|
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. |
7th June 2016, 08:29 AM | #1001 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,692
|
|
7th June 2016, 08:37 AM | #1002 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 470
|
It is almost 15 years since 9/11, and leaving aside controlled demolition, not one of you has offered a plausible engineering explanation for what happened to WTC7.
You have put all of your energy into resisting the only plausible explanation. In spite of arguments about truss relationships, over free-fall accelerations, gutted interiors, 3hr fire-proofing foam, WTC1 debris damage, etc., no one has described a non-CD chain of plausible events which could explain the corners of WTC7 dropping simultaneously for 8 stories of free fall acceleration. In the NIST FAQ statement about "symmetrical fall" from a one column failure, the NIST agreed that the north side videos show WTC7 falling almost uniformly. In that FAQ explanation the NIST never properly explain what created the observed "symmetry". The NIST claim, and many here support, that the outer shell of WTC7 remained standing until the weaker, inner framing collapsed. But, the NIST never attempt to explain how the shell lost 8 floors so quickly that rest of WTC7 above dropped through that height at such uniform free fall. Even if you built an extremely crude miniature of WTC7, without implosion engineering, you could not make it collapse with that much external uniformity no matter how and where you lit your fires. |
7th June 2016, 08:40 AM | #1003 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
|
It is plausible that your definition of plausible is lacking.
Quote:
Quote:
Why is it you people don't try to explain HOW it was rigged? You know, plausibly. |
7th June 2016, 08:53 AM | #1004 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 3,232
|
That's not true... While my "explanation" / theory may be incorrect... it's certainly conforms to the motion seen and it does not require any placed devices.
It is explain by a rapid progressive cascading series of east to west "failures" on floors 5-7 in the load transfer structures which were all interconnected. Once one of those massive elements fails... it will take the whole lot of them with it and everything above them... and collapse the braced frames of the lower 7 floors leading to the moment frame having no support at 8 stories up. The massive structures failed probably when the very normal standard size connection elements... bolts and welds holding those structures together failed. This was likely a heat related failure. Conceptually this is what happened to the Miamus Brighe collapse when one 1" Ø pin shear pin corroded and failed bring down the 3 lane span over the river. One failed pin caused the collapse... and that was from corrosion and lack of maintenance over several years. |
7th June 2016, 08:58 AM | #1005 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
Quote:
Anyone who has worked in a high rise knows full well that despite the windows, if work on the street is jackhammers, they are readily audible. TSz is correct normal street noise is muffled, not completely but mostly, and those on the street cannot hear conversations going on in the offices. Equating traffic sounds and office noise to high explosive detonations is laughable at best, perhaps merely stupid, and utterly dishonest more likely, IMHO. |
7th June 2016, 08:58 AM | #1006 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 3,232
|
This is pure rubbish:
"Anyone working in a modern office tower knows how well those sealed windows suppress the sound from outside. Likewise, people on the street cannot hear what is happening inside." I work and live in a masonry building with modern double glazed windows... I have heard several Con Ed pole mounted transformers explode. They sounded like bombs, my neighbors said as much... and they all went running out into the street. These transformers were located more than a block away. To think that explosives would go off... hundreds at once and not be heard nor recorded is stupid statement. |
7th June 2016, 09:04 AM | #1007 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
Quote:
Quote:
In both the above we have NO evidence of explosions, no sound or video, and the fact that recording devices were obstructing from certain views of the lower floors does nothing whatsoever to increase the available evidence of said explosions. |
7th June 2016, 09:10 AM | #1008 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
At one time I lived on the 12th floor of a modern steel apartment building overlooking a busy intersection. While keeping our balcony door closed muffled the street sound, it was quite audible, and once a car backfired as it accelerated away from the light in February (in Ottawa one keeps windows shut in winter). THAT was very very noticeable and made me jump and go look out the window. ONE CAR, ONE BACKFIRE, not 192 high explosive charges detonating!
Last weekend at the cottage a neighbour's golf cart blew a tire (overinflated it). I heard it inside and so did the neighbours two cottages over who were inside and had a cottage between them and the cart as well as a section of shrubs and trees. A freakin' 10 inch tire! |
7th June 2016, 09:14 AM | #1009 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
In the 1980s I worked on a road construction crew. In the Canadian Shield one often needs to blast granite to push a road through and since this was in a very remote area no covers were used on the blast sites. We would line up about a mile away and watch the blast if a line of sight was available. This happened several times during my summer working there.
The blasts (dynamite) were very loud, and very noticeable, to say the least. They threw rock hundreds of feet to the side. |
7th June 2016, 09:15 AM | #1010 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
|
7th June 2016, 09:18 AM | #1011 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
You on the other hand offer supposition and a paranoid world view and absolutely nothing in the way of real research to counter the NIST, and for that matter the Nordeneson, reports. THIS ISSUE has made its way into court and the conclusion was that fire, and structural design specific to WTC 7, were the cause of the collapse of WTC7
|
7th June 2016, 09:27 AM | #1012 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
What, where? You mean the off the cuff unsupported allegations of explosives?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
How come even after 15 years of disputing the NIST reports with sound and fury ( a little reference for those who appreciate the Bard), AE911T has not managed to fund and produce any research of equal or greater caliber than the NIST reports? |
7th June 2016, 11:37 AM | #1013 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 47,040
|
Reconcile this.
A claim that glass windows somehow suppressed the sound of explosives but people heard explosions. Which was it? (Ignore the fact that glass windows wouldn't be intact if high explosive charges had gone off in the building.) |
7th June 2016, 11:55 AM | #1014 |
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 31,398
|
130db - Military jet aircraft take-off from aircraft carrier with afterburner at 50 ft.
120db - Thunderclap, chain saw. Oxygen torch (121 dB). Painful 110db - Steel mill, auto horn at 1 meter. Turbo-fan aircraft at takeoff power at 200 ft (118 dB). Riveting machine (110 dB); live rock music (108 - 114 dB). 100db -Jet take-off (at 305 meters) NIST estimated 130-140db at a distance of 1km for a single column cut using shaped charges. Szamboti claims column destruction x 192 in the space of one second for single, low-tech and inefficient, explosive charges. What a monumental joke (even if you don't really appreciate the decibel scale ) |
__________________
"There ain't half been some clever bastards" - Ian Dury |
|
7th June 2016, 01:03 PM | #1015 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
Yes, leaving aside your fantasy version of 9/11, and the fact you can't read NIST, or other work, and understand other explanations you failed to find - you remain believing in the dumbest explanation, silent explosives. You bring woo.
While you did not have to waste anytime in research, you googled 9/11 truth failed CD claims and have a fantasy born in BS. Where do you find the silent explosives? The collapse took over 18 seconds. You repeat the tag-line of woo, 8 stories of free-fall acceleration, and fail to show how it happened; you can't do physics, and you think idiot Balsamo is an aviation authority. Is MM your source for this delusional CD stuff? The symmetrical fall is funny, as it is not symmetrical. It makes your CD claim nonsensical. Twice with the symmetry, is double fail for the CD fantasy. NIST did show, you failed to pay attention. You also failed to realize no rational engineers support your CD claims. You have less than 0.1 percent of all engineers on your CD fantasy. Where is you CD model? lol, you don't realize CD is a gravity collapse started with tiny amounts of explosives - 9/11 used fire. You don't know physics. It was not uniform. How do you ignore the internal failure? Do you have to fail to gain knowledge; how do you do that? 15 years with 9/11 truth fantasy CD believer unable to provide one study to prove it was CD by silent explosives. Where do they get the silent explosives? No damage to any WTC steel by explosives, or thermite. Zero evidence remains for the CD fantasy born in paranoia and ignorance by 9/11 truth liars. Where is your study? Got one yet? |
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein "... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK |
|
7th June 2016, 09:20 PM | #1016 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
Not true, there is at least one active thread where the collapse is being intelligently debated, and there are a good many more on this board.
They just don't appeal to you because: 1. There's a lot of technical discussion. 2. Nobody dodges questions or changes the subject. 3. These are actual debates where often the participants change their minds, or at the very least double check their (actual) calculations. And believe it or not, there are a lot of engineering types who would like to get to the bottom of 7 because they design buildings. The good thing about the NIST report is their recommendations for changes. The answers to many of your questions are politely resolved in that section. |
8th June 2016, 08:55 AM | #1017 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 470
|
Axxman300, if what you say is true, I look forward to hearing what plausible explanation your cohorts have come up with to explain “how its outer shell lost 8 floors so quickly that the rest of WTC7 above immediately dropped at such uniform free fall. I am always looking for quality technical discussion about how WTC7 collapsed. At some point in non-CD explanations the reader is always asked to assume something amazing. That a mysterious ‘something’ wiped out an 8 story periphery wall surrounding the area roughly that of a football field. What wisdom advises responding to every inane question that is placed? Like most members, I write and respond to what interests me. I have changed my mind about many details relating to 9/11. The nice thing about pursuing concerns about what happened to WTC7, is that if those concerns are proven wrong, it will come as a great relief. On the other hand, if I was an ardent believer in the Official Story, I would find it extremely difficult to accept the ramifications of a WTC7 controlled demolition finding. Yes. The bravest ones openly belong to AE911T. If that is so, the answers to my questions are very well hidden. |
8th June 2016, 10:08 AM | #1018 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
|
Sharpshooter gibberish. It was damage and fire. There's not a shred of evidence in the real, physical world for anything other than that. We know there were fires in there, we know they were started by the North Tower striking it and we know they weren't fought. None of that is in any way debatable in our universe.
Quote:
Quote:
Answer please. More or less amazing than that?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
8th June 2016, 11:29 AM | #1019 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
To understand this you need to be able to count to one. To understand the collapses you have to apply hundreds of known factors involving fire and structural damage related to massive, high-speed impacts, and plane crashes. This is because Al Qaeda hasn't flown jets into other central core highrises, so we lack baseline data.
Quote:
Quote:
Second, they are debate/discussions where points are made and countered. Not answering on this board means one of a few things: You made a claim that you're wrong about and can't admit it. You made a claim you know is a lie and you're just trolling. You made a claim that cannot be backed up in any way. I've been called out a few times, and I acknowledge it and move on.
Quote:
Quote:
What would have happened had the NYPD bomb squad found evidence of CD in the rubble? If the goal of the conspirators was an erosion of civil liberties then evidence of CD would have handed the US government a golden ticket to abuse the 4th Amendment like it was Christmas. Every tall building in the US would have been searched by the end of October without warrants, without permission (face it, everyone would have given permission). Laws would have been passed giving law enforcement new search powers in the event of a suspected terrorist threat. So how does hiding CD benefit the conspirators? If it was CD, then why not use explosives that could be traced back to Iraq/Iran/Libya or whichever nation you want to squeeze? Evidence of CD on 9-12-2001 would have given Bush the kind of justification to bring a Trident submarine to launch depth, and a areas of the Middle East would be molten glass today...and nobody would have said a thing. So why hide CD? Why don't Truthers ever think it out this far?
Quote:
Quote:
The answer is that Al Qaeda hijacked 4 commercial jetliners, two flew into the Twin Towers, which later collapsed, and destroyed almost the entire WTC complex including WTC7. |
8th June 2016, 12:12 PM | #1020 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
|
8th June 2016, 12:14 PM | #1021 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
|
8th June 2016, 02:51 PM | #1022 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
|
Nonsense.
You simply won’t put in the slightest effort to try to understand what we’re telling you. To structural engineers, the NIST explanation is completely plausible for explaining the near symmetry of the final collapse. There is zero plausibility to CD. For several specific reasons, chief being:
The global collapse was not from a “one column failure”. Just before the global collapse began, there had been an 18-column failure in the core. All except columns 67 thru 72 in the core. And about 5 columns on the south wall. There are 2 factors that explain the “near symmetry”.
All widely dispersed arrays of columns fall NEARLY straight down. You can get a little rotation, as seen in WTC2. And THIS is what you're not getting: It does NOT fall nearly straight down because all the columns buckle simultaneously. All the columns buckle simultaneously because it starts to rotate, as it begins to fall. The rotation is what causes all remaining columns to buckle. But there was a 2nd effect that caused WTC7 to fall very nearly straight down. When the last remaining support for the core is centrally located, and that central group’s failure generates a global failure of the outer columns, then the result is a VERY NEARLY straight down collapse. There is no mystery here. |
8th June 2016, 03:05 PM | #1023 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
|
The 8 story collapse across the bottom of the building did NOT have to happen quickly at all.
Although it didn't, it could easily have taken a full minute to collapse, if the central 6 columns & outer columns could have withstood the collapse of the remaining columns for that length of time. (It turns out that they could not do so.) The only thing necessary was that the central group of columns buckle last. __ And here is the other part that you're not getting: The 8 story collapse did not have to complete before the global collapse began. It does not have to happen simultaneously. It only had to begin before the global collapse began. This is like a bunch of cars accelerating off of a starting line. If the cars all have exactly the same acceleration, whichever car starts first will NEVER get caught by any of the cars that start later. Precisely because they have the same acceleration. All objects free fall at the same acceleration. As long as the internal collapse started before the external walls, then the external walls would never have caught up to the internal collapse. In reality, the central group of columns (C67 - 72) hung in for just couple of seconds or so. This was long enough for the rest of the internal collapse to get far enough into its fall, that the outer columns could not catch it. The core collapse did NOT have to happen, and didn't happen, "all at once". However, the outer columns were not capable of supporting the entire remaining building without any core columns. When the last central columns buckled, the outer columns also buckled promptly. Again, no mystery. |
8th June 2016, 05:20 PM | #1024 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 3,232
|
The first 7 floors up to floor 8 of the perimeter was a different structure from them 40 floors which had a moment frame. Although there was a braced frame midway up as well.
The "shell" / moment frame of the upper 4 stories came down when the braced frames at the east and west sides were pulled in with the collapse of the transfer structures on floors 5-7. Most of the north side of the moment frame was atop the end of cantilever girders which had there south side supported on an east west girder which was tying the cantilevers and the east and west transfer trusses together. Sequence: east side transfers fail east west girder loses support on est side and plunges down at the east side first pulling the cantilever girders with it and finally the west transfer truss. transfer trusses pull both braced frames inward. south side was on unbraced 5 story tall columns in the lobby. |
8th June 2016, 05:37 PM | #1025 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
symmetrical collapse was made up to fool the fringe few
|
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein "... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK |
|
8th June 2016, 07:10 PM | #1026 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,488
|
|
8th June 2016, 07:26 PM | #1027 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,488
|
In regards to WTC 7, fire, in conjunction with impact damage, had caused the collapse of WTC 7. Falling debris from WTC 1 had scooped out a huge hole on the south wall of WTC 7 that spanned several stories. Just before WTC 7 collapsed, witnesses heard sounds of failing structural steel as raging fires weakened its structure. That explains why in the final seconds of its collapse, WTC 7 had tilted toward the south. The upper penthouse collapsed moments before the rest of WTC 7 collapsed, which is firm evidence that its structural was slowly failing due to the effects of fire and impact damage. There were no demolition explosions heard at ground zero nor on video. I didn't hear demolition explosions either and I have heard many explosions in war to know what explosions sound like. Additionally, seismic monitors in the general area did not detect demolition explosions. Experts in the area later confirmed that they did not hear demolition explosions as WTC 7 collapsed.
------------------------------------------------------------ 9/11 Seismic Recordings Brent Blanchard devotes section 4 of his paper to the issue of seismic recordings on 9/11. Blanchard is Senior Editor of ImplosionWorld, a website which posts details of explosive demolitions, and also Director of Field Operations at Protec Documentation Services, Inc. Protec works in the field of vibration monitoring and structure inspection, a key service to both the construction and demolition industries. Vibration monitoring performed by independent experts has long been considered crucial for companies carrying out explosive demolition, because owners of nearby buildings are keen to sue if any cracks or other structural damage appears. The field seismographs used by Protec and others provide the key scientific evidence for disturbances that may have caused damage, and there were a number of such seismographs operated by Protec on 9/11 in the vicinity of Ground Zero, for monitoring construction sites. Blanchard tells us that data from these machines, and seismographs operated elsewhere, all confirm single vibration events recording the collapse. None of them record the tell-tale 'spikes' that would indicate explosive detonations prior to collapse. This evidence makes a compelling argument against explosive demolition. The laws of physics dictate that any detonation powerful enough to defeat steel columns would have transferred excess energy through those same columns into the ground, and would certainly have been detected by at least one of the monitors that were sensitive enough to record the structural collapses. However, a detailed analysis of all available data reveals no presence of any unusual or abnormal vibration events. |
8th June 2016, 07:48 PM | #1028 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,488
|
Quote:
In order to bring down a steel frame building with explosives, the first thing you have to do is to weaken the steel columns, then weaken the firewalls and staircases, which is a very noisy and dirty process that would have taken many months. It is also a process that would not have been tolerated in an occupied building. The pre-weakening process must be completed before explosives are firmly placed on each steel columns, which requires the destruction of walls in order to gain access to the steel columns, which would not have gone unnoticed by those trying to work in peace in those buildings. So, many months of weakening has gone by and the next step is to begin placing cutter charges, which will cut the steel columns. Afterward, explosives such as dynamite are placed firmly on the steel columns in order to push the steel columns into a certain direction in order for the buildings to fall as plan after the cutter charges have done their work and the job has to be properly prepared or the building will remain standing. By my own estimate, it would take about a year to complete such a process for the WTC Towers. After all, it took about 6 months just to prepare a bridge in Corpus Christi, Texas for demolition, which was a much easier process than it would have taken to prepare WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 for demolition. In other words, it would have been impossible for anyone to properly prepare each WTC building for demolition and not attract a lot of attention of those working within those buildings. Understand that this is not Hollywood. |
8th June 2016, 07:56 PM | #1029 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,488
|
That's right, no explosions heard on video as WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 collapsed, which is further confirmed by the fact that all seismic machines in the area did not detect demolition explosions, which was confirmed by those who were operating seismic machines at the time of the collapses.
|
11th June 2016, 08:26 AM | #1030 |
このマスクによっ
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,866
|
This highlights the crux of the problem with your argument. You always think a failure sequence in a structural system is tied to what mechanism caused the failure, when the failure sequence is actually tied to the order of failure AND the system's ability to redistribute loads at that point.
You are not thinking about how a structural system functions before hopping to the cause of collapse. Fatal mistake for your premise. |
__________________
Current Set:http://i.imgur.com/IoqiUdK.jpg |
|
11th June 2016, 09:59 AM | #1031 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,488
|
WTC 7 had suffered massive impact damage on its south wall from WTC 1 and I have to say that WTC 7 did not totally collapse at free fall speed. To further add, fire was responsible for the collapse of WTC 7, not explosives. There was no way that an operation to properly prepare WTC 7 for explosive demolition could have been carried out in secret. You cannot detonate explosives inside steel frame building and expect the building to collapse without pre-weakening its structure. Terrorist tried to bring down WTC 1 in 1993 with a vehicle bomb, yet WTC 1 remained standing. In fact, the steel structure of WTC 1 remained standing within the huge bomb crater. WTC 1 Bomb Crater https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...TF_Commons.jpg As WTC 7 collapsed there was no sound of demolition explosions, which also undeniably proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that no explosives were used to bring down WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7. That fact has been confirmed by demolition experts and seismic monitors which did not detect demolition explosions as the WTC buildings collapsed. |
29th November 2017, 01:27 AM | #1032 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,512
|
Disagree,
cutting columns in CD does not remove the columns completely. Further resistance is inevitable since the structure still exists albeit weakened. CD still relies then on the force created by descending upper structures hitting the lower structures. CD != Free Fall and from what I have learned CD rarely shows free fall acceleration from start to finish. The whole argument is bunk and stupid. As everyone who really understands knows, the approach is all wrong. Even if it was conceded (which it isn't) the way the WTC7 collapsed could be shown to be similar to a CD, it would be dismissed very quickly because of all the other evidence (or lack of)... you know like no sound of explosives, no evidence of explosives, no real explanation of how the whole building could be wired up for explosives that also survives the fires, etc etc etc. It's like saying the Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy undermines evolution, so god must exist. |
__________________
Go sell crazy someplace else we're all stocked up here |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|