All of Reynolds scientifically illiterate claims have been debunked.
Ace Baker (No-Planer) vs. Steve Wright (Video Effects Expert) (1/2) (Video) (30min)Ace Baker (No-Planer) vs. Steve Wright (Video Effects Expert) (2/2) (Video) (30min)
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:Dr Morgan Reynolds claims [as do I and others] , that the physics represented in the alleged plane crash videos [mostly "2nd strike" videos of alleged UA flight 175 supposedly hitting the South tower] cannot represent not real world events [i.e they defy known laws of physics] - and that therefor all of the plane crash videos must be fakes.
Well since Dr Reynold nor yourself understand physics it is interesting that you even attempt to make these claims.
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:the video apparently depicts a large airliner [140 odd tons of hollow, aluminum tubing with a plastic nose-cone] completely disappearing inside a 500,000 ton steel and concrete building with no visible slowing down at impact, and without losing any parts [eg wings, tailsection]on the outside on the shock of the initial impact, to the degree that even the wingtips cut completely through many, massive steel girders and steel floor pans and disappear completely inside the building.
What you think should happen and what actually happens are two different things. The human eye and video footage running at a frame rate lower than the speed of the object being studied is not what is used with high speed crash analysis. Why are those parts of the plane supposed to break off? Why would they not follow in the direction the plane is moving? You have crashed 767s into buildings with this design to know this?
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:Also, in higher resolution versions, the wall of WTC 2 can be seen to "self heal" [ie become whole again ]after a wing has passed through/ into it , hence the " magic, self-healing building" term
Nothing self healed, this is debunked in the video above.
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:Notice that the tail of the plane remains exactly centered in the frame [red line] and that in reality, it is the building that moves
That is because the camera is panning right at the same time. You cannot be this stupid.
"Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints" - Ludwig von Mises
Poptech:You have to be kidding me. So every single news network faked footage in real time?
How many different collections of footage of the planes are there? I imagine there were only a couple sources of footage and it just gets re-distributed on every channel.
It's like when you source news stories instead of primary sources. You can list 500 stories that are all based off the same AP report. It doesn't mean 500 people reported, it just means 500 people repeated a report. That is the purpose of press releases.
I'm in the media game, I understand how that portion of the game works. It is very easy to make news go viral when you have a massive distribution network that publishes automagically.
liberty student: That doesn't mean we can pick and choose what we think is real and what is not, but it certainly should introduce some skepticism.
That doesn't mean we can pick and choose what we think is real and what is not, but it certainly should introduce some skepticism.
The "no tower" theory is gaining support!
Angurse:The "no tower" theory is gaining support!
Actually, my theory is that we're all in independent pods, fed by tubes, controlled by a computer evermind.
But seriously, ancaps and libertarians who trust the government and mainstream media are pretty funny. And folks wonder why as libertarianism has progressed, the state has become bigger and more tyrannical.
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom: All board or PM comments by: "Saan" "angurse", "Poptech" "ladyAttis" "nirgrahamuk" will be ignored, regardless of content.
All board or PM comments by: "Saan" "angurse", "Poptech" "ladyAttis" "nirgrahamuk" will be ignored, regardless of content.
I've been quite repectful towards you, it is you who is the one not backing up claims (Bill of Rights, for starters) so please don't behave like a child.
liberty student:Actually, my theory is that we're all in independent pods, fed by tubes, controlled by a computer evermind.
If the government or MSM reported that it was or wasn't true, would you immediately stop and reconsider?
liberty student: But seriously, ancaps and libertarians who trust the government and mainstream media are pretty funny. And folks wonder why as libertarianism has progressed, the state has become bigger and more tyrannical.
Isn't that why libertarianism has progressed though? (At least, partially).
September 11 Television Archive (Internet Archive)
6 Major News Networks and then various amateur footage. All obviously in on the conspiracy! ROFLMAO!
liberty student: Poptech:You have to be kidding me. So every single news network faked footage in real time? How many different collections of footage of the planes are there? I imagine there were only a couple sources of footage and it just gets re-distributed on every channel. It's like when you source news stories instead of primary sources. You can list 500 stories that are all based off the same AP report. It doesn't mean 500 people reported, it just means 500 people repeated a report. That is the purpose of press releases. I'm in the media game, I understand how that portion of the game works. It is very easy to make news go viral when you have a massive distribution network that publishes automagically.
"How many different collections of footage of the planes are there? I imagine there were only a couple sources of footage and it just gets re-distributed on every channel."
WTC Crash Videos.
Last time I checked there were 52 total videos [50 of the 2nd hit, 2 of the 1st. ], of course many of these have been shown to in fact be just different versions of others, just re-edited and made to look "different" via computer software.
WTC Crash Photos
Still photos for each of WTC strikes currently amount to 1 for the 1st [north tower] and 19 for the 2nd [south tower.]
"It is very easy to make news go viral when you have a massive distribution network that publishes automagically.
Exactly, and to illustrate your observation, consider this:
The picture above shows a moment (at 8:59AM) of the four synchronized TV broadcasts of ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX: yet another indication that the 9/11 TV "LIVE" broadcasts were managed by one single, centralized studio.
For more information about onebornfree, please see profile.[ i.e. click on forum name "onebornfree"].
Angurse:If the government or MSM reported that it was or wasn't true, would you immediately stop and reconsider?
I don't understand the question.
Angurse:Isn't that why libertarianism has progressed though? (At least, partially).
This doesn't make any sense to me. What are you saying? That libertarianism has progressed due to government and the MSM?
liberty student: onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom: Civil Discussions Possible?All civil discussion welcome! However, for real in depth discussion of this matter you must private message me here. All board or PM comments by: "Saan" "angurse", "Poptech" "ladyAttis" "nirgrahamuk" will be ignored, regardless of content. In the event of others comments deemed inappropriate [ eg flaming, insults etc.], you will first be notified that I will not communicate with you further either via general message board or through private messaging, then all subsequent messages from yourself will be studiously ignored, [unless, of course, you apologize for your behavior. Simple! .] Please don't post this sort of message again, singling out a growing list of regular contributors. You can welcome PMs and civil discussion, but this is not your private board, and it is becoming redundant for you to post these notices. Just ignore the people you don't agree with. With regard to no-planes, I did have a think about it last night. After debating with Nir (who is not a bad fellow) yesterday, it occurred to me that whatever is shown on TV is assumed to be true, and with the quality of CG now, that seems almost silly. We see print distort facts all of the time, but we assume that what is shown on TV, a visual record, cannot be fudged or manipulated. That doesn't mean we can pick and choose what we think is real and what is not, but it certainly should introduce some skepticism.
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom: Civil Discussions Possible?All civil discussion welcome! However, for real in depth discussion of this matter you must private message me here. All board or PM comments by: "Saan" "angurse", "Poptech" "ladyAttis" "nirgrahamuk" will be ignored, regardless of content. In the event of others comments deemed inappropriate [ eg flaming, insults etc.], you will first be notified that I will not communicate with you further either via general message board or through private messaging, then all subsequent messages from yourself will be studiously ignored, [unless, of course, you apologize for your behavior. Simple! .]
Civil Discussions Possible?All civil discussion welcome!
However, for real in depth discussion of this matter you must private message me here.
All board or PM comments by: "Saan" "angurse", "Poptech" "ladyAttis" "nirgrahamuk" will be ignored, regardless of content. In the event of others comments deemed inappropriate [ eg flaming, insults etc.], you will first be notified that I will not communicate with you further either via general message board or through private messaging, then all subsequent messages from yourself will be studiously ignored, [unless, of course, you apologize for your behavior. Simple! .]
Please don't post this sort of message again, singling out a growing list of regular contributors. You can welcome PMs and civil discussion, but this is not your private board, and it is becoming redundant for you to post these notices. Just ignore the people you don't agree with.
With regard to no-planes, I did have a think about it last night. After debating with Nir (who is not a bad fellow) yesterday, it occurred to me that whatever is shown on TV is assumed to be true, and with the quality of CG now, that seems almost silly. We see print distort facts all of the time, but we assume that what is shown on TV, a visual record, cannot be fudged or manipulated.
"Please don't post this sort of message again, singling out a growing list of regular contributors."
Thanks for letting me know- I was just trying to save everyone [including myself] a lot of [otherwise] wasted time and energy .
How about if I reply to a messenger I find objectionable [N.B. objectionable by my standards, not theirs or anyone elses ] ,by notifying that person that I no longer wish to communicate with them- is that doable or not?
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom: "It is very easy to make news go viral when you have a massive distribution network that publishes automagically. Exactly, and to illustrate your observation, consider this: The picture above shows a moment (at 8:59AM) of the four synchronized TV broadcasts of ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX: yet another indication that the 9/11 TV "LIVE" broadcasts were managed by one single, centralized studio.
Except, that is not evidence of a conspiracy. It's just proof that there are limited sources for the events. Almost all news is spread this way, the only difference is that bloggers and forums mashup the information with user opinion online. It's the same in print as well.
It is indicative however that if the primary source is tainted then the way it is networked, means that incorrect information can be published and republished many times before it is caught. No one syndicates retractions or updates unless it is a major news event.
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:How about if I reply to a messenger I find objectionable [N.B. objectionable by my standards, not theirs or anyone elses ] ,by notifying that person that I no longer wish to communicate with them- is that doable or not?
Just ignore them. I've dealt with this on other forums. It becomes a game of people telling people they are ignoring each other. It gets ridiculous quickly.
liberty student: onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:How about if I reply to a messenger I find objectionable [N.B. objectionable by my standards, not theirs or anyone elses ] ,by notifying that person that I no longer wish to communicate with them- is that doable or not? Just ignore them. I've dealt with this on other forums. It becomes a game of people telling people they are ignoring each other. It gets ridiculous quickly.
liberty student: onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom: "It is very easy to make news go viral when you have a massive distribution network that publishes automagically. Exactly, and to illustrate your observation, consider this: The picture above shows a moment (at 8:59AM) of the four synchronized TV broadcasts of ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX: yet another indication that the 9/11 TV "LIVE" broadcasts were managed by one single, centralized studio. Except, that is not evidence of a conspiracy. It's just proof that there are limited sources for the events. Almost all news is spread this way, the only difference is that bloggers and forums mashup the information with user opinion online. It's the same in print as well. It is indicative however that if the primary source is tainted then the way it is networked, means that incorrect information can be published and republished many times before it is caught. No one syndicates retractions or cupdates unless it is a major news event.
It is indicative however that if the primary source is tainted then the way it is networked, means that incorrect information can be published and republished many times before it is caught. No one syndicates retractions or cupdates unless it is a major news event.
"Except, that is not evidence of a conspiracy."
I never said it was/is. I simply asked you[ or whomever] to consider it.
In the end you have to consider it as part of "the sum of the weight of all the evidence", for or against , or not - your call.
However, isn't a little strange to you that the 4 main [supposedly in competition] TV networks are all already sharing the same video feed at 8.59 AM on 9/11, or do you consider this to be nothing unusual?
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:However, isn't a little strange to you that the 4 main [supposedly in competition] TV networks are all already sharing the same video feed at 8.59 AM on 9/11, or do you consider this to be nothing unusual?
I don't know enough about it to have an opinion on it. I don't know how often there is a camera on the WTC. Or if the cameras on the WTC are even owned or provided by the networks.
Competition in the MSM is a myth. Bill O'Reilly and Olberrmann are enemies like Bush and Clinton were enemies. Not at all. It's just a puppet show for the simple minds glued to the boob tube.
liberty student:I don't understand the question.
Just that if the government and MSM agree or disagree with a theory would you immediately rethink it? The point is libertarians who don't believe in a government conspiracy aren't necessarily trusting the government or MSM.
liberty student:This doesn't make any sense to me. What are you saying? That libertarianism has progressed due to government and the MSM?
Yeah partially, the bigger government has gotten the easier its been for people to see how useless and awful it is. (Obviously the opposite occurs as well, but it is still growth)
Researchers at the University of Warwick have found that fake video evidence can dramatically alter people's perceptions of events, even convincing them to testify as an eyewitness to an event that never happened.
Associate Professor Dr Kimberley Wade from the Department of Psychology led an experiment to see whether exposure to fabricated footage of an event could induce individuals to accuse another person of doing something they never did.
In the study, published in Applied Cognitive Psychology, Dr Wade found that almost 50% of people shown fake footage of an event they witnessed first hand were prepared to believe the video version rather than what they actually saw.
Dr Wade's research team filmed 60 subjects as they took part in a computerised gambling task. The subjects were unknowingly seated next to a member of the research team as they both separately answered a series of multiple-choice general knowledge questions.
All subjects were given a pile of fake money to gamble with and they shared a pile of money that represented the bank. Their task was to earn as much money as possible by typing in an amount of money to gamble on the chances of them answering each question correctly. They were told the person who made the highest profit would win a prize.
When they answered each question, subjects saw either a green tick on their computer monitor to show their answer was correct, or a red cross to show it was incorrect. If the answer was wrong, they would be told to return the money to the bank.
After the session, the video footage was doctored to make it look as if the member of the research team sat next to the subject was cheating by not putting money back into the bank.
One third of the subjects were told that the person sat next to them was suspected of cheating. Another third were told the person had been caught on camera cheating, and the remaining group were actually shown the fake video footage. All subjects were then asked to sign a statement only if they had seen the cheating take place.
Nearly 40% of the participants who had seen the doctored video complied. Another 10% of the group signed when asked a second time by the researchers. Only 10% of those who were told the incident had been caught on film but were not shown the video agreed to sign, and about 5% of the control group who were just told about the cheating signed the statement.
Dr Wade said: "Over the previous decade we have seen rapid advances in digital-manipulation technology. As a result, almost anyone can create convincing, yet fake, images or video footage. Our research shows that if fake footage is extremely compelling, it can induce people to testify about something they never witnessed."
Notes to editors
For more information, please contact Kelly Parkes-Harrison, Communications Officer, University of Warwick 02476 150483/02476 574255, 07824 540863, K.E.Parkes@warwick.ac.uk
original article http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/200...w-fvd091409.php
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:Researchers at the University of Warwick
Excellent I will ask them if they believe the videos of 911 to be fake! I have emailed them.
"Hard Science" and Austrian Economics
In Austrian Economics, indeed in all economics, we have the "hard science" of the laws of supply and demand. Almost every question concerning the cause/outcome of economic actions and events[ or perhaps even all] are, to Austrians, and possibly most economists from other schools of thought, subject to consideration of the effects of the "hard science" of those pesky laws of supply and demand.
Hard Science and 9/11
Unfortunately, where the alleged events of 9/11 are concerned , the laws of supply and demand are not much use , neither are the principles of human action, although both might still give insights in some "big picture" generalized way.
Fortunately, for reviewing the events of 9/11,we have specific "hard science" principles also, specifically, with regard to all 4 alleged airliner crashes; that is, Newton's Third Law of Motion.
Question: Austrians, "Hard Science" and 9/11 Airliner Crash Physics?
The question is, are Austrians, who so readily accept the methodological principle of the need for a constant ,unwavering application of those pesky laws of supply and demand [and possibly other, general ,"hard science" economic principles] in the field of economics , really being consistent with themselves if they then consistently ignore/reject the "hard science" of the established principles of Newtons pesky 3rd Law of motion when reviewing the alleged crash physics of the events of 9/11, before reaching their conclusions about those events, and instead choose to believe what they saw on TV, read in the newspaper, or what some alleged "eyewitness" claims to have seen?
That is a question which I am not going to attempt to answer - only you, the reader, can answer it, assuming you'd want to.
About Newton's Third Law by Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D." According to Newton, whenever objects A and B interact with each other, they exert forces upon each other. A force may be defined here as a push or pull upon an object which results from its interaction with another object. Newton stated his third law of motion exactly as:"To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction: or, the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal, and directed to contrary parts."To restate it, "For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction."To nail this concept down, consider classroom example 1:Q: An unfortunate bug strikes the windshield of a bus moving down the road. Quite obviously, this is a case of Newton's third law of motion. The bug hit the windshield and the windshield hit the bug. Which of the two forces is greater: the force on the bug or the force on the bus windshield?A: Each force is the same size. For every action, there is an equal ... (equal!). The fact that the bug splatters only means that with its smaller mass and strength, it is less able to withstand the force resulting from the interaction.Now consider example 2:Q: A speeding plane strikes the wall of a ("motionless") Tower. Obviously this contact between objects is a case of Newton's third law of motion. An aluminum plane hits the steel building and the building hits the plane. Which of the two forces is greater: the force on the plane or the force on the building?A: Each force is the same size. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. The fact that the steel beams, spandrel belts, and steel-reinforced concrete floors of 5-6 stories shatter, fragment and form an airplane-shaped gash...OOPS...you're kidding! This correction just in: the fact that an aluminum plane crumples, shatters and leaves no "airplane-shaped silhouette of passage" in a collision against massive quantities of structural steel only means that with its lower mass, density and strength relative to the building, the plane is far less able to withstand the equal force exerted on both bodies.We can check our understanding with a few calculations. Each WTC Tower weighed approximately 500,000 tons. As a first approximation, if a plane hit the upper five floors, these floors would weigh approximately 22,727 tons (5 floors divided by 110 floors = 4.5 percent of 500,000 tons). A Boeing 767 would weigh approximately 140 tons flying as described by government and media. The mass of such a plane would be 0.6 percent of the mass of five floors in a Tower (140/22,757). Therefore, the aluminum plane would be less than one percent of the mass of the section of the steel/concrete building it allegedly hit. The plane's material density and strength (resistance to forces like bending, etc.) would also be vastly inferior to those of a Tower.Conclusion: bye-bye airplane.Critics may object that the steel beams in upper stories were thinner than those in lower floors (less building mass to support with nothing else lighter on upper stories), so generously shrink the estimated weight of the upper five stories by one-third, yielding 15,152 tons. The mass of a 767 would be 0.9 percent of the mass of five floors it theoretically hit. To restate it: the mass of the building section allegedly hit by the hollow aluminum tube with engines and wings and no crash rating is 100 times that of the plane.Result: bye-bye airplane.And what if the mass of the plane were even smaller?Same answer: bye-bye airplane.What if a plane flew faster into the steel tower? Impact force increases but remains equal for plane and tower at any speed. The tower is immensely stronger and harder than the plane.Upshot: bye-bye airplane.
Fig 1.Three-pound bird goes mano a mano with aluminum plane and does heavy damage.
Fig.2 Airliner damage by bird impacts.
WTC Tower Construction
"Tower walls were composed of high-strength steel beams approximately 14 inches square on one-meter centers (39.37”) surrounding windows with each column beam secured to others by steel spandrel plates about 52 inches x 10 feet forming a belt around each floor (see p. 8 pdf). Steel beam thicknesses varied from 4” at the base and tapered from 5/8” to ¼” in the WTC 1 impact zone and 13/16” to ¼” in the WTC 2 impact zone. WTC floors were grids of steel topped by four inches of steel reinforced lightweight concrete in corrugated steel pans. Walls effectively were dense webs of nearly 40% steel covered by aluminum and backed by steel and concrete floor grids mated to an incredibly strong and dense core of 47 cross-braced steel columns, stairwells and elevator shafts."
Fig.3 WTC exterior construction
Original Morgan Reynolds article here : On Newtons 3rd law of motion: http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=had_a_car_crash
plus extracts from: "We Have Some Holes in the Plane Stories" http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=we_have_holes
Onebornfree,
Are you saying that the plane didn't exist? Or that the plane didnt cause the collapse.
There is no way the plane caused the collapse, I agree with you there. The towers were built to withstand a plane strike and support its weight. Even if the structure was compromised it would not have caused an acceleration near free fall along the path of greatest resistence or a catastrophic failure. The top of the building would have fell the distance of one floor and then toppled over the side.
twistedbydsign99: Onebornfree, Are you saying that the plane didn't exist? Or that the plane didnt cause the collapse. There is no way the plane caused the collapse, I agree with you there. The towers were built to withstand a plane strike and support its weight. Even if the structure was compromised it would not have caused an acceleration near free fall along the path of greatest resistence or a catastrophic failure. The top of the building would have fell the distance of one floor and then toppled over the side.
Dr Reynolds, myself and others are saying that any and all videos depicting planes striking /penetrating WTC buildings are fakes because they depict events impossible in the real world. Therefor the planes did not exist [although there may well have been planes in the area.]
Approximate logic used = [1] videos demonstrably fake [they {a}defy laws of physics and {b}also have many other internal contradictions and clues which lead to the inevitable conclusion of fakery],
[2] therefor no planes hit buildings,
[3] therefor planes could not bring down towers [ and could not ,even if they had existed and crashed, as you point out, of course!]
What is the most convincing piece of evidence supporting the "no planes" theory?
"The men the American public admire most extravagantly are the most daring liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth." -H.L. Mencken
sapSUCKER: What is the most convincing piece of evidence supporting the "no planes" theory?
Please take the time to review my previous posts [esp. the 2nd to last post on page3 of this thread concerning Austrian economics methodology and "hard science" etc.] and possibly listen to the Morgan Reynolds radio interview linked on page 1. Then get back to me if needed.
Nonsense Physics
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:We can check our understanding with a few calculations. Each WTC Tower weighed approximately 500,000 tons. As a first approximation, if a plane hit the upper five floors, these floors would weigh approximately 22,727 tons (5 floors divided by 110 floors = 4.5 percent of 500,000 tons). A Boeing 767 would weigh approximately 140 tons flying as described by government and media. The mass of such a plane would be 0.6 percent of the mass of five floors in a Tower (140/22,757). Therefore, the aluminum plane would be less than one percent of the mass of the section of the steel/concrete building it allegedly hit. The plane's material density and strength (resistance to forces like bending, etc.) would also be vastly inferior to those of a Tower.
Your math is total nonsense. The larger mass of the floor as well as the building is irrelevant, all that means is the plane impact would not move the building. This has nothing to do with if the steel perimeter columns at the point of impact would be able to survive the impact force exerted by a 200 ton 767 loaded with 24,000 gallons of jet fuel (which is a liquid and has mass) flying at 500 MPH. They could not and the REAL physics are documented in the NIST report.
NIST WTC Report (National Institute of Standards and Technology)
Does this sort of nonsensical pseudo-science work on people who have never taken a physics class in their life like yourself?
twistedbydsign99:The towers were built to withstand a plane strike and support its weight.
Wrong the WTC were built to withstand the impact of a 707 which is 40 tons lighter than a 767 which was not built until 10 years after the WTC was constructed.
twistedbydsign99:Even if the structure was compromised it would not have caused an acceleration near free fall along the path of greatest resistence or a catastrophic failure.
It did not fall at free fall speed.
NIST Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster FAQs (National Institute of Standards and Technology)
"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).
From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely." - NIST
twistedbydsign99:The top of the building would have fell the distance of one floor and then toppled over the side.
Really? And you know this how?
Why the Towers Fell (60min) (NOVA)
Poptech:Your math is total nonsense.
I believe he was quoting Dr. Reynolds verbatim. You might want to take it up with the source.
@everyone, I've been burying 9/11 threads this week, and this will be the next one if EVERYONE can't get along without being insulting. If this discussion is going to occur here, lets limit the drama and namecalling from ALL sides please.
re sapSUCKER ' s sig line: "The men the American public admire most extravagantly are the most daring liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth." -H.L. Mencken
sapSUCKER, I only just noticed your signature line - that has to be one of the single greatest of many great Mencken quotes, especially under the circumstances , wouldn't you say?
On exactly that same subject [ie. those " most daring liars"] , regarding the dreamt of impartiality of involved institutions funded by the government who unanimously parrot the official story, Mr Reynolds , an ex "high up" government insider himself [check his credentials listed at end of this post] , has this to say :
"Scientific Cover Up"
So FEMA, NIST, Perdue University and MIT are part of the conspiracy? Are you serious?
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Facts are simple and facts are straightFacts are lazy and facts are lateFacts all come with points of viewFacts dont do what I want them toFacts just twist the truth aroundFacts are living turned inside outFacts are getting the best of themFacts are nothing on the face of thingsFacts dont stain the furnitureFacts go out and slam the doorFacts are written all over your faceFacts continue to change their shape
- Crosseyed and Painless, Talking Heads
We are the soldiers for righteousnessAnd we are not sent here by the politicians you drink with - L. Dube, rip
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom: "Why would scientists at FEMA, NIST, Purdue University and MIT lie? The answers are simple: • They are government employees, consultants or federally-funded scientists paid to arrive at a predetermined conclusion for their client, the government. • Unlike impartial scientists that weigh one theory versus another for logic and evidence, theories supported by evidence that point to explosives, demolition and non-Big-Boeing causation are neither discussed nor discredited. They are simply ignored. While every theory does not require careful analysis, ignoring promising alternative theories is scientifically dishonest." [emphasis added]. source
And with this we must now ignore Dr. Reynolds. As he cites an MIT study to explain why the plane couldn't easily penetrate the towers and why the wings of the planes would have "bounded off."
Dr. Reynolds:Most of us would agree that planes are flimsy things, as Marcus Icke points out: “Computer simulation and mathematical analysis of the impact by MIT, University of Purdue and others indicate that upon impact the wings of the 767 would have shattered and the fuel ignited outside the towers facade, the aircraft would have lost about 25% percent of its kinetic energy on impact and that the tail fin would have sheared off due to torsional forces. In layman’s terms this means that the aeroplane would have decelerated sharply [emphasis added] crumpled up and exploded against the tower’s wall with only heavy objects like the engines and undercarriage puncturing the towers facade. The entire airframe would not have glided through the outer wall and would not have left a large hole roughly the same shape and size of a Boeing 767-200.”
What is dishonest is misusing an MIT study to prove your case then calling them liars.
Poptech:It did not fall at free fall speed.
Near free fall speed.
Poptech: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.
From the horses mouth, average collapse time: 10 seconds. Do you know kinematics?
x(t) = x0 + v0*t + 1/2*a*t^2
solve for a - acceleration assuming an initial velocity of 0 since the building was standing.
a = 2*(x(t) - x0)/t^2
x(t) - x0 is the change in x that is the height of the buidling which is 417 meters. t on average between the 2 is 10 seconds.
a = 2*(417)/10^2 = 8.34 m/s
g = 9.8 m/s
aka near free fall speed.
Poptech:Really? And you know this how?
1. the top of the south tower was already falling over
2. the path of most resistence was straight down it was the least likely path.
twistedbydsign99: Near free fall speed. Poptech: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. From the horses mouth, average collapse time: 10 seconds. Do you know kinematics? x(t) = x0 + v0*t + 1/2*a*t^2 solve for a - acceleration assuming an initial velocity of 0 since the building was standing. a = 2*(x(t) - x0)/t^2 x(t) - x0 is the change in x that is the height of the buidling which is 417 meters. t on average between the 2 is 10 seconds. a = 2*(417)/10^2 = 8.34 m/s g = 9.8 m/s aka near free fall speed.
But the NIST figures only measure from the beginning of the collapses to the time when the first amount of debris hits the ground.
NIST:From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.
Any time of collapse would have to include the time it took for the entire tower to collapse. So whatever "near" free fall means, we still aren't as near as a controlled demotion.
(Also, the buidlings (or portions of them) collapsing at "near" free fall speeds doesn't rule out them falling naturally)
Acceptable figures for the collapse on average I've heard are 10 - 15 seconds, including the upper mass collapsing. I've not had time to time collapses or known buildings due to implosion or other methods, but it should be done and probably already has been.
twistedbydsign99:Acceptable figures for the collapse on average I've heard are 10 - 15 seconds, including the upper mass collapsing. I've not had time to time collapses or known buildings due to implosion or other methods, but it should be done and probably already has been.
You've heard? The "horses mouth" says otherwise:
The figures are acceptable for what was being measured, 25s-40s would be acceptable for the total time. The "near" free fall argument just doesn't measure up to any controlled demolition.
Can we get agreement that 40 seconds is still ridiculously fast for a building that size to fall, let alone for it to happen to two buildings, damaged in two discrete ways, on the same day?
I don't know what happened to the towers, but I trust NIST about as much as I trust Donald Rumsfeld.
Does anyone have any data on how fast WTC 7 came down?
liberty student:Can we get agreement that 40 seconds is still ridiculously fast for a building that size to fall, let alone for it to happen to two buildings, damaged in two discrete ways, on the same day?
No, I don't think so.
liberty student:I don't know what happened to the towers, but I trust NIST about as much as I trust Donald Rumsfeld.
Fair enough.
liberty student:Does anyone have any data on how fast WTC 7 came down?
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf
Edit:
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf
http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf
Angurse:No, I don't think so.
Why not?
Angurse: liberty student:Does anyone have any data on how fast WTC 7 came down? http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf
I scanned it, and didn't see the data. WTC 7.
liberty student:Why not?
To clarify, yes it was fast as gravity is fast, but no it wasn't "ridiculously fast." Dirty calculations show that the buildings could have fallen within the time they did. And steel framed buildings have collapsed due to fire before. So its just not evidence of any conspiracy.
liberty student: I scanned it, and didn't see the data. WTC 7.
My Mistake, I've corrected my previous post.
http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf
bottom of page 2, 11.3 +- 1.5 seconds and 1-2 seconds for upper block. That range works out to [~11 to 15]. He is a 911 conspiracy debunker btw not a truther.