ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags wtc7

Reply
Old 30th March 2015, 05:32 PM   #641
Norseman
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Norway
Posts: 643
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Thanks Chris, I'll look it up. I am sure it will be instructive. However I asked Zig about demolitions of long span, not 'natural collapses'.
I have already looked it up, so I can just as well post the link for anyone interested.

NIST Releases Final Report on Charleston Sofa Store Fire:
http://www.nist.gov/el/fire_research...charleston.cfm
Norseman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2015, 06:29 PM   #642
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,450
Originally Posted by Ziggi View Post
Oystein, take a chillpill. This refers to the ONE gash at the south west corner, and NIST literally drew a picture of it, which you can see for yourself as figure 12-33. There is just ONE gash at the corner, and it extends slightly into the west face, and into the south face, the descriptions of which may have confused you into thinking there were two seperate gashes. The 2004 report did say there was another truly huge gash that scooped out 25% of the middle of the south face, but that non sense story had been abandoned in the final report.
P.152:
There is insufficient information in the image to identify the exact horizontal location of the damage on the face. However, it is likely that the damage area is a downward extension of the opening visible in Figure 5-47 and Figure 5-49 to the immediate left of Column 20. If this is correct, the opening in this area extends from at least the 5th floor to the 15th floor.
NIST does not deny reality.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2015, 06:33 PM   #643
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,450
Originally Posted by Ziggi View Post
And as for all your noise about a gash and fire spreading between floors, why not answer
Quote:
NIST documented the south west gash and still did not think the fire could spread between floors. You think NIST came to that conclusion for no reason at all?
I've been looking for a reference that NIST did not think the fire could spread between floors, but I couldn't find anything. All I have found so far is this:
Closer inspection of Figure 5-118 reveals that three windows appear to be open on the 13th floor. The glass in window 13-31 is missing, while there appears to be fire visible in windows 13-33 and 13-34. These are the first indications that a fire may be growing on the east side of the 13th floor, in addition to those evident on the 11th and 12th floors. Since windows 13-28A to 13-30 seem to be intact, it is possible that these fires spread in the interior from fires on the south side of the building or that the window breakage and fire ignitions on the 13th floor were due to heat transfer from flames extending upward from open windows on the 12th floor.
(pp.201-202)
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2015, 06:38 PM   #644
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,450
Regarding Tony's arson claim, I've also found this:
Subsequent to the collapse of WTC 2, numerous fires were reported to the south and southwest of the WTC site. There is some ambiguity as to ignition sources, since some of these fires could have been ignited by burning materials released when WTC 1 collapsed 29 min later. Large fires grew in the ruins of WTC 3 (Marriott Hotel), which was adjacent to both WTC 1 and WTC 2. (See Figure 5-2.) WTC 4 was heavily damaged by debris from WTC 2, and the remaining structure subsequently burned. Fires also grew on multiple floors in buildings located one block south of WTC 2 at 90 West Street and 130 Cedar Lane. Fires apparently did not develop in the Bankers Trust Building located just to the east at 130 Liberty Street. Fires were reported at an apartment house located to the southwest of the WTC site on the corner of Liberty Street and South End Avenue. Numerous vehicles parked along West Street to the south of the WTC site were consumed by fire. The locations of all of these fires seem to be related to the locations of active fires in WTC 2 at the time of its collapse.
(P.194)
The arsonist must have been really busy lighting all these fires to cover up the fact that the gypsum dust would smother the burning debris on its way down.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2015, 06:45 PM   #645
Norseman
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Norway
Posts: 643
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
I've been looking for a reference that NIST did not think the fire could spread between floors, but I couldn't find anything. All I have found so far is this:
Closer inspection of Figure 5-118 reveals that three windows appear to be open on the 13th floor. The glass in window 13-31 is missing, while there appears to be fire visible in windows 13-33 and 13-34. These are the first indications that a fire may be growing on the east side of the 13th floor, in addition to those evident on the 11th and 12th floors. Since windows 13-28A to 13-30 seem to be intact, it is possible that these fires spread in the interior from fires on the south side of the building or that the window breakage and fire ignitions on the 13th floor were due to heat transfer from flames extending upward from open windows on the 12th floor.
(pp.201-202)
In addition on page 365 NIST NCSTAR 1-9:
Quote:
The fires on the 11th, 12th, and 13th floors were all first observed between 2:08 p.m. and 2:30 p.m. near the southeast corner of WTC 7. Thus, it is conceivable that a single fire started on the 11th floor following the collapse of WTC 1 and that the fire had spread to the 12th and 13th floors by the time the fires emerged from the dust-blocked south side of the building.

Last edited by Norseman; 30th March 2015 at 06:47 PM.
Norseman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2015, 06:58 PM   #646
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,594
Invisible arsonists, selective gypsum dust, similarly invisible demolitionists, exotic thermite...

I have to think William of Occam is turning over in his grave about now, except that I'm sure someone would accuse the corpse of being a vicsim.
JayUtah is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2015, 07:41 PM   #647
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
The evidence seems overwhelming that NIST thinks there were big gashes, that fires may well have spread from floor to floor, and that they started from fires in the collapsing Tower. Add to the NIST Report the firefighters' testimony of seeing flames before noon. The arsonists seem to be unnecessary to create fires in Building 7. Now we have to figure out how the pre-arranged thermate detonators could have been controlled in the face of NIST's claim of debris from the collapsing Tower going all the way into the core area of Building 7 on several floors. It seems impossible to me.
I know Tony and Ziggi consider it impossible that the asymmetrical interior collapse could have been followed by a symmetrical perimeter collapse. I guess the one thing we have in common is incredulity. But coming back to the question I started dealing with, maybe I'm not really qualified to understand why an asymmetrical interior collapse HAS to create an asymmetrical perimeter wall collapse, and also why six seconds of so of hanging up there with no lateral support from the interior is so impossible? Especially because there was at least some lateral support from the two perimeter walls perpendicular to it. At least it wasn't completely standalone...
__________________
20 videos rebutting Blueprint for Truth YouTube keyword chrismohr911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ
Playlists http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
and http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
WTC Dust study http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911...12webHiRes.pdf Hundreds more links and info both sides: http:www.chrismohr911.com
chrismohr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2015, 07:50 PM   #648
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
The evidence seems overwhelming that NIST thinks there were big gashes, that fires may well have spread from floor to floor, and that they started from fires in the collapsing Tower. Add to the NIST Report the firefighters' testimony of seeing flames before noon. The arsonists seem to be unnecessary to create fires in Building 7. Now we have to figure out how the pre-arranged thermate detonators could have been controlled in the face of NIST's claim of debris from the collapsing Tower going all the way into the core area of Building 7 on several floors. It seems impossible to me.
I know Tony and Ziggi consider it impossible that the asymmetrical interior collapse could have been followed by a symmetrical perimeter collapse. I guess the one thing we have in common is incredulity. But coming back to the question I started dealing with, maybe I'm not really qualified to understand why an asymmetrical interior collapse HAS to create an asymmetrical perimeter wall collapse, and also why six seconds of so of hanging up there with no lateral support from the interior is so impossible? Especially because there was at least some lateral support from the two perimeter walls perpendicular to it. At least it wasn't completely standalone...
Who cares about NIST?
They're not needed to understand the collapse for the layman. Common sense is plenty.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2015, 07:58 PM   #649
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,500
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
Who cares about NIST?
They're not needed to understand the collapse for the layman. Common sense is plenty.
Not only the layman Noah.

There are two distinct and separate issues viz:
1) Understand and explain how WTC 7 collapsed; Versus
2) Did NIST get the explanation right.

NIST is irrelevant to defining the mechanism. The collapse occurred 9/11 2001. The facts written in history on that date. Nothing written later by NIST can change history whether NIST is right or wrong.

If NIST wrote "Santa's Custard caused the WTC collapses" it would not be true. Nor would it result in 9/11 2001 history being rewritten to make use of Custard.

That is the constant idiotic implication of truther claims. The idea that somehow what happened in history depends on what NIST wrote years later.

Stated as bluntly as I just did may get outraged truther denials. But that is the essential false claim they are implying with much of this NIST picking.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2015, 08:00 PM   #650
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,500
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Invisible arsonists, selective gypsum dust, similarly invisible demolitionists, exotic thermite...

I have to think William of Occam is turning over in his grave about now, except that I'm sure someone would accuse the corpse of being a vicsim.
Given the work out that truthers give him he could probably use a rotisserie.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2015, 08:51 PM   #651
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,835
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
P.152:
There is insufficient information in the image to identify the exact horizontal location of the damage on the face. However, it is likely that the damage area is a downward extension of the opening visible in Figure 5-47 and Figure 5-49 to the immediate left of Column 20. If this is correct, the opening in this area extends from at least the 5th floor to the 15th floor.
NIST does not deny reality.
It acknowledges reality in vertical fgire spread, damage to the south face of WTC7, and in the "highly likely" ignition sources for the fires in WTC7 and elsewhere being burning debris from the towers.

For some incredible reason Ziggi denies all of this going as far as to quote NIST on that last point and claim they are saying the opposite. The rational mind reels. Then we get Tony's proclamation that dust settles and extiguishes burning material in a sec or so and therefore arson spooks to add to demolition spooks, and aircraft debris spooks, for more mind reeling nonsense.

ETA: " covert agent = spook " a term used by the CiT re: Pentagon lamp pole downing.

Last edited by jaydeehess; 30th March 2015 at 08:55 PM.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2015, 08:54 PM   #652
Grizzly Bear
このマスクによっ
 
Grizzly Bear's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,793
Originally Posted by Ziggi View Post
Oystein, take a chillpill. This refers to the ONE gash at the south west corner, and NIST literally drew a picture of it, which you can see for yourself as figure 12-33. There is just ONE gash at the corner, and it extends slightly into the west face, and into the south face, the descriptions of which may have confused you into thinking there were two seperate gashes. The 2004 report did say there was another truly huge gash that scooped out 25% of the middle of the south face, but that non sense story had been abandoned in the final report.
Or all that smoke that wasn't coming from WTC 7 but instead from 5 & 6 - oh wait.,....
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
__________________
Grizzly Bear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2015, 08:57 PM   #653
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,835
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Given the work out that truthers give him he could probably use a rotisserie.
That's the source of the rumbling sound I've been hearing since shortly after 9/11/01
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2015, 11:11 PM   #654
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,653
Originally Posted by Norseman View Post
In addition on page 365 NIST NCSTAR 1-9:
Yes, on one hand, floor-to-floor spread was conceivable, on the other hand, on page 341 they write "in WTC 7 there was no evidence of floor-to-floor fire spread in the photographic and videographic records".

On yet another hand: "Initially, the Investigation Team hypothesized that it was unlikely that fires, once ignited on a given floor but prior to the initiation of the total building collapse, would have spread to an adjacent floor once they had moved past the gash in the south face." Sounds like they except the gash from that unlikelihood.

Be it as it may: The gash was there, and would have provided plausible means for a) larger amounts of fiery debris to conveniently enter coming from WTC1 and b) floor-to-floor spread of fires. Both real-world factors that Tony and posse deny when they declare certain "impossibilities"
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2015, 07:18 AM   #655
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,842
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
You are almost certainly correct that weld strength is a central technical point. But one of them not the only one.

HOWEVER

There are two main reasons why I would caution challenging Tony. One technical the other debating pragmatics.

Main reason #1
For the technical issue I went and read some of the 2007 debate with D Benson which focussed on weld strength as one issue. That debate was set in the climate of understanding which prevailed in 2007. It was not specific to WTC7 but more relevant to this current situation is that it does not reflect the simplicity and clarity of understanding of the Twin Towers collapse mechanisms which we would have today.

Clarity in separation of "initiation" stage from "progression" stage. Column axial overload in compression was the key factor in "initiation" - not weld strength and not something that any of us would have stated simply and explicitly in 2007.

Weld strength was an issue which was possibly central to "progression". Put simply the progression stage was a combination of three mechanisms. The leading one best IMO described as ROOSD. That failure was dominated by joist to column connection failures. Just as you identified - with weld failure a possibility. But simple gusset plate shearing also on the cards. And it doesn't matter what the detail was. So if you argue one aspect with Tony the stage is set for him to shift goalposts to other aspects if he will even engage in reasoned discussion.

The Benson 2007 comments on "core strip down" were also heading in the right direction. Despite the 2007 lack of clarity of the overall mechanism.

Main reason #2
Debating pragmatics. Do you want to face pseudo engineering gobbledegook? And do you anticipate even getting reasoned discussion? Would you even get a response to a challenge? History says the BETTER the challenge the less likely you would get a response.
Yes but since ductibility has no relationship to weld strength or to energy transmitted to cause connection failure at 5100ms, I thought Tony's obviously flawed
Argument might give me an edge as the dumb layman in the debate.

Crazy Chainsaw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2015, 07:55 AM   #656
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,594
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
I'm not really qualified to understand why an asymmetrical interior collapse HAS to create an asymmetrical perimeter wall collapse...
It has do to with how one visualizes the structural behavior of perimeter. You can do it in any of several ways, and each way sets up a different expectation for how the building collapse should look.

Imagine one of those lightweight plastic structural grids like you often see as part of trade-show booths. Now imagine a large sheet of paper attached to the front of a fairly broad expanse of it. Think of the paper attached by little rolled up loops of tape joining the paper to the grid at various points, just enough to hold it up and keep it flat.

Now go in and judiciously cut enough of the plastic grid pieces so that half the structure supporting your facade collapses while the other half stays standing. What happens to the paper? You might be able to imagine several things. The paper might tear, in which case the portion that was connected to the failed structure will fall with it, leaving the other part still attached to the still-standing structure. Or the failing structure might pull the whole sheet of paper away, severing the connections between the paper and the still-standing structure. Or at the opposite extreme, the failing structure may tear its little tape wads away, leaving the paper intact, still stuck eccentrically to the surviving structure, and roughly in its previous shape, if otherwise crinkled and now waving in the breeze.

The Truther proposition seems to be a scenario along the lines of the first two, where the perimeter should fail in a way that reveals any asymmetric nature of interior failure. The debunker proposition is more like the latter, where the perimeter stays intact but deformed and poorly supported. To understand how those can legitimately differ, imagine the thickness of the paper in the scenario varying between tissue paper and cardstock. Those are kinds of paper that would have different mechanical properties in this toy example. The tissue paper would be less likely to stay in place and more likely to follow the falling plastic grid. The cardstock would be more apt to hold its shape and stay in place even if much of the structure behind it had failed.

So I think it may be fair to say that the expectations regarding the perimeter wall vary according to how people intuitively envision the specific strength of the wall itself.
JayUtah is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2015, 08:42 AM   #657
Animal
Master Poster
 
Animal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 2,094
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
It has do to with how one visualizes the structural behavior of perimeter. You can do it in any of several ways, and each way sets up a different expectation for how the building collapse should look.

Imagine one of those lightweight plastic structural grids like you often see as part of trade-show booths. Now imagine a large sheet of paper attached to the front of a fairly broad expanse of it. Think of the paper attached by little rolled up loops of tape joining the paper to the grid at various points, just enough to hold it up and keep it flat.

Now go in and judiciously cut enough of the plastic grid pieces so that half the structure supporting your facade collapses while the other half stays standing. What happens to the paper? You might be able to imagine several things. The paper might tear, in which case the portion that was connected to the failed structure will fall with it, leaving the other part still attached to the still-standing structure. Or the failing structure might pull the whole sheet of paper away, severing the connections between the paper and the still-standing structure. Or at the opposite extreme, the failing structure may tear its little tape wads away, leaving the paper intact, still stuck eccentrically to the surviving structure, and roughly in its previous shape, if otherwise crinkled and now waving in the breeze.

The Truther proposition seems to be a scenario along the lines of the first two, where the perimeter should fail in a way that reveals any asymmetric nature of interior failure. The debunker proposition is more like the latter, where the perimeter stays intact but deformed and poorly supported. To understand how those can legitimately differ, imagine the thickness of the paper in the scenario varying between tissue paper and cardstock. Those are kinds of paper that would have different mechanical properties in this toy example. The tissue paper would be less likely to stay in place and more likely to follow the falling plastic grid. The cardstock would be more apt to hold its shape and stay in place even if much of the structure behind it had failed.

So I think it may be fair to say that the expectations regarding the perimeter wall vary according to how people intuitively envision the specific strength of the wall itself.
Five pages of posts from now, TZ, Z, and /or GC will question your credibility because you said the WTC was constructed from plastic tubing and paper.


Repeat after me....Troofers do not understand similes.
Animal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2015, 08:55 AM   #658
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,594
Originally Posted by Animal View Post
Repeat after me....Troofers do not understand similes.
They don't seem to understand the real thing either, so I'm not concerned. The post was intended mostly for Chris, of course, and not especially partisan. Sometimes the most helpful thing you can do in a debate is help one person understand why another person might believe something, even if you yourself disagree with the beliefs and reasons.
JayUtah is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2015, 09:36 AM   #659
Ziggi
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 374
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
The evidence seems overwhelming that NIST thinks there were big gashes, that fires may well have spread from floor to floor, and that they started from fires in the collapsing Tower....
Chris, it may seem so if you have been paying attention to the non-sense from your forum buddies, but you are certainly not citing NIST, which said there was one big gash in the south west corner section, that there was no evidence that the collapse started fires or that the fires moved floor to floor.

Did you read my previous comment which caught pgimenoīs deceptive out of context quote which made it look like NIST agreed with him that there was evidence for the debris starting fires inside the building and that floor 10 caught fire?

Last edited by Ziggi; 31st March 2015 at 09:51 AM.
Ziggi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2015, 10:08 AM   #660
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,653
Originally Posted by Ziggi View Post
...you are certainly not citing NIST, which said ... that there was no evidence that the collapse started fires or that the fires moved floor to floor.

Did you read my previous comment which caught pgimenoīs deceptive out of context quote which made it look like NIST agreed with him that there was evidence for the debris starting fires inside the building ...
LOL

A classic shot in the foot!
From your own link:
Originally Posted by Ziggi quoting NIST
it is possible that potential ignition sources entered WTC 7 through openings created in the south and west faces of the building during the collapses of the towers. ... the available data suggests that this was highly likely.
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2015, 10:14 AM   #661
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 25,240
Originally Posted by Ziggi View Post
Chris, it may seem so if you have been paying attention to the non-sense from your forum buddies, but you are certainly not citing NIST, which said there was one big gash in the south west corner section,
No, they really didn't. They also mentioned and mapped this one, but your stubborn refusal to view or comment on many previous postings of the same image makes me wonder about your motives here -

__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2015, 10:20 AM   #662
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,263
Originally Posted by Ziggi View Post
... are certainly not citing NIST,...
The obsession with NIST is not going to make the idiotic CD fantasy come true.

Where is the evidence for you theory? Where is the magical store to buy silent explosives which don't cook off in fire? Who is dumb enough to set explosives and murder thousands in your fantasy world of evil doers? In your scenario which you can't and refuse to explain, how does the CD of WTC 7 dove tail with the actions of 19 terrorists who really did 911? How can you fit 19 terrorists who did 911 into your fantasy CD of WTC which you can't explain past bashing NIST and Chris. Why are you attacking Chris when you can't explain one aspect of your fantasy CD BS scenario? The Chris and NIST obsession only makes your CD fantasy dumber.

How much explosives in pounds did you CD fantasy use? Who are the suspects, and why did they make it look like CD? Are you stuck on NIST? A true BASHNISTIAN. At least you have the super support, some engineers signed a petition for Gage pushes, at less than 0.1 percent of all engineers. Guess you failed to check with engineers outside of the fantasy world of 911 truth, and learn there is no support for your CD theory.

Did you survey thousands of engineers outside of 911 truth? No, you fell for nonsense spread on the Internet, where everything has to be right. Out of the hundreds of engineers I went to school with, I can't find one who supports 911 truth lies of CD, and some inside job you can't define.

What is your theory, please stop playing the Chris card, and bashing NIST. Present your evidence. Darn, that ends your presentation, you have nothing to present.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2015, 10:32 AM   #663
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
7 collapse

Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
It has do to with how one visualizes the structural behavior of perimeter. You can do it in any of several ways, and each way sets up a different expectation for how the building collapse should look.

Imagine one of those lightweight plastic structural grids like you often see as part of trade-show booths. Now imagine a large sheet of paper attached to the front of a fairly broad expanse of it. Think of the paper attached by little rolled up loops of tape joining the paper to the grid at various points, just enough to hold it up and keep it flat.

Now go in and judiciously cut enough of the plastic grid pieces so that half the structure supporting your facade collapses while the other half stays standing. What happens to the paper? You might be able to imagine several things. The paper might tear, in which case the portion that was connected to the failed structure will fall with it, leaving the other part still attached to the still-standing structure. Or the failing structure might pull the whole sheet of paper away, severing the connections between the paper and the still-standing structure. Or at the opposite extreme, the failing structure may tear its little tape wads away, leaving the paper intact, still stuck eccentrically to the surviving structure, and roughly in its previous shape, if otherwise crinkled and now waving in the breeze.

The Truther proposition seems to be a scenario along the lines of the first two, where the perimeter should fail in a way that reveals any asymmetric nature of interior failure. The debunker proposition is more like the latter, where the perimeter stays intact but deformed and poorly supported. To understand how those can legitimately differ, imagine the thickness of the paper in the scenario varying between tissue paper and cardstock. Those are kinds of paper that would have different mechanical properties in this toy example. The tissue paper would be less likely to stay in place and more likely to follow the falling plastic grid. The cardstock would be more apt to hold its shape and stay in place even if much of the structure behind it had failed.

So I think it may be fair to say that the expectations regarding the perimeter wall vary according to how people intuitively envision the specific strength of the wall itself.
Really Ziggi, I've given up on even exploring further the ideas that 1) Building 7 fires could NOT have been caused by the collapse of the Tower and 2) fires could NOT have spread from floor to floor via the gash. It makes no sense at all, based on both common sense and the excerpts from the NIST Report that are flying at you.

I do want to look further into the issue of the perimeter wall collapsing pretty much as a unit. I've attached a diagram of what was supposedly going on inside the building. With this kind of chaos, I would think that Jay Utah's explanation is inadequate. For a 47-story unit to hold up for even six seconds with all these supports cascading away requires that the perimeter wall be a strong structural unit. And then it has to have very rapid-fire column failure. Because it is a structural unit and strongly tied together, I can see the possibility of the west side of the wall holding up the east side of the wall for a few seconds before the rapid-fire column failure begins. And I can see those failures happeningh fast at the welded connections, where the steel would be more brittle. And once the welded connections fail, the columns would slip off to the side, into open office space, and start falling really fast, with remnants of the interior still yanking them down maybe even fasster. The paper/cardboard analogy doesn't work for me because I think the perimeter wall MUST have had some real structural strength. But the way the analogy CAN work is to imagine that the paper or cardboard from the west side could briefly hold up the unsupported east side for at least awhile. Thoughts?
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 911 building 7 collapse 3.jpg (117.6 KB, 3 views)
__________________
20 videos rebutting Blueprint for Truth YouTube keyword chrismohr911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ
Playlists http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
and http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
WTC Dust study http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911...12webHiRes.pdf Hundreds more links and info both sides: http:www.chrismohr911.com

Last edited by chrismohr; 31st March 2015 at 10:36 AM. Reason: spelchek
chrismohr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2015, 10:37 AM   #664
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,594
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
The paper/cardboard analogy doesn't work for me because I think the perimeter wall MUST have had some real structural strength.
The proposition that the perimeter wall had some strength of its own is the essence of the analogy, so you got the idea I intended even if it was via a different route.
JayUtah is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2015, 10:56 AM   #665
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,653
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
...I've attached a diagram of what was supposedly going on inside the building. With this kind of chaos, I would think that Jay Utah's explanation is inadequate. For a 47-story unit to hold up for even six seconds with all these supports cascading away requires that the perimeter wall be a strong structural unit. ...
A nitpick: I think the figure you attached (Fig 2-2 of NCSTAR 1A, page 22) is a bit too early to demonstrate the problem. At this time, col 79 has only just begun to buckle as a result of floors 13 down to 6 collapsing. At that point in time, floors 14 and up are largely intact and served to brace the east perimeter.

This Fig. 2-2 appears to be the same as Fig 12-43 in NCSTAR 1-9, which has a note "Snapshot at -0.5 (15.5) s"; which I think means half a second before NIST's t0 of global collapse (descent of EPH?). A second later, at +0.5 s (Fig 12-48), the floors above 14 are coming undone as 79 descends. At 1.5 s they are shown entirely detached.

Fig. 12-67 and 12-68 on pages 592f, although pertaining to the collapse model without debris impact damage, illustrate nicely how the entire east core disintegrates. They don't show perimeter and floors, but I think it's an easy step to imagine the "hollow shell" that was the east side after t=0.5 s.
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2015, 11:53 AM   #666
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,835
Quote:
NIST found no evidence of the pathway the fire took to reach the north face, nor when it arrived at this face
Paraphrase from the bottom of page 244. Sorry if its not verbatim, my tablet won't allow copy/paste from the PDF nor can I view two windows at once.

Point is that Ziggi et al have been trying to tell us that when NIST says it found no evidence that it means they are saying it did not occur. This sentence illustrates the true contextual meaning. NIST is obviously not saying there was no path for 11th floor flames to reach the north face, nor is it saying that the fire did not reach the north face. It is describing to gap in information and nothing more.

When NIST says it found no evidence that burning debris from WTC1 started the fires in the streets or WTC7, it is not it claiming it did not happen. It is instead saying no direct imagery could be found to positively identify that mechanism. The report DOES go on to state that it is "highly likely" that is the cause of the fires. There was no video in which a burning piece of debris is observed to land inside WTC7 and ignite materials there. Unsurprising since cameras were largely trained on the towers themselves, as they collapsed.

Of course reading comprehension on this matter seems to be a big problem for some truthers.

Last edited by jaydeehess; 31st March 2015 at 12:02 PM.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2015, 06:13 PM   #667
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,842
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
Really Ziggi, I've given up on even exploring further the ideas that 1) Building 7 fires could NOT have been caused by the collapse of the Tower and 2) fires could NOT have spread from floor to floor via the gash. It makes no sense at all, based on both common sense and the excerpts from the NIST Report that are flying at you.

I do want to look further into the issue of the perimeter wall collapsing pretty much as a unit. I've attached a diagram of what was supposedly going on inside the building. With this kind of chaos, I would think that Jay Utah's explanation is inadequate. For a 47-story unit to hold up for even six seconds with all these supports cascading away requires that the perimeter wall be a strong structural unit. And then it has to have very rapid-fire column failure. Because it is a structural unit and strongly tied together, I can see the possibility of the west side of the wall holding up the east side of the wall for a few seconds before the rapid-fire column failure begins. And I can see those failures happeningh fast at the welded connections, where the steel would be more brittle. And once the welded connections fail, the columns would slip off to the side, into open office space, and start falling really fast, with remnants of the interior still yanking them down maybe even fasster. The paper/cardboard analogy doesn't work for me because I think the perimeter wall MUST have had some real structural strength. But the way the analogy CAN work is to imagine that the paper or cardboard from the west side could briefly hold up the unsupported east side for at least awhile. Thoughts?
Chris, here is a small passage on weld failure.

"When a member develops a cross sectional fracture other than that associated with the
whole tensile cross section, the member is said to fail by “block shear” or “patterned tear
out.” These failures generally precipitate as a combination of shearing and tensile ruptures
that are usually initiated in tension; this failure can have a strong interaction with eccentric
effects. This mode is important because as the length of a connection increases there is a
transition to the “shear lag” mode. When a member fails through the net tensile area, at less
than the full section tensile strength, it is generally the result of “shear lag;” the member
geometry could not develop the full tensile ultimate strength and has suffered a shear lag
reduction. “Shear lag” will also interact with eccentricity if it is large."

S7-3-Humphries.PDF.

Last edited by Crazy Chainsaw; 31st March 2015 at 06:18 PM. Reason: add citation.
Crazy Chainsaw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2015, 06:21 PM   #668
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
Chris, here is a small passage on weld failure.

"When a member develops a cross sectional fracture other than that associated with the
whole tensile cross section, the member is said to fail by “block shear” or “patterned tear
out.” These failures generally precipitate as a combination of shearing and tensile ruptures
that are usually initiated in tension; this failure can have a strong interaction with eccentric
effects. This mode is important because as the length of a connection increases there is a
transition to the “shear lag” mode. When a member fails through the net tensile area, at less
than the full section tensile strength, it is generally the result of “shear lag;” the member
geometry could not develop the full tensile ultimate strength and has suffered a shear lag
reduction. “Shear lag” will also interact with eccentricity if it is large."

S7-3-Humphries.PDF.
Thanks C Chainsaw,
Do you anything about the speed with which progressive failure of columns can happen in this scenario, and if there is any evidence from the debris that this is how the failure occurred? If I recall, all NIST said was that the failures occurred at the welded connections. The speed of the progressive column failures is important, because if "Shear lag" refers to a "lag time," there ain't much of that in Building 7's collapse at all.
__________________
20 videos rebutting Blueprint for Truth YouTube keyword chrismohr911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ
Playlists http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
and http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
WTC Dust study http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911...12webHiRes.pdf Hundreds more links and info both sides: http:www.chrismohr911.com
chrismohr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2015, 06:50 PM   #669
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,842
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
Thanks C Chainsaw,
Do you anything about the speed with which progressive failure of columns can happen in this scenario, and if there is any evidence from the debris that this is how the failure occurred? If I recall, all NIST said was that the failures occurred at the welded connections. The speed of the progressive column failures is important, because if "Shear lag" refers to a "lag time," there ain't much of that in Building 7's collapse at all.
Shear lag can occur at 5100 meters per second, it refers to failure that is faster than tensile strength bending.
The speed and energy must occur faster than the metal crystals can deform, bend in tension. Tension deformation steel crystal realinement is a time dependant phenomenon.
If the shock is fast enough the metal does not have time for it's structure to reform streach
In tension so the crystals shear.

Tony had the argument, backwards!

Shear Lag and weld embrittlement are undoubtedly the main failure modes, as I pointed
out to Dr. Benson in 2008 after searching every available picture of the steel, and
experimentally inducing it on a welded specimen in my back yard.

Last edited by Crazy Chainsaw; 31st March 2015 at 06:57 PM. Reason: add last sentence.
Crazy Chainsaw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2015, 07:19 PM   #670
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,931
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
Really Ziggi, I've given up on even exploring further the ideas that 1) Building 7 fires could NOT have been caused by the collapse of the Tower and 2) fires could NOT have spread from floor to floor via the gash. It makes no sense at all, based on both common sense and the excerpts from the NIST Report that are flying at you.

I do want to look further into the issue of the perimeter wall collapsing pretty much as a unit. I've attached a diagram of what was supposedly going on inside the building. With this kind of chaos, I would think that Jay Utah's explanation is inadequate. For a 47-story unit to hold up for even six seconds with all these supports cascading away requires that the perimeter wall be a strong structural unit. And then it has to have very rapid-fire column failure. Because it is a structural unit and strongly tied together, I can see the possibility of the west side of the wall holding up the east side of the wall for a few seconds before the rapid-fire column failure begins. And I can see those failures happeningh fast at the welded connections, where the steel would be more brittle. And once the welded connections fail, the columns would slip off to the side, into open office space, and start falling really fast, with remnants of the interior still yanking them down maybe even fasster. The paper/cardboard analogy doesn't work for me because I think the perimeter wall MUST have had some real structural strength. But the way the analogy CAN work is to imagine that the paper or cardboard from the west side could briefly hold up the unsupported east side for at least awhile. Thoughts?
Chris,
NB how few columns going axially (vertically) directly beneath the 4 sides of the trapazoidal frame which was from floor 8 to flr 47.

north curtain wall/moment frame - 5 columns
east curtain wall/moment frame - 4 columns
south curtain wall/moment frame - 10 columns (unbraced for 6 stories)
east curtain wall/moment frame - 5 columns

There were 57 columns in the perimeter above floor 8 and only 26 below floor 8

Both the east and west were braced frames below floor 8... and likely folded inward as not columns but the entire braced frame which included the columns

The entire building was surrounded by a 2 story belt truss at the perimeter from floors 5-7 functioning as a sort of rigid based the the frame above

Essentially the support below the perimeter braced frame failed almost at once and the 4 sides came down together.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf wtc columns.pdf (83.4 KB, 2 views)

Last edited by JSanderO; 31st March 2015 at 07:30 PM.
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2015, 07:35 PM   #671
Ziggi
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 374
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
Really Ziggi, I've given up on even exploring further the ideas that 1) Building 7 fires could NOT have been caused by the collapse of the Tower and 2) fires could NOT have spread from floor to floor via the gash. It makes no sense at all, based on both common sense and the excerpts from the NIST Report that are flying at you.
Well Chris, the important thing to remember is that NIST admits it found no evidence that burning debris from the Towers started fires in WTC7, or that fires spread from floor to floor. You are free to look into the data yourself and come to a different conclusion, but when you do that you have to make sure to clearly note that your conclusion is not NISTs conclusion because it found no evidence to support it. You have a BIG problem because several of your forum buddies like to conflate their own opinions with NISTs report, giving the false idea that NIST supports what they are saying, and then you trust them and make their opinions your own.


Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
..I do want to look further into the issue of the perimeter wall collapsing pretty much as a unit. I've attached a diagram of what was supposedly going on inside the building. With this kind of chaos, I would think that Jay Utah's explanation is inadequate. For a 47-story unit to hold up for even six seconds with all these supports cascading away requires that the perimeter wall be a strong structural unit. And then it has to have very rapid-fire column failure. Because it is a structural unit and strongly tied together, I can see the possibility of the west side of the wall holding up the east side of the wall for a few seconds before the rapid-fire column failure begins. And I can see those failures happeningh fast at the welded connections, where the steel would be more brittle. And once the welded connections fail, the columns would slip off to the side, into open office space, and start falling really fast, with remnants of the interior still yanking them down maybe even fasster. The paper/cardboard analogy doesn't work for me because I think the perimeter wall MUST have had some real structural strength. But the way the analogy CAN work is to imagine that the paper or cardboard from the west side could briefly hold up the unsupported east side for at least awhile. Thoughts?
I looks to me that you are imagining the 4 corners supporting each other with rigid perimeter frame "walls" between them. The problem is not the corners, but the 47 story high walls, which are way too tall and wide to remain rigid without support from the core. Once the floors/girder assemblies outside the core start to fail, the perimeter exterior frame starts to sag inward, and this is exactly what NISTs computer model shows, meaning it fails to support the notion that the perimeter could remain rigid while the interior collapses.

NISTs model also fails to show the free fall collapse, and NIST was on record saying free fall would be impossible, before Chandler proved it.

In the end the problem is that NISTs work did not explain the observed phenomena of the collapse, such as the symmetric free fall, which is what it was supposed to do. NIST failed big time.

Donīt you think it would be more fitting to ask for a real independent scientific investigation to find out what really happened, rather than laymen and anonymous forum posters making up imagined stories of what could have happended?
Ziggi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2015, 07:47 PM   #672
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,842
Talking

Originally Posted by Ziggi View Post
Well Chris, the important thing to remember is that NIST admits it found no evidence that burning debris from the Towers started fires in WTC7, or that fires spread from floor to floor. You are free to look into the data yourself and come to a different conclusion, but when you do that you have to make sure to clearly note that your conclusion is not NISTs conclusion because it found no evidence to support it. You have a BIG problem because several of your forum buddies like to conflate their own opinions with NISTs report, giving the false idea that NIST supports what they are saying, and then you trust them and make their opinions your own.




I looks to me that you are imagining the 4 corners supporting each other with rigid perimeter frame "walls" between them. The problem is not the corners, but the 47 story high walls, which are way too tall and wide to remain rigid without support from the core. Once the floors/girder assemblies outside the core start to fail, the perimeter exterior frame starts to sag inward, and this is exactly what NISTs computer model shows, meaning it fails to support the notion that the perimeter could remain rigid while the interior collapses.

NISTs model also fails to show the free fall collapse, and NIST was on record saying free fall would be impossible, before Chandler proved it.

In the end the problem is that NISTs work did not explain the observed phenomena of the collapse, such as the symmetric free fall, which is what it was supposed to do. NIST failed big time.

Donīt you think it would be more fitting to ask for a real independent scientific investigation to find out what really happened, rather than laymen and anonymous forum posters making up imagined stories of what could have happended?
I am not anonymous to Chris and seeing you and Tony had the weld shear argument totally
backwards, asking for an investigation of known engineering, is fool hardy.

If you wish to continue your CD. Fantasy, you simply have to debunk rapid weld and connection failure.
Crazy Chainsaw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2015, 08:02 PM   #673
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,500
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
...If you wish to continue your CD. Fantasy, you simply have to debunk rapid weld and connection failure.
Not quite. You are being too generous.

He (they) have to prove CD.

They cannot do that which is why we see them encouraging all this circling discussion of details.

Last edited by ozeco41; 31st March 2015 at 08:12 PM.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2015, 08:13 PM   #674
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Originally Posted by Ziggi View Post
Well Chris, the important thing to remember is that NIST admits it found no evidence that burning debris from the Towers started fires in WTC7, or that fires spread from floor to floor. You are free to look into the data yourself and come to a different conclusion, but when you do that you have to make sure to clearly note that your conclusion is not NISTs conclusion because it found no evidence to support it. You have a BIG problem because several of your forum buddies like to conflate their own opinions with NISTs report, giving the false idea that NIST supports what they are saying, and then you trust them and make their opinions your own.




I looks to me that you are imagining the 4 corners supporting each other with rigid perimeter frame "walls" between them. The problem is not the corners, but the 47 story high walls, which are way too tall and wide to remain rigid without support from the core. Once the floors/girder assemblies outside the core start to fail, the perimeter exterior frame starts to sag inward, and this is exactly what NISTs computer model shows, meaning it fails to support the notion that the perimeter could remain rigid while the interior collapses.

NISTs model also fails to show the free fall collapse, and NIST was on record saying free fall would be impossible, before Chandler proved it.

In the end the problem is that NISTs work did not explain the observed phenomena of the collapse, such as the symmetric free fall, which is what it was supposed to do. NIST failed big time.

Donīt you think it would be more fitting to ask for a real independent scientific investigation to find out what really happened, rather than laymen and anonymous forum posters making up imagined stories of what could have happended?
Anonymous Ziggi,
NIST did say "it is possible that potential ignition sources entered WTC 7 through openings created in the south and west faces of the building during the collapses of the towers. ... the available data suggests that this was highly likely." Whether fires were started by the Tower collapse or arsonists is secondary to whether the whole perimeter wall coming down as a unit is evidence of CD and simultaneous destruction of columns.
I have seen the Shyam Sunder video where he said freefall of Building 7 would be impossible, and he explains why as if he were you! When NIST's final report said that these 2.25 seconds of freefall were consistent with their prior explanations, I believe that was a mistake which explanations from JREF people were unconvincing. You're right about that, in my opinion. And BTW I asked NIST about this problem and never got a satisfactory reply.
You say, "The problem is not the corners, but the 47 story high walls, which are way too tall and wide to remain rigid without support from the core." But we have the observed phenomena of the two penthouses collapsing (we don't know for sure how far down). I hypothesized that the corners would provide a few flimsy seconds of support to help keep the perimeter wall standing for a short time.
But if you believe in CD, how do you explain that it sure looks to me like a core collapse preceded the perimeter wall collapse? Seems like there is the same problem whether it's CD or natural collapse. In your CD scenario, how does the wall remain standing even after the core has at least a partial or maybe total collapse (we can't see and assert with certainty)?
BTW from the very beginning, when I debated Richard Gage in 2011, I said I was not a defender of the NIST Report, but an advocate for natural collapse of the buildings. As just one example, JSanderO has a very different collapse scenario based on his research. I won't say that his is better or worse than NIST's, because again I am no engineer. And CTBUH had its suggestions for improvements on the NIST Report. The NIST Report doesn't have to be perfect. The bar for me for wanting a new investigation would be positive evidence of CD, such as tons of thermite in the dust, or CD devices in the debris, or melted ends of the columns, or any number of things for which no evidence has been found, in my opinion. Another bar would be even one of those investigations by Purdue, Hawaii, CTBUH, or any other major organization proclaiming that the NIST Report is fatally flawed. Not one major organization anywhere has said this! Everyone agrees with the basic collapse scenario and questions only some of the details.
__________________
20 videos rebutting Blueprint for Truth YouTube keyword chrismohr911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ
Playlists http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
and http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
WTC Dust study http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911...12webHiRes.pdf Hundreds more links and info both sides: http:www.chrismohr911.com
chrismohr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2015, 08:16 PM   #675
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,842
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Not quite.

He (they) have to prove CD.

They cannot do that which is why we see them encouraging all this circling discussion of details.
I agree, they seem to be propagating a lot of nonsense, maybe they could hire a qualified engineering professional to explain it to them.

Hopefully Tony and Ziggi will continue promoting 9/11 truth and never actually build anything, them building a high rise would scare the gadzoodles out of me.
Crazy Chainsaw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st April 2015, 12:08 AM   #676
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 29,491
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
Hopefully Tony and Ziggi will continue promoting 9/11 truth and never actually build anything, them building a high rise would scare the gadzoodles out of me.
Tony wouldn't actually build a high rise, he'd just post a load of opinions explaining why it isn't possible to build one. And Ziggi would show us all an empty plot and proudly tell everyone he'd built a high rise there.

Dave
__________________
Inspiring discussion of Sharknado is not a good sign for the audience expectations of your new high-concept SF movie sequel.

- Myriad
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st April 2015, 12:25 AM   #677
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,500
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Tony wouldn't actually build a high rise, he'd just post a load of opinions explaining why bare assertions claiming that it isn't possible to build one. And Ziggi would show us all an empty plot and proudly tell everyone he'd built a high rise there whilst gratuitously insulting everyone who knows what they are talking about and therefore disagrees with his nonsense.

Dave
FTFY Dave.

ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st April 2015, 01:53 AM   #678
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
I know Tony and Ziggi consider it impossible that the asymmetrical interior collapse could have been followed by a symmetrical perimeter collapse. I guess the one thing we have in common is incredulity. But coming back to the question I started dealing with, maybe I'm not really qualified to understand why an asymmetrical interior collapse HAS to create an asymmetrical perimeter wall collapse, and also why six seconds of so of hanging up there with no lateral support from the interior is so impossible? Especially because there was at least some lateral support from the two perimeter walls perpendicular to it. At least it wasn't completely standalone...
Chris, all one needs to do to see that what you are saying here is impossible is to look at the NIST model. The east side exterior starts to deform radically well before the west side interior has collapsed.

The 144 foot width and average 300 foot length of WTC 7 would have been too great a distance for the exterior walls to support each other without lateral support for a large number of stories.

Additionally, your notion doesn't explain no deformation while there would have been pull-in forces high in the building.

What I am saying is the complete core was dropped somewhat low in the building (probably within the non-fire floors 14 to 18, 20, 21, and 23) and it pulled the entire exterior inward at those floors, resulting in a symmetric free fall collapse of it. Unfortunately, this area of the building is not observable on video during the collapse.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 1st April 2015 at 01:59 AM.
Tony Szamboti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st April 2015, 01:55 AM   #679
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
I agree, they seem to be propagating a lot of nonsense, maybe they could hire a qualified engineering professional to explain it to them.

Hopefully Tony and Ziggi will continue promoting 9/11 truth and never actually build anything, them building a high rise would scare the gadzoodles out of me.
Given that you admit you aren't an engineer it is curious that you feel qualified to say what constitutes a qualified engineering professional.
Tony Szamboti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st April 2015, 01:57 AM   #680
Ape of Good Hope
Graduate Poster
 
Ape of Good Hope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,492
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Chris,

Tony,

Ape of Good Hope is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:07 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.