, he took the time to answer your pointless, delusional questions. You should be nicer to him. He could always just mock you for your hideous haircut and the fact that you wear women's underwear.

 
At 31 May, 2012 19:13, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, you lie. The widows have 273 unanswered questions. http://justicefor911.org/Appendix4_FSCQuestionRatings_111904.php

MGF's ideologically-based myths are not answers. The widows want a real investigation such as a real democracy deserves.

 
At 31 May, 2012 20:19, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, you lie. The widows have 273 unanswered questions. http://justicefor911.org/Appendix4_FSCQuestionRatings_111904.php

Brian, just repeating this dumbspam isn't going to change the fact that the widows have no questions.

MGF's ideologically-based myths are not answers. The widows want a real investigation such as a real democracy deserves.

Nobody cares about your ridiculous questions, Brian.

 
At 31 May, 2012 21:18, Blogger snug.bug said...

The widows have 273 unanswered questions. They're not my questions, they're the widows' questions. Why do you so persistently lie about the widows' questions? What is wrong with you?

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home