IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts 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 9/11 conspiracies , David Slesinger , newtons third law

Reply
Old 1st June 2016, 07:49 AM   #81
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I was not the one who brought up the name of DRG, nor did I cite him for anything.
Tracing back thru 5 post, I see that it was Oystein who specifically brought up DRG.

But his was a fair point that you did bring him into the conversation, unintentionally, by asserting:

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Truth people don't share any of the characteristics of charlatans. None of them sell the relevant information to the message they are spreading. Everything information-related they produce is available for free on the internet.
DRG is part of “truth people”, whether or not you cite or believe him.

And it is clear that you have a scorching case of Cognitive Dissonance, when you state:

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Either way, I strongly disagree with DRG on most things, his WTC 7 book is his best but it was nothing that anybody couldn't figure out for themselves.
You “strongly disagree”, but “it’s nothing anybody couldn’t figure out for themselves”.???
Perhaps you should go figure out for yourself whether you agree with him or not. And then stick with that position.

Further, you say that “when you say ‘truth people’, you mean AE911T…", but as I pointed out, DRG’s incompetent delusions were the “factual” foundation upon which the Numero Uno Truth Person at AE911T (Gage) built his incompetent edifice.

You can NOT accept Gage while rejecting DRG, because Gage is built upon DRG.

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Is your attention span so deteriorated that you can't even process the comment which you have quoted in your actual reply?
You started you post by providing links to 3 of DRG’s books.

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Yes, I confess that it is true. You got me.

I admit that “tracing back thru several posts, to find out whether this example of your idiocy is distinguishable in any way from all the other examples of your idiocy” does not, in fact, rise to the level of "something significant enough to warrant any amount of my attention".

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Almost all the talking points Gage brings up in his presentations are and have always been considered evidence of arson.
And there you go again. Citing amateurs.

Gage has no more knowledge of either arson or “evidence requiring arson investigations” than he does of “structural engineering”.

There WAS an expert on the scene, who IS an expert on both arson & “evidence requiring arson investigation”.
His name is Daniel Nigro.

It turns out that you can’t be a complete, utter moron & rise to the level of Chief of the FDNY.
He had very reliable reports that two planes fly into two buildings. Two buildings had enormous fires in them, and then collapsed. Setting off fires in ALL of the surrounding buildings, cars, fire trucks, busses, etc.

One of the other tall building (WTC 7), which had its fire start when WTC 1 fell on it (as did all those other buildings, cars, busses, etc), had unfought, raging fires on multiple floors.
[Interesting aside: ONLY brain dead Truthers, excuse me, Twoofers, think that a modern office building, crammed full of paper, wood, paper, plastics, paper, and other combustibles (like paper), will burn in small, low temperature fire, when the fires are left unfought.]
So, Chief Nigro, NOT being an utter moron, figured that he had a pretty good handle on what caused the fire.

And, as a direct result of that - pay very close attention here, Micah - all of the requirements of NFPA 921 WERE followed to the letter.

The investigative suggestions of NFPA 921 are invoked when the cause of the fires is unknown.
The causes were NOT unknown.

NFPA 921 gives wide latitude & discretion to the chief fire investigator on the scene to use his judgment as to whether or not further suggested tests are required in order to figure out the cause of the fire.
Chief Nigro correctly assessed that those additional suggested tests were not required.
Chief Nigro followed the intent of NFPA 921 to the letter, when he determined that “tests for thermite & other exotic accelerants” were not warranted in this case.

Because there was absolutely zero question as to the cause of those fires.

Maybe when you grow up, you can become a big city fire investigator.
Maybe then, it might become YOUR call.
And maybe then, if you call for investigations of “thermite & other exotic accelerants” in the case of a plane flying into a building, you can experience the warm & fuzzy feeling of every thinking person around calling for you to be “fired for wasting taxpayers money”.

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The NFPA 921 passages I have quoted a few times confirm that.
The problem is that “the NFPA 921 passages that [you] have quoted”, were quoted by a clueless amateur who hasn’t the slightest notion what he is talking about.

The nail in the coffin to your idiotic claims is the fact that multiple experts, who DO know what they are talking about, have stated, clearly & unequivocally, that your interpretation of NFPA 921 is uninformed & moronic.

Other than all of the above, I support you 100%.

You keep at it.
Keep pushing for a new investigation for “thermite & other accelerants” in the debris pile of Ground Zero.
Perhaps you could do the investigation yourself.
After all, you do have your copy of NFPA 921. That’s all you really need.
Who needs understanding & experience, when some kid can cluelessly extract a few quotes here & there…??

Be sure to keep me informed at all of your progress.
I’ll clear of all of my other tasks so that I can focus all of my attention on you.

That way, I’ll be sure to not have any more embarrassing “lapses in my attention span” when it comes to the slightest thing that you are doing …
Really.

Last edited by tfk; 1st June 2016 at 08:01 AM.
tfk 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 1st June 2016, 07:59 AM   #82
ProBonoShill
Master Poster
 
ProBonoShill's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,323
Originally Posted by BenjaminTR View Post
For those who are interested, I read the first linked paper. The authors argue that WTC 7 did not have enough gravitational potential energy to crush all the concrete floors (they use what they argue is a conservative assumption about the distribution of chunk/particle size after crushing) and bend all the columns on every floor through 0.9pi radians of plastic hinge rotation.

Since we already know that nothing remotely like this happened to building 7, even if the calculations are right, they are of little significance to discussions of how building 7 collapsed.
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
Exactly. Crushing the concrete to their chosen range of particle sizes is an arbitrary requirement that they've imposed in order to demonstrate the lack of sufficient PE to do that much crushing. If the floor connections fail at each impact then the concrete could theoretically have ended up lying there relatively unscathed.

A house of cards springs to mind - it isn't necessary to shred the cards to get the structure to collapse.

In short, they're trying to give the impression of doing proper science.
Great observations, thanks for those.
__________________
"CD does not prove 9/11 was an inside job. It only proves CD"- FalseFlag
ProBonoShill 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 1st June 2016, 11:01 AM   #83
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Why include a standard 9/11 truth tag-line;
Quote:
Our conclusion suggests that Newton’s laws of motion and energy conservation considerations would have had to have been violated to explain that building’s total collapse within a debris pile several storeys high.
This means they failed to figure out why 7 WTC collapsed, or ignored it failed internally first. But they did mention it failed interally, then failed to think past their goal... Which appears to be using more 9/11 truth tag-lines.
Quote:
– a debris pile a few storeys high, largely within its footprint.
So? What it this footprint stuff, the building was all over the place. As for largely within its footprint; which way does gravity work? Either they have no clue 9/11 truth uses the "footprint" woo, and the "broke the laws of physics woo, or they are leaning towards 9/11 truth, repeating meaningless tag-lines of CD.

What does it mean, "laws... had to have been violated"... Why is crap like this in the abstract? Is this a veiled attempt to back in CD?

Why do they mention Bazant for 7 WTC?

Who pays the fees for the "challenge journal of structural mechanics", where the challenged are the failed reviewers who let BS in. The paper does not do more than review other work, and claim the building can't fall - as they left out how it did fall. Did they mention the penthouse falling into 7 WTC?
Is this a vanity journal? No evidence for CD, or an inside job... Batting zero so far... Strike one

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Wow, they disagree with NIST on what started the collapse; not news, so do other engineers. Again no evidence for CD, or an inside job, only evidence they disagree with NIST.
No evidence for CD or inside job from this paper which is not a 9/11 truth paper... Strike two...

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Wow, a sort of real journal, and the 9/11 truth CD BS had to be kept out or the paper by these fantasy CD 9/11 truth guys would be rejected hopefully as woo... Thus we see 9/11 truth CD believers can make a paper pass the review and be published by keeping out the woo. However, it is poor form to do a paper which makes up BS about other papers, and expose a failed knowledge of the limitation of the other papers.

And the conclusion for this paper is?
Quote:
A number of simple, transparent calculations of the North Tower collapse were presented in [5] and the conclusion was that assuming even a modest resistance of columns during their destruction would cause an unacceptably long collapse time. It is only when perfectly frangible columns were adopted that the fall time was as low as 15.3 s. This removes the PCF mode, as defined here, as a viable hypothesis of collapse.
Yet, the PCF achieved significant popularity, as based on [1] and [2], while the next work [12] did not contribute anything new to the core of the subject. These papers, purporting to explain the collapse, suffered from three fatal errors, as detailed above. Also, the whole methodology was not justified. Some incredibly short fall times were quoted by the authors, while all solutions were of a black-box type. The presentations in these papers are not a valid description of what happened. The reasons for a smooth motion history and promptness of collapse of the North Tower remain yet to be determined.
Gee, the core of the WTC was still standing for over 20 seconds... And the paper makes no conclusion except, "remain yet to be determined". The paper was a weak attack on Bazant, and others, and failed to explain the limitations of the other papers. The paper also ignores why the WTC collapse continued after the top failed.
The paper does not support CD, and fails to meet the stated goals.
The paper is worthless for your inside job, or your CD fantasy; I forgot what your fantasy of 9/11 is - as you present a paper which is good for nothing.

No evidence in this no real conclusion paper for CD, or an inside job.
Strike three.

Three papers which offer no evidence for CD, no evidence for an inside job.

What was the point? One paper with a hint of woo, the broke the laws of physics BS, one paper which disagrees with NIST on what started 7 WTC collapse, and one paper with a conclusion they don't know beans about anything.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK

Last edited by beachnut; 1st June 2016 at 12:01 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st June 2016, 04:35 PM   #84
MicahJava
Illuminator
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
Which papers? You lost them again? 9/11 truth's CD claims, or is it the inside job for you? Which fantasy do you have, and why have you failed to get a Pulitzer for all your evidence to support your claim? You don't have evidence.
You lost it with the three paper you can't remember.

Which papers, which journals? Did they pay to publish?
A flick of the scroll bar and a morsel of memory will do ya.
MicahJava 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 1st June 2016, 04:37 PM   #85
MicahJava
Illuminator
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
Exactly. Crushing the concrete to their chosen range of particle sizes is an arbitrary requirement that they've imposed in order to demonstrate the lack of sufficient PE to do that much crushing. If the floor connections fail at each impact then the concrete could theoretically have ended up lying there relatively unscathed.

A house of cards springs to mind - it isn't necessary to shred the cards to get the structure to collapse.

In short, they're trying to give the impression of doing proper science.
But GlennB, isn't some extent of pulverization of all the concrete floor slabs necessary in any WTC 7 collapse model? Isn't that why the rubble pile was so small and there are no large pieces of concrete in photographs?
MicahJava 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 1st June 2016, 07:01 PM   #86
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
But GlennB, isn't some extent of pulverization of all the concrete floor slabs necessary in any WTC 7 collapse model? Isn't that why the rubble pile was so small and there are no large pieces of concrete in photographs?
The debris pile is small because you can't rent solid space. The building is 90 to 95 percent air, you rent space. Love the easy ones, did you know the building was not solid?

What is your evidence for your inside job fantasy? oops, fantasy needs no evidence
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
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 1st June 2016, 07:08 PM   #87
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
The building is 90 to 95 percent air
Then why did it collapse so easily? How can air and gravity pulverize a building or cause one to collapse at freefall for 2.25 seconds?
FalseFlag 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 1st June 2016, 07:16 PM   #88
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Then why did it collapse so easily?
Why can't you provide answers? Is it due to your lack of knowledge?
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
I have never said I am an expert. ...
How is fire for burning for hours so easily?
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
... what I think does not matter.
What? You have no clue how long it too 7 WTC to start to fail internally? A process which took over 16 seconds. Do you understand engineering, fire, steel?
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
I have never said I am an expert. ...
Thus your questions are based on overwhelming ignorance? What do you think caused the collapse of 7 WTC?
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
... what I think does not matter.
Your past posts, and failure at physics... irony... ff (think programming, a long, long time ago.... okay a while back...)
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
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 1st June 2016, 09:31 PM   #89
ProBonoShill
Master Poster
 
ProBonoShill's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,323
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Then why did it collapse so easily? How can air and gravity pulverize a building or cause one to collapse at freefall for 2.25 seconds?
Maybe because nothing "pulverized" the building, fire, failure and gravity did?

What exactly pulverized the building??? Include some math if you think that would be helpful.

Please explain.

Obligatory popcorn
__________________
"CD does not prove 9/11 was an inside job. It only proves CD"- FalseFlag
ProBonoShill 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 1st June 2016, 10:57 PM   #90
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 31,398
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
But GlennB, isn't some extent of pulverization of all the concrete floor slabs necessary in any WTC 7 collapse model? Isn't that why the rubble pile was so small and there are no large pieces of concrete in photographs?
Some degree of comminution is inevitable, but it certainly isn't necessary for collapse to progress to the ground. Why would it be? The floors didn't hold the building up, it was primarily the column/girder connections that did that.

More to the point - the pile had external wall sections over the top, not concrete floors. Where are the photos showing typical WTC7 concrete remains that allow the writers to come to conclusions about the degree of comminution? I'm not aware of any rubble analysis of WTC7 that would help either.

No, they presented numbers based on no actual evidence and surrounded them with complex formulae in order to impress people. The ultimate absurdity is that if there wasn't sufficient PE in the building to account for their comminution figures then how did it happen? Explosives that nobody heard.
__________________
"There ain't half been some clever bastards" - Ian Dury
GlennB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2016, 11:05 PM   #91
MicahJava
Illuminator
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
Some degree of comminution is inevitable, but it certainly isn't necessary for collapse to progress to the ground. Why would it be? The floors didn't hold the building up, it was primarily the column/girder connections that did that.

More to the point - the pile had external wall sections over the top, not concrete floors. Where are the photos showing typical WTC7 concrete remains that allow the writers to come to conclusions about the degree of comminution? I'm not aware of any rubble analysis of WTC7 that would help either.

No, they presented numbers based on no actual evidence and surrounded them with complex formulae in order to impress people. The ultimate absurdity is that if there wasn't sufficient PE in the building to account for their comminution figures then how did it happen? Explosives that nobody heard.
There are no photographs of large pieces of concrete slabs from WTC 7, even though it's alleged internal failure was completely different and less energetic than the Twin Towers collapse. Here's Leslie Robertson describing the WTC 7 rubble as "a big sand pile", "sand and gravel".

Pulverization is a characteristic of a completely unrestrained collapse. The pulverization does not have to be the result of hypothetical explosive devices to be considered a sign of intentional destruction. Does the pulverization of commercial CDs even happen as a result of the high explosives, or is it more as a result of the structure gaining momentum and crushing itself?

Last edited by MicahJava; 2nd June 2016 at 11:07 PM. Reason: questions
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2016, 12:26 AM   #92
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 31,398
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
There are no photographs of large pieces of concrete slabs from WTC 7, even though it's alleged internal failure was completely different and less energetic than the Twin Towers collapse. Here's Leslie Robertson describing the WTC 7 rubble as "a big sand pile", "sand and gravel".

Pulverization is a characteristic of a completely unrestrained collapse. The pulverization does not have to be the result of hypothetical explosive devices to be considered a sign of intentional destruction. Does the pulverization of commercial CDs even happen as a result of the high explosives, or is it more as a result of the structure gaining momentum and crushing itself?
You prefer to go with the ~800 shaped charges in one second theory then? How bizarre.
__________________
"There ain't half been some clever bastards" - Ian Dury
GlennB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2016, 03:05 AM   #93
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,692
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
There are no photographs of large pieces of concrete slabs from WTC 7
... therefore they didn't exist?


Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Pulverization is a characteristic of a completely unrestrained collapse.
Pulverization is a characteristic of the fracturing of concrete. It doesn't matter whether the collapse is restrained or unrestrained.
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 3rd June 2016, 04:15 AM   #94
JSanderO
Illuminator
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 3,232
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
There are no photographs of large pieces of concrete slabs from WTC 7, even though it's alleged internal failure was completely different and less energetic than the Twin Towers collapse. Here's Leslie Robertson describing the WTC 7 rubble as "a big sand pile", "sand and gravel".

Pulverization is a characteristic of a completely unrestrained collapse. The pulverization does not have to be the result of hypothetical explosive devices to be considered a sign of intentional destruction. Does the pulverization of commercial CDs even happen as a result of the high explosives, or is it more as a result of the structure gaining momentum and crushing itself?
Here are concrete beams and encased columns surviving the 7wtc collapse.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg MG53.jpg (141.1 KB, 5 views)
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2016, 07:32 AM   #95
MicahJava
Illuminator
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
Here are concrete beams and encased columns surviving the 7wtc collapse.
Thanks for the photo, but that isn't really what I mean. A layman's understanding of the official story of WTC 7 is that floors within the building were partially collapsing onto another until the interior became more or less empty, leaving the perimeter as a hollow shell. I would expect to see recognizable floors with this and that strewn about. The apparent pulverization of this rubble pile looks more like the entire building fell as a unit, crushing itself with momentum from the freefall.
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2016, 10:48 AM   #96
JSanderO
Illuminator
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 3,232
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Thanks for the photo, but that isn't really what I mean. A layman's understanding of the official story of WTC 7 is that floors within the building were partially collapsing onto another until the interior became more or less empty, leaving the perimeter as a hollow shell. I would expect to see recognizable floors with this and that strewn about. The apparent pulverization of this rubble pile looks more like the entire building fell as a unit, crushing itself with momentum from the freefall.
The concrete used is thin, light weight no stone aggregate which broke up rather quickly with consideration to tens of thousands of mechanical impacts. These impacts rendered virtually all of the concrete to sand and portland cement/limestone dust.

Have you pics of any very tall buildings which were CDed with light weight concrete slabs and there were a stack of slabs at the end?

I think this is what happens when very tall buildings collapse.... the slabs are turned to pretty much sand and dust and twisted re bar and mesh.
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 3rd June 2016, 01:34 PM   #97
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Then why did it collapse so easily? How can air and gravity pulverize a building or cause one to collapse at freefall for 2.25 seconds?
And it is brain-dead questions exactly like this that prove how insincere you are. And how this is all just a pathetic game to you.

"... air & gravity ..."???

Nothing else happened to WTC7 that day, except "air & gravity"??
Really?

Is that the conclusion of the NIST engineers?
"Air & gravity"?
tfk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2016, 04:29 PM   #98
MicahJava
Illuminator
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
The concrete used is thin, light weight no stone aggregate which broke up rather quickly with consideration to tens of thousands of mechanical impacts. These impacts rendered virtually all of the concrete to sand and portland cement/limestone dust.
The official story of WTC 7 have smaller internal collapses which are much less energetic than the Twin Tower, until the perimeter fall as more or less a hollow shell. With that considered, why shouldn't I expect something akin to the rubble piles of buildings that collapsed in earthquakes, with recognizable floors and their sandwiched contents?

Quote:
Have you pics of any very tall buildings which were CDed with light weight concrete slabs and there were a stack of slabs at the end?

I think this is what happens when very tall buildings collapse.... the slabs are turned to pretty much sand and dust and twisted re bar and mesh.
What do you think is the most likely way WTC 7 failed? Similar to how CD advocates say it was done, but done naturally?

Last edited by MicahJava; 3rd June 2016 at 04:33 PM.
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2016, 04:46 PM   #99
JSanderO
Illuminator
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 3,232
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The official story of WTC 7 have smaller internal collapses which are much less energetic than the Twin Tower, until the perimeter fall as more or less a hollow shell. With that considered, why shouldn't I expect something akin to the rubble piles of buildings that collapsed in earthquakes, with recognizable floors and their sandwiched contents?



What do you think is the most likely way WTC 7 failed? Similar to how CD advocates say it was done, but done naturally?
I think that very tall building with open office plans... column free using light weight concrete slabs will all collapse with little to no big chunks of floor slabs in the debris. I think the forces involved would crush the slabs pretty completely and the number of collisions.

The way I see the explanation for 7wtc is that there was a failure below floor 8 which easily and rapidly propagated from the east side across the north side of the core... to the west side. It was a wide building but the spans were pretty long. And there were a lot of load transfer structures... meaning that the forces in columns above had no direct coupling to the foundation. I suspect this accounts for the rapid "gutting" of the interior... followed by the collapse of the perimeter moment frame.

I can't detail how these failure were initiated or precisely where. But I think hours of heat could warp, expand steel and shear / fail connections and the member don't work when their connections fail.
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 3rd June 2016, 05:30 PM   #100
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by tfk View Post
And it is brain-dead questions exactly like this that prove how insincere you are. And how this is all just a pathetic game to you.

"... air & gravity ..."???

Nothing else happened to WTC7 that day, except "air & gravity"??
Really?

Is that the conclusion of the NIST engineers?
"Air & gravity"?
You're right. Air and gravity didn't cause the collapse. Explosives did.

Stop taking my posts out of context. It's obvious you're pi**ed off that a non-expert is kicking your a** by pointing out the fraud you keep committing.

If you want me to stop then stop posting your nonsense.
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th June 2016, 06:46 AM   #101
waypastvne
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 539
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
You're right. Air and gravity didn't cause the collapse. Explosives did.



DUDE...... Explosives are air. And gravity is constant it never goes away.
waypastvne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th June 2016, 07:53 AM   #102
ProBonoShill
Master Poster
 
ProBonoShill's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,323
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
You're right. Air and gravity didn't cause the collapse. Explosives did.

Stop taking my posts out of context and using them to make me look foolish. It's obvious you're pi**ed off laughing your ass off that a non-expert is kicking your a** embarrassing himself by failing so badly at pointing out the fraud you keep committing.

If you want me to stop then stop posting your nonsense.
FYP

Re: the highlighted.

What explosives are those? Care to describe them? How many were used? Show your math. How were they placed? Where were they placed? How come not a scintilla of evidence has been found of these explosives that were supposed used that day? None was found at ground zero. None on the examined steel. None by the dogs trained to find explosives. None by the hundreds of law enforcement officers at the site. None by fire marshals or fire investigators.

You're batting a big fat zero, which is why the 15 years of failure will continue forever.

Why can't you do better?
__________________
"CD does not prove 9/11 was an inside job. It only proves CD"- FalseFlag
ProBonoShill is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th June 2016, 08:10 PM   #103
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by waypastvne View Post
DUDE...... Explosives are air. And gravity is constant it never goes away.
C4 is air?

Wow. I "learn" something new every day. /sarcasm
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th June 2016, 08:11 PM   #104
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by ProBonoShill View Post
What explosives are those? Care to describe them? How many were used?
Support a new investigation and you might get the answers you seek.
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th June 2016, 10:15 PM   #105
ProBonoShill
Master Poster
 
ProBonoShill's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,323
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Support a new investigation and you might get the answers you seek.
Yep still batting a big fat zero.

Awesome job!
__________________
"CD does not prove 9/11 was an inside job. It only proves CD"- FalseFlag
ProBonoShill is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th June 2016, 01:53 AM   #106
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 7,177
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
You're right. Air and gravity didn't cause the collapse. Explosives did.
Originally Posted by ProBonoShill View Post
What explosives are those? Care to describe them? How many were used? Show your math. How were they placed? Where were they placed? How come not a scintilla of evidence has been found of these explosives that were supposed used that day?
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Support a new investigation and you might get the answers you seek.
Why? Clearly, FF, you already have the answers, because you know explosives were used.
Why not simply tell us? You seem so eager to sway people to your own viewpoint, and you know how it works on this site: "Show us the evidence" is the mantra.
Share the evidence that convinced you that explosives were used, and then we can look at it ourselves. Perhaps you can open some eyes, and thus gain support for the investigation you want. You have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

Just as a pre-emptive post, videos of the collapses, with some comment like "It's obvious except to all you skeptic BS merchants" does not constitute evidence.
__________________
'Of course it can be OK to mistreat people.'- shuttlt

Bring Back the Yak! P.J. Denyer
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th June 2016, 01:06 PM   #107
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
You're right. Air and gravity didn't cause the collapse. Explosives did.
Sure thing. Hush-A-Booms™
LMFAO.

Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Stop taking my posts out of context.
I didn't take one single thing out of context.

Micah asked:
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Isn't that why the rubble pile was so small …?
Beachnut answered him, accurately:
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
[because] The building is 90 to 95 percent air …
You immediately grabbed the Baton Of Stupid & ran off in some random direction, with this gem:
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
How can air and gravity pulverize a building or cause one to collapse at freefall for 2.25 seconds?
I answered your stupid comment concisely:
Originally Posted by tfk View Post
"... air & gravity ..."???
Nothing else happened to WTC7 that day, except "air & gravity"??
Really?
Then, being the helpful chap that I am, I directed you to the precise location that would help you clear up your stupidity:
Originally Posted by tfk View Post
Is that the conclusion of the NIST engineers?
"Air & gravity"?
If you’d taken the hint, if you'd ever bother to read the report that you clueless assert is fraudulent, you’d have found out that NIST’s engineers listed about 6 specific causes for the collapse of the building, none of which was “air & gravity”. Because “air” is irrelevant & “gravity” is obvious.

The causes being:
Local events
  • fires set on multiple floors by collapse of WTC1.
  • lack of water for the sprinkler system on the bottom 20 floors, due to water mains fracture in Towers collapses.
  • unfought fires, due to instability of the building (& exhaustion, destroyed equipment & lack of water)

Design weaknesses in the building
  • too long beam spans
  • weak connections that had no building code requirements for “lateral strength in a fire”
  • inadequate shear studs
  • inadequate girder seat design
  • single sided beam tie-ins to girders, that produced asymmetric forces on the girder when the beams were heated.
  • a building prone to progressive, disproportionate (i.e., total) collapse from a multi-story fire in any one of the 4 corners of the building.

Code weaknesses
  • No requirement for lateral strength in connectors in fire conditions
  • No requirement for building analysis for sensitivity to progressive collapse.
It's hilarious that you adamantly refuse to read the NIST report, where you might learn some of this remedial stuff...

Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
It's obvious you're pi**ed off that a non-expert is kicking your a** by pointing out the fraud you keep committing.
If by “pissed off that [you’re] kicking [my] ass”, you mean “laughing [my] ass off that [you’re] making an utter fool of [yourself] every time [you] post something this moronic”, then … yeah.

Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
If you want me to stop then stop posting your nonsense.
I don’t want you to “stop anything”.
There is no better advertisement for how totally clueless Twoofers are than you, FF.
When your opponent is a total, clueless moron, the LAST thing that you want him to do is to “stop talking”.

LoL.

You keep it up, FF.
You’re doing a FINE job.
Just not for the side that you think you are supporting.

(Especially the “I know physics” part. That is priceless…)

Last edited by tfk; 5th June 2016 at 01:16 PM.
tfk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th June 2016, 03:39 PM   #108
waypastvne
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 539
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post

C4 is air?
Yes C4 is air. Upon detonation a 1.25 pound stick of C4 turns into 1.25 pounds of Nitrogen and Carbon Dioxide and has a gas volume of about 12 cu ft. That is about the size of your average refrigerator.


Do you breath out air ?

If you put a plastic bag over your head in a few minuets you will have a mixture of Nitrogen and Carbon Dioxide.

You are claiming that 12 cu ft of Nitrogen and Carbon Dioxide can destroy steel. So prove It.

As a experiment may I suggest you and Cole get together, find a couple of old refrigerators, get inside and wait until they are completely filled with Nitrogen and Carbon Dioxide. Lets see if they explode and how much damage they do.

Remember. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.


Quote:

Wow. I "learn" something new every day. /sarcasm
No,,,, you don't.

Last edited by waypastvne; 5th June 2016 at 03:55 PM.
waypastvne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th June 2016, 05:14 PM   #109
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by waypastvne View Post
Yes C4 is air.
Really? Still? Why does the government prevent me from buying air, then?
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th June 2016, 08:42 PM   #110
Axxman300
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Really? Still? Why does the government prevent me from buying air, then?
You just need one of these:
https://www.atf.gov/explosives/apply-license

Axxman300 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 June 2016, 11:15 AM   #111
Bitca
Student
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 34
Slesinger's denial of physics

Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Please copy and paste the exact text you are referring to.
Quote:
If the floors above where the planes hit on 9/11 actually were descending through the floors underneath where the planes hit, they could have crushed some floors. THEY COULD NOT HAVE CRUSHED DOZENS OF FLOORS ALL THE WAY TO THE GROUND.

That’s Newton’s third law. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. So if the floors descending did crushing, they themselves were PROPORTIONALLY crushed. Therefore, no mass would have continued to descend and do crushing all the way to the bottom.
(Emphasis mine.)
From his physics denial site.

Clearly Slesinger doesn't understand what action and reaction mean either.
Bitca 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 June 2016, 01:22 PM   #112
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: 34,249
Originally Posted by Bitca View Post
(Emphasis mine.)
From his physics denial site.

Clearly Slesinger doesn't understand what action and reaction mean either.
Progressive collapse denial seems to be the latest big thing in trutherla-la-land. The argument used to be that the crushed rubble from the upper floors would all be ejected from the sides of the building, and anyone who pointed out any problems with this was a poopy head (well, not exactly, but it was about that intelligently put). The latest development is not even to bother making the argument that the rubble would be ejected, just to somehow pretend it ceases to exist, and back this up by handwaving and misquoting Newton's Third Law. I blame Jonathan Cole, who seems to be the leader of the made-up-laws-of-physics crew at the moment, but everyone else seems to be jumping on the bandwagon despite its obvious lack of any wheels.

Dave
__________________
There is truth and there are lies.

- President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021
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 7th June 2016, 04:50 PM   #113
thedopefishlives
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,696
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Progressive collapse denial seems to be the latest big thing in trutherla-la-land. The argument used to be that the crushed rubble from the upper floors would all be ejected from the sides of the building, and anyone who pointed out any problems with this was a poopy head (well, not exactly, but it was about that intelligently put). The latest development is not even to bother making the argument that the rubble would be ejected, just to somehow pretend it ceases to exist, and back this up by handwaving and misquoting Newton's Third Law. I blame Jonathan Cole, who seems to be the leader of the made-up-laws-of-physics crew at the moment, but everyone else seems to be jumping on the bandwagon despite its obvious lack of any wheels.

Dave
I'm wondering how it is supposed to have been ejected. Don't the Truthers themselves tell us that it's suspicious that the top columns wound up hundreds of feet away from the center of collapse, instead of falling straight down? If anything, the debris from the top would have just piled up on top of one of the lower floors, if the collapse was arrested. Perhaps some of it would have slid down the forming heap and out of the building, but the rest of it would have just sat there. I don't see how it's so hard to comprehend: The floors just weren't made to hold that kind of weight. I don't think they could even hold that much statically, let alone with it falling from a height. That's why the weight was anchored to those big massive columns, which could support it.
__________________
Truthers only insist that there must have been some sinister purpose behind [WTC7] because they already think there's a sinister purpose behind everything. -Horatius
thedopefishlives 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 June 2016, 05:36 PM   #114
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
..... I blame Jonathan Cole, who seems to be the leader of the made-up-laws-of-physics crew at the moment, but everyone else seems to be jumping on the bandwagon despite its obvious lack of any wheels.

Dave
There are a couple of related side effects I've noticed from the discussion of the Cole video. Plus commented on one of them and got ignored.

The first is that in his series of models (Five IIRC) - all but the first make the fundamental error of describing the Twin Towers collapses progression as "columns in line buckling" and not " "falling mass bypassing the columns". Most if not all discussion has focussed on Cole's detailed arguments and ignored the false premise. His models are wrong - there is no point discusing details.

The second is the implication that it is possible to initiate a "columns in line and crushing model" - I only recently woke up to that bit of reality myself - I've known it didn't happen for years as most members must be aware. So I knew "didn't" but hadn't realised "couldn't" - couldn't even do it by CD and it didn't happen naturally.

Both those have been at the heart of a lot of controversy on this forum - flowing to other forums. An clearly they are still not resolved - settled issues - for many debunkers. Even if we set aside the linguistic mental gymnastics and "no truther can ever be right on anything" nonsense derived animosity towards "ROOSD" and Major_Tom.

It should still be clear that the progressions mechanism bypassed the columns. AND that the "Top Block" never did "drop (through a gap) to impact".

If fact there are signs that many are regressing to the confusion of former years.

AND - to make it worse - one of Cole's examples he correctly IMO identifies that Bazant & Verdure's 2007 "crush down/crush up" does not apply to WTC Twins collapses. He is IMNSHO correct on the finding - his reasoning is nonsense so his claim is still wrong.

So why the difficulty on this and other forums of addressing where the real error lies with claims which are wrong in starting premises/scenario? And the preference for discussing details based on implicit agreement with the truthers false foundation?

One obvious response is that engineers and physicists prefer to discuss details and numbers. They easily forget the objective "drain the swamp" when "up to their arses in alligators".

The other one is that many seem to be as genuinely confused over the basics as the truthers they despise.

I don't think that situation will change fast - if ever.

Last edited by ozeco41; 7th June 2016 at 05:38 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 7th June 2016, 07:42 PM   #115
JSanderO
Illuminator
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 3,232
And let's not forget that of over 1000 core column sections... there were no crushed columns found... but oodles of pretty much intact ones broken apart at the end connections.

So the only conclusion is that it wasn't the columns collapsing/crushing but the floors and they bypassed the columns!
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

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 07:03 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, 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.