Food for thought

[Stanchetalarooni]

•The energy expended in the destruction far exceeded what was available in the gravitational potential of the three WTC skyscrapers
•The destruction was too symmetrical to have been unassisted by explosives
•The destruction involved extremely high temperatures that produced molten iron or steel; this cannot be accounted for by office fires or jet fuel
•WTC 7’ freefall collapse, acknowledged by NIST, required explosives
•There is forensic evidence of unignited engineered energetic materials left over throughout the WTC dust
http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/458-bill-moyers.html

[hack89]

1. You are 10 years too late

I suggest you spend time in the archive - everyone of those points has been blown apart countless times.

[Stanchetalarooni]

2. Probable symmetry of debris distribution.

[hack89]

3. That one too. nt

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OnTheOtherHand]

13. oh, brother

This is not a "shut people up" forum.

So quit it.

Hey, you're equally entitled to your meta. And so am I. And here it is: I don't really know, substantively, where you get off criticizing someone on this basis for stating the truth as he sees it.*

Truth be told, I've been watching the original poster for a few days, and I've seen no indication that he or she is interested in discussing anything. But no one is preventing it.

*ETA: Of course, part of the issue here is that we do criticize each other for making claims we can't back up. In this case, it seems to me that anyone familiar with the forum should know the basis for hack's assertion, even if s/he happens to disagree with the conclusion. But of course not everyone is familiar with the forum. That's why I've been watching to try to figure out if the poster is interested in discussion.

[LARED]

4. Most people would not describe that as food

most would call it manure, with a heap of hubris.

[Bonobo]

6. More scorn with no purpose but to insult, belittle and shut off discussion. nt

[terrafirma]

7. Generally speaking

Discussions involve something new.

None of this "food for thought" is new. It's like having you all over for dinner and discussing whether or not Milli Vanilli actually sang their songs.

No.

They didn't.

Move on.

[Bonobo]

8. As repetitive as you may find it, it may be new for others.

Ultimately, my point is that this is a discussion forum.

When people start a conversation (and I have not before seen the OP), one does not barge in and say "That's old news, already discussed ad nauseum so please stop talking".

At the very least, if the above posters do not wish to discuss these topics again, they can simply not respond. But I get the overwhelming feeling that it is their wish to shut down, derail, dismiss, denigrate and heap scorn on posters that do not agree with their unchangeable positions.

It would be polite to just not respond if they have nothing to say beyond "pffft."

[zappaman]

9. pffft n/t

[greyl]

10. RTFM!

1. RTFM

Read The Fucking Manual

<Skilless15> what's rtfm
<Skilless15> i forgot
<@avaxx> read the fucking manual.
<Skilless15> why
<Skilless15> you could just tell me

2. RTFM

Literally "Read The F**king Manual"; a term showing the frustration of being bothered with questions so trivial that the asker could have quickly figured out the answer on their own with minimal effort, usually by reading readily-available documents. People who say "RTFM!" might be considered rude, but the true rude ones are the annoying people who take absolutely no self-responsibility and expect to have all the answers handed to them personally.

"Damn, that's the twelfth time that somebody posted this question to the messageboard today! RTFM, already!"

More: www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=rtfm

[LARED]

12. How does what I posted shut down discussion?

In fact it should spur discussion as I have challenged to OP to defend what was posted.

If you want a truther echo chamber there are places on the Internet well suited to the purpose. I suggest you hang out there.

If you want to defend the OP, then it's your turn.

[mrarundale]

11. In what way was this one "blown apart"?

humor us (without quibbling as to whether it was a few seconds more than freefall):

WTC 7’ freefall collapse, acknowledged by NIST, required explosives

[hack89]

14. NIST never said it was entirely at freefall

is is another classic case of Truther cherry picking quotes.

From NIST:

In a video, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free fall, something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you describe. How can you ignore basic laws of physics?

In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail.

To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video. Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent displacement data. The instant at which vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was determined by tracking the numerical value of the brightness of a pixel (a single element in the video image) at the roofline. This pixel became brighter as the roofline began to descend because the color of the pixel started to change from that of the building façade to the lighter color of the sky.

The approach taken by NIST is summarized in Section 3.6 of the final summary report, NCSTAR 1A (released Nov. 20, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf) and detailed in Section 12.5.3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-9%20Vol%202.pdf).

The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:

* Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
* Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
* Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity


This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm

[William Seger]

15. "required explosives"

= "assuming the consequent" = "begging the question"

I defy you to present a logical argument that concludes that a short period of freefall "required explosives." Feel free to use anything you can find on Gage's site (and good luck with that).

This is just another example of Gage simply incorporating his misconceptions about structural mechanics into his naked assertions. The NIST explanation (that it was because 8 floors buckled) makes sense, because it came 1.75 seconds after the building started to fall, i.e. 1.75 seconds after those columns first started buckling. The CD hypothesis asserts that the perps blew out 8 floors of columns after the building was already falling, for no apparent reason, and furthermore they did it with magical silent explosives! Sorry, but I find it very hard to comprehend what kind of mindset it takes to ignore the obvious stupidity of that hypothesis.