FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
WTC7.... the Final Verdict is in on 9/11
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
Aemilius



Joined: 14 Mar 2015
Posts: 43

PostPosted: Sat Aug 08, 2015 7:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I appreciate the response Fintan but it's a non sequitur, in other words.... you really explained nothing at all of why the 9/11 - THE TRIAL section of the 9/11 - THE FINAL VERDICT forum hasn't been opened for the posting of the Analysis (which I'm guessing would probably take all of a couple of minutes) by stating any credible objection or even hinting at any correction.... in that sense your post contains absolutely no useful information.

As far as your "take on the next step re this topic" goes, there is no "take" when it comes to the "next step" of the Analysis..... it is either correct or it's not. I've already clearly outlined the proper procedure for anyone wishing to point out any error or suggest any correction (in accordance with the scientific method) and that is to simply copy and paste any animation therein along with any relevant accompanying discriptive text that indicates something like "This animation and accompanying descriptive text is incorrect. The Scenario depicted/described would not play out as shown and here's why....." followed by some cogent logical explanation of the percieved error or correction, or alternatively, to point out some evidence (existing or logically conjectured) not included in the Analysis that when empirically applied to it would tend to impact the veracity of the information it conveys or the conclusion it naturally arrives at.

After sitting unrefuted in any way for over ten months now over at the Cambridge University (where Isaac Newton himself once held the vaunted Lucasian Chair) sponsored forum TheNakedScientists where multiple suitably credentialed academics are known to have viewed it there is continued silence, and silence, as we both know, whether in the court of public opinion, formal debate, informal debate, civil court or criminal court in response to a meticulously factual clearly stated empirically verifiable prima facie argument is tantamount to defeat.... in much the same way as if an opponent were to refuse to make a move while playing a game of Chess.

On that note I completely disagree with your handling of this so far and still firmly believe that the ANALYSIS should be immediately allowed into the 9/11 - THE TRIAL section of the 9/11 - THE FINAL VERDICT forum, and then, as one would normally expect, when you or anyone else for that matter has finished their research they can simply post it, explain how and why they think it applies and then argue whatever it is they wish to argue.

Of course it's your forum and you can run things as you choose but I do hope you'll at least start the topic off with my original post (which I'd like to modify prior to posting if you wouldn't mind letting me know beforehand).

Thanks.... Emile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
je-demande



Joined: 26 Mar 2015
Posts: 246
Location: London

PostPosted: Mon Aug 10, 2015 9:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Aemilius wrote:
one would normally expect, when you or anyone else for that matter has finished their research they can simply post it, explain how and why they think it applies and then argue whatever it is they wish to argue.


Aemilius - Unless there's something I'm missing for someone who has done a fair bit of work I would have expected more response/respect for your position.

At the end of the day you're being ignored.Which is by definition ignorant.

Is that a fair statement?

I wonder?

_________________
Vaut mieux prévenir que guérir.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Aemilius



Joined: 14 Mar 2015
Posts: 43

PostPosted: Wed Aug 12, 2015 5:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

je-demande wrote:
Aemilius wrote:
....one would normally expect, when you or anyone else for that matter has finished their research they can simply post it, explain how and why they think it applies and then argue whatever it is they wish to argue.


Aemilius - Unless there's something I'm missing for someone who has done a fair bit of work I would have expected more response/respect for your position.


Me too (without being haughty about it). It started out on a positive note but there does seem to be something distinctly strange about the whole thing. At first it was "Great work Aemilius! For the non-technical reader, that's the most persuasive, clear and accessible case for the impossible free fall I've ever seen online." But I couldn't help noticing at the time that the same post ended with the mentioning of an audio interview with Richard Gage saying "I interviewed Richard Gage of AE9/11Truth about the Twin Towers and WTC7. We disagree on the Towers." There was no mention here of what their agreement was if any about WTC7 (the topic) but there was clearly disagreement about the Towers, which struck me as odd since the Towers, the Pentagon and Shanksville are all essentially rendered either academic, irrelevant or both following even the most cursory examination of the analysis and a list of tenants at the time.

Then, a couple of weeks later, when I suggested that the 9/11 - THE TRIAL section of the 9/11 - THE FINAL VERDICT forum be opened for the posting of the ANALYSIS, it's another positive remark "That's a prima facie case, right there. In other words, that's basic grounds for demanding an new investigation." But then, rather than simply opening the forum he instead posts again saying "So give me a few days to pull it together and for sure the WTC7 issue legitimately would be the first order of business for the trial process." without saying really what he's trying to "pull together" or why it should prevent the posting of the analysis, following with "The challenge --which I'd like to hold back on until that forum section is opened - is to come up with a plausible human mechanism which can explain that free fall." So, I'm trying to understand, he's going to hold back on the challenge until the forum is opened and he's not going to open the forum until he's written this post consisting of a plausible alternative explanation that for some reason must be completed before the forum is opened or the posting of the analysis will be allowed. Does that make sense to you?

Finally, after ten full weeks of complete silence and multiple requests for some kind of explanation, he tells me "I've had a 2/3rds completed post about a research review of WTC7 which I've been working on over the month or so. It's got a slew of videos and my take on the next step re this topic in the 9/11 section on BFN." and I'm left to wonder....What is it really all about? How could a post about a research review of WTC7 including a "slew of videos" possibly be applied to an empirical analysis such as this and simply show it to be incorrect in some way? The answer is it can't (no matter how voluminous).... only copying and pasting one or more of the simple animations from the analysis along with the relevant accompanying descriptive text and indicating something like "This animation and accompanying descriptive text is incorrect, the scenario would not play out as depicted/described and here's why...." followed by some brief cogently elucidated explanation of a percieved error or needed correction that would tend to impact the veracity of the analysis in some way. That is the only acceptable form of response to an empirical analysis.... confirm or deny.

And just as an aside.... none of the members are rallying to the cause either. No one's backing me up or saying anything like "Hey! C'mon... let's open the forum!" or "What's the hold up?" or anything at all.... a little discouraging.

Thanks for the your interest je-demande and for bringing that up.... Emile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Southpark Fan



Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Posts: 1432
Location: The Caribbean of Canada

PostPosted: Thu Aug 13, 2015 9:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I hear ya Aemilius. I have nothing to do with running BFN - so can't help ya there.

I researched the hell out of 9/11 to ease my mind about what happened. I gave up ever trying to see the real scumbags responsible brought out from under the rock they hide under.

Why would we not want to investigate the greatest crime in American history? Bush stonewalled a committee of his own choosing, one stacked with political functionaries that was ill-equipped to conduct either a police or forensic investigation — and, perhaps most revealing, one that accepted the government's version of who the guilty parties were before they examined any evidence!

So much wrong with how things are run and by whom.

_________________
"Now water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend." - Bruce Lee
"Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth." - Buddha
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
je-demande



Joined: 26 Mar 2015
Posts: 246
Location: London

PostPosted: Fri Aug 14, 2015 5:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Aemilius wrote:

Thanks for the your interest je-demande and for bringing that up.... Emile


"Interest"???..ZZzzzzzz :-) This friggin place is dead as a door nail. There's

quite a bit of content but hardly any members left which IMO is a classic bad

sign in a side tracking of the truth kind of way, proves nothing but I'm sure

you're not the first very genuine guy who has been "ignored" for want of a

better word on this forum which again of course proves nothing.

I would say whatever you think Aemilius and to hell with the consequences..

_________________
Vaut mieux prévenir que guérir.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 8143

PostPosted: Sun Aug 16, 2015 10:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Tony Szamboti & Bob McIlvaine
on Geraldo Rivera's 9/11
WTC7 Special




Thanks again to Aemilius for re-seeding the WTC7 issue here on BFN.

If you haven't seen his presentation, check it out at the start of this topic.

As I said earlier in this thread
about the presentation by Aemilius:
Quote:
For the non-technical reader, that's the most persuasive, clear and
accessible case for the impossible free fall I've ever seen online.

I will be transferring this discussion to the 9/11 Verdict section of
the forum - it's just a click of a mouse to move the whole topic.

But we will get higher traffic to the topic here in the
General Discussion - so I'll keep it here for a while.

So this is now a good opportunity to fine tune the skeptics
case against the official explanation for the WTC7 Collapse.


In summary: What Aemilius has done is to convincingly highlight
how the NIST account of the WTC7 collapse is deeply flawed because the
free fall of any collapsing steel structure is scientifically impossible!!

Plus: NIST's fire-induced collapse does not explain how impossible free fall HAPPENED!

And so that's exactly where 9/11 skeptics can step in with confidence
that the science and physics back their demand for SOME explanation.

However, that means taking on a big challenge:

We now know that WTC7 couldn't free fall during a natural collapse.

But that simply begs the bigger question:

So, How DID that building free fall for 2.25 seconds?? Because it DID.

Now that is a pretty damn hard question to answer.

Quote:

Graphic by Aemilius

Essentially, we must explain HOW the building behaved AS IF a big
chunk of it had been instantly vaporized - as per the above graphic.

But to do THAT we need to come up with a pretty detailed case with say,
some hard specifics on type and placement of any explosives.

Saying it MUST have been explosives is not enough. There are no known
explosives which can totally and instantly vaporize 8 stories of the WTC7
building without taking out half of Manhattan as well in the blast.

So, this don't add up.

If the mainstream explanation is a dud.
We need more than a simplistic collapse model.
We need a complex collapse model - with free fall.




KEY WTC7 QUESTIONS

1) How long should that 2.25 seconds of free fall have taken if there
had been resistance from the structure - as NIST's model claims?

Quote:

So what should the 2.25 seconds have been? 3.0 seconds? 3.5 seconds?
We need to quantify the time element to quantify the missing resistance.
The red line in the graph below marks the slope of free fall collapse rate:

Quote:




2) The simple NIST description used the words "essentially free fall ",
and described the resistance offered to that fall as "negligible".
We need some hard numbers, the fractions - not the words.


3) Simple models of the collapse marginalize the 58 perimeter columns
and tend to focus on the role of the gravity load-bearing 25 core columns.

Quote:


Yes, blowing up core columns will help the building fall/implode straight down.
But will blowing up ONLY core columns enable free fall?? It would seem not.
Any evidence the perimeter was blown?
And, if not, so why didn't perimeter columns prevent the free fall??
Again, something's not adding up.


4) Simple models of the collapse ignore the east penthouse anomaly.

It's fall preceded that of the main structure. See NIST images below:

Quote:





So the mainstream explanation is that the WTC7 structure was already
collapsing internally
- even before it's perimeter was seen to drop.

I will let AE911Truth's David Chandler
argue against the NIST model:

Quote:
NIST claims that the collapse of their one key column led to a progressive collapse of the entire interior of the building leaving only a hollow shell.

The collapse of the building, seen in numerous videos, is described by NIST as the collapse of the "facade," the hollow shell.

They have no evidence for this scenario, however, and a great deal of evidence contradicts it. After the collapse of the east penthouse there is no visible distortion of the walls and only a few windows are broken at this time. Had the failure of interior columns propagated throughout the interior of the building, as asserted by NIST, it would surely have propagated to the much closer exterior walls and distorted or collapsed them.

(Major crumpling of the exterior walls, by the way, is exactly what is shown in the animations produced by NIST's computer simulation of the collapse.) But the actual videos of the building show that the exterior remained rigid during this early period.


Source


Tony Szamboti, a mechanical design engineer raises even more
questions about the NIST's use of column 79 to explain collapse:


Quote:
The technical explanation is that floor beams expanded because of heat and ultimately pushed a single column, column 79 off of its seating. That, NIST says, caused the entire collapse of the building. But what NIST told the public in 2008 was the reason these columns were pushed loose is because they were unrestrained.

What was discovered last year in 2012 after a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request was granted, that claim was not true, that the columns were not unrestrained. In fact there were 3,896 shear studs holding those columns in place.

...The beams could not expand far enough and if they could expand enough, those stiffeners would stop that girder from falling off. They were bonded.

It would be sorta like me saying, I can put something thats a half inch wide and if i push it a half inch it will fall off this rail and thats not true. Thats what they’re saying, its that simple.”


Source


In any event NIST still must admit that the structure fell at "essentially"
free fall rate. Could the 58 perimeter columns really buckle so as
to offer NO resistance? That's a stretch.

Furthermore, the east penthouse collapse was itself anomalous, says
Chandler's critique of WTC7 which is posted on AE911Truth:

Quote:
Shortly before the ultimate collapse of the building the east penthouse and the columns beneath it suddenly gave way.

NIST attributes the collapse of the east penthouse to the failure of a single column, in a complex scenario involving thermal expansion of beams supporting the column. But it is much more likely that at least two and possibly three supporting columns were "taken out" simultaneously. Three columns supported the east penthouse.

One of our German colleagues has pointed to evidence that the east penthouse fell through the interior of the building at close to freefall, evidenced by a ripple of reflections in the windows as it fell. Yet the exterior of the building retained its integrity.


Source


Well, if the east penthouse fell through the interior of the building
at close to free fall - then NIST and us skeptics must explain how
that happened and have a complex model which shows the structural
integrity implications of a near free fall event in the interior.

We can't say that collapse began when the building exterior moved.

Clearly, collapse began even BEFORE the penthouse fell inside WTC7.

But we can say that measurement of WTC7's fall rate began when
the building exterior started to move. We saw. We got data. Deal with it.

Because - no matter what is going on inside WTC7 - if the exterior
fell at free fall - then how come 58 perimeter columns somehow offered
ZERO resistance to the collapse!?

This don't add up. The mainstream explanation is a dud.

We need more than a simplistic collapse model.
We need a complex collapse model - with free fall.


We need our own alternative to this:

Quote:

_________________
Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.


Last edited by Fintan on Sun Aug 16, 2015 11:40 am; edited 7 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 8143

PostPosted: Sun Aug 16, 2015 10:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

For Reference:

Here's our previous WTC7 discussions on BFN:

Quote:
WTC Building 7 - Overview
http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=501

WTC Building 7 - Free Fall
http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=483


Here's a great WTC7 resource with extensive graphics:

Quote:


Here's a lot of good questions about the first 7 floors of WTC7:
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/transfer-truss-failure-ttf-t662.html

Here's the website of AE911Truth:

Quote:
http://www.ae911truth.org/gallery/evidence.html
KEY EVIDENCE
Rapid onset of destruction,
Constant acceleration at or near free-fall through what should have been the path of greatest resistance,
Numerous eyewitness accounts of explosions including 118 FDNY personnel,
Lateral ejection of multi-ton steel framing members distances of 600 feet at more than 60 mph,
Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete, and large volumes of expanding pyroclastic-like dust clouds,
Isolated explosive ejections 20 to 60 stories below the “crush zone,”
Total destruction and dismemberment of all three buildings, with 220 floors each an acre in size missing from the Twin Towers’ debris pile,
Several tons of molten steel/iron found in the debris piles,
Evidence of thermite incendiaries on steel beams,
Nanothermite composites and iron microspheres found in WTC dust samples.
http://www.ae911truth.org/gallery/evidence.html

SEE ALSO: http://911speakout.org/


Note the perfect collapse seen in this video:




Now compare with the attempts to get a computer simulation
to collapse correctly. From 1 minute in, it gets more realistic.

At 1:40 you see an internal collapse modelled. I'm not saying
this is scientific - but it gives you an idea of the basic dynamics
and the difficulty of getting the building to fall centered on it's
own footprint:




To give you an even better feel for the integrity of this
tube-in-tube steel construction skyscraper - here it's
built before your very eyes:




At 17 seconds in,
listen for the boom
preceding the penthouse fall:




Now hear Barry Jennings recount
his experience INSIDE of WTC7:




Here's part of an interview with former
NYPD Officer, Craig Bartmer
who was a 9/11 First Responder
and worked at Ground Zero:




Finally, a short feature on the death of
controlled demolition expert Danny Jowenko
- including video of him speaking about WTC 7:


_________________
Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Aemilius



Joined: 14 Mar 2015
Posts: 43

PostPosted: Tue Aug 18, 2015 1:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Fintan....

Don't know what that's all about. You raise various issues as being important (along with a truckload of random information and videos) but stop short of actually explaining how or where any of them could be directly applied to the Analysis in such a way as to impact the veracity of it or the conclusion it arrives at one way or the other.

As I mentioned earlier, the only real challenge here, from the vantage point of the scientific method, is to provide another more plausible empirically verifiable analysis and conclusion that supercedes the prima facie empirically verifiable analysis and conclusion already provided, or, barring that, break the analysis by pointing out a specific perceived error or needed correction that would tend to negatively impact the veracity of the information conveyed (and by extension the conclusion arrived at) by simply copying and pasting one of the animations along with some accompanying discriptive text that says something like "This animation and accompanying descriptive text is incorrect/needs correction, the scenario would not play out as depicted/described and here's why...." followed by some sort of cogently elucidated explanation of the percieved error or needed correction.... those are the only ways the analysis can be defeated.

For as long as neither of those things happen, and in accordance with the scientific method, the prima facie empirically verifiable analysis and conclusion already provided will continue to be accepted as correct and its conclusion will continue to stand as empirically established fact....

WTC7 was intentionally brought down by explosives placed and detonated by personel from the
Department of Defense and the Central Intelligence Agency.


.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
je-demande



Joined: 26 Mar 2015
Posts: 246
Location: London

PostPosted: Tue Aug 18, 2015 3:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Aemilius wrote:

WTC7 was intentionally brought down by explosives placed and detonated by personel from the
Department of Defense and the Central Intelligence Agency.

.



_________________
Vaut mieux prévenir que guérir.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
je-demande



Joined: 26 Mar 2015
Posts: 246
Location: London

PostPosted: Mon Aug 24, 2015 4:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This Forum really is a Joke. No focus whatsoever and no one gives a crap - just

a bunch of sad wankers posting random crap.

_________________
Vaut mieux prévenir que guérir.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Robert



Joined: 07 Feb 2006
Posts: 398

PostPosted: Tue Aug 25, 2015 7:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

......I came looking for Agatha Christie and I found Jean-Luc Godard.

R
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 8143

PostPosted: Tue Aug 25, 2015 3:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
je-demande
This Forum really is a Joke. No focus whatsoever and no one gives a crap
- just a bunch of sad wankers posting random crap.


Yeah, can b quiet here in the summer, so
maybe you are the random crap poster?

Dude, four of your five posts have been just bitchin' about suptn'. Laughing Laughing

We don't spoon-feed here.
Got brain? Use it. Wink

_________________
Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Page 4 of 8

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.