|
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. |
3rd July 2013, 06:51 AM | #161 |
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 31,398
|
deleted
|
3rd July 2013, 08:52 AM | #162 |
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
|
|
3rd July 2013, 09:21 AM | #163 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
|
There is literally one assertion in your post, and the rest is a hand-wave. In fact, even the assertion is a backpedal from the assertions you made earlier about how much of the collapsed front was covering the street. Nothing in your post is an actual response to anything JDS said, including a direct, if rhetorical, question. It's a boilerplate.
You have a habit of this. Say something, then get contested, then gradually backpedal without actually admitting you're wrong about anything, as your posts get smaller and smaller as you say less and less. Then make the same claims again later, elsewhere. |
3rd July 2013, 10:05 AM | #164 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,702
|
|
3rd July 2013, 10:23 AM | #165 |
Devilish Dictionarian
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 20,071
|
|
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles |
|
3rd July 2013, 10:50 AM | #166 |
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 31,398
|
Amen. Overhead shots also show WTC7 debris to the SW impinging on WTC6, let alone sidewalks and the road.
Meanwhile MM's photo upthread actually shows precious little of the SE length of the building with, also, no clue as to at what part of the cleanup it was taken. And, as Reactor Drone pointed out upthread, that's actually quite a lofty part of WTC7 shown in the photo. In the street. And check out the original layout .... WTC7 was set slightly N of the line of the S facade of the Verizon. In MM's photo the line of the Verizon S facade is clearly visible, telling us that the debris has fallen S. But wait! Danny Jowenko's interviewer told DJ that the collapse was 'so clean you could walk around it' <cough>. What a stack of liars. I wonder if you took out the bottom few they'd tumble down at free-fall? |
3rd July 2013, 12:06 PM | #167 |
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
|
Gamolon your photo does show the street on the south side nicely filled with debris.
Of course you do not comment on where all that debris originated from. WTC1, WTC5, & WTC6 are all represented in that street pile. The part of the debris that can be clearly identified as belonging to WTC7 seems to end around the edge of the street. MM |
3rd July 2013, 12:22 PM | #168 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,702
|
Really?
How about this then. Here is a photo. Based on the amount of debris on Vesey street and the condition of the pedestrian bridge, this is after the South Tower collapsed, which was the first to go down. WTC7 still up. Here is the next picture. More damage to the pedestrian bridge, some debris in the street. WTC7 still up. Last picture. Pedestrian bridge down. WTC7 down. Now you tell me what the majority of the "street debris" in that last picture was from. |
3rd July 2013, 02:19 PM | #169 |
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 31,398
|
5+6 did not collapse. The substantial debris in the photo is from WTC7. Overhead photos confirm that its debris ended very close to WTC6, across Vesey, as Gamolon has shown.
And, yes, I can post overhead images of the same Meanwhile, might you accept that your photo of the SE corner shows relatively little of the S front, that even that debris is well into/across the road, and was taken at an indeterminate point in the cleanup operation? eta: MM, when Jowenko's interviewer mentioned that 'the WTC7 pile was so clean you could walk around it' (or words to that effect) ..... was he telling the truth? |
3rd July 2013, 03:45 PM | #170 |
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 897
|
|
3rd July 2013, 03:58 PM | #171 |
Devilish Dictionarian
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 20,071
|
|
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles |
|
4th July 2013, 01:40 PM | #172 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
As you say this is the SE corner. How in the name of any reason can you claim to be able to see the SW corner in this pic? I see the Verizon building and I suppose one could say that the space previously occupied by the SW corner is in this photo. You cannot see the SW corner remains from this location. Aerial photos show wtc7 debris losing up to the north wall of wtc6 and there is some indication of wtc7 debris having hit wtc6 , though admittedly the mixing of debris from three structures makes I'd high on certain. Your dismissal of the idea of 7's debris in 6 indicates you are not immune to seeing what you want to see. OTOH the distance between WTC7's south face to WTC6's north face is significant. One might also point out that the Fitterman to the NE managed to be hit hard enough to gouge out much of its SE showing that its not a 'neat pile' of debris.
Now, this thread is about the claim that FFA=CD. So far there has been nothing other than a hand wave agruement from you on this subject. However, in addition it has been pointed out that there is no period through which any graph of descent shows a period of sustained FFA. Such a period is required for your assumption of removal of all vertical support to be true. Instead its a bouncy ramp up to, and above, FFA. That later part indicates another influence that cannot be explained by thermite or explosives or removal of all vertical support. It is possible that these influences would also occur during an explosives generated collapse BUT the very fact of those influences indicates that the simplistic claim that FFA=CD cannot be supported since they must also be present in a non-CD collapse and thus would result in acceleration reaching, and/or exceeding 'g'. |
4th July 2013, 02:48 PM | #173 |
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 7,508
|
|
4th July 2013, 02:59 PM | #174 |
Devilish Dictionarian
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 20,071
|
|
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles |
|
4th July 2013, 04:07 PM | #175 |
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
|
I have no interest in playing dueling debris piles.
The prime suspect for the 47-story WTC7 collapsing at FFA, or close, is CD. Un-fought office furnishing's fires are an extremely poor candidate for such a smoothly executed collapse. Can you rationally explain how natural causes allowed WTC7 to have such a sophisticated high speed collapse. MM |
4th July 2013, 04:10 PM | #176 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"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 |
|
4th July 2013, 04:21 PM | #177 |
Devilish Dictionarian
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 20,071
|
|
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles |
|
4th July 2013, 04:58 PM | #178 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
|
You know those scenes in movies where the hero picks a fight in a bar, and realizes the guy who he just ticked off is actually huge?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
5th July 2013, 06:02 AM | #179 |
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
|
WTC7 north side showing ~8 storeys removed to permit FFA. Accepting a rigid box-like integrity for the WTC7 shell; The collapse can be seen to be balanced (all sides failing at the same rate), and does not tilt until late in the collapse. A delay in the failure of the west side perimeter columns, would have resulted in the east side leading the collapse (tilt to the left) topple. A delay in the failure of the east side perimeter columns, would have resulted in the west side leading the collapse (tilt to the right) topple. A delay in the failure of the south side perimeter columns, would have resulted in the north side leading the collapse (tilt forward) topple. A delay in the failure of the north side perimeter columns, would have resulted in the south side leading the collapse (tilt backward) topple. As the collapse video shows, WTC7 did not topple or tilt during FFA. What natural cause could have made those 8 storeys of perimeter columns fail together? MM |
5th July 2013, 06:08 AM | #180 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
|
Oh, look, a subject change now that you've been spanked on the subject of the debris pile.
Of course, this ignores the fact that the interior had already partially collapsed, as evidenced by the Mechanical Penthouse, therefore the "box-like integrity" was at best compromised. And in an asymmetric fashion, too. Also, it's pretty obvious why you only use a selected few of the angles on the building available, which studiously ignore the penthouse. |
5th July 2013, 08:52 AM | #181 |
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 31,398
|
Internal collapse preceding the exterior collapse, leading to overload of the exterior columns that propagated during the initial < freefall period and before the main upper structure hit the deck, which led to the final < freefall period.
You know, this is a real problem for your CD theory as it's now you that needs to explain the initial < freefall period. Nobody is holding their breath, btw. Oh, and if you don't want a 'debris duel' don't post photos that you don't understand in order to make erroneous points. But if you do at least have the decency to admit your mistake. |
5th July 2013, 08:59 AM | #182 |
Devilish Dictionarian
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 20,071
|
And his point is a dodge anyway, why shouldn't they all fail together if they were all built the same and all being forced down by the same loaded moment frame. If he wants to argue that more, he needs to bring up another thread, since he appears unable to contest the OP of this one without a Gish gallop.
|
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles |
|
5th July 2013, 09:00 AM | #183 |
このマスクによっ
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,866
|
The free fall acceleration and inside/outside footprint are vague points that aren't dependent upon whether the building's were brought down with explosives or because somebody decided to slam a jet into one, or if one building collapsed onto another, or if one burned for several hours. The only thing that's relevant to the engineer is the "mechanism" that initiated it.
A building's structural frame is designed to act as a system, and if that system fails for any reason the building falls. Where the debris lands and the "speed" of failure all depend on the stability of the structural system... the only way "controlled demolition" gets "proven" is if individuals like MM can prove that the initiator was an explosive rig, and if that "rig" was "designed" to do things a certain way (hence the word "controlled") which "freefall" and "inside footprint" do not answer. They only connect if, and only IF the use of "explosives" is shown, and IF there was an intent to create a certain effect, to be a valid theory first... it doesn't work in reverse. |
__________________
Current Set:http://i.imgur.com/IoqiUdK.jpg |
|
5th July 2013, 11:48 AM | #184 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
|
|
5th July 2013, 01:50 PM | #185 |
Master Poster
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Just west of the centre of the universe
Posts: 2,830
|
|
__________________
"Television is a circus, a carnival, a traveling troupe of acrobats, storytellers, dancers, singers, jugglers, side-show freaks, lion tamers, and football players. We're in the boredom-killing business! So if you want the truth... Go to God!" Howard Beale, "Network" |
|
5th July 2013, 01:52 PM | #186 |
Master Poster
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Just west of the centre of the universe
Posts: 2,830
|
Just as a fallback, could someone be so kind as to repost reply #102 for MM's attention assuming he has me on ignore?
TIA Fitz |
__________________
"Television is a circus, a carnival, a traveling troupe of acrobats, storytellers, dancers, singers, jugglers, side-show freaks, lion tamers, and football players. We're in the boredom-killing business! So if you want the truth... Go to God!" Howard Beale, "Network" |
|
5th July 2013, 01:53 PM | #187 |
Master Poster
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Just west of the centre of the universe
Posts: 2,830
|
|
__________________
"Television is a circus, a carnival, a traveling troupe of acrobats, storytellers, dancers, singers, jugglers, side-show freaks, lion tamers, and football players. We're in the boredom-killing business! So if you want the truth... Go to God!" Howard Beale, "Network" |
|
5th July 2013, 03:44 PM | #188 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
|
|
5th July 2013, 03:49 PM | #189 |
Master Poster
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Just west of the centre of the universe
Posts: 2,830
|
|
__________________
"Television is a circus, a carnival, a traveling troupe of acrobats, storytellers, dancers, singers, jugglers, side-show freaks, lion tamers, and football players. We're in the boredom-killing business! So if you want the truth... Go to God!" Howard Beale, "Network" |
|
6th July 2013, 01:37 PM | #190 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
In the fevered dreams of truthers such as yourself MM.
Quote:
So one then arrives at the suspicion that these conclusions by you and others must be driven mainly, solely in fact, by a political world view that assumes grandiose, complicated, conspiracies by unnamed powerful cadres who control the world from shadows. As to your last question, yes, in fact there has been a well documented engineering study done that illustrates it farily well. |
6th July 2013, 02:27 PM | #191 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
[quote=Miragememories;9339999]http://imageshack.us/a/img51/9024/cxw5.png
WTC7 north side showing ~8 storeys removed to permit FFA. http://imageshack.us/a/img194/3379/3pp.png
Quote:
An interior failure becomes obvious as a portion of roof, near its longitudinal center line, approximately in the location of col 79, collapses. This failure is followed by the opening growing larger and along the centerline of the roof taking much of the roof structures into the building. This is obviously the first visible gross aspect of collapse. As this occurs a 'kink' develops on the north face in line with the location of that first rooftop failure and the portions of the building east and west of that kink tilt towards each other the structure fails. It is quite obvious that the structure is now doomed to total collapse. All visible levels of the structure have been affected at this time. We could stop right there. The building is doomed, there is no requirement to remove all the vertical support over eight lower storeys in order to effect total collapse. What else do we know? We know that the south side suffered significant loss of perimeter support due to impact from wtc1 debris. We also know that the north side of the structure includes special trusses to support the mass of the upper 40 storeys above the original Con-ed building. These trusses are supported at the south and north ends by their major columns. There are smaller columns along the length of each of these trusses as well. Now we envision, since you asked, what is happening inside. The failures visible along the the centerline collapse at the roof shows that there was a progressive collapse, most likely caused by heavy debris coming down 47 storeys and damaging the core columns. With loss of core columns the mass south of the core would transfer to the remaking columns of the south, the most significant of which are at the perimeter. However a number of those perimeter columns are damaged or missing and in fact the south west portion had been observed to be bulgin/leaning to the south early on in the day. It is now obvious that the south west portion of the building must collapse to the south. The north perimeter columns are supporting the south ends of the cantilever trusses. With their progressive failure those trusses tilt down at their south end. This causes a force on the remaining columns that pushes the upper ends of remaining columns, to the north. The further they tilt the less they can offer in the way of vertical load bearing capability and they fail. As per the OP the already moving south ends of the north portion of the structure are pulling down on the north perimeter. This contributes to the acceleration of the north face and at the point when the columns have tilted beyond being able to offer vertical support, the entire north face collapses. The collapse, since it is led by a core collapse, is not a topple to the south with the south perimeter base as its fulcrum. The means the final disposition of the debris does not extend south by a distance equal to the height of the building. Further detail also would account for the twisting of the eastern portion of the building that had it end up dealing a devastating impact to the Fitterman building to the NE. However no truther ever seems at all interested in that. Clearer now? |
6th July 2013, 02:58 PM | #192 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
Related - wrong thread
|
9th July 2013, 07:13 AM | #193 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,702
|
|
9th July 2013, 09:59 AM | #194 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
Damn tablet screen.
I see I made some errors in typing out post 191. I will endeavour to correct them with a repost later today. For eg: "north perimeter columns are supporting the south ends of the cantilever trusses." Should be: north core columns are supporting the south ends of the cantilever trusses. |
9th July 2013, 11:25 AM | #195 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
One notes immediately that the graph showing the acceleration of wtc7' s final collapse bears little to no resemblance to what would occur if this fantastical scenario were to occur. Your fantasy diagram indicates that the upper portion of the building would fall AT g, through the 8 storey gap. THAT did not happen, not even close Now let's examine what we can plainly see occurred, shall we? An interior failure becomes obvious as a portion of roof, near its longitudinal center line, approximately in the location of col 79, collapses. This failure is followed by the opening growing larger and along the centerline of the roof taking much of the roof structures into the building. This is obviously the first visible gross aspect of collapse. As this occurs a 'kink' develops on the north face, in line with the location of that first rooftop failure, and the portions of the building east and west of that kink tilt towards each other. It is quite obvious that the structure is now doomed to total collapse. All visible levels of the structure have been affected at this time, as evidenced by the kink and the fact that all visible portions of the north side are tilting inwards towards that kink, AND the fact of the loss of the center of the structure evidenced by the collapse of roof structures. Picture it! Little or no support at the core and all visible north portions bowing towards that kink. While no FFA has yet to occur its is fairly obvious that the entire building is about to collapse. We could stop right there. The building is doomed, there is no requirement to remove all the vertical support over eight lower storeys in order to effect total collapse. What else do we know? We know that the south side suffered significant loss of perimeter support due to impact from wtc1 debris. We also know that the north side of the structure includes special trusses to support the mass of the upper 40 storeys above the original Con-ed building. These trusses are supported at the south and north ends by their major columns. There are smaller columns along the length of each of these trusses as well. Now we envision, since you asked, what is happening inside. The failures visible along the the centerline collapse at the roof shows that there was a progressive collapse, most likely caused by heavy debris coming down 47 storeys and damaging the core columns. With loss of core columns the mass south of the core would transfer to the remaining columns of the south, the most significant of which are at the perimeter. However a number of those perimeter columns are damaged or missing and in fact the south west portion had been observed to be bulging/leaning to the south early on in the day. It is now obvious that the south west portion of the building must collapse to the south. The north core columns are supporting the south ends of the cantilever trusses. With their progressive failure those trusses tilt down at their south end. This causes a force on the remaining columns that pushes the upper ends of remaining columns, to the north. The further they tilt the less they can offer in the way of vertical load bearing capability and they fail. As per the OP the already moving south ends of the north portion of the structure are pulling down on the north perimeter. This contributes to the acceleration of the north face and at the point when the columns under the cantilever trusses have tilted beyond being able to offer vertical support, the entire north face collapses. The collapse, since it is led by a core collapse, is not a topple to the south with the south perimeter base as its fulcrum. The means the final disposition of the debris does not extend south by a distance equal to the height of the building. Further detail also would account for the twisting of the eastern portion of the building that had it end up dealing a devastating impact to the Fitterman building to the NE. However no truther ever seems at all interested in that. Clearer now? |
9th July 2013, 11:29 AM | #196 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
|
9th July 2013, 11:55 AM | #197 |
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
|
Now that's a leap.
The collapse of WTC7 displayed an implosion profile which well matched the industry standard. Of course a commercially planned CD would pre-rig the building (remove windows etc.) to minimize collateral damage. An implosion collapse as observed with WTC7 required the near instantaneous removal of the lower core and perimeter columns for at least 8 floors. It is far from obvious that a failure of column 79 is going to propagate a core destroying debris shower. Whatever happened inside WTC7 from the time of the east penthouse collapse to it dropping out of view several seconds later, the north face revealed very little. This is quite amazing considering 47 floors all securely attached to core columns and perimeter columns. The kink is forming as global collapse begins. There is noticeable window breakage that looks related to column 79. Somehow the internal crushing forces were not visibly pulling the perimeter columns in, nor dramatically fracturing the hundreds of window frames. Why do all 4 sides drop in unison? You want me to accept that the WTC7 external shell went from standing to a balanced drop for over 8 storeys, because 8 storeys of core and perimeter columns failed equally and in unison? By human engineering. Yes. By roaming office furnishing's fires. No. MM |
9th July 2013, 12:15 PM | #198 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 493
|
|
9th July 2013, 12:20 PM | #199 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
|
Barring the whole "destruction of surrounding buildings and being manifestly uncontrolled and the building being on fire at the time and experimental charges being planted in secret in a heavily trafficked building", yes. Oh, and the complete lack of any explosions consistent with any known conventional demo charge.
Quote:
Part of the rigging of the building is to minimize collateral, yes. Part of it is to ensure a controllable collapse. What I like about this is the claim that you've invalidated your own argument. You said it matched a standard CD, then said that it differed in a critical area from a standard CD. |
9th July 2013, 01:39 PM | #200 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
It is quite a leap to assume any of your post either addresses the part of mine that you quoted or indeed any other part of my post.
The kink shows the east and west portions leaning towards that kink well before an acceleration that is at free fall yet this fact also demonstrates that the building is already doomed to complete failure before your fantastical eight storey column removal.
Quote:
Quote:
It won't. In fact the topic is whether or not FFA equals CD. However its shown that your fantastical eight storey column removal would result in an eight storey acceleration profile completely dissimilar to that which describes the fall of wtc7. You choose to ignore that fact. In addition, you choose to ignore the fact that the entire building is doomed as soon as we see the eastern and western portions tilting towards the kink while the core is obviously severely damaged or destroyed.
Quote:
If otoh there were column destroying explosives severing multiple columns, dozens of them, one would expect that the combined pressure effects would have shattered windows over much of the north face. How is it you can be amazed that falling debris a hundred feet from a windowed face does not twist windows to breaking point but be so cavalier ad to expect that dozens of simultaneous explosions won't cause vibrations that shatter windows?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
You are not making a case foe CD, MM.
Quote:
Quote:
You seem to think that making unsubstantiated declarative statements is enough to first disprove a fire initiated progressive collapse, and second proves a controlled demolition. |
Thread Tools | |
|
|