QUOTE (newtonnjd+Mar 28 2006, 07:14 PM)
Arthur -
Common sense seems to know exactly why it fell.
Common sense seems to know exactly why it fell.
We might NEVER know.
Oh, I'm sure they'll eventually fudge something that OCTs will claim to be definitive. It's obviously not as easy to fudge this one as 1&2, which is why it's taking much longer.
Yes, and that accurate model didn't lead to collapse with realistic input parameters. The model can't have got that close then.. Nor will they release it along with the rest of the report.. perhaps they don't have much confidence that it could stand up to scrutiny? Nor did they bother to consider anything that happened after collapse initiation. Apparantly "global collapse ensued" is meant to satisfy us about every feature of the way the towers came down. As if the manner in which the intact floors performed is completely irrelevant.
NIST is a joke.
Yes, and that accurate model didn't lead to collapse with realistic input parameters. The model can't have got that close then.. Nor will they release it along with the rest of the report.. perhaps they don't have much confidence that it could stand up to scrutiny? Nor did they bother to consider anything that happened after collapse initiation. Apparantly "global collapse ensued" is meant to satisfy us about every feature of the way the towers came down. As if the manner in which the intact floors performed is completely irrelevant.
NIST is a joke.
What's more, since it had been largely evacuated prior to the fall of the towers there is almost nothing known about the damage done to it or how it progressed.
Which makes observations of a "20 story hole" pretty worthless in terms of judging its severity to the overall structure.
- Collapse close to free-fall speed: evidence that the building's structure offered minimal resistance. This can easily be explained by CD, but so far by no other theory. There is NO evidence to suggest that buildings that spontaneously collapse do so close to free-fall.
- Collapse straight down: As can be seen with the Landmark tower, assymetrical damage will provide a building with angular momentum, even when the entire structure has been weakened. If the same had been done without the rest of the tower being demolished, it would have toppled. There is NO evidence that a structure with localised, assymetric damage will fall straight down.
- The Penthouse: evidence of an internal failure closer to the roof than any of the damage done to the building.
- The pre-collapse explosion: heard on Rick Seigel's recording of the WTC7 collapse.
- Evidence of vapourised steel found in the wreckage.
- Intense, long lasting hot-spots beneath the rubble. (identical to those below the other towers - suggesting a common theme between all three)
- Bowed roof at the beginning of the collapse. A feature seen commonly in CDs. Could be due to another collapse method, but yet another consistency with CD.
- Collapse close to free-fall speed: evidence that the building's structure offered minimal resistance. This can easily be explained by CD, but so far by no other theory. There is NO evidence to suggest that buildings that spontaneously collapse do so close to free-fall.
- Collapse straight down: As can be seen with the Landmark tower, assymetrical damage will provide a building with angular momentum, even when the entire structure has been weakened. If the same had been done without the rest of the tower being demolished, it would have toppled. There is NO evidence that a structure with localised, assymetric damage will fall straight down.
- The Penthouse: evidence of an internal failure closer to the roof than any of the damage done to the building.
- The pre-collapse explosion: heard on Rick Seigel's recording of the WTC7 collapse.
- Evidence of vapourised steel found in the wreckage.
- Intense, long lasting hot-spots beneath the rubble. (identical to those below the other towers - suggesting a common theme between all three)
- Bowed roof at the beginning of the collapse. A feature seen commonly in CDs. Could be due to another collapse method, but yet another consistency with CD.
to think that explosives and the wiring to set them off could have sat around in that building for hours as it burned out of control is in fact the ranting of a DELUSIONAL PARANOID.
No wiring required with radio control, and thermite could not be set off by the fires. If a few of the conventional explosives went off early, who cares - every explosion has a natural explanation according to OCTs.
Interesting. I get called a moron for putting forth a theory for an observed event. Surely, I think, this person must have a good reason - they must have alternate theory that makes more sense. So I ask them to propose this alternative.. and all I get is "Actually, it beats me!".
Arthur and Commen (Common) Sense (Schneibster):
You two girls are WAY out of your league in here. I'm almost feeling sorry for you two as I watch your silly little obfuscations be systematically dismantled. What a couple of Nancy-girl MORONS.
I see you making this proclamation time after time, yet offering absolutely NO evidence to support this proclamation in ANY kind of quantitative way.
Would you care to provide that now?
The perimeter columns only have air resistence. Why isn't the building collapse keeping pace? The only answer is it has more resistance from other things. This is so simple a 2 year old could understand.
Common Sense Posted on Mar 28 2006, 10:50 AM
1) Floors pancake onto other floors leaving the perimeter columns standing on their own (For a moment)
Do these perimeter columns appear to be, momentarily, in a state of repose?????
No, the perimeter columns behind those falling are. Note the wall behind the falling columns are perfectly straight. I bet that goes up another 20 to 30 stories. I also bet the floors are pancaking about 15 to 20 stories above. You can see the ejecta blowing out of the windows as the floors pancake in the onset of the collapse. The debris cloud quickly overtakes the ejecta coming from the windows.
Yet you managed to miss an important part of that photo. If explosives blew it away from the building then why are those columns so close?
I'll tell you why they are so close... Because the debris/columns you are looking at came from high enough to be one of first to fall away. Most likely violently hit by the outer perimeter walls of the section above. But this is highly speculative.
You aren't using three dimensional thinking again. Some would have fallen straight down while others would have elbowed out. Why must every piece fall exactly the same way for you people? It's a chaotic event. It's not numbers on an accountants ledger.
Once again your talking out of your butt. You asked for possibilities and I gave some. That's not KNOWING HOW BUILDING 7 FELL. Infact I wrote...
Once again your talking out of your butt. You asked for possibilities and I gave some. That's not KNOWING HOW BUILDING 7 FELL. Infact I wrote...
Note that I didn't make the claim of any version of the truth here. I only brought up good possibilities given the poor evidence we have on the web. ANYONE who says they hold the truth on WTC 7 is out of their mind. There just isn't enough evidence. When the NIST finishes it's report I'm sure it will have evidence to back up it's claims just as the tower reports did.
Seems like your just another liar in a long line of CT liars. A shame. I thought you were different...
If the fires were as bad as they say they were, then why didn't this girl burn up?
Even after years of use
Why didn't the Madrid fire cause that building to collapse at virtual free fall speed?
A couple of months ago, Arthur tried to convince me that air was different in Madrid Spain, hence they didn't collapse.
So I asked him if that meant the reason all three buildings collapsed at the WTC in such a strange way was due to the weaker air theory. And I forgot what his reply was.
I don't mean to suggest that Arthur didn't respond, because in all fairness to Arthur I can't remember, maybe because I was on the floor laughing so hard I couldn't bring myself to turning on my computer.
Weaker air???? What next???
If the fires were as bad as they say they were, then why didn't this girl burn up?
Even after years of use
Why didn't the Madrid fire cause that building to collapse at virtual free fall speed?
A couple of months ago, Arthur tried to convince me that air was different in Madrid Spain, hence they didn't collapse.
So I asked him if that meant the reason all three buildings collapsed at the WTC in such a strange way was due to the weaker air theory. And I forgot what his reply was.
I don't mean to suggest that Arthur didn't respond, because in all fairness to Arthur I can't remember, maybe because I was on the floor laughing so hard I couldn't bring myself to turning on my computer.
Weaker air???? What next???
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/fires.htm
Look at the fires above and below the women. Also look at the flames seen on the left hand face coming out of the building. If that's not a fire I don't know what is...
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/w...aving-close.avi
The building totalled 32 storeys, with 29 floors above ground and three below. A concrete core and concrete frame supported the first 16 floors. Above that was a central support system of concrete columns, supporting concrete floors with steel perimeter columns. An additional feature was the presence of two 'technical floors' - concrete floors designed to give the building more strength. One was just above the ground level and the other at the 17th floor.
http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1095
The fire protection on the existing steelworks below the 17th floor had been completed at the time of fire except for the 9th and 15th floors. When the fire spread below the 17th floor, those protected perimeter columns survived, except for the unprotected columns at the 9th and 15th floors which all buckled in the multiple floor fire (see Figure 2). However, they did not cause any structural collapse. Obviously, the applied loads supported by these buckled columns had been redistributed to the remaining reinforced concrete shear walls. Nevertheless, structural fire analysis should be carried out before such a conclusion can be drawn.
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/r...res/default.htm
ConDialogue
Madrid Fire Survey Finds Concrete Performed ‘Extraordinarily Well’
08 March 2006
A survey of the fire damaged structure of the Windsor Tower, Madrid, has concluded that the concrete structure “performed extraordinarily well in a severe fire”. The study, ‘Fire in the Windsor building, Madrid: Survey of the fire resistance and residual bearing capacity of the structure after the fire’ was carried out by the Spanish Instituto Technico de Materiales y Construcciones (INTEMAC). It underlined the need for fireproofing structural steel concluding that the “need for fireproofing of steel members to guarantee their performance in the event of fire was reconfirmed”.
The Windsor Tower fire started on the 21st floor of the 32 storey building in February 2005. The fire quickly spread due to a lack of fire stops between the curtain wall façade and the concrete floor slabs. Designed and built in the 1970s, the tower was built using traditional design methods. Extensive refurbishment was underway at the time of the fire. Ironically, part of the refurbishment programme was to bring the building’s fire standards up-to-date with the installation of active fire prevention and resistance measures.
Structural failure happened with the collapse of the steel perimeter columns which resulted with the floor slabs collapsing as the edge support was taken away. The massive concrete transfer slab at the 20th floor prevented further progressive failure.
http://www.cjconnect.com/article.asp?artic...4&lastestnews=1
Since building 7 collapsed at virtual free fall speed from a few tiny fires, don't you think architects and building contractors should change the way they design and build high rises in the future?
Yes, they should. Don't build high rises over electrical substations using trusses and load transfer girders. And don't put the diesel tanks within the building near the same levels of the critical trusses and load transfer girders. And if it's a high value target such as a federal building or building that houses some federal offices, that's even more of a reason to not construct buildings in that manner.
Considering the lack of space in Manhattan, people don't always design buildings in the safest manner.
The collapse of the Murrah building has some relevance to the collapse of WTC7. The damage that is seen on Murrah wasn't caused by the truck bomb itself. The bomb took out a critical column. The loss of that column caused a failure of a load transfer truss. The failure of that truss took out a couple more columns. Gravity then destroyed about a quarter to a third of the building even though the truck bomb only took out a column. Most of the people at Murrah died because of the gravity-driven collapse.
That's right many other steel framed buildings have collapsed due to magical spells put on them, such as the ones in various cartoons and science fiction movies.
But try to remember some of us are more interested in reality and not fantasy.
You like fighting strawmen I guess that's because you aren't capable of arguing intelligently. Most regular posters on this thread do their own research and show the capacity to think for themselves. I normally disagree with the analysis of the CD proponents but at least they make their own points rather than as in your case simply regurgitate what they have read on some MIHOP CT sites. Christophera is seems is nuts, but at least he has his own ideas.
Where did I say anything about magic spells or buildings collapsing with no apparent cause? I never said there were many cases. I cited a few previous cases where steel framed buildings partially of totally collapsed or collapse was feared due to fire. I didn't make these cases up, if you think I did you can check the links I provided and do Internet searches.
If you want to argue that these cases aren't valid examples and explain why that would be legitimate criticism, but I don't think you have it in you to do it.
I totally agree with you on this one, with the exception of where the idiot arguments are coming from because anyone who is honest and has an ounce of intelligence knows that Larry said, "And they decided to pull it, and we watched the towers collapse, (or come down).
And anyone honest with an ounce of intelligence knows that building 7, (that wasn't even hit by a plane) only had a few small fires in it, yet it collapsed in a perfect symmetrical manner, INSTANTANEOUSLY.
But it just goes to show you how dumb the government fairy tale believers really are.
Basically my reply to you on this is the same as above, see if you can think for yourself instead of regurgitating what you have read. Why not include the full quote?*(no that wouldn't do, it would undermine your theory) You have yet to give a valid reason to believe he didn't mean to say "And they made that decision to pull out the firefighters and we watched the building collapse."
Did you go to the link common sense provided? It has examples of firemen using the word "pull" meaning 'pull out'.
I don't think you're up to it, but try to refute the points I made and answer the questions I asked. It'll be sort of a challenge for you.
Len
*"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."
QUOTE
Newtonjd, you are obviously quite aware that NOBODY knows exactly why WTC 7 fell.
Common sense seems to know exactly why it fell.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Newtonjd, you are obviously quite aware that NOBODY knows exactly why WTC 7 fell. |
Common sense seems to know exactly why it fell.
We might NEVER know.
Oh, I'm sure they'll eventually fudge something that OCTs will claim to be definitive. It's obviously not as easy to fudge this one as 1&2, which is why it's taking much longer.
QUOTE
Unlike the other towers, where we could MODEL the initial damage quite closely and verify the model using an incredible amount of photographic evidence, there IS no initial model of the damage done to WTC 7.
Yes, and that accurate model didn't lead to collapse with realistic input parameters. The model can't have got that close then.. Nor will they release it along with the rest of the report.. perhaps they don't have much confidence that it could stand up to scrutiny? Nor did they bother to consider anything that happened after collapse initiation. Apparantly "global collapse ensued" is meant to satisfy us about every feature of the way the towers came down. As if the manner in which the intact floors performed is completely irrelevant.
NIST is a joke.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Unlike the other towers, where we could MODEL the initial damage quite closely and verify the model using an incredible amount of photographic evidence, there IS no initial model of the damage done to WTC 7. |
Yes, and that accurate model didn't lead to collapse with realistic input parameters. The model can't have got that close then.. Nor will they release it along with the rest of the report.. perhaps they don't have much confidence that it could stand up to scrutiny? Nor did they bother to consider anything that happened after collapse initiation. Apparantly "global collapse ensued" is meant to satisfy us about every feature of the way the towers came down. As if the manner in which the intact floors performed is completely irrelevant.
NIST is a joke.
What's more, since it had been largely evacuated prior to the fall of the towers there is almost nothing known about the damage done to it or how it progressed.
Which makes observations of a "20 story hole" pretty worthless in terms of judging its severity to the overall structure.
QUOTE
What IS clear though is there is NO EVIDENCE of a Controlled Demolition
- Collapse close to free-fall speed: evidence that the building's structure offered minimal resistance. This can easily be explained by CD, but so far by no other theory. There is NO evidence to suggest that buildings that spontaneously collapse do so close to free-fall.
- Collapse straight down: As can be seen with the Landmark tower, assymetrical damage will provide a building with angular momentum, even when the entire structure has been weakened. If the same had been done without the rest of the tower being demolished, it would have toppled. There is NO evidence that a structure with localised, assymetric damage will fall straight down.
- The Penthouse: evidence of an internal failure closer to the roof than any of the damage done to the building.
- The pre-collapse explosion: heard on Rick Seigel's recording of the WTC7 collapse.
- Evidence of vapourised steel found in the wreckage.
- Intense, long lasting hot-spots beneath the rubble. (identical to those below the other towers - suggesting a common theme between all three)
- Bowed roof at the beginning of the collapse. A feature seen commonly in CDs. Could be due to another collapse method, but yet another consistency with CD.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| What IS clear though is there is NO EVIDENCE of a Controlled Demolition |
- Collapse close to free-fall speed: evidence that the building's structure offered minimal resistance. This can easily be explained by CD, but so far by no other theory. There is NO evidence to suggest that buildings that spontaneously collapse do so close to free-fall.
- Collapse straight down: As can be seen with the Landmark tower, assymetrical damage will provide a building with angular momentum, even when the entire structure has been weakened. If the same had been done without the rest of the tower being demolished, it would have toppled. There is NO evidence that a structure with localised, assymetric damage will fall straight down.
- The Penthouse: evidence of an internal failure closer to the roof than any of the damage done to the building.
- The pre-collapse explosion: heard on Rick Seigel's recording of the WTC7 collapse.
- Evidence of vapourised steel found in the wreckage.
- Intense, long lasting hot-spots beneath the rubble. (identical to those below the other towers - suggesting a common theme between all three)
- Bowed roof at the beginning of the collapse. A feature seen commonly in CDs. Could be due to another collapse method, but yet another consistency with CD.
to think that explosives and the wiring to set them off could have sat around in that building for hours as it burned out of control is in fact the ranting of a DELUSIONAL PARANOID.
No wiring required with radio control, and thermite could not be set off by the fires. If a few of the conventional explosives went off early, who cares - every explosion has a natural explanation according to OCTs.
QUOTE
So enjoy another go at your mental masturbation.
I'd stick around and debate you, but as I said, its like teasing monkeys at the zoo, its fun for a while, but they always end up flinging feces.
I'd stick around and debate you, but as I said, its like teasing monkeys at the zoo, its fun for a while, but they always end up flinging feces.
Interesting. I get called a moron for putting forth a theory for an observed event. Surely, I think, this person must have a good reason - they must have alternate theory that makes more sense. So I ask them to propose this alternative.. and all I get is "Actually, it beats me!".
Arthur and Commen (Common) Sense (Schneibster):
You two girls are WAY out of your league in here. I'm almost feeling sorry for you two as I watch your silly little obfuscations be systematically dismantled. What a couple of Nancy-girl MORONS.
QUOTE (zoktoberfest+Mar 28 2006, 07:58 PM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 23 2006, 12:23 PM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 23 2006, 08:17 PM)
QUOTE
by arthur
And YES, I am saying they faced far more resistance than air resistance.
Arthur
And YES, I am saying they faced far more resistance than air resistance.
Arthur
I see you making this proclamation time after time, yet offering absolutely NO evidence to support this proclamation in ANY kind of quantitative way.
Would you care to provide that now?
The perimeter columns only have air resistence. Why isn't the building collapse keeping pace? The only answer is it has more resistance from other things. This is so simple a 2 year old could understand.
Common Sense Posted on Mar 28 2006, 10:50 AM
1) Floors pancake onto other floors leaving the perimeter columns standing on their own (For a moment)
Do these perimeter columns appear to be, momentarily, in a state of repose?????
No, the perimeter columns behind those falling are. Note the wall behind the falling columns are perfectly straight. I bet that goes up another 20 to 30 stories. I also bet the floors are pancaking about 15 to 20 stories above. You can see the ejecta blowing out of the windows as the floors pancake in the onset of the collapse. The debris cloud quickly overtakes the ejecta coming from the windows.
Yet you managed to miss an important part of that photo. If explosives blew it away from the building then why are those columns so close?
I'll tell you why they are so close... Because the debris/columns you are looking at came from high enough to be one of first to fall away. Most likely violently hit by the outer perimeter walls of the section above. But this is highly speculative.
You aren't using three dimensional thinking again. Some would have fallen straight down while others would have elbowed out. Why must every piece fall exactly the same way for you people? It's a chaotic event. It's not numbers on an accountants ledger.
QUOTE (Mel+Mar 28 2006, 08:09 PM)
Arthur and Commen (Common) Sense (Schneibster):
You two girls are WAY out of your league in here. I'm almost feeling sorry for you two as I watch your silly little obfuscations be systematically dismantled. What a couple of Nancy-girl MORONS.
Nice to know you still have a sweet spot for Schneibster. I would see a shrink about your infatuation if I were you.
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/evidence.htm
You two girls are WAY out of your league in here. I'm almost feeling sorry for you two as I watch your silly little obfuscations be systematically dismantled. What a couple of Nancy-girl MORONS.
Nice to know you still have a sweet spot for Schneibster. I would see a shrink about your infatuation if I were you.
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/evidence.htm
QUOTE
Common sense seems to know exactly why it fell.
Once again your talking out of your butt. You asked for possibilities and I gave some. That's not KNOWING HOW BUILDING 7 FELL. Infact I wrote...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Common sense seems to know exactly why it fell. |
Once again your talking out of your butt. You asked for possibilities and I gave some. That's not KNOWING HOW BUILDING 7 FELL. Infact I wrote...
Note that I didn't make the claim of any version of the truth here. I only brought up good possibilities given the poor evidence we have on the web. ANYONE who says they hold the truth on WTC 7 is out of their mind. There just isn't enough evidence. When the NIST finishes it's report I'm sure it will have evidence to back up it's claims just as the tower reports did.
Seems like your just another liar in a long line of CT liars. A shame. I thought you were different...
It is obvious still, that newtonjd has not bothered to read the NIST prelim report on WTC7. Despite this he seems to believe that he knows all about its construction and how it collapsed.
How is it that despite the fact that NIST, using some of the country's best engineers, could not arrive at as exact a senario for the collapse of #7 as newtonnjd?
Then again, remind me newtonnjd, just what , exactly are you saying happened. You know, in a senario at least as detailed as the working hypothysis that NIST generated, and what is your evidence to back this up?
How is it that despite the fact that NIST, using some of the country's best engineers, could not arrive at as exact a senario for the collapse of #7 as newtonnjd?
Then again, remind me newtonnjd, just what , exactly are you saying happened. You know, in a senario at least as detailed as the working hypothysis that NIST generated, and what is your evidence to back this up?
QUOTE
Mel
Arthur and Commen (Common) Sense (Schneibster):
You two girls are WAY out of your league in here. I'm almost feeling sorry for you two as I watch your silly little obfuscations be systematically dismantled. What a couple of Nancy-girl MORONS.
Arthur and Commen (Common) Sense (Schneibster):
You two girls are WAY out of your league in here. I'm almost feeling sorry for you two as I watch your silly little obfuscations be systematically dismantled. What a couple of Nancy-girl MORONS.
If the fires were as bad as they say they were, then why didn't this girl burn up?
Even after years of use
Why didn't the Madrid fire cause that building to collapse at virtual free fall speed?
A couple of months ago, Arthur tried to convince me that air was different in Madrid Spain, hence they didn't collapse.
So I asked him if that meant the reason all three buildings collapsed at the WTC in such a strange way was due to the weaker air theory. And I forgot what his reply was.
I don't mean to suggest that Arthur didn't respond, because in all fairness to Arthur I can't remember, maybe because I was on the floor laughing so hard I couldn't bring myself to turning on my computer.
Weaker air???? What next???
QUOTE (Guest_yesitdid+Mar 28 2006, 09:34 PM)
It is obvious still, that newtonjd has not bothered to read the NIST prelim report on WTC7. Despite this he seems to believe that he knows all about its construction and how it collapsed.
How is it that despite the fact that NIST, using some of the country's best engineers, could not arrive at as exact a senario for the collapse of #7 as newtonnjd?
Why would a serious researcher read anything that did not start with a credible explanation of free fall?
Our government has been infiltrated and there is no point on depending on them for valid information.
How is it that despite the fact that NIST, using some of the country's best engineers, could not arrive at as exact a senario for the collapse of #7 as newtonnjd?
Why would a serious researcher read anything that did not start with a credible explanation of free fall?
Our government has been infiltrated and there is no point on depending on them for valid information.
The Deutsche Bank building which was just south of the south tower is currently being dismantled. The gash left by the tower collapse caused the elements to come in and mold to develop. It's one more casualty of the tower collapses. They've also found some human remains in the Deutsche building.
It's also contaminated with asbestos, dioxin, PAH, and chromium. Since Deutsche was built in the 70s, I doubt that asbestos would have been used in its construction. I would assume the asbestos contamination came from the WTC buildings. In light of the contaminants found in Deutsche, it's difficult to see how the air near the WTC complex could have been deemed safe by the federal government just after the collapse.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/03/28/wtc.remains.ap/index.html
http://www.wirednewyork.com/wtc/130liberty/
It's also contaminated with asbestos, dioxin, PAH, and chromium. Since Deutsche was built in the 70s, I doubt that asbestos would have been used in its construction. I would assume the asbestos contamination came from the WTC buildings. In light of the contaminants found in Deutsche, it's difficult to see how the air near the WTC complex could have been deemed safe by the federal government just after the collapse.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/03/28/wtc.remains.ap/index.html
http://www.wirednewyork.com/wtc/130liberty/
QUOTE (steve52+Mar 28 2006, 09:39 PM)
QUOTE
Mel
Arthur and Commen (Common) Sense (Schneibster):
You two girls are WAY out of your league in here. I'm almost feeling sorry for you two as I watch your silly little obfuscations be systematically dismantled. What a couple of Nancy-girl MORONS.
Arthur and Commen (Common) Sense (Schneibster):
You two girls are WAY out of your league in here. I'm almost feeling sorry for you two as I watch your silly little obfuscations be systematically dismantled. What a couple of Nancy-girl MORONS.
If the fires were as bad as they say they were, then why didn't this girl burn up?
Even after years of use
Why didn't the Madrid fire cause that building to collapse at virtual free fall speed?
A couple of months ago, Arthur tried to convince me that air was different in Madrid Spain, hence they didn't collapse.
So I asked him if that meant the reason all three buildings collapsed at the WTC in such a strange way was due to the weaker air theory. And I forgot what his reply was.
I don't mean to suggest that Arthur didn't respond, because in all fairness to Arthur I can't remember, maybe because I was on the floor laughing so hard I couldn't bring myself to turning on my computer.
Weaker air???? What next???
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/fires.htm
Look at the fires above and below the women. Also look at the flames seen on the left hand face coming out of the building. If that's not a fire I don't know what is...
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/w...aving-close.avi
The building totalled 32 storeys, with 29 floors above ground and three below. A concrete core and concrete frame supported the first 16 floors. Above that was a central support system of concrete columns, supporting concrete floors with steel perimeter columns. An additional feature was the presence of two 'technical floors' - concrete floors designed to give the building more strength. One was just above the ground level and the other at the 17th floor.
http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1095
The fire protection on the existing steelworks below the 17th floor had been completed at the time of fire except for the 9th and 15th floors. When the fire spread below the 17th floor, those protected perimeter columns survived, except for the unprotected columns at the 9th and 15th floors which all buckled in the multiple floor fire (see Figure 2). However, they did not cause any structural collapse. Obviously, the applied loads supported by these buckled columns had been redistributed to the remaining reinforced concrete shear walls. Nevertheless, structural fire analysis should be carried out before such a conclusion can be drawn.
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/r...res/default.htm
ConDialogue
Madrid Fire Survey Finds Concrete Performed ‘Extraordinarily Well’
08 March 2006
A survey of the fire damaged structure of the Windsor Tower, Madrid, has concluded that the concrete structure “performed extraordinarily well in a severe fire”. The study, ‘Fire in the Windsor building, Madrid: Survey of the fire resistance and residual bearing capacity of the structure after the fire’ was carried out by the Spanish Instituto Technico de Materiales y Construcciones (INTEMAC). It underlined the need for fireproofing structural steel concluding that the “need for fireproofing of steel members to guarantee their performance in the event of fire was reconfirmed”.
The Windsor Tower fire started on the 21st floor of the 32 storey building in February 2005. The fire quickly spread due to a lack of fire stops between the curtain wall façade and the concrete floor slabs. Designed and built in the 1970s, the tower was built using traditional design methods. Extensive refurbishment was underway at the time of the fire. Ironically, part of the refurbishment programme was to bring the building’s fire standards up-to-date with the installation of active fire prevention and resistance measures.
Structural failure happened with the collapse of the steel perimeter columns which resulted with the floor slabs collapsing as the edge support was taken away. The massive concrete transfer slab at the 20th floor prevented further progressive failure.
http://www.cjconnect.com/article.asp?artic...4&lastestnews=1
Thank yous to lenbrazil, Common Sense and others for the careful descriptions of a variety of fire-induced collapses, partial and total, of steel framed buildings. 
These offer some analogies for WTC 7 -- and only, imho, WTC 7.
Regarding the time it took for WTC 7 to collapse, I have seen only the "video" of the collapse of the top few floors appearing over the top of an intervening building. Are there witness reports? Also, this collapse should have produced a seismograph trace. I've seen these for WTC 2 & 1, but not for WTC 7. From such traces the collapse time can be estimated.
Wherever you stand in the "A vs. D" controversy, the following non-technical book will prove to be most illuminating:
Henry Petroski
"To EnginEER is Human: the role of failure in successful design"
Vintage Press, 1992.
Prof. Petroski has written another 12 non-technical books on aspects of engineering, but the one cited offers an important lesson to us all.
These offer some analogies for WTC 7 -- and only, imho, WTC 7.Regarding the time it took for WTC 7 to collapse, I have seen only the "video" of the collapse of the top few floors appearing over the top of an intervening building. Are there witness reports? Also, this collapse should have produced a seismograph trace. I've seen these for WTC 2 & 1, but not for WTC 7. From such traces the collapse time can be estimated.
Wherever you stand in the "A vs. D" controversy, the following non-technical book will prove to be most illuminating:
Henry Petroski
"To EnginEER is Human: the role of failure in successful design"
Vintage Press, 1992.
Prof. Petroski has written another 12 non-technical books on aspects of engineering, but the one cited offers an important lesson to us all.
They say (the NIST and FEMA teams) that the Global collapse was inevitable.
How come, if global collapse is inevitable after a collapse initiation, that we have just been given details of partially collapsed buildings?
Gordon.
How come, if global collapse is inevitable after a collapse initiation, that we have just been given details of partially collapsed buildings?
Gordon.
Guest_David B. Benson,
Since building 7 collapsed at virtual free fall speed from a few tiny fires, don't you think architects and building contractors should change the way they design and build high rises in the future?
And don't you think that control demolition companies can save a lot of money with all that new information, as they won't have to set up all those charges any more, or spend months of planning and preparation.
All they have to do is start a few fires and wait a few hours and then the buildings will collapse in a perfect symmetrical manner.
Maybe you should start your own demolition company now that you know you can demolish 47 story high rises without having to spend millions in all of that demolition expense.
Or maybe you can become a consultant to demolition companies around the world and make big bucks advising them on how much time and money they can save if they follow your advise and simply start a few small fires here and there.
Mighty impressive
Since building 7 collapsed at virtual free fall speed from a few tiny fires, don't you think architects and building contractors should change the way they design and build high rises in the future?
And don't you think that control demolition companies can save a lot of money with all that new information, as they won't have to set up all those charges any more, or spend months of planning and preparation.
All they have to do is start a few fires and wait a few hours and then the buildings will collapse in a perfect symmetrical manner.
Maybe you should start your own demolition company now that you know you can demolish 47 story high rises without having to spend millions in all of that demolition expense.
Or maybe you can become a consultant to demolition companies around the world and make big bucks advising them on how much time and money they can save if they follow your advise and simply start a few small fires here and there.
Mighty impressive
QUOTE (gordon+Mar 28 2006, 11:32 PM)
They say (the NIST and FEMA teams) that the Global collapse was inevitable.
How come, if global collapse is inevitable after a collapse initiation, that we have just been given details of partially collapsed buildings?
Gordon.
They were referring to the specific circumstances of the Twin Towers, were dis they say that a local collapse will always lead to global collapse? So far I've only seen a few case of local collapses all under circumstances very different from 9/11.
How come, if global collapse is inevitable after a collapse initiation, that we have just been given details of partially collapsed buildings?
Gordon.
They were referring to the specific circumstances of the Twin Towers, were dis they say that a local collapse will always lead to global collapse? So far I've only seen a few case of local collapses all under circumstances very different from 9/11.
QUOTE (Guest_David B. Benson+Mar 28 2006, 10:57 PM)
Thank yous to lenbrazil, Common Sense and others for the careful descriptions of a variety of fire-induced collapses, partial and total, of steel framed buildings. These offer some analogies for WTC 7 -- and only, imho, WTC 7.
Regarding the time it took for WTC 7 to collapse, I have seen only the "video" of the collapse of the top few floors appearing over the top of an intervening building. Are there witness reports? Also, this collapse should have produced a seismograph trace. I've seen these for WTC 2 & 1, but not for WTC 7. From such traces the collapse time can be estimated.
Wherever you stand in the "A vs. D" controversy, the following non-technical book will prove to be most illuminating:
Henry Petroski
"To EnginEER is Human: the role of failure in successful design"
Vintage Press, 1992.
Prof. Petroski has written another 12 non-technical books on aspects of engineering, but the one cited offers an important lesson to us all.
Chapter 1 of the FEMA403 report says the WTC7 collapse was a 0.6 magnitude and started at 21:20:33 UTC. It would be difficult to get an accurate collapse duration based solely on seismic data.
These offer some analogies for WTC 7 -- and only, imho, WTC 7.Regarding the time it took for WTC 7 to collapse, I have seen only the "video" of the collapse of the top few floors appearing over the top of an intervening building. Are there witness reports? Also, this collapse should have produced a seismograph trace. I've seen these for WTC 2 & 1, but not for WTC 7. From such traces the collapse time can be estimated.
Wherever you stand in the "A vs. D" controversy, the following non-technical book will prove to be most illuminating:
Henry Petroski
"To EnginEER is Human: the role of failure in successful design"
Vintage Press, 1992.
Prof. Petroski has written another 12 non-technical books on aspects of engineering, but the one cited offers an important lesson to us all.
Chapter 1 of the FEMA403 report says the WTC7 collapse was a 0.6 magnitude and started at 21:20:33 UTC. It would be difficult to get an accurate collapse duration based solely on seismic data.
QUOTE (steve52+Mar 28 2006, 11:58 PM)
Since building 7 collapsed at virtual free fall speed from a few tiny fires, don't you think architects and building contractors should change the way they design and build high rises in the future?
Yes, they should. Don't build high rises over electrical substations using trusses and load transfer girders. And don't put the diesel tanks within the building near the same levels of the critical trusses and load transfer girders. And if it's a high value target such as a federal building or building that houses some federal offices, that's even more of a reason to not construct buildings in that manner.
Considering the lack of space in Manhattan, people don't always design buildings in the safest manner.
The collapse of the Murrah building has some relevance to the collapse of WTC7. The damage that is seen on Murrah wasn't caused by the truck bomb itself. The bomb took out a critical column. The loss of that column caused a failure of a load transfer truss. The failure of that truss took out a couple more columns. Gravity then destroyed about a quarter to a third of the building even though the truck bomb only took out a column. Most of the people at Murrah died because of the gravity-driven collapse.
QUOTE (gordon+Mar 28 2006, 11:32 PM)
They say (the NIST and FEMA teams) that the Global collapse was inevitable.
How come, if global collapse is inevitable after a collapse initiation, that we have just been given details of partially collapsed buildings?
Gordon.
Have you asked them? Just bringing up the question here is leading people to a logical fallacy.
How come, if global collapse is inevitable after a collapse initiation, that we have just been given details of partially collapsed buildings?
Gordon.
Have you asked them? Just bringing up the question here is leading people to a logical fallacy.
QUOTE (steve52+Mar 28 2006, 06:07 PM)
QUOTE
lenbrazil
Contrary to popular belief September 11, 2001 was not the first time a steel framed building collapsed due to fire.
Contrary to popular belief September 11, 2001 was not the first time a steel framed building collapsed due to fire.
That's right many other steel framed buildings have collapsed due to magical spells put on them, such as the ones in various cartoons and science fiction movies.
But try to remember some of us are more interested in reality and not fantasy.
You like fighting strawmen I guess that's because you aren't capable of arguing intelligently. Most regular posters on this thread do their own research and show the capacity to think for themselves. I normally disagree with the analysis of the CD proponents but at least they make their own points rather than as in your case simply regurgitate what they have read on some MIHOP CT sites. Christophera is seems is nuts, but at least he has his own ideas.
Where did I say anything about magic spells or buildings collapsing with no apparent cause? I never said there were many cases. I cited a few previous cases where steel framed buildings partially of totally collapsed or collapse was feared due to fire. I didn't make these cases up, if you think I did you can check the links I provided and do Internet searches.
If you want to argue that these cases aren't valid examples and explain why that would be legitimate criticism, but I don't think you have it in you to do it.
QUOTE (steve52+Mar 28 2006, 06:15 PM)
QUOTE
lenbrazil
The whole bit about Silverstein's quote has to be one of the dumbest arguments coming from the CD camp.
The whole bit about Silverstein's quote has to be one of the dumbest arguments coming from the CD camp.
I totally agree with you on this one, with the exception of where the idiot arguments are coming from because anyone who is honest and has an ounce of intelligence knows that Larry said, "And they decided to pull it, and we watched the towers collapse, (or come down).
And anyone honest with an ounce of intelligence knows that building 7, (that wasn't even hit by a plane) only had a few small fires in it, yet it collapsed in a perfect symmetrical manner, INSTANTANEOUSLY.
But it just goes to show you how dumb the government fairy tale believers really are.
Basically my reply to you on this is the same as above, see if you can think for yourself instead of regurgitating what you have read. Why not include the full quote?*(no that wouldn't do, it would undermine your theory) You have yet to give a valid reason to believe he didn't mean to say "And they made that decision to pull out the firefighters and we watched the building collapse."
Did you go to the link common sense provided? It has examples of firemen using the word "pull" meaning 'pull out'.
I don't think you're up to it, but try to refute the points I made and answer the questions I asked. It'll be sort of a challenge for you.
Len
*"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."
QUOTE (gordon+Mar 28 2006, 11:32 PM)
They say (the NIST and FEMA teams) that the Global collapse was inevitable.
How come, if global collapse is inevitable after a collapse initiation, that we have just been given details of partially collapsed buildings?
Gordon.
The idea of trusting even the collective intuition of a bunch of engineers is, from a scientific point of view, absurd. If the collapses were run of the mill events with an unambiguous history, fine. Obviously, they were nothing of the sort, as even many, if not most, of the FEMA Fairy Tale'ers keep reminding us.
Not only can I not imagine the collective brain trust of Fermi, Einstien, and Bohr saying "trust our intuition" in an analogous situation, I cannot even imagine that they would want people to trust their intuition. Even if Einstein may have been "sure" that the general relativistic predictions re the perihelion shift of Mercury were correct, he wanted his theory tested.
IMO, anybody who would have taken even Einstein's intuition and/or belief as gospel was a fool. Same with the NIST'ian hand waving.
Can you imagine NASA sending a manned mission to Mars without extensive testing and computer modeling? They would not say "Oh, we're such geniuses that you can take our designs as gospel. We have proved their efficacy using our God-like intuition."
Just in case anybody is foolish enough to believe such a scenario is plausible: A cousin of mine was formerly employed as a bio-mathematician, who worked on life support systems for manned Mars missions. He came up with a system of equations (17 simultaneous eqns., IIRC) modeling human lung response to a change from pure oxygen to oxygyen/Argon. *
Believe if or not, his theoretical results were put to the test. AS IT TURNS OUT, his model was very good.
If the NIST'ian hand wavers are really as good as they and their supporters claim, then maybe NASA can save a bunch of money and just hire them. Why bother with silliness like computer modelling and testing when you've got God-like hand waivers?
* Argon, not Nitrogen, since Argon is supposed to be more plentiful on Mars.
How come, if global collapse is inevitable after a collapse initiation, that we have just been given details of partially collapsed buildings?
Gordon.
The idea of trusting even the collective intuition of a bunch of engineers is, from a scientific point of view, absurd. If the collapses were run of the mill events with an unambiguous history, fine. Obviously, they were nothing of the sort, as even many, if not most, of the FEMA Fairy Tale'ers keep reminding us.
Not only can I not imagine the collective brain trust of Fermi, Einstien, and Bohr saying "trust our intuition" in an analogous situation, I cannot even imagine that they would want people to trust their intuition. Even if Einstein may have been "sure" that the general relativistic predictions re the perihelion shift of Mercury were correct, he wanted his theory tested.
IMO, anybody who would have taken even Einstein's intuition and/or belief as gospel was a fool. Same with the NIST'ian hand waving.
Can you imagine NASA sending a manned mission to Mars without extensive testing and computer modeling? They would not say "Oh, we're such geniuses that you can take our designs as gospel. We have proved their efficacy using our God-like intuition."
Just in case anybody is foolish enough to believe such a scenario is plausible: A cousin of mine was formerly employed as a bio-mathematician, who worked on life support systems for manned Mars missions. He came up with a system of equations (17 simultaneous eqns., IIRC) modeling human lung response to a change from pure oxygen to oxygyen/Argon. *
Believe if or not, his theoretical results were put to the test. AS IT TURNS OUT, his model was very good.
If the NIST'ian hand wavers are really as good as they and their supporters claim, then maybe NASA can save a bunch of money and just hire them. Why bother with silliness like computer modelling and testing when you've got God-like hand waivers?
* Argon, not Nitrogen, since Argon is supposed to be more plentiful on Mars.
len..
I was talking about posts that you responded to only in part, which you obviously read but didn't reply to in full. I'm not accusing you of not being able to answer what you didn't respond to, but I have this problem frequently in 9/11 debates - half the points I raise are ignored as the opponent seems to home in only on the points they can answer. But no matter.. I don't have enough time to keep up with all this anyway!
This is what I suspected - that the overall construction was faulty, meaning the building failed globally (or very close). The damage to WTC7 is not at all comparable.
This is what I suspected - that the overall construction was faulty, meaning the building failed globally (or very close). The damage to WTC7 is not at all comparable.
As to whether it collapsed top to bottom or bottom to top I couldn’t say but the only top to bottom collapses I’ve ever seen were 1 & 2 WTC
The Conneticut building was top down and there is no evidence that it collapsed at a comparable rate to 1&2.
True, no such airline crash has occured before. Whether it could have INITIATED a collapse is not the issue though. It's how completely that collapse happened when it did initiate.
Also, no building was hit by "other buildings". Building DEBRIS yes, not a building.
True, no such airline crash has occured before. Whether it could have INITIATED a collapse is not the issue though. It's how completely that collapse happened when it did initiate.
Also, no building was hit by "other buildings". Building DEBRIS yes, not a building.
2] The Landmark collapse is not that similar to 7 WTC. The both collapsed because their structures were weakened, similarity is not to be unexpected.
There's that lovely juxtaposition of yours again (I won't say contradiction) - "No, they weren't really that similar. But you'd expect them to be similar anyway." So you twist it into a win-win situation. If the collapses are very different, you say "See, it was different to a CD!". But if the collapses are identical you say "Well they SHOULD have looked the same anyway".
You don't say. However, the videos do not lie and show the end product of the failure mechanism. Any analysis has to reproduce what is seen in the videos.
You don't say. However, the videos do not lie and show the end product of the failure mechanism. Any analysis has to reproduce what is seen in the videos.
As more and more columns failed the remaining ones became more stressed. If they (the remaining columns) were being weakened/further stressed by fire the is no reason to believe the structures didn’t reach a “straw that broke the camel’s back” point. The statements of various witnesses indicates that’s what happened.
What evidence do you have that "more and more columns failed"?
I'd like to be reminded of the witness statements that support your straw theory, which I don't believe has any backing in real science. The stresses in the building would NOT be evenly distributed through the structure. They would be stronger around the damaged areas. So there is NO WAY that all the supports would give way at the same moment.
Making a building fall in the RIGHT direction, and at the RIGHT rate would indeed be a complicated matter. Making it fall in any direction other than straight down without caring where it lands would be EASY. You are mixing up a controlled non-vertical fall with an uncontrolled one. Random events would lead to an uncontrolled non-vertical fall.
Making a building fall in the RIGHT direction, and at the RIGHT rate would indeed be a complicated matter. Making it fall in any direction other than straight down without caring where it lands would be EASY. You are mixing up a controlled non-vertical fall with an uncontrolled one. Random events would lead to an uncontrolled non-vertical fall.
Since numerous structural engineers have contributed to articles, papers and reports supporting the collapse theory and an even greater number have reviewed them and so far no qualified experts support CD, the burden of proof is on you guys.
The first burden of proof is on the government to prove beyond reasonable doubt that their 'enemies' are guilty. They have failed, and any attempt to debate the issue is stonewalled. Perhaps you could list the articles/papers/reports that discuss the collapses, so we have a better idea of how many experts we're talking about.
You have to remember that the instictive reaction of people is to trust that their government is on their side and are protecting them from real enemies. It's too emotional an issue to only depend on the facts: you are asking people to change their ENTIRE world-view in order to treat the events with skepticism rather than instant faith in the morals of their leaders.
Do you honestly think that any of the reports that support the OCT started out with all options on the table? Honestly? Or do you think they started with a conclusion and worked out a theory based on what would support that conclusion?
NIST included a throwaway line about finding no evidence of controlled demolition. That implies that they LOOKED for it. Why do they not share this assessment, if it was done? That is science 101 - back up your conclusions!
You can't say with accuracy what they would have looked like, but you can say what they SHOULDN'T have looked like, and that is building collapses with demonstratively different initial conditions (i.e CDs).
You can't say with accuracy what they would have looked like, but you can say what they SHOULDN'T have looked like, and that is building collapses with demonstratively different initial conditions (i.e CDs).
The collapse of the WTC towers involved more kinetic energy by far than any other building collapsed in history.
And also more building strength by far. You've still not answered me re: the more massive the building, the more strength is holding it up. I admit there was a lot of kinetic energy. Do you admit there was a very strong structure for that energy to overcome?
No doubt any type of collapse would have produced a lot of dust. It's conservation of energy that's the problem. Sure a spontaneous collapse would produce big dust clouds. But doing so takes enormous energy, which needs to come from the kinetic energy.
No doubt any type of collapse would have produced a lot of dust. It's conservation of energy that's the problem. Sure a spontaneous collapse would produce big dust clouds. But doing so takes enormous energy, which needs to come from the kinetic energy.
No having been stripped 7 WTC should have kicked up a lot more dust than the Landmark. How do you explain that, using your logic that would be an indication CD wasn’t used.
It DID kick up a lot more dust than the Landmark.
I said it was more likely to be an under-estimate, not that it was. But this building would seem to settle nothing, unless you have any additional points to make about it.
I said it was more likely to be an under-estimate, not that it was. But this building would seem to settle nothing, unless you have any additional points to make about it.
I think Common Sense and YID already did a good job of that. There are numerous eyewitness accounts that the building was unstable and appeared to be on the verge of collapse just before it did.
Again you miss the point. It's not that it did collapse, but HOW it collapsed.
Not enough for a "definitive" report? If Dr Sunder can say "we really don't know", then they're not even close to a half-decent report, let alone a definitive one.
FYI, this may be my last big reply to anyone here. I've realised that this thread is too big a drain on my time to engage in properly. I am a member of the Scholars group and my input there comes first.
QUOTE
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| len, there is quite a lot I've written that you aren't responding to. That could be true, every time I come back here there's 3 or 4 pages of posts to go through, I might have missed them. If you want to reiterate any points feel free. |
I was talking about posts that you responded to only in part, which you obviously read but didn't reply to in full. I'm not accusing you of not being able to answer what you didn't respond to, but I have this problem frequently in 9/11 debates - half the points I raise are ignored as the opponent seems to home in only on the points they can answer. But no matter.. I don't have enough time to keep up with all this anyway!
QUOTE
According to media reports the building collapsed due to various faults tied to poor construction: columns that didn’t use enough rebar, use of ocean sand in the concrete (whose salt content corroded the steel) etc. The building stood for many years until cracks started appearing in some of the columns, a few days later it collapsed.
This is what I suspected - that the overall construction was faulty, meaning the building failed globally (or very close). The damage to WTC7 is not at all comparable.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| According to media reports the building collapsed due to various faults tied to poor construction: columns that didn’t use enough rebar, use of ocean sand in the concrete (whose salt content corroded the steel) etc. The building stood for many years until cracks started appearing in some of the columns, a few days later it collapsed. |
This is what I suspected - that the overall construction was faulty, meaning the building failed globally (or very close). The damage to WTC7 is not at all comparable.
As to whether it collapsed top to bottom or bottom to top I couldn’t say but the only top to bottom collapses I’ve ever seen were 1 & 2 WTC
The Conneticut building was top down and there is no evidence that it collapsed at a comparable rate to 1&2.
QUOTE
1] Like you said below cases of spontaneous collapse are rare, but then again airliners striking hi-rises at cruise speed are rare too, I know of no other cases. The closest thing was the El Al 747 that crashed into an apt. building in Amsterdam. The entire section it hit collapsed and it was flying sideways (one wing on top the other on the bottom) and probably at low speed. Buildings being hit by other buildings are rare too.
True, no such airline crash has occured before. Whether it could have INITIATED a collapse is not the issue though. It's how completely that collapse happened when it did initiate.
Also, no building was hit by "other buildings". Building DEBRIS yes, not a building.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 1] Like you said below cases of spontaneous collapse are rare, but then again airliners striking hi-rises at cruise speed are rare too, I know of no other cases. The closest thing was the El Al 747 that crashed into an apt. building in Amsterdam. The entire section it hit collapsed and it was flying sideways (one wing on top the other on the bottom) and probably at low speed. Buildings being hit by other buildings are rare too. |
True, no such airline crash has occured before. Whether it could have INITIATED a collapse is not the issue though. It's how completely that collapse happened when it did initiate.
Also, no building was hit by "other buildings". Building DEBRIS yes, not a building.
2] The Landmark collapse is not that similar to 7 WTC. The both collapsed because their structures were weakened, similarity is not to be unexpected.
There's that lovely juxtaposition of yours again (I won't say contradiction) - "No, they weren't really that similar. But you'd expect them to be similar anyway." So you twist it into a win-win situation. If the collapses are very different, you say "See, it was different to a CD!". But if the collapses are identical you say "Well they SHOULD have looked the same anyway".
QUOTE
Forensic engineering/failure analysis is not as simple as watching a video of a collapse.
You don't say. However, the videos do not lie and show the end product of the failure mechanism. Any analysis has to reproduce what is seen in the videos.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Forensic engineering/failure analysis is not as simple as watching a video of a collapse. |
You don't say. However, the videos do not lie and show the end product of the failure mechanism. Any analysis has to reproduce what is seen in the videos.
As more and more columns failed the remaining ones became more stressed. If they (the remaining columns) were being weakened/further stressed by fire the is no reason to believe the structures didn’t reach a “straw that broke the camel’s back” point. The statements of various witnesses indicates that’s what happened.
What evidence do you have that "more and more columns failed"?
I'd like to be reminded of the witness statements that support your straw theory, which I don't believe has any backing in real science. The stresses in the building would NOT be evenly distributed through the structure. They would be stronger around the damaged areas. So there is NO WAY that all the supports would give way at the same moment.
QUOTE
I would also say intuitively that if intentionally making a building fall in a particular direction is a complicated matter and isn’t as simple as putting all or most or the cutter charges on one side, then it makes sense that “random events” that may have been concentrated to one side would cause a building to collapse straight down rather than to one side.
Making a building fall in the RIGHT direction, and at the RIGHT rate would indeed be a complicated matter. Making it fall in any direction other than straight down without caring where it lands would be EASY. You are mixing up a controlled non-vertical fall with an uncontrolled one. Random events would lead to an uncontrolled non-vertical fall.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I would also say intuitively that if intentionally making a building fall in a particular direction is a complicated matter and isn’t as simple as putting all or most or the cutter charges on one side, then it makes sense that “random events” that may have been concentrated to one side would cause a building to collapse straight down rather than to one side. |
Making a building fall in the RIGHT direction, and at the RIGHT rate would indeed be a complicated matter. Making it fall in any direction other than straight down without caring where it lands would be EASY. You are mixing up a controlled non-vertical fall with an uncontrolled one. Random events would lead to an uncontrolled non-vertical fall.
Since numerous structural engineers have contributed to articles, papers and reports supporting the collapse theory and an even greater number have reviewed them and so far no qualified experts support CD, the burden of proof is on you guys.
The first burden of proof is on the government to prove beyond reasonable doubt that their 'enemies' are guilty. They have failed, and any attempt to debate the issue is stonewalled. Perhaps you could list the articles/papers/reports that discuss the collapses, so we have a better idea of how many experts we're talking about.
You have to remember that the instictive reaction of people is to trust that their government is on their side and are protecting them from real enemies. It's too emotional an issue to only depend on the facts: you are asking people to change their ENTIRE world-view in order to treat the events with skepticism rather than instant faith in the morals of their leaders.
Do you honestly think that any of the reports that support the OCT started out with all options on the table? Honestly? Or do you think they started with a conclusion and worked out a theory based on what would support that conclusion?
NIST included a throwaway line about finding no evidence of controlled demolition. That implies that they LOOKED for it. Why do they not share this assessment, if it was done? That is science 101 - back up your conclusions!
QUOTE
If you don’t have much to compare it to how can you say what the collapses of the WTC buildings should have looked like it they really were gravity driven?
You can't say with accuracy what they would have looked like, but you can say what they SHOULDN'T have looked like, and that is building collapses with demonstratively different initial conditions (i.e CDs).
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If you don’t have much to compare it to how can you say what the collapses of the WTC buildings should have looked like it they really were gravity driven? |
You can't say with accuracy what they would have looked like, but you can say what they SHOULDN'T have looked like, and that is building collapses with demonstratively different initial conditions (i.e CDs).
The collapse of the WTC towers involved more kinetic energy by far than any other building collapsed in history.
And also more building strength by far. You've still not answered me re: the more massive the building, the more strength is holding it up. I admit there was a lot of kinetic energy. Do you admit there was a very strong structure for that energy to overcome?
QUOTE
They contained a lot of dust producing materials. Unlike CD’s they had not been stripped before hand. These factors alone could explain the large cloud. Again since cases of spontaneous collapse are rare and no other structure anywhere near the size of the WTC towers has ever been destroyed it’s hard to say esp. using intuition alone to know how much dust to have expected in a spontaneous collapse of the WTC.
No doubt any type of collapse would have produced a lot of dust. It's conservation of energy that's the problem. Sure a spontaneous collapse would produce big dust clouds. But doing so takes enormous energy, which needs to come from the kinetic energy.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| They contained a lot of dust producing materials. Unlike CD’s they had not been stripped before hand. These factors alone could explain the large cloud. Again since cases of spontaneous collapse are rare and no other structure anywhere near the size of the WTC towers has ever been destroyed it’s hard to say esp. using intuition alone to know how much dust to have expected in a spontaneous collapse of the WTC. |
No doubt any type of collapse would have produced a lot of dust. It's conservation of energy that's the problem. Sure a spontaneous collapse would produce big dust clouds. But doing so takes enormous energy, which needs to come from the kinetic energy.
No having been stripped 7 WTC should have kicked up a lot more dust than the Landmark. How do you explain that, using your logic that would be an indication CD wasn’t used.
It DID kick up a lot more dust than the Landmark.
QUOTE
You want to believe the collapse of the Connecticut building took a long time because that better fits your view of what happened to 7 WTC. There is no way to tell how long the collapse really took it could have been close to free fall speed (under 4 seconds), we have no way of knowing.
I said it was more likely to be an under-estimate, not that it was. But this building would seem to settle nothing, unless you have any additional points to make about it.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You want to believe the collapse of the Connecticut building took a long time because that better fits your view of what happened to 7 WTC. There is no way to tell how long the collapse really took it could have been close to free fall speed (under 4 seconds), we have no way of knowing. |
I said it was more likely to be an under-estimate, not that it was. But this building would seem to settle nothing, unless you have any additional points to make about it.
I think Common Sense and YID already did a good job of that. There are numerous eyewitness accounts that the building was unstable and appeared to be on the verge of collapse just before it did.
Again you miss the point. It's not that it did collapse, but HOW it collapsed.
QUOTE
No because the fireman were at the scene and saw an unstable building with a giant hole in it tilting to one side. To them it was obvious that it was going to collapse. Their observations don't contradict those of the experts. What NIST is still trying to figure out is exactly why thie buildoing became unstable and collapsed. I'm sure it's not news to them that 7 was severly dammaged by rubble from the WTC towers, it was silly of you to suggest that it was, but knowing that and knowing about the fires is not enought to issue a definitive report.
Not enough for a "definitive" report? If Dr Sunder can say "we really don't know", then they're not even close to a half-decent report, let alone a definitive one.
FYI, this may be my last big reply to anyone here. I've realised that this thread is too big a drain on my time to engage in properly. I am a member of the Scholars group and my input there comes first.
[Swiftboat Veterans] Scholars for [911] truth no doubt. The interchangeability of this label is is only matched by the organizations purposes.
In the beginning, there was the accelerated/mass of the upper section of the south tower. It eventually listed, dramatically, to the south/southeast. We questioned why it didn't continue to rotate off the building. RC said that the peripheral walls contained the the upper section and focused its' force against the lower section. At the initiation, however, the tilted section arrested and vertically descended, suggesting inexplicable concessions from the more massive, lower core. To explain this, heat affected steel, begat the floor joist, failure theory. This, some how, compromised the core AHEAD of the collapse giving the fall that buttery, uninterrupted look.
Now the theory for building 7's immaculate implosion is taking form. After all that effort, explaining away the angular momentum, they now need, to put some back.
After all,
The bigger the CHUNK, the more the BUNK.
Now the theory for building 7's immaculate implosion is taking form. After all that effort, explaining away the angular momentum, they now need, to put some back.
After all,
The bigger the CHUNK, the more the BUNK.
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 29 2006, 02:05 AM)
QUOTE (gordon+Mar 28 2006, 11:32 PM)
They say (the NIST and FEMA teams) that the Global collapse was inevitable.
How come, if global collapse is inevitable after a collapse initiation, that we have just been given details of partially collapsed buildings?
Gordon.
The idea of trusting even the collective intuition of a bunch of engineers is, from a scientific point of view, absurd. If the collapses were run of the mill events with an unambiguous history, fine. Obviously, they were nothing of the sort, as even many, if not most, of the FEMA Fairy Tale'ers keep reminding us.
Not only can I not imagine the collective brain trust of Fermi, Einstien, and Bohr saying "trust our intuition" in an analogous situation, I cannot even imagine that they would want people to trust their intuition. Even if Einstein may have been "sure" that the general relativistic predictions re the perihelion shift of Mercury were correct, he wanted his theory tested.
IMO, anybody who would have taken even Einstein's intuition and/or belief as gospel was a fool. Same with the NIST'ian hand waving.
Can you imagine NASA sending a manned mission to Mars without extensive testing and computer modeling? They would not say "Oh, we're such geniuses that you can take our designs as gospel. We have proved their efficacy using our God-like intuition."
Just in case anybody is foolish enough to believe such a scenario is plausible: A cousin of mine was formerly employed as a bio-mathematician, who worked on life support systems for manned Mars missions. He came up with a system of equations (17 simultaneous eqns., IIRC) modeling human lung response to a change from pure oxygen to oxygyen/Argon. *
Believe if or not, his theoretical results were put to the test. AS IT TURNS OUT, his model was very good.
If the NIST'ian hand wavers are really as good as they and their supporters claim, then maybe NASA can save a bunch of money and just hire them. Why bother with silliness like computer modelling and testing when you've got God-like hand waivers?
* Argon, not Nitrogen, since Argon is supposed to be more plentiful on Mars.
I guess all that peer review from physics intuition's/journals which made Einstein a household word was for nothing. Because it's more than just NIST which says the buildings fell from fire.
The scholars arguments seems to be don't believe every civil/structural engineer in the world. Sad... Mild skitsophrinia.
Was the lower section made up of many pieces or one solid piece as you purport...
I'll tell you. It was made up of MANY pieces and each piece was overwhelmed by the massive collection of other pieces falling on it. Why is this hard to understand?
BTW, the cores on both buildings survived longer than the rest confirming pancaking. Remember? Or do I have to repost the photos.
Hi Newton... Like you said... "plan B" didn't work - OK back to "plan A"
I noticed you mentioned 'Howard Roark'.
(another famous OCT from ATS and Liberty Forum)
I always thought the name was just handle the guy made up, or maybe even his own name he was using.
Interesting to hear the name is derived from an Ayn Rand character.
I remember when I first started 'skulking' at 9/11 message boards and came across many of 'Roark's postings....
That was sorta my first clue that 'these guys' were employing sophistry and 'bs', in attempts to refute common sense analysis of 9/11 events.
As a 'skulker' (in those days), I didn't post at all, I just followed the conversations between Roark and the 'tin-hats'.
It only took a few months for me to figure out who was talking facts and who was talking fantasy. I would read all the points and counterpoints... and then spend a few hours doing independant research to determine who was talking truth and who was just bsing.
I'd have to admit that I found some bs'ers in the clown car also, nevertheless even some of those deluded ones still seemed to have a greater percentage of truth mixed in with their bs, than the hard-rock OCT's... like Roark, Schneibster, Adoucette and a few others.
Anyway thanks for the little bit of history regarding where the name 'Howard Roark' came from.
Cheers
Interesting point 'Non-sense'.
I like these photos that you (and other 'debunkers') keep coming up with that show strange smoke coming from the full south face of WTC 7. Amazing photos really... Billowing clouds of smoke shooting straight out of the entire south face of 7 right up to the corner windows... yet absolutely NO signs of fire on the west wall... all the windows intact ...(not melted nor fractured from high heat... no signs of flames in any of those west wall windows). These are Amazing Photos !!! What kind of an inferno produces such effects?
Where did you get them?
Please post all you have so that we can check them out...(I'm doing a comparison of similar strange smoke coming from WTC 2).
Thanks - I appreciate you posting ALL the photos of the smoke pouring from the south face of WTC 7.
Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with Brigadier Gen. Benton K Partins analysis of the Murrah building before introducing that as a comparative example of 'Progressive Disproportionate Progressive Collapse' on THIS thread... ???
http://www.okcbombing.org/News%20Articles/...ns_analysis.htm
(although that's really a topic for another thread - let's try not to digress TOO FAR from the initial title of THIS thread. I suggest if you wish to address Partin's analysis of the Murrah building {and do a 'comparison to WTC}, we should start another thread to deal with that).
Cheers
How come, if global collapse is inevitable after a collapse initiation, that we have just been given details of partially collapsed buildings?
Gordon.
The idea of trusting even the collective intuition of a bunch of engineers is, from a scientific point of view, absurd. If the collapses were run of the mill events with an unambiguous history, fine. Obviously, they were nothing of the sort, as even many, if not most, of the FEMA Fairy Tale'ers keep reminding us.
Not only can I not imagine the collective brain trust of Fermi, Einstien, and Bohr saying "trust our intuition" in an analogous situation, I cannot even imagine that they would want people to trust their intuition. Even if Einstein may have been "sure" that the general relativistic predictions re the perihelion shift of Mercury were correct, he wanted his theory tested.
IMO, anybody who would have taken even Einstein's intuition and/or belief as gospel was a fool. Same with the NIST'ian hand waving.
Can you imagine NASA sending a manned mission to Mars without extensive testing and computer modeling? They would not say "Oh, we're such geniuses that you can take our designs as gospel. We have proved their efficacy using our God-like intuition."
Just in case anybody is foolish enough to believe such a scenario is plausible: A cousin of mine was formerly employed as a bio-mathematician, who worked on life support systems for manned Mars missions. He came up with a system of equations (17 simultaneous eqns., IIRC) modeling human lung response to a change from pure oxygen to oxygyen/Argon. *
Believe if or not, his theoretical results were put to the test. AS IT TURNS OUT, his model was very good.
If the NIST'ian hand wavers are really as good as they and their supporters claim, then maybe NASA can save a bunch of money and just hire them. Why bother with silliness like computer modelling and testing when you've got God-like hand waivers?
* Argon, not Nitrogen, since Argon is supposed to be more plentiful on Mars.
I guess all that peer review from physics intuition's/journals which made Einstein a household word was for nothing. Because it's more than just NIST which says the buildings fell from fire.
The scholars arguments seems to be don't believe every civil/structural engineer in the world. Sad... Mild skitsophrinia.
QUOTE
suggesting inexplicable concessions from the more massive, lower core.
Was the lower section made up of many pieces or one solid piece as you purport...
I'll tell you. It was made up of MANY pieces and each piece was overwhelmed by the massive collection of other pieces falling on it. Why is this hard to understand?
BTW, the cores on both buildings survived longer than the rest confirming pancaking. Remember? Or do I have to repost the photos.
QUOTE (lenbrazil+Mar 28 2006, 04:36 PM)
Contrary to popular belief September 11, 2001 was not the first time
a steel framed building collapsed due to fire.
Some examples are the McCormick Center in Chicago and the Sight and
Sound Theater in Pennsylvania. The theater was fire protected using
drywall and spray on material. A high rise in Philly didn't collapse
after a long fire but firefighters evacuated the building when a
pancake structural collapse was considered likely. Other steel-
framed buildings partially collapsed due fires one after only 20
minutes.
The steel framed McCormick Center was at the time the World's
largest exhibition center. It like the WTC used long steel trusses
to create a large open space without columns. Those trusses were
unprotected but of course much of the WTC lost it's fire protection
due to the impacts.
"As an example of the damaging effect of fire on steel, in 1967, the
original heavy steel-constructed McCormick Place exhibition hall in
Chicago collapsed only 30 minutes after the start of a small
electrical fire."
http://www.wconline.com/CDA/Archive/24ae78...nVCM100000f932a
8c0
[Note this article has several comments from engineers who back the
WTC collapse theory.]
"The unprotected steel roof trusses failed early on in the fire"
http://www.chipublib.org/004chicago/disast...rmick_fire.html
The McCormick Place fire "is significant because it illustrates the
fact that steel-frame buildings can collapse as a result of exposure
to fire. This is true for all types of construction materials, not
only steel." Wrote Robert Berhinig, associate manager of UL's Fire
Protection Division and a registered professional engineer. He also
discusses UL's steel fire certification much more knowledgably than
Kevin Ryan. He is an example of one more highly qualified engineer
who supports the collapse theory.
http://www.iaei.org/subscriber/magazine/02_d/berhinig.htm
From the FEMA report of the theater fire, my comments in [ ]
www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-097.pdf
On the morning of January 28, 1997, in the Lancaster County,
Pennsylvania township of Strasburg, a fire caused the collapse of
the state-of-the-art, seven year old Sight and Sound Theater and
resulted in structural damage to most of the connecting buildings.
The theater was a total loss, valued at over $15 million.
pg 6/74
The theater was built of steel rigid frame construction to allow for
the large open space of the auditorium, unobstructed by columns...
The interior finish in the auditorium was drywall.
The stage storage area, prop assembly building, and prop maintenance
building were protected with a sprayed-on fire resistant coating on
all structural steel. The plans called for the coating to meet a two-
hour fire resistance assembly rating. The sprayed-on coating, which
was susceptible to damage from the movement of theater equipment,
was protected by attaching plywood coverings on the columns to a
height of eight feet.
The walls of the storage area beneath the stage were layered drywall
to provide a two-hour fire protection rating for the mezzanine
offices [the WTC used drywall as fire protection in the central
core] , and sprayed-on fire-resistant coatings on the structural
steel columns and ceiling bar joists supporting the stage floor.
pg 15/74
The two theater employees told the State Police Fire Investigator
that when they first discovered the fire they noticed that the
sprayed-on fire proofing had been knocked off the underside of the
stage floor bar joists and support steel. The fire proofing was
hanging on the wire mesh used to hold the coating to the overhead.
The investigation revealed that the construction company's removal
of the stage floor covering down to the corrugated decking involved
striking the floor hard enough to knock off the sprayed-on
protection, exposing the structural steel and bar-joists in the
storage area. [The theater's spray-on fireprofing was newer and more
modern than at the WTC, The theater was only seven years old. If
striking the floor during renovations was enough to dislodge it
imagine the impact of a 767]
pg 16/74
Temperatures of 1000° F can cause buckling and temperatures of 1500°
F can cause steel to lose strength and collapse. When the heat and
hot gases reached the stage ceiling they extended horizontally into
the auditorium, causing the roof to fail all the way to the lobby
fire wall. The fire also extended horizontally from the stage to the
elevated hallway, causing the structural steel to fail and buckle in
the prop assembly and prop maintenance buildings
pg 17/74
Once the heat of the fire caused the structural steel to fail in the
storage area (aided by the damage to the sprayed-on fire protection
during renovation), interior firefighting became too hazardous to
continue. The truck crews ventilating the roof noted metal
discoloration and buckling steel.
pg. 21/74
The two hour fire resistance-rated assembly in the storage area
beneath the stage was damaged during the stage floor renovation,
leaving the structural members unprotected from the ensuing fire.
pg. 26/74
Buildings constructed of steel should, in effect, be considered
unprotected and capable of collapse from fire in as few as ten
minutes. Fire resistant coatings sprayed onto structural steel are
susceptible to damage from construction work.
The impact of fire and heat on structural steel members warrant
extreme caution by firefighters.
pg. 36/74
Unless the steel members are cooled with high-volume hose streams,
the fire's heat can rapidly cause steel to lose its strength and
contribute to building collapse.
pg. 37/74
Other Fires
In February 1991 a fire broke out in One Meridian Plaza a 38 story
office building in Philadelphia. The building was built during the
same period as the WTC and had spray-on fire protection on it's
steel frame. Despite not suffering impact damage authorities were
worried it might collapse.
"All interior firefighting efforts were halted after almost 11 hours
of uninterrupted fire in the building. Consultation with a
structural engineer and structural damage observed by units
operating in the building led to the belief that there was a
possibility of a pancake structural collapse of the fire damaged
floors." http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/txt/publications/tr-
049.txt
About 2 years later the NYFD was concerned that a steel framed
building that partially collapsed during after a gas explosion might collapse
entirely due to the resulting fire.
http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/pub...ions/TR-068.pdf
Part of a floor of an unprotected steel frame building collapsed in
in Brackenridge, Pennsylvania, December 20, 1991. Killing 4
volunteer firemen
http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/pub...ions/TR-061.pdf
Part of the roof of a steel framed school in Virginia collapsed
about 20 minutes after fire broke out
http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/pub...ions/tr-135.pdf
Len, can I use this on my site?
a steel framed building collapsed due to fire.
Some examples are the McCormick Center in Chicago and the Sight and
Sound Theater in Pennsylvania. The theater was fire protected using
drywall and spray on material. A high rise in Philly didn't collapse
after a long fire but firefighters evacuated the building when a
pancake structural collapse was considered likely. Other steel-
framed buildings partially collapsed due fires one after only 20
minutes.
The steel framed McCormick Center was at the time the World's
largest exhibition center. It like the WTC used long steel trusses
to create a large open space without columns. Those trusses were
unprotected but of course much of the WTC lost it's fire protection
due to the impacts.
"As an example of the damaging effect of fire on steel, in 1967, the
original heavy steel-constructed McCormick Place exhibition hall in
Chicago collapsed only 30 minutes after the start of a small
electrical fire."
http://www.wconline.com/CDA/Archive/24ae78...nVCM100000f932a
8c0
[Note this article has several comments from engineers who back the
WTC collapse theory.]
"The unprotected steel roof trusses failed early on in the fire"
http://www.chipublib.org/004chicago/disast...rmick_fire.html
The McCormick Place fire "is significant because it illustrates the
fact that steel-frame buildings can collapse as a result of exposure
to fire. This is true for all types of construction materials, not
only steel." Wrote Robert Berhinig, associate manager of UL's Fire
Protection Division and a registered professional engineer. He also
discusses UL's steel fire certification much more knowledgably than
Kevin Ryan. He is an example of one more highly qualified engineer
who supports the collapse theory.
http://www.iaei.org/subscriber/magazine/02_d/berhinig.htm
From the FEMA report of the theater fire, my comments in [ ]
www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-097.pdf
On the morning of January 28, 1997, in the Lancaster County,
Pennsylvania township of Strasburg, a fire caused the collapse of
the state-of-the-art, seven year old Sight and Sound Theater and
resulted in structural damage to most of the connecting buildings.
The theater was a total loss, valued at over $15 million.
pg 6/74
The theater was built of steel rigid frame construction to allow for
the large open space of the auditorium, unobstructed by columns...
The interior finish in the auditorium was drywall.
The stage storage area, prop assembly building, and prop maintenance
building were protected with a sprayed-on fire resistant coating on
all structural steel. The plans called for the coating to meet a two-
hour fire resistance assembly rating. The sprayed-on coating, which
was susceptible to damage from the movement of theater equipment,
was protected by attaching plywood coverings on the columns to a
height of eight feet.
The walls of the storage area beneath the stage were layered drywall
to provide a two-hour fire protection rating for the mezzanine
offices [the WTC used drywall as fire protection in the central
core] , and sprayed-on fire-resistant coatings on the structural
steel columns and ceiling bar joists supporting the stage floor.
pg 15/74
The two theater employees told the State Police Fire Investigator
that when they first discovered the fire they noticed that the
sprayed-on fire proofing had been knocked off the underside of the
stage floor bar joists and support steel. The fire proofing was
hanging on the wire mesh used to hold the coating to the overhead.
The investigation revealed that the construction company's removal
of the stage floor covering down to the corrugated decking involved
striking the floor hard enough to knock off the sprayed-on
protection, exposing the structural steel and bar-joists in the
storage area. [The theater's spray-on fireprofing was newer and more
modern than at the WTC, The theater was only seven years old. If
striking the floor during renovations was enough to dislodge it
imagine the impact of a 767]
pg 16/74
Temperatures of 1000° F can cause buckling and temperatures of 1500°
F can cause steel to lose strength and collapse. When the heat and
hot gases reached the stage ceiling they extended horizontally into
the auditorium, causing the roof to fail all the way to the lobby
fire wall. The fire also extended horizontally from the stage to the
elevated hallway, causing the structural steel to fail and buckle in
the prop assembly and prop maintenance buildings
pg 17/74
Once the heat of the fire caused the structural steel to fail in the
storage area (aided by the damage to the sprayed-on fire protection
during renovation), interior firefighting became too hazardous to
continue. The truck crews ventilating the roof noted metal
discoloration and buckling steel.
pg. 21/74
The two hour fire resistance-rated assembly in the storage area
beneath the stage was damaged during the stage floor renovation,
leaving the structural members unprotected from the ensuing fire.
pg. 26/74
Buildings constructed of steel should, in effect, be considered
unprotected and capable of collapse from fire in as few as ten
minutes. Fire resistant coatings sprayed onto structural steel are
susceptible to damage from construction work.
The impact of fire and heat on structural steel members warrant
extreme caution by firefighters.
pg. 36/74
Unless the steel members are cooled with high-volume hose streams,
the fire's heat can rapidly cause steel to lose its strength and
contribute to building collapse.
pg. 37/74
Other Fires
In February 1991 a fire broke out in One Meridian Plaza a 38 story
office building in Philadelphia. The building was built during the
same period as the WTC and had spray-on fire protection on it's
steel frame. Despite not suffering impact damage authorities were
worried it might collapse.
"All interior firefighting efforts were halted after almost 11 hours
of uninterrupted fire in the building. Consultation with a
structural engineer and structural damage observed by units
operating in the building led to the belief that there was a
possibility of a pancake structural collapse of the fire damaged
floors." http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/txt/publications/tr-
049.txt
About 2 years later the NYFD was concerned that a steel framed
building that partially collapsed during after a gas explosion might collapse
entirely due to the resulting fire.
http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/pub...ions/TR-068.pdf
Part of a floor of an unprotected steel frame building collapsed in
in Brackenridge, Pennsylvania, December 20, 1991. Killing 4
volunteer firemen
http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/pub...ions/TR-061.pdf
Part of the roof of a steel framed school in Virginia collapsed
about 20 minutes after fire broke out
http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/pub...ions/tr-135.pdf
Len, can I use this on my site?
QUOTE
Originally posted by newton
like 'howard roark'(the avatar name is taken from an ayn rand character from "the fountainhead" -an architect who DEMOS HIS OWN BUILDINGS) at ATS, who has admittedly worked many demolitions and does hazmat clean-ups.
like 'howard roark'(the avatar name is taken from an ayn rand character from "the fountainhead" -an architect who DEMOS HIS OWN BUILDINGS) at ATS, who has admittedly worked many demolitions and does hazmat clean-ups.
Hi Newton... Like you said... "plan B" didn't work - OK back to "plan A"
I noticed you mentioned 'Howard Roark'.
(another famous OCT from ATS and Liberty Forum)
I always thought the name was just handle the guy made up, or maybe even his own name he was using.
Interesting to hear the name is derived from an Ayn Rand character.
I remember when I first started 'skulking' at 9/11 message boards and came across many of 'Roark's postings....
That was sorta my first clue that 'these guys' were employing sophistry and 'bs', in attempts to refute common sense analysis of 9/11 events.
As a 'skulker' (in those days), I didn't post at all, I just followed the conversations between Roark and the 'tin-hats'.
It only took a few months for me to figure out who was talking facts and who was talking fantasy. I would read all the points and counterpoints... and then spend a few hours doing independant research to determine who was talking truth and who was just bsing.
I'd have to admit that I found some bs'ers in the clown car also, nevertheless even some of those deluded ones still seemed to have a greater percentage of truth mixed in with their bs, than the hard-rock OCT's... like Roark, Schneibster, Adoucette and a few others.
Anyway thanks for the little bit of history regarding where the name 'Howard Roark' came from.
Cheers
QUOTE
by Non-Sense (after leaving for the umpteenth time - only to return with the same old worn-out non sense)
With the wind blowing to the east like that, why is there so much smoke coming out the south side? Some of it seems white as if it has plenty of oxygen and fuel.
With the wind blowing to the east like that, why is there so much smoke coming out the south side? Some of it seems white as if it has plenty of oxygen and fuel.
Interesting point 'Non-sense'.
I like these photos that you (and other 'debunkers') keep coming up with that show strange smoke coming from the full south face of WTC 7. Amazing photos really... Billowing clouds of smoke shooting straight out of the entire south face of 7 right up to the corner windows... yet absolutely NO signs of fire on the west wall... all the windows intact ...(not melted nor fractured from high heat... no signs of flames in any of those west wall windows). These are Amazing Photos !!! What kind of an inferno produces such effects?
Where did you get them?
Please post all you have so that we can check them out...(I'm doing a comparison of similar strange smoke coming from WTC 2).
Thanks - I appreciate you posting ALL the photos of the smoke pouring from the south face of WTC 7.
QUOTE
Originally posted by Shagster
The collapse of the Murrah building has some relevance to the collapse of WTC7. The damage that is seen on Murrah wasn't caused by the truck bomb itself. The bomb took out a critical column. The loss of that column caused a failure of a load transfer truss. The failure of that truss took out a couple more columns. Gravity then destroyed about a quarter to a third of the building even though the truck bomb only took out a column. Most of the people at Murrah died because of the gravity-driven collapse.
The collapse of the Murrah building has some relevance to the collapse of WTC7. The damage that is seen on Murrah wasn't caused by the truck bomb itself. The bomb took out a critical column. The loss of that column caused a failure of a load transfer truss. The failure of that truss took out a couple more columns. Gravity then destroyed about a quarter to a third of the building even though the truck bomb only took out a column. Most of the people at Murrah died because of the gravity-driven collapse.
Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with Brigadier Gen. Benton K Partins analysis of the Murrah building before introducing that as a comparative example of 'Progressive Disproportionate Progressive Collapse' on THIS thread... ???
http://www.okcbombing.org/News%20Articles/...ns_analysis.htm
(although that's really a topic for another thread - let's try not to digress TOO FAR from the initial title of THIS thread. I suggest if you wish to address Partin's analysis of the Murrah building {and do a 'comparison to WTC}, we should start another thread to deal with that).
Cheers
Common Sense - I was going to apologise for winding down my participation and not fully responding to you, but frankly I don't think you've earned that courtesy. If you've seen me throw around any personal insults simply because I don't agree with you, please point them out. Otherwise I will trust that others have noted the relative level of respect shown by each of us.
I only have a few points to address -
Show me where I said any of those things. I didn't even comment on the difference in the fires between the north and south sides of WTC7.
Very few, if any, at NIST have to be involved in the cover-up. All it takes is a pre-determined conclusion and an unwillingness to even consider the possibility of foul play (which is the default human reaction - I believed the OCT unquestioningly at first).
On that subject, why is it that the conversion of belief all seems to be one way? Can you point to a single example of someone who supported CD but was then convinced by the debunkers? It seems that the only people who support the OCT are those who believed it right from the start. And in that case, there is no way of knowing how much they have personally invested in it being what really happened.
Show me where I said any of those things. I didn't even comment on the difference in the fires between the north and south sides of WTC7.
Very few, if any, at NIST have to be involved in the cover-up. All it takes is a pre-determined conclusion and an unwillingness to even consider the possibility of foul play (which is the default human reaction - I believed the OCT unquestioningly at first).
On that subject, why is it that the conversion of belief all seems to be one way? Can you point to a single example of someone who supported CD but was then convinced by the debunkers? It seems that the only people who support the OCT are those who believed it right from the start. And in that case, there is no way of knowing how much they have personally invested in it being what really happened.
We have been over and over this in these threads. I wish people would try to read this thread from the beginning. This thread is 600 pages long and the ALL points have already been addressed. Sure people like you aren't going to agree with them but never the less they have been addressed. It's frustrating to have people come here with there chests puffed out as if they have some new unchallenged evidence when we've hashed this out 5 times all ready.
There is no way I have the time or inclination to read the entirety of this monster. If you don't want to rehash what you've said before, I am not forcing you to.
I don't disagree with any of that. What does it have to do with other buildings suffering the same amount of damage as WTC7?
Interesting. Ever noticed that by releasing its kinetic energy into the ejecta, the meteoroid comes to a complete stop?
(For future reference, meteors do not impact the earth, they burn up in the atmosphere)
Interesting. Ever noticed that by releasing its kinetic energy into the ejecta, the meteoroid comes to a complete stop?
(For future reference, meteors do not impact the earth, they burn up in the atmosphere)
Yet more evidence is the fact that the debris cloud widened as it went down. Unless your going to tell me the explosives used got stronger and stronger as they went off
No, because as the CD progresses the high speed attained by the falling debris will help the explosives to push new debris out further.
No.
I could however reasonably assert that it couldn't have brought the building down in the manner of a CD.
No.
I could however reasonably assert that it couldn't have brought the building down in the manner of a CD.
COME ON, These are TRAINED BATTALION CHEIFS who are trained to spot possible collapses. They have peoples lives in their hands.
Indeed they had lives in their hands. So they had every reason to be extra cautious in their assessments (especially after two unforeseen collapses earlier on). It's no wonder they would have taken the most pessimistic outlook of any damages. That was absolutely the right and sensible way to approach it.
So the fireproofing was removed across an entire floor? The office material fires achieved their maximum attainable temperature (inferno), and sustained it, at EVERY key support across an entire floor to cause instantaneous collapse?
So the fireproofing was removed across an entire floor? The office material fires achieved their maximum attainable temperature (inferno), and sustained it, at EVERY key support across an entire floor to cause instantaneous collapse?
Beyond a doubt, the perimeter columns were being pulled in. WHAT EXPLOSIVE PULLS IN PERIMETER COLUMNS OVER 35 TO 45 MINUTES???
An incendiary like thermite eating away at the core would have that effect.
I say you are completely right.
I say you are completely right.
But this photo is telling..
With the wind blowing to the east like that, why is there so much smoke coming out the south side? Some of it seems white as if it has plenty of oxygen and fuel.
Who can really tell how much of the smoke in that image is from WTC7 and how much is from the debris piles. Sure, there were fires burning in the "20 story hole" (gash) which were oxygen rich (I believe your best quote was that these fires were on "several" floors. Not "all", not "most, not even "many".. just several, out of 47 total).
Yes, they needed each other, and below (and above) the impact zones they DID have each other. Hence would put up resistance to any vertical load applied to them.
Yes, they needed each other, and below (and above) the impact zones they DID have each other. Hence would put up resistance to any vertical load applied to them.
Do you realize that NOT ONE STRUCURAL ENGINEER or CIVIL ENGINEER ON THE PLANET agrees with you? Why do you think that is? Because you know more than they in building design? I think not... Prove me wrong... Show me ONE Civil or Structural engineer who agrees with you. Use people from countries that hate us if you like.
Radical ideas are never easy to accept. It has been the same throughout history. All new ideas that contradict a commonly believed theory will go through a phase where only a few believe it. The impact of taking the earth away from the center of the universe was huge in its time, because it meant something at the very core of humanity. The same with 9/11. It would SHAKE the world to its core if it was revealed to be a sham. It's not easy to veer from the safe road of going along with the crowd. That is how it is with the common engineer. They would need only need to hear once that 'experts' in their profession had okayed the OCT and they wouldn't give it a second thought. And any that did start to question it would risk their credibility and potentially their jobs for supporting something with radical implications. Safer just to get on with life and not bother with it all.
Professor Jones is talking to a civil engineer right now who agrees with him but is not ready to come forward. I can understand their apprehension.
Actually no, it is the OCTs who have too narrow a focus. If the building collapses were the only anomalies, you would be entitled to argue them with complete conviction. But there is a MOUNTAIN of other evidence regarding every aspect of 9/11 that should lessen the conviction of anyone defending just one of the problems. That problem does not exist in vacuum, where there is an airtight official narrative apart from that one flaw. You have to look at the whole picture - there are only so many times you can roll a 1 before realising it's not reasonable to explain each occurence as simply bad luck - the die must be loaded.
Actually no, it is the OCTs who have too narrow a focus. If the building collapses were the only anomalies, you would be entitled to argue them with complete conviction. But there is a MOUNTAIN of other evidence regarding every aspect of 9/11 that should lessen the conviction of anyone defending just one of the problems. That problem does not exist in vacuum, where there is an airtight official narrative apart from that one flaw. You have to look at the whole picture - there are only so many times you can roll a 1 before realising it's not reasonable to explain each occurence as simply bad luck - the die must be loaded.
Because you CTers have had 4 years yourself and while there have been a number of peer reviewed papers written in civil engineering journals on the collapse
A number of articles on WTC7? But how can I trust these articles when even the head of the NIST investigation "doesn't know" why 7 collapsed?
If NIST completed, or even attempted, a computer model of the collapses post-initiation, then by all means set me straight. (I did not say they didn't complete their pre-collapse model.
If NIST completed, or even attempted, a computer model of the collapses post-initiation, then by all means set me straight. (I did not say they didn't complete their pre-collapse model.
Horseshit
Will get back to you on the reference for that.
Horseshit
Will get back to you on the reference for that.
I have news for you. The buildings were BUILT with a bowed roof. It housed the hat truss system.
The roof of WTC7 was not flat?
Len, can I use this on my site?
No problem as long as you give me credit
Len
Len, can I use this on my site?
No problem as long as you give me credit
Len
I only have a few points to address -
QUOTE
Clear logical fallacies. "Gee, I don't know why WTC 7 fell like it did so it must have been a bomb..." The absents of evidence isn't evidence. "Gee, the WTC 7 report is late so the building must have been blown up." is also a logical fallacy. "Gee, the WTC 7 report is late so that means the hundreds of people involved in the NIST report is involved in the cover up of the largest mass murder in US history.." another logical fallacy. Gee, we only have the north face with a few fires so the south face must have been the same." Another logical fallacy... The logical fallacies run rampant on the CT side.
Show me where I said any of those things. I didn't even comment on the difference in the fires between the north and south sides of WTC7.
Very few, if any, at NIST have to be involved in the cover-up. All it takes is a pre-determined conclusion and an unwillingness to even consider the possibility of foul play (which is the default human reaction - I believed the OCT unquestioningly at first).
On that subject, why is it that the conversion of belief all seems to be one way? Can you point to a single example of someone who supported CD but was then convinced by the debunkers? It seems that the only people who support the OCT are those who believed it right from the start. And in that case, there is no way of knowing how much they have personally invested in it being what really happened.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Clear logical fallacies. "Gee, I don't know why WTC 7 fell like it did so it must have been a bomb..." The absents of evidence isn't evidence. "Gee, the WTC 7 report is late so the building must have been blown up." is also a logical fallacy. "Gee, the WTC 7 report is late so that means the hundreds of people involved in the NIST report is involved in the cover up of the largest mass murder in US history.." another logical fallacy. Gee, we only have the north face with a few fires so the south face must have been the same." Another logical fallacy... The logical fallacies run rampant on the CT side. |
Show me where I said any of those things. I didn't even comment on the difference in the fires between the north and south sides of WTC7.
Very few, if any, at NIST have to be involved in the cover-up. All it takes is a pre-determined conclusion and an unwillingness to even consider the possibility of foul play (which is the default human reaction - I believed the OCT unquestioningly at first).
On that subject, why is it that the conversion of belief all seems to be one way? Can you point to a single example of someone who supported CD but was then convinced by the debunkers? It seems that the only people who support the OCT are those who believed it right from the start. And in that case, there is no way of knowing how much they have personally invested in it being what really happened.
We have been over and over this in these threads. I wish people would try to read this thread from the beginning. This thread is 600 pages long and the ALL points have already been addressed. Sure people like you aren't going to agree with them but never the less they have been addressed. It's frustrating to have people come here with there chests puffed out as if they have some new unchallenged evidence when we've hashed this out 5 times all ready.
There is no way I have the time or inclination to read the entirety of this monster. If you don't want to rehash what you've said before, I am not forcing you to.
QUOTE
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Also, WTC7 was positioned no closer to the towers than several other buildings in the area Other buildings in the area also were hit. The difference is the construction of those buildings. The damage from both towers were evenly spread. But you are assuming columns bolted to each other on the bottom are going to fall straight or even close to straight down. This is IMPOSSBLE. The building peeled like a banana because it's bolts held together long enough to pivot one after another. Something like this... =/=|\_ /=/>__\ /=>//---\ _ \=>/ =>/ =/ =| =| _| _| _| _| <-Floor =| <-Pancaking floors |
I don't disagree with any of that. What does it have to do with other buildings suffering the same amount of damage as WTC7?
QUOTE
As Arthur pointed out long ago the each impact is like a small meteor. (Cue meteor ejecta animation)
Interesting. Ever noticed that by releasing its kinetic energy into the ejecta, the meteoroid comes to a complete stop?
(For future reference, meteors do not impact the earth, they burn up in the atmosphere)
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| As Arthur pointed out long ago the each impact is like a small meteor. (Cue meteor ejecta animation) |
Interesting. Ever noticed that by releasing its kinetic energy into the ejecta, the meteoroid comes to a complete stop?
(For future reference, meteors do not impact the earth, they burn up in the atmosphere)
Yet more evidence is the fact that the debris cloud widened as it went down. Unless your going to tell me the explosives used got stronger and stronger as they went off
No, because as the CD progresses the high speed attained by the falling debris will help the explosives to push new debris out further.
QUOTE
Is this how you challenge observed evidence? By injecting another logical fallacy? Can you prove a 20 story worth of damage in the location mentioned COULDN'T have brought down the building?
No.
I could however reasonably assert that it couldn't have brought the building down in the manner of a CD.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Is this how you challenge observed evidence? By injecting another logical fallacy? Can you prove a 20 story worth of damage in the location mentioned COULDN'T have brought down the building? |
No.
I could however reasonably assert that it couldn't have brought the building down in the manner of a CD.
COME ON, These are TRAINED BATTALION CHEIFS who are trained to spot possible collapses. They have peoples lives in their hands.
Indeed they had lives in their hands. So they had every reason to be extra cautious in their assessments (especially after two unforeseen collapses earlier on). It's no wonder they would have taken the most pessimistic outlook of any damages. That was absolutely the right and sensible way to approach it.
QUOTE
The fireproofing needed to be removed just in the area which started the collapse.
So the fireproofing was removed across an entire floor? The office material fires achieved their maximum attainable temperature (inferno), and sustained it, at EVERY key support across an entire floor to cause instantaneous collapse?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The fireproofing needed to be removed just in the area which started the collapse. |
So the fireproofing was removed across an entire floor? The office material fires achieved their maximum attainable temperature (inferno), and sustained it, at EVERY key support across an entire floor to cause instantaneous collapse?
Beyond a doubt, the perimeter columns were being pulled in. WHAT EXPLOSIVE PULLS IN PERIMETER COLUMNS OVER 35 TO 45 MINUTES???
An incendiary like thermite eating away at the core would have that effect.
QUOTE
I also want you to speak on why so many CT sites use the fireman's "Two lines" quote the way they do. This is obvious diversion from the fact that ABOVE the 78th floor was where all the fires were. I PROVE this in the fires page. Not to mention that the 78th floor didn't have furnture because it was the sky lobby. This is CLEAR LYING. A verbal slight of hand. "Look at the 78th floor!" as they take away the floors above from view. What do you have to say about that? Just curious...
I say you are completely right.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I also want you to speak on why so many CT sites use the fireman's "Two lines" quote the way they do. This is obvious diversion from the fact that ABOVE the 78th floor was where all the fires were. I PROVE this in the fires page. Not to mention that the 78th floor didn't have furnture because it was the sky lobby. This is CLEAR LYING. A verbal slight of hand. "Look at the 78th floor!" as they take away the floors above from view. What do you have to say about that? Just curious... |
I say you are completely right.
But this photo is telling..
With the wind blowing to the east like that, why is there so much smoke coming out the south side? Some of it seems white as if it has plenty of oxygen and fuel.
Who can really tell how much of the smoke in that image is from WTC7 and how much is from the debris piles. Sure, there were fires burning in the "20 story hole" (gash) which were oxygen rich (I believe your best quote was that these fires were on "several" floors. Not "all", not "most, not even "many".. just several, out of 47 total).
QUOTE
Your talking straight out of your butt because the designers themselves said the building wasn't going to stand without the floors. The perimeter needed the core and the core needed the perimeter to survive. To put it your way, "The lack of basic engineering common sense here is quite shocking."
Yes, they needed each other, and below (and above) the impact zones they DID have each other. Hence would put up resistance to any vertical load applied to them.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Your talking straight out of your butt because the designers themselves said the building wasn't going to stand without the floors. The perimeter needed the core and the core needed the perimeter to survive. To put it your way, "The lack of basic engineering common sense here is quite shocking." |
Yes, they needed each other, and below (and above) the impact zones they DID have each other. Hence would put up resistance to any vertical load applied to them.
Do you realize that NOT ONE STRUCURAL ENGINEER or CIVIL ENGINEER ON THE PLANET agrees with you? Why do you think that is? Because you know more than they in building design? I think not... Prove me wrong... Show me ONE Civil or Structural engineer who agrees with you. Use people from countries that hate us if you like.
Radical ideas are never easy to accept. It has been the same throughout history. All new ideas that contradict a commonly believed theory will go through a phase where only a few believe it. The impact of taking the earth away from the center of the universe was huge in its time, because it meant something at the very core of humanity. The same with 9/11. It would SHAKE the world to its core if it was revealed to be a sham. It's not easy to veer from the safe road of going along with the crowd. That is how it is with the common engineer. They would need only need to hear once that 'experts' in their profession had okayed the OCT and they wouldn't give it a second thought. And any that did start to question it would risk their credibility and potentially their jobs for supporting something with radical implications. Safer just to get on with life and not bother with it all.
Professor Jones is talking to a civil engineer right now who agrees with him but is not ready to come forward. I can understand their apprehension.
QUOTE
But it wasn't the airliner that took the building down anyway. It was a NUMBER OF FACTORS. You guys always think two dimensionally.
Actually no, it is the OCTs who have too narrow a focus. If the building collapses were the only anomalies, you would be entitled to argue them with complete conviction. But there is a MOUNTAIN of other evidence regarding every aspect of 9/11 that should lessen the conviction of anyone defending just one of the problems. That problem does not exist in vacuum, where there is an airtight official narrative apart from that one flaw. You have to look at the whole picture - there are only so many times you can roll a 1 before realising it's not reasonable to explain each occurence as simply bad luck - the die must be loaded.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| But it wasn't the airliner that took the building down anyway. It was a NUMBER OF FACTORS. You guys always think two dimensionally. |
Actually no, it is the OCTs who have too narrow a focus. If the building collapses were the only anomalies, you would be entitled to argue them with complete conviction. But there is a MOUNTAIN of other evidence regarding every aspect of 9/11 that should lessen the conviction of anyone defending just one of the problems. That problem does not exist in vacuum, where there is an airtight official narrative apart from that one flaw. You have to look at the whole picture - there are only so many times you can roll a 1 before realising it's not reasonable to explain each occurence as simply bad luck - the die must be loaded.
Because you CTers have had 4 years yourself and while there have been a number of peer reviewed papers written in civil engineering journals on the collapse
A number of articles on WTC7? But how can I trust these articles when even the head of the NIST investigation "doesn't know" why 7 collapsed?
QUOTE
First of all I don't buy the NIST doesn't have a collpase model. The only ones saying this are the CTers who could be using old information.
If NIST completed, or even attempted, a computer model of the collapses post-initiation, then by all means set me straight. (I did not say they didn't complete their pre-collapse model.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| First of all I don't buy the NIST doesn't have a collpase model. The only ones saying this are the CTers who could be using old information. |
If NIST completed, or even attempted, a computer model of the collapses post-initiation, then by all means set me straight. (I did not say they didn't complete their pre-collapse model.
QUOTE
- Evidence of vapourised steel found in the wreckage.
Horseshit
Will get back to you on the reference for that.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| - Evidence of vapourised steel found in the wreckage. |
Horseshit
Will get back to you on the reference for that.
I have news for you. The buildings were BUILT with a bowed roof. It housed the hat truss system.
The roof of WTC7 was not flat?
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 29 2006, 03:46 AM)
Len, can I use this on my site?
No problem as long as you give me credit
Len
It's all so humorous.
People argue about so many things while the very fact that the buildings fell at virtual free fall speed is conclusive evidence on it's own.
People argue about so many things while the very fact that the buildings fell at virtual free fall speed is conclusive evidence on it's own.
One last thing before I crash.
CDTs and OCTs
What percentage of the US population do you think supports the "controlled demo" theory?
Have you seen any poll along those lines?
Len
CDTs and OCTs
What percentage of the US population do you think supports the "controlled demo" theory?
Have you seen any poll along those lines?
Len
QUOTE (lenbrazil+Mar 29 2006, 04:27 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 29 2006, 03:46 AM)
Len, can I use this on my site?
No problem as long as you give me credit
Len
Does anyone else consider it comical that about 5 pages of blathering nonsense, rhetorics, and sophistry by the OCT's... can be so easily rebutted in one simple common sense post like the one above by Newtonnjd ?
Never fear... CS is BACK
CS - you owe me ALL the photos of south face smoke from WTC 7. I hope to see them when I check in tomorrow. Thanks
Never fear... CS is BACK
QUOTE
with apologies to Eminem
Guess Who's back?...
Back again...
Shady's back...
Tell a Friend...
Guess Who's back?...
Back again...
Shady's back...
Tell a Friend...
CS - you owe me ALL the photos of south face smoke from WTC 7. I hope to see them when I check in tomorrow. Thanks
QUOTE (lenbrazil+Mar 29 2006, 04:31 AM)
One last thing before I crash.
CDTs and OCTs
What percentage of the US population do you think supports the "controlled demo" theory?
Have you seen any poll along those lines?
Len
I have yet to see a survey style polls using the words "Controlled Demolition" yet. Only internet polls which are easy to skew. through message board minions.
CDTs and OCTs
What percentage of the US population do you think supports the "controlled demo" theory?
Have you seen any poll along those lines?
Len
I have yet to see a survey style polls using the words "Controlled Demolition" yet. Only internet polls which are easy to skew. through message board minions.
YID -
Why would I bother doing that? It's obviously off-target if the head of the investigation, even now, "doesn't know" why WTC7 collapsed.
Why would I bother doing that? It's obviously off-target if the head of the investigation, even now, "doesn't know" why WTC7 collapsed.
How is it that despite the fact that NIST, using some of the country's best engineers, could not arrive at as exact a senario for the collapse of #7 as newtonnjd?
Because they're trying to bang a square peg into a round hole. My peg fits nicely.
Hey, maybe if I was being paid to investigate it along with several of my associates then I might be able to oblige!
But with a president who, suspiciously, didn't want ANY independent investigation into 9/11 (before giving in but still being allowed to pick who would do it), I think I'll be waiting a long time.
Oh, how true!... If you only had a mirror to look into.
I hate to tell you buddy, but...
the emperor is naked
He's NOT Really wearing any "nice new set of clothes". Too many of us have now taken off the Rove-colored glasses, and there is no point in trying to convince us to put the glasses back on. Take off your glasses and you will see for yourself - the 'dude is walkin' down the street naked, man.
Edit to add -
Uhhhh... lenbrazil... I'm not familiar with the "Gobbles" character. Who are you referring to?
Sorry... but it has been years since I kept up with Sesame Street characters.
QUOTE
It is obvious still, that newtonjd has not bothered to read the NIST prelim report on WTC7.
Why would I bother doing that? It's obviously off-target if the head of the investigation, even now, "doesn't know" why WTC7 collapsed.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It is obvious still, that newtonjd has not bothered to read the NIST prelim report on WTC7. |
Why would I bother doing that? It's obviously off-target if the head of the investigation, even now, "doesn't know" why WTC7 collapsed.
How is it that despite the fact that NIST, using some of the country's best engineers, could not arrive at as exact a senario for the collapse of #7 as newtonnjd?
Because they're trying to bang a square peg into a round hole. My peg fits nicely.
QUOTE
Then again, remind me newtonnjd, just what , exactly are you saying happened. You know, in a senario at least as detailed as the working hypothysis that NIST generated, and what is your evidence to back this up?
Hey, maybe if I was being paid to investigate it along with several of my associates then I might be able to oblige!
But with a president who, suspiciously, didn't want ANY independent investigation into 9/11 (before giving in but still being allowed to pick who would do it), I think I'll be waiting a long time.
QUOTE (steve52+Mar 29 2006, 04:28 AM)
It's all so humorous.
People argue about so many things while the very fact that the buildings fell at virtual free fall speed is conclusive evidence on it's own.
You remind me of Dorothy at the end of the “Wizard of Oz” closing her eyes, clicking her heels and repeating “there’s no place like home” over and over again. Just because you keep repeating something doesn’t make it true even Gobbles only said that you could make people believe lie by repeating it enough not that you could make it true. You can say that a thousand times it won’t make it any truer than the first.
Free fall time would have been about 9.2 (or 9 seconds since the pile of debris was 60 feet high) estimates of the collapse time vary between 8.6 and 15 seconds. Most estimates are in the 12 – 15 second range, the ones indicating a less than free fall time are obviously false. Certainly the buildings would have to have taken longer that free fall time to collapse (even in CD). Exactly how much longer is disputed, IIRC B & Z estimated the buildings could have collapsed in 10 seconds and Dr. Greening in 12 - 13
People argue about so many things while the very fact that the buildings fell at virtual free fall speed is conclusive evidence on it's own.
You remind me of Dorothy at the end of the “Wizard of Oz” closing her eyes, clicking her heels and repeating “there’s no place like home” over and over again. Just because you keep repeating something doesn’t make it true even Gobbles only said that you could make people believe lie by repeating it enough not that you could make it true. You can say that a thousand times it won’t make it any truer than the first.
Free fall time would have been about 9.2 (or 9 seconds since the pile of debris was 60 feet high) estimates of the collapse time vary between 8.6 and 15 seconds. Most estimates are in the 12 – 15 second range, the ones indicating a less than free fall time are obviously false. Certainly the buildings would have to have taken longer that free fall time to collapse (even in CD). Exactly how much longer is disputed, IIRC B & Z estimated the buildings could have collapsed in 10 seconds and Dr. Greening in 12 - 13
QUOTE
Originally posted by lenbrazil
You remind me of Dorothy at the end of the “Wizard of Oz” closing her eyes, clicking her heels and repeating “there’s no place like home” over and over again. Just because you keep repeating something doesn’t make it true even Gobbles only said that you could make people believe lie by repeating it enough not that you could make it true. You can say that a thousand times it won’t make it any truer than the first.
You remind me of Dorothy at the end of the “Wizard of Oz” closing her eyes, clicking her heels and repeating “there’s no place like home” over and over again. Just because you keep repeating something doesn’t make it true even Gobbles only said that you could make people believe lie by repeating it enough not that you could make it true. You can say that a thousand times it won’t make it any truer than the first.
Oh, how true!... If you only had a mirror to look into.
I hate to tell you buddy, but...
the emperor is naked
He's NOT Really wearing any "nice new set of clothes". Too many of us have now taken off the Rove-colored glasses, and there is no point in trying to convince us to put the glasses back on. Take off your glasses and you will see for yourself - the 'dude is walkin' down the street naked, man.
Edit to add -
Uhhhh... lenbrazil... I'm not familiar with the "Gobbles" character. Who are you referring to?
Sorry... but it has been years since I kept up with Sesame Street characters.
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 29 2006, 04:38 AM)
QUOTE (lenbrazil+Mar 29 2006, 04:31 AM)
One last thing before I crash.
CDTs and OCTs
What percentage of the US population do you think supports the "controlled demo" theory?
Have you seen any poll along those lines?
Len
I have yet to see a survey style polls using the words "Controlled Demolition" yet. Only internet polls which are easy to skew. through message board minions.
OK maybe something more open. Something along the lines of "Do you think 9/11 was an inside job?" Not "Do you think the Bush administration is covering up the truth about 9/11?" Because that's too vauge, I would probably say yes if asked that during a survey.
I'm not interested in internet polls since they are so obviously unreliable.
Len
Note that 9.2s is an underestimate as it doesn't include air resistance. I don't have the figure for free-fall plus air resistance, does anyone know it?
Also, I don't know where you got your B&Z estimate, but a member of the Scholars group has been in contact with B&Z and they replied that their collapse model yielded collapse times of OVER 1 minute 30 seconds. They never included this in the paper, for obvious reasons.
pass it around.
pass it around.
Hmmmm... interesting photographic analysis.
pass it around.
Hmmmm... interesting photographic analysis.
that's one frame apart. i took it from the corner video that clued gordon in to the severing of the corner columns. this one, plaguepuppy
the video shows other freefalling debris being outpaced by the demolition wave. i just picked what i thought was most obvious, and then made it more obvious.
CDTs and OCTs
What percentage of the US population do you think supports the "controlled demo" theory?
Have you seen any poll along those lines?
Len
I have yet to see a survey style polls using the words "Controlled Demolition" yet. Only internet polls which are easy to skew. through message board minions.
OK maybe something more open. Something along the lines of "Do you think 9/11 was an inside job?" Not "Do you think the Bush administration is covering up the truth about 9/11?" Because that's too vauge, I would probably say yes if asked that during a survey.
I'm not interested in internet polls since they are so obviously unreliable.
Len
QUOTE
Free fall time would have been about 9.2 (or 9 seconds since the pile of debris was 60 feet high) estimates of the collapse time vary between 8.6 and 15 seconds. Most estimates are in the 12 – 15 second range, the ones indicating a less than free fall time are obviously false. Certainly the buildings would have to have taken longer that free fall time to collapse (even in CD). Exactly how much longer is disputed, IIRC B & Z estimated the buildings could have collapsed in 10 seconds and Dr. Greening in 12 - 13
Note that 9.2s is an underestimate as it doesn't include air resistance. I don't have the figure for free-fall plus air resistance, does anyone know it?
Also, I don't know where you got your B&Z estimate, but a member of the Scholars group has been in contact with B&Z and they replied that their collapse model yielded collapse times of OVER 1 minute 30 seconds. They never included this in the paper, for obvious reasons.
pass it around.
QUOTE (newton+Mar 29 2006, 04:57 AM)
pass it around.
Hmmmm... interesting photographic analysis.
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 29 2006, 05:13 AM)
QUOTE (newton+Mar 29 2006, 04:57 AM)
pass it around.
Hmmmm... interesting photographic analysis.
that's one frame apart. i took it from the corner video that clued gordon in to the severing of the corner columns. this one, plaguepuppy
the video shows other freefalling debris being outpaced by the demolition wave. i just picked what i thought was most obvious, and then made it more obvious.
Hmmmm...
well, that's odd.
I checked out one of those "9/11 debunking sites" and they claimed that the 'free-falling' debris was outpacing the 'demolition wave' in the race towards the ground?
well, that's odd.
I checked out one of those "9/11 debunking sites" and they claimed that the 'free-falling' debris was outpacing the 'demolition wave' in the race towards the ground?
You started out by passive agressive attacks..
How am I supposed to take that? Especially since I never said I KNEW what happened like you have. You KNOW the building couldn't have fallen unless it was blown up. YOU should be working for a civil engineering firm or become private detective. My advice is accountant.
How am I supposed to take that? Especially since I never said I KNEW what happened like you have. You KNOW the building couldn't have fallen unless it was blown up. YOU should be working for a civil engineering firm or become private detective. My advice is accountant.
Show me where I said any of those things. I didn't even comment on the difference in the fires between the north and south sides of WTC7.
That's right you didn't. I pointed them out and you ignored them. You went straight to not caring about the "Pull" statement as if that's all there was on the page. What kind of investigating do you scholars do if you ignore observed evidence?
Not so. There are many people involved in many different parts of the same issue. For instance, there are a number of people involved in just the fire tests on trusses. another group for computer modeling. Another for collecting samples. On and on. You need all these parts to connect in order to cover it up correctly. Have you seen how many people are involved in the total report? Read the final report, it starts with all the people involved. Even if you take large groups out you still have large groups left. You need a MASSIVE amount of people collaborating on the cover up. And yet you still don't have ONE person who has come out against the report form any part of the investigation. Not the NIST, FEMA, even the civil engineering community. Jones can't even keep his fellow professors in his university in line. They go beyond not saying anything by the way. They have said publicly he is ignoring evidence. That's not the sign of people who just don't want to talk out of fear. Give me a break...
Not so. There are many people involved in many different parts of the same issue. For instance, there are a number of people involved in just the fire tests on trusses. another group for computer modeling. Another for collecting samples. On and on. You need all these parts to connect in order to cover it up correctly. Have you seen how many people are involved in the total report? Read the final report, it starts with all the people involved. Even if you take large groups out you still have large groups left. You need a MASSIVE amount of people collaborating on the cover up. And yet you still don't have ONE person who has come out against the report form any part of the investigation. Not the NIST, FEMA, even the civil engineering community. Jones can't even keep his fellow professors in his university in line. They go beyond not saying anything by the way. They have said publicly he is ignoring evidence. That's not the sign of people who just don't want to talk out of fear. Give me a break...
On that subject, why is it that the conversion of belief all seems to be one way? Can you point to a single example of someone who supported CD but was then convinced by the debunkers?
I posted an E-mail without identifying who it was but yes, someone thanked me for clearing a few things up. He was leaning toward CD. But what's really telling is that not one person who was here already before the thread started has converted to the CD side. 600 pages! I don't know what you guys need with this place. You need legitimacy by associating with this "physics" message board? Yet at least 2 long standing members were always on the debunking side. RC and Arthur. I don't get what you guys need with this place. But oh well.
Have you seen the way the columns are spread out on 7? It's not much different than the WTC but with less perimeter columns. Once again, the other buildings which were hit were built completely different. Some had brick/concrete while others had the steel spread out in a normal building pattern. Come on! What kind of scholar are you? You KNOW this by just looking at them! I'm sorry but I get frustrated with this attack on my intelligence. I KNOW you KNOW the buildings were different. Why are you pretending not to know? You're a "scholar" aren't you? You also KNOW it's a logical fallacy to say Gee, if one building didn't collapse then they all shouldn't have collapsed." Not all were built the same and not all had a fire in them. You KNOW this. At least I hope you do making the claims you are. No other building was hit so hard as to tilt it as the fireman said. This is an observation in the field you just can't run away from. They had a transit on the building. You just can't wave your hand and say it doesn't matter. It DOES.
Have you seen the way the columns are spread out on 7? It's not much different than the WTC but with less perimeter columns. Once again, the other buildings which were hit were built completely different. Some had brick/concrete while others had the steel spread out in a normal building pattern. Come on! What kind of scholar are you? You KNOW this by just looking at them! I'm sorry but I get frustrated with this attack on my intelligence. I KNOW you KNOW the buildings were different. Why are you pretending not to know? You're a "scholar" aren't you? You also KNOW it's a logical fallacy to say Gee, if one building didn't collapse then they all shouldn't have collapsed." Not all were built the same and not all had a fire in them. You KNOW this. At least I hope you do making the claims you are. No other building was hit so hard as to tilt it as the fireman said. This is an observation in the field you just can't run away from. They had a transit on the building. You just can't wave your hand and say it doesn't matter. It DOES.
Interesting. Ever noticed that by releasing its kinetic energy into the ejecta, the meteoroid comes to a complete stop?
(For future reference, meteors do not impact the earth, they burn up in the atmosphere)
(For future reference, they do hit the earth...)
http://www.solarviews.com/cap/earth/meteor.htm
http://www.seds.org/nineplanets/nineplanets/meteorites.html
Just not large ones recently...
The floors stopped as well when it hit the earth.l They come to a complete stop because they hit an imovable object. The floors didn't until they hit bottom.
So your saying the debris can push the columns out during an explosion but the same exact effect couldn't push the columns out without explosives. Selective physics... I see...
So your saying the debris can push the columns out during an explosion but the same exact effect couldn't push the columns out without explosives. Selective physics... I see...
I could however reasonably assert that it couldn't have brought the building down in the manner of a CD.
You're just missing one element. EVIDENCE...
So they were just laymen who happen to get lucky because tower one and two scared them... Is that your assessment? Do you have any evidence the buildings weren't as damaged as they said?
So they were just laymen who happen to get lucky because tower one and two scared them... Is that your assessment? Do you have any evidence the buildings weren't as damaged as they said?
So the fireproofing was removed across an entire floor? The office material fires achieved their maximum attainable temperature (inferno), and sustained it, at EVERY key support across an entire floor to cause instantaneous collapse?
Here is where I have to agree with YID. You are IGNORING THE FACTS.
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/WTC7.h3.jpg
Here is a simple scenario given the evidence available. If the building was as damaged as the fireman said the first impact already took out core columns. See the large hole in this diagram? It's over some of the core columns. So it starts out with core columns compromised then the fire weakens columns already stressed by loads that transferred in the building impact. So the building starts out weakened before the fire took out another few columns below the penthouse. When the penthouse fell it damaged some more columns and yet more load transferred to the few remaining columns. At some point you have to say to yourself "How much support can be removed from the building before it reaches the last straw?" I see the penthouse falling doesn't phase you a bit. Just keep charging on...
An alien could have teleported into the building and pointed a ray gun at the core as well. But I don't have any evidence for that either...
An alien could have teleported into the building and pointed a ray gun at the core as well. But I don't have any evidence for that either...
I say you are completely right.
I'm glade to see you're at least honest about this... Maybe you can join me in calling for these charlatans to stop using the last words of this dead hero in their political sham.
It was "A large body of fires on several floors" I believe. But you don't need the fires to be on all floors. You only need the fires to be concentrated under the remaining columns under the penthouse. One floor is all it takes. In fact the fire photo many have shown from the east side of the building would do the trick. A 6 hour fire, even with fireproofing is more than enough to buckle a column. They are usually only rated for 3 hours with fireproofing. But there were more than one floor according to the fireman.
It was "A large body of fires on several floors" I believe. But you don't need the fires to be on all floors. You only need the fires to be concentrated under the remaining columns under the penthouse. One floor is all it takes. In fact the fire photo many have shown from the east side of the building would do the trick. A 6 hour fire, even with fireproofing is more than enough to buckle a column. They are usually only rated for 3 hours with fireproofing. But there were more than one floor according to the fireman.
Yes, they needed each other, and below (and above) the impact zones they DID have each other. Hence would put up resistance to any vertical load applied to them.
Not after the floors pancaked. Do you believe they pancaked? If not, what happened to the floors? We could see the core well after the collapse. Did the floors FLY AWAY? They MUST have fallen straight down around the core.
Please, People have come out for less. http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/conspiracy.htm And you are ignoring the people in countries that hate us.
Please, People have come out for less. http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/conspiracy.htm And you are ignoring the people in countries that hate us.
Professor Jones is talking to a civil engineer right now who agrees with him but is not ready to come forward. I can understand their apprehension.
As I said, it has to pass peer review in a respected civil engineering journal. Nothing less will do. He can't just find a civil engineer. This is something the Intelligent Design people do all the time. They get people with PHd's to write papers for one sided obscure journals, it's laughable. If they get a peer reviewed paper I will take another look. It can't just say the collapse is impossible. It has to have proof of CD. Until then there is no evidence for CD I will respect.
When I made my case I pointed out the pieces of the puzzle. You just made a statement without any facts to back it up. What "anomalies" have I not concidered. I have seen it all in 600 pages here.
When I made my case I pointed out the pieces of the puzzle. You just made a statement without any facts to back it up. What "anomalies" have I not concidered. I have seen it all in 600 pages here.
A number of articles on WTC7? But how can I trust these articles when even the head of the NIST investigation "doesn't know" why 7 collapsed?
Sorry I ment the WTC1 & 2. It still applies. You don't have one paper in 4 years from a respected civil engineering journal yet you want us to spend millions on what? You don't even have a memo like the downing street memo. You have nothing.
I showed you the page of the NIST report saying they completed a computer model and it doesn't say anywhere in the final that they didn't finsih it. But I also said Silvertein had a computer model comissioned and the insurance company never found anything wrong with it.
I showed you the page of the NIST report saying they completed a computer model and it doesn't say anywhere in the final that they didn't finsih it. But I also said Silvertein had a computer model comissioned and the insurance company never found anything wrong with it.
The roof of WTC7 was not flat?
My bad, I thought you meant the towers. If you're talking about the "kink" I think it points to normal collapse more than CD. It kinked right where the penthouse fell seconds before. You would think the penthouse pulled the floors connected below with it. In a CD everything is blown at once. Sorry I think you got it backwards.
What are YOU doing here?... Spreading 'truth' ???
Bwaaaaahahahahahaha !
Do you honestly believe that you can continue to delude the 'silent majority'?
Dream on... keep those rove-colored glasses firmly attached, and you will not see any 'problems'.
Don't dare to remove them... or you will be forced to see 'truth'.
Sorry, your 'psyopts' are not really working anymore. Your world is crumbling about you, and whether you like it or not... you ARE going DOWN.
Good riddance.
PS - Please don't forget to post ALL the photos you have of the anomalous smoke plumes pouring from the south face of WTC 7.
Thanks.
A refutation that Silverstein meant demolition when he said "pull it" does not in any way refute the argument that WTC 7 was brought down by CD.
Your being dishonest. You know there is more than just Silverstein clearing up the "Pull it" quote.
Why are you being dishonest? Does your theory need dishonesty to work?
This is a very odd but typical attack of a simple statement of fact. Am I to gather that your theory requires this type of behavior? My claim is that a refutation of Silverstein's "pull it" statement is not a refutation of CD and I would stand by that. I could expound further by adding that the asymmentric damage and fires do not explain the symetric, virtual free fall collapse of WTC 7 in just the manner expected by CD. The firefighter's comments that they "thought" the building was going to collapse is not an analysis or explanation of how and why it actually did collapse in the manner it did. There is quite a bit more work to it than that or else we would have seen the NIST report on it long ago.
YOU attacked ME by saying all I gave was a Silverstein refutation.
You're going to have to help me out a bit more here. Can you point me to exactly where I said all you gave was a Silverstein refutation and can you point out the attack a little more explicitly?
Note that 9.2s is an underestimate as it doesn't include air resistance. I don't have the figure for free-fall plus air resistance, does anyone know it?
Calculating air resistance is very complicated and depends on various factors including shape and speed. I don’t remember having seen any calculations along those. Hoffman might have calculated this but it’s been awhile since I read his calculations do any of you CD type have a link to them?
You said you wouldn’t bother reading NIST’s prelimary report about 7 WTC, it seems clear to me you never even read Bazant and Zhou’s paper, did you ever read the FEMA and NIST reports or any of the various scientific papers and article supporting the collapse theory or do you get all you info from “9/11 Truth” sites?
B and Z wrote:
“It has been suggested that the inelastic deformation of columns might have ‘cushioned’ the initial descent of the upper part, making it almost static. However, this is impossible because, for gravity loading, a softening of the load-deflection diagram (Fig. 5) always causes instability and precludes static deformation (Baˇzant and Cedolin 1991, Chpt. 10 and 13). The downward acceleration of the upper part is ¨u = N [P01 . P1(u)]=m where N = number of columns and, necessarily, P01 = mg=N. This represents a differential equation for u as a function of time t, and its integration shows that the time that the upper part takes to fall through the height of one story is, for cold columns, only about 6% longer than the duration of a free fall from that height, which is 0.87 s. For hot columns, the difference is of course much less than 6%. So there is hardly any ‘cushioning’. ” 9.2s + 6% = 9.8s.
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
You said you wouldn’t bother reading NIST’s prelimary report about 7 WTC, it seems clear to me you never even read Bazant and Zhou’s paper, did you ever read the FEMA and NIST reports or any of the various scientific papers and article supporting the collapse theory or do you get all you info from “9/11 Truth” sites?
B and Z wrote:
“It has been suggested that the inelastic deformation of columns might have ‘cushioned’ the initial descent of the upper part, making it almost static. However, this is impossible because, for gravity loading, a softening of the load-deflection diagram (Fig. 5) always causes instability and precludes static deformation (Baˇzant and Cedolin 1991, Chpt. 10 and 13). The downward acceleration of the upper part is ¨u = N [P01 . P1(u)]=m where N = number of columns and, necessarily, P01 = mg=N. This represents a differential equation for u as a function of time t, and its integration shows that the time that the upper part takes to fall through the height of one story is, for cold columns, only about 6% longer than the duration of a free fall from that height, which is 0.87 s. For hot columns, the difference is of course much less than 6%. So there is hardly any ‘cushioning’. ” 9.2s + 6% = 9.8s.
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
but a member of the Scholars group has been in contact with B&Z and they replied that their collapse model yielded collapse times of OVER 1 minute 30 seconds. They never included this in the paper, for obvious reasons.
Do you have reference for this? There is no reference to them on the site.* It sounds to me like you are talking about Judy Wood’s paper in which she calculated a collapse time of between 87.9 and 97.6 seconds based on the assumption (which she doesn’t justify) that the collapse would come to a complete halt each time it hit another floor **.
Dr. Wood's area of specialty it should be noted is structural biology ***
* http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&rls...ant&btnG=Search
** http://www.st911.org/
*** http://www.clemson.edu/cle2_share/CWE/PROV....php?ea=biotech
Oh, how true!... If you only had a mirror to look into.
I hate to tell you buddy, but...
the emperor is naked
He's NOT Really wearing any "nice new set of clothes". Too many of us have now taken off the Rove-colored glasses, and there is no point in trying to convince us to put the glasses back on. Take off your glasses and you will see for yourself - the 'dude is walkin' down the street naked, man.
Edit to add -
Uhhhh... lenbrazil... I'm not familiar with the "Gobbles" character. Who are you referring to?
Sorry... but it has been years since I kept up with Sesame Street characters.
As I have said repeatedly I hate Bush and Rove and that whole crowd. One doesn't have to be brain washed by those idiots to reject your lunatic theories. Engineers around the World support the collapse theory. Chomsky, Ed Said, Cockburn and other stalwarts of the left reject your theories too are they all wearing Rove Colored glasses too? I guess since you don't have many solid arguments on your side you have to resort to the "whoever rejects the "inside job" theory backs Bush" strawman.
As to me being Dorothy clicking her heels, can you cite any examples of when I have repeatedly made an assertion with out providing any corroborating evidence?
A refutation that Silverstein meant demolition when he said "pull it" does not in any way refute the argument that WTC 7 was brought down by CD.
Your being dishonest. You know there is more than just Silverstein clearing up the "Pull it" quote.
Why are you being dishonest? Does your theory need dishonesty to work?
This is a very odd but typical attack of a simple statement of fact. Am I to gather that your theory requires this type of behavior? My claim is that a refutation of Silverstein's "pull it" statement is not a refutation of CD and I would stand by that. I could expound further by adding that the asymmentric damage and fires do not explain the symetric, virtual free fall collapse of WTC 7 in just the manner expected by CD. The firefighter's comments that they "thought" the building was going to collapse is not an analysis or explanation of how and why it actually did collapse in the manner it did. There is quite a bit more work to it than that or else we would have seen the NIST report on it long ago.
YOU attacked ME by saying all I gave was a Silverstein refutation.
You're going to have to help me out a bit more here. Can you point me to exactly where I said all you gave was a Silverstein refutation and can you point out the attack a little more explicitly?
I gave you a link with much more than just the "Pull it" refutation on it. Why did you only choose to respond to that as if it was the only thing on the page?
Interesting point 'Non-sense'.
I like these photos that you (and other 'debunkers') keep coming up with that show strange smoke coming from the full south face of WTC 7. Amazing photos really... Billowing clouds of smoke shooting straight out of the entire south face of 7 right up to the corner windows... yet absolutely NO signs of fire on the west wall... all the windows intact ...(not melted nor fractured from high heat... no signs of flames in any of those west wall windows). These are Amazing Photos !!! What kind of an inferno produces such effects?
Where did you get them?
Please post all you have so that we can check them out...(I'm doing a comparison of similar strange smoke coming from WTC 2).
Thanks - I appreciate you posting ALL the photos of the smoke pouring from the south face of WTC 7.
This is exactly the typical dishonesty and logical fallacy conspiracy theorist are known for. "Gee, the west face of the building doesn't show any sign of fire from this far away, that means there was no fire heavy in the building..."
I guess the smoke just likes to rub up against the WTC 7 before continuing east...
As for photos, you get shiit from me. All you're going to do is twist them like you tried with this one and others.
QUOTE
Common sense - why are you posting here? You should be a busy man right now, working with NIST on their WTC7 report
How am I supposed to take that? Especially since I never said I KNEW what happened like you have. You KNOW the building couldn't have fallen unless it was blown up. YOU should be working for a civil engineering firm or become private detective. My advice is accountant.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Common sense - why are you posting here? You should be a busy man right now, working with NIST on their WTC7 report |
How am I supposed to take that? Especially since I never said I KNEW what happened like you have. You KNOW the building couldn't have fallen unless it was blown up. YOU should be working for a civil engineering firm or become private detective. My advice is accountant.
Show me where I said any of those things. I didn't even comment on the difference in the fires between the north and south sides of WTC7.
That's right you didn't. I pointed them out and you ignored them. You went straight to not caring about the "Pull" statement as if that's all there was on the page. What kind of investigating do you scholars do if you ignore observed evidence?
QUOTE
Very few, if any, at NIST have to be involved in the cover-up. All it takes is a pre-determined conclusion and an unwillingness to even consider the possibility of foul play (which is the default human reaction - I believed the OCT unquestioningly at first).
Not so. There are many people involved in many different parts of the same issue. For instance, there are a number of people involved in just the fire tests on trusses. another group for computer modeling. Another for collecting samples. On and on. You need all these parts to connect in order to cover it up correctly. Have you seen how many people are involved in the total report? Read the final report, it starts with all the people involved. Even if you take large groups out you still have large groups left. You need a MASSIVE amount of people collaborating on the cover up. And yet you still don't have ONE person who has come out against the report form any part of the investigation. Not the NIST, FEMA, even the civil engineering community. Jones can't even keep his fellow professors in his university in line. They go beyond not saying anything by the way. They have said publicly he is ignoring evidence. That's not the sign of people who just don't want to talk out of fear. Give me a break...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Very few, if any, at NIST have to be involved in the cover-up. All it takes is a pre-determined conclusion and an unwillingness to even consider the possibility of foul play (which is the default human reaction - I believed the OCT unquestioningly at first). |
Not so. There are many people involved in many different parts of the same issue. For instance, there are a number of people involved in just the fire tests on trusses. another group for computer modeling. Another for collecting samples. On and on. You need all these parts to connect in order to cover it up correctly. Have you seen how many people are involved in the total report? Read the final report, it starts with all the people involved. Even if you take large groups out you still have large groups left. You need a MASSIVE amount of people collaborating on the cover up. And yet you still don't have ONE person who has come out against the report form any part of the investigation. Not the NIST, FEMA, even the civil engineering community. Jones can't even keep his fellow professors in his university in line. They go beyond not saying anything by the way. They have said publicly he is ignoring evidence. That's not the sign of people who just don't want to talk out of fear. Give me a break...
On that subject, why is it that the conversion of belief all seems to be one way? Can you point to a single example of someone who supported CD but was then convinced by the debunkers?
I posted an E-mail without identifying who it was but yes, someone thanked me for clearing a few things up. He was leaning toward CD. But what's really telling is that not one person who was here already before the thread started has converted to the CD side. 600 pages! I don't know what you guys need with this place. You need legitimacy by associating with this "physics" message board? Yet at least 2 long standing members were always on the debunking side. RC and Arthur. I don't get what you guys need with this place. But oh well.
QUOTE
I don't disagree with any of that. What does it have to do with other buildings suffering the same amount of damage as WTC7?
Have you seen the way the columns are spread out on 7? It's not much different than the WTC but with less perimeter columns. Once again, the other buildings which were hit were built completely different. Some had brick/concrete while others had the steel spread out in a normal building pattern. Come on! What kind of scholar are you? You KNOW this by just looking at them! I'm sorry but I get frustrated with this attack on my intelligence. I KNOW you KNOW the buildings were different. Why are you pretending not to know? You're a "scholar" aren't you? You also KNOW it's a logical fallacy to say Gee, if one building didn't collapse then they all shouldn't have collapsed." Not all were built the same and not all had a fire in them. You KNOW this. At least I hope you do making the claims you are. No other building was hit so hard as to tilt it as the fireman said. This is an observation in the field you just can't run away from. They had a transit on the building. You just can't wave your hand and say it doesn't matter. It DOES.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I don't disagree with any of that. What does it have to do with other buildings suffering the same amount of damage as WTC7? |
Have you seen the way the columns are spread out on 7? It's not much different than the WTC but with less perimeter columns. Once again, the other buildings which were hit were built completely different. Some had brick/concrete while others had the steel spread out in a normal building pattern. Come on! What kind of scholar are you? You KNOW this by just looking at them! I'm sorry but I get frustrated with this attack on my intelligence. I KNOW you KNOW the buildings were different. Why are you pretending not to know? You're a "scholar" aren't you? You also KNOW it's a logical fallacy to say Gee, if one building didn't collapse then they all shouldn't have collapsed." Not all were built the same and not all had a fire in them. You KNOW this. At least I hope you do making the claims you are. No other building was hit so hard as to tilt it as the fireman said. This is an observation in the field you just can't run away from. They had a transit on the building. You just can't wave your hand and say it doesn't matter. It DOES.
Interesting. Ever noticed that by releasing its kinetic energy into the ejecta, the meteoroid comes to a complete stop?
(For future reference, meteors do not impact the earth, they burn up in the atmosphere)
(For future reference, they do hit the earth...)
http://www.solarviews.com/cap/earth/meteor.htm
http://www.seds.org/nineplanets/nineplanets/meteorites.html
Just not large ones recently...
The floors stopped as well when it hit the earth.l They come to a complete stop because they hit an imovable object. The floors didn't until they hit bottom.
QUOTE
No, because as the CD progresses the high speed attained by the falling debris will help the explosives to push new debris out further.
So your saying the debris can push the columns out during an explosion but the same exact effect couldn't push the columns out without explosives. Selective physics... I see...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| No, because as the CD progresses the high speed attained by the falling debris will help the explosives to push new debris out further. |
So your saying the debris can push the columns out during an explosion but the same exact effect couldn't push the columns out without explosives. Selective physics... I see...
I could however reasonably assert that it couldn't have brought the building down in the manner of a CD.
You're just missing one element. EVIDENCE...
QUOTE
Indeed they had lives in their hands. So they had every reason to be extra cautious in their assessments (especially after two unforeseen collapses earlier on). It's no wonder they would have taken the most pessimistic outlook of any damages. That was absolutely the right and sensible way to approach it.
So they were just laymen who happen to get lucky because tower one and two scared them... Is that your assessment? Do you have any evidence the buildings weren't as damaged as they said?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Indeed they had lives in their hands. So they had every reason to be extra cautious in their assessments (especially after two unforeseen collapses earlier on). It's no wonder they would have taken the most pessimistic outlook of any damages. That was absolutely the right and sensible way to approach it. |
So they were just laymen who happen to get lucky because tower one and two scared them... Is that your assessment? Do you have any evidence the buildings weren't as damaged as they said?
So the fireproofing was removed across an entire floor? The office material fires achieved their maximum attainable temperature (inferno), and sustained it, at EVERY key support across an entire floor to cause instantaneous collapse?
Here is where I have to agree with YID. You are IGNORING THE FACTS.
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/WTC7.h3.jpg
Here is a simple scenario given the evidence available. If the building was as damaged as the fireman said the first impact already took out core columns. See the large hole in this diagram? It's over some of the core columns. So it starts out with core columns compromised then the fire weakens columns already stressed by loads that transferred in the building impact. So the building starts out weakened before the fire took out another few columns below the penthouse. When the penthouse fell it damaged some more columns and yet more load transferred to the few remaining columns. At some point you have to say to yourself "How much support can be removed from the building before it reaches the last straw?" I see the penthouse falling doesn't phase you a bit. Just keep charging on...
QUOTE
An incendiary like thermite eating away at the core would have that effect.
An alien could have teleported into the building and pointed a ray gun at the core as well. But I don't have any evidence for that either...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| An incendiary like thermite eating away at the core would have that effect. |
An alien could have teleported into the building and pointed a ray gun at the core as well. But I don't have any evidence for that either...
I say you are completely right.
I'm glade to see you're at least honest about this... Maybe you can join me in calling for these charlatans to stop using the last words of this dead hero in their political sham.
QUOTE
Who can really tell how much of the smoke in that image is from WTC7 and how much is from the debris piles. Sure, there were fires burning in the "20 story hole" (gash) which were oxygen rich (I believe your best quote was that these fires were on "several" floors. Not "all", not "most, not even "many".. just several, out of 47 total).
It was "A large body of fires on several floors" I believe. But you don't need the fires to be on all floors. You only need the fires to be concentrated under the remaining columns under the penthouse. One floor is all it takes. In fact the fire photo many have shown from the east side of the building would do the trick. A 6 hour fire, even with fireproofing is more than enough to buckle a column. They are usually only rated for 3 hours with fireproofing. But there were more than one floor according to the fireman.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Who can really tell how much of the smoke in that image is from WTC7 and how much is from the debris piles. Sure, there were fires burning in the "20 story hole" (gash) which were oxygen rich (I believe your best quote was that these fires were on "several" floors. Not "all", not "most, not even "many".. just several, out of 47 total). |
It was "A large body of fires on several floors" I believe. But you don't need the fires to be on all floors. You only need the fires to be concentrated under the remaining columns under the penthouse. One floor is all it takes. In fact the fire photo many have shown from the east side of the building would do the trick. A 6 hour fire, even with fireproofing is more than enough to buckle a column. They are usually only rated for 3 hours with fireproofing. But there were more than one floor according to the fireman.
Yes, they needed each other, and below (and above) the impact zones they DID have each other. Hence would put up resistance to any vertical load applied to them.
Not after the floors pancaked. Do you believe they pancaked? If not, what happened to the floors? We could see the core well after the collapse. Did the floors FLY AWAY? They MUST have fallen straight down around the core.
QUOTE
It's not easy to veer from the safe road of going along with the crowd
Please, People have come out for less. http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/conspiracy.htm And you are ignoring the people in countries that hate us.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It's not easy to veer from the safe road of going along with the crowd |
Please, People have come out for less. http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/conspiracy.htm And you are ignoring the people in countries that hate us.
Professor Jones is talking to a civil engineer right now who agrees with him but is not ready to come forward. I can understand their apprehension.
As I said, it has to pass peer review in a respected civil engineering journal. Nothing less will do. He can't just find a civil engineer. This is something the Intelligent Design people do all the time. They get people with PHd's to write papers for one sided obscure journals, it's laughable. If they get a peer reviewed paper I will take another look. It can't just say the collapse is impossible. It has to have proof of CD. Until then there is no evidence for CD I will respect.
QUOTE
Actually no, it is the OCTs who have too narrow a focus. If the building collapses were the only anomalies, you would be entitled to argue them with complete conviction. But there is a MOUNTAIN of other evidence regarding every aspect of 9/11 that should lessen the conviction of anyone defending just one of the problems. That problem does not exist in vacuum, where there is an airtight official narrative apart from that one flaw. You have to look at the whole picture - there are only so many times you can roll a 1 before realising it's not reasonable to explain each occurence as simply bad luck - the die must be loaded.
When I made my case I pointed out the pieces of the puzzle. You just made a statement without any facts to back it up. What "anomalies" have I not concidered. I have seen it all in 600 pages here.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Actually no, it is the OCTs who have too narrow a focus. If the building collapses were the only anomalies, you would be entitled to argue them with complete conviction. But there is a MOUNTAIN of other evidence regarding every aspect of 9/11 that should lessen the conviction of anyone defending just one of the problems. That problem does not exist in vacuum, where there is an airtight official narrative apart from that one flaw. You have to look at the whole picture - there are only so many times you can roll a 1 before realising it's not reasonable to explain each occurence as simply bad luck - the die must be loaded. |
When I made my case I pointed out the pieces of the puzzle. You just made a statement without any facts to back it up. What "anomalies" have I not concidered. I have seen it all in 600 pages here.
A number of articles on WTC7? But how can I trust these articles when even the head of the NIST investigation "doesn't know" why 7 collapsed?
Sorry I ment the WTC1 & 2. It still applies. You don't have one paper in 4 years from a respected civil engineering journal yet you want us to spend millions on what? You don't even have a memo like the downing street memo. You have nothing.
QUOTE
If NIST completed, or even attempted, a computer model of the collapses post-initiation, then by all means set me straight. (I did not say they didn't complete their pre-collapse model.
I showed you the page of the NIST report saying they completed a computer model and it doesn't say anywhere in the final that they didn't finsih it. But I also said Silvertein had a computer model comissioned and the insurance company never found anything wrong with it.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If NIST completed, or even attempted, a computer model of the collapses post-initiation, then by all means set me straight. (I did not say they didn't complete their pre-collapse model. |
I showed you the page of the NIST report saying they completed a computer model and it doesn't say anywhere in the final that they didn't finsih it. But I also said Silvertein had a computer model comissioned and the insurance company never found anything wrong with it.
The roof of WTC7 was not flat?
My bad, I thought you meant the towers. If you're talking about the "kink" I think it points to normal collapse more than CD. It kinked right where the penthouse fell seconds before. You would think the penthouse pulled the floors connected below with it. In a CD everything is blown at once. Sorry I think you got it backwards.
con-man sense, your spelling is, like, purr-fect now, dude.
congrats.
demolition waves progressing faster than gravity.
watch the video, too.
congrats.
demolition waves progressing faster than gravity.
watch the video, too.
QUOTE
posted by 'Non-sense'
I don't get what you guys need with this place.
I don't get what you guys need with this place.
What are YOU doing here?... Spreading 'truth' ???
Bwaaaaahahahahahaha !
Do you honestly believe that you can continue to delude the 'silent majority'?
Dream on... keep those rove-colored glasses firmly attached, and you will not see any 'problems'.
Don't dare to remove them... or you will be forced to see 'truth'.
Sorry, your 'psyopts' are not really working anymore. Your world is crumbling about you, and whether you like it or not... you ARE going DOWN.
Good riddance.
PS - Please don't forget to post ALL the photos you have of the anomalous smoke plumes pouring from the south face of WTC 7.
Thanks.
Hi newton.
Lets do a time check.
I am posting this at 11:27 pm 'west coast' (Pacific Time).
Schneibster will be within the same time zone (as he posts from Seattle).
CS (as I understand it) is a resident of the NY / east coast area (or at least that is what he has led me to believe). If so, that would make his posts 3 hrs Later than mine... If it's 11:30 PM (MY TIME) That would make it 2:30 AM 'his time'.
OR... is the CS poster also on pacific time (Seattle)?
I find it a "LITTLE" odd... that East Coaster's are posting on message boards at 2:30 am on a week-day? Maybe 'he' works a night-shift?
But then again... maybe they never sleep in Virginia?
Manyana, cabellero
Lets do a time check.
I am posting this at 11:27 pm 'west coast' (Pacific Time).
Schneibster will be within the same time zone (as he posts from Seattle).
CS (as I understand it) is a resident of the NY / east coast area (or at least that is what he has led me to believe). If so, that would make his posts 3 hrs Later than mine... If it's 11:30 PM (MY TIME) That would make it 2:30 AM 'his time'.
OR... is the CS poster also on pacific time (Seattle)?
I find it a "LITTLE" odd... that East Coaster's are posting on message boards at 2:30 am on a week-day? Maybe 'he' works a night-shift?
But then again... maybe they never sleep in Virginia?
Manyana, cabellero
it's 3 am, here(ontario).
i go to sleep in the wee hours, usually.
i go to sleep in the wee hours, usually.
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 27 2006, 02:02 PM)
QUOTE (Lon Waters+Mar 27 2006, 05:55 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 27 2006, 04:49 AM)
QUOTE (Lon Waters+Mar 27 2006, 04:16 AM)
A refutation that Silverstein meant demolition when he said "pull it" does not in any way refute the argument that WTC 7 was brought down by CD.
Your being dishonest. You know there is more than just Silverstein clearing up the "Pull it" quote.
Why are you being dishonest? Does your theory need dishonesty to work?
This is a very odd but typical attack of a simple statement of fact. Am I to gather that your theory requires this type of behavior? My claim is that a refutation of Silverstein's "pull it" statement is not a refutation of CD and I would stand by that. I could expound further by adding that the asymmentric damage and fires do not explain the symetric, virtual free fall collapse of WTC 7 in just the manner expected by CD. The firefighter's comments that they "thought" the building was going to collapse is not an analysis or explanation of how and why it actually did collapse in the manner it did. There is quite a bit more work to it than that or else we would have seen the NIST report on it long ago.
YOU attacked ME by saying all I gave was a Silverstein refutation.
You're going to have to help me out a bit more here. Can you point me to exactly where I said all you gave was a Silverstein refutation and can you point out the attack a little more explicitly?
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Mar 29 2006, 04:57 AM)
Note that 9.2s is an underestimate as it doesn't include air resistance. I don't have the figure for free-fall plus air resistance, does anyone know it?
Calculating air resistance is very complicated and depends on various factors including shape and speed. I don’t remember having seen any calculations along those. Hoffman might have calculated this but it’s been awhile since I read his calculations do any of you CD type have a link to them?
QUOTE
Also, I don't know where you got your B&Z estimate,
You said you wouldn’t bother reading NIST’s prelimary report about 7 WTC, it seems clear to me you never even read Bazant and Zhou’s paper, did you ever read the FEMA and NIST reports or any of the various scientific papers and article supporting the collapse theory or do you get all you info from “9/11 Truth” sites?
B and Z wrote:
“It has been suggested that the inelastic deformation of columns might have ‘cushioned’ the initial descent of the upper part, making it almost static. However, this is impossible because, for gravity loading, a softening of the load-deflection diagram (Fig. 5) always causes instability and precludes static deformation (Baˇzant and Cedolin 1991, Chpt. 10 and 13). The downward acceleration of the upper part is ¨u = N [P01 . P1(u)]=m where N = number of columns and, necessarily, P01 = mg=N. This represents a differential equation for u as a function of time t, and its integration shows that the time that the upper part takes to fall through the height of one story is, for cold columns, only about 6% longer than the duration of a free fall from that height, which is 0.87 s. For hot columns, the difference is of course much less than 6%. So there is hardly any ‘cushioning’. ” 9.2s + 6% = 9.8s.
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Also, I don't know where you got your B&Z estimate, |
You said you wouldn’t bother reading NIST’s prelimary report about 7 WTC, it seems clear to me you never even read Bazant and Zhou’s paper, did you ever read the FEMA and NIST reports or any of the various scientific papers and article supporting the collapse theory or do you get all you info from “9/11 Truth” sites?
B and Z wrote:
“It has been suggested that the inelastic deformation of columns might have ‘cushioned’ the initial descent of the upper part, making it almost static. However, this is impossible because, for gravity loading, a softening of the load-deflection diagram (Fig. 5) always causes instability and precludes static deformation (Baˇzant and Cedolin 1991, Chpt. 10 and 13). The downward acceleration of the upper part is ¨u = N [P01 . P1(u)]=m where N = number of columns and, necessarily, P01 = mg=N. This represents a differential equation for u as a function of time t, and its integration shows that the time that the upper part takes to fall through the height of one story is, for cold columns, only about 6% longer than the duration of a free fall from that height, which is 0.87 s. For hot columns, the difference is of course much less than 6%. So there is hardly any ‘cushioning’. ” 9.2s + 6% = 9.8s.
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
but a member of the Scholars group has been in contact with B&Z and they replied that their collapse model yielded collapse times of OVER 1 minute 30 seconds. They never included this in the paper, for obvious reasons.
Do you have reference for this? There is no reference to them on the site.* It sounds to me like you are talking about Judy Wood’s paper in which she calculated a collapse time of between 87.9 and 97.6 seconds based on the assumption (which she doesn’t justify) that the collapse would come to a complete halt each time it hit another floor **.
Dr. Wood's area of specialty it should be noted is structural biology ***
* http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&rls...ant&btnG=Search
** http://www.st911.org/
*** http://www.clemson.edu/cle2_share/CWE/PROV....php?ea=biotech
QUOTE (frater plecticus+Mar 29 2006, 10:02 AM)
the dam is breaking on the 9-11 coverup
Oh my God, now Ed Asner is backing conspiracy theories too! It that case all of us who back the collapse theory might as well give up. What do all those engineers know any way, Lou Grant sez the Trade center was demo'd.
Oh my God, now Ed Asner is backing conspiracy theories too! It that case all of us who back the collapse theory might as well give up. What do all those engineers know any way, Lou Grant sez the Trade center was demo'd.
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 29 2006, 04:54 AM)
QUOTE
Originally posted by lenbrazil
You remind me of Dorothy at the end of the “Wizard of Oz” closing her eyes, clicking her heels and repeating “there’s no place like home” over and over again. Just because you keep repeating something doesn’t make it true even Gobbles only said that you could make people believe lie by repeating it enough not that you could make it true. You can say that a thousand times it won’t make it any truer than the first.
You remind me of Dorothy at the end of the “Wizard of Oz” closing her eyes, clicking her heels and repeating “there’s no place like home” over and over again. Just because you keep repeating something doesn’t make it true even Gobbles only said that you could make people believe lie by repeating it enough not that you could make it true. You can say that a thousand times it won’t make it any truer than the first.
Oh, how true!... If you only had a mirror to look into.
I hate to tell you buddy, but...
the emperor is naked
He's NOT Really wearing any "nice new set of clothes". Too many of us have now taken off the Rove-colored glasses, and there is no point in trying to convince us to put the glasses back on. Take off your glasses and you will see for yourself - the 'dude is walkin' down the street naked, man.
Edit to add -
Uhhhh... lenbrazil... I'm not familiar with the "Gobbles" character. Who are you referring to?
Sorry... but it has been years since I kept up with Sesame Street characters.
As I have said repeatedly I hate Bush and Rove and that whole crowd. One doesn't have to be brain washed by those idiots to reject your lunatic theories. Engineers around the World support the collapse theory. Chomsky, Ed Said, Cockburn and other stalwarts of the left reject your theories too are they all wearing Rove Colored glasses too? I guess since you don't have many solid arguments on your side you have to resort to the "whoever rejects the "inside job" theory backs Bush" strawman.
As to me being Dorothy clicking her heels, can you cite any examples of when I have repeatedly made an assertion with out providing any corroborating evidence?
QUOTE LENBRAZIL
At least it's not Gary Glitter
http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/ilove/years/1975...ary_glitter.jpg
QUOTE
Oh my God, now Ed Asner is backing conspiracy theories too
At least it's not Gary Glitter
http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/ilove/years/1975...ary_glitter.jpg
QUOTE (newton+Mar 29 2006, 06:53 AM)
con-man sense, your spelling is, like, purr-fect now, dude.
congrats.
demolition waves progressing faster than gravity.
watch the video, too.
Butt your pousts is still LAMIE.
congrats.
demolition waves progressing faster than gravity.
watch the video, too.
Butt your pousts is still LAMIE.
QUOTE (newton+Mar 29 2006, 02:51 AM)
it's 3 am, here(ontario).
i go to sleep in the wee hours, usually.
Note that it's 8:30 in the morning EST. You always leave something out of your *Cough*analysis.*cough*
Heh!
i go to sleep in the wee hours, usually.
Note that it's 8:30 in the morning EST. You always leave something out of your *Cough*analysis.*cough*
Heh!
QUOTE (Lon Waters+Mar 29 2006, 03:24 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 27 2006, 02:02 PM)
QUOTE (Lon Waters+Mar 27 2006, 05:55 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 27 2006, 04:49 AM)
QUOTE (Lon Waters+Mar 27 2006, 04:16 AM)
A refutation that Silverstein meant demolition when he said "pull it" does not in any way refute the argument that WTC 7 was brought down by CD.
Your being dishonest. You know there is more than just Silverstein clearing up the "Pull it" quote.
Why are you being dishonest? Does your theory need dishonesty to work?
This is a very odd but typical attack of a simple statement of fact. Am I to gather that your theory requires this type of behavior? My claim is that a refutation of Silverstein's "pull it" statement is not a refutation of CD and I would stand by that. I could expound further by adding that the asymmentric damage and fires do not explain the symetric, virtual free fall collapse of WTC 7 in just the manner expected by CD. The firefighter's comments that they "thought" the building was going to collapse is not an analysis or explanation of how and why it actually did collapse in the manner it did. There is quite a bit more work to it than that or else we would have seen the NIST report on it long ago.
YOU attacked ME by saying all I gave was a Silverstein refutation.
You're going to have to help me out a bit more here. Can you point me to exactly where I said all you gave was a Silverstein refutation and can you point out the attack a little more explicitly?
I gave you a link with much more than just the "Pull it" refutation on it. Why did you only choose to respond to that as if it was the only thing on the page?
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 28 2006, 11:06 PM)
QUOTE
by Non-Sense (after leaving for the umpteenth time - only to return with the same old worn-out non sense)
With the wind blowing to the east like that, why is there so much smoke coming out the south side? Some of it seems white as if it has plenty of oxygen and fuel.
With the wind blowing to the east like that, why is there so much smoke coming out the south side? Some of it seems white as if it has plenty of oxygen and fuel.
Interesting point 'Non-sense'.
I like these photos that you (and other 'debunkers') keep coming up with that show strange smoke coming from the full south face of WTC 7. Amazing photos really... Billowing clouds of smoke shooting straight out of the entire south face of 7 right up to the corner windows... yet absolutely NO signs of fire on the west wall... all the windows intact ...(not melted nor fractured from high heat... no signs of flames in any of those west wall windows). These are Amazing Photos !!! What kind of an inferno produces such effects?
Where did you get them?
Please post all you have so that we can check them out...(I'm doing a comparison of similar strange smoke coming from WTC 2).
Thanks - I appreciate you posting ALL the photos of the smoke pouring from the south face of WTC 7.
This is exactly the typical dishonesty and logical fallacy conspiracy theorist are known for. "Gee, the west face of the building doesn't show any sign of fire from this far away, that means there was no fire heavy in the building..."
I guess the smoke just likes to rub up against the WTC 7 before continuing east...
As for photos, you get shiit from me. All you're going to do is twist them like you tried with this one and others.
Another actor comes out for CD!
"Tell me Mr Walker, just how did the government blow up the towers..."
"A-DYNOMIIIITE!!!"
"Tell me Mr Walker, just how did the government blow up the towers..."
"A-DYNOMIIIITE!!!"
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 28 2006, 10:13 PM)
QUOTE (Guest_yesitdid+Mar 28 2006, 09:34 PM)
It is obvious still, that newtonjd has not bothered to read the NIST prelim report on WTC7. Despite this he seems to believe that he knows all about its construction and how it collapsed.
How is it that despite the fact that NIST, using some of the country's best engineers, could not arrive at as exact a senario for the collapse of #7 as newtonnjd?
Why would a serious researcher read anything that did not start with a credible explanation of free fall?
Our government has been infiltrated and there is no point on depending on them for valid information.
No building fell at free fall rate on 9/11.
The possible explanations of the collapse of #7 come at the end of the report(obviously you haven't read it either) after explaining how the building was constructed and the damage and fires observed.
Why would anyone read anything that starts with a conclusion before setting out a background upon which to base a conclusion? Coming to a conclusion first is dishonest and prejudicial in the extreme.
Havent' been here recently, jeez this thread is hopping.
Is this some sort of fauxtograph?
The shadows on the building are incorrect. FAKE.
Is the top of that building next to "7" really twisted like that?
The architect was having a laugh, if so.
Havent' been here recently, jeez this thread is hopping.
Is this some sort of fauxtograph?
The shadows on the building are incorrect. FAKE.
Is the top of that building next to "7" really twisted like that?
The architect was having a laugh, if so.
Actually I found that in a site which has nothing to do with debunking or conspiracy.
Also, how would placement of shaddows change a dame thing?
Heres another view of the smoke...
It just loves Building 7 doesn't it...
How is it that despite the fact that NIST, using some of the country's best engineers, could not arrive at as exact a senario for the collapse of #7 as newtonnjd?
Why would a serious researcher read anything that did not start with a credible explanation of free fall?
Our government has been infiltrated and there is no point on depending on them for valid information.
No building fell at free fall rate on 9/11.
The possible explanations of the collapse of #7 come at the end of the report(obviously you haven't read it either) after explaining how the building was constructed and the damage and fires observed.
Why would anyone read anything that starts with a conclusion before setting out a background upon which to base a conclusion? Coming to a conclusion first is dishonest and prejudicial in the extreme.
LENBRAZIL:
Air resistance is not an important factor in the collapse of WTC 1 & 2
Here's why:
The downward force, Fd, acting on an object in free-fall is given by:
Fd = Mg
Where M is the mass of the object in kg, and g is the acceleration due to gravity equal to 9.81 m/s2.
The upward force acting on an object in free-fall is the air resistance, Fu, given by:
Fu = ½ (rho)A.Cd.v^2
Where rho is the density of air equal to 1.225 kg/m3 at sea level; A is the effective area of the object in m^2; Cd is a dimensionless quantity known as the coefficient of drag that has values in the range 0.5 to 1.0; v is the instantaneous descent velocity in m/s. (The so-called terminal velocity is attained when Fd = Fu)
Applying these equations to the WTC 1 case of the upper block of 14 floors falling onto the floor below:
M = 14 x {510,000,000/110} = 6.49 x 10^7 kg
Hence,
Fd = 6.37 x 10^8 Newtons
We will take A, the effective area of the falling block of floors, to be the net geometrical area of a WTC floor or 2909 m^2. We will assume a drag coefficient of 0.67. We consider two cases: The air resistance at the lowest impact velocity of 8.52 m/s and the air resistance at the highest impact velocity of 90.2 m/s. For the first case we find,
Fu = ½ x 1.225 x 2909 x 0.67 x 72.59 kg m/s^2 = 8.67 x 10^4 Newtons
Clearly, for this case, air resistance is negligible compared to the downward force of gravity.
For the second case we have,
Fu = ½ x 1.225 x 2909 x 0.67 x 8136 kg m/s^2 = 9.71 x 10^6 Newtons
Thus the air resistance force is about 100 times greater than the first case because of the higher velocity; but even this value of Fu is only 1.5 % of the downward accelerating force. We conclude that air resistance is not a significant factor in the collapse of the WTC.
(Taken from Greening)
It might be argued that the air resistance would have been larger than suggested by the above calculations if the 10,000 m^3 of air inside one floor could not rapidly escape and was compressed as in a bicycle pump. However, as soon as a floor started to fall, all the windows on that floor would have shattered (if they were not broken already!) allowing the air to exit with very little resistance.....
NF
Air resistance is not an important factor in the collapse of WTC 1 & 2
Here's why:
The downward force, Fd, acting on an object in free-fall is given by:
Fd = Mg
Where M is the mass of the object in kg, and g is the acceleration due to gravity equal to 9.81 m/s2.
The upward force acting on an object in free-fall is the air resistance, Fu, given by:
Fu = ½ (rho)A.Cd.v^2
Where rho is the density of air equal to 1.225 kg/m3 at sea level; A is the effective area of the object in m^2; Cd is a dimensionless quantity known as the coefficient of drag that has values in the range 0.5 to 1.0; v is the instantaneous descent velocity in m/s. (The so-called terminal velocity is attained when Fd = Fu)
Applying these equations to the WTC 1 case of the upper block of 14 floors falling onto the floor below:
M = 14 x {510,000,000/110} = 6.49 x 10^7 kg
Hence,
Fd = 6.37 x 10^8 Newtons
We will take A, the effective area of the falling block of floors, to be the net geometrical area of a WTC floor or 2909 m^2. We will assume a drag coefficient of 0.67. We consider two cases: The air resistance at the lowest impact velocity of 8.52 m/s and the air resistance at the highest impact velocity of 90.2 m/s. For the first case we find,
Fu = ½ x 1.225 x 2909 x 0.67 x 72.59 kg m/s^2 = 8.67 x 10^4 Newtons
Clearly, for this case, air resistance is negligible compared to the downward force of gravity.
For the second case we have,
Fu = ½ x 1.225 x 2909 x 0.67 x 8136 kg m/s^2 = 9.71 x 10^6 Newtons
Thus the air resistance force is about 100 times greater than the first case because of the higher velocity; but even this value of Fu is only 1.5 % of the downward accelerating force. We conclude that air resistance is not a significant factor in the collapse of the WTC.
(Taken from Greening)
It might be argued that the air resistance would have been larger than suggested by the above calculations if the 10,000 m^3 of air inside one floor could not rapidly escape and was compressed as in a bicycle pump. However, as soon as a floor started to fall, all the windows on that floor would have shattered (if they were not broken already!) allowing the air to exit with very little resistance.....
NF
Havent' been here recently, jeez this thread is hopping.
Is this some sort of fauxtograph?
The shadows on the building are incorrect. FAKE.
Is the top of that building next to "7" really twisted like that?
The architect was having a laugh, if so.
QUOTE (Temp+Mar 29 2006, 09:54 AM)
Havent' been here recently, jeez this thread is hopping.
Is this some sort of fauxtograph?
The shadows on the building are incorrect. FAKE.
Is the top of that building next to "7" really twisted like that?
The architect was having a laugh, if so.
Actually I found that in a site which has nothing to do with debunking or conspiracy.
Also, how would placement of shaddows change a dame thing?
Heres another view of the smoke...
It just loves Building 7 doesn't it...
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Mar 29 2006, 06:12 AM)
LENBRAZIL:
Air resistance is not an important factor in the collapse of WTC 1 & 2
Here's why:
The downward force, Fd, acting on an object in free-fall is given by:
Fd = Mg
Where M is the mass of the object in kg, and g is the acceleration due to gravity equal to 9.81 m/s2.
The upward force acting on an object in free-fall is the air resistance, Fu, given by:
Fu = ½ (rho)A.Cd.v^2
Where rho is the density of air equal to 1.225 kg/m3 at sea level; A is the effective area of the object in m^2; Cd is a dimensionless quantity known as the coefficient of drag that has values in the range 0.5 to 1.0; v is the instantaneous descent velocity in m/s. (The so-called terminal velocity is attained when Fd = Fu)
Applying these equations to the WTC 1 case of the upper block of 14 floors falling onto the floor below:
M = 14 x {510,000,000/110} = 6.49 x 10^7 kg
Hence,
Fd = 6.37 x 10^8 Newtons
We will take A, the effective area of the falling block of floors, to be the net geometrical area of a WTC floor or 2909 m^2. We will assume a drag coefficient of 0.67. We consider two cases: The air resistance at the lowest impact velocity of 8.52 m/s and the air resistance at the highest impact velocity of 90.2 m/s. For the first case we find,
Fu = ½ x 1.225 x 2909 x 0.67 x 72.59 kg m/s^2 = 8.67 x 10^4 Newtons
Clearly, for this case, air resistance is negligible compared to the downward force of gravity.
For the second case we have,
Fu = ½ x 1.225 x 2909 x 0.67 x 8136 kg m/s^2 = 9.71 x 10^6 Newtons
Thus the air resistance force is about 100 times greater than the first case because of the higher velocity; but even this value of Fu is only 1.5 % of the downward accelerating force. We conclude that air resistance is not a significant factor in the collapse of the WTC.
(Taken from Greening)
It might be argued that the air resistance would have been larger than suggested by the above calculations if the 10,000 m^3 of air inside one floor could not rapidly escape and was compressed as in a bicycle pump. However, as soon as a floor started to fall, all the windows on that floor would have shattered (if they were not broken already!) allowing the air to exit with very little resistance.....
NF
Have you added this to your web site Common Sence?
NEU-FONZE and Greening show why the so-called squibs could not be caused by the gravity driven collapse.
Air resistance is not an important factor in the collapse of WTC 1 & 2
Here's why:
The downward force, Fd, acting on an object in free-fall is given by:
Fd = Mg
Where M is the mass of the object in kg, and g is the acceleration due to gravity equal to 9.81 m/s2.
The upward force acting on an object in free-fall is the air resistance, Fu, given by:
Fu = ½ (rho)A.Cd.v^2
Where rho is the density of air equal to 1.225 kg/m3 at sea level; A is the effective area of the object in m^2; Cd is a dimensionless quantity known as the coefficient of drag that has values in the range 0.5 to 1.0; v is the instantaneous descent velocity in m/s. (The so-called terminal velocity is attained when Fd = Fu)
Applying these equations to the WTC 1 case of the upper block of 14 floors falling onto the floor below:
M = 14 x {510,000,000/110} = 6.49 x 10^7 kg
Hence,
Fd = 6.37 x 10^8 Newtons
We will take A, the effective area of the falling block of floors, to be the net geometrical area of a WTC floor or 2909 m^2. We will assume a drag coefficient of 0.67. We consider two cases: The air resistance at the lowest impact velocity of 8.52 m/s and the air resistance at the highest impact velocity of 90.2 m/s. For the first case we find,
Fu = ½ x 1.225 x 2909 x 0.67 x 72.59 kg m/s^2 = 8.67 x 10^4 Newtons
Clearly, for this case, air resistance is negligible compared to the downward force of gravity.
For the second case we have,
Fu = ½ x 1.225 x 2909 x 0.67 x 8136 kg m/s^2 = 9.71 x 10^6 Newtons
Thus the air resistance force is about 100 times greater than the first case because of the higher velocity; but even this value of Fu is only 1.5 % of the downward accelerating force. We conclude that air resistance is not a significant factor in the collapse of the WTC.
(Taken from Greening)
It might be argued that the air resistance would have been larger than suggested by the above calculations if the 10,000 m^3 of air inside one floor could not rapidly escape and was compressed as in a bicycle pump. However, as soon as a floor started to fall, all the windows on that floor would have shattered (if they were not broken already!) allowing the air to exit with very little resistance.....
NF
Have you added this to your web site Common Sence?
NEU-FONZE and Greening show why the so-called squibs could not be caused by the gravity driven collapse.
Why would the shadows make any difference? Because its' a fake.
As is the next photo you posted. That damage was debunked years ago.
Somebody turned a photo upside down and cut and pasted portions of it.
The smoke is hillarious.
As is the next photo you posted. That damage was debunked years ago.
Somebody turned a photo upside down and cut and pasted portions of it.
The smoke is hillarious.
QUOTE (yesitdid+Mar 29 2006, 02:02 PM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 28 2006, 10:13 PM)
QUOTE (Guest_yesitdid+Mar 28 2006, 09:34 PM)
It is obvious still, that newtonjd has not bothered to read the NIST prelim report on WTC7. Despite this he seems to believe that he knows all about its construction and how it collapsed.
How is it that despite the fact that NIST, using some of the country's best engineers, could not arrive at as exact a senario for the collapse of #7 as newtonnjd?
Why would a serious researcher read anything that did not start with a credible explanation of free fall?
Our government has been infiltrated and there is no point on depending on them for valid information.
No building fell at free fall rate on 9/11.
The possible explanations of the collapse of #7 come at the end of the report(obviously you haven't read it either) after explaining how the building was constructed and the damage and fires observed.
Why would anyone read anything that starts with a conclusion before setting out a background upon which to base a conclusion? Coming to a conclusion first is dishonest and prejudicial in the extreme.
if nothing fell faster than freefall, please tell me how the debris coming out of the side of the building is progressing down the side of the tower faster than the freefalling debris beside the tower.
does a steel tower offer less resistance than air?
you're wrong about tower seven. they showed a blueprint, said the large cantilever beams over the con ed station failed first, and caused the collapse(at least that's what i remember), and this is somehow due to deisel fuel exploding.
that does not explain the speed and symmetry of the collapse, nor the reported shockwave.
YOU attacked ME by saying all I gave was a Silverstein refutation.
You're going to have to help me out a bit more here. Can you point me to exactly where I said all you gave was a Silverstein refutation and can you point out the attack a little more explicitly?
I gave you a link with much more than just the "Pull it" refutation on it. Why did you only choose to respond to that as if it was the only thing on the page?
Did you not understand my question? I will try again... Where did I say that the you only gave a Silverstein refutation? And how was my comment an attack? Are you unable to acknowledge the simple truth of the statement I made?
How is it that despite the fact that NIST, using some of the country's best engineers, could not arrive at as exact a senario for the collapse of #7 as newtonnjd?
Why would a serious researcher read anything that did not start with a credible explanation of free fall?
Our government has been infiltrated and there is no point on depending on them for valid information.
No building fell at free fall rate on 9/11.
The possible explanations of the collapse of #7 come at the end of the report(obviously you haven't read it either) after explaining how the building was constructed and the damage and fires observed.
Why would anyone read anything that starts with a conclusion before setting out a background upon which to base a conclusion? Coming to a conclusion first is dishonest and prejudicial in the extreme.
if nothing fell faster than freefall, please tell me how the debris coming out of the side of the building is progressing down the side of the tower faster than the freefalling debris beside the tower.
does a steel tower offer less resistance than air?
you're wrong about tower seven. they showed a blueprint, said the large cantilever beams over the con ed station failed first, and caused the collapse(at least that's what i remember), and this is somehow due to deisel fuel exploding.
that does not explain the speed and symmetry of the collapse, nor the reported shockwave.
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 29 2006, 01:36 PM)
QUOTE (Lon Waters+Mar 29 2006, 03:24 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 27 2006, 02:02 PM)
YOU attacked ME by saying all I gave was a Silverstein refutation.
You're going to have to help me out a bit more here. Can you point me to exactly where I said all you gave was a Silverstein refutation and can you point out the attack a little more explicitly?
I gave you a link with much more than just the "Pull it" refutation on it. Why did you only choose to respond to that as if it was the only thing on the page?
Did you not understand my question? I will try again... Where did I say that the you only gave a Silverstein refutation? And how was my comment an attack? Are you unable to acknowledge the simple truth of the statement I made?
QUOTE (newton+Mar 29 2006, 11:20 AM)
QUOTE (yesitdid+Mar 29 2006, 02:02 PM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 28 2006, 10:13 PM)
QUOTE (Guest_yesitdid+Mar 28 2006, 09:34 PM)
It is obvious still, that newtonjd has not bothered to read the NIST prelim report on WTC7. Despite this he seems to believe that he knows all about its construction and how it collapsed.
How is it that despite the fact that NIST, using some of the country's best engineers, could not arrive at as exact a senario for the collapse of #7 as newtonnjd?
Why would a serious researcher read anything that did not start with a credible explanation of free fall?
Our government has been infiltrated and there is no point on depending on them for valid information.
No building fell at free fall rate on 9/11.
The possible explanations of the collapse of #7 come at the end of the report(obviously you haven't read it either) after explaining how the building was constructed and the damage and fires observed.
Why would anyone read anything that starts with a conclusion before setting out a background upon which to base a conclusion? Coming to a conclusion first is dishonest and prejudicial in the extreme.
if nothing fell faster than freefall, please tell me how the debris coming out of the side of the building is progressing down the side of the tower faster than the freefalling debris beside the tower.
does a steel tower offer less resistance than air?
you're wrong about tower seven. they showed a blueprint, said the large cantilever beams over the con ed station failed first, and caused the collapse(at least that's what i remember), and this is somehow due to deisel fuel exploding.
that does not explain the speed and symmetry of the collapse, nor the reported shockwave.
Let me show it to you up close and personal...
http://www.911myths.com/WTC2Collapse.mpeg
He shows you the top of the collpase where there is no column falling, just large dust clouds from the pancaking floors, then he runs, turns back again only to show perimeter columns far outpacing the collapse...
And the building is still falling after he turns and runs again. He didn't die from a 212 degree F pyroclastic flow nor did the camera suffer damage because of it.
One grainy photo deserves another.
YOU attacked ME by saying all I gave was a Silverstein refutation.
You're going to have to help me out a bit more here. Can you point me to exactly where I said all you gave was a Silverstein refutation and can you point out the attack a little more explicitly?
I gave you a link with much more than just the "Pull it" refutation on it. Why did you only choose to respond to that as if it was the only thing on the page?
Did you not understand my question? I will try again... Where did I say that the you only gave a Silverstein refutation? And how was my comment an attack? Are you unable to acknowledge the simple truth of the statement I made?
Did you not understand my answer? I will try again... Where did I give only a Silvertein refutation for you to say that? Your question implies that's all that was given. In fact, in the context of the questions at the time you should have looked past the Silvertein quotes to the firemans quotes talking about building 7's condition. Or do I need to spell everything out for you as I seem to be doing now...
YOU attacked ME by saying all I gave was a Silverstein refutation.
Did you not understand my answer? I will try again... Where did I give only a Silvertein refutation for you to say that? Your question implies that's all that was given. In fact, in the context of the questions at the time you should have looked past the Silvertein quotes to the firemans quotes talking about building 7's condition. Or do I need to spell everything out for you as I seem to be doing now...
No, I do not understand your answer. You said: "YOU attacked ME by saying all I gave was a Silverstein refutation." I am asking where I said this, but we both know I did not say that. I gave a simple statement of fact. Are you unable to acknowledge the truth of it?
YOU attacked ME by saying all I gave was a Silverstein refutation.
Did you not understand my answer? I will try again... Where did I give only a Silvertein refutation for you to say that? Your question implies that's all that was given. In fact, in the context of the questions at the time you should have looked past the Silvertein quotes to the firemans quotes talking about building 7's condition. Or do I need to spell everything out for you as I seem to be doing now...
No, I do not understand your answer. You said: "YOU attacked ME by saying all I gave was a Silverstein refutation." I am asking where I said this, but we both know I did not say that. I gave a simple statement of fact. Are you unable to acknowledge the truth of it?
The attack was suggesting I would be stupid enough to refute the building 7 collapse by giving you the silvertein refutation as evidence. I assumed you weren't dumb enough to think that's all I was giving you.
Forget it. I did...
The real question is
1) Were the fireman lying to help silvertein
2) do you believe the fireman but they just got scared enough to leave possible people trapped and got lucky.
3) do you believe the fireman are trained to spot building collapses and made the right call.
Is there another possiblity?
YOU attacked ME by saying all I gave was a Silverstein refutation.
Did you not understand my answer? I will try again... Where did I give only a Silvertein refutation for you to say that? Your question implies that's all that was given. In fact, in the context of the questions at the time you should have looked past the Silvertein quotes to the firemans quotes talking about building 7's condition. Or do I need to spell everything out for you as I seem to be doing now...
No, I do not understand your answer. You said: "YOU attacked ME by saying all I gave was a Silverstein refutation." I am asking where I said this, but we both know I did not say that. I gave a simple statement of fact. Are you unable to acknowledge the truth of it?
The attack was suggesting I would be stupid enough to refute the building 7 collapse by giving you the silvertein refutation as evidence.
I have never used any derogatory term with you. I have not called you a moron or a shill or said you were lying. On the other hand, I see how you try to deal with those who disagree with you. And I see the evasiveness in your responses to me thus far.
YOU attacked ME by saying all I gave was a Silverstein refutation.
Did you not understand my answer? I will try again... Where did I give only a Silvertein refutation for you to say that? Your question implies that's all that was given. In fact, in the context of the questions at the time you should have looked past the Silvertein quotes to the firemans quotes talking about building 7's condition. Or do I need to spell everything out for you as I seem to be doing now...
No, I do not understand your answer. You said: "YOU attacked ME by saying all I gave was a Silverstein refutation." I am asking where I said this, but we both know I did not say that. I gave a simple statement of fact. Are you unable to acknowledge the truth of it?
The attack was suggesting I would be stupid enough to refute the building 7 collapse by giving you the silvertein refutation as evidence.
I have never used any derogatory term with you. I have not called you a moron or a shill or said you were lying. On the other hand, I see how you try to deal with those who disagree with you. And I see the evasiveness in your responses to me thus far.
I have no use for passive aggressive pussies. If you treat me with respect I'll treat you the same. If you're trying to jump on the CT bandwagon by slipping in jabs then you're in for a surprize. Implied stupidity is saying someone is stupidity. I said from the start, If I'm going to insult someone I'll do it in a way there is no doubt. So FU<K YOU. Do I need to clarify that?
I noticed you completely dodged the questions I raised with typical diversions.
Don't address me in the future if you feel that way.
Just a quick comment before I get back to work. This does not address newtons image. The collapse can outpace free-fall at any stage of the collapse to prove CD, it doesn't have to be at the bottom. If it outpaces free-fall near the top, but the falling material overtakes again at a later stage, it is still proof of CD.
Note the video of the guy pointing his camera up steeply at the south tower before running away, which shows the demolition wave outpacing any falling material. Infact for the south tower the demolition wave keeps pace with the falling debris until pretty low down. The OCTs much prefer to talk about the north tower where the demolition wave was less obvious and the falling debris outpaced it more quickly. It's the ground-level views of the south tower collapse that are the most damning to the OCT.
How is it that despite the fact that NIST, using some of the country's best engineers, could not arrive at as exact a senario for the collapse of #7 as newtonnjd?
Why would a serious researcher read anything that did not start with a credible explanation of free fall?
Our government has been infiltrated and there is no point on depending on them for valid information.
No building fell at free fall rate on 9/11.
The possible explanations of the collapse of #7 come at the end of the report(obviously you haven't read it either) after explaining how the building was constructed and the damage and fires observed.
Why would anyone read anything that starts with a conclusion before setting out a background upon which to base a conclusion? Coming to a conclusion first is dishonest and prejudicial in the extreme.
if nothing fell faster than freefall, please tell me how the debris coming out of the side of the building is progressing down the side of the tower faster than the freefalling debris beside the tower.
does a steel tower offer less resistance than air?
you're wrong about tower seven. they showed a blueprint, said the large cantilever beams over the con ed station failed first, and caused the collapse(at least that's what i remember), and this is somehow due to deisel fuel exploding.
that does not explain the speed and symmetry of the collapse, nor the reported shockwave.
Let me show it to you up close and personal...
http://www.911myths.com/WTC2Collapse.mpeg
He shows you the top of the collpase where there is no column falling, just large dust clouds from the pancaking floors, then he runs, turns back again only to show perimeter columns far outpacing the collapse...
And the building is still falling after he turns and runs again. He didn't die from a 212 degree F pyroclastic flow nor did the camera suffer damage because of it.
One grainy photo deserves another.
That fake WTC7 photo....
This one is genuine, I do believe. See the catastrophic fire :-)
working....
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...wtc/WTC_ch7.htm
This one is genuine, I do believe. See the catastrophic fire :-)
working....
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...wtc/WTC_ch7.htm
QUOTE (Lon Waters+Mar 29 2006, 11:41 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 29 2006, 01:36 PM)
QUOTE (Lon Waters+Mar 29 2006, 03:24 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 27 2006, 02:02 PM)
YOU attacked ME by saying all I gave was a Silverstein refutation.
You're going to have to help me out a bit more here. Can you point me to exactly where I said all you gave was a Silverstein refutation and can you point out the attack a little more explicitly?
I gave you a link with much more than just the "Pull it" refutation on it. Why did you only choose to respond to that as if it was the only thing on the page?
Did you not understand my question? I will try again... Where did I say that the you only gave a Silverstein refutation? And how was my comment an attack? Are you unable to acknowledge the simple truth of the statement I made?
Did you not understand my answer? I will try again... Where did I give only a Silvertein refutation for you to say that? Your question implies that's all that was given. In fact, in the context of the questions at the time you should have looked past the Silvertein quotes to the firemans quotes talking about building 7's condition. Or do I need to spell everything out for you as I seem to be doing now...
QUOTE (Temp+Mar 29 2006, 11:45 AM)
That fake WTC7 photo....
This one is genuine, I do believe. See the catastrophic fire :-)
working....
Cool! Thanks for bringing up that south west debis damage. That small damage give you an an idea of how large the south face damage was. THANKS!
That is unless you're stupid enough to call the fireman liars...
This one is genuine, I do believe. See the catastrophic fire :-)
working....
Cool! Thanks for bringing up that south west debis damage. That small damage give you an an idea of how large the south face damage was. THANKS!
That is unless you're stupid enough to call the fireman liars...
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 29 2006, 04:47 PM)
QUOTE (Lon Waters+Mar 29 2006, 11:41 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 29 2006, 01:36 PM)
QUOTE (Lon Waters+Mar 29 2006, 03:24 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 27 2006, 02:02 PM)
YOU attacked ME by saying all I gave was a Silverstein refutation.
Did you not understand my answer? I will try again... Where did I give only a Silvertein refutation for you to say that? Your question implies that's all that was given. In fact, in the context of the questions at the time you should have looked past the Silvertein quotes to the firemans quotes talking about building 7's condition. Or do I need to spell everything out for you as I seem to be doing now...
No, I do not understand your answer. You said: "YOU attacked ME by saying all I gave was a Silverstein refutation." I am asking where I said this, but we both know I did not say that. I gave a simple statement of fact. Are you unable to acknowledge the truth of it?
QUOTE (Lon Waters+Mar 29 2006, 12:01 PM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 29 2006, 04:47 PM)
QUOTE (Lon Waters+Mar 29 2006, 11:41 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 29 2006, 01:36 PM)
QUOTE (Lon Waters+Mar 29 2006, 03:24 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 27 2006, 02:02 PM)
YOU attacked ME by saying all I gave was a Silverstein refutation.
Did you not understand my answer? I will try again... Where did I give only a Silvertein refutation for you to say that? Your question implies that's all that was given. In fact, in the context of the questions at the time you should have looked past the Silvertein quotes to the firemans quotes talking about building 7's condition. Or do I need to spell everything out for you as I seem to be doing now...
No, I do not understand your answer. You said: "YOU attacked ME by saying all I gave was a Silverstein refutation." I am asking where I said this, but we both know I did not say that. I gave a simple statement of fact. Are you unable to acknowledge the truth of it?
The attack was suggesting I would be stupid enough to refute the building 7 collapse by giving you the silvertein refutation as evidence. I assumed you weren't dumb enough to think that's all I was giving you.
Forget it. I did...
The real question is
1) Were the fireman lying to help silvertein
2) do you believe the fireman but they just got scared enough to leave possible people trapped and got lucky.
3) do you believe the fireman are trained to spot building collapses and made the right call.
Is there another possiblity?
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 29 2006, 04:42 PM)
[QUOTE=newton,Mar 29 2006, 11:20 AM] [QUOTE=yesitdid,Mar 29 2006, 02:02 PM]
if nothing fell faster than freefall, please tell me how the debris coming out of the side of the building is progressing down the side of the tower faster than the freefalling debris beside the tower.
does a steel tower offer less resistance than air?
[/QUOTE]
Let me show it to you up close and personal...
http://www.911myths.com/WTC2Collapse.mpeg
One grainy photo deserves another.
it's from a video.
things are clearer in the video.
it is proof of demolition, and you're too stupid to realise it.
like a headless chicken running around the barnyard.
if nothing fell faster than freefall, please tell me how the debris coming out of the side of the building is progressing down the side of the tower faster than the freefalling debris beside the tower.
does a steel tower offer less resistance than air?
[/QUOTE]
Let me show it to you up close and personal...
http://www.911myths.com/WTC2Collapse.mpeg
One grainy photo deserves another.
it's from a video.
things are clearer in the video.
it is proof of demolition, and you're too stupid to realise it.
like a headless chicken running around the barnyard.
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 29 2006, 05:11 PM)
QUOTE (Lon Waters+Mar 29 2006, 12:01 PM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 29 2006, 04:47 PM)
QUOTE (Lon Waters+Mar 29 2006, 11:41 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 29 2006, 01:36 PM)
QUOTE (Lon Waters+Mar 29 2006, 03:24 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 27 2006, 02:02 PM)
YOU attacked ME by saying all I gave was a Silverstein refutation.
Did you not understand my answer? I will try again... Where did I give only a Silvertein refutation for you to say that? Your question implies that's all that was given. In fact, in the context of the questions at the time you should have looked past the Silvertein quotes to the firemans quotes talking about building 7's condition. Or do I need to spell everything out for you as I seem to be doing now...
No, I do not understand your answer. You said: "YOU attacked ME by saying all I gave was a Silverstein refutation." I am asking where I said this, but we both know I did not say that. I gave a simple statement of fact. Are you unable to acknowledge the truth of it?
The attack was suggesting I would be stupid enough to refute the building 7 collapse by giving you the silvertein refutation as evidence.
I have never used any derogatory term with you. I have not called you a moron or a shill or said you were lying. On the other hand, I see how you try to deal with those who disagree with you. And I see the evasiveness in your responses to me thus far.
Here's the video of the smoke coming from the south face of WTC7. The stills aren't fakes.
http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi
http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi
The photo below looks like it was taken around early to mid afternoon. The camera is pointing toward the southeast and the sun is near the south/southwest. Some flare is visible in the lower left of the photo caused by the sun's rays being close to parallel with the face of the lens (sun is to upper right of camera). The shadows of the buildings are cast toward the northeast.
The building with the slanted top is the Citibank building.
The building with the slanted top is the Citibank building.
QUOTE (Lon Waters+Mar 29 2006, 12:38 PM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 29 2006, 05:11 PM)
QUOTE (Lon Waters+Mar 29 2006, 12:01 PM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 29 2006, 04:47 PM)
QUOTE (Lon Waters+Mar 29 2006, 11:41 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 29 2006, 01:36 PM)
QUOTE (Lon Waters+Mar 29 2006, 03:24 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 27 2006, 02:02 PM)
YOU attacked ME by saying all I gave was a Silverstein refutation.
Did you not understand my answer? I will try again... Where did I give only a Silvertein refutation for you to say that? Your question implies that's all that was given. In fact, in the context of the questions at the time you should have looked past the Silvertein quotes to the firemans quotes talking about building 7's condition. Or do I need to spell everything out for you as I seem to be doing now...
No, I do not understand your answer. You said: "YOU attacked ME by saying all I gave was a Silverstein refutation." I am asking where I said this, but we both know I did not say that. I gave a simple statement of fact. Are you unable to acknowledge the truth of it?
The attack was suggesting I would be stupid enough to refute the building 7 collapse by giving you the silvertein refutation as evidence.
I have never used any derogatory term with you. I have not called you a moron or a shill or said you were lying. On the other hand, I see how you try to deal with those who disagree with you. And I see the evasiveness in your responses to me thus far.
I have no use for passive aggressive pussies. If you treat me with respect I'll treat you the same. If you're trying to jump on the CT bandwagon by slipping in jabs then you're in for a surprize. Implied stupidity is saying someone is stupidity. I said from the start, If I'm going to insult someone I'll do it in a way there is no doubt. So FU<K YOU. Do I need to clarify that?
I noticed you completely dodged the questions I raised with typical diversions.
Don't address me in the future if you feel that way.
QUOTE (newton+Mar 29 2006, 05:18 PM)
[QUOTE=Common Sense,Mar 29 2006, 04:42 PM] [QUOTE=newton,Mar 29 2006, 11:20 AM] [QUOTE=yesitdid,Mar 29 2006, 02:02 PM]
if nothing fell faster than freefall, please tell me how the debris coming out of the side of the building is progressing down the side of the tower faster than the freefalling debris beside the tower.
does a steel tower offer less resistance than air?
[/QUOTE]
Let me show it to you up close and personal...
http://www.911myths.com/WTC2Collapse.mpeg
One grainy photo deserves another. [/QUOTE]
it's from a video.
things are clearer in the video.
it is proof of demolition, and you're too stupid to realise it.
like a headless chicken running around the barnyard.
I wonder how many times we have been over the expelling of dust and debris ahead of the collapse. 10? 20?
The air pressure in the towers due to the collapse was causing blow outs in a few places lower down. Simple explanation, but you are apparently too simple to understand this.
How many of these dust expelling events that are sometimes reffered to as squibs by the WTC CD crowd actually happened? 5? 10? 15? So the expectation is that only a dozen or so charges were used? only a dozen caused the windows to blow out? only a dozen or so caused debris to get knocked about?
In the video and in those grainy frames taken from the video I can barely make out that there is a darker shadow in the places marked on the still. Somehow though we are to believe that this still shows something more than dust and light debris?
if nothing fell faster than freefall, please tell me how the debris coming out of the side of the building is progressing down the side of the tower faster than the freefalling debris beside the tower.
does a steel tower offer less resistance than air?
[/QUOTE]
Let me show it to you up close and personal...
http://www.911myths.com/WTC2Collapse.mpeg
One grainy photo deserves another. [/QUOTE]
it's from a video.
things are clearer in the video.
it is proof of demolition, and you're too stupid to realise it.
like a headless chicken running around the barnyard.
I wonder how many times we have been over the expelling of dust and debris ahead of the collapse. 10? 20?
The air pressure in the towers due to the collapse was causing blow outs in a few places lower down. Simple explanation, but you are apparently too simple to understand this.
How many of these dust expelling events that are sometimes reffered to as squibs by the WTC CD crowd actually happened? 5? 10? 15? So the expectation is that only a dozen or so charges were used? only a dozen caused the windows to blow out? only a dozen or so caused debris to get knocked about?
In the video and in those grainy frames taken from the video I can barely make out that there is a darker shadow in the places marked on the still. Somehow though we are to believe that this still shows something more than dust and light debris?
QUOTE
He shows you the top of the collpase where there is no column falling, just large dust clouds from the pancaking floors, then he runs, turns back again only to show perimeter columns far outpacing the collapse...
Just a quick comment before I get back to work. This does not address newtons image. The collapse can outpace free-fall at any stage of the collapse to prove CD, it doesn't have to be at the bottom. If it outpaces free-fall near the top, but the falling material overtakes again at a later stage, it is still proof of CD.
Note the video of the guy pointing his camera up steeply at the south tower before running away, which shows the demolition wave outpacing any falling material. Infact for the south tower the demolition wave keeps pace with the falling debris until pretty low down. The OCTs much prefer to talk about the north tower where the demolition wave was less obvious and the falling debris outpaced it more quickly. It's the ground-level views of the south tower collapse that are the most damning to the OCT.
No captions on these but they were taken by transit personnel at the scene.
I could be mistaken but isn't that WTC 7 on the right? Seems to be a lot of flame there.
same place only closer. Shows the street intersection. Barclay Street, yep seems it is WTC 7
This one also looks like WTC 7
I could be mistaken but isn't that WTC 7 on the right? Seems to be a lot of flame there.
same place only closer. Shows the street intersection. Barclay Street, yep seems it is WTC 7
This one also looks like WTC 7
QUOTE (yesitdid+Mar 29 2006, 02:02 PM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 28 2006, 10:13 PM)
QUOTE (Guest_yesitdid+Mar 28 2006, 09:34 PM)
It is obvious still, that newtonjd has not bothered to read the NIST prelim report on WTC7. Despite this he seems to believe that he knows all about its construction and how it collapsed.