The 9/11 Forum

another amazing leap forward in non-sequitor 'logic'.

go, jreffers, go.

no, really.

go.

that part of the penthouse is not on top of the column blamed for collapse.
BS rules the world.

Hey, this is my first post, I enjoy the quality of discussion around here, so congratulations to everybody!

The video posted by peterene1 has been removed from youtube, I presume it discussed this video here?

Downward Acceleration of the North Tower
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG2y50Wyys4

So did it successfully "debunk" it? I like David Chandler's distinct presentation style, but he certainly can be wrong in his conclusions or assumptions.

So I am interested in your opinions about this video, thank you!

Seife wrote:Hey, this is my first post, I enjoy the quality of discussion around here, so congratulations to everybody!

Welcome Seife

The video posted by peterene1 has been removed from youtube, I presume it discussed this video here?

Downward Acceleration of the North Tower
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG2y50Wyys4

I'm not sure, but as Newton mentioned the *penthouse*, I presume it was WTC 7 related (And that this thread is in the WTC7 category here probably confirms )

Hopefully peterene will refresh the link for us...

There are plenty of threads here based upon the WTC 1 descent (Sauret footage), the most recent of which is here:

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/sauret-data-synch-t239.html

I'd have a quick browse through WTC 1 & 2 technical threads. I'm pretty sure the Chandler video you reference will have been discussed. I'm sure someone will post a link here to point you in the right direction if you don't pop up on one of them (I'm not sure which thread top of head)

peterene1 would be the one with the video, eh.
but, sounds like i knew what i was talking about, lol.
and, that would definitely be tower seven.
building seven.
wtc7.
the solomon brothers building.

that one.

The video was concerning the initial descent of WTC7, the author claims (correctly) that there was a little motion in the west penthouse before the freefall period (at least a little bit corresponding to the NIST's phase 1)

So, as anybody on this forum knows, there wasn't (and could not have been) any sharp transition between zero movement and freefall. Because even usual demolitions have to overcome the residula capacity of the building in a short period of time with tiny acceleration).

On the other hand, progressive collapse would destabilize each part of the building independently over a period of a few seconds (5..6s...according to NIST's LS/DYNA work), making simultaneous floor wide (100m) onset of destabilization and freefall impossible. (the horizontal connections from the tiny west part won't hold the entire east part of the building.....)



Thus the video meets a definition of a joke. I'll try to find it somewhere.

peterene1 wrote:Thus the video meets a definition of a joke. I'll try to find it somewhere.

You are referring to the video which attempts to debunk David Chandler I presume?

I would like to see that video too!

Thanks for replying everybody.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rhY9c_iemA

Warning: any viewer should turn off his brain. Massive intellectual carnage.

He really thinks that a CD wents from still - not moving building - into absolute freefall in Planck's time.

LMAO!

Ah, thank you, will check it out. Alienentity is a very popular JREF member if I remember correctly

so cause the building shook a bit, it was a natural collapse?
this is comedy.

regardless of a couple seconds here or there in relation to the time it took to collapse or where to begin timing the collapse, shouldn't the big question be how it achieved freefall period?
my brain hurts trying to figure out how all support could be simultaneously removed for even 1 second of free fall, without some type of assistance. am i wrong to think that?

and i love how since no explosive sounds were distinguishable from the sound of the collapse itself = no assistance happend.
i guess for big buildings to collapse only explosives or fire can be used and if you don't hear any distinct explosions, official story = true.

the irony of debunkers asking for donations after demonizing others for doing the same is quite hilarious.
it's taken a lot of time and studying of the jref group psychology and i think i'm finaly understanding it.
i found this quote somewhere and i think it fits nicely.

Skepticism:


Skepticism reflects an attitude of doubt towards the veracity of a certain concept. With reference to the paranormal, skeptics make up a significant portion of those who express interest in such phenomena. Skepticism does not refer to those who refuse to believe in the paranormal. Rather, it applies to people who remain unconvinced until presented with adequate proof. Thus, the skeptic’s position is perhaps best summed up by author Carl Sagan who stated, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”




Debunker:


Some paranormal skeptics have taken on the official role of “debunkers.” These researchers focus specifically on disproving paranormal claims. Rather than conduct objective inquiries, debunkers seek only to expose fallacies within the phenomena they study. Due to their passionate disapproval, debunkers frequently cause debate and controversy. In extreme cases, debunkers neglect to accept evidence which contradicts their beliefs. Such persons are referred to as “pseudoskeptics” and generally meet with disapproval from the greater skeptic community.

Alienentity!! lol Oh you should see his hilarious video debunking of Barry Jennings!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRfctTxaIZY

According to Alienentity, Hess and Jennings were up on the 23rd floor between 10:00 - 10:20am. (Approx 2:11 in the video!!)

Even though at this point, Barry hasn't yet mentioned any explosion or even the sound of a building collapsing, even though WTC 2 had already collapsed a minute before hand at 9:58am.

Barry Jennings must be delusional because after this, in his interview with Dylan, he says that he sees both WTC 1 & 2 still standing because the firefighters who came to help him had to run off because WTC 2 was collapsing.

Barry Jennings wrote:“When I got to the 6th floor, there was an explosion. That’s what forced us back to the 8th floor. Both buildings were still standing. Keep in mind, I told you the fire department came and ran. They came twice. Why? Because Building Tower One fell, then Tower Two fell.“

Of course Alienentity also ignores Barry Jennings when he has stated that.

Barry Jennings wrote:I had to be inside on the 23rd floor when the second plane hit.

A handy guide to deal with JREFer is the work of Marco Truzzi who famously stated.

In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis --saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact--he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof.

– Marcello Truzzi, On Pseudo-Skepticism, Zetetic Scholar, 12/13, pp3-4, 1987

He famously pointed out the traits of pseudo skeptics who use these tactics.

• The tendency to deny, rather than doubt.
• Double standards in the application of criticism.
• The making of judgements without full inquiry.
• Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate.
• Use of ridicule or ad hominem attacks in lieu of arguments.
• Pejorative labelling of proponents as 'promoters', 'pseudoscientists' or practitioners of 'pathological science.
• Presenting insufficient evidence or proof.
• Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof.
• Making unsubstantiated counter-claims.
• Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence.
• Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for dismissing it.

Let this be your guide and I can guarantee you that JREFers pseudo skeptical arguments fail miserably because they will always employ one of these tactics, this is why most of them do not do debate outside of their own forum!

Alienentity did not debunk anything. That video is some extended version of a shorter one. I responded to the short version with a much shorter video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cOk-Y_aUZU

We had a discussion about the topic an finally I thought he understand what he is talking about. One should wonder a little bit why he didn't start his timing of the collapse with the onset of the building sway towards west (as analyzed by NIST in some self-contradicting way). Doing so Alienentity would reach the fall time of a snow flake.

The goal of controlled demolition is free fall - to cut all support. Nevertheless a professional CD team wouldn't cut all support at once. They usually start in the middle to force the outer shell falling inwards. Once the collapse reached the corners the whole unsupported upper part will fall at free fall until it hit the ground and crush itself due to it's own weight and speed.
The demolished building will "fall" a little longer than just free fall time of its own height but huge parts of it fall at free fall acceleration. ...just like WTC7.

Alienentity!! lol Oh you should see his hilarious video debunking of Barry Jennings!!

how do you debunk witness accounts? jref should stick to things that are possible.
basically according to jref, all witnesses who reported things inconsistent with oct, are either wrong, delusional or liars.
that irks me, what do these people have to gain? fame, money? nothing, all they gain from speaking about what they saw is grief and truth.

as far as the barry jennings debunking video, the big question again for me is, how come the stairs under barry turned into rubble leaving him clinging for his life?
am i suppose to believe that was part of the wtc tower breaking apart and hitting wtc7? i have a hard time believing that could hit so perfect that barry could have survived... but hey i guess it's possible... maybe.

besides barry there's plenty of more odd witness testimony, it can't be debunked imo, something else was happpening.
jref went quiet quick when i brought up the police dispatch reporting a van with a mural of a plane crashing into ny painted on the side, being stopped, giving chase to middle eastern men and then reporting that the van had exploded... what were these cops lying delusional or wrong?
takes a pretty big ass to ignore all that.

Let this be your guide and I can guarantee you that JREFers pseudo skeptical arguments fail miserably because they will always employ one of these tactics, this is why most of them do not do debate outside of their own forum!

ain't that the truth. i tried joining a debate between jref and a canadian truther, it was like 5 jref v 1 guy, pure ad hominem nonsense.
and if i remember right, they couldn't answer any of my questions and retreated back to their forum.
that proves to me that we don't know enough about what happend on 911, the only other thing i could do is sign up at jref and try again, but i don't expect good answers, just a lot of group bashing and insultfests.

Do I understand correctly that NIST has acknowledged WTC7 dropped at free fall acceleration for about 2.25 seconds or 25 meters? If so, we don't really need David Chandler or anyone else to measure the acceleration, although it is good to have confirmation. Of course, the video data is not as good as we would like. I wish there had been an IMAX camera and a high speed camera on every side, but it did not happen. The videos we have allow us to measure position and time with some uncertainty. I would not want to claim any better than plus or minus 10 percent for our acceleration measure. Even so, the video and calculations prove that WTC7 suddenly went from "fully supported" to "10% supported or less". Not only that, but every vertical support seems to have lost its strength (or 90% of it) at the same time, within a half second. Does that prove controlled demolition? Perhaps not, but it IS something unprecedented that cries out for an investigation.

Chech out this thread it-s-official-it-s-faster-than-free-fall-t91.html