10 story hole in WTC 7 - Part II

beachnut said:
No sounds of explosives,
Click to expand...
NIST is withholding ovet 7,000 the video clips.

You cannot say for sure that there were no sounds of explosions until you have heard all the video clips.

911Truth fails to grasp the reason 911 buildings falling due to gravity
Click to expand...
Did they?

No high rise building has ever done that. There is no proof that the Trade Towers or WTC 7 were gravity collapses.

WTC 7 fell at free fall for 105 feet. The NIST computer model does not.
 
KreeL said:
It's really quite simple. The towers were called 'twins' because they were really pretty close to identical, but not quite. What if I were to tell you that the north tower was 10 times heavier than the south tower? Funk di fino would yell, "You ignant twoofer! The think da gubment is out to get you?!" (yeah, I've read some of the other threads).

Fact is, look up both obliterations of the towers on the richter scale. Are they similar? Twins even? Not hardly....
Click to expand...

Maybe I won't put you on Ignore. Your brand of wrong is so truly bizarre that it's actually funny.

The Richter magnitudes were 2.1 and 2.3 for WTC 2 and WTC 1 respectively, which are basically identical within experimental error. Richter estimates are typically +/- 0.2 or so, depending on how precisely origin and intervening rock composition is known, and depending on the number of stations contributing to an average estimate. In this case there are very few stations, but the origin is known well and the shallow propagation allows an unusually good understanding of ground response.

There are other reasons why they would not be the same -- slight differences in bedrock under the structures, for instance, or proximity to bodies of water. The collapses also involved substantially different main impulses, as WTC 2 had more "crush up" than WTC 1, so WTC 2 would experience a slightly less sharp primary event, leading to more damping. Whether or not basement support columns survived, to transmit Love waves from the falling debris, would make a substantial difference and would be basically unpredictable.

Naturally, you will ignore this, so please indulge me: WTC 1 was ten times heavier than WTC 2, you say? How? How did WTC 1 even manage to stand up under its own load? Do gravitational anomalies or levitation technology take any part in your hypothesis?

The mind reels.
 
Last edited:
2.1 is nearly identical to 2.3?

You are a physicist? Then tell all your buddies the truth for once.

What is the magnitudinal difference between 2.1 and 2.3?
 
It's within experimental error. Statistically, they are identical. I can't make it clearer than that.

Now how about you answer the questions I asked for a change? You've only been here one day, and you're already dodging frantically.
 
No. Tell them the difference. This a finite area of less than a city block. Same foundations. Same location. Tell them, mackey.
 
So you are not going to tell them, are you?

Just what I thought. You don't want to be honest about the WTC because it behooves you not to be.

Some huge section of the north tower gets blown all the way over to WTC7 and leaves a 10 story gash. Correct? Just gravity driven....all the way over there....big chunk.

Yet you won't tell the truth about the magnitudinal difference between the twin towers' obliterations.
 
I did. If you think I've got it wrong, then by all means give us your brilliant mathematical analysis.

And answer my questions, while you're at it, unless you enjoy being an obvious hypocrite.
 
You didn't tell them, and you know it. If I have to tell them, you're gonna look pretty sorry, dude.

Why don't you start by telling them what just .1 difference on the scale means. Then take a deep breath and tell them what .2 difference means in magnitude.
 
No, no, you tell us. You claim to have it all figured out. Go right ahead, I have no objection at all.
 
If you can't do the math, just say so. It's very simple, and you already "threatened" to do it. So deliver, already.
 
Christopher7 said:
NIST is withholding ovet 7,000 the video clips.

You cannot say for sure that there were no sounds of explosions until you have heard all the video clips.

Did they?

No high rise building has ever done that. There is no proof that the Trade Towers or WTC 7 were gravity collapses.

WTC 7 fell at free fall for 105 feet. The NIST computer model does not.
Click to expand...
No sounds and this is supported by witnesses. They were gravity collapses and it is easy to calculate the fall based on momentum, and it checks.

WTC7 had no thermite, and not explosives. The building burned, and burning buildings not fought can fall. Steel fails in fire.

0.001 percent of all engineers are on your side. You lost.

WTC7 did not fall at a speed of free fall; that is the big picture, you fail to get back to. There were no sounds of CD on 911 bringing down the WTC complex. You are making up excuses for the terrorists. Not very skeptical of you. Are you a no plane person too?
 
No sounds are supported by witnesses? Hmmm...let me check....ummm not according to the eyewitness testimonies from apx. 160+ firemen and first responders.

WTC7 just collapsed just like the steel tower in Beijing...or the one in Madrid...or the Pirelli Tower that had a plane completely through it and caught on fire to boot. Oh wait -- none of THEM collapsed. Try again.

WTC7 didn't fall at freefall? Where did you hear that? Better check with somebody that owns a stopwatch, dude.

Give us a break and at least admit the truth.

BTW, your resident physicist is withholding valuable information from you.
 
If you can't work out the Richter formula (:D), at least answer my questions. This "theory" that WTC 1 massed ten times that of WTC 2 is something I've never heard from anyone before, no matter how addled. Let's have it.
 
KreeL said:
No sounds are supported by witnesses? Hmmm...let me check....ummm not according to the eyewitness testimonies from apx. 160+ firemen and first responders.

WTC7 just collapsed just like the steel tower in Beijing...or the one in Madrid...or the Pirelli Tower that had a plane completely through it and caught on fire to boot. Oh wait -- none of THEM collapsed. Try again.

WTC7 didn't fall at freefall? Where did you hear that? Better check with somebody that owns a stopwatch, dude.

Give us a break and at least admit the truth.

BTW, your resident physicist is withholding valuable information from you.
Click to expand...
They said like. You need to look up simile. Standard failure of 911Truth is to take the firemen statements out of context. Some of the explosive sounds were bodies hitting the ground. You are 7 years late and presenting lies, hearsay, and fantasy debunked years ago. Explosives make loud noises and kill people with blast effects. Explosives leave blast effects on steel. No blast effects found on 911. You lack evidence here, failed.

Madrid building; please show me the Madrid building that does not exist today because it was totaled by fire. BTW, it had a concrete core which held up the weakened building which had to be taken down. Sorry, your analogy includes a building that failed in fire. This is funny and debunked years ago. One Meridian Plaza, you forgot to mention that one. Poor research yields poor results and continued support on your part of delusions from 911.


WTC7 fell at what speed? You have no idea how to calculate the speed when you say "freefall".

You need to be skeptical of 911Truth, they spread lies, hearsay and fantasy. This is a skeptic forum, not a delusion forum.
 
R.Mackey said:
If you can't work out the Richter formula (:D), at least answer my questions. This "theory" that WTC 1 massed ten times that of WTC 2 is something I've never heard from anyone before, no matter how addled. Let's have it.
Click to expand...


My guess, based on the math-avoidance going on in the "Steel" thread, is that someone read a definition of the Richter scale as being logarithmic, and is confusing the order of magnitude change between the whole number values with the fractional values. Hence, the "10 times the mass" comment.

*Shrug*
 
Last edited:
That's my guess as well, but I want to hear it from our new rising star. He did threaten to do so. I already said I had no objection. What could be keeping him?

You don't think THEY got him, do you?? :tinfoil

P.S.: To the moderators, I apologize for my last few posts. I won't contribute any further to a meltdown, if that's what he wants.
 
First collapse: Richter magnitude: 2.1 Energy released: 8.912509e+7
Joules: 89125090

Second collapse (north tower): Richter magnitude: 2.3 Energy released: 1.778279e+8 Joules: 177827900

Let's see if I am looking at this the same way our resident physicist is:

89125090 (south tower)

177827900 (north tower)

Does that add up to nearly double the magnitude?

Whew, the north tower wasn't 10 times heavier than the south tower afterall. Only twice as heavy -- silly me.
 
Beachnut, you lied when you said 'no sounds, and this is supported by witnesses'.

Now you are trying to qualify your mistake by saying 'let's don't count the 160+ guys and gals you just called me on'.

LOL -- even mackey will have to get a grin out of that!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom