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 ae911truth , J. Leroy Hulsey , wtc 7

Reply
Old 3rd December 2015, 05:52 PM   #361
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,373
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
ETA: I think I've found a new way to confuse truthers. Agree with a minor and insignificant point they've made, and they'll be so obsessed with disagreeing with debunkers that they'll immediately disagree with themselves. Try it, folks!
You can confuse quite a few debunkers in a similar way. Read any of my [interactions with/support of] femr2 over the past four/five years and search for the code phrase "Blue Sky" OR "Blue Sky Syndrome". You will find that an alleged "truther" has said something which is true - and the debunkers falling as a ravening horde to declare him wrong. The derivation back around 2010 was "If a truther declares that 'the cloudless daytime sky is blue' debunkers will fall over each other to tell him he is wrong."

So we drew some smilies including this one:

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 3rd December 2015, 06:31 PM   #362
Grizzly Bear
このマスクによっ
 
Grizzly Bear's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,764
In shorter form, the only ones that care about the free fall issue are "CD" proponents and people who entertain the notion that it bears any significance in diagnosing the collapse initiation mechanism. The graph measurements have a little bit of information that is of minor significance for observation, but it doesn't go anywhere to the extent of supporting assumptions that the original posters of the graph data had in mind. This is one of the reasons femr's work was relatively OK from the standpoint of people just wanting to crunch numbers and glean some additional detail. When observations are made and interpreted within their scope it's got its merits when read properly
__________________

Last edited by Grizzly Bear; 3rd December 2015 at 06:35 PM.
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 3rd December 2015, 10:39 PM   #363
Notconvinced
Critical Thinker
 
Notconvinced's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 337
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
As for the first and third parts, I simply don't believe you. I don't believe that you work 60 hours and I don't believe that you will ever post a video to back your claims.

As for the highlighted part, what exactly are you trying to say? You work the majority of your 60 hours in a field where your focus is ... where?

I work in healthcare, providing direct patient care. I can't exactly be 'chatting' with you folks during that time.

Here is a video of the WTC7 demolition.
http://youtu.be/38Vsv0eve_U
At 7:30 note the detonation of charges occurring simultaneously across many floors around column 58/61 on the west side. Notice the lingering puffs of debri at those loci after the building falls away.

There are many more straightforward examples to choose from. This one showed up after a cursory search. The text in the beginning made me chuckle, as it's basically spot on. I don't hate the Bush's. In fact my grandmother used to play bridge with Barbara, and I had the ¿pleasure? of shaking GW's hand at Gramps' memorial service. Doesn't change the facts.....

WTC7 was controlled demolition, just a small part of the 911 coup d'état.


Sent from our shared looking glass platform
Notconvinced 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 3rd December 2015, 11:56 PM   #364
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: 24,085
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Even the NIST was forced to agree with the free fall conclusion derived from that chart. You should be embarrassed by your lack of understanding Mr. Rogers.
Please, please keep this up. I haven't laughed so much in ages. You literally don't have the faintest idea what you're arguing with.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
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 4th December 2015, 12:29 AM   #365
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,489
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
[b]Sorry about all the re-quoting but the context is important. The original poster Gamolon, failed to include the graph he was referring to.
LOL Hahaha ROFL
No, he did not.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...6#post11008746

Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Mr. Szamboti explained that the program was placed in run mode before Mr. Chandler starts the video. The video was parked at the point closest to where WTC7 began to drop. The data that you and Gamolon are so intrigued by is just the program free-running while it awaits the change from FREEZE to PLAY of the incoming video.



The magenta vertical line shows the start point where the video went into PLAY.

You clearly do not have a clue as to how the Physics Toolkit software functions.
Hahahaha ROFL *slapping thigh*
You're a hoot, Criteria! Everything you write is so amusingly stupid!

So while not running, the video shows a downward motion at slightly above 1 m/s? for about 0.4 seconds?
Hahahaha ROFL!
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein 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 4th December 2015, 12:48 AM   #366
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,489
Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
Here is a video of the WTC7 demolition.
http://youtu.be/38Vsv0eve_U
At 7:30 note the detonation of charges occurring simultaneously across many floors around column 58/61 on the west side. Notice the lingering puffs of debri at those loci after the building falls away.
...
Hahaha this, too, is amusingly stupid!
A building collapses - and you think "lingering puffs of debri after the building falls away" would not happen unless explosives had created them?! That is so incredibly stupid, I know no other reaction than to laugh laugh laugh.
And when I am done laughing, perhaps I fell a bit sad for people who utter such gruesome stupidity in public.

Look, puffs of debris:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFp4S4Ey-sU&t=22
No, this is NOT explosive CD, this is accidental, gravity-driven progressive collapse.


ETA: Another bit of gravity-driven vertical collapse progression at 53 seconds:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dq1AQVgNO2g&t=50

ETA2: A nice Compilation of building demolitions by excavators:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbugbXRibhs
Several examples for rapid horizontal progression of collapse once the first column or wall gives way, for example at 2:07, 3:37
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)

Last edited by Oystein; 4th December 2015 at 01:12 AM.
Oystein 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 4th December 2015, 02:43 AM   #367
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,963
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Is that Chandler's best graph? What point is he tracking there?
Source?
Thx.


ETA: Answering my own question: Yes. David Chandler's most recent (5 years ago) video with original work analysing the WTC7 descent starts off with that graphic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pP4_8s-2Gmc&t=5

And this is the video where he shows how he derived that graph:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVCDpL4Ax7I
He measured the NW corner (the bit that started to descend last and thus accelerated the most)

Indeed he has about 0.8 seconds of descent at considerably less than g. That's roughly 24 frames. The effect I described in my previous post does not work for that many frames.

Chandler's data shows that the fall did not start with immediate freefall. Tony Szamboti lied when he wrote this:
Oystein, nobody was intentionally lying. I have to admit I did forget about the small 0.5 second dip below 0 m/s velocity to a 1 m/s velocity before the free fall acceleration kicks in. I was remembering David Chandler's words that the drop was sudden, when the actual first half second seems to have a constant 1 m/s velocity.

This 1 m/s for 0.5 seconds gives a 0.5 meter drop before free fall. That is about 20 inches. What it most probably pertains to is the pull in of the exterior columns by the 8 stories of cut core low in the building. The exterior columns shrunk vertically by 20 inches, due to their pull-in, before they lost all resistance.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 4th December 2015 at 02:52 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 4th December 2015, 02:58 AM   #368
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,489
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Oystein, nobody was intentionally lying. I have to admit I did forget about the small 0.5 second dip below 0 m/s velocity and was remembering David Chandler's words that the drop was sudden, when the actual first half second seems to have a 1 m/s velocity before the free fall acceleration kicks in.
So Chandler lied? Chandler surely could not have forgotten his own data as he was presenting it?
And you believed Chandler's lie, and now propagated it - ok, perhaps that's not lying on your part then, but it doesn't look good on you, either.
But I am glad at least you finally see through Chandler's lie.

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
So, 1 m/s for 0.5 seconds gives a 0.5 meter drop before free fall. That is about 20 inches. What it most probably pertains to is the pull in of the exterior columns by the cut core. The exterior columns shrunk vertically by 20 inches, due to their pull-in, before they lost all resistance.
We have seen better work measuring the descent by femr2, and I think his data shows a bit more (in terms of drop distance) of sub-g acceleration.
But I essentially agree with your interpretation. Chandler, Gage and almost every truther parroting the "sudden freefall means CD" mantra insinuate, imply or even directly claim that freefall means explosives cut the perimeter columns on 8 separate floors (between ground floor and 8th floor). I am glad that at least you see through the error of that mantra.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein 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 4th December 2015, 03:36 AM   #369
GlennB
In search of pi(e)
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pie City, Arcadia
Posts: 20,383
Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
Here is a video of the WTC7 demolition.
http://youtu.be/38Vsv0eve_U
At 7:30 note the detonation of charges occurring simultaneously across many floors around column 58/61 on the west side. Notice the lingering puffs of debri at those loci after the building falls away.
It's smoke being pushed out of broken windows under the pressure of the collapse. Even hardened Truthers gave up on the high-level WTC7 "squib" nonsense, and as their current theory is removal of all support much lower in the building then you really are behind the times.

However, I'm sure you claimed to have seen video of the *lower* levels showing signs of CD. Thing is, there is no such video so it's hardly surprising you've failed to link to it.
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 4th December 2015, 03:36 AM   #370
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,963
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
So Chandler lied? Chandler surely could not have forgotten his own data as he was presenting it?
And you believed Chandler's lie, and now propagated it - ok, perhaps that's not lying on your part then, but it doesn't look good on you, either.
But I am glad at least you finally see through Chandler's lie.


We have seen better work measuring the descent by femr2, and I think his data shows a bit more (in terms of drop distance) of sub-g acceleration.
But I essentially agree with your interpretation. Chandler, Gage and almost every truther parroting the "sudden freefall means CD" mantra insinuate, imply or even directly claim that freefall means explosives cut the perimeter columns on 8 separate floors (between ground floor and 8th floor). I am glad that at least you see through the error of that mantra.
Something removed 8 stories of core columns fairly quickly to cause the building to fall symmetrically even with the horizon. It could not have been progressive collapse.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 4th December 2015 at 03:38 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 4th December 2015, 03:42 AM   #371
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: 24,085
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Something removed 8 stories of core columns fairly quickly to cause the building to fall symmetrically even with the horizon.
Come on, Tony, even you know that's not true. We all saw the mechanical penthouses fall into the building over a period of several seconds before the facade collapsed. We all know that the core collapse preceded the facade collapse. We all know that WTC7 rotated southwards as it collapsed, and that there was a visible kink in the North face of the facade, neither of which can be described as "symmetrically even with the horizon".

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
It could not have been progressive collapse.
And we all know that's your opinion, and nothing more.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right

Last edited by Dave Rogers; 4th December 2015 at 03:43 AM. Reason: Typo; no reigning monarchs were visible in the WTC7 collapse.
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 4th December 2015, 03:50 AM   #372
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,489
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Something removed 8 stories of core columns fairly quickly to cause the building to fall symmetrically even with the horizon. It could not have been progressive collapse.
Cool story.
And the reason why it could not have is ... that Tony Szamboti is an engineer and says so?
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein 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 4th December 2015, 03:55 AM   #373
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,963
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Come on, Tony, even you know that's not true. We all saw the mechanical penthouses fall into the building over a period of several seconds before the facade collapsed. We all know that the core collapse preceded the facade collapse. We all know that WTC7 rotated southwards as it collapsed, and that there was a visible kink in the North face of the facade, neither of which can be described as "symmetrically even with the horizon".



And we all know that's your opinion, and nothing more.

Dave
Dave, can you explain why there is no deformation of the east side exterior when the east side interior is alleged to have collapsed before the west side interior?

The southward rotation did not occur until the entire building had fallen about 20 to 25 stories, so it does not have anything to do with the horizontal symmetry of the fall.

A kink would occur in the north face towards the east side due to core collapse, since the core was asymmetric relative to the sides of the exterior, with more distance between it and the east side exterior.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 4th December 2015 at 03:59 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 4th December 2015, 03:55 AM   #374
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: 24,085
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Oystein, nobody was intentionally lying. I have to admit I did forget about the small 0.5 second dip below 0 m/s velocity to a 1 m/s velocity before the free fall acceleration kicks in. I was remembering David Chandler's words that the drop was sudden, when the actual first half second seems to have a constant 1 m/s velocity.
Would you like to explain that to Criteria? He seems to have a problem reading the graph.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
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 4th December 2015, 03:56 AM   #375
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: 24,085
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Dave, can you explain why there is no deformation of the east side exterior when the east side interior is alleged to have collapsed before the west side?
One observation does not invalidate another observation.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
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 4th December 2015, 04:00 AM   #376
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,963
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Cool story.
And the reason why it could not have is ... that Tony Szamboti is an engineer and says so?
Hardly. It is because what I am saying explains the observations and progressive collapse does not.
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 4th December 2015, 04:02 AM   #377
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,963
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
One observation does not invalidate another observation.

Dave
The reality is you can't explain the collapse as being due to progressive collapse and account for the observations. What does explain all of the observables and the fact that there was no east side exterior deformation or dust emanating from windows before full collapse is that the east penthouse was only brought down high in the building and there was no full east side interior collapse before the entire exterior came down.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 4th December 2015 at 04:07 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 4th December 2015, 04:05 AM   #378
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: 24,085
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
I didn't think you could explain it and stay with progressive collapse being your opinion as to what caused the building to come down the way it did.
I freely admit that I can't explain your incredulity and refusal to accept observed facts. However, that doesn't really have anything to do with collapse dynamics.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
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 4th December 2015, 04:08 AM   #379
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,963
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
I freely admit that I can't explain your incredulity and refusal to accept observed facts. However, that doesn't really have anything to do with collapse dynamics.

Dave
No, you simply can't explain the collapse as being due to progressive collapse and need to resort to evasions.
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 4th December 2015, 04:10 AM   #380
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,489
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Dave, can you explain why there is no deformation of the east side exterior when the east side interior is alleged to have collapsed before the west side interior?
...
I do see some deformation of the east side exterior while the east side interior is collapsing: Windows break on several floors.

I suggest that the facade was very stiff. It could withstand the collapse of one row of core columns (79-81) and and the accompanying pull on exterior columns 44 plus 43 and 45, being still braced by column 46 (that had a beam going to c76) and the east wall. Perhaps floor beams detached from the exterior before the exterior was torn apart; the window breakage however indicates some stress and strain and deformation of the window framing.

Later, when the core collapsed in rapid progression from east to west, and the lateral bracing through floor beams (tying exterior columns 46 through 55 to core columns 76 through 58) was lost, it took far lesser forces to pull in the facade.

Of course that is also just a story.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein 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 4th December 2015, 04:18 AM   #381
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,665
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Come on, Tony...... We all know that WTC7 rotated southwards as it collapsed, and that there was a visible kink in the North face of the facade, neither of which can be described as "symmetrically even with the horizon".


Dave
It rotated counter clockwise.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf WTC 7 ROTATION GEOMETRY 2.pdf (80.3 KB, 4 views)
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 4th December 2015, 04:20 AM   #382
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,489
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Hardly. It is because what I am saying explains the observations
Yes, mostly - with the exception of the one big elephant that ought to be in the room but isn't:
No BANG.
You see, you want to claim that the core columns failed in succession so rapid that it could not have been natural progressive collapes. I.e. they must have failed within <1 s | <0.5 s | <0.2 s | <0.1 of each other (take your pick).
You don't get this close coordination with the thermal action of thermitic incendiaries, as that takes several seconds (see Cole experiments!). You definitely need the fast breaking power of explosive shockwaves.
The core columns were very massive.
You have 21 core columns (58 through 78, assuming 79-81 are already gone; 24, if you claim those were felled as late as the others), each requiring several pounds of high explosives.
You claim that each core column was exploded not just once, but in 8 (or more) places, right? That's 168 explosive charges of several pounds each. NIST determined 9 pounds for c79. Let's be very thrifty here and say 2 pounds per charge: That's 336 pounds of high explosives detonated within less than 1 | 0.5 | 0.2 | 0.1 seconds - is that so far a fair rendering of what you hypothesize?

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
and progressive collapse does not.
Bare assertion.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein 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 4th December 2015, 04:25 AM   #383
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,665
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Hardly. It is because what I am saying explains the observations and progressive collapse does not.
A progressive collapse east to west in the core below floor 8 gutted the interior and collapsed the support for the n,e,s &w of moment frame which then collapsed 8 stories probably with only parts of the floor system connected to it as it came down.
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 4th December 2015, 05:23 AM   #384
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: 24,085
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
No, you simply can't explain the collapse as being due to progressive collapse and need to resort to evasions.
You're the one evading. You claimed that Chandler's graph shows immediate onset of freefall, and that this proves explosives. You then had to admit that it doesn't show immediate onset of freefall, but that's also obviously due to explosives. And you probably remembered that you claimed that the 2/3 G acceleration of WTC1 also proves explosives. You had to change the subject quickly, before anybody noticed that you seem to think any observation automatically proves explosives, even if it's the exact opposite of some other observation that proves explosives. So you've made up yet another spurious demand for explanation to cover for the fact that your stock explanation is getting a bit overworked.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
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 4th December 2015, 06:24 AM   #385
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,963
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
It rotated counter clockwise.
Yes, in a horizontal way after the kink. That was because the core was pulling on it and there was more inertia on the east side, as the core was further away from the east side exterior.

It all makes sense as being due to the core being pulled.
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 4th December 2015, 06:28 AM   #386
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,963
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
You're the one evading. You claimed that Chandler's graph shows immediate onset of freefall, and that this proves explosives. You then had to admit that it doesn't show immediate onset of freefall, but that's also obviously due to explosives. And you probably remembered that you claimed that the 2/3 G acceleration of WTC1 also proves explosives. You had to change the subject quickly, before anybody noticed that you seem to think any observation automatically proves explosives, even if it's the exact opposite of some other observation that proves explosives. So you've made up yet another spurious demand for explanation to cover for the fact that your stock explanation is getting a bit overworked.

Dave
You know you can't explain the collapses as being due to natural circumstances.

The east penthouse collapse is not indicative of a full east side interior collapse before the west side. You can't show otherwise so all you can do is try and play fast and loose and intentionally misrepresent what I am saying.
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 4th December 2015, 06:43 AM   #387
WilliamSeger
Master Poster
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,128
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
This 1 m/s for 0.5 seconds gives a 0.5 meter drop before free fall. That is about 20 inches. What it most probably pertains to is the pull in of the exterior columns by the 8 stories of cut core low in the building. The exterior columns shrunk vertically by 20 inches, due to their pull-in, before they lost all resistance.
How is that different from what would have happened if the interior columns collapsed progressively, as the NIST model shows, and do you have anything other than personal incredulity to reject that hypothesis?

Along with the east penthouse business, what you're suggesting is that the collapse doesn't really look like a CD because the perps went to extreme pains to keep it from looking like a CD. That's the kind of "reasoning" produced by spiraling conspiracy delusions.
WilliamSeger 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 4th December 2015, 06:46 AM   #388
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: 24,085
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
I do see some deformation of the east side exterior while the east side interior is collapsing: Windows break on several floors.
Just out of interest, while you're addressing Tony's latest fairy story, you might care to remember that he said deformation of the perimeter of WTC1 was evidence of explosives. Now he's saying that lack of deformation of the perimeter of WTC7 is also evidence of explosives. You have to remember that, in Tony World, whether you observe a specific phenomenon or not, it's always evidence of explosives.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
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 4th December 2015, 07:02 AM   #389
Grizzly Bear
このマスクによっ
 
Grizzly Bear's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,764
Nevermind
__________________
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 4th December 2015, 07:06 AM   #390
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,728
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Just out of interest, while you're addressing Tony's latest fairy story, you might care to remember that he said deformation of the perimeter of WTC1 was evidence of explosives. Now he's saying that lack of deformation of the perimeter of WTC7 is also evidence of explosives. You have to remember that, in Tony World, whether you observe a specific phenomenon or not, it's always evidence of explosives.

Dave
Fantasy explosives, like Santa's Elves can do anything, and we know who gets a stocking full of coal for Christmas.

The Ideas expressed by Truthers in this thread have as much validity as an elderly lady, being struck by a sled pulled by flying deer, in which an overly obese, laughing eternal man rides around the world in a few hours on one night a year.

In other words The theories of St Nicholas, are as valid as the truther ideas expressed here,
Happy Holidays, or to any atheist present, enjoy your days off from work to party.
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 4th December 2015, 07:10 AM   #391
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: 24,085
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
You know you can't explain the collapses as being due to natural circumstances.
No, I wouldn't even try. Falling debris cutting the south wall almost in half and seven hours of unfought fires in a steel-framed skyscraper don't correspond to any reasonable definition of the term "natural circumstances". That's a term used by truthers to give the subtle implication that these buildings were just standing there perfectly undamaged one moment and crashing down the next for no apparent reason. It's a carefully constructed lie by implication.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
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 4th December 2015, 07:30 AM   #392
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,665
The 7wtc collaps,e like all things which "collapse" is driven by one and only one thing...

GRAVITY...

a natural force if there ever was one.
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 4th December 2015, 10:28 AM   #393
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,057
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Even the NIST was forced to agree with the free fall conclusion derived from that chart. You should be embarrassed by your lack of understanding Mr. Rogers.
Were they?

Really?

OK, so who forced NIST to agree with "free-fall"?

How much force was required? Did David Chandler storm into Dr. Sunder's office and hold a gun to his head?

Wasn't "free-fall" already inherent in NIST's calculations, Chandler's work just adding a level of detail to what was already there?

How did this forced admission of free-fall alter NIST's conclusions?

Why?
__________________
So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts.
Mark F 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 4th December 2015, 10:36 AM   #394
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,791
Originally Posted by Mark F View Post
Were they?

Really?

OK, so who forced NIST to agree with "free-fall"?

How much force was required? Did David Chandler storm into Dr. Sunder's office and hold a gun to his head?

Wasn't "free-fall" already inherent in NIST's calculations, Chandler's work just adding a level of detail to what was already there?

How did this forced admission of free-fall alter NIST's conclusions?

Why?
"Forced",lmfao. More like requested to note the portion of NIST's own graph that shows a small portion of the collapse movement is at free fall. NIST did not think it relevant to focus on a part of the graph which corresponds to a time period AFTER the entire structure had been moving already.

Not to unusual of AE911T proponents to claim they 'forced' NISt into anything. After all Chris Sarns claimed that he "forced" NIST to abandon the diesel fuel fed fire scenario. In fact of course NIST simply listed it as a possibility to be investigated in the prelim report. It was investigated and found to be wanting for evidence so they dropped it as part of a 'most probable' hypothesis.
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 4th December 2015, 10:56 AM   #395
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,057
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
"Forced",lmfao. More like requested to note the portion of NIST's own graph that shows a small portion of the collapse movement is at free fall.
"Forced"

"Requested"

It is such a fine line
__________________
So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts.
Mark F 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 4th December 2015, 11:08 AM   #396
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,373
Originally Posted by Mark F View Post
"Forced"

"Requested"

It is such a fine line
and all to support the lie that "free fall == CD" which T Sz and DC continue to support.

"free fall" ( including "averaging free fall" which MUST therefore include bits of "over G") are both features of the collapse mechanism. NOT of what initiated the mechanism.

The stupidity of the truther assertion is that they imply rational cognition to the building - the building has to know "CD or Natural" and decide how it will fall based on that knowledge.

The building - to meet their nonsense - must be able to change the collapse mechanism based on knowing that it was started by "CD" or "Natural".

It must go something like this - collapsing building speaks to beam 789 - " hey - not so fast there 789 - this is a natural collapse - you must stay less than free all!"

OR - if it was CDed - "Hey Beam 678 and Column 456 - can you two do the "free fall" thing to show that we've been CDed"

...and truthers expect us to take them seriously???

Nah.... far easier to accept reality - "free fall" does not mean CD. Free fall is a feature of the collapse mechanism - not what initiated the collapse mechanism. If a building collapses because Columns 65 and 93 failed it matters not whether the columns were cut by CD, by accident or by overheatng.

Last edited by ozeco41; 4th December 2015 at 11:14 AM.
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 4th December 2015, 03:43 PM   #397
Grizzly Bear
このマスクによっ
 
Grizzly Bear's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,764
Yes well... if you don't follow the false premise then the response is either silence or evasion. I suspect the threads would fall dead silent if the claims were given no room to didge their burden of proof
__________________
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 4th December 2015, 04:19 PM   #398
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,373
Originally Posted by Grizzly Bear View Post
Yes well... if you don't follow the false premise then the response is either silence or evasion. I suspect the threads would fall dead silent if the claims were given no room to didge their burden of proof
If I revert from [/ComedyRidiculeMode]:

1) You are correct as it applies to this instance;
2) And just about every other technical issue raised by currently active truthers, trolls or Poes.

And [SeriousMetaProcessCommentMode]
(AKA somewhat more seriously )

Acceptance of reversed burden of disproof is AFAICS the singular foundation on which all 9/11 technical discussion relies.

"We" are under no obligation to respond to - debate - argue - CD at WTC until a valid basis of hypothesis - AKA a prima facie case - a "case to answer" - is posted for discussion. And that has never happened. Plenty of bits and pieces - never even an outline of a coherent pro CD hypothesis. So we tolerate that shortcoming and enjoy explaining what really happened.

..when what really happened was quite simple - and the truther side claims get increasingly trivial and outright silly.

Last edited by ozeco41; 4th December 2015 at 04:20 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 4th December 2015, 04:38 PM   #399
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,791
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
If I revert from [/ComedyRidiculeMode]:

1) You are correct as it applies to this instance;
2) And just about every other technical issue raised by currently active truthers, trolls or Poes.

And [SeriousMetaProcessCommentMode]
(AKA somewhat more seriously )

Acceptance of reversed burden of disproof is AFAICS the singular foundation on which all 9/11 technical discussion relies.

"We" are under no obligation to respond to - debate - argue - CD at WTC until a valid basis of hypothesis - AKA a prima facie case - a "case to answer" - is posted for discussion. And that has never happened. Plenty of bits and pieces - never even an outline of a coherent pro CD hypothesis. So we tolerate that shortcoming and enjoy explaining what really happened.

..when what really happened was quite simple - and the truther side claims get increasingly trivial and outright silly.
I've made the point several times that the TM would have been better served to simply argue that thermite was used to augment the heat produced by the fires to ensure collapse initiation, ie: Tpwers - use thermite to severely weaken ~a dozen core columns just above the impact zones(because we all know that the planes hit their exactly targeted zones)
WTC7 - thermite was used at the 8th floor to severely weaken col 79 to failure, which TPTB had determined was a singularly vulnerable point in this decades old structure
Pentagon - plane flown into building
Shanksville - plane flown into the ground

BUT, nooooo , vast complicated and wholly unnecessary massive plots just gots to be the order of the day. Why,, because Nazi quote about big lies
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 4th December 2015, 04:52 PM   #400
Criteria
Critical Thinker
 
Criteria's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 447
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
"Forced",lmfao. More like requested to note the portion of NIST's own graph that shows a small portion of the collapse movement is at free fall. NIST did not think it relevant to focus on a part of the graph which corresponds to a time period AFTER the entire structure had been moving already.

Not to unusual of AE911T proponents to claim they 'forced' NISt into anything. After all Chris Sarns claimed that he "forced" NIST to abandon the diesel fuel fed fire scenario. In fact of course NIST simply listed it as a possibility to be investigated in the prelim report. It was investigated and found to be wanting for evidence so they dropped it as part of a 'most probable' hypothesis.
Maybe "compelled" is a more palatable word for you?
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
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 06:38 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
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.