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 6th December 2015, 02:46 AM   #441
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,569
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.
I am not trying to be difficult here, but - where the heck do you see "rapidly occurring expulsion of building material" at 7:30 in this video??
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38Vsv0eve_U&t=448

As DGM pointed out, the building obviously was already collapsing before 7:30 (the visible descent of the east penthouse begins at 7:24), so I wouldn't even be surprised to see building material being pushed out, given that a descending roof decreases building volume and MUST push out massive amounts of air[*]. But I can't see any such expulsions in that video? Can you make screenshots and draw arrows so O know where to look?



[*] Little fun fact: The area between col 76-78 and the east wall was roughly 1000 m2. By the time the collapse started to progress to the western core (5.5 seconds after EPH collapse started), the cave-in of the eastern roof had gone down at least 1/4 of the building's height on average (wasn't even), that's almost 50 meters. So the enclosed building volume had decreased by almost 50,000 cubic meters, most of which was air. The air that must have been expelled by 7:30 in notconvinced's video weighed roughly 50 tons. (Density of air is 1.2 kg/m3)
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein 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 6th December 2015, 03:14 AM   #442
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: 29,447
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
CD would create a uniform vertical force powered by gravity.
The way truthers mangle physics is utter comedy gold.

Dave
__________________
Inspiring discussion of Sharknado is not a good sign for the audience expectations of your new high-concept SF movie sequel.

- Myriad
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 6th December 2015, 03:28 AM   #443
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 25,051
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
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.
Nice to see you don't subscribe to the oft-mentioned notion that the observed fall required simultaneous removal of all vertical support.

And it reduces the number of charges required. Ballpark: 8 storeys, 25 columns, 5 charges per storey-section - a mere 1,000 explosive charges, detonated almost simultaneously. What a dreadful load of nonsense.

(cue - "But nanothermite can be tailored to be both quiet and explosive")

eta: My mistake. It would likely be 2 charges per flange, top and bottom, plus a kicker charge. 9 per column section, so more like 1,800 charges in total. The amount of detcord alone is mind-boggling.

Last edited by GlennB; 6th December 2015 at 05:05 AM.
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 6th December 2015, 03:59 AM   #444
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,468
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
Nice to see you don't subscribe to the oft-mentioned notion that the observed fall required simultaneous removal of all vertical support.

And it reduces the number of charges required. Ballpark: 8 storeys, 25 columns, 5 charges per storey-section - a mere 1,000 explosive charges, detonated almost simultaneously. What a dreadful load of nonsense.

(cue - "But nanothermite can be tailored to be both quiet and explosive")
..and non-light emitting.
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 6th December 2015, 04:53 AM   #445
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,569
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
..and non-light emitting.
...and with the tiniest traces of elemental Al that don't produce Al-oxide upon oxidation.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein 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 6th December 2015, 08:18 AM   #446
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
..and non-light emitting.
It is only charges on the core columns, so the likelihood of seeing any light is quite low.
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 6th December 2015, 08:20 AM   #447
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
Nice to see you don't subscribe to the oft-mentioned notion that the observed fall required simultaneous removal of all vertical support.

And it reduces the number of charges required. Ballpark: 8 storeys, 25 columns, 5 charges per storey-section - a mere 1,000 explosive charges, detonated almost simultaneously. What a dreadful load of nonsense.

(cue - "But nanothermite can be tailored to be both quiet and explosive")

eta: My mistake. It would likely be 2 charges per flange, top and bottom, plus a kicker charge. 9 per column section, so more like 1,800 charges in total. The amount of detcord alone is mind-boggling.
First, the central core in WTC 7 contained 24 columns.

Second, there isn't a need for five charges per story section. Two would work just fine.

So 24 x 8 x 2 = 384 charges. That doesn't sound like much of an issue.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 6th December 2015 at 08:30 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 6th December 2015, 08:24 AM   #448
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,842
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
First, the central core in WTC 7 contained 24 columns.

Second, there isn't a need for five charges per story section. Two would work just fine.

So 24 x 8 x 2 = 384 charges. That doesn't sound like much of an issue.
Why was the evidence of cutter charges not noticed in the clean up operation?
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 6th December 2015, 08:27 AM   #449
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 25,051
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
First, the central core in WTC 7 contained 24 columns.
Which is why I said "ballpark". You quibbling about round numbers?

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Second, there isn't a need for five charges per story section. Two would work just fine.
Really? At that low level where the columns are massive? They'll just flip out of the way? Maybe, but see below:

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
So 24 x 8 x 2 = 384 charges. That doesn't sound like much of an issue.
Sounds very loud when they're exploding almost simultaneously, even if you're dead right about the numbers.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg cutter charges.JPG (21.1 KB, 1 views)

Last edited by GlennB; 6th December 2015 at 08:28 AM.
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 6th December 2015, 08:28 AM   #450
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
Why was the evidence of cutter charges not noticed in the clean up operation?
We don't know much about the clean up operation, so you will have to ask those who were involved.

We do know they did not save any of the steel for NIST to examine. Now why would that be?
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 6th December 2015, 08:36 AM   #451
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,842
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
We don't know much about the clean up operation, so you will have to ask those who were involved.

We do know they did not save any of the steel for NIST to examine. Now why would that be?
Because of the recovery of the bodies, the NYPD, did not see any visual evidence of any explosive charges.

Explosives leave visual evidence of having been used even thermite cutters leave a distinctive visual pattern if you had tested one you would recognize it instantly.
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 6th December 2015, 09:25 AM   #452
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,897
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
We don't know much about the clean up operation, so you will have to ask those who were involved.

We do know they did not save any of the steel for NIST to examine. Now why would that be?
I think they did save some...
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 6th December 2015, 10:02 AM   #453
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,569
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
First, the central core in WTC 7 contained 24 columns.

Second, there isn't a need for five charges per story section. Two would work just fine.

So 24 x 8 x 2 = 384 charges. That doesn't sound like much of an issue.
How many ounces per charge?

ETA: Glad to see Tony is coming back to what he ignored two pages ago:
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Yes, mostly - with the exception of the one big elephant that ought to be in the room but isn't:
No BANG.
You see, you want to claim that the core columns failed in succession so rapid that it could not have been natural progressive collapes. I.e. they must have failed within <1 s | <0.5 s | <0.2 s | <0.1 of each other (take your pick).
You don't get this close coordination with the thermal action of thermitic incendiaries, as that takes several seconds (see Cole experiments!). You definitely need the fast breaking power of explosive shockwaves.
The core columns were very massive.
You have 21 core columns (58 through 78, assuming 79-81 are already gone; 24, if you claim those were felled as late as the others), each requiring several pounds of high explosives.
You claim that each core column was exploded not just once, but in 8 (or more) places, right? That's 168 explosive charges of several pounds each. NIST determined 9 pounds for c79. Let's be very thrifty here and say 2 pounds per charge: That's 336 pounds of high explosives detonated within less than 1 | 0.5 | 0.2 | 0.1 seconds - is that so far a fair rendering of what you hypothesize?
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)

Last edited by Oystein; 6th December 2015 at 10:14 AM.
Oystein 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 6th December 2015, 10:29 AM   #454
Criteria
Critical Thinker
 
Criteria's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 458
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.
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
So did core collapse.



Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
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

I do not observe any comparison to what happened to WTC7. While the upper section of WTC7 descends and is crushed out of view below, you can clearly see that it remained far more intact than your proffered video examples of comparable instability.




Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
And yes, the overload was simultaneous. When the core fell, the perimeter columns attached to it were pulled downwards all at the same time.
The measured 2.5 seconds (8 stories) of free fall was obtained from the perimeter movement. While I agree that a lower core failure occurred first, it would have not been impossible for those perimeter facades to drop at free fall acceleration and with such corner to corner synchronization if they were still meeting structural resistance from below. Hence, there could not have been any perimeter structural resistance for at least 8 lower floor stories of WTC7. My point being; if the perimeter was dropping at free fall acceleration, it could not have been “pulled” at free fall against residual vertical structural resistance unless there was an additional pulling force greater than the force of gravity and strong enough to negate the remaining structural resistance in the perimeter.

And no, I do not believe there was some unseen additional force crushing WTC7 from above.

Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
or vertical force at the same time
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
”And FTFY, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bgucy_b5FKk for an example of simultaneous or near-simultaneous failure due to vertical overload.”



Your example above of how this could be manifested is truly pathetic.




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.
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
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.
I would like to hear your logical engineering explanation that provides for the existence of a force other than gravity, which could have pulled WTC7 down at an acceleration greater than that induced by gravity.
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 6th December 2015, 10:42 AM   #455
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: 29,447
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
I would like to hear your logical engineering explanation that provides for the existence of a force other than gravity, which could have pulled WTC7 down at an acceleration greater than that induced by gravity.
Leverage.

Dave
__________________
Inspiring discussion of Sharknado is not a good sign for the audience expectations of your new high-concept SF movie sequel.

- Myriad
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 6th December 2015, 11:04 AM   #456
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 25,051
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
I would like to hear your logical engineering explanation that provides for the existence of a force other than gravity, which could have pulled WTC7 down at an acceleration greater than that induced by gravity.
You can test this in your own back yard in many different ways. It's surprisingly easy.
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 6th December 2015, 11:19 AM   #457
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
Because of the recovery of the bodies, the NYPD, did not see any visual evidence of any explosive charges.

Explosives leave visual evidence of having been used even thermite cutters leave a distinctive visual pattern if you had tested one you would recognize it instantly.
WTC 7 had no fatalities, so it wouldn't have involved recovery of bodies.
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 6th December 2015, 11:21 AM   #458
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
I think they did save some...
NIST says no steel was salvaged from WTC 7 in their report. Now you say you think they did save some. What is your source for this? and where was the steel kept that was saved?
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 6th December 2015, 11:24 AM   #459
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post

I would like to hear your logical engineering explanation that provides for the existence of a force other than gravity, which could have pulled WTC7 down at an acceleration greater than that induced by gravity.
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Leverage.

Dave
Dave, both NIST's and David Chandler's measurements show precisely g.

Where do you get something over g from? Who did a measurement that showed over g acceleration?

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 6th December 2015 at 11:27 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 6th December 2015, 11:44 AM   #460
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,704
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Dave, both NIST's and David Chandler's measurements show precisely g.

Where do you get something over g from? Who did a measurement that showed over g acceleration?
Both actually show it. Femr2 also did a good analysis of this (a better trace).

You know this.

I'm wondering, do you think the guy/gals doing the clean-up wouldn't notice the obvious signs of explosives or were they "in on it" too?
__________________
"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 6th December 2015, 11:51 AM   #461
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Both actually show it. Femr2 also did a good analysis of this (a better trace).

You know this.

I'm wondering, do you think the guy/gals doing the clean-up wouldn't notice the obvious signs of explosives or were they "in on it" too?
Where do NIST's and Chandler's measurements show over g acceleration?
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 6th December 2015, 11:55 AM   #462
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,704
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Where do NIST's and Chandler's measurements show over g acceleration?
In their data. You know, when the point's fall under the line. I know, you'll dismiss this as "noise". What, no love for femr2's work?

Care to touch on the second part of my post? You know, the hundreds of silent explosives that leave no trace?
__________________
"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 6th December 2015, 12:01 PM   #463
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,468
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Leverage.

Dave
Yes. Leverage by PARTS or subsystems WITHIN a system that is falling as a whole. IIRC an anonymous person did make a very crude graphic for Chris Mohr's video series.

Is it time to dust off those posts on "Introduction To Free Body Physics"?

...AGAIN???

It would sort the sheep from the goats in terms of who can apply physics from basic principles.
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 6th December 2015, 12:06 PM   #464
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
In their data. You know, when the point's fall under the line. I know, you'll dismiss this as "noise". What, no love for femr2's work?

Care to touch on the second part of my post? You know, the hundreds of silent explosives that leave no trace?
Please point out the over g acceleration you say is there. I don't see it and neither NIST or David Chandler saw it either as they don't mention it.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 6th December 2015 at 12:07 PM.
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 6th December 2015, 12:07 PM   #465
MileHighMadness
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Just Southeast of Hell
Posts: 660
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
I would like to hear your logical engineering explanation that provides for the existence of a force other than gravity, which could have pulled WTC7 down at an acceleration greater than that induced by gravity.
Simple structural dynamics - the internal structure frame collapses first. The internal frame is still attached to the exterior structural frame (shell). The internal frame induces a downward force on the exterior structural frame, helping the exterior to appear to accelerate greater than gravity.

You have to look at the building as a complete system. The sum of the both the internal frame and the exterior structural frame is less than gravity acceleration.

Got it? Simple, right?
__________________
“I don’t look forward to heaven, it sounds as boring as hell.” Lord Postsettle
MileHighMadness 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 6th December 2015, 12:10 PM   #466
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,704
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Please point out the over g acceleration you say is there. I don't see it and neither NIST or David Chandler saw it either as they don't mention it.
I'm not getting into a peeing contest with you on this (you were involved in the threads and discussions about this). It's just your way of avoiding the neon elephant in the room, that being ~400 high explosives going off that no one noticed and were not picked up by any recording device.
__________________
"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 6th December 2015, 12:19 PM   #467
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,045
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
We don't know much about the clean up operation, so you will have to ask those who were involved.

We do know they did not save any of the steel for NIST to examine. Now why would that be?
If you don't know much about the clean up operation, isn't it down to you to get information from people involved in the clean up ?

Yes, you do know they didn't save steel from wtc7, as to why is another thing you will need to ask.

Funny how you know explosives were used and you haven't spoken to anybody.
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 6th December 2015, 12:19 PM   #468
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,468
Originally Posted by MileHighMadness View Post
Simple structural dynamics - the internal structure frame collapses first. The internal frame is still attached to the exterior structural frame (shell). The internal frame induces a downward force on the exterior structural frame, helping the exterior to appear to accelerate greater than gravity.

You have to look at the building as a complete system. The sum of the both the internal frame and the exterior structural frame is less than gravity acceleration.

Got it? Simple, right?
Agreed - except the "to appear" is redundant and carries a false implication - it actually is greater than G.
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 6th December 2015, 12:21 PM   #469
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,704
Let's listen to the video that was presented as proof of explosive discharges. The audio is working, you can hear talking and everything.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


I don't hear anything.
__________________
"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 6th December 2015, 02:26 PM   #470
Criteria
Critical Thinker
 
Criteria's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 458
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
I would like to hear your logical engineering explanation that provides for the existence of a force other than gravity, which could have pulled WTC7 down at an acceleration greater than that induced by gravity.
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Leverage.
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
You can test this in your own back yard in many different ways. It's surprisingly easy.
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Dave, both NIST's and David Chandler's measurements show precisely g.

Where do you get something over g from? Who did a measurement that showed over g acceleration?
While I quite understand the principle of leverage, I fail to see how leverage could be produced that would exert a downward uniform force capable of accelerating the whole descent of WTC7 building beyond that induced by gravity.




As you can plainly see, WTC7, over the free fall part of its descent, is not subjected to any external leverage.

Once in free fall it would take a major glaringly obvious upper explosion (become a downward aimed rocket) to make its descent acceleration faster than g.
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 6th December 2015, 02:52 PM   #471
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,704
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
While I quite understand the principle of leverage, I fail to see how leverage could be produced that would exert a downward uniform force capable of accelerating the whole descent of WTC7 building beyond that induced by gravity.

Can you explain how this line of argument is nothing more than a diversion way from the neon elephant in the room? There is no evidence for explosives.
__________________
"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 6th December 2015, 02:57 PM   #472
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: 29,447
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
While I quite understand the principle of leverage, I fail to see how leverage could be produced that would exert a downward uniform force capable of accelerating the whole descent of WTC7 building beyond that induced by gravity.
Your appeal to uninformative photographs notwithstanding, any measurement plotted on a graph is a measurement of a point on WTC7, not of the "whole descent" (if such a concept had any useful meaning in this context). Rotation of the building is rather an obvious form of leverage; if the centre of mass is accelerating at 1G and the building is also rotating, it's inevitable that some part of it will be accelerating at greater than, and some other part at less than, 1G.

Dave
__________________
Inspiring discussion of Sharknado is not a good sign for the audience expectations of your new high-concept SF movie sequel.

- Myriad
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 6th December 2015, 03:02 PM   #473
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: 29,447
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Where do you get something over g from? Who did a measurement that showed over g acceleration?
You'll note that I didn't actually comment on whether such a thing had been reliably measured. Some measurements, including those of Chandler's that you recently referred to, show brief interludes of >g acceleration, whether due to actual signal or to noise, and there is a perfectly reasonable mechanism to produce >g accelerations at specific points on the façade; why do you choose to take issue with either of these things except out of knee-jerk denialism?

Dave
__________________
Inspiring discussion of Sharknado is not a good sign for the audience expectations of your new high-concept SF movie sequel.

- Myriad
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 6th December 2015, 03:25 PM   #474
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,569
Hi Tony,
did you miss this, or did you hope I'd forget?
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
First, the central core in WTC 7 contained 24 columns.

Second, there isn't a need for five charges per story section. Two would work just fine.

So 24 x 8 x 2 = 384 charges. That doesn't sound like much of an issue.
How many ounces per charge?

Glad to see, Tony, you are coming back to what you ignored two pages ago:
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Yes, mostly - with the exception of the one big elephant that ought to be in the room but isn't:
No BANG.
You see, you want to claim that the core columns failed in succession so rapid that it could not have been natural progressive collapes. I.e. they must have failed within <1 s | <0.5 s | <0.2 s | <0.1 of each other (take your pick).
You don't get this close coordination with the thermal action of thermitic incendiaries, as that takes several seconds (see Cole experiments!). You definitely need the fast breaking power of explosive shockwaves.
The core columns were very massive.
You have 21 core columns (58 through 78, assuming 79-81 are already gone; 24, if you claim those were felled as late as the others), each requiring several pounds of high explosives.
You claim that each core column was exploded not just once, but in 8 (or more) places, right? That's 168 explosive charges of several pounds each. NIST determined 9 pounds for c79. Let's be very thrifty here and say 2 pounds per charge: That's 336 pounds of high explosives detonated within less than 1 | 0.5 | 0.2 | 0.1 seconds - is that so far a fair rendering of what you hypothesize?
Please answer the question!
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein 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 6th December 2015, 03:27 PM   #475
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,725
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
While I quite understand the principle of leverage, I fail to see how leverage could be produced that would exert a downward uniform force capable of accelerating the whole descent of WTC7 building beyond that induced by gravity.


http://i64.tinypic.com/2iky0k.jpg

As you can plainly see, WTC7, over the free fall part of its descent, is not subjected to any external leverage.

Once in free fall it would take a major glaringly obvious upper explosion (become a downward aimed rocket) to make its descent acceleration faster than g.
It would be internal, not external leverage. As clearly evidenced by the photo's you provided the core collapsed first, pulling floors down with it - floors that were attached to the perimeter columns which in turn pulled them down, twisting the structure at the same time (it was not at all symmetrical).

All of this of course happens well after collapse initiation so by the time the G and over-G accelerations occur it has nothing to do with whatever initiated the collapse.
__________________
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 6th December 2015, 03:50 PM   #476
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
I'm not getting into a peeing contest with you on this (you were involved in the threads and discussions about this). It's just your way of avoiding the neon elephant in the room, that being ~400 high explosives going off that no one noticed and were not picked up by any recording device.
You can't show the over g acceleration you claim because there is no evidence of it.
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 6th December 2015, 03:55 PM   #477
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,704
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
You can't show the over g acceleration you claim because there is no evidence of it.
You can't show any evidence of explosive charges. If I get a chance I'll pull up the thread that shows the over g. Personally I don't care because just pointing out you are dodging the lack of evidence for explosives is good enough.
__________________
"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 6th December 2015, 03:55 PM   #478
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 25,051
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
You can't show the over g acceleration you claim because there is no evidence of it.
It's contained within the very same evidence that you use to quote g.
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 6th December 2015, 03:57 PM   #479
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,704
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
It's contained within the very same evidence that you use to quote g.
Sure but, arguing it is his way of hiding the neon elephant (that everyone still can see).
__________________
"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 6th December 2015, 04:54 PM   #480
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,897
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
NIST says no steel was salvaged from WTC 7 in their report. Now you say you think they did save some. What is your source for this? and where was the steel kept that was saved?
I believe David Cole (Kawika) might have written this and apparently he went to a NIST campus and inspected some of the steel... I am not sure if it included any 7wtc steel... but I thought it had.
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
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 01:56 AM.
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.