Hi ancardo,

Can you please state the full events of 9/11 as they went down?

Here is a quote from the NIST report, section 6.14.4, NCSTAR 1, regarding the twin towers:

Emphasis mine.

This is the actual NIST report directly contradicting what you have said, and directly supporting the statements I have made, regarding the acceleration of the twin towers collapse.

Now Brian, can you admit you were wrong and apologize to everyone here for making things up? This isn't some abstract, airy discussion of oil economics where you can (as you have) pull bull**** directly out of your ass and pretend you have some understanding- there are physical facts to contend with here.

Essentially is a pretty important word in there deuces

Let's backup here for a second.

There are essentially two theories of collapse which enjoy popular credibility: natural collapse theories, which say 2 planes brought down the 3 buildings, and controlled demolition theories.

Among the natural collapse theories, there are many differing theories. When I refer to the "official theory" I am referring to what NIST says happened. Kukraprout, in (I assume) acknowledging that NIST has given no mechanism and (I assume) recognizing that is a problem for natural collapse theory, seems to have randomly picked some paper from the wikipedia article I linked to and claims here! see this? this explains it! But he really didn't think that through. He didn't notice that the article:

- was published 2 days after the attacks so necessarily rushed

- has no scope to include alternative theories and so assumes it's major conclusion

- does not incorporate any physical evidence from the scene into it's theories

- is highly conceptual guessing

- does not consider a wealth of viewpoints and findings of those who (literally) waited for the smoke to clear to form opinions.

- was written before any report which had any level of access to the physical evidence and so can't quote NIST or FEMA

- was summarily rejected by NIST as a mechanism

Not in the context of me vs. Brian because I have acknowledged that it's not literal free fall (as in zero resistance which everyone should assume is not going to happen even during a known demolition) while the NIST quote, even with including the word "essentially", directly contradicts what Brian says.

Could you give an example of a "mechanism of collapse" in one of your thought experiments? I'd like to know if you are just arguing semantics or if there is an actual "there" there.

It is a math problem. The towers were not accelerating at 9.8 m/s^2. To save us some time (warning: there is actual physics discussed): http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm

They fell fast. Not the same thing as freefall. You can see what freefall looks like by watching the debris falling clearly faster in the videos you can actually look at on the yootoobes.

Yeah these guys aren't even up to speed on the official story. I'm still getting:

- NIST explains how the TT fell.
Fact:Even pro natural collapse wiki article says this isn't so

- There were no sounds of explosions.
Fact: Hundreds of eyewitness accounts describe explosions and shock waves prior to collapse.

- The damage from debris helped bring down building 7
Fact: NIST explicitly says the debris damage was not a factor (it was fire fueled by burning office equipment they say)

Could go on.

I agree that the buildings themselves are not the biggest story of 9/11. However I think it might a better starting point (in theory) than institutional/individual analysis to challenge the primacy of official propaganda since physical science is involved and the former has a tendency to be muddled and subjective.

I mean, just the birdseye view: 2 planes bringing down 3 steel framed modern skyscrapers at essentially free fall, officially by way of office fires localized to a few floors???

No, it's not a math problem. It's your personal problem. Your characterization is directly contradicted by a NIST quote. You choose to react to your being proven wrong by being an ass and attempting some bull**** semantics which are so amateurish they would make ikes whince.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98

duh

Popular credibility? That is a new phrase for me.

For the popular incredible controlled demolition to have taken place, someone would have had to 1) invent a horizontal thermite cutter that can cut through 2.5" thick steel, 2) invent an ignition system for the horizontal thermite cutters that can withstand a 700+ degree fire that is going on inside of the tower, 3) go into the portion of the building that has a burning freaking airplane in it using the staircase that no longer exists, 4) do the pre-demolition work of exposing all of the steel structure that you want to cut with the newly invented horizontal thermite cutters in 700+ degree working environment, 5) invent a welding machine that can be used in 700+ degree ambient temperature, 6) weld the newly invented cutters to the newly exposed steel structure while hanging around in a 700+ degree fire, 7) do the same thing for all of the floors below (thankfully in a nicer environment as far as temperature goes), 8) do experiments to determine how long it takes your newly invented horizontal thermite cutters to cut through 2.5" thick structural steel, 9) do calculations to determine how much each floor's structural steel needs to be cut in order to have it collapse fast enough for Deuces to be convinced that it collapsed too fast for it to have been through controlled demolition but not so fast as to make it obvious to everyone else, 10) go back in to the 700+ degree fire by using the staircase that is no longer passable to set the timers that can handle a 700+ degree fire on your newly invented horizontal thermite cutters and then do the same on each floor below.

It's going to take me some time to sort through all that jargon. Unlike you I think that careful consideration takes time (and this **** is not for the weekends anyway). There is no way you read the whole article, understood it, read the whole rebuttal, and understood that. That just didn't happen. You just pointed to this little concept sketch because you have enough common sense to know the lack of mechanism in the NIST report is a problem (though not the integrity to face the crisis in explanation honestly) and you didn't know how flimsy it's methodology makes it. Then when you saw it had been refuted you went ad hominem on the author and called it derp (even thought the same journal published it) before you even took the time to consider the refutation was saying.

How objects accelerate in freefall is actually, in real life, a math problem.

There are even equations that are in the public domain.

Brian most of what you are saying here seems to be under the assumption that the entire buildings were raging infernos. The fact is the fires were limited to a few floors. In the south tower the fires were limited to just the impact zone. Since the fires were limited, so would be their theorized interrupting of controlled demolition.

So just like every other topic you post on, you are basically grunching with jargon intended to sound authoritative but which actually makes no sense. You enjoy doing that across a wide variety of subjects and that's fine. But here you really look ridiculous. You are 0-2 being directly contradicted after making flatly wrong assertions. You should stick to obscure topics where you bull**** is less transparent.

Nope. You just have to do the 700+ degree things on those floors that are on fire. That is quite a limitation.

If ANY of the things on my list can't be done, then you can't have done the controlled demolition (and I am quite sure I left some steps out). Just one has to be impossible. Given that ALL of them are impossible given the time constraints, it seems implausible that your theory could be correct.

I didn't use one word of jargon. Is this considered jargon?: Thermite doesn't freaking explode!

Yeah and NIST did the math (they had to since the videos were out there), as have independent qualified researchers, so the math on this is no longer a problem. The problem here is why you can't admit that you were flat wrong in disagreeing with application of the math to this issue and why you are making things up in the first place.

Yeah, general equations relating to physics are known to be in the public domain. Basic science itself has generally advanced as a public interest with minimal secrecy. Thanks for the fresh perspective.

Speaking of the public domain, do you have any explanation as to why NIST has denied FOIA requests for calculations and analysis supporting their explanation of the failures of two columns which NIST claims brought down the entire building? because those equations are not in the public domain despite being paid for with taxpayer money.

NIST says that release of this information would "jeopardize public safety". But how would requests from structural engineers for analysis regarding how 1 or 2 columns brought down a whole building of many columns jeopardize public safety? Wouldn't this information be beneficial to public safety since, supposedly, engineers would be able to use this information to build more secure buildings?

See the link I provided. I didn't have to make anything up or even do any hard thinking.

You will note that, even today, we have the videos and the pictures.

No. I'm not a conspiracy theorist.

You didn't address my post at all.

Furthermore you don't seem to have read the article you were replying to because it contains numerous references to the final NIST report so obviously was not written days after 9/11.

So please actually address my post.

JJ you are confused as to the references in the discussion. You will have to reread it yourself.

NIST:

So Brian, are you saying you are right and NIST is wrong on this point?

The power of this bit of neuro-linguistic programming that is the phrase 'conspiracy theorist' never ceases to amaze me. It's the ultimate a priori triumph of pre-constructed propaganda narratives over critical analysis - a Keyzer Soze trick really.

Ok so NIST refuses to share their equations and analysis regarding the collapse of building 7 citing jeopardy to public safety. But even though sharing such information would ostensibly contribute to public safety by allowing engineers to make safer buildings and address existing vulnerabilities, to even question their unexpected rationale for secrecy is tantamount to conspiracy theorizing?

No. I am agreeing with them:

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/f..._qa_082108.cfm

I'm pretty sure I've read and understood more than you of each of the 3 articles (original article, refutation, and refutation of the refutation). If you want to convince me otherwise, you're going to have to talk science.

In any case I've read enough to be convinced that your ramblings (and those of Gourley) about Newton's third law dont apply and explained why several times itt. After all you said about the obviousness of it all, it should be easy for you to correct me on that point.

I presume you know all about the ballot measure in NYC last year to re-open the WTC 7 investigation on exactly these grounds that got 86ed because... blah... despite infinite signatures?