Amoeba,

You say >>Let’s get something straight. I am not suggesting that we should be taking this video to court … the consequences of accepting the official story …“

I see. So tell me then how you believe you are justified in claiming that NIST has lied? How do you justify your UNSHAKEABLE belief in the unerring accuracy of this test? Especially in light of the fact that NIST’s model agrees that the exterior of the building would have been falling at close to freefall for 7 stories.

You say >> “I have already addressed the question of error by asking you to look at the spread of points in the graph. That provides a visual estimate of error”

I really thought you knew better. Plotting the graph by placing the cursor on the top right hand corner is not the only area where error will be introduced. In gauging heights and times from a compressed “you tube” image you are introducing error. That is a fact. The size of the error needn’t be very large at all for your whole case to fall apart. Furthermore, you yourself have introduced other studies which have SHOWN that there is a spread of results on this analysis.

I suggest single, or at most double posts to allow us to fully deal with each others points. Dagget took the scattergun approach, as per example today, and then whined when I didn’t address some petty insignificant detail.

I believe the “truth” movement do the same thing. I have seen MANY “truther” websites and I had never seen this particular claim before. And I had seen many freefall claims, the vast majority of which claimed freefall for the whole demolition period.

NIST responded to some of the most common claims of the “truth” movement but to respond to every single one would have been impossibly time consuming and pointless as well, since as soon as one claim is disproven, the “truthers” merely move on to another.

TBC

CONT,

You say >> “Some refutations here:”

No it doesn’t work that way. When I want you to see some supporting evidence for something, I describe it and link it. I’d appreciate it if you’d do the same. Otherwise we could just quote websites at one another.

You say >> “And not everyone is tenured these days. I hope you will be able to disagree with policy if you think it wrong in your work”

I beg your pardon. Just because you have taken an anti-establishment position doesn’t make you right. I’ll question those things which don’t appear right, and quite frankly the whole of the 9/11 “truth” movement fit that bill. The number of out and out lies the “truth” movement tell is astounding. Dagget linked me to a video where they were suggesting that fireman were claiming there was a bomb in the WTC. Turns out they were at a bomb hoax at a school miles away. Please don’t insult my intelligence by suggesting it may have been an honest mistake. Or an isolated incident.

You say >> “You appear to be unaware what the firefighters are saying. I suggest you take a look:http://firefightersfor911truth.org/”

What relevance do fire-fighters from Seattle, 5000 kilometres from New York have? If there are fire-fighters from New York who were actually there please find them. What about the hundred odd firefighter that Griffin interviewed for his “truth” piece. How come none of them besides John Schroeder (a man of clearly limited intelligence) have stood up to support him?

You say >> “The death rate has averaged about 30 per hour in Afghanistan since 9/11. Do you not feel for those kids dying? They don't all die cleanly you know”

Do you not understand that the relevance of this to the question of whether the buildings were demolished is ZERO. This is a logical fallacy, an appeal to emotion to override the evidence.

Paul.L wrote, "If there are fire-fighters from New York who were actually there please find them. ..."

So, when do you intend to offer your explanation of the testimony of the New York firefighters at http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=SXD3bAbZCow as I have transcribed above on 2 November at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166#49002 ?

Paul.L continued "How come none of them besides John Schroeder ... have stood up to support him?"

That's a bare-faced lie.

Dagget,

You are an ABSOLUTE MORON.

Griffin has transcribed scores of fireman saying things like that. I've shown you how many people used the terms "EXPLOSION" to describe the sound of bodies hitting the ground at terminal velocity on the day.

What you have provided is NOT Fire-fighters saying they agree with Griffin. What you have transcribed is fire-fighters using the language of demolitions to describe the collapse of the towers. Worse, you have introduced your own words and placed them in the mouths of these people. Theres scores of video of the collapses, yet the explosions were not audible on ANY. Furthermore, there were seismographs in the are that also DID NOT record any explosions.

>> (gestures with hand moving quickly back and forward whilst descending mimicking sequence of observed explosions in synch with sounds)

That you don't understand the difference between these two things speaks volumes. You are an IDIOT. Go back and hide under the rock you crawled out from and stop baiting me. I'm not interested in debating this with you anymore. You clearly don't have the grasp of the material and anyone of your "audience" that you believe is reading this can surely tell that for themselves.

If "they" need any more evidence, "they" will see that Dagget clearly demonstrates his TOTAL lack of understanding of demolition in this same post. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166#49002

Paul.L

You completely miss the point of my appeal to emotion. It is of course not presented as providing proof the buildings came down too fast, as you seem to think. This appeal is to urge you to open your eyes to the evidence and see whether there is not some cause for concern, even if the physical evidence of rate of collapse is ambiguous, as you say it is. You place your trust in the NIST simulation as having shown how the building came down with near free fall acceleration for several seconds. However, if you look at how their simulation played out, you will see that it does not look anything like the videos. Watch the west wall. If the west wall is completely wrong how can you be so sure the critical bottom 7 storeys are not wrong also? The simulation cannot be said to either show how the building fell or prove that explosives were not involved. It is ambiguous. To me that means there is room for doubt, and if not convinced that the acceleration study is proof, one should keep looking, because the risk of being wrong is so dreadful.

You say >> “So tell me then how you believe you are justified in claiming that NIST has lied?”

That is a very long list. I will just stick to one, the new NIST report. You have made no attempt to discuss point 2 of the objections I gave previously to the NIST explanation. The NIST site provides a photograph taken on the 12th storey showing where the girder supporting the 13th floor was supported by column 79. It is perfectly obvious in that photograph that there were beams running west and south of column 79 which would have provided horizontal support to the column even if the girder running north had fallen, as NIST asserts. NIST claims that the fall of this girder initiated the collapse. So how can the NIST explanation possibly be correct? If this very stout column remained supported in two directions at right angles, how could it possibly buckle?

You say: “The number of out and out lies the “truth” movement tell is astounding.”

Of course there will be many people who make mistakes in the truth movement, but to call these all lies is provocative. There are many people who make statements that are incorrect supporting the official theory also but mostly we do not call them lies. Mostly they are attempting to repeat what they have read and getting it wrong here and there. It should not be a big deal.

I said >> “You appear to be unaware what the firefighters are saying. I suggest you take a look:http://firefightersfor911truth.org/”

Your reply: “What relevance do fire-fighters from Seattle, 5000 kilometres from New York have?”

In this day and age that is a pretty weak argument. Where do you live? Does it matter?

Why don’t you try disputing what they say? Here is something I found on their website. It is Barry Jenning’s original testimony, not the watered down version given later by the BBC.
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=kRaKHq2dfCI

Did you read what they said about accelerants? “It is very routine to test a house fire for accelerants. So, why at the first and only high rise building collapse sites due to fire, was this not done?”

Clearly they not only know about how burning buildings usually behave, they also know the law, and they know it was not followed in the investigation