Why AlienEntity's Measurements Continue to Misrepresent WTC7's Fall Rate

Debunker and JREFer AlienEntity recently uploaded a video which supposedly shows that his "independent measurements of the collapse of WTC 7 corroberate NIST."



Yes, his video certainly seems to defend NIST's distortions of the truth quite nicely.

We may observe that AlienEntity, like so many other debunkers before him, has once again failed to address the 2.25 second free-fall drop that the building exhibited. But even that aside, is AlienEntity's point even valid to begin with? No. Below is a video I made around three months ago dealing with this very topic. You may decide for yourself which one of our measurements has more validity.



While it is true that the building did start moving at the beginning of NIST's timing, it is clear that the west side of the building did not start to fall until 1.5 seconds into that timing. This was in fact the issue that was presented to NIST when scientists, scholars, architects and engineers responded to them:

The frames we used in our collapse analysis are shown below (times “t + X seconds” reference the times given in NIST’s Appendix L, Table L-1) along with a graphical analysis of how we determined which frame represented the onset of global collapse:

To start the timing at the point where NIST chose seems unjustified. To quote David Chandler:

I'm sure they detected some movement of the roofline at the point where they started the clock as a rationale for choosing that point. Even our data here shows a tiny amount of motion in the first second. But what was going on during this time is qualitatively different from what happened moments later. The event triggering the start of their measurement could more accurately be described as precursor movment.

Indeed, this sort of "precursor movement" is seen happening in many controlled demolitions.



But let's say for the sake of argument that AlienEntity and NIST are right, and that the fall was ultimately 40% longer than free-fall. If this were true, then the overall fall time of the building would have been around 7.5 seconds. Should the building have fallen even that fast? From what we know about other demolished buildings, I'd say no.



It is obvious that while AlienEntity continues to endorse NIST's "Bush Science," at the same time he also continues to help NIST further distort the truth about why Building 7 really collapsed.

The Year in Duh-Bunking: March

Pat Curley of the Screw Loose Change blog has published the March installment of his "Year In Troof" series. Faith summed up the major point he is raising quite well on this blog back on March 6th, stating:

Out of the thousands of people who believe that we were fed a load of bull from the government in the official conspiracy theory of 9/11...There are three or four out of those thousands that have bi-polar disorders or anger issues from being screwed by the government. (What are the odds)

For "them" to insinuate that we "Truthers" in whole, as a movement, are a danger to anyone, makes as much sense as me saying that since both of those who recently went over the edge in a violent manner were software techs, then all software techs are unstable and prone to violence.

It is clear that there are many sane software techs and a couple of over the edge software techs do not represent the majority of software techs. So if we follow this thought procession logically,... then a couple of people reacting in a over the edge manner (who believe that we have been lied to by our government in regards to 9/11 Truth,) do not represent the majority of Truthers.

Faith should have said millions of people!

Scootle had this to say on March 5th:

...The idea of demonizing an entire movement just because one apple goes rotten is completely illogical. Charles Manson was a Beatles fan, does that mean all Beatles fans are mass murderers? And Michael Jackson was a suspected paedophile, does that mean he was a bad musician? Does that mean all popstars are paedophiles? You see what I'm saying here? 9/11 truth is generally a peaceful movement and they know it. But of course, that's not going to stop the pathetic debunkers and media whores from having a field day over this.

Pat also employs this type of argument by pointing out Holocaust deniers in the movement.

After Pat called the Pentagon shooter a "nutbar", Scootle came up with this artist rendering of the assailant on March 6th, with a reminder of what I told Pat he should do with such a sweet nutty treat:



"Pat Curley needs to put a nutbar in his pie hole!"

Pat also states in his new blog post that, "The Washington Post slammed Japanese Troofer Fujita. Fujita tried to weasel out of it."

Fujita is a member of the Democratic Party of Japan. At the time I pointed out that the Washington Post was right about a few things. That being said, Fujita didn't weasel out of anything. His strongest opinion voiced during his speech to the Japanese Parliament concerned the damage to the Pentagon, which he later stated was an issue the Bush administration could put to rest "simply by showing videos that show the plane that hit the Pentagon." On the other matters he was more agnostic, citing the doubts and information of "very influential people" about 9/11 and stating that the information has "not been properly investigated." So while Fujita was angry at the Washington Post for their characterization of his 9/11 views and for publishing comments made during an informal chat about 9/11 as opposed to the hour long interview he gave them on immigration, he did not withdrawal his request for a new 9/11 investigation.

As was also demonstrated in Pat's February "Year in Troof" post, 9/11 truth remained "a mainstream political reality" in 2010.

Pat notes that, "The Troofers managed to get propositions on the ballot in six tiny New Hampshire towns, and went 1-5."

On March 13th Pat stated that, "And you won't hear about it anywhere else other than here and at JREF." However, on March 12th 911blogger.com posted the an article entitled "Richmond, New Hampshire Passes Resolution For New 9/11 Investigation," which stated:

To our disappointment seven other towns voted down the resolutions, though the overall percentage of votes in favor (in towns where exact results were recorded) was 23%. In referendums on social issues that depend more on values than awareness of the facts, 77% to 23% might be a landslide. However, because of the painful implications of 9/11 not being what we were told, and the media blackout on critical examination of the official 9/11 account, about 1 in 4 voters calling for a new 9/11 investigation is an accomplishment we can be proud of – it shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that questioning 9/11 is anything but fringe.

I think these are all great points, but Pat probably disagrees because the bottom line is that the numbers prove most people don't agree with us and therefore we are wrong. But as FOX News has pointed out, "A majority of the public believes the assassination of President John F. Kennedy was part of a larger conspiracy." Does Pat agree? Will Pat change his mind if and when the numbers shift to our favor? Not a chance, because he's a goalpost moving duh-bunker.

Here is an important year in review item from March that Pat missed.

Super-Duper Thermite: A Year in Review

Related Info:

9/11 Truth Movement: Year in Review (2009-2010)

The Year in Duh-Bunking: January

The Year in Duh-Bunking: February

What I usually think of when I visit JREF...

Related Info:

The neverending incredulity of JREFers

What We Believe According to JREFers

JREF Forum posts: "Comprehensive characteristics of the pseudoskeptic"

Gordon Ross is pretty sure he exists.

BBC Attack Piece Promotes Cottage Industry Of 911 Debunker Quacks

SpookyPunkos
SpookyWeather.blogspot.com
Thursday, 8 October 2009

The BBC cannot resist attacking anyone who questions the establishment line and counters mainstream accounts of events, especially if they make up part of the new and exciting alternative media that is contributing to the corporation’s ongoing fossilization.

That is why in a feature article today, the corporation is promoting a group of “scientists and skeptics” whose declared mission is to vigorously debunk those who are questioning the “accepted versions” of events.

“While many people find them harmless fun, others believe there is a darker truth – that conspiracy theories are rewriting history, warping the present and altering the future. Enough is enough they say – it’s time to fight back.” the report reads.

The article centres around the “non profit” James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF), which charges £175 a ticket to its conferences, events that equate to little more than rabid debunking fests on everything from 9/11 truth to research claiming mercury containing vaccinations are harmful.

In a deliberate Orwellian warping of language, JREF attendees are described as “skeptics” who are promoting critical thinking”:

JREF was officially established in 1996 to “help debunk paranormal and pseudoscientific claims”. How ironic it is then that the foundation seemingly supports the pseudoscientific claim that jet fuel, and office fires in the case of of World Trade Center 7, can burn at temperatures hot enough to cause multi-story steel framed structures to collapse and disintegrate at free fall rate.

JREF has comedians and a man who pretended to have a picture of fairies at its conferences, the 9/11 truth movement has heard from hundreds of architects, engineers and physics professors. How telling it is that the BBC paints up JREF as the credible organisation, while the 9/11 truth movement is reduced to the level of racist internet-dwelling freaks.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/bbc-attack-piece-promotes-cottage-industry-of-debunkers.html
As for JREF I offer this quote: "You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." Indeed !

There might also be a few brainwashed fellas in there too, ones that really believe the tripe they push. The genuinely smart people, after uncovering one or two JREF deceptions would naturally bail on them.

Looks to me that the JREF is some sort of disinformation operation. If you want to see debunking material completely destroyed, the sort of stuff these JREF people promote, I recommend making a visit to the Debunking the Debunkers blog.

Related Info...

When True Sceptics Fight Back

Gordon Ross is pretty sure he exists.

From: http://gordonssite.com/id4.html

Apparently, I do not exist. According to a thread on the JREF forum, no one by the name of Gordon Ross has been born in Dundee since the latter part of the 19th Century. This came as quite a shock to me and no doubt will also surprise my father, who it seems has laboured for all his life under the delusion that he is also called Gordon Ross and was born in Dundee. My Great Uncle Gordon passed away several years ago and has thus been spared the trauma of discovering that he also did not exist.

In this article I will deal with some of the responses to my work as presented on this web site and elsewhere. At the end I will, in time, list some of the favourable comments, but firstly I will deal with the criticisms. Please forgive me for dealing with the easy ones first, but when such inviting targets present themselves, it is difficult not to take advantage, and they do provide some very welcome light relief. The JREF forum, a scary Twilight Zone kind of place where some strange fictions pass for facts, takes the prize for the most ludicrous assertions available. The "fact" presented there regarding the absence of any Gordon Ross in Dundee's register of births, would make me at least 120 years old, and I must admit that as I read through the site, I did begin to feel every day of that extended life span. So what was their explanation for my existence, or more correctly, my non-existence? According to the evidence presented there, I am actually Professor Jones masquerading as someone else.

And we are the conspiracy theorists? Click HERE to read the entire article...

Skeptical bias against 9/11 Truth?

StooBradley
YouTube.com
September 12, 2009

A clip from a panel discussion about skeptical thinking answers whether there is a bias against sensitive political topics, namely 9/11. I got both good and bad responses. I'll let you decide for yourself.

Related Info:

Dear skeptics, this link should get you up to speed:

9/11 Truth Movement: Year in Review

Barry Jennings and Michael Hess - A detailed look

This video, made by JREFer AlienEntity, supposedly proves that there's nothing suspicious about Barry Jennings' story at all...

It's a pretty good video by debunker standards, but I do have some problems with it. For one thing Barry was sure he was inside on the 23rd when the second plane hit. Then again, as this video states, it does seem like a bit of a stretch that he would be able to drive to WTC7, park up, meet Hess, go up to the 23rd floor, go back down and go back up again in only 17 minutes so let's assume he was mistaken and let's go with the official timeline and assume he and Hess entered the 23rd floor shortly after it was officially evacuated and let's assume they didn't try to leave until after the south tower had came down - as implied in the BBC documentary.

A big stretch in my mind is the idea that it would take them half an hour just to go down 17 floors! Especially when you consider that, in the BBC documentary, he said he was "jumping landings"!

Another thing, in the BBC documentary Barry said (when he made it down to the sixth floor) "there was this eerie sound, the whole building went dark, and the landing that we were standing on gave way". Now if AlienEntity's timeline is correct, shouldn't the building have already been dark? What with all the electrical power being shut off at 9:59?

And of course there's the biggest problem of all - they were on the NORTH SIDE of the building. In his interview with Dylan and Jason he said "When I was on the stairs I saw 'north side'." He also described how he was blown back by the force of the blast.

Even if he was on the sixth floor when the north tower came down, how could falling debris (or should I say "implausible far-flung debris"?) hitting the SOUTH side of the building create an UPWARD, EXPLOSIVE force, sufficient to destroy a landing all the way on THE OTHER SIDE?

Giving Hess the final word in the video is a bit rich considering he's Giuliani's lawyer and obviously has a vested interest in defending the official story. He wouldn't lie now would he?

Related Info:

"The fact that the coffee was still hot also suggests that Barry was in the OEM center shortly after 9am, since the order came down to evacuate it after WTC2 was hit. It collapsed almost an hour later at 9:59 am, so what was Barry doing hanging around in an abandoned center for a whole hour?" - Source: The Third Tower: A Critical Examination

The 9/11 Interview with Michael Hess: Evidence that NIST Lied about When He and Barry Jennings Were Rescued

Debunking AlienEntity1