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, 05:15 PM   #481
Criteria
Critical Thinker
 
Criteria's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 458
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.
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
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.
That is your diversion, not mine. You cannot explain away the fact that free fall argues CD so instead you try a re-direct to waters that are easier to muddy.

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
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
The problem for you Mr. Rogers is that those images are very informative.

The “rotation” that you refer to was a factor towards the end of the collapse. It is not an observable during the 8 stories of free fall acceleration.

There is nothing “inevitable” about the descent acceleration exceeding that of gravity. Minor inaccuracies in the plot points are to be expected when drawn from a relatively low resolution video recording. Some here, who take the plot too literally would have us absurdly believe that during its period of free fall descent, that WTC7 instead of ‘dropping’, was actually slowing down, speeding up, slowing down etc., all within that 2.5 seconds.

You even admit yourself that “noise” could account for those minor inaccuracies in the plotted points.
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
”Some measurements, including those of Chandler's .. show brief interludes of >g acceleration, whether due to actual signal or to noise..”



Originally Posted by Mark F View Post
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.
There is nothing at all “clear” or “evidenced” in the photomontage I provided to support your unsupported and vacuous claim Mark F.

You are arguing on faith alone about something you are willing to believe is happening behind WTC7’s facade.
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, 05:19 PM   #482
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,842
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Leverage.

Dave
Dave I am surprised at you, you know leverage is a force multiplier,
Not a force, the correct explaination, is gravity acts though leverage to effect
the electromagnetic force that is responsible for electron bonding, extream strain them leads to rapid failure of those strained electron bonding.
The rapid fracture and failure releases the stored strain energy in a way that makes it look
Like the object is falling at over G, however it is only the stored strained energy releasing all
At once and giving the illusion of Over G acceleration.
Or atleast that's how it was explained to me, but I am no physicist.
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, 05:25 PM   #483
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
That is your diversion, not mine. You cannot explain away the fact that free fall argues CD so instead you try a re-direct to waters that are easier to muddy.
How does "free fall" argue CD? Has there ever been a CD that was silent that resulted in a "free-fall" collapse?

There are sound engineering explanations that you ignore. There is no evidence of 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, 05:36 PM   #484
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,894
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
How does "free fall" argue CD? Has there ever been a CD that was silent that resulted in a "free-fall" collapse?

There are sound engineering explanations that you ignore. There is no evidence of explosives.
There is no reason that a result can have multiple causes... even un related ones...
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, 05:36 PM   #485
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,464
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
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

Concise and to the point(s).

Every one of those 5 hilited points is simple true fact.
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, 05:39 PM   #486
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,702
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
There is no reason that a result can have multiple causes... even un related ones...
True but, what's your point? Is there actually any evidence of 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, 06:00 PM   #487
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,389
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
It is only charges on the core columns, so the likelihood of seeing any light is quite low.
Criteria doesn't seem to agree.


Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
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.
The exterior moment frame did. The inside of the building was destroyed. You can see daylight through the upper windows.

And I was not comparing these collapses and WTC7. I was saying that fire does have a good capability for destabilizing buildings and these were examples where it did.


Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
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.
The measured 2.5 seconds of free fall are an average. They don't represent the movement of the façade with sufficient accuracy. More accurate measurements were performed by forum member femr2 that showed quite conclusively that the acceleration exceeded that of gravity for more than a second about 0.75 seconds. [edited because my recollection was wrong, sorry]

Therefore, your reasoning is incorrect, even if I take the highlighted bit as a typo: had the acceleration been exactly that of gravity, there would be a good reason to think that there was no resistance and that the façade fell in free fall, but given that it was exceeded, all that can be said is that the downwards force exceeded the resistance of the façade, not that that resistance was zero.


Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
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.
There was. The core fell in advance and pulled the perimeter through the girders and beams, at an acceleration greater than that of gravity. It's not too different from what happens with this crane:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yG1JrEdt3Mg

Notice how the falling tower (core in the case of WTC7) pulls from the tip of the crane (the façade in WTC7) through the cable (the beams and girders in WTC7), overloading it and causing a sudden jerk (>g acceleration in WTC7). Notice also how once buckled, the falling arm (façade columns in WTC7) opposes very little resistance, being unable to even support its own weight or arrest the movement.

I made this series of diagrams to illustrate the process:








Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
And no, I do not believe there was some unseen additional force crushing WTC7 from above.
From above? No, not from above. Pulling from inside. And yes, there was.


Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Your example above of how this could be manifested is truly pathetic.
Now that's a good argument

Balsa wood is brittle, and the scale is extremely off, but load redistribution worked the same in that balsa tower as did in WTC7. When the first column fails, the load it was carrying is redistributed to the others. When the load exceeds the total capacity of the columns, then each of the others will fail in turn, and that process is very fast: it's fast enough as to being nearly simultaneous. Be it a balsa tower or a WTC façade.


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.
See above.

Last edited by pgimeno; 6th December 2015 at 06:11 PM. Reason: correct the duration of >g
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 6th December 2015, 06:10 PM   #488
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,894
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
True but, what's your point? Is there actually any evidence of explosives?
My point is you have motion for a period at close to G... it can be explained various ways. CD of the columns is not the only or even most likely explanation.
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, 06:16 PM   #489
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,702
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
My point is you have motion for a period at close to G... it can be explained various ways. CD of the columns is not the only or even most likely explanation.
True, especially considering this period of "free-fall" was more than half way though the 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 6th December 2015, 06:48 PM   #490
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,464
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
My point is you have motion for a period at close to G... it can be explained various ways. CD of the columns is not the only or even most likely explanation.
Sander I suggest you get clear that CD does not cause free fall. What causes free fall is the mechanism of collapse. NOT what initiated that mechanism. AND the building is brainless - it has no ability to "know" that it was CDed and CHOOSE to fall differently under CD than it would under natural, accident, fire or any other initiating cause. i.e "free fall" IF it was CDed and "no free fall" if it was any of the others AKA "natural". Truthers can play games with reality but reasoned explanations should stay in the real world.

So if we get that foundation issue straight we can address any nit picking "yes - buts". (There are some because I have kept the explanation simple.)

Originally Posted by DGM View Post
True, especially considering this period of "free-fall" was more than half way though the collapse.
How often these discussions miss the error of sequencing that is fatal to the truther claims.

Free fall half way through a collapse CANNOT be the result of any "induced failure - immediate reaction" scenario. UNLESS we have buildings able to know future happenings and fail BEFORE the explosive cutting. "That explosive is going to cut me so I'll fail now - no point in waiting."


(BTW truthers have proposed both opposing options:
A) "predictive collpase before cutting" AND
B) the direct opposite - Tony Szamboti's "Delayed Action Gravity" - where the building remains standing for minutes after columns are cut BEFORE gravity starts and the building falls.)

Last edited by ozeco41; 6th December 2015 at 06:49 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 6th December 2015, 07:20 PM   #491
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,702
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post

How often these discussions miss the error of sequencing that is fatal to the truther claims.
I have to say, Tony is the only one that didn't just handwave it out of the way. He says that the penthouses were "pulled" ahead of time (for reasons I can't recall) and had nothing to do with the global collapse. His justification is he doesn't see "enough" deformation in the building face.

Naturally this is not a "handwave" because, Tony uses his real name and is an engineer.
__________________
"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; 6th December 2015 at 07:32 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 6th December 2015, 08:14 PM   #492
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,725
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
http://i64.tinypic.com/2iky0k.jpg

There is nothing at all “clear” or “evidenced” in the photomontage I provided to support your unsupported and vacuous claim Mark F.

You are arguing on faith alone about something you are willing to believe is happening behind WTC7’s facade.
Well then I am sorry to say you are at least a few steps behind the rest of us.

Say, what do you suppose happened to the rooftop mechanical penthouses?
__________________
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, 08:17 PM   #493
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,725
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
I have to say, Tony is the only one that didn't just handwave it out of the way. He says that the penthouses were "pulled" ahead of time (for reasons I can't recall) and had nothing to do with the global collapse.
Tony told me it was to make the building less top-heavy so it wouldn't topple over.

I still chuckle when I think about it.
__________________
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, 08:37 PM   #494
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,464
Originally Posted by Mark F View Post
Tony told me it was to make the building less top-heavy so it wouldn't topple over.

I still chuckle when I think about it.
mmmm... you do see some gems. I must have missed that one.

Understanding why the buildings did not topple is still a topic outside the comfort zones of many members. (I mean the real valid explanations - not the "good enough to fool truthers" versions.)
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, 08:41 PM   #495
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,835
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=i9gLi4pBgpkThe oft posted falling offset chain ladder demonstrates a force multiplier that produces an over 'g' effect.
It has "rungs" hitting ground at an angle. This tramsmits a bit of rotational force on the other end of the rung thus pulling down on the vertical connection.

No reason why this would not also affect the perimeter of WTC7 which had interior floors tilted both towards the core and towards the 'kink'.
Those lower ends would hit ground first and transmit a rotation force to the perimeter and pull perimeter down slightly more than just the much larger contribution of gravity.

Now, knowing that there are conditions that can be reproduced in the lab, which add to acceleration due to gravity, how can it possibly be argued that acceleration that reaches 'g' in a complex collapse can only be attributed to linear application of gravity?

Last edited by jaydeehess; 6th December 2015 at 09:03 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 6th December 2015, 09:04 PM   #496
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
mmmm... you do see some gems. I must have missed that one.

Understanding why the buildings did not topple is still a topic outside the comfort zones of many members. (I mean the real valid explanations - not the "good enough to fool truthers" versions.)
I remember that straw being grasped at.
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 6th December 2015, 11:32 PM   #497
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
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.
The NIST WTC 7 report says no metallographic examination could be done on the steel from WTC 7 as no steel was salvaged from WTC 7.

Are you saying they weren't right and either didn't know or were lying?
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, 11:34 PM   #498
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
Originally Posted by Mark F View Post
Tony told me it was to make the building less top-heavy so it wouldn't topple over.

I still chuckle when I think about it.
The evidence is there that the east penthouse collapse into the building was only high in the building and that it was a separate and distinct event uninvolved with the global collapse of WTC 7. The below points are evidence it was not due to a full east side interior collapse which had started low in the building, as the NIST WTC 7 report claims.

- The shock wave is top to bottom.
- The window breakage is only 15 stories down from the roof.
- Daylight is only observed in the upper story windows.
- There is no deformation of the east side exterior.
- There was no dust emanating from windows until the full building collapse.

Why it was done is actually immaterial.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 7th December 2015 at 12:25 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 7th December 2015, 12:28 AM   #499
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,562
Hi Tony,
these must be very inconvenient questions, or why do you pretend they don't exist? Please answer:
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 came back to what you ignored three pages ago:
"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 7th December 2015, 12:47 AM   #500
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Hi Tony,
these must be very inconvenient questions, or why do you pretend they don't exist? Please answer:

How many ounces per charge?

Glad to see, Tony, you came back to what you ignored three pages ago:
"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!
You want to ask how many ounces per charge and imply that too much explosive would be needed somehow, but you don't even have a frame of reference for comparison.

Attempts at refutation along these lines are ridiculous and baseless.

The reality is that a progressive east to west interior collapse could not have produced the observed behavior of the building. The core went down very quickly starting in the center and pulling the exterior walls inward. The entire exterior went down uniformly. These are classic signs of controlled demolition implosion. It is that simple. How it was accomplished would be up to an investigatory body to determine and the present NIST WTC 7 report is non-explanatory.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 7th December 2015 at 01:17 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 7th December 2015, 12:49 AM   #501
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 24,977
Originally Posted by Mark F View Post
Well then I am sorry to say you are at least a few steps behind the rest of us.

Say, what do you suppose happened to the rooftop mechanical penthouses?
Oh look! The W penthouse overtakes the roofline, which itself is falling with g acceleration.
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 7th December 2015, 01:24 AM   #502
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 24,977
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
The evidence is there that the east penthouse collapse into the building was only high in the building and that it was a separate and distinct event uninvolved with the global collapse of WTC 7. The below points are evidence it was not due to a full east side interior collapse which had started low in the building, as the NIST WTC 7 report claims.

- The shock wave is top to bottom.
- The window breakage is only 15 stories down from the roof.
- Daylight is only observed in the upper story windows.
- There is no deformation of the east side exterior.
- There was no dust emanating from windows until the full building collapse.

Why it was done is actually immaterial.
But multiple videos fail to record the flashes from the explosions even though they had line-of-sight to the upper region where the penthouse CD explosions would have happened. And no masses of flying glass, and yet again no sounds.

But you get 10/10 for imagining wild stuff to fit your preconceived belief.
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 7th December 2015, 02:00 AM   #503
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,562
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
You want to ask how many ounces per charge and imply that too much explosive would be needed somehow, but you don't even have a frame of reference for comparison.
Your answer provides a frame of reference: You claim charges in 24*8 places on the 24 core columns.
You imply, don't you, that those charges are explosive?

So why can't you answer the question?
Please DO answer the question: How many ounces of explosives do you hypothesize per column and floor?
Or why do you stop thinking and hypothesizing at this crucial point?

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Your questions and attempted refutation are ridiculous and baseless.
That is FALSE, Tony! My questions are based on YOUR claims!
- That all 24 columns must have been severed at (almost?) precisely the same moment
- That you need to sever 24 columns in 8 spots along floors
Can you acknowledge that this is what you claim?
Can you please provide/estimate an upper bound for the length of the time interval within which these 24*8*n charges must have severed the columns? Would that be <1 seconds? <0.5 s? <0.2 s? <0.1 s?

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
The reality is that a progressive east to west interior collapse could not have produced the observed behavior of the building.
The reality is that this is a bare assertion.

The other, more immediately pertinent, reality is that YOU, Tony Szamboti, claim 24*8*n (n perhaps =2) demolition charges going off within a very short time interval at the columns. We need to examine that claim.

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
The core went down very quickly starting in the center and pulling the exterior walls inward.
Yes. How many charges do you claim were needed to do that?
How many ounces of explosives per charge?

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
The entire exterior went down uniformly.
Whatever. You made a claim about the core columns.
How many charges do you claim were needed to do that? Is 24*8*1 = 192 charges your minimum? Do you stick with 24*8*2 as plausible?
How many ounces of explosives per charge? The NIST determined 9 pounds for the thickest of them all, column 79. Would 2 pounds per charge on the other core columns be an acceptable first approximation?

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
These are classic signs of controlled demolition implosion. It is that simple.
So are the BANG BANG BANGs of explosions. It's that simple. Do you agree with this assertion, YES or NO?

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
How it was accomplished would be up to an investigatory body to determine and the present NIST WTC 7 report is non-explanatory.
You already have a theory:
24*8*n core columns were severed. You didn't wait for an investigation to make this up! What's stopping you all of a sudden?


Would you agree that 1 ounce per column and floor is NOT enough to sever the core columns for a CD? YES or NO, Tony?
Would you agree that 1 pound per column and floor is definitely too much to sever the core columns for a CD? YES or NO, Tony?
Or would you agree that 2 pounds per column and floor are a plausible approximation?


For frame of reference, take the Landmark Tower in Ft. Worth Texas, 63% the height and probably no more than 15% the mass and volume of WTC7, where they exploded 364 pounds of explosives within 11 or 12 seconds:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzZBXuyIE28
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKC1ThhnaEg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbzJornQlRE
from farer away:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIOgpxyzqq4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhaTHN3McXY (go to 1:09 minutes)

You need a frame of reference? Here is one:
http://www.dhgt.com/PDF/A%20talented...%20experts.pdf
Quote:
The explosive charges used to bring down the Landmark Tower weighed only 364 pounds, consisting of 198 pounds of 60-percent nitroglycerine-based gel in 1-1/4 inch sticks, and 166 pounds of RDX (a C-4 derivative). The explosives were supplied by Buckley Powder Company.
To break structural steel, 369 linear shaped armor-piercing charges were required. Concrete columns were broken with the larger charges of RDX ranging from 2 ounces to 12 ounces at a density of 600 grains to 4,000 grains per lineal foot.
All of the charges were detonated with a non-electric system, and each charge position had trump lines and multiple detonators to ensure reliability. The detonation period was set for a total of six seconds, with 120 different sequenced and delayed detonations of 8 milliseconds or greater.
So it seems for the steel of the much more slender Landmark Tower, they used charge sizes averaging 198 lb / 369 charges = 0.54 pounds/charge.

Would you agree that the core columns of WTC7 would certainly require charges more than twice that large, given that they had to support a much larger structure?

NIST estimated 9 pounds for col 79, cut in one place only. Would you agree that this provides a frame of reference?


Tony, sorry for the long post rubbing in all the questions you are dodging, evading, avoiding like the plague!
You know they are VERY pertinent, and that you CAN estimate plausible answers!
__________________
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 7th December 2015, 02:06 AM   #504
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Your answer provides a frame of reference: You claim charges in 24*8 places on the 24 core columns.
You imply, don't you, that those charges are explosive?

So why can't you answer the question?
Please DO answer the question: How many ounces of explosives do you hypothesize per column and floor?
Or why do you stop thinking and hypothesizing at this crucial point?


That is FALSE, Tony! My questions are based on YOUR claims!
- That all 24 columns must have been severed at (almost?) precisely the same moment
- That you need to sever 24 columns in 8 spots along floors
Can you acknowledge that this is what you claim?
Can you please provide/estimate an upper bound for the length of the time interval within which these 24*8*n charges must have severed the columns? Would that be <1 seconds? <0.5 s? <0.2 s? <0.1 s?


The reality is that this is a bare assertion.

The other, more immediately pertinent, reality is that YOU, Tony Szamboti, claim 24*8*n (n perhaps =2) demolition charges going off within a very short time interval at the columns. We need to examine that claim.


Yes. How many charges do you claim were needed to do that?
How many ounces of explosives per charge?


Whatever. You made a claim about the core columns.
How many charges do you claim were needed to do that? Is 24*8*1 = 192 charges your minimum? Do you stick with 24*8*2 as plausible?
How many ounces of explosives per charge? The NIST determined 9 pounds for the thickest of them all, column 79. Would 2 pounds per charge on the other core columns be an acceptable first approximation?


So are the BANG BANG BANGs of explosions. It's that simple. Do you agree with this assertion, YES or NO?


You already have a theory:
24*8*n core columns were severed. You didn't wait for an investigation to make this up! What's stopping you all of a sudden?


Would you agree that 1 ounce per column and floor is NOT enough to sever the core columns for a CD? YES or NO, Tony?
Would you agree that 1 pound per column and floor is definitely too much to sever the core columns for a CD? YES or NO, Tony?
Or would you agree that 2 pounds per column and floor are a plausible approximation?


For frame of reference, take the Landmark Tower in Ft. Worth Texas, 63% the height and probably no more than 15% the mass and volume of WTC7, where they exploded 364 pounds of explosives within 11 or 12 seconds:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzZBXuyIE28
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKC1ThhnaEg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbzJornQlRE
from farer away:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIOgpxyzqq4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhaTHN3McXY (go to 1:09 minutes)

You need a frame of reference? Here is one:
http://www.dhgt.com/PDF/A%20talented...%20experts.pdf

So it seems for the steel of the much more slender Landmark Tower, they used charge sizes averaging 198 lb / 369 charges = 0.54 pounds/charge.

Would you agree that the core columns of WTC7 would certainly require charges more than twice that large, given that they had to support a much larger structure?

NIST estimated 9 pounds for col 79, cut in one place only. Would you agree that this provides a frame of reference?


Tony, sorry for the long post rubbing in all the questions you are dodging, evading, avoiding like the plague!
You know they are VERY pertinent, and that you CAN estimate plausible answers!
Based on the behavior of the collapse, the only thing we can say for certain is that the building was imploded with some type of demolition devices. You have no idea how it was done as there are several ways to remove structural integrity. That is why I say you have no frame of reference. The NIST attempt to say it had to be column 79 taken out first and that it would take too much explosive was a circular disingenuous argument and so is yours to a lesser degree as the disingenuous part may not apply.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 7th December 2015 at 02:24 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 7th December 2015, 02:32 AM   #505
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,562
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Based on the behavior of the collapse, the only thing we can say for certain is that the building was imploded with some type of demolition devices. You have no idea how it was done as there are several ways to remove structural integrity. That is why I say you have no frame of reference. The NIST attempt to say it had to be column 79 taken out first and that it would take too much explosive was a circular disingenuous argument and so is yours to a lesser degree as the disingenuous part may not apply.
Tony,

1. Do you claim that the 24 core columns failed within a very short time interval - YES, or NO?
2. Do you claim that the 24 core columns were all cut by CD?
3. Do you claim that the 24 core columns were cut on more than one floor - perhaps as many as 8 - YES or NO?
4. Do you claim that the 24 core columns were cut with explosives - YES or NO?

Make your next post exactly 4 words!
Make sure not to use any words except YES or NO!
These questions are about YOUR claims, you can't make any excuses to feign not knowing whether or not you claim these things!
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)

Last edited by Oystein; 7th December 2015 at 02:34 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 7th December 2015, 02:36 AM   #506
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Tony,

1. Do you claim that the 24 core columns failed within a very short time interval - YES, or NO?
2. Do you claim that the 24 core columns were all cut by CD?
3. Do you claim that the 24 core columns were cut on more than one floor - perhaps as many as 8 - YES or NO?
4. Do you claim that the 24 core columns were cut with explosives - YES or NO?

Make your next post exactly 4 words!
Make sure not to use any words except YES or NO!
These questions are about YOUR claims, you can't make any excuses to feign not knowing whether or not you claim these things!
Based on the behavior of the building during its collapse the only thing that can be ascertained (and the only thing I claim) is that it shows that 8 stories of the core were removed quickly starting from the center to effect the demolition. Exactly how it was done I do not claim to know and neither can you.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 7th December 2015 at 02:39 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 7th December 2015, 02:59 AM   #507
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,562
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Based on the behavior of the building during its collapse the only thing that can be ascertained (and the only thing I claim) is that it shows that 8 stories[1] of the core[2] were removed quickly[3] starting from the center to effect the demolition. Exactly how[4] it was done I do not claim to know and neither can you.
[1] Do you claim that the core columns were "removed" in at least one place, or at least two places, or on each of 8 floors?

[2] By "core" do you mean all 24 columns? Or could this imply "only 1 column" as a possible scenario? If neither "all 24" nor "perhaps just 1" applies, how many core columns do you claim must at least have been removed?

[3] What is "quickly"? Within a short time interval? How short - can you give an upper limit? (I am asking because obviously that interval has to be shorter than the shortest time you think is required for a natural collapse to progress laterally and still look the way the real collapse looked)

[4] So you do NOT claim that explosives were used?


I wonder of course why you wrote earlier
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti
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.
if you now pretend you can't give any such answers? Were you trying to bamboozle us by pretending you have a theory?
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)

Last edited by Oystein; 7th December 2015 at 03:01 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 7th December 2015, 03:40 AM   #508
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 24,977
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
... You have no idea how it was done as there are several ways to remove structural integrity ...
There's only one that would allow a closely synchronised demolition of the kind you describe, and it's explosives. If you can suggest another please do, otherwise your theory requires you to believe this.

So it's 2x8x24 charges, absolute minimum (though I think that's a huge ridiculous* underestimate, for reasons already stated several times). It's your theory and you need to accept the implications that follow from it rather than dump the burden of proof on others.

*There's no way a single linear shaped charge can cut through an entire "I" section of the dimensions in question. If anyone's proposing vanilla bulk explosives then the mass goes way up, if it would work at all, making for yet bigger bangs. The concept is ludicrous.

Last edited by GlennB; 7th December 2015 at 03:55 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 7th December 2015, 03:47 AM   #509
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,842
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Based on the behavior of the building during its collapse the only thing that can be ascertained (and the only thing I claim) is that it shows that 8 stories of the core were removed quickly starting from the center to effect the demolition. Exactly how it was done I do not claim to know and neither can you.
Impossible explosives, do not exist.
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 7th December 2015, 06:35 AM   #510
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,725
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
The evidence is there that the east penthouse collapse into the building was only high in the building and that it was a separate and distinct event uninvolved with the global collapse of WTC 7. The below points are evidence it was not due to a full east side interior collapse which had started low in the building, as the NIST WTC 7 report claims.

- The shock wave is top to bottom.
- The window breakage is only 15 stories down from the roof.
- Daylight is only observed in the upper story windows.
- There is no deformation of the east side exterior.
- There was no dust emanating from windows until the full building collapse.

Why it was done is actually immaterial.
So the EPH collapse was mere coincidence
__________________
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 7th December 2015, 07:15 AM   #511
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 24,977
Originally Posted by Mark F View Post
So the EPH collapse was mere coincidence
A few years ago TS was pushed on this subject and eventually stated that the EMP was CD'd several seconds earlier than the main CD, at a higher level, as it might "fly off or topple" sideways, as if 'the perps' were concerned with the mess it might make or something.

Last edited by GlennB; 7th December 2015 at 07:18 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 7th December 2015, 08:44 AM   #512
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,203
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
... Attempts at refutation along these lines are ridiculous and baseless.

The reality is ...
LOL, the BS CD is a fantasy, and refuting it is called reality. The baseless ridiculous claim is CD.

No wonder 911 truth is eternal BS, lies and Fantasy.

The truth of 911, is 19 failed humans decided murder was the way for their BS.

Refuting the silent explosives nonsense is superfluous.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2015, 09:17 AM   #513
Criteria
Critical Thinker
 
Criteria's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 458
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Tony,

1. Do you claim that the 24 core columns failed within a very short time interval - YES, or NO?
2. Do you claim that the 24 core columns were all cut by CD?
3. Do you claim that the 24 core columns were cut on more than one floor - perhaps as many as 8 - YES or NO?
4. Do you claim that the 24 core columns were cut with explosives - YES or NO?

Make your next post exactly 4 words!
Make sure not to use any words except YES or NO!
These questions are about YOUR claims, you can't make any excuses to feign not knowing whether or not you claim these things!
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Based on the behavior of the building during its collapse the only thing that can be ascertained (and the only thing I claim) is that it shows that 8 stories of the core were removed quickly starting from the center to effect the demolition.

Exactly how it was done I do not claim to know and neither can you.
Most reasonable people would agree with you on this Mr. Szamboti.

Bullying amateurs, only interested in provoking people such as yourself for sport and personal amusement, are little more than a test of your professional patience. I would compare the disingenuous content of their posts to the #^*# I occasionally have to scrape from the bottom of my shoe.

Whether we choose to speculate or not, the fact remains the observables cannot be denied. Others may choose to disagree with you about what happened to those 8 stories of the core. I do not.

What others cannot disagree with, is what we can clearly determine from the video record.




For 8 stories of its descent, WTC7 was measured to have plummeted at free fall acceleration. Any +/- data acceleration deviations in the data plots would be perfectly in accordance with the recording accuracy limitations expected from using such a relatively low resolution video.

You cannot have 8 stories of synchronous corner-to-corner free fall unless all of the underlying perimeter’s vertical resistance is no longer there.
Criteria is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2015, 09:40 AM   #514
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

Bullying amateurs, only interested in provoking people such as yourself for sport and personal amusement, are little more than a test of your professional patience.

Maybe you two should get a room....................

Anything to avoid the obvious I guess. Tell us how silent explosives work? Don't forget to not violate the laws of nature.
__________________
"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 7th December 2015, 09:44 AM   #515
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,842
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Most reasonable people would agree with you on this Mr. Szamboti.

Bullying amateurs, only interested in provoking people such as yourself for sport and personal amusement, are little more than a test of your professional patience. I would compare the disingenuous content of their posts to the #^*# I occasionally have to scrape from the bottom of my shoe.

Whether we choose to speculate or not, the fact remains the observables cannot be denied. Others may choose to disagree with you about what happened to those 8 stories of the core. I do not.

What others cannot disagree with, is what we can clearly determine from the video record.


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

For 8 stories of its descent, WTC7 was measured to have plummeted at free fall acceleration. Any +/- data acceleration deviations in the data plots would be perfectly in accordance with the recording accuracy limitations expected from using such a relatively low resolution video.

You cannot have 8 stories of synchronous corner-to-corner free fall unless all of the underlying perimeter’s vertical resistance is no longer there.
How do you determine reasonable people Tony is amateur, he has no experience with structural engineering, or explosives!
It is reasonable to admit Tony is an Amateur simply speculating, as are you.
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 7th December 2015, 09:47 AM   #516
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 24,977
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Most reasonable people would agree with you on this Mr. Szamboti.

Bullying amateurs, only interested in provoking people such as yourself for sport and personal amusement, are little more than a test of your professional patience.
Professional? You're describing a man who once claimed all objects at rest were accelerating at g, and who thinks the penthouse was CD'd early to stop it flying off sideways; a man who refuses to accept a series of still photos of WTC1 despite their excellent provenance because they disprove a fact on which he relies. The list goes on and on.

Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
You cannot have 8 stories of synchronous corner-to-corner free fall unless all of the underlying perimeter’s vertical resistance is no longer there.
I'm not seeing any significant disagreement here with that, and haven't for years. The argument is about the mechanism, not the fact.

Last edited by GlennB; 7th December 2015 at 09:51 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 7th December 2015, 10:17 AM   #517
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,389
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
For 8 stories of its descent, WTC7 was measured to have plummeted at free fall acceleration. Any +/- data acceleration deviations in the data plots would be perfectly in accordance with the recording accuracy limitations expected from using such a relatively low resolution video.
Is that all you have to say? A better recording than that one registered a similar profile (except no one dared to put units in the axes of that last one other than pixels, due to potential lens distortion and perspective effects).

The video quality was an obstacle that was overcome with careful analysis. Getting the best quality available, deinterlacing, taking fixed reference points, are all part of the treatment that it was subject to in order to obtain the most reliable data possible. The resulting data is far superior to what Chandler and NIST obtained, both of which counted whole pixels as far as I'm aware of (except for NIST's measurement of lateral movement using a moiré technique, which also tracked fractions of pixel, and was reproduced with enhanced precision by femr2 using the same software used to track the northwest corner movement).

So, once again you don't know what you're talking about. You badly want to handwave away the over-g fact now that you know that it's fatal to your claim of zero resistance, but something doesn't become real just for wishing it outside of Trutherland. Reality works differently.

Last edited by pgimeno; 7th December 2015 at 10:25 AM.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2015, 10:26 AM   #518
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,045
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Maybe you two should get a room....................
The thought of these two in a room together talking about explosives just cracks me up
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 7th December 2015, 11:19 AM   #519
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,725
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
A few years ago TS was pushed on this subject and eventually stated that the EMP was CD'd several seconds earlier than the main CD, at a higher level, as it might "fly off or topple" sideways, as if 'the perps' were concerned with the mess it might make or something.
That's what he told me last year too.

They had no qualms about killing 3,000 people and levelling 16 acres of lower Manhattan but they had to make damn sure that the unknown and unimportant Building 7 fell symmetrically and in its own footprint so that no one else would get hurt and no other damage done.

Sure
__________________
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 7th December 2015, 11:31 AM   #520
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
Based on the behavior of the building during its collapse the only thing that can be ascertained (and the only thing I claim) is that it shows that 8 stories of the core were removed quickly starting from the center to effect the demolition. Exactly how it was done I do not claim to know and neither can you.
Then the NIST scenario makes perfect sense.
First visible sign of collapse is the infalling of the EPH and the creation of a kink in the north face. Obviously severe damage had occurred in the building to effect such ground to rooftop failure. The rest of the structure held at this point ( .......wait, no, the rooftop and every floor beneath it had already begun falling at the line of the kink, only the corners and east and west walls are still standing upright at this point in time. This takes about ten seconds to develop) but then we see the western rooftop structures beginning to also fall into the building, indicating a western progression of failures in the core. With most of the core gone, and already having some of the perimeter failed (at the site of the kink) the rest of the perimeter frame can no longer remain standing and fails quickly. A few seconds after the rest of the perimeter, basically the east and west walls, begins falling, some points on the structure are accelerating at or near 'g'. Of the 16+ second collapse sequence, about 1.25 seconds near the end of the collapse sequence, some points are moving at or near 'g'.
How this can possibly indicate what occurred in the preceding 12-14 seconds is ,,,,, well,,,, fiction.

Last edited by jaydeehess; 7th December 2015 at 12:29 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
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 10:21 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.