Some reasoned argument desperately required

What does make the world turn?
djembeweaver
Regular Poster
Posts: 589
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2015 8:53 pm

Some reasoned argument desperately required

Post by djembeweaver » Fri Aug 28, 2015 4:20 pm

I'm not sure if this is the correct place to post this question, but I wanted the opinion of physicists and mathematicians. Also I am desperate for some reasoned argument on this subject since for many it falls into the realm of 'conspiracy theory' and therefore elicits strong reactions from both sides...

My question is this:

What, if anything, is wrong with David Chandlers analysis and conclusions regarding the apparent free-fall of WTC 7 on 9/11?

In the following video Mr Candler shows that WTC 7 fell at free-fall acceleration for about 2.5 seconds of it's collapse. At first NIST denied this, saying that it was impossible since that would imply zero structural resistance. Instead NIST calculated an average acceleration based on an arbitrary start time for the collapse. This, of course, is nonsense as average acceleration is irrelevant, especially as the building remained motionless for over a second after NISTs onset point.

Later NIST revised their model of the collapse and included the 2.5 seconds of free-fall but offered it up as one stage of a three-stage collapse, sticking to their average acceleration over the course of the three stages of collapse (free-fall only occurred in stage 2).

Please give me some reasoned and logical debate on this issue because I am really keen to know what, if anything, is wrong with Mr Chandlers reasoning here...

Thanks in advance.






User avatar
gorgeous
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5649
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: Some reasoned argument desperately required

Post by gorgeous » Fri Aug 28, 2015 4:42 pm

nothing wrong...it was a controlled demolition...you don't need to be an expert to know that...if you've seen controlled demolitions it was the exact same as shown with the towers....
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Real Skeptic
Posts: 23835
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Some reasoned argument desperately required

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Fri Aug 28, 2015 4:51 pm

Oh, lord, a truther.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"
WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
gorgeous
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5649
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: Some reasoned argument desperately required

Post by gorgeous » Fri Aug 28, 2015 5:04 pm

yes...truthers tell the truth unlike the lies and cons by the govt.....
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Real Skeptic
Posts: 23835
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Some reasoned argument desperately required

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Fri Aug 28, 2015 5:58 pm

Yeah, troofers dood that.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"
WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

djembeweaver
Regular Poster
Posts: 589
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2015 8:53 pm

Re: Some reasoned argument desperately required

Post by djembeweaver » Fri Aug 28, 2015 10:28 pm

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:Oh, lord, a truther.
That's exactly my point. I am certainly not a truther in the usual sense but I have become interested in the debate and some of the claims made by 'truthers' seem reasonable. Being a skeptic the first thing I do is seek out the opinion of someone on the other side of the argument...in this case the 'debunkers'.

Many of the claims are easily debunked and many more can be explained in other ways...they are subject to 'reasonable doubt'. Some, however, are not, or cannot, be so easily debunked and these interest me. The problem is that it is very difficult to get any reasoned debate from anyone since 'truthers' just agree and everyone else just goes into 'Oh-God-it's-a-Twoofer' mode and shuts down all logical faculties.

I assure you that I am not a truther. I am simply asking for someone with a better grasp of physics, maths or engineering than I do to point out the fallacies in David Chandler's analysis. If his analysis is sound then I would like an explanation of how this is possible under the given conditions.

Surely just asking such a question on a forum devoted to skepticism is not reason enough to draw ridicule? Surely not...and if so then shame on you for calling yourselves 'skeptics'

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Real Skeptic
Posts: 23835
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Some reasoned argument desperately required

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Fri Aug 28, 2015 10:42 pm

I'll start believing you when bacon takes wing.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"
WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

djembeweaver
Regular Poster
Posts: 589
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2015 8:53 pm

Re: Some reasoned argument desperately required

Post by djembeweaver » Fri Aug 28, 2015 11:13 pm

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:I'll start believing you when bacon takes wing.
Believing what? I haven't tried to convince you of anything. I'm asking for a critique of somebody else's position. If anything I'm asking you to convince me...

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 34971
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: prostrate spurge
Location: Transcona

Re: Some reasoned argument desperately required

Post by Gord » Sat Aug 29, 2015 12:09 am

We've had discussions like this before. See, for example, this post: http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... ll#p451301

It's in a 12-page thread called "9/11 Falsers are Dummies", which is named as a counter to another 8-page thread called "9/11 Truthers are Dummies".
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27981
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Location: sometimes

Re: Some reasoned argument desperately required

Post by scrmbldggs » Sat Aug 29, 2015 12:31 am

So he shows NIST corrected themselves? I'd call that good science if they did. But in the third video @ 1:57 he speaks of explosives and @ 2:29 he says, "The building went from full support to zero support instantly." and later speaks of simultaneous collapse and that all supports had to be removed in one fell swoop. AFAIK, he's wrong about that and not once mentions the structural damage the building sustained not only from fire but also from falling debris from one of the towers. There are images/videos that show some of that damage before the collapse (northwest corner, IIRC) and some are posted somewhere in the thread Gord linked to, I think.

He makes some pretty strong claims and invokes the teevee show CSI :lol:. I'd say it's mostly conspiracy waffling of a troother... :pardon:
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

djembeweaver
Regular Poster
Posts: 589
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2015 8:53 pm

Re: Some reasoned argument desperately required

Post by djembeweaver » Sat Aug 29, 2015 12:50 am

Gord wrote:We've had discussions like this before. See, for example, this post: http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... ll#p451301

It's in a 12-page thread called "9/11 Falsers are Dummies", which is named as a counter to another 8-page thread called "9/11 Truthers are Dummies".
Even the names of those threads put me off since they both imply ad hominem from the off. I'll wade through them anyway before posting anything further here though.

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 34971
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: prostrate spurge
Location: Transcona

Re: Some reasoned argument desperately required

Post by Gord » Sat Aug 29, 2015 3:18 am

djembeweaver wrote:
Gord wrote:We've had discussions like this before. See, for example, this post: http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... ll#p451301

It's in a 12-page thread called "9/11 Falsers are Dummies", which is named as a counter to another 8-page thread called "9/11 Truthers are Dummies".
Even the names of those threads put me off since they both imply ad hominem from the off. I'll wade through them anyway before posting anything further here though.
I agree. The first thread was in appropriately named, and the second thread was in response to that inappropriateness. But then again, I think inappropriateness was an intended theme to both of them, so I guess the inappropriateness was appropriate.

Ow, I bit my tongue....
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

djembeweaver
Regular Poster
Posts: 589
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2015 8:53 pm

Re: Some reasoned argument desperately required

Post by djembeweaver » Sat Aug 29, 2015 11:35 am

Gord wrote:
djembeweaver wrote:
Gord wrote:We've had discussions like this before. See, for example, this post: http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... ll#p451301

It's in a 12-page thread called "9/11 Falsers are Dummies", which is named as a counter to another 8-page thread called "9/11 Truthers are Dummies".
Even the names of those threads put me off since they both imply ad hominem from the off. I'll wade through them anyway before posting anything further here though.
I agree. The first thread was in appropriately named, and the second thread was in response to that inappropriateness. But then again, I think inappropriateness was an intended theme to both of them, so I guess the inappropriateness was appropriate.

Ow, I bit my tongue....
That's given me the first chuckle I've had since joining this forum. A bit of much needed light relief! Thanks for that :)

djembeweaver
Regular Poster
Posts: 589
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2015 8:53 pm

Re: Some reasoned argument desperately required

Post by djembeweaver » Sat Aug 29, 2015 2:20 pm

Gord wrote:We've had discussions like this before. See, for example, this post: http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... ll#p451301

It's in a 12-page thread called "9/11 Falsers are Dummies", which is named as a counter to another 8-page thread called "9/11 Truthers are Dummies".
Ok I've waded through all that and this particular issue is not addressed in any posts on that topic.

djembeweaver
Regular Poster
Posts: 589
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2015 8:53 pm

Re: Some reasoned argument desperately required

Post by djembeweaver » Sat Aug 29, 2015 2:33 pm

scrmbldggs wrote:So he shows NIST corrected themselves? I'd call that good science if they did. But in the third video @ 1:57 he speaks of explosives and @ 2:29 he says, "The building went from full support to zero support instantly." and later speaks of simultaneous collapse and that all supports had to be removed in one fell swoop. AFAIK, he's wrong about that and not once mentions the structural damage the building sustained not only from fire but also from falling debris from one of the towers. There are images/videos that show some of that damage before the collapse (northwest corner, IIRC) and some are posted somewhere in the thread Gord linked to, I think.

He makes some pretty strong claims and invokes the teevee show CSI :lol:. I'd say it's mostly conspiracy waffling of a troother... :pardon:
Ok so if it is now accepted that the building was in free-fall for 2.5 seconds that begs the question of whether that is possible due to fires and structural damage. What strikes me as odd is how NIST's representative initially says that free-fall is impossible since it would imply zero structural resistance. According to his own logic, therefore, if free-fall is accepted then one has to also accept that there was zero structural resistance, unless his initial reasoning was flawed in some way. So which is it? Is his initial reasoning flawed or is it sound? If it is sound then how does one account for zero structural resistance?

I'd really like to have a valid counter-argument to Chandler's 'free-fall' claim.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27981
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Location: sometimes

Re: Some reasoned argument desperately required

Post by scrmbldggs » Sat Aug 29, 2015 3:28 pm

The way I see it is that they initially measured the entire collapse time as visible from a video recording and eventually differentiated that more. Perhaps they weren't looking specifically for what Mr Chandler wanted and he doesn't sound like he'd wish to allow for human flaws and so he cries conspiracy and demolition.

Yes, IIRC, in the video you linked to, the official said free fall wasn't possible for a building and, imho, that's correct. The roof/top isn't/wasn't suspended in midair without any supports at all, so even the time without sufficient supports only approaches free fall (phase 2, IIRC). But that's simply my opinion.

Maybe others here can check the maths for you when they come around and have the time.
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 34971
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: prostrate spurge
Location: Transcona

Re: Some reasoned argument desperately required

Post by Gord » Sun Aug 30, 2015 12:02 am

djembeweaver wrote:
scrmbldggs wrote:So he shows NIST corrected themselves? I'd call that good science if they did. But in the third video @ 1:57 he speaks of explosives and @ 2:29 he says, "The building went from full support to zero support instantly." and later speaks of simultaneous collapse and that all supports had to be removed in one fell swoop. AFAIK, he's wrong about that and not once mentions the structural damage the building sustained not only from fire but also from falling debris from one of the towers. There are images/videos that show some of that damage before the collapse (northwest corner, IIRC) and some are posted somewhere in the thread Gord linked to, I think.

He makes some pretty strong claims and invokes the teevee show CSI :lol:. I'd say it's mostly conspiracy waffling of a troother... :pardon:
Ok so if it is now accepted that the building was in free-fall for 2.5 seconds that begs the question of whether that is possible due to fires and structural damage. What strikes me as odd is how NIST's representative initially says that free-fall is impossible since it would imply zero structural resistance. According to his own logic, therefore, if free-fall is accepted then one has to also accept that there was zero structural resistance, unless his initial reasoning was flawed in some way. So which is it? Is his initial reasoning flawed or is it sound? If it is sound then how does one account for zero structural resistance?

I'd really like to have a valid counter-argument to Chandler's 'free-fall' claim.
As far as I can recall, it was never accepted that the building was in free-fall for 2.5 seconds. I think it was the facade of the building -- the outer wall that's just there to look pretty -- which detached from the main wall and was in actual free-fall. Once detached, it simply fell with no structural resistance.

But I have nothing to link to. It's just from memory.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

djembeweaver
Regular Poster
Posts: 589
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2015 8:53 pm

Re: Some reasoned argument desperately required

Post by djembeweaver » Sun Aug 30, 2015 12:57 pm

Gord wrote:
djembeweaver wrote:
scrmbldggs wrote:So he shows NIST corrected themselves? I'd call that good science if they did. But in the third video @ 1:57 he speaks of explosives and @ 2:29 he says, "The building went from full support to zero support instantly." and later speaks of simultaneous collapse and that all supports had to be removed in one fell swoop. AFAIK, he's wrong about that and not once mentions the structural damage the building sustained not only from fire but also from falling debris from one of the towers. There are images/videos that show some of that damage before the collapse (northwest corner, IIRC) and some are posted somewhere in the thread Gord linked to, I think.

He makes some pretty strong claims and invokes the teevee show CSI :lol:. I'd say it's mostly conspiracy waffling of a troother... :pardon:
Ok so if it is now accepted that the building was in free-fall for 2.5 seconds that begs the question of whether that is possible due to fires and structural damage. What strikes me as odd is how NIST's representative initially says that free-fall is impossible since it would imply zero structural resistance. According to his own logic, therefore, if free-fall is accepted then one has to also accept that there was zero structural resistance, unless his initial reasoning was flawed in some way. So which is it? Is his initial reasoning flawed or is it sound? If it is sound then how does one account for zero structural resistance?

I'd really like to have a valid counter-argument to Chandler's 'free-fall' claim.
As far as I can recall, it was never accepted that the building was in free-fall for 2.5 seconds. I think it was the facade of the building -- the outer wall that's just there to look pretty -- which detached from the main wall and was in actual free-fall. Once detached, it simply fell with no structural resistance.

But I have nothing to link to. It's just from memory.
Here is a link to the full NIST report on building 7:

http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610

The three-stage graph plotting velocity against time is on page 46. I don't think the facade and the interior fell at different rates, since on page 23 NIST state that, "The global collapse of WTC 7 was underway. The shell of exterior columns buckled between the 7th and 14th floors, as loads were redistributed to these columns due to the downward movement of the building core and the floors. The entire building above the buckled-column region then moved downward as a single unit, completing the global collapse sequence."

User avatar
gorgeous
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5649
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: Some reasoned argument desperately required

Post by gorgeous » Sun Aug 30, 2015 2:33 pm

here's a govt conspiracy ....faking plane crashes...yes, it was planned before...-----Author James Bamford, “A Pretext For War”, discusses the declassified “Operation Northwoods” documents revealing that in 1962 the CIA was planning to stage phony terrorist attacks on the US and blame it on Cuba to start a war:-------more of the Northwoods document----"It is possible to create an incident which will make it appear that communist Cuba MIGS have destroyed a USAF aircraft over international waters in an unprovoked attack. "----------"An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers , all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone."-
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

djembeweaver
Regular Poster
Posts: 589
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2015 8:53 pm

Re: Some reasoned argument desperately required

Post by djembeweaver » Sun Aug 30, 2015 3:08 pm

gorgeous wrote:here's a govt conspiracy ....faking plane crashes...yes, it was planned before...-----Author James Bamford, “A Pretext For War”, discusses the declassified “Operation Northwoods” documents revealing that in 1962 the CIA was planning to stage phony terrorist attacks on the US and blame it on Cuba to start a war:-------more of the Northwoods document----"It is possible to create an incident which will make it appear that communist Cuba MIGS have destroyed a USAF aircraft over international waters in an unprovoked attack. "----------"An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers , all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone."-
That's not really a government conspiracy since it was rejected outright by Kennedy. A better example of a real government conspiracy would be Watergate, though that has nothing to do with the theme of this thread...

User avatar
gorgeous
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5649
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: Some reasoned argument desperately required

Post by gorgeous » Sun Aug 30, 2015 3:36 pm

it was a planned conspiracy....and those above ridiculed conspiracies...
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 14527
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND

Re: Some reasoned argument desperately required

Post by JO 753 » Sun Aug 30, 2015 4:45 pm

My conspirasy theory iz that a group uv Islamic agents crashed airlinerz into the bildingz. Wether they knew it woud cauze complete collaps or not duznt matter, they woud hav dun it either way. They were probably quite satisfied that ramming 400 tonz uv metal at 500 mph into a bilding full uv infidelz woud get alot uv attention. The 50,000 gallonz uv fuel helped sell the plan kuz they are fond uv fire.

Call me crazy, but it just makes alot uv sense to me.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

djembeweaver
Regular Poster
Posts: 589
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2015 8:53 pm

Re: Some reasoned argument desperately required

Post by djembeweaver » Sun Aug 30, 2015 10:09 pm

JO 753 wrote:My conspirasy theory iz that a group uv Islamic agents crashed airlinerz into the bildingz. Wether they knew it woud cauze complete collaps or not duznt matter, they woud hav dun it either way. They were probably quite satisfied that ramming 400 tonz uv metal at 500 mph into a bilding full uv infidelz woud get alot uv attention. The 50,000 gallonz uv fuel helped sell the plan kuz they are fond uv fire.

Call me crazy, but it just makes alot uv sense to me.
That may very well be the case but it doesn't address the issue at hand, which is the free-fall, or lack thereof, of building 7

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27981
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Location: sometimes

Re: Some reasoned argument desperately required

Post by scrmbldggs » Sun Aug 30, 2015 10:34 pm

Shouldn't that be "of portions of building 7"? Granted, the whole thing went down but not in the exact same manner throughout the entire structure; nor is the whole process visible on the available videos, AFAIK.
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

djembeweaver
Regular Poster
Posts: 589
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2015 8:53 pm

Re: Some reasoned argument desperately required

Post by djembeweaver » Sun Aug 30, 2015 10:49 pm

scrmbldggs wrote:Shouldn't that be "of portions of building 7"? Granted, the whole thing went down but not in the exact same manner throughout the entire structure; nor is the whole process visible on the available videos, AFAIK.
Maybe, although as I pointed out above NIST state that, "The entire building above the buckled-column region then moved downward as a single unit, completing the global collapse sequence"

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Some reasoned argument desperately required

Post by Matthew Ellard » Sun Aug 30, 2015 10:49 pm

djembeweaver wrote: That may very well be the case but it doesn't address the issue at hand, which is the free-fall, or lack thereof, of building 7
I make one suggestion. The International Skeptics Forum ( ex JREF) is larger and has a specific 9/11 sub forum. It also has some qualified engineers and other professionals, who are happy to answer complex questions and show their calculations. I don't participate because some of the mathematics is complex and takes investment of time to follow the arguments. (They are smarter than I am.)

I suggest if there is a technical question, that a better answer maybe sought from that subforum or the same question may already have been answered in an existing post. The boys and girls on in this forum are generally friendly and nice people. (There is nothing wrong with being on both forums and copying across good answers, for further discussion.)

International Skeptics Forum : 9/11 Conspiracies Sub Forum.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... y.php?f=64

djembeweaver
Regular Poster
Posts: 589
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2015 8:53 pm

Re: Some reasoned argument desperately required

Post by djembeweaver » Sun Aug 30, 2015 10:57 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
djembeweaver wrote: That may very well be the case but it doesn't address the issue at hand, which is the free-fall, or lack thereof, of building 7
I make one suggestion. The International Skeptics Forum ( ex JREF) is larger and has a specific 9/11 sub forum. It also has some qualified engineers and other professionals, who are happy to answer complex questions and show their calculations. I don't participate because some of the mathematics is complex and takes investment of time to follow the arguments. (They are smarter than I am.)

I suggest if there is a technical question, that a better answer maybe sought from that subforum or the same question may already have been answered in an existing post. The boys and girls on in this forum are generally friendly and nice people. (There is nothing wrong with being on both forums and copying across good answers, for further discussion.)

International Skeptics Forum : 9/11 Conspiracies Sub Forum.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... y.php?f=64
Thanks for the suggestion. I might give it a go but I admit that I am wary, since even asking questions that imply you have doubts about the official explanation tends to draw insult and ridicule. It's ironic since I have drawn similar ridicule and contempt from 'truthers' when I have questioned their accounts. It seems that people are very emotionally attached to their pet theories.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 14527
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND

Re: Some reasoned argument desperately required

Post by JO 753 » Sun Aug 30, 2015 11:06 pm

djembeweaver wrote:That may very well be the case but it doesn't address the issue at hand, which is the free-fall, or lack thereof, of building 7
It duz indirectly. If the freefall actually happened it duznt automaticly mean therez a US gumit conspirasy. A better explanation iz that the structure holding up wutevr did the freefalling failed. Given the great variety uv possibl sequensez uv events within the damajd structure, dozenz or hundredz uv them coud be likely candidates for the actual event.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Some reasoned argument desperately required

Post by Matthew Ellard » Sun Aug 30, 2015 11:17 pm

djembeweaver wrote: I am wary, since even asking questions that imply you have doubts about the official explanation tends to draw insult and ridicule.
I agree 100%. I have been taken to task for beating around the bush to ask a simple question. I now know to simply "ask the question". I also know to search existing posts first and read them, so If I'm still confused I can simply say "I don't understand this point, can someone walk me through this?". If the other members think you are sincere they will generally all help.


djembeweaver wrote: It's ironic since I have drawn similar ridicule and contempt from 'truthers' when I have questioned their accounts. It seems that people are very emotionally attached to their pet theories.
Scientology claimed to have "OTs" (100% perfect humans). You and I know, that in reality there is no such thing as a 100% perfect human. It would be boring if humans were 100% perfect. I will go further and say that having all these humans with different ways of thinking (mutations :D ) is actually advantageous for cultural evolution.

djembeweaver
Regular Poster
Posts: 589
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2015 8:53 pm

Re: Some reasoned argument desperately required

Post by djembeweaver » Sun Aug 30, 2015 11:27 pm

JO 753 wrote:
djembeweaver wrote:That may very well be the case but it doesn't address the issue at hand, which is the free-fall, or lack thereof, of building 7
It duz indirectly. If the freefall actually happened it duznt automaticly mean therez a US gumit conspirasy. A better explanation iz that the structure holding up wutevr did the freefalling failed. Given the great variety uv possibl sequensez uv events within the damajd structure, dozenz or hundredz uv them coud be likely candidates for the actual event.
Who said anything about a government conspiracy? I certainly didn't imply anything of the sort so I completely agree with you there...

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 14527
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND

Re: Some reasoned argument desperately required

Post by JO 753 » Mon Aug 31, 2015 3:47 am

OK.

Sorry, we get alot uv conspirasy theory enthuziasts here and the cleverer wunz often try to disgize themselvez az skeptics searching for the truth.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Some reasoned argument desperately required

Post by Matthew Ellard » Mon Aug 31, 2015 4:16 am

djembeweaver wrote: My question is this: What, if anything, is wrong with David Chandlers analysis and conclusions regarding the apparent free-fall of WTC 7 on 9/11?
I refer you back to the mathematics offered on the current JREF thread. Can you be more specific about your claim?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... p?t=295944

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 34971
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: prostrate spurge
Location: Transcona

Re: Some reasoned argument desperately required

Post by Gord » Mon Aug 31, 2015 4:33 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:International Skeptics Forum : 9/11 Conspiracies Sub Forum.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... y.php?f=64
Ohhh, THAT'S where I remember that discussion from!
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Some reasoned argument desperately required

Post by Matthew Ellard » Mon Aug 31, 2015 5:08 am

Gord wrote: Ohhh, THAT'S where I remember that discussion from!
There's about ten threads on this exact topic on JREF. To be frank, I don't follow all the explanations in depth, as I don't consider the issue that important in the greater scheme of the whole event.

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 34971
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: prostrate spurge
Location: Transcona

Re: Some reasoned argument desperately required

Post by Gord » Mon Aug 31, 2015 5:35 am

Yeah, I've read through most of them at some point or another. And there have been other forums, as well. It's grown so boring that I can't remember where I read anything anymore.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Some reasoned argument desperately required

Post by Matthew Ellard » Mon Aug 31, 2015 5:50 am

Gord wrote:Yeah, I've read through most of them at some point or another. And there have been other forums, as well. It's grown so boring that I can't remember where I read anything anymore.
The "No-Moon landing" conspiracy is much more fun. Less mathematics and more bat-{!#%@} crazy people.

djembeweaver
Regular Poster
Posts: 589
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2015 8:53 pm

Re: Some reasoned argument desperately required

Post by djembeweaver » Mon Aug 31, 2015 12:00 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Gord wrote:Yeah, I've read through most of them at some point or another. And there have been other forums, as well. It's grown so boring that I can't remember where I read anything anymore.
The "No-Moon landing" conspiracy is much more fun. Less mathematics and more bat-{!#%@} crazy people.
Flat earth is even crazier. Personally I'm only interested in ones that might have elements of truth, or at least where the accepted explanation might be incomplete, erroneous or misleading.

djembeweaver
Regular Poster
Posts: 589
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2015 8:53 pm

Re: Some reasoned argument desperately required

Post by djembeweaver » Mon Aug 31, 2015 10:55 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
djembeweaver wrote: My question is this: What, if anything, is wrong with David Chandlers analysis and conclusions regarding the apparent free-fall of WTC 7 on 9/11?
I refer you back to the mathematics offered on the current JREF thread. Can you be more specific about your claim?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... p?t=295944
Yeah I looked at the JREF threads and it's not absolutely clear. One proposition is that the interior collapsed ahead of the exterior and thus applied additional downward force on the exterior which could have equated to free-fall acceleration. I'm not quite sure if NIST's model shows that though. Most people there seem quite clear that free-fall is not a priori evidence of CD though.

I suppose my question was how can free-fall be accounted for without invoking CD...

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3928
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: Some reasoned argument desperately required

Post by Lausten » Tue Sep 01, 2015 11:40 am

dmsomethingsomethingweaver wrote:Also I am desperate for some reasoned argument on this subject since for many it falls into the realm of 'conspiracy theory' and therefore elicits strong reactions from both sides...
The first thing I can't believe is that you actually looked for answers to your questions. 911debunked is not that hard to find. Physics forums are not that hard to find. PBS, findable. Popular Mechanics. There are no "sides" here.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

djembeweaver
Regular Poster
Posts: 589
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2015 8:53 pm

Re: Some reasoned argument desperately required

Post by djembeweaver » Tue Sep 01, 2015 5:03 pm

Lausten wrote:
dmsomethingsomethingweaver wrote:Also I am desperate for some reasoned argument on this subject since for many it falls into the realm of 'conspiracy theory' and therefore elicits strong reactions from both sides...
The first thing I can't believe is that you actually looked for answers to your questions. 911debunked is not that hard to find. Physics forums are not that hard to find. PBS, findable. Popular Mechanics. There are no "sides" here.
I looked at all of those sources and honestly couldn't find much on this specific issue. '911 debunked' is one of the first places I look for counter arguments to 'truther' claims but mostly 'debunkers' use the average acceleration originally proposed by NIST which is not relevant to my question. As I said above I did find a relevant thread on JREF this time, so now I am aware of an alternative explanation that I was not aware of before.
There are no "sides" here
Really? It doesn't look that way.