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 4th December 2015, 04:58 PM   #401
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,894
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
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
I think it's preposterous to think the planes hit some precise location in the towers... as in floor 96... I don't think that almost any pilot could pull that off... elevation wise I mean. How do they know the floor... there were no floor number and the architecture had few clues at all.
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, 05:33 PM   #402
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,725
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Maybe "compelled" is a more palatable word for you?
If we are being factual and accurate then requested fits the bill nicely. "Compelled" isn't factual OR accurate here.

I couldn't help but notice you didn't address any of my questions, or more to the point; why we should even care since how fast something falls tells us nothing about what caused it to fall.

You keep running with the fantasy that NIST was forced/coerced/compelled by some CT nutters to admit a minor and irrelevant detail which was already contained within their data and did not effect their findings one tiny bit if that works for you. Clearly it has been a winning argument so far, winning broad and overwhelming support from the general public as well as the professional engineering community.
__________________
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, 06:52 PM   #403
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,203
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Maybe "compelled" is a more palatable word for you?
Not maybe, it is pure BS. 911 truth has to make up BS to have a fantasy of CD.
It was in the NIST data, thus compelled is BS, since it is evidence. Where is your evidence for CD? in the bit bucket
__________________
"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 4th December 2015, 07:06 PM   #404
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,464
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
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...
I agree with you that it is easy to consider a more viable argument for use of thermXte.

My position remains unchanged - I go to the basis of the argument:
1) thermXte is only relevant in the context of a viable CD hypothesis;
2) There is no viable CD hypothesis. Therefore thermXte is irrelevant.

No point trying to prove that a tool can achieve something when the something did not happen. Like proving that firearms can kill and tediously arguing merits of calibres, projectile design and propellant powders - when there has been no murder - there is no body and nobody missing.

Even if the effectiveness of the tool is proven it does not prove it was used in an event which did not happen. Whatever numbers we apply there is still 98% of the proof missing.

Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
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
The objectives and motivation are long past being serious about understanding. trolling for irritation and gratuitous personal insults and "keep the discussion circling" are clearly the two dominant objectives.
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, 07:09 PM   #405
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,464
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
I think it's preposterous to think the planes hit some precise location in the towers... as in floor 96... I don't think that almost any pilot could pull that off... elevation wise I mean. How do they know the floor... there were no floor number and the architecture had few clues at all.
[TrutherTypeAnswer] - The bulls-eye aiming point was painted on the building in UV visible paint.

[SeriousAnswerForRationalPeople] - the concept is a Texas Sharpshooter fallacy.



...and the thread is about a study of WTC7

Last edited by ozeco41; 4th December 2015 at 07:10 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, 07:10 PM   #406
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,702
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Maybe "compelled" is a more palatable word for you?
As far as I can see the NIST addressing this was more of a half assed attempt to respond to what at that time was a surge brought about from the creation of "loose change" and the frustration people felt about the (political) response to 9/11.

It's a moot point. They tried to explain it to layman but, engineers are not very good at this (especially when they were never tasked to).

In steps people like Tony Sz to decipher what they mean to say. The rest is history.

The question people leaning on the fence should ask, "Why are so few engineers 9/11 truthers?".
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

Last edited by DGM; 4th December 2015 at 07:12 PM.
DGM 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, 07:33 PM   #407
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,464
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
As far as I can see the NIST addressing this was more of a half assed attempt to respond to what at that time was a surge brought about from the creation of "loose change" and the frustration people felt about the (political) response to 9/11.

It's a moot point. They tried to explain it to layman but, engineers are not very good at this (especially when they were never tasked to).
NIST tried to be transparent - responding to an issue that was and still is a non-event.

It happens routinely in Government Agencies who need to communicate with a diverse audience. Whether or not they were aware at that time that Chandler was a dishonest incompetent at physics - in the position that NIST was the choice is simple - either ignore and be misrepresented OR explain. And with "explain" the choice is between taking on the dishonest nutter or issuing a valid professional response sufficient to address what could be the legitimate enquiry from a lay person with no comprehension of the physics. (And that dichotomy is correct. "Nutters v the rest". Genuine honest truthers - of which few remain - fit in the second category - "legitimate enquirers with insufficient understanding of physics".)

So they got a request about "free fall" - which is expected and a non-event for any person who is honest and understands the physics. "free fall" does not mean CD - the lie that the truth movement persists in.

So NIST gave the correct answer - if they were aware of Chandler's dishonest agenda they simply chose to wear any comeback - ignore whatever dishonest spin that Chandler et al put on the truth.
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
In steps people like Tony Sz to decipher what they mean to say. The rest is history.
With the obvious corollary that no physics competent engineer could believe that "free fall == CD"

Originally Posted by DGM View Post
The question people leaning on the fence should ask, "Why are so few engineers 9/11 truthers?".
And one part of the answer is "because most of them understand physics."

The more in depth questions could include:
"How well do they - average run of the mill practising engineers - understand physics?"
"Can they apply physics to the complexity of a dynamic 3D failure when their normal working life practice is designing buildings to code to remain standing and with a big crutch of FEA supporting them?"

OR a "meta-level" example:
"Does the demographic groups of "engineers" include more? less? or about the same proportion of non thinkers who are susceptible to obsessions as is found in the "general population"?"

and about a dozen more....

Last edited by ozeco41; 4th December 2015 at 08:19 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, 08:14 PM   #408
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,835
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Maybe "compelled" is a more palatable word for you?
My palate isnt the issue. The ridiculous notion that AE911T has significantly influenced anything that NIST has said or produced is the issue.

Did NIST think the short time, 1.2 sec iirc, of at, and briefly above, g have any bearing on how and why the building collapsed? No, and rightly so.
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, 08:40 PM   #409
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,835
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
I agree with you that it is easy to consider a more viable argument for use of thermXte.

My position remains unchanged - I go to the basis of the argument:
1) thermXte is only relevant in the context of a viable CD hypothesis;
2) There is no viable CD hypothesis. Therefore thermXte is irrelevant.
My point leads directly to yours. The 911TM simply never envisioned creating a viable hypothesis.
I'm not sure it was even driven by dishonesty. Its driven by a political world view. Dishonesty has entered into it in response to the rational arguments brought forth over the past decade.
Witness the morphing of the thermite argument.
First it was 'bombs in the towers',
-It was pointed out that there were no telltale sounds of explosives.

The response was to invoke quiet, steel melting, thermite.

- That would take a hell of a lot of thermite.
Response invoked thermate and nano-thermite.

- Too slow to be used to time a CD
Response noted inclusion of thermite in high explosives

- ??? Back to high explosives. Millisecond severing of heavy steel columns still requires supersonic pressure waves ie BOOM

Test dust, declare it includes thermite
We found thermite , it shouldnt be there, Therefore CD, don't ask how. We will invoke thermite and high explosives any time we feel like it .

Making sense, forming a coherent , internally consistent hypothesis was never even envisioned, but their obvious circular argument back to high explosives is dishonest.

Last edited by jaydeehess; 4th December 2015 at 08:45 PM.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2015, 08:53 PM   #410
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,835
How about the recent spat concerning iron microspheres.
Declaration: thermite is the only mechanism by which they are produced.

A poster notes he burned materials in a barrel and had iron microspheres in the residue.

He is attacked for not determining if these spheres were present in the old barrel and for using nonstandardized materials.
Ok, therefore there ARE or are not other mechanisms by which said microspheres can be produced in an office fire(nonstandardized materials, likely presence of iron oxides).

The dishonesty is obvious even if it wasnt earlier.
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 5th December 2015, 01:32 AM   #411
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,464
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
My point leads directly to yours.
Understood and fully agreed.
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
The 911TM simply never envisioned creating a viable hypothesis.1
I'm not sure it was even driven by dishonesty.2 Its driven by a political world view.3 Dishonesty has entered into it in response to the rational arguments brought forth over the past decade.4
1 I'm not sure that was globally true at the start of the "movement". It is overwhelmingly true now given the remnant activity comes from those fatally obsessed and those playing trolling games with "genuine truthers" a rare - near extinct - species.
2 Initially I don't think it was - many of the initial activists were "genuine truthers" - the honest ones who did not understand - were educated by participation and departed the scene. Then the ego and power obsessed opportunists rose to the prominent positions. Gage and his "henchpersons of dishonesty". And, as reasoned discussion with truthers became less and less we saw the vacuum filled by trolling. 2010-2011 onwards till we reach the current demographic.
3 Yes - but much of the origin of the political view IMO is a consequence of their obvious limited reasoning skills - they don't understand anything which is multi factor complicated. And - as I have hypothesised on several previous occasions - that led them to a life long habit of "blame the man" - which IMO becomes the political world view - "Authority is always dishonest and always wrong". Reality is "I cannot compute complicated things. Cannot be my fault. Must attribute blame to others."
4 Fully agreed.

Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post

Witness the morphing of the thermite argument.
First it was 'bombs in the towers',
-It was pointed out that there were no telltale sounds of explosives.

The response was to invoke quiet, steel melting, thermite.

- That would take a hell of a lot of thermite.
Response invoked thermate and nano-thermite.

- Too slow to be used to time a CD
Response noted inclusion of thermite in high explosives

- ??? Back to high explosives. Millisecond severing of heavy steel columns still requires supersonic pressure waves ie BOOM

Test dust, declare it includes thermite
We found thermite , it shouldnt be there, Therefore CD, don't ask how. We will invoke thermite and high explosives any time we feel like it
.
Yes - it is probably the most clearly defined multi stage morphing of a topic into more and more remote derails.

I find it amusing to note that a number of debunkers are obviously interested in the science and don't care that it has lost any relevance to WTC 9/!! collapses. Contrast with the engineering physics of the collapses where there is strong resistance to digging into the understanding.

- detail is welcomed on thermXte which is not relevant. But not welcomed on the engineering which is of direct relevance. Go figure.

Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Making sense, forming a coherent , internally consistent hypothesis was never even envisioned, but their obvious circular argument back to high explosives is dishonest.
Agreed for the present so-called truthers. We seem to have thrown away the distinction between "truthers" and "trolls". And I don't see a "truther" among them.
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 5th December 2015, 01:35 AM   #412
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,464
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
How about the recent spat concerning iron microspheres.
..........................
The dishonesty is obvious even if it wasnt earlier.
Yes - another layer of distancing from relevant discussion AND

Yes - the untruths are clear and explicit.

BUT - why feed the trolling? They will keep coming back for more. And the technical issue is not their interrst. Not their objective. So explaining the technicals wont satisfy them.
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 5th December 2015, 03:45 AM   #413
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,894
In the end the more interesting thing is how intelligent people can so easily accept flawed thinking and go into self delude mode. My thinking is that there is such a huge lack of faith in the MSM, in advertising, in PR, spin and so forth... they feel perhaps understandably, so that "truth" will not come from the usual sources... and that since the usual sources are so riddled with "spin" and so forth there is at least some reason to believe (they think) that the narratives, explanations and so forth are intentional efforts to deceive. One might argue that the - Iraq has WMDs coming so soon after 9/11 confirmed that lying to the public is their MO and so 9/11 HAD to have been a pack of lies and so they construct their own seemingly logically consistent narratives... ergo "the truth movement".

Once a person has the... everything we are told is a lie... mindset... it's not a big leap to go with a bunch of people who come from the same place of "distrust",

It pretty obvious that very very few people have the technical background and first hand knowledge of the events, real objective data and so forth. Everyone faces the same set of problems... figuring out reality from "TV" presentations... of the events. So we are left with being independent detectives... and fall for whatever authority figures we find "credible" tells us.

The officials either couldn't detail the collapses... faced with almost the same level of lack of hard data... or in the haste to move forward... a proper forensic investigation was not possible and so we got a melange of theory sprinkled with some supporting data. A new investigation probably can only produce different models driven by different assumptions.

My take away is that the designs of the structures determined the FORM and completeness of the collapses. I don't know if this is even true... or if it can be investigated or tested. So in the case of 7wtc... there was no affirmative evidence of extensive diesel fed fires... there is no affirmative evidence that there weren't... I have not seen or read anything credible that reported on what was going on in the floors below 8 aside from the questionable (location) of the explosion Jennings and Hess claimed to have encountered below floor 8 when they were leaving before 10am.

Suppose there were diesel fed fires in the load transfer region.... what would be the "difference"? Would we have not embarked on the GWOT and invaded the ME? Presumably if diesel fires caused the collapse of 7wtc... would standard framing have failed... no load transfers...? If so it might mean diesel should not be stored in office buildings... something that seems self evident and should have been a code restriction. I suspect that the investigation chose not to open that Pandora's Box... That decision involved scores of people... and non of them had any bad intentions... at best all of them could be described as not thinking and planning properly. Planning for outlier some events such as earthquakes is part of design as is mitigating risks... to health and safety in design. The new ground zero buildings all include design elements which seem to address some of the failings of the original buildings. I suppose that is sort of "lesson learned" sort of thing... and seems to support the notion that original the designs could have been more "robust" re life safety and egress issues.

The recent San Bernadino incident reveals how ineffective our "system" is against "terrorists" who can find weak spots and strike. This doesn't mean that all buildings are vulnerable to collapse from CD... but surely all are vulnerable to considerable damage when struck by a large plane. Sadly there will be more San Berndinos... but hopefully no more 9/11's...

rant over
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 5th December 2015, 04:40 AM   #414
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
In the end the more interesting thing is how intelligent people can so easily accept flawed thinking and go into self delude mode. My thinking is that there is such a huge lack of faith in the MSM, in advertising, in PR, spin and so forth... they feel perhaps understandably, so that "truth" will not come from the usual sources... and that since the usual sources are so riddled with "spin" and so forth there is at least some reason to believe (they think) that the narratives, explanations and so forth are intentional efforts to deceive. One might argue that the - Iraq has WMDs coming so soon after 9/11 confirmed that lying to the public is their MO and so 9/11 HAD to have been a pack of lies and so they construct their own seemingly logically consistent narratives... ergo "the truth movement".

Once a person has the... everything we are told is a lie... mindset... it's not a big leap to go with a bunch of people who come from the same place of "distrust",

It pretty obvious that very very few people have the technical background and first hand knowledge of the events, real objective data and so forth. Everyone faces the same set of problems... figuring out reality from "TV" presentations... of the events. So we are left with being independent detectives... and fall for whatever authority figures we find "credible" tells us.

The officials either couldn't detail the collapses... faced with almost the same level of lack of hard data... or in the haste to move forward... a proper forensic investigation was not possible and so we got a melange of theory sprinkled with some supporting data. A new investigation probably can only produce different models driven by different assumptions.

My take away is that the designs of the structures determined the FORM and completeness of the collapses. I don't know if this is even true... or if it can be investigated or tested. So in the case of 7wtc... there was no affirmative evidence of extensive diesel fed fires... there is no affirmative evidence that there weren't... I have not seen or read anything credible that reported on what was going on in the floors below 8 aside from the questionable (location) of the explosion Jennings and Hess claimed to have encountered below floor 8 when they were leaving before 10am.

Suppose there were diesel fed fires in the load transfer region.... what would be the "difference"? Would we have not embarked on the GWOT and invaded the ME? Presumably if diesel fires caused the collapse of 7wtc... would standard framing have failed... no load transfers...? If so it might mean diesel should not be stored in office buildings... something that seems self evident and should have been a code restriction. I suspect that the investigation chose not to open that Pandora's Box... That decision involved scores of people... and non of them had any bad intentions... at best all of them could be described as not thinking and planning properly. Planning for outlier some events such as earthquakes is part of design as is mitigating risks... to health and safety in design. The new ground zero buildings all include design elements which seem to address some of the failings of the original buildings. I suppose that is sort of "lesson learned" sort of thing... and seems to support the notion that original the designs could have been more "robust" re life safety and egress issues.

The recent San Bernadino incident reveals how ineffective our "system" is against "terrorists" who can find weak spots and strike. This doesn't mean that all buildings are vulnerable to collapse from CD... but surely all are vulnerable to considerable damage when struck by a large plane. Sadly there will be more San Berndinos... but hopefully no more 9/11's...

rant over
The diesel fuel fed fires theory for WTC 7 has problems, because most of the diesel fuel was still in the big tanks when they were dug up from their below ground level location.
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 5th December 2015, 04:55 AM   #415
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 29,407
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
Suppose there were diesel fed fires in the load transfer region.... what would be the "difference"? Would we have not embarked on the GWOT and invaded the ME?
Realistically, I think even if WTC1 and WTC2 somehow hadn't collapsed, or even if the Pentagon attack and the Shanksville crash had never happened, the War on Terror and the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq would most likely have gone ahead more or less as they did. This is one of the reasons most of the conspiracy theories are pointless; the bits supposed to be the work of the conspirators are not the bits that really made a difference to history. One airliner flying into one tower would have been enough.

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 5th December 2015, 04:56 AM   #416
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 29,407
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
The diesel fuel fed fires theory for WTC 7 has problems, because most of the diesel fuel was still in the big tanks when they were dug up from their below ground level location.
Which is why it's generally agreed not to have been the causes of the collapse. The rational approach is to change the conclusions to fit the evidence, not deny or misrepresent the evidence to fit the desired conclusion.

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 5th December 2015, 04:57 AM   #417
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 24,969
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
In the end the more interesting thing is how intelligent people can so easily accept flawed thinking and go into self delude mode....
In addition, there might come a point where such a person has made such a huge, public investment of ego that it becomes psychologically difficult to backtrack. Then it's all too easy to take the "In a hole? Keep digging!" route, which is what we see here from the few diehards that remain.

Their failure to answer the simplest of technical points is a raging clue.
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 5th December 2015, 05:20 AM   #418
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Which is why it's generally agreed not to have been the causes of the collapse. The rational approach is to change the conclusions to fit the evidence, not deny or misrepresent the evidence to fit the desired conclusion.

Dave
I didn't say the NIST report did not back away from the diesel fuel scenario FEMA had initially postulated.

My reply concerned SanderO's continued speculation about diesel fuel having something to do with the collapse. I had to wonder if he even knows that most of it was recovered, and that its recovery makes his speculation along these lines unsupportable.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 5th December 2015 at 05:22 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 5th December 2015, 05:24 AM   #419
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 29,407
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
My reply concerned SanderO's continued speculation about diesel fuel having something to do with the collapse. I had to wonder if he even knows that most of it was recovered, and that its recovery makes his speculation along these lines unsupportable.
Then his point appears to have gone well over your head. You might want to re-read the post and suppress your knee-jerk reactions.

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 5th December 2015, 05:36 AM   #420
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,842
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
I didn't say the NIST report did not back away from the diesel fuel scenario FEMA had initially postulated.

My reply concerned SanderO's continued speculation about diesel fuel having something to do with the collapse. I had to wonder if he even knows that most of it was recovered, and that its recovery makes his speculation along these lines unsupportable.
Not exactly true Tony, the original theory was a fuel air blast caused by the Diesel in the subterranean 30,000 gallon tank.

The fires were still spread by diesel fuel, to the contents of the buildings, once girder walk off
Begins a simple fuel air blast is enough to shake the buildings structure enough to initiate girder walk off even with stiffeners and less expansion.

Carbon monoxide build up could have initiated the collapse, if it was the result of oil combustion in one of the Cat gen sets, and was contained in the engines.

I have seen a diesel engine explode in a fire before from a similar process.
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 5th December 2015, 06:38 AM   #421
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
Not exactly true Tony, the original theory was a fuel air blast caused by the Diesel in the subterranean 30,000 gallon tank.

The fires were still spread by diesel fuel, to the contents of the buildings, once girder walk off
Begins a simple fuel air blast is enough to shake the buildings structure enough to initiate girder walk off even with stiffeners and less expansion.

Carbon monoxide build up could have initiated the collapse, if it was the result of oil combustion in one of the Cat gen sets, and was contained in the engines.

I have seen a diesel engine explode in a fire before from a similar process.
You can't be serious here either.
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 5th December 2015, 06:55 AM   #422
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,725
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
[TrutherTypeAnswer] - The bulls-eye aiming point was painted on the building in UV visible paint.

[SeriousAnswerForRationalPeople] - the concept is a Texas Sharpshooter fallacy.
Indulging one last derail off-topic,...

The planes were laser guided using the semi-active laser seeker head from a Hellfire missile mounted in the "pod" under the fuselage only visible in a few Sasquatch photo's of Flight 175 - all possible of course because the planes were switched.

This begs the question that I have asked for years and never get an answer to; If the planes were switched why not put the explosives in the planes, not the buildings????
__________________
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 5th December 2015, 07:04 AM   #423
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,842
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
You can't be serious here either.
Contained carbon monoxide has the same energy per mass as trinitrotoluene.

The carbon monoxide can collect in combustion chambers and in the block, after all the oil is burned off air can enter, and the carbon monoxide goes boom!
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 5th December 2015, 07:10 AM   #424
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,464
Originally Posted by Mark F View Post
Indulging one last derail off-topic,...
Why should you be the only one concerned about "on topic"
Originally Posted by Mark F View Post
This begs the question that I have asked for years and never get an answer to; If the planes were switched why not put the explosives in the planes, not the buildings????
AN answer?? ONE?? Singular?? All on it's lonesome?? there are several.

First you are committing the error of thinking.

Second though fifth - if the "explosives in the planes" path has been followed there would have been far less opportunity for members to parade their limited understanding of physics, even more limited grasp of logic and reasoned argument and the currently being exploited skill of focusing on irrelevant details as a means of avoiding reasoned argument validly applied to the topic.

I'll leave sixth and upwards to you.

Last edited by ozeco41; 5th December 2015 at 07:12 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 5th December 2015, 07:24 AM   #425
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,725
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Realistically, I think even if WTC1 and WTC2 somehow hadn't collapsed, or even if the Pentagon attack and the Shanksville crash had never happened, the War on Terror and the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq would most likely have gone ahead more or less as they did. This is one of the reasons most of the conspiracy theories are pointless; the bits supposed to be the work of the conspirators are not the bits that really made a difference to history. One airliner flying into one tower would have been enough.

Dave
Correct, the collapse or loss of any building on 9/11 was largely incidental to the success of the plot. Indeed, everything the terrorists did after hijackers 4 planes would have been a victory, even if they had all crashed into empty fields. Still 4 successful simultaneous hijackings, 4 airliners destroyed, hundreds killed and major headlines all over the world. Job done.

But in the CT mind - and I have literally seen it expressed as such - because it happened it must have been made to happen. Pressing further I have had folks who expressed such sentiment tell me that if the Towers/7 had not collapsed there would be no Patriot Act, no security state, no War on Terror et. al.

I honestly don't know how to penetrate that level of non-thinking.
__________________
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 5th December 2015, 07:28 AM   #426
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,725
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Why should you be the only one concerned about "on topic"

AN answer?? ONE?? Singular?? All on it's lonesome?? there are several.

First you are committing the error of thinking.

Second though fifth - if the "explosives in the planes" path has been followed there would have been far less opportunity for members to parade their limited understanding of physics, even more limited grasp of logic and reasoned argument and the currently being exploited skill of focusing on irrelevant details as a means of avoiding reasoned argument validly applied to the topic.

I'll leave sixth and upwards to you.
I'm not saying that the evil inside jobbers, taking the easy, logical route of least resistance by doing the thing that would make the most sense wouldn't ruin years of fun on obscure interwebs discussion boards.

But since they didn't that must mean,...
__________________
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 5th December 2015, 08:09 AM   #427
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 29,407
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
First you are committing the error of thinking.
Love it.

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 5th December 2015, 08:14 AM   #428
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,835
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
I didn't say the NIST report did not back away from the diesel fuel scenario FEMA had initially postulated.

My reply concerned SanderO's continued speculation about diesel fuel having something to do with the collapse. I had to wonder if he even knows that most of it was recovered, and that its recovery makes his speculation along these lines unsupportable.
Sander does know that his theory lacks definitive evidence of fires on the floors in question.

Do you understand you have even less evidence that, for instance, col 79 was severed near the top of the building, or of multiple explosions taking out lower floors?

How can you possibly point out the mote in JSO's eye and ignore the log in yours?
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 5th December 2015, 08:18 AM   #429
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,835
Originally Posted by Mark F View Post
Correct, the collapse or loss of any building on 9/11 was largely incidental to the success of the plot. Indeed, everything the terrorists did after hijackers 4 planes would have been a victory, even if they had all crashed into empty fields. Still 4 successful simultaneous hijackings, 4 airliners destroyed, hundreds killed and major headlines all over the world. Job done.

But in the CT mind - and I have literally seen it expressed as such - because it happened it must have been made to happen. Pressing further I have had folks who expressed such sentiment tell me that if the Towers/7 had not collapsed there would be no Patriot Act, no security state, no War on Terror et. al.

I honestly don't know how to penetrate that level of non-thinking.
Simply hijacking 4 US aircraft and killing all on board by immediately sending them into death spirals, would have been enough to garner support for war in Afghanistan. That's nearly 400 dead Americans. Took France only a few dozen to effectively declare war in ISIS. Do truthers assume that France is more of a warrior nation than the USA?
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 5th December 2015, 08:37 AM   #430
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,894
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
I didn't say the NIST report did not back away from the diesel fuel scenario FEMA had initially postulated.

My reply concerned SanderO's continued speculation about diesel fuel having something to do with the collapse. I had to wonder if he even knows that most of it was recovered, and that its recovery makes his speculation along these lines unsupportable.
You need to understand what was "recovered"... that would be MOST of the fuel in the underground storage tanks....

They don't know HOW much of that was pumped up and used for emergency power and of course how much was LOST "somehow" from the day tanks on the mech floors day tanks.

There are NO REPORTS OF WHAT WAS HAPPENING or NOT HAPPENING ON THE MECH FLOORS AT ANY TIME AS FAR AS I KNOW. If you have reports or evidence that something or nothing happened down there... please cite it.

I am perfectly aware that my TTF theory has only the structural design to support it along with a few other engineers who thought the same. YES it assumes some manner of heat failing a truss joint in a diagonal and kicking off the east to west progressive collapse.

Last edited by JSanderO; 5th December 2015 at 08:40 AM.
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 5th December 2015, 10:25 AM   #431
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,389
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFp4S4Ey-sU&t=22
No, this is NOT explosive CD, this is accidental, gravity-driven progressive collapse.
Oh, a vertical progressive collapse! But but but... that CAN'T HAPPEN! Notconvinced proved that it's physically impossible! And Heiwa and...

Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
[...]
I have this image handy for those silly claims.



Even Robert McCoy, an architect who is now in the AE911 board, says that it's expected (even if he failed to see it in the case of the towers for some reason, even if they're there):
[...] But it's going to come down in a pancake fashion, in a staccato kind of way, bang-bang-bang-bang-bang as it comes. It's not going to come as a smooth fall. And you're going to see puffs of pulverizing concrete, each time a floor... a series of floors hits another floor. I didn't see that. I saw billowing columns of dust when I viewed the videos.[...]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfgXDnn8V_I

So Criteria seems to be contradicting McCoy from AE911T now.

Don't you love it when they get their story so wrong that they contradict each other?
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 5th December 2015, 10:30 AM   #432
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,389
Criteria, since you've ignored this post...

Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
WTC 7 had 58 perimeter columns and 25 core columns.

Freefall as observed in the video record showed the NE corner dropping in sync with the SW and NW corners. 83 columns do not ’snap’ at the same time unless they all face an overwhelming lateral or vertical force at the same time.
They didn't. Core fell first, so about 58 failed at about the same time (or about 21 if we follow JSanderO's explanation). And FTFY, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bgucy_b5FKk for an example of simultaneous or near-simultaneous failure due to vertical overload.

The core pulled from the perimeter as it fell, causing it to overload and causing the "kink" (which is mostly north-south and a little up-down). Pretty basic.

Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
There is nothing desperate about arguing that CD was the cause. It is the only logical explanation.
There's flawed logic in your 'logical' explanation.
... what do you have to say about Tony's explanation on how that's expected once the core fell?
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
There was no need to cut the exterior for initiation. The core was removed and that pulled the exterior inward causing it to buckle to initiate downward movement.
Are you retracting your claim about it being impossible?
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 5th December 2015, 12:34 PM   #433
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,894
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
Oh, a vertical progressive collapse! But but but... that CAN'T HAPPEN! Notconvinced proved that it's physically impossible! And Heiwa and...


I have this image handy for those silly claims.

http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgim...-explosion.jpg

Even Robert McCoy, an architect who is now in the AE911 board, says that it's expected (even if he failed to see it in the case of the towers for some reason, even if they're there):
[...] But it's going to come down in a pancake fashion, in a staccato kind of way, bang-bang-bang-bang-bang as it comes. It's not going to come as a smooth fall. And you're going to see puffs of pulverizing concrete, each time a floor... a series of floors hits another floor. I didn't see that. I saw billowing columns of dust when I viewed the videos.[...]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfgXDnn8V_I

So Criteria seems to be contradicting McCoy from AE911T now.

Don't you love it when they get their story so wrong that they contradict each other?
McCoy sounds like a typical smart idiot who has no idea of what was there and what happened. A smart idiot revealed in all his idiocy! Notice how they can sound rational! But he can't think critically!

Last edited by JSanderO; 5th December 2015 at 01:26 PM.
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2015, 02:05 PM   #434
Notconvinced
Critical Thinker
 
Notconvinced's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 343
Originally Posted by Mark F View Post
But in the CT mind - and I have literally seen it expressed as such - because it happened it must have been made to happen. Pressing further I have had folks who expressed such sentiment tell me that if the Towers/7 had not collapsed there would be no Patriot Act, no security state, no War on Terror et. al.
To be a little more precise, you also needed a biological weapons attack upon our legislative branch to finally get the PATRIOT act. I guess we can be glad nukes weren't also deployed....
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 5th December 2015, 03:24 PM   #435
Criteria
Critical Thinker
 
Criteria's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 458
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
Criteria, since you've ignored this post…
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
”Freefall as observed in the video record showed the NE corner dropping in sync with the SW and NW corners. 83 columns do not ’snap’ at the same time unless they all face an overwhelming lateral force at the same time. There is nothing desperate about arguing that CD was the cause. It is the only logical explanation.”
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
or *vertical force at the same time
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
They didn't. Core fell first, so about 58 failed at about the same time (or about 21 if we follow JSanderO's explanation)…”
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
... what do you have to say about Tony's explanation on how that's expected once the core fell?

Are you retracting your claim about it being impossible?
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.
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
There was no need to cut the exterior for initiation. The core was removed and that pulled the exterior inward causing it to buckle to initiate downward movement.

The exterior corner connections were severed once things were moving to help continue propagation by removing orthogonal support of the perimeter walls and decreasing their resistance to the point where they could not sustain a static load.
Your suggested required *vertical force would have to be simultaneously overwhelming at those corners. CD would create a uniform vertical force powered by gravity. Roaming office cubicle fires would/could not.

I have never suggested that the collapse initiation was caused by the removal of perimeter columns, but, the observed free fall descent was.

The global collapse of WTC7 was initiated by the implosion caused by the simultaneous failure of all the lower core columns. At the time that the perimeter was observed dropping at free fall acceleration for 8 stories, there could no longer have been any vertical perimeter resistance for a continuous height of 8 stories.

My primary point is, at the time we see WTC7 dropping at free fall acceleration all of the core and perimeter columns were offering zero resistance. I am in agreement with Mr. Szamboti that preceding the observed free falling perimeter, the collapse was initiated by the implosion of all of the lower core columns.
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 5th December 2015, 04:19 PM   #436
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,702
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
My primary point is, at the time we see WTC7 dropping at free fall acceleration all of the core and perimeter columns were offering zero resistance. I am in agreement with Mr. Szamboti that preceding the observed free falling perimeter, the collapse was initiated by the implosion of all of the lower core columns.
Do you also agree with him that the penthouse collapses were a separate demolition not related to the global collapse?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM 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 5th December 2015, 04:33 PM   #437
Notconvinced
Critical Thinker
 
Notconvinced's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 343
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.
Try referencing the whole passage next time Oystein. You need to explain how rapidly occurring expulsion of building material could occur at the location of the columns on both east and west ends of the building just prior to it's collapse, and it not be detonation of charges. Remember, the expulsions occur nearly simultaneously across numerous floors, and not explicitly top down or bottom up.

Good luck.
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 5th December 2015, 04:39 PM   #438
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,702
Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
Try referencing the whole passage next time Oystein. You need to explain how rapidly occurring expulsion of building material could occur at the location of the columns on both east and west ends of the building just prior to it's collapse, and it not be detonation of charges. Remember, the expulsions occur nearly simultaneously across numerous floors, and not explicitly top down or bottom up.

Good luck.
The 7:30 time stamp is well after the collapse starts.............
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM 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 5th December 2015, 04:53 PM   #439
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,389
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Your suggested required *vertical force would have to be simultaneously overwhelming at those corners. CD would create a uniform vertical force powered by gravity. Roaming office cubicle fires would/could not.
So did core collapse.

Of course fire does not pull downwards. Fire merely destabilizes the structure to the point of collapse. Like in these cases for example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p22OkclAU3o
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KB-6Sp7mKlQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wfpRO9bTfo

And yes, the overload was simultaneous. When the core fell, the perimeter columns attached to it were pulled downwards all at the same time.

Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
My primary point is, at the time we see WTC7 dropping at free fall acceleration all of the core and perimeter columns were offering zero resistance.
NIST agrees, but some people in this forum including me don't, because it actually fell at an acceleration greater than that of free fall. That proves that there were forces pulling downwards (the falling core being the most plausible source of those) and in the presence of such forces, the argument that concludes that the resistance was zero is invalid.

Last edited by pgimeno; 5th December 2015 at 05:00 PM. Reason: added underlined word
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 5th December 2015, 10:56 PM   #440
Notconvinced
Critical Thinker
 
Notconvinced's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 343
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
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.
Your supposed smoke is being pushed out before the collapse even starts. You cannot be that obtuse.

Watch the demolition charges run the entire building.
Listen to Hess declare the floor below him exploded.
Hear about the hung structure full of blown out elevator cars and floors destroyed by blasts.

https://youtu.be/jKtU01qcZBM
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
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 10:35 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

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

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