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 controlled demolition , free fall , wtc7

Reply
Old 7th June 2016, 08:29 AM   #1001
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,343
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
I've been away from the forum a few days. Did TSz ever get around to explaining the hush-a-boom? Did he regurgitate MM's 'windows will muffle the sound' nonsense?
Not TSz, but MM's spokesperson:

Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Certainly the sonic dissimilarity between Hollywood feature film sound and real-world recorded sound is obvious in that controlled demolition compilation video.

Even so, the compilation video of building demolitions you linked to reveals a number of important things.

The most significant revelation from those videos is that the loudest and clearest recordings of explosions came from building demolitions where the camera’s microphone is well positioned and faces an unobstructed view of the demolition. Additionally, all those building demolitions followed safety protocols that not only reduced the danger to the building’s surroundings, but also maximized sound projection.

There are significant differences between those engineered collapses and the engineered collapse suffered by WTC7;

WTC7 was prepped to be a surprise demolition and therefore in the interest of stealth, none of the usual building safety and engineering efficiency protocols could be followed.

WTC7 did not have all of its ‘sound suppressing’ windows and doors removed.

WTC7 did not have its ‘sound absorbing’ fixtures and loosely attached interior components removed.

The north side cameras that recorded the sounds from WTC7’s collapse, had obstructed views of WTC7.

The explosions behind the lower floor implosion in WTC7 were shielded from camera view by foreground buildings and the large amount of cordoned off space surrounding WTC7.

Anyone working in a modern office tower knows how well those sealed windows suppress the sound from outside. Likewise, people on the street cannot hear what is happening inside.

The majority of sealed windows on the north and west faces of WTC7 were not broken until the global collapse of WTC7.

Eye witnesses claimed they heard explosions.
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.
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 7th June 2016, 08:37 AM   #1002
Criteria
Critical Thinker
 
Criteria's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 458
It is almost 15 years since 9/11, and leaving aside controlled demolition, not one of you has offered a plausible engineering explanation for what happened to WTC7.

You have put all of your energy into resisting the only plausible explanation.

In spite of arguments about truss relationships, over free-fall accelerations, gutted interiors, 3hr fire-proofing foam, WTC1 debris damage, etc., no one has described a non-CD chain of plausible events which could explain the corners of WTC7 dropping simultaneously for 8 stories of free fall acceleration.

In the NIST FAQ statement about "symmetrical fall" from a one column failure, the NIST agreed that the north side videos show WTC7 falling almost uniformly.

In that FAQ explanation the NIST never properly explain what created the observed "symmetry". The NIST claim, and many here support, that the outer shell of WTC7 remained standing until the weaker, inner framing collapsed. But, the NIST never attempt to explain how the shell lost 8 floors so quickly that rest of WTC7 above dropped through that height at such uniform free fall.

Even if you built an extremely crude miniature of WTC7, without implosion engineering, you could not make it collapse with that much external uniformity no matter how and where you lit your fires.
Criteria 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 7th June 2016, 08:40 AM   #1003
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
It is almost 15 years since 9/11, and leaving aside controlled demolition, not one of you has offered a plausible engineering explanation for what happened to WTC7.
It is plausible that your definition of plausible is lacking.

Quote:
You have put all of your energy into resisting the only plausible explanation.

In spite of arguments about truss relationships, over free-fall accelerations, gutted interiors, 3hr fire-proofing foam, WTC1 debris damage, etc., no one has described a non-CD chain of plausible events which could explain the corners of WTC7 dropping simultaneously for 8 stories of free fall acceleration.
Sure we have. You've ignored them so that's why you don't remember.


Quote:
Even if you built an extremely crude miniature of WTC7, without implosion engineering, you could not make it collapse with that much external uniformity no matter how and where you lit your fires.
And yet the building did fail from damage and fire. Strange, that.

Why is it you people don't try to explain HOW it was rigged? You know, plausibly.
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 7th June 2016, 08:53 AM   #1004
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,855
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
It is almost 15 years since 9/11, and leaving aside controlled demolition, not one of you has offered a plausible engineering explanation for what happened to WTC7.
.
That's not true... While my "explanation" / theory may be incorrect... it's certainly conforms to the motion seen and it does not require any placed devices.

It is explain by a rapid progressive cascading series of east to west "failures" on floors 5-7 in the load transfer structures which were all interconnected.

Once one of those massive elements fails... it will take the whole lot of them with it and everything above them... and collapse the braced frames of the lower 7 floors leading to the moment frame having no support at 8 stories up.

The massive structures failed probably when the very normal standard size connection elements... bolts and welds holding those structures together failed. This was likely a heat related failure.

Conceptually this is what happened to the Miamus Brighe collapse when one 1" Ø pin shear pin corroded and failed bring down the 3 lane span over the river. One failed pin caused the collapse... and that was from corrosion and lack of maintenance over several years.
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 7th June 2016, 08:58 AM   #1005
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
Not TSz, but MM's spokesperson:
Quote:
Anyone working in a modern office tower knows how well those sealed windows suppress the sound from outside. Likewise, people on the street cannot hear what is happening inside.
Obvious false equivocation is obvious false equivocation.

Anyone who has worked in a high rise knows full well that despite the windows, if work on the street is jackhammers, they are readily audible.
TSz is correct normal street noise is muffled, not completely but mostly, and those on the street cannot hear conversations going on in the offices.

Equating traffic sounds and office noise to high explosive detonations is laughable at best, perhaps merely stupid, and utterly dishonest more likely, IMHO.

Last edited by jaydeehess; 7th June 2016 at 09:00 AM.
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 7th June 2016, 08:58 AM   #1006
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,855
This is pure rubbish:


"Anyone working in a modern office tower knows how well those sealed windows suppress the sound from outside. Likewise, people on the street cannot hear what is happening inside."

I work and live in a masonry building with modern double glazed windows... I have heard several Con Ed pole mounted transformers explode. They sounded like bombs, my neighbors said as much... and they all went running out into the street. These transformers were located more than a block away.

To think that explosives would go off... hundreds at once and not be heard nor recorded is stupid statement.
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 7th June 2016, 09:04 AM   #1007
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Quote:
The north side cameras that recorded the sounds from WTC7’s collapse, had obstructed views of WTC7.
Lack of evidence is not evidence.

Quote:
The explosions behind the lower floor implosion in WTC7 were shielded from camera view by foreground buildings and the large amount of cordoned off space surrounding WTC7.
Lack of evidence is not evidence.

In both the above we have NO evidence of explosions, no sound or video, and the fact that recording devices were obstructing from certain views of the lower floors does nothing whatsoever to increase the available evidence of said explosions.
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 7th June 2016, 09:10 AM   #1008
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
This is pure rubbish:


"Anyone working in a modern office tower knows how well those sealed windows suppress the sound from outside. Likewise, people on the street cannot hear what is happening inside."

I work and live in a masonry building with modern double glazed windows... I have heard several Con Ed pole mounted transformers explode. They sounded like bombs, my neighbors said as much... and they all went running out into the street. These transformers were located more than a block away.

To think that explosives would go off... hundreds at once and not be heard nor recorded is stupid statement.
At one time I lived on the 12th floor of a modern steel apartment building overlooking a busy intersection. While keeping our balcony door closed muffled the street sound, it was quite audible, and once a car backfired as it accelerated away from the light in February (in Ottawa one keeps windows shut in winter). THAT was very very noticeable and made me jump and go look out the window. ONE CAR, ONE BACKFIRE, not 192 high explosive charges detonating!

Last weekend at the cottage a neighbour's golf cart blew a tire (overinflated it). I heard it inside and so did the neighbours two cottages over who were inside and had a cottage between them and the cart as well as a section of shrubs and trees. A freakin' 10 inch tire!
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 7th June 2016, 09:14 AM   #1009
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
In the 1980s I worked on a road construction crew. In the Canadian Shield one often needs to blast granite to push a road through and since this was in a very remote area no covers were used on the blast sites. We would line up about a mile away and watch the blast if a line of sight was available. This happened several times during my summer working there.
The blasts (dynamite) were very loud, and very noticeable, to say the least. They threw rock hundreds of feet to the side.
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 7th June 2016, 09:15 AM   #1010
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
This is pure rubbish:


"Anyone working in a modern office tower knows how well those sealed windows suppress the sound from outside. Likewise, people on the street cannot hear what is happening inside."

I work and live in a masonry building with modern double glazed windows... I have heard several Con Ed pole mounted transformers explode. They sounded like bombs, my neighbors said as much... and they all went running out into the street. These transformers were located more than a block away.

To think that explosives would go off... hundreds at once and not be heard nor recorded is stupid statement.
'zactly, Criteria's statement is utterly stupid.
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 7th June 2016, 09:18 AM   #1011
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
It is almost 15 years since 9/11, and leaving aside controlled demolition, not one of you has offered a plausible engineering explanation for what happened to WTC7.
.
You on the other hand offer supposition and a paranoid world view and absolutely nothing in the way of real research to counter the NIST, and for that matter the Nordeneson, reports. THIS ISSUE has made its way into court and the conclusion was that fire, and structural design specific to WTC 7, were the cause of the collapse of WTC7
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 7th June 2016, 09:27 AM   #1012
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post

You have put all of your energy into resisting the only plausible explanation.
What, where? You mean the off the cuff unsupported allegations of explosives?
Quote:
In spite of arguments about truss relationships, over free-fall accelerations, gutted interiors, 3hr fire-proofing foam, WTC1 debris damage, etc., no one has described a non-CD chain of plausible events which could explain the corners of WTC7 dropping simultaneously for 8 stories of free fall acceleration.
In fact two reports do investigate the collapse progression. Detailing why a short specific period of the collapse that occurs well after the entire structure begins moving is of little forensic interest or import.
Quote:
In the NIST FAQ statement about "symmetrical fall" from a one column failure, the NIST agreed that the north side videos show WTC7 falling almost uniformly.
I note the modifier word that you equate with the unmodified "uniformly".

Quote:
In that FAQ explanation the NIST never properly explain what created the observed "symmetry".
So? Is this important in deducing the cause of the collapse? NO, go read NIST's tasking again.
Quote:
The NIST claim, and many here support, that the outer shell of WTC7 remained standing until the weaker, inner framing collapsed. But, the NIST never attempt to explain how the shell lost 8 floors so quickly that rest of WTC7 above dropped through that height at such uniform free fall.
So? Is this important in deducing the cause of the collapse? NO, go read NIST's tasking again. Note also that it was a far from "uniform free fall acceleration.

Quote:
Even if you built an extremely crude miniature of WTC7, without implosion engineering, you could not make it collapse with that much external uniformity no matter how and where you lit your fires.
You know this because...... no , you haven't done ANY research into this, only making a bald assumption and putting it out there as fact. Just because you say it doesn't mean anyone has to believe it unless you back it up with research that properly adjusts for scaling issues..

How come even after 15 years of disputing the NIST reports with sound and fury ( a little reference for those who appreciate the Bard), AE911T has not managed to fund and produce any research of equal or greater caliber than the NIST reports?

Last edited by jaydeehess; 7th June 2016 at 09:30 AM.
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 7th June 2016, 11:37 AM   #1013
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 17,789
Reconcile this.
A claim that glass windows somehow suppressed the sound of explosives but people heard explosions.

Which was it?

(Ignore the fact that glass windows wouldn't be intact if high explosive charges had gone off in the building.)
Captain_Swoop 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 7th June 2016, 11:55 AM   #1014
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 23,710
130db - Military jet aircraft take-off from aircraft carrier with afterburner at 50 ft.

120db - Thunderclap, chain saw. Oxygen torch (121 dB). Painful

110db - Steel mill, auto horn at 1 meter. Turbo-fan aircraft at takeoff power at 200 ft (118 dB). Riveting machine (110 dB); live rock music (108 - 114 dB).

100db -Jet take-off (at 305 meters)

NIST estimated 130-140db at a distance of 1km for a single column cut using shaped charges. Szamboti claims column destruction x 192 in the space of one second for single, low-tech and inefficient, explosive charges.

What a monumental joke (even if you don't really appreciate the decibel scale )
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut

Last edited by GlennB; 7th June 2016 at 01:14 PM. Reason: tidied wording slightly
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 7th June 2016, 01:03 PM   #1015
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,081
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
It is almost 15 years since 9/11, and leaving aside controlled demolition, not one of you has offered a plausible engineering explanation for what happened to WTC7. ...
Yes, leaving aside your fantasy version of 9/11, and the fact you can't read NIST, or other work, and understand other explanations you failed to find - you remain believing in the dumbest explanation, silent explosives. You bring woo.

Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
You have put all of your energy into resisting the only plausible explanation. ...
While you did not have to waste anytime in research, you googled 9/11 truth failed CD claims and have a fantasy born in BS. Where do you find the silent explosives?

Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
In spite of arguments about truss relationships, over free-fall accelerations, gutted interiors, 3hr fire-proofing foam, WTC1 debris damage, etc., no one has described a non-CD chain of plausible events which could explain the corners of WTC7 dropping simultaneously for 8 stories of free fall acceleration. ...
The collapse took over 18 seconds. You repeat the tag-line of woo, 8 stories of free-fall acceleration, and fail to show how it happened; you can't do physics, and you think idiot Balsamo is an aviation authority. Is MM your source for this delusional CD stuff?

Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
In the NIST FAQ statement about "symmetrical fall" from a one column failure, the NIST agreed that the north side videos show WTC7 falling almost uniformly. ...
The symmetrical fall is funny, as it is not symmetrical. It makes your CD claim nonsensical.

Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
In that FAQ explanation the NIST never properly explain what created the observed "symmetry". The NIST claim, and many here support, that the outer shell of WTC7 remained standing until the weaker, inner framing collapsed. But, the NIST never attempt to explain how the shell lost 8 floors so quickly that rest of WTC7 above dropped through that height at such uniform free fall. ...
Twice with the symmetry, is double fail for the CD fantasy. NIST did show, you failed to pay attention. You also failed to realize no rational engineers support your CD claims. You have less than 0.1 percent of all engineers on your CD fantasy.
Where is you CD model? lol, you don't realize CD is a gravity collapse started with tiny amounts of explosives - 9/11 used fire. You don't know physics.

Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Even if you built an extremely crude miniature of WTC7, without implosion engineering, you could not make it collapse with that much external uniformity no matter how and where you lit your fires.
It was not uniform. How do you ignore the internal failure? Do you have to fail to gain knowledge; how do you do that?


15 years with 9/11 truth fantasy CD believer unable to provide one study to prove it was CD by silent explosives. Where do they get the silent explosives? No damage to any WTC steel by explosives, or thermite.

Zero evidence remains for the CD fantasy born in paranoia and ignorance by 9/11 truth liars.

Where is your study? Got one yet?
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
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 7th June 2016, 09:20 PM   #1016
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,324
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
It is almost 15 years since 9/11, and leaving aside controlled demolition, not one of you has offered a plausible engineering explanation for what happened to WTC7.
Not true, there is at least one active thread where the collapse is being intelligently debated, and there are a good many more on this board.

They just don't appeal to you because:

1. There's a lot of technical discussion.
2. Nobody dodges questions or changes the subject.
3. These are actual debates where often the participants change their minds, or at the very least double check their (actual) calculations.

And believe it or not, there are a lot of engineering types who would like to get to the bottom of 7 because they design buildings. The good thing about the NIST report is their recommendations for changes. The answers to many of your questions are politely resolved in that section.
Axxman300 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 8th June 2016, 08:55 AM   #1017
Criteria
Critical Thinker
 
Criteria's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 458
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
”It is almost 15 years since 9/11, and leaving aside controlled demolition, not one of you has offered a plausible engineering explanation for what happened to WTC7…”
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
”Not true, there is at least one active thread where the collapse is being intelligently debated, and there are a good many more on this board.”
Axxman300, if what you say is true, I look forward to hearing what plausible explanation your cohorts have come up with to explain “how its outer shell lost 8 floors so quickly that the rest of WTC7 above immediately dropped at such uniform free fall.

Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
”They just don't appeal to you because:

1. There's a lot of technical discussion.
I am always looking for quality technical discussion about how WTC7 collapsed.

At some point in non-CD explanations the reader is always asked to assume something amazing.

That a mysterious ‘something’ wiped out an 8 story periphery wall surrounding the area roughly that of a football field.

Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
”2. Nobody dodges questions or changes the subject.”
What wisdom advises responding to every inane question that is placed?

Like most members, I write and respond to what interests me.

Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
”3. These are actual debates where often the participants change their minds, or at the very least double check their (actual) calculations.”
I have changed my mind about many details relating to 9/11. The nice thing about pursuing concerns about what happened to WTC7, is that if those concerns are proven wrong, it will come as a great relief.

On the other hand, if I was an ardent believer in the Official Story, I would find it extremely difficult to accept the ramifications of a WTC7 controlled demolition finding.

Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
”And believe it or not, there are a lot of engineering types who would like to get to the bottom of 7 because they design buildings.”
Yes. The bravest ones openly belong to AE911T.

Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
”The good thing about the NIST report is their recommendations for changes. The answers to many of your questions are politely resolved in that section.”
If that is so, the answers to my questions are very well hidden.
Criteria 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 8th June 2016, 10:08 AM   #1018
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Axxman300, if what you say is true, I look forward to hearing what plausible explanation your cohorts have come up with to explain “how its outer shell lost 8 floors so quickly that the rest of WTC7 above immediately dropped at such uniform free fall.
Sharpshooter gibberish. It was damage and fire. There's not a shred of evidence in the real, physical world for anything other than that. We know there were fires in there, we know they were started by the North Tower striking it and we know they weren't fought. None of that is in any way debatable in our universe.



Quote:
I am always looking for quality technical discussion about how WTC7 collapsed.
Uh huh.

Quote:
At some point in non-CD explanations the reader is always asked to assume something amazing.
More or less amazing than explosives that don't make noise, or perpetrators that can rig a building (or 3) for demolition while people work in them, with nobody noticing? In buildings whose security was top of the line, given the events in 1993? More or less amazing than ninja's starting fires in WTC 7 AFTER the collapses of the Twin Towers?

Answer please. More or less amazing than that?

Quote:
That a mysterious ‘something’ wiped out an 8 story periphery wall surrounding the area roughly that of a football field.
Fire is a mystery to you?


Quote:
What wisdom advises responding to every inane question that is placed?

Like most members, I write and respond to what interests me.
Yes, and if you can't shoehorn something in to an asinine, physically impossible scenario, you ignore it. Like you're about to ignore what I wrote above.


Quote:
I have changed my mind about many details relating to 9/11. The nice thing about pursuing concerns about what happened to WTC7, is that if those concerns are proven wrong, it will come as a great relief.
Yea, changed your mind from one impossible scenario to the next.

Quote:
On the other hand, if I was an ardent believer in the Official Story, I would find it extremely difficult to accept the ramifications of a WTC7 controlled demolition finding.
Ever notice there's only 1 "official story" while there are innumerable alternate theories? Work on that. Figure that out.



Quote:
Yes. The bravest ones openly belong to AE911T.
You know... morons.
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 8th June 2016, 11:29 AM   #1019
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,324
Quote:
Axxman300, if what you say is true, I look forward to hearing what plausible explanation your cohorts have come up with to explain “how its outer shell lost 8 floors so quickly that the rest of WTC7 above immediately dropped at such uniform free fall.
Hint: Fire & structural damage.

Quote:
I am always looking for quality technical discussion about how WTC7 collapsed.
There are several on this board.

Quote:
At some point in non-CD explanations the reader is always asked to assume something amazing.
9-11, so far, was a one-time event. In layman's terms, that means that nothing like it has ever happened before, so there is nothing to compare it to to draw baseline data.

To understand this you need to be able to count to one.

To understand the collapses you have to apply hundreds of known factors involving fire and structural damage related to massive, high-speed impacts, and plane crashes. This is because Al Qaeda hasn't flown jets into other central core highrises, so we lack baseline data.

Quote:
That a mysterious ‘something’ wiped out an 8 story periphery wall surrounding the area roughly that of a football field.
A lot of damage was done initially by WTC1, and then 8 hours of free-range fires took their toll.


Quote:
What wisdom advises responding to every inane question that is placed?

Like most members, I write and respond to what interests me.
First, in those grown-up table threads, there are no inane questions.
Second, they are debate/discussions where points are made and countered.

Not answering on this board means one of a few things:

You made a claim that you're wrong about and can't admit it.
You made a claim you know is a lie and you're just trolling.
You made a claim that cannot be backed up in any way.

I've been called out a few times, and I acknowledge it and move on.


Quote:
I have changed my mind about many details relating to 9/11. The nice thing about pursuing concerns about what happened to WTC7, is that if those concerns are proven wrong, it will come as a great relief.
WTC7 is an engineering side show, not proof of conspiracy.

Quote:
On the other hand, if I was an ardent believer in the Official Story, I would find it extremely difficult to accept the ramifications of a WTC7 controlled demolition finding.
Let's explore that.

What would have happened had the NYPD bomb squad found evidence of CD in the rubble? If the goal of the conspirators was an erosion of civil liberties then evidence of CD would have handed the US government a golden ticket to abuse the 4th Amendment like it was Christmas. Every tall building in the US would have been searched by the end of October without warrants, without permission (face it, everyone would have given permission). Laws would have been passed giving law enforcement new search powers in the event of a suspected terrorist threat.

So how does hiding CD benefit the conspirators?

If it was CD, then why not use explosives that could be traced back to Iraq/Iran/Libya or whichever nation you want to squeeze?

Evidence of CD on 9-12-2001 would have given Bush the kind of justification to bring a Trident submarine to launch depth, and a areas of the Middle East would be molten glass today...and nobody would have said a thing.

So why hide CD? Why don't Truthers ever think it out this far?

Quote:
Yes. The bravest ones openly belong to AE911T.
Please.


Quote:
If that is so, the answers to my questions are very well hidden.
You're not looking for answers. You're a cynic.

The answer is that Al Qaeda hijacked 4 commercial jetliners, two flew into the Twin Towers, which later collapsed, and destroyed almost the entire WTC complex including WTC7.

Last edited by Axxman300; 8th June 2016 at 11:40 AM.
Axxman300 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 8th June 2016, 12:12 PM   #1020
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post

I am always looking for quality technical discussion about how WTC7 collapsed.

At some point in non-CD explanations the reader is always asked to assume something amazing.

That a mysterious ‘something’ wiped out an 8 story periphery wall surrounding the area roughly that of a football field.
Well, according to both the NIST scenario, and Tony Szamboti's scenario (as sparsely outlined as the later is) the core columns failed which overloaded the perimeter columns (or "periphery wall" as you put it) and they buckled.
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 8th June 2016, 12:14 PM   #1021
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
WTC7 is an engineering side show, not proof of conspiracy.
Which makes examination of the 2.25 second period, that followed the period of 1.75 seconds after the entire structure was on the move, a side show within a side show, within a side show.
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 8th June 2016, 02:51 PM   #1022
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
It is almost 15 years since 9/11, and leaving aside controlled demolition, not one of you has offered a plausible engineering explanation for what happened to WTC7.
Nonsense.
You simply won’t put in the slightest effort to try to understand what we’re telling you.
To structural engineers, the NIST explanation is completely plausible for explaining the near symmetry of the final collapse.

Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
You have put all of your energy into resisting the only plausible explanation.
There is zero plausibility to CD.
For several specific reasons, chief being:
  1. no sounds of explosions
  2. no “CD cut” columns, beams or girders in the debris pile.
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
In spite of arguments about truss relationships, over free-fall accelerations, gutted interiors, 3hr fire-proofing foam, WTC1 debris damage, etc., no one has described a non-CD chain of plausible events which could explain the corners of WTC7 dropping simultaneously for 8 stories of free fall acceleration.
Nonsense.

Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
In the NIST FAQ statement about "symmetrical fall" from a one column failure, the NIST agreed that the north side videos show WTC7 falling almost uniformly.
The global collapse was not from a “one column failure”.
Just before the global collapse began, there had been an 18-column failure in the core. All except columns 67 thru 72 in the core.
And about 5 columns on the south wall.

Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
In that FAQ explanation the NIST never properly explain what created the observed "symmetry". The NIST claim, and many here support, that the outer shell of WTC7 remained standing until the weaker, inner framing collapsed. But, the NIST never attempt to explain how the shell lost 8 floors so quickly that rest of WTC7 above dropped through that height at such uniform free fall.
There are 2 factors that explain the “near symmetry”.
  1. The last remaining columns were the central ones (C67 - C72, near the center of the building).
  2. The widely dispersed array of outer columns.

All widely dispersed arrays of columns fall NEARLY straight down.
You can get a little rotation, as seen in WTC2.

And THIS is what you're not getting:
It does NOT fall nearly straight down because all the columns buckle simultaneously.
All the columns buckle simultaneously because it starts to rotate, as it begins to fall.
The rotation is what causes all remaining columns to buckle.

But there was a 2nd effect that caused WTC7 to fall very nearly straight down. When the last remaining support for the core is centrally located, and that central group’s failure generates a global failure of the outer columns, then the result is a VERY NEARLY straight down collapse.

There is no mystery here.
tfk 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 8th June 2016, 03:05 PM   #1023
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
But, the NIST never attempt to explain how the shell lost 8 floors so quickly that rest of WTC7 above dropped through that height at such uniform free fall.
The 8 story collapse across the bottom of the building did NOT have to happen quickly at all.

Although it didn't, it could easily have taken a full minute to collapse, if the central 6 columns & outer columns could have withstood the collapse of the remaining columns for that length of time. (It turns out that they could not do so.)

The only thing necessary was that the central group of columns buckle last.
__

And here is the other part that you're not getting:
The 8 story collapse did not have to complete before the global collapse began. It does not have to happen simultaneously. It only had to begin before the global collapse began.

This is like a bunch of cars accelerating off of a starting line.

If the cars all have exactly the same acceleration, whichever car starts first will NEVER get caught by any of the cars that start later. Precisely because they have the same acceleration.

All objects free fall at the same acceleration.
As long as the internal collapse started before the external walls, then the external walls would never have caught up to the internal collapse.

In reality, the central group of columns (C67 - 72) hung in for just couple of seconds or so. This was long enough for the rest of the internal collapse to get far enough into its fall, that the outer columns could not catch it.

The core collapse did NOT have to happen, and didn't happen, "all at once".

However, the outer columns were not capable of supporting the entire remaining building without any core columns.

When the last central columns buckled, the outer columns also buckled promptly.

Again, no mystery.

Last edited by tfk; 8th June 2016 at 03:17 PM.
tfk 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 8th June 2016, 05:20 PM   #1024
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,855
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Axxman300, if what you say is true, I look forward to hearing what plausible explanation your cohorts have come up with to explain “how its outer shell lost 8 floors so quickly that the rest of WTC7 above immediately dropped at such uniform free fall.
The first 7 floors up to floor 8 of the perimeter was a different structure from them 40 floors which had a moment frame. Although there was a braced frame midway up as well.

The "shell" / moment frame of the upper 4 stories came down when the braced frames at the east and west sides were pulled in with the collapse of the transfer structures on floors 5-7. Most of the north side of the moment frame was atop the end of cantilever girders which had there south side supported on an east west girder which was tying the cantilevers and the east and west transfer trusses together.

Sequence:
east side transfers fail
east west girder loses support on est side and plunges down at the east side first pulling the cantilever girders with it and finally the west transfer truss.
transfer trusses pull both braced frames inward.
south side was on unbraced 5 story tall columns in the lobby.
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 8th June 2016, 05:37 PM   #1025
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,081
symmetrical collapse was made up to fool the fringe few

Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
It is almost 15 years since 9/11, and leaving aside controlled demolition, not one of you has offered a plausible engineering explanation for what happened to WTC7.

You have put all of your energy into resisting the only plausible explanation.

In spite of arguments about truss relationships, over free-fall accelerations, gutted interiors, 3hr fire-proofing foam, WTC1 debris damage, etc., no one has described a non-CD chain of plausible events which could explain the corners of WTC7 dropping simultaneously for 8 stories of free fall acceleration.

In the NIST FAQ statement about "symmetrical fall" from a one column failure, the NIST agreed that the north side videos show WTC7 falling almost uniformly.

In that FAQ explanation the NIST never properly explain what created the observed "symmetry". The NIST claim, and many here support, that the outer shell of WTC7 remained standing until the weaker, inner framing collapsed. But, the NIST never attempt to explain how the shell lost 8 floors so quickly that rest of WTC7 above dropped through that height at such uniform free fall.

Even if you built an extremely crude miniature of WTC7, without implosion engineering, you could not make it collapse with that much external uniformity no matter how and where you lit your fires.
Every-time you say symmetry, you prove you are full of nonsense.

Did you tell the FBI it was a crime? lol

You can't refute NIST, you have to ignore NIST; you can't refute fire did it, you have to lie about 9/11. Drop the symmetry, it makes CD look dumber.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232

Last edited by beachnut; 8th June 2016 at 05:39 PM.
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 8th June 2016, 07:10 PM   #1026
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,347
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
Not TSz, but MM's spokesperson:
Windows do not surpress the sound of explosions. That was evident in Iraq where internal bomb explosions blew out windows and walls.
skyeagle409 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 8th June 2016, 07:26 PM   #1027
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,347
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
It is almost 15 years since 9/11, and leaving aside controlled demolition, not one of you has offered a plausible engineering explanation for what happened to WTC7.

You have put all of your energy into resisting the only plausible explanation.

In spite of arguments about truss relationships, over free-fall accelerations, gutted interiors, 3hr fire-proofing foam, WTC1 debris damage, etc., no one has described a non-CD chain of plausible events which could explain the corners of WTC7 dropping simultaneously for 8 stories of free fall acceleration.

In the NIST FAQ statement about "symmetrical fall" from a one column failure, the NIST agreed that the north side videos show WTC7 falling almost uniformly.

In that FAQ explanation the NIST never properly explain what created the observed "symmetry". The NIST claim, and many here support, that the outer shell of WTC7 remained standing until the weaker, inner framing collapsed. But, the NIST never attempt to explain how the shell lost 8 floors so quickly that rest of WTC7 above dropped through that height at such uniform free fall.

Even if you built an extremely crude miniature of WTC7, without implosion engineering, you could not make it collapse with that much external uniformity no matter how and where you lit your fires.
In regards to WTC 7, fire, in conjunction with impact damage, had caused the collapse of WTC 7. Falling debris from WTC 1 had scooped out a huge hole on the south wall of WTC 7 that spanned several stories. Just before WTC 7 collapsed, witnesses heard sounds of failing structural steel as raging fires weakened its structure. That explains why in the final seconds of its collapse, WTC 7 had tilted toward the south. The upper penthouse collapsed moments before the rest of WTC 7 collapsed, which is firm evidence that its structural was slowly failing due to the effects of fire and impact damage. There were no demolition explosions heard at ground zero nor on video. I didn't hear demolition explosions either and I have heard many explosions in war to know what explosions sound like. Additionally, seismic monitors in the general area did not detect demolition explosions. Experts in the area later confirmed that they did not hear demolition explosions as WTC 7 collapsed.
------------------------------------------------------------

9/11 Seismic Recordings

Brent Blanchard devotes section 4 of his paper to the issue of seismic recordings on 9/11. Blanchard is Senior Editor of ImplosionWorld, a website which posts details of explosive demolitions, and also Director of Field Operations at Protec Documentation Services, Inc. Protec works in the field of vibration monitoring and structure inspection, a key service to both the construction and demolition industries.

Vibration monitoring performed by independent experts has long been considered crucial for companies carrying out explosive demolition, because owners of nearby buildings are keen to sue if any cracks or other structural damage appears.

The field seismographs used by Protec and others provide the key scientific evidence for disturbances that may have caused damage, and there were a number of such seismographs operated by Protec on 9/11 in the vicinity of Ground Zero, for monitoring construction sites. Blanchard tells us that data from these machines, and seismographs operated elsewhere, all confirm single vibration events recording the collapse. None of them record the tell-tale 'spikes' that would indicate explosive detonations prior to collapse.

This evidence makes a compelling argument against explosive demolition. The laws of physics dictate that any detonation powerful enough to defeat steel columns would have transferred excess energy through those same columns into the ground, and would certainly have been detected by at least one of the monitors that were sensitive enough to record the structural collapses.

However, a detailed analysis of all available data reveals no presence of any unusual or abnormal vibration events.
skyeagle409 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 8th June 2016, 07:48 PM   #1028
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,347
Quote:
Axxman300, if what you say is true, I look forward to hearing what plausible explanation your cohorts have come up with to explain “how its outer shell lost 8 floors so quickly that the rest of WTC7 above immediately dropped at such uniform free fall.
First of all, there were no demolition explosions anywhere near the WTC buildings. Secondly, there was no way anyone could have planted explosives in a way that could have brought down WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7. Explosives alone cannot bring down a steel frame building. Case in point, I can place a ton of explosives on each floor of the WTC Towers and detonate the explosives at the same time. The end result would blow out windows and walls, yet leave the steel columns standing as was the case with a huge bomb was detonated beneath WTC 1 in 1993, which left its steel columns standing within the huge bomb crater.

In order to bring down a steel frame building with explosives, the first thing you have to do is to weaken the steel columns, then weaken the firewalls and staircases, which is a very noisy and dirty process that would have taken many months. It is also a process that would not have been tolerated in an occupied building.

The pre-weakening process must be completed before explosives are firmly placed on each steel columns, which requires the destruction of walls in order to gain access to the steel columns, which would not have gone unnoticed by those trying to work in peace in those buildings. So, many months of weakening has gone by and the next step is to begin placing cutter charges, which will cut the steel columns. Afterward, explosives such as dynamite are placed firmly on the steel columns in order to push the steel columns into a certain direction in order for the buildings to fall as plan after the cutter charges have done their work and the job has to be properly prepared or the building will remain standing.

By my own estimate, it would take about a year to complete such a process for the WTC Towers. After all, it took about 6 months just to prepare a bridge in Corpus Christi, Texas for demolition, which was a much easier process than it would have taken to prepare WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 for demolition. In other words, it would have been impossible for anyone to properly prepare each WTC building for demolition and not attract a lot of attention of those working within those buildings. Understand that this is not Hollywood.

Last edited by skyeagle409; 8th June 2016 at 07:51 PM.
skyeagle409 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 8th June 2016, 07:56 PM   #1029
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,347
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
Evidence of CD = Loud explosions:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eem7d58gjno

Nothing like this on 9-11.
That's right, no explosions heard on video as WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 collapsed, which is further confirmed by the fact that all seismic machines in the area did not detect demolition explosions, which was confirmed by those who were operating seismic machines at the time of the collapses.
skyeagle409 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 11th June 2016, 08:26 AM   #1030
Grizzly Bear
このマスクによっ
 
Grizzly Bear's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,792
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Even if you built an extremely crude miniature of WTC7, without implosion engineering, you could not make it collapse with that much external uniformity no matter how and where you lit your fires.
This highlights the crux of the problem with your argument. You always think a failure sequence in a structural system is tied to what mechanism caused the failure, when the failure sequence is actually tied to the order of failure AND the system's ability to redistribute loads at that point.

You are not thinking about how a structural system functions before hopping to the cause of collapse. Fatal mistake for your premise.
__________________
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 11th June 2016, 09:59 AM   #1031
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,347
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Axxman300, if what you say is true, I look forward to hearing what plausible explanation your cohorts have come up with to explain “how its outer shell lost 8 floors so quickly that the rest of WTC7 above immediately dropped at such uniform free fall.



I am always looking for quality technical discussion about how WTC7 collapsed.

At some point in non-CD explanations the reader is always asked to assume something amazing.

That a mysterious ‘something’ wiped out an 8 story periphery wall surrounding the area roughly that of a football field.



What wisdom advises responding to every inane question that is placed?

Like most members, I write and respond to what interests me.



I have changed my mind about many details relating to 9/11. The nice thing about pursuing concerns about what happened to WTC7, is that if those concerns are proven wrong, it will come as a great relief.

On the other hand, if I was an ardent believer in the Official Story, I would find it extremely difficult to accept the ramifications of a WTC7 controlled demolition finding.



Yes. The bravest ones openly belong to AE911T.



If that is so, the answers to my questions are very well hidden.

WTC 7 had suffered massive impact damage on its south wall from WTC 1 and I have to say that WTC 7 did not totally collapse at free fall speed. To further add, fire was responsible for the collapse of WTC 7, not explosives. There was no way that an operation to properly prepare WTC 7 for explosive demolition could have been carried out in secret. You cannot detonate explosives inside steel frame building and expect the building to collapse without pre-weakening its structure. Terrorist tried to bring down WTC 1 in 1993 with a vehicle bomb, yet WTC 1 remained standing. In fact, the steel structure of WTC 1 remained standing within the huge bomb crater.

WTC 1 Bomb Crater

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...TF_Commons.jpg

As WTC 7 collapsed there was no sound of demolition explosions, which also undeniably proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that no explosives were used to bring down WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7. That fact has been confirmed by demolition experts and seismic monitors which did not detect demolition explosions as the WTC buildings collapsed.

Last edited by skyeagle409; 11th June 2016 at 10:04 AM.
skyeagle409 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 29th November 2017, 01:27 AM   #1032
BadBoy
Graduate Poster
 
BadBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,302
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Freefall acceleration is evidence of zero resistance to the force of gravity.

CD creates the necessary conditions for freefall acceleration to occur.
Disagree,

cutting columns in CD does not remove the columns completely. Further resistance is inevitable since the structure still exists albeit weakened. CD still relies then on the force created by descending upper structures hitting the lower structures. CD != Free Fall and from what I have learned CD rarely shows free fall acceleration from start to finish.

The whole argument is bunk and stupid.

As everyone who really understands knows, the approach is all wrong. Even if it was conceded (which it isn't) the way the WTC7 collapsed could be shown to be similar to a CD, it would be dismissed very quickly because of all the other evidence (or lack of)... you know like no sound of explosives, no evidence of explosives, no real explanation of how the whole building could be wired up for explosives that also survives the fires, etc etc etc. It's like saying the Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy undermines evolution, so god must exist.
__________________
Go sell crazy someplace else we're all stocked up here

Last edited by BadBoy; 29th November 2017 at 01:30 AM.
BadBoy 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 02:44 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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.