Conspiracy Theories for Cynics
Discussion
scherzkeks said:
The free-fall statements are found on the NIST site.
The NIST report does indeed mention freefall when talking about the collapse of WTC7"The time that the roofline took to fall 18 stories was approximately 5.4s. The theoretical time for free fall (ie at gravitational acceleration) was calculated from <formula>. This time was approximately 3.9s. This the average time for the upper 18 stories to collapse, based on video evidence, was approximately 40% longer than the computed free fall time"
scherzkeks said:
No it isn't. The free-fall statements are found on the NIST site.
I am not in a position to offer an explanation. I find the (current) official explanation hard to believe, based on the research carried out by experts who disagree with it. The previous official explanation was also hard to believe, and was discredited and dropped.
And these experts are... I am not in a position to offer an explanation. I find the (current) official explanation hard to believe, based on the research carried out by experts who disagree with it. The previous official explanation was also hard to believe, and was discredited and dropped.
They all appear to be tangentially related to their field of expertise and have been widely discredited by numerous other trained professionals in their field. Why do you give them more weight than peak professional bodies?
Sandy Hook is a grim conspiracy. with those believing that "no children died" and all the victims are paid "actors" . It was all setup to fool the US into thinking they needed tougher gun laws
There was a BBC documentary on it the other day, it interviewed the fireman who was one of the first on scene. He described how a few weeks after the event he had phone calls from nutters asking him "why are you in on it" "we know its all a lie".
I find that hugely disgraceful beyond words to the victims and sheer stupidity the very idea that these "actors" are going to be complicit in this for the rest of their life
scherzkeks : OK, lets say for 1 minute the building didn't "collapse" due to the official report, how did it fall down then? Let me guess "I don't have enough knowledge or ideas to explain that, I've just seen loads of Hollywood films and buildings don't fall like that"
There was a BBC documentary on it the other day, it interviewed the fireman who was one of the first on scene. He described how a few weeks after the event he had phone calls from nutters asking him "why are you in on it" "we know its all a lie".
I find that hugely disgraceful beyond words to the victims and sheer stupidity the very idea that these "actors" are going to be complicit in this for the rest of their life
scherzkeks : OK, lets say for 1 minute the building didn't "collapse" due to the official report, how did it fall down then? Let me guess "I don't have enough knowledge or ideas to explain that, I've just seen loads of Hollywood films and buildings don't fall like that"
RizzoTheRat said:
The NIST report does indeed mention freefall when talking about the collapse of WTC7
"The time that the roofline took to fall 18 stories was approximately 5.4s. The theoretical time for free fall (ie at gravitational acceleration) was calculated from <formula>. This time was approximately 3.9s. This the average time for the upper 18 stories to collapse, based on video evidence, was approximately 40 longer than the computed free fall time"
Yes, they contradict their own 2008 claim that "WTC 7 did not enter free-fall," thanks to the persistence of outside academics and professionals. If you dig deeper into this area, you will find that despite their about-face, the current calculation is also highly disputed, particularly stage 1. "The time that the roofline took to fall 18 stories was approximately 5.4s. The theoretical time for free fall (ie at gravitational acceleration) was calculated from <formula>. This time was approximately 3.9s. This the average time for the upper 18 stories to collapse, based on video evidence, was approximately 40 longer than the computed free fall time"
In thier site FAQ, NIST also describes sections of WTC1&2 below the impact site coming down "essentially in free-fall."
That quote's from the 2008 report, do you mean the 2005 report that says
"Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos"
"Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos"
scherzkeks said:
RizzoTheRat said:
The NIST report does indeed mention freefall when talking about the collapse of WTC7
"The time that the roofline took to fall 18 stories was approximately 5.4s. The theoretical time for free fall (ie at gravitational acceleration) was calculated from <formula>. This time was approximately 3.9s. This the average time for the upper 18 stories to collapse, based on video evidence, was approximately 40 longer than the computed free fall time"
Yes, they contradict their own 2008 claim that "WTC 7 did not enter free-fall," thanks to the persistence of outside academics and professionals. If you dig deeper into this area, you will find that despite their about-face, the current calculation is also highly disputed, particularly stage 1. "The time that the roofline took to fall 18 stories was approximately 5.4s. The theoretical time for free fall (ie at gravitational acceleration) was calculated from <formula>. This time was approximately 3.9s. This the average time for the upper 18 stories to collapse, based on video evidence, was approximately 40 longer than the computed free fall time"
In thier site FAQ, NIST also describes sections of WTC1&2 below the impact site coming down "essentially in free-fall."
RizzoTheRat said:
That quote's from the 2008 report, do you mean the 2005 report that says
"Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos"
The claim that WTC 7 never entered free-fall was from August 2008, when Shyam Sunder discussed it in a technical briefing. It also appeared in NISTs Draft for Public Comment, before being redacted. "Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos"
I'm more intrigued on why a load of Yahoo's running around the middle east with every town village seemingly blown to bits manage to use mobile phones to co-ordinate troop movements and use facebook, youtube to post daily events in their nice little bloodbath?
If we seriously viewed them as a threat and wanted to inhibit their progress am I mistaken that it would be a piece of piss to shut down networks, block ISP's and data uploads etc.
Maybe our leaders like to have the bogeyman in the public eye so we can all cower under the duvet and give up rights to freedom all in the name of 'protection'
(not saying this is my view but interested in other peoples - I can't see any logical reason for not blocking out any form of modern communication systems out there which as I understand could be done in the blink of eye?)
If we seriously viewed them as a threat and wanted to inhibit their progress am I mistaken that it would be a piece of piss to shut down networks, block ISP's and data uploads etc.
Maybe our leaders like to have the bogeyman in the public eye so we can all cower under the duvet and give up rights to freedom all in the name of 'protection'
(not saying this is my view but interested in other peoples - I can't see any logical reason for not blocking out any form of modern communication systems out there which as I understand could be done in the blink of eye?)
Rouleur said:
scherzkeks said:
RizzoTheRat said:
The NIST report does indeed mention freefall when talking about the collapse of WTC7
"The time that the roofline took to fall 18 stories was approximately 5.4s. The theoretical time for free fall (ie at gravitational acceleration) was calculated from <formula>. This time was approximately 3.9s. This the average time for the upper 18 stories to collapse, based on video evidence, was approximately 40 longer than the computed free fall time"
Yes, they contradict their own 2008 claim that "WTC 7 did not enter free-fall," thanks to the persistence of outside academics and professionals. If you dig deeper into this area, you will find that despite their about-face, the current calculation is also highly disputed, particularly stage 1. "The time that the roofline took to fall 18 stories was approximately 5.4s. The theoretical time for free fall (ie at gravitational acceleration) was calculated from <formula>. This time was approximately 3.9s. This the average time for the upper 18 stories to collapse, based on video evidence, was approximately 40 longer than the computed free fall time"
In thier site FAQ, NIST also describes sections of WTC1&2 below the impact site coming down "essentially in free-fall."
scherzkeks said:
The claim that WTC 7 never entered free-fall was from August 2008, when Shyam Sunder discussed it in a technical briefing. It also appeared in NISTs Draft for Public Comment, before being redacted.
Given the amount of discussion and changes between drafts and final version of technical reports I write, which are a lot shorter and simpler than that one, that doesn't surprise me at all.There's plenty of evidence that the complete collapse wasn't at free fall speeds, while some elements of the collapse came close to it. What's the conspiracy supposed to be?
jmorgan said:
RizzoTheRat said:
There's plenty of evidence that the complete collapse wasn't at free fall speeds, while some elements of the collapse came close to it. What's the conspiracy supposed to be?
That has all been ignored for some reason.dudleybloke said:
The "Clinton bodies" conspiracy is interesting reading.
This is more interesting :http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/bodycount....
oddball1973 said:
I'm more intrigued on why a load of Yahoo's running around the middle east with every town village seemingly blown to bits manage to use mobile phones to co-ordinate troop movements and use facebook, youtube to post daily events in their nice little bloodbath?
If we seriously viewed them as a threat and wanted to inhibit their progress am I mistaken that it would be a piece of piss to shut down networks, block ISP's and data uploads etc.
Maybe our leaders like to have the bogeyman in the public eye so we can all cower under the duvet and give up rights to freedom all in the name of 'protection'
(not saying this is my view but interested in other peoples - I can't see any logical reason for not blocking out any form of modern communication systems out there which as I understand could be done in the blink of eye?)
It's easily done but causes a host of problems. Most of the developing/3rd world uses mobile phones as the main communications network with very little land line communications outside towns. Mobile phone accounts are effectively used as bank accounts too since the development of phone to phone transfers.If we seriously viewed them as a threat and wanted to inhibit their progress am I mistaken that it would be a piece of piss to shut down networks, block ISP's and data uploads etc.
Maybe our leaders like to have the bogeyman in the public eye so we can all cower under the duvet and give up rights to freedom all in the name of 'protection'
(not saying this is my view but interested in other peoples - I can't see any logical reason for not blocking out any form of modern communication systems out there which as I understand could be done in the blink of eye?)
In order to drop the bad guys communications you also have to drop the good guys communications, as well as the communications of all the normal guys who will pretty soon get pissed off and become bad guys if a load of foreigners come to their country and shut down their communications.
My Mrs is getting in a right strop after 2 evenings without internet access (thanks Virgin), imagine how much trouble there'd be if NATO moved in and shot down our mobiles, internet and telephone networks.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff