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

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


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

Reply
Old 25th June 2013, 11:39 AM   #81
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 18,855
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
His limiting the scope of the discussion to the last few seconds of the collapse also plays to his leaning to propaganda over fact.
And actually, his 'absurd' sentence wasn't hyperbole, I was incorrect. It was premature dismissal, which is somewhat arrogant in my book.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB 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 25th June 2013, 02:31 PM   #82
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
His limiting the scope of the discussion to the last few seconds of the collapse also plays to his leaning to propaganda over fact.
Indeed limiting, discussion to two or three seconds of a collapse that took near seventeen seconds from first failure to final state is rather ,,,, let's call it 'disingenuous'.
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 25th June 2013, 05:20 PM   #83
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
 
leftysergeant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,863
Originally Posted by Senenmut View Post
dust? im not wtcdust now am I? maybe iron rich microspheres or something like that..... haha.....anyway, if one can turn 1 inch of steel (at connection points or to columns) to razor thin, and make columns buckle where you want them to buckle, then I think you are closer to the truth.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...6c54b826e6.jpg

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...1b21e84975.jpg

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d8c715f054.jpg
What have these acid-eroded bit to do with anything?
__________________
No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat.
leftysergeant 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 25th June 2013, 05:24 PM   #84
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
 
leftysergeant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,863
I notice that that whackadoodle Chandler based his calculations on how fast a spot on the top of #7 was moving. I just wonder, though, if he is making a big mistake in assuming that the spot is moving straight down. As I see the simulations and the real-time videos, it appears to me that the spot was moving away from the camera. Would this not give the appearance that the spot was moving faster than it was?

I will allow those with better math skills than mine work on that.
__________________
No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat.
leftysergeant 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 25th June 2013, 05:32 PM   #85
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 18,855
Originally Posted by leftysergeant View Post
I notice that that whackadoodle Chandler based his calculations on how fast a spot on the top of #7 was moving. I just wonder, though, if he is making a big mistake in assuming that the spot is moving straight down. As I see the simulations and the real-time videos, it appears to me that the spot was moving away from the camera. Would this not give the appearance that the spot was moving faster than it was?

I will allow those with better math skills than mine work on that.
That and other questions were all pretty much beaten to death in the femr2 video thread. Warning: some of it gets pretty technical, but the high points can be followed.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB 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 25th June 2013, 05:42 PM   #86
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
 
BasqueArch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,869
Originally Posted by leftysergeant View Post
I notice that that whackadoodle Chandler based his calculations on how fast a spot on the top of #7 was moving. I just wonder, though, if he is making a big mistake in assuming that the spot is moving straight down. As I see the simulations and the real-time videos, it appears to me that the spot was moving away from the camera. Would this not give the appearance that the spot was moving faster than it was?

I will allow those with better math skills than mine work on that.
Chandler, NIST, femr - all show the very first NW perimeter corner motion at less than FFA, indicating resistance by this column line. Pictures show low down perimeter columns bent corroborating this. Column then breaks at splice, falls without support like Sunter said.
Chandler didn't know what he was looking at and skipped this non FFA period when making up FFA=CD
Had it been CD=FFA then the acceleration line would have been a straight line step function from 0 to G as others have said (LSSBB, tfk ) not a curve.
None of this bothers rabid truthers because they want to believe what politically pleases them, not what is verifiable.
__________________
In Your Guts You Know They're Nuts. "There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true." -Kierkegaard . "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. "- Marcus Aurelius
A Truther is a True Believer convinced by lies. You can't reason someone out of a thing they weren't reasoned into.There's a sucker born every minute-Barnum

Last edited by BasqueArch; 25th June 2013 at 07:02 PM.
BasqueArch 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 25th June 2013, 07:21 PM   #87
Senenmut
Graduate Poster
 
Senenmut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,364
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
No, I am not. If you want to bring a computer sim into it, be sure to spell out all assumptions and directly show why it disproves any elements of my OP.
why do you think the sim did not show FF?
they spent thousands of computer hrs trying to make that building fall. do you think that you can stick your OP into the nist model with those thousands of connections and make it fall at FF for a period of time?
if so, why do you think they cant make that building fall at FF.
Senenmut 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 25th June 2013, 07:47 PM   #88
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,633
Originally Posted by Senenmut View Post
why do you think the sim did not show FF?
they spent thousands of computer hrs trying to make that building fall. do you think that you can stick your OP into the nist model with those thousands of connections and make it fall at FF for a period of time?
if so, why do you think they cant make that building fall at FF.
What makes you say they can't?

Are you aware they didn't model the exterior facade? The model does however show why the building would have had a period of near free-fall.
__________________
"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 25th June 2013, 07:58 PM   #89
Senenmut
Graduate Poster
 
Senenmut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,364
Originally Posted by Justin39640 View Post
Um... those are pictures of steel after having been attacked by a corrosive. Do I have to post my pics again of steel battery cases that show the same sort of corrosion? (room temp, sulfuric acid attack)
too bad the "slag" had to be at least 940Cish which is triple the boiling point of sulfuric acid.
Senenmut 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 25th June 2013, 08:22 PM   #90
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,061
Originally Posted by Senenmut View Post
dust? im not wtcdust now am I? maybe iron rich microspheres or something like that..... haha.....anyway, if one can turn 1 inch of steel (at connection points or to columns) to razor thin, and make columns buckle where you want them to buckle, then I think you are closer to the truth.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...6c54b826e6.jpg

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...1b21e84975.jpg

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d8c715f054.jpg
Originally Posted by Senenmut View Post
too bad the "slag" had to be at least 940Cish which is triple the boiling point of sulfuric acid.
Too bad you are showing corrosion done in fire, at 1000C and less. Means the thermite claims are an idiotic lie. It also means only a few samples were found which showed corrosion. Means there was no inside job. Your fantasy failed. What will you do with 12 years of solid failure? What is next? Bigfoot?

Free-fall does not mean CD, and corrosion of steel mean no thermite. The steel you showed did not melt, it was corroded. How does that tie in to free-fall?

Oh, you think computer models failed to show FF. How would you know? Did you read the NIST report. After you posted the steel, it seems you don't read the reports that go with the steel. Why can't you understand models? You don't understand WTC 7 - not news.

It is silly to use the steel that was corroded to support your fantasy. Feel free to explain how it fits in your fantasy. Iron rich sphere found by Jones and his cronies were iron oxide, not a product of thermite - iron rich sphere are common in dust, and fires. 911 truth does not do reality.

Last edited by beachnut; 25th June 2013 at 08:23 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2013, 08:23 PM   #91
Senenmut
Graduate Poster
 
Senenmut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,364
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
Please explain why this is relevant.
sunder "a free fall time would be an object that has no...uh... structural components below it."

cut the connections...ya know. cut that steel that was an inch thick or whatever thickness to paper thin.
the we can say just the opposite of what sunder had to say, "And that is not at all unusual because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had...you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place and everything was not instantaneous."


we could then say "the connections were cut and there was no structural resistance provided in this particular case. and you didn't have....didn't have any structural failures that had to take place so it was instantaneous....and instantaneous free fall drop.

Senenmut 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 25th June 2013, 08:33 PM   #92
Senenmut
Graduate Poster
 
Senenmut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,364
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
Too bad you are showing corrosion done in fire, at 1000C and less. Means the thermite claims are an idiotic lie. It also means only a few samples were found which showed corrosion. Means there was no inside job. Your fantasy failed. What will you do with 12 years of solid failure? What is next? Bigfoot?

Free-fall does not mean CD, and corrosion of steel mean no thermite. The steel you showed did not melt, it was corroded. How does that tie in to free-fall?

Oh, you think computer models failed to show FF. How would you know? Did you read the NIST report. After you posted the steel, it seems you don't read the reports that go with the steel. Why can't you understand models? You don't understand WTC 7 - not news.

It is silly to use the steel that was corroded to support your fantasy. Feel free to explain how it fits in your fantasy. Iron rich sphere found by Jones and his cronies were iron oxide, not a product of thermite - iron rich sphere are common in dust, and fires. 911 truth does not do reality.
too bad your steel cant lay in 1000C fire and retain the microstructure you see in the sisson paper.
me in previous thread:
too bad that steel didnt lay in 1000C debris fires it lay for days, weeks, or even a month. NIST did studies on the steel at 625C for varying times up to just 2hrs. the microstructure changes drastically in just 2 hrs (ncstar 1-3C damage and failure modes page 299). the microstructure in sisson's paper did not change that much in fig 4,5,and 6 and the temp range for that microstrucure to occur was between 550-850C, not the 940C that it takes for the eutectic to become liquid and especially not the 1100C sisson uses in his experiment. FYI, there is slag ontop of the steel in fig 4. also consider that the figs 4,5,and 6 came from a piece of steel that showed signs of extreme wastage (fig 3).

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ed#post8931954
Senenmut 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 25th June 2013, 08:52 PM   #93
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 18,855
Originally Posted by Senenmut View Post
sunder "a free fall time would be an object that has no...uh... structural components below it."

cut the connections...ya know. cut that steel that was an inch thick or whatever thickness to paper thin.
the we can say just the opposite of what sunder had to say, "And that is not at all unusual because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had...you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place and everything was not instantaneous."


we could then say "the connections were cut and there was no structural resistance provided in this particular case. and you didn't have....didn't have any structural failures that had to take place so it was instantaneous....and instantaneous free fall drop.

Whatever, I don't particularly care what Sunder says. I ain't married to NIST. That said, let me ask you just one thing. Answer it a best you can. You'll have to look at an acceleration graph to do so. Here is the question (and don't quote NIST and Chandler, they are not quite right at face value):

Exactly how long did the visible exterior fall with an acceleration exactly equal to g, in other words at free fall?
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB 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 25th June 2013, 08:53 PM   #94
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 18,855
Originally Posted by Senenmut View Post
too bad your steel cant lay in 1000C fire and retain the microstructure you see in the sisson paper.
me in previous thread:
too bad that steel didnt lay in 1000C debris fires it lay for days, weeks, or even a month. NIST did studies on the steel at 625C for varying times up to just 2hrs. the microstructure changes drastically in just 2 hrs (ncstar 1-3C damage and failure modes page 299). the microstructure in sisson's paper did not change that much in fig 4,5,and 6 and the temp range for that microstrucure to occur was between 550-850C, not the 940C that it takes for the eutectic to become liquid and especially not the 1100C sisson uses in his experiment. FYI, there is slag ontop of the steel in fig 4. also consider that the figs 4,5,and 6 came from a piece of steel that showed signs of extreme wastage (fig 3).

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ed#post8931954
Off topic.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB 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 25th June 2013, 09:06 PM   #95
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,061
Originally Posted by Senenmut View Post
too bad your steel cant lay in 1000C fire and retain the microstructure you see in the sisson paper.
me in previous thread:
too bad that steel didnt lay in 1000C debris fires it lay for days, weeks, or even a month. NIST did studies on the steel at 625C for varying times up to just 2hrs. the microstructure changes drastically in just 2 hrs (ncstar 1-3C damage and failure modes page 299). the microstructure in sisson's paper did not change that much in fig 4,5,and 6 and the temp range for that microstrucure to occur was between 550-850C, not the 940C that it takes for the eutectic to become liquid and especially not the 1100C sisson uses in his experiment. FYI, there is slag ontop of the steel in fig 4. also consider that the figs 4,5,and 6 came from a piece of steel that showed signs of extreme wastage (fig 3).

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ed#post8931954
Not surprising you have no clue what you are talking about. You are not a chemical engineer.

You debunk thermite. Guess you like debunking the insane thermite claim, and you did.

You don't understand computer/engineering models, or free-fall. How does the steel help your inside job when it debunks thermite? What do engineering models have to do with free-fall, after the interior of the building has failed? You don't make sense, and that is one reason 911 truth has made zero progress for 12 years, and never will. It would be best if you avoid discussing the engineering models; it ruins your claims.

Bet you can't get the corroded steel on topic.
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 26th June 2013, 01:02 PM   #96
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
"Whatever, I don't particularly care what Sunder says. I ain't married to NIST."
Well you should care.

The NIST story represents the U.S. Government's Official Engineering Account.

MM
Miragememories 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 26th June 2013, 01:41 PM   #97
djlunacee
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 654
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Well you should care.

The NIST story represents the U.S. Government's Official Engineering Account.

MM
And it is a whole lot better at accounting for what happened that day than some fantasy of therm*te and controlled demolition.
djlunacee 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 26th June 2013, 02:49 PM   #98
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by BasqueArch View Post
"Chandler, NIST, femr - all show the very first NW perimeter corner motion at less than FFA, indicating resistance by this column line.

Pictures show low down perimeter columns bent corroborating this.

Column then breaks at splice, falls without support like Sunter said.

Chandler didn't know what he was looking at and skipped this non FFA period when making up FFA=CD

Had it been CD=FFA then the acceleration line would have been a straight line step function from 0 to G as others have said (LSSBB, tfk ) not a curve.

None of this bothers rabid truthers because they want to believe what politically pleases them, not what is verifiable.
"

All people should be interested in the truth about 9/11, and in particular the truth behind the 8 story freefall shown in the WTC7 videos.

Doesn't playing a silly hand-waving game of; "gee WTC7 was falling like a brick, but I think we can prove it didn't attain FFA", bother you?

Verifiable scientific evidence has shown that the collapse of WTC7 is not plausibly explained by the final NIST report.

And whether or not WTC7 was plummeting to the earth at FFA or 0.99 FFA makes no real difference to the obvious significance of such a high speed building collapse.

During that portion of the collapse when WTC7 was dropping for 8 storeys, did you not try and visualize the pattern of support failure required to achieve a balanced high speed floor area collapse?

DROP-DROP-DROP-DROP-DROP-DROP-DROP-DROP

All the perimeter columns for complete floors amazingly 'snapping' at the same moment.

An incredible display of balanced-overloading, accidentally achieved by uncontrolled office furnishings fires?

There is a reason why prior to 9/11, no one had ever seen fire alone produce such a total high speed collapse of a steel-structured highrise.

The odds for such a thing happening are astronomically against.

MM
Miragememories 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 26th June 2013, 02:55 PM   #99
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 23,609
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
During that portion of the collapse when WTC7 was dropping for 8 storeys,
The bolded part is your problem here.

Tell you what ... next time you're tempted to make such a post, make it more accurate, eh? Say "when the visible walls - those captured on video - were dropping for 8 storeys ...".

Deal?
GlennB 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 26th June 2013, 03:17 PM   #100
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 18,855
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Well you should care.

The NIST story represents the U.S. Government's Official Engineering Account.

MM
So?
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB 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 26th June 2013, 03:24 PM   #101
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 18,855
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
All people should be interested in the truth about 9/11, and in particular the truth behind the 8 story freefall shown in the WTC7 videos.

Doesn't playing a silly hand-waving game of; "gee WTC7 was falling like a brick, but I think we can prove it didn't attain FFA", bother you?

Verifiable scientific evidence has shown that the collapse of WTC7 is not plausibly explained by the final NIST report.

And whether or not WTC7 was plummeting to the earth at FFA or 0.99 FFA makes no real difference to the obvious significance of such a high speed building collapse.

During that portion of the collapse when WTC7 was dropping for 8 storeys, did you not try and visualize the pattern of support failure required to achieve a balanced high speed floor area collapse?

DROP-DROP-DROP-DROP-DROP-DROP-DROP-DROP

All the perimeter columns for complete floors amazingly 'snapping' at the same moment.

An incredible display of balanced-overloading, accidentally achieved by uncontrolled office furnishings fires?

There is a reason why prior to 9/11, no one had ever seen fire alone produce such a total high speed collapse of a steel-structured highrise.

The odds for such a thing happening are astronomically against.

MM
Take a look at the acceleration curves, please. Factoring in measurement error, you cannot determine exactly what the acceleration is at any time, and you cannot say it is constant. You cannot also say it is freely falling for 1, 8 or any number of floors, because you can get 'g' acceleration ('free fall') from a combination of being pulled down from the inside and resisted from below. If you don't agree, show your work. Do not try to handwave your way out of this and not expect to have that called out.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles

Last edited by LSSBB; 26th June 2013 at 03:26 PM.
LSSBB 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 27th June 2013, 06:37 AM   #102
fitzgibbon
Master Poster
 
fitzgibbon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Just west of the centre of the universe
Posts: 2,829
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
http://imageshack.us/a/img546/4971/xd4.png

The video for the above composite shows the amazing vertical stability maintained during the WTC7 north and west face high speed collapse.
You claim to work in a position that would require accurate visual analysis (ie reading a waveform, recognising an unwanted jump-cut, etc.). Even a cursory examination of the two images you provided shows that WTC7 didn't retain "amazing vertical stability". A quick look at the angle of the roofline between the left corner and the centre block shows the angle increasing. Since this would've been recorded by a camera on the long end of zoom (if not at full zoom), we can rule out an optical illusion created by a lens at wide angle.

This leaves 3 possibilities in my book (there's probably more but I'm limiting this to my experience and judgment as an editor [that plus I really haven't the time/inclination to chase truthers down the WTC7 rabbit hole]):

1. The left corner of the building is descending at a slower rate than the centre section of the building thus increasing the angle of the roofline between the left corner of the building and the centre section

2. Both sections are descending at the same rate but the left corner is pivoting towards the camera thus increasing the angle of the roofline between the left corner of the building and the centre section

3. Both sections are descending at the same rate but the centre section is pivoting away the camera thus increasing the angle of the roofline between the left corner of the building and the centre section

To use an analogy you should be familiar with, imagine you're using the joystick on an Abekas A51 to adjust an image. The X axis is left-right, the Y axis is the vertical axis and the Z is the zoom (or in this case closer-to or further-away from the camera). So in instance #1, there's a change in ∆Y, that is to say, there's a change in relative heights between the left corner and the centre section. In instances #2 & #3, there's a change in ∆Z with either the left corner coming closer to the camera relative to the centre section or else the centre section receeding.

In any case, it can't with any honesty be said that the left corner and the centre section stay in "amazing vertical stability" because that conclusion can't be exclusively drawn from the data you're providing.

HTH
Fitz
__________________
"Television is a circus, a carnival, a traveling troupe of acrobats, storytellers, dancers, singers, jugglers, side-show freaks, lion tamers, and football players. We're in the boredom-killing business! So if you want the truth... Go to God!"
Howard Beale, "Network"
fitzgibbon 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 27th June 2013, 07:19 AM   #103
Clayton Moore
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 7,508
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
All people should be interested in the truth about 9/11, and in particular the truth behind the 8 story freefall shown in the WTC7 videos.

Doesn't playing a silly hand-waving game of; "gee WTC7 was falling like a brick, but I think we can prove it didn't attain FFA", bother you?

Verifiable scientific evidence has shown that the collapse of WTC7 is not plausibly explained by the final NIST report.

And whether or not WTC7 was plummeting to the earth at FFA or 0.99 FFA makes no real difference to the obvious significance of such a high speed building collapse.

During that portion of the collapse when WTC7 was dropping for 8 storeys, did you not try and visualize the pattern of support failure required to achieve a balanced high speed floor area collapse?

DROP-DROP-DROP-DROP-DROP-DROP-DROP-DROP

All the perimeter columns for complete floors amazingly 'snapping' at the same moment.

An incredible display of balanced-overloading, accidentally achieved by uncontrolled office furnishings fires?

There is a reason why prior to 9/11, no one had ever seen fire alone produce such a total high speed collapse of a steel-structured highrise.

The odds for such a thing happening are astronomically against impossible.

MM
ftfy
Clayton Moore 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 27th June 2013, 07:27 AM   #104
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 18,855
Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post
ftfy
Hot air. Prove it. Go on. Assign probabilities, do a fault tree. You just speaking crud won't cut it. Put up or shut up.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB 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 27th June 2013, 07:33 AM   #105
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,633
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Verifiable scientific evidence has shown that the collapse of WTC7 is not plausibly explained by the final NIST report.
You should add a statement that it was shown to you. No one else has seen this.
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
During that portion of the collapse when WTC7 was dropping for 8 storeys, did you not try and visualize the pattern of support failure required to achieve a balanced high speed floor area collapse?
Yes, I have.
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
All the perimeter columns for complete floors amazingly 'snapping' at the same moment.
Funny. that's not how I visualized it. I pictured, exterior columns buckling over multiple floors due the internal collapse that started several seconds before.

It gets easier to understand when you stop fixating on one aspect and look at the big picture.


Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
The odds for such a thing happening are astronomically against.

MM
Has anyone ever explained to you the odds of something happening that has already occurred?
__________________
"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; 27th June 2013 at 07:40 AM.
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 27th June 2013, 10:47 AM   #106
Clayton Moore
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 7,508
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
Hot air. Prove it. Go on. Assign probabilities, do a fault tree. You just speaking crud won't cut it. Put up or shut up.
Less than 15 seconds to collapse. There you go.
Clayton Moore 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 27th June 2013, 11:15 AM   #107
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 18,855
Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post
Less than 15 seconds to collapse. There you go.
What about it? Are you including the time the inside was already collapsing? You just saying things ain't proof of squat. It may fool 98.7 people, but it's not fooling anyone here, except yourself.

If you don't have anything meaningful to contribute, please, just leave the thread.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB 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 27th June 2013, 11:16 AM   #108
djlunacee
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 654
Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post
Less than 15 seconds to collapse. There you go.
and that means what? grilled cheese and chicken noodle soup for everyone?
djlunacee 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 27th June 2013, 11:34 AM   #109
Clayton Moore
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 7,508
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
What about it? Are you including the time the inside was already collapsing? You just saying things ain't proof of squat. It may fool 98.7 people, but it's not fooling anyone here, except yourself.

If you don't have anything meaningful to contribute, please, just leave the thread.
If the inside was collapsing how did the "walls/outside" collapse straight down?

Or should I say from bottom to top since the top of WTC7 was intact as it disappeared.

How did the sides of WTC7 not fail by getting pulled into the internal collapse?
Clayton Moore 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 27th June 2013, 11:58 AM   #110
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post
If the inside was collapsing how did the "walls/outside" collapse straight down?

Or should I say from bottom to top since the top of WTC7 was intact as it disappeared.

How did the sides of WTC7 not fail by getting pulled into the internal collapse?
The outside walls final displacement illustrates that they were not falling straight, the west part was tilting south and the east part was tilting northeast. Get your facts straight troll

The top of WTC 7 Was far from 'intact' or did you miss the part where the central portion of the roof collapsed , much of that occurring before the north facade began moving downward?

As mentioned several times now, the pulling on the exterior by the already falling central collapse may have added to the increase in acceleration of the north exterior.
Then again trolls are famous for ignoring actual, reasoned, agruement.
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 27th June 2013, 12:26 PM   #111
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
All people should be interested in the truth about 9/11, and in particular the truth behind the 8 story freefall shown in the WTC7 videos.
Ok
Quote:

Doesn't playing a silly hand-waving game of; "gee WTC7 was falling like a brick, but I think we can prove it didn't attain FFA", bother you?
Who are you referring to? The charts illustrate that parts of the north facade achieved and seemed to exceed 'g'. If one wishes to go further than hand waving one needs to explain this INCLUDING the greater than 'g' portion. Have you done that? If not, why not? Could it be because any explanation would remove any requirement for CD?
Quote:

Verifiable scientific evidence has shown that the collapse of WTC7 is not plausibly explained by the final NIST report.
You need to explain why a minutely detailed explanation is required. Is this FFA period exclusive to controlled demolitions? The NIST report adaquately explains how the building got to the point at which total collapse could not be arrested.
Quote:

And whether or not WTC7 was plummeting to the earth at FFA or 0.99 FFA makes no real difference to the obvious significance of such a high speed building collapse.
How about 1.2 g when trying to claim that the acceleration is indicative of controlled demolition?

Quote:
During that portion of the collapse when WTC7 was dropping for 8 storeys, did you not try and visualize the pattern of support failure required to achieve a balanced high speed floor area collapse?
Of course! One such visualization, in simplified form, is illustrated in the OP. Did you read it?
Quote:

All the perimeter columns for complete floors amazingly 'snapping' at the same moment.

An incredible display of balanced-overloading, accidentally achieved by uncontrolled office furnishings fires?
You presume that overloading requires 'snapping' of columns and that buckled or heavily tilted columns offer any support? Why?
Quote:
There is a reason why prior to 9/11, no one had ever seen fire alone produce such a total high speed collapse of a steel-structured highrise.

The odds for such a thing happening are astronomically against.

MM
Actually its most likely made vastly more probable if the structure in question utilizes long span techniques and/or an assymettric beam placement, and/or construction that incorporated an much smaller building on the same lot.
Kinda reduces the field , now can you tell us how many of these types of structures have suffered such large area, multi floor office fires that have been allowed to burn for hours?

I mean if you want to compare the differences in apples and oranges fine but don't tell us that oranges and apples will behave the same just because they are both fruits.

Last edited by jaydeehess; 27th June 2013 at 12:27 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 27th June 2013, 12:35 PM   #112
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 18,855
Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post
If the inside was collapsing how did the "walls/outside" collapse straight down?

Or should I say from bottom to top since the top of WTC7 was intact as it disappeared.

How did the sides of WTC7 not fail by getting pulled into the internal collapse?
You do realize you saw the exterior of the building collapse, and that the inside collapsed first, don't you? Gee, where'd that penthouse go. You know also that there was a moment frame construction to the exterior to hold it together, don't you?
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles

Last edited by LSSBB; 27th June 2013 at 01:06 PM.
LSSBB 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 27th June 2013, 12:57 PM   #113
Clayton Moore
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 7,508
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
You do realize you saw the exterior of the building collapse, an that the inside collapsed first, don't you? Gee, where'd that penthouse go. You know also that there was a moment frame construction to the exterior to hold it together, don't you?
The weight of floors should have pulled the sides into the center. But they didn't and the frame collapsed on it's own. Go figure.
Clayton Moore 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 27th June 2013, 01:07 PM   #114
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 18,855
Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post
The weight of floors should have pulled the sides into the center. But they didn't and the frame collapsed on it's own. Go figure.
You think so? Show your work. Your burden of proof, Clayton.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB 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 27th June 2013, 01:10 PM   #115
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post
The weight of floors should have pulled the sides into the center. But they didn't and the frame collapsed on it's own. Go figure.
The exterior DID get pulled south take a look at the pictures of the rubble Clayton. The entire western section fell to the SOUTH. The eastern portion, which was not part of the structure that included the old Con-Ed building, and suffered less central damage, fell to the north east, hitting the Fitter man building.
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 27th June 2013, 01:14 PM   #116
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
You think so? Show your work. Your burden of proof, Clayton.
CM seems to be of the opinion that the moment frame should have disassembled itself as floor slabs hung from it. The work to illustrate this would be interesting but will not, I predict, be forthcoming. If a person could fly by flapping/waving their arms about, CM would need an oxygen supply for the hueghts he could attain.
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 27th June 2013, 01:16 PM   #117
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
The exterior DID get pulled south take a look at the pictures of the rubble Clayton. The entire western section fell to the SOUTH. The eastern portion, which was not part of the structure that included the old Con-Ed building, and suffered less central damage, fell to the north east, hitting the Fitter man building.
Eta; slight correction... the eastern section appears to have twisted and ended up to the northeast.
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 27th June 2013, 01:20 PM   #118
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,045
Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post
The weight of floors should have pulled the sides into the center. But they didn't and the frame collapsed on it's own. Go figure.
Cool, so the penthouse slipped off the side and then they pulled it.

Smooth as silk and as for the penthouse slippery as ky gel
Spanx 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 27th June 2013, 01:47 PM   #119
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post
The weight of floors should have pulled the sides into the center. But they didn't and the frame collapsed on it's own. Go figure.
If the interior wasn't collapsing, how'd the penthouse disappear several seconds before global release?
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2013, 02:02 PM   #120
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 23,609
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
The exterior DID get pulled south take a look at the pictures of the rubble Clayton. The entire western section fell to the SOUTH. The eastern portion, which was not part of the structure that included the old Con-Ed building, and suffered less central damage, fell to the north east, hitting the Fitter man building.
Rubble pics not really required (naturally, MM and others prefer shots taken from the north, where the tilt during collapse is not detectable)

GlennB 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
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 08:47 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

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

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