ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 18th May 2016, 09:23 PM   #2401
ProBonoShill
Master Poster
 
ProBonoShill's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,112
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Transits aren't used to measure when a fire began burning, but ok. At what time was this instrument used during the day? If the instrument was placed near where the bulge was forming on the perimeter, could that give a wrong impression that the entire building was shifting, rather than a relatively small part of it? What could specifically be the cause of the building "shifting"/"moving"? How can that relate to the collapse that occurred?
It's clear you have no idea what a transit is. I gave you a link why don't you use it???
__________________
"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 18th May 2016, 09:42 PM   #2402
MicahJava
Graduate Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 1,805
Originally Posted by ProBonoShill View Post
It's clear you have no idea what a transit is.
I probably learned yesterday. Maybe you can help me learn. Your point and your answer?

Quote:
I gave you a link why don't you use it???
The firehouse forum link? 5 pages in, and most of the people there just seem awful. Just a hodgepodge of ad hominem garbage. The only respectful ones were the ones who questioned the OS.
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 18th May 2016, 10:03 PM   #2403
Redwood
Graduate Poster
 
Redwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,469
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redwood
Sorry, Bucko. NIST never said the structural damage was superficial. They said the structural damage was not the immediate cause of the collapse. Big difference!

Admit it: you haven't read the engineering reports, have you? I'll bet you don't even have copies downloaded to your computer, do you? You're not alone - in just the last week or so, I've shown that FF hasn't read NCSTAR 1-9 (he at least admitted it, and said he had no interest in doing so), and on one of the FB 9/11 pages, I showed that a Truther who's been repeating the same failed WTC Tropes for at least eight years hasn't read them, either. I'm beginning to suspect that there's not a single Truther who's ever actually read them! But how do you expect to persuade the general public, much less professionals, when you haven't even read the reports you're trying to refute?

Try this: Go to NCSTAR 1-9, then search for the word "superficial" with Ctrl+4. I did, and could only find two positive searches, neither of which help you. But maybe you can catch something my elderly eyes missed.

Even better, download and read them. It can't do you any harm, and can only make you smarter. You might even become the smartest Truther in all Trutherdom!
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
"Other than initiating the fires in WTC 7, the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7. The building withstood debris impact damage that resulted in seven exterior columns being severed and subsequently withstood fires involving typical office combustibles on several floors for almost seven hours."

"Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from fires having the same characteristics as those experienced on September 11, 2001."

"Based on photographic evidence, witness accounts, and engineering judgment, it is likely that the structural damage (steel and floor slabs) did not penetrate beyond the perimeter of the building core. At the southwest corner, the structural damage extended only about one-third of the distance from the exterior wall to the building core. The debris also broke a large number of windows on the south face. Compared to the airplane impact damage to the WTC towers, there was relatively little damage to the interior of WTC 7."


http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publi...?pub_id=861610
Thank you for your non-responsive response!

You claimed first that NIST had stated that the damage to WTC 7 was "superficial". But any debunker will agree that the structural damage to WTC 7, however severe, had nothing to do with the immediate cause of collapse of WTC 7!

Will you now stipulate that, AFAYK, NIST never made any such statement? You have nothing to lose at this point. The Truther movement, year 2016 has zero credibility, or even negative credibility, if such a thing is even possible! Why not get on the straight path now?
Redwood 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 18th May 2016, 10:15 PM   #2404
Redwood
Graduate Poster
 
Redwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,469
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
So arsonists never start a fire near an circuit breaker or a fireplace to hide their deeds and ward off investigations?
But neither NIST, nor anyone else, ever claimed that the fires in WTC 7 began close to a circuit breaker! Talk about red herring! Why don't you go back a step and tell us how you think that NWO agents started the fire in WTC 7 without being noticed? Bonus points for explaining the car fires north of
WTC 7!
Redwood 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 18th May 2016, 10:20 PM   #2405
MicahJava
Graduate Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 1,805
Originally Posted by Redwood View Post
But neither NIST, nor anyone else, ever claimed that the fires in WTC 7 began close to a circuit breaker! Talk about red herring! Why don't you go back a step and tell us how you think that NWO agents started the fire in WTC 7 without being noticed? Bonus points for explaining the car fires north of
WTC 7!
I was just explaining the concept of a criminal covering up their crimes, but ok.

This is also not a thread in which I try to argue arson in WTC 7. I've heard about these car fires reading about Judy Wood debunking. Couldn't most of them be caused by a chain reaction from closer car fires? How do you think the cars caught on fire?
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 18th May 2016, 10:33 PM   #2406
Redwood
Graduate Poster
 
Redwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,469
Quote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redwood
Except for the "Kaboom". The all-important sign. WHERE'S THE KABOOM?
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
NFPA 921 – 23.1.4 Definition of an Explosion

“Although an explosion is almost always accompanied by the production of a loud noise, the noise itself is not an essential element in the definition of an explosion. The generation and violent escape of gases are the primary criteria for an explosion.”
OK, so we all agree, based on your quote, that mere loud noise does not mean "explosion". Don't you realize that this is even the worse for you? Where is your citation that explosions (especially demolition charges) are possible WITHOUT the "Kaboom"?
Redwood 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 18th May 2016, 10:37 PM   #2407
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,728
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I was just explaining the concept of a criminal covering up their crimes, but ok.

This is also not a thread in which I try to argue arson in WTC 7. I've heard about these car fires reading about Judy Wood debunking. Couldn't most of them be caused by a chain reaction from closer car fires? How do you think the cars caught on fire?
They burned.
Generator fires would be expected the batteries off gas hydrogen, a spark can cause an explosion.
Fires spread from world trade 2, also the fact I can give the complete chemical reactions,
In my experiments and completely repeat them, means they are valid, and accurate.
I don't do fake experiments like Cole!
Crazy Chainsaw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2016, 10:48 PM   #2408
MicahJava
Graduate Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 1,805
Originally Posted by Redwood View Post
OK, so we all agree, based on your quote, that mere loud noise does not mean "explosion". Don't you realize that this is even the worse for you? Where is your citation that explosions (especially demolition charges) are possible WITHOUT the "Kaboom"?
What? How did you get that from that?
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 18th May 2016, 10:57 PM   #2409
MicahJava
Graduate Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 1,805
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
They burned.
Generator fires would be expected the batteries off gas hydrogen, a spark can cause an explosion.
Fires spread from world trade 2, also the fact I can give the complete chemical reactions,
In my experiments and completely repeat them, means they are valid, and accurate.
I don't do fake experiments like Cole!
What?
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 19th May 2016, 12:24 AM   #2410
GlennB
In search of pi(e)
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pie City, Arcadia
Posts: 20,773
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
What? How did you get that from that?
Have you been to YouTube and watched a few videos of commercial cd's, of the that use explosives? They're accompanied by a series of very visible flashes and an unmistakable string of very loud cracks. No such thing happened at WTC7. CD on 9/11 is total nonsense.
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
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 19th May 2016, 04:41 AM   #2411
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,728
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I probably learned yesterday. Maybe you can help me learn. Your point and your answer?



The firehouse forum link? 5 pages in, and most of the people there just seem awful. Just a hodgepodge of ad hominem garbage. The only respectful ones were the ones who questioned the OS.
The transit would have been placed on the leaning side of the building not the bulging side.

It would have measured rate of creep, change, and from that an estimate of accumulated loading could be arrived at. That estimate, would give probability of time of collapse based on failure of the columns and counter levered beam structure.

Once lean reached a critical point the steel would topple and the building would fall over on it's side, leaving the granite facade to collapse and fall on top of the toppled steel interior framing.
The Facade was heavy granite to resist wind loading, so it's inertia held it in place for a few seconds after the steel toppled, to the damaged side.
Simple physics explains the collapses better that BS, Demolition theories.
Crazy Chainsaw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2016, 04:43 AM   #2412
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,728
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
What?
The cars burned, Lead acid batteries explode.

Burning debris from the towers would light fires in 7, nothing you have stated is rellevent.
Crazy Chainsaw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2016, 04:58 AM   #2413
ProBonoShill
Master Poster
 
ProBonoShill's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,112
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I probably learned yesterday. Maybe you can help me learn. Your point and your answer?
My point is your assertions are nonsense and you should understand what you're discussing before posting a bunch of drivel.



Quote:
The firehouse forum link? 5 pages in, and most of the people there just seem awful. Just a hodgepodge of ad hominem garbage. The only respectful ones were the ones who questioned the OS.
So lazy it is, no wonder no one takes twofers seriously. 15 years of failure and counting...
__________________
"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 19th May 2016, 05:06 AM   #2414
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,679
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
The Facade was heavy granite to resist wind loading, so it's inertia held it in place for a few seconds after the steel toppled, to the damaged side.
Simple physics explains the collapses better that BS, Demolition theories.
NO! The facade was not heavy to resist wind shear. It was a light curtain wall hung on clips.... The facade was clipped to the spandrel beams which were part of a moment frame consisting of the spandrel beams and the exterior columns. There were belt trusses midway up which were likely intended to resist twisting and distortion from wind shear I believe. The moment frame was effectively 4 rigid planes/membranes (vierendeel trusses).
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 19th May 2016, 05:26 AM   #2415
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,728
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
NO! The facade was not heavy to resist wind shear. It was a light curtain wall hung on clips.... The facade was clipped to the spandrel beams which were part of a moment frame consisting of the spandrel beams and the exterior columns. There were belt trusses midway up which were likely intended to resist twisting and distortion from wind shear I believe. The moment frame was effectively 4 rigid planes/membranes (vierendeel trusses).
The movement frame was what was designed to be resistant to wind loading, the granite was heavy it was clipped onto the movement frame, for cosmetic effect and for counter weighting the movement frame. To provide inertial loading of the movement frame, as I recall my conversation with the engineer that worked on the project, though I could be wrong it has been years since he explained the functions of the facade and movement frame.
Crazy Chainsaw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2016, 05:41 AM   #2416
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,228
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Tall buildings have stronger and larger structural components than short buildings.
To compensate for their height, not for increasing their resistance to fire. They're just as vulnerable to fire as low rises.


Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The closest example I could find is the One Meridian Plaza fire.
Really?

What about WTC5? It suffered interior partial collapses.

What about One New York Plaza? It suffered interior partial collapses.

What about the Windsor building in Madrid? The core was concrete, the perimeter was steel.




Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
"All interior firefighting efforts were halted after almost 11 hours of uninterrupted fire in the building. Consultation with a structural engineer and structural damage observed by units operating in the building led to the belief that there was a possibility of a pancake structural collapse of the fire damaged floors. Bearing this risk in mind along with the loss of three personnel and the lack of progress against the fire despite having secured adequate water pressure and flow for interior fire streams, an order was given to evacuate the building at 0700 on February 24.

[...]

1. The engineer told them that it may be in danger of collapse. He did not say with great certainty that it would collapse, nor did he predict the hour in which it would collapse.

2. It did not collapse.
You're forgetting that the building had been receiving firefighting efforts for "almost 11 hours". That would reduce the danger of collapse.

Windsor building's fire was not fought in the top levels. See what was left.

__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.
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 19th May 2016, 05:44 AM   #2417
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,228
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Where does [Mike Catalano] describe that he perceived the diesel fuel tank in WTC 7 on fire?
He doesn't. Where do you get that from?
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.
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 19th May 2016, 05:46 AM   #2418
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,228
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Transits aren't used to measure when a fire began burning, but ok. At what time was this instrument used during the day? If the instrument was placed near where the bulge was forming on the perimeter, could that give a wrong impression that the entire building was shifting, rather than a relatively small part of it? What could specifically be the cause of the building "shifting"/"moving"? How can that relate to the collapse that occurred?
You're missing, or avoiding, the point. The point is that the transit was used to determine if the building moved, and Hayden says that it did. You tried to claim he could be wrong. I said it's not comparable to the other example of being wrong that you mentioned. That leaves either you have to claim he's lying, or your claim of him being wrong has no basis.

It doesn't matter if it was that the bulge was developing, or that the entire building was shifting. Either movement is a clear sign of danger.

And I still don't understand how you get that I implied that the transit might have been used to measure when the fire began burning.
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.
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 19th May 2016, 05:48 AM   #2419
Criteria
Critical Thinker
 
Criteria's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 449
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
The transit would have been placed on the leaning side of the [WTC7] building not the bulging side.

It would have measured rate of creep, change, and from that an estimate of accumulated loading could be arrived at. That estimate, would give probability of time of collapse based on failure of the columns and counter levered beam structure.

Once lean reached a critical point the steel would topple and the building would fall over on it's side, leaving the granite facade to collapse and fall on top of the toppled steel interior framing.

The Facade was heavy granite to resist wind loading, so it's inertia held it in place for a few seconds after the steel toppled, to the damaged side.

Simple physics explains the collapses better that BS, Demolition theories.
The FDNY acknowledged the use of a transit. They never produced any results that confirmed their fear that WTC7 might possibly be actively leaning and no such data was ever given to the NIST.

Supposedly hour upon hour, you believe the transit was measuring the WTC7’s active creep as it steadily and inexorably leaned.

Hours later, the roofline showed no evidence of this progressing lean or any indication that “accumulated loading” was actually occurring.
Criteria is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2016, 05:50 AM   #2420
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,228
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
WTC 7 took 13.8 billion years to collapse. Source: Big Bang theory.
Dodge. The time since the façade started to fall until it disappeared from view was greater than that of a free falling object. Sunder says that. He doesn't say that free fall didn't happen anywhere in that period. That's the point.

You haven't provided any evidence that NIST denied free fall. Are you willing to admit that NIST didn't, or will you avoid the question with another dodge?

And an additional point I made is that free fall means nothing anyway, despite so many people making a big deal of it. There's a thread dedicated to that very subject.
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.
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 19th May 2016, 06:16 AM   #2421
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,679
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
The movement frame was what was designed to be resistant to wind loading, the granite was heavy it was clipped onto the movement frame, for cosmetic effect and for counter weighting the movement frame. To provide inertial loading of the movement frame, as I recall my conversation with the engineer that worked on the project, though I could be wrong it has been years since he explained the functions of the facade and movement frame.
I don't see any specific wind shear structure other than the belt trusses which encircle the building. The moment frame was stiff and probably was the wind shear structure... but the curtain walls are intended to be as light as possible and not a counterweight. I have never heard of this.
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 19th May 2016, 06:19 AM   #2422
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,679
I believe the building had a bulge which was measured by the transit... not that it was leaning. Any distortion from plumb and true would be of concern indicating that the frame was warping.
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 19th May 2016, 07:25 AM   #2423
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,228
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
I believe the building had a bulge which was measured by the transit... not that it was leaning. Any distortion from plumb and true would be of concern indicating that the frame was warping.
That's indeed what Hayden quote says.
...also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.
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 19th May 2016, 08:06 AM   #2424
waypastvne
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 391
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
I believe the building had a bulge which was measured by the transit... not that it was leaning. Any distortion from plumb and true would be of concern indicating that the frame was warping.
You can't have a bulge without a lean above it unless the bulge went all the way around the building.
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 19th May 2016, 08:57 AM   #2425
MicahJava
Graduate Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 1,805
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
Have you been to YouTube and watched a few videos of commercial cd's, of the that use explosives? They're accompanied by a series of very visible flashes and an unmistakable string of very loud cracks. No such thing happened at WTC7. CD on 9/11 is total nonsense.
Explosive devices used in most commercial demolitions are designed to rip through solid steel and concrete. That makes the characteristic loud noise, as well as creates obvious rips in the steel. The photographic evidence and Arthur Scheuerman's witness account say that the steel did not show that kind of damage. The noises heard from all three buildings were not as loud as commercial cutter charges. If the three towers were demolished with explosive devices, they would have been more sophisticatedly implemented.

Last edited by MicahJava; 19th May 2016 at 09:12 AM. Reason: typo
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 19th May 2016, 09:01 AM   #2426
MicahJava
Graduate Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 1,805
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
The transit would have been placed on the leaning side of the building not the bulging side.
The leaning "side"? Couldn't any slight perimeter deformation from heat affect the results showing this movement?

Also, where do they teach how to predict when a skyscraper will collapse by using this tool?
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 19th May 2016, 09:02 AM   #2427
MicahJava
Graduate Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 1,805
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
The cars burned, Lead acid batteries explode.

Burning debris from the towers would light fires in 7, nothing you have stated is rellevent.
But what ignited the batteries to begin with?
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 19th May 2016, 09:06 AM   #2428
MicahJava
Graduate Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 1,805
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
To compensate for their height, not for increasing their resistance to fire. They're just as vulnerable to fire as low rises.

Really?

What about WTC5? It suffered interior partial collapses.

What about One New York Plaza? It suffered interior partial collapses.

What about the Windsor building in Madrid? The core was concrete, the perimeter was steel.

http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgim...dsor-antes.jpg http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgim...or-despues.jpg

You're forgetting that the building had been receiving firefighting efforts for "almost 11 hours". That would reduce the danger of collapse.

Windsor building's fire was not fought in the top levels. See what was left.

http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgim...8_image013.jpg
By "closest example", I meant a tall steel-framed building on fire that was abandoned due to fear that it might collapse.
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 19th May 2016, 09:08 AM   #2429
MicahJava
Graduate Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 1,805
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
Dodge. The time since the façade started to fall until it disappeared from view was greater than that of a free falling object. Sunder says that. He doesn't say that free fall didn't happen anywhere in that period. That's the point.

You haven't provided any evidence that NIST denied free fall. Are you willing to admit that NIST didn't, or will you avoid the question with another dodge?

And an additional point I made is that free fall means nothing anyway, despite so many people making a big deal of it. There's a thread dedicated to that very subject.
Nope, not getting into that pointless debate. WTC 7's collapse lasted for as long as you wanted it to, but the motions of the building do show freefall. BTW where did you get "20 minutes" from?

Last edited by MicahJava; 19th May 2016 at 09:09 AM. Reason: clarification
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 19th May 2016, 09:11 AM   #2430
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: 24,434
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Explosive devices used in most commercial demolitions are designed to rip through solid steel and concrete. That makes the characteristic loud noise, as well as creates obvious rips in the steel. The photographic evidence and Arthur Scheuerman's witness account say that the steel did not show that kidn of damage. The noises heard from all three buildings were not as loud as commercial cutter charges. If the three towers were demolished with explosive devices, they would have been more sophisticatedly implemented.
So you're saying that these steel framed buildings were demolished using explosives that weren't designed to rip through steel and concrete?

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
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 19th May 2016, 09:17 AM   #2431
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,764
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
...
Hours later, the roofline showed no evidence of this progressing lean or any indication that “accumulated loading” was actually occurring.
Prove it. Where is your data? Is MM your source for this claim of no evidence. How do you prove it?
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2016, 09:35 AM   #2432
Grizzly Bear
このマスクによっ
 
Grizzly Bear's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,767
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Nope, not getting into that pointless debate. WTC 7's collapse lasted for as long as you wanted it to, but the motions of the building do show freefall. BTW where did you get "20 minutes" from?
If you'd like to play the "skip" game then its your burden to show that "freefall" is a causality to the collapse and means anything to your contention that the overall findings that fires initiated the collapse is in question.

"Freefall" has and always will be too vague of a reference to deal with the initiating mechanism. It cannot be used as the determinate in isolation
__________________

Last edited by Grizzly Bear; 19th May 2016 at 09:37 AM.
Grizzly Bear 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 19th May 2016, 09:53 AM   #2433
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 12,452
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
So you're saying that these steel framed buildings were demolished using explosives that weren't designed to rip through steel and concrete?

Dave
Back to 'Hushabooms' and Thermite.

I like the idea that the professional demolition companies aren't capable of being as professional and sophisticated as they can be.

Who did the WTC demolition? where did they get their techniques, training and experience?
Captain_Swoop 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 19th May 2016, 10:34 AM   #2434
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,679
Originally Posted by waypastvne View Post
You can't have a bulge without a lean above it unless the bulge went all the way around the building.
Why not? I suppose your point is that a bulge means a shortening of the ht of the column. But if the bulge were a single column caused by the column center being pushed or perhaps bowing from expansion... why would the top have to lean?
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 19th May 2016, 10:44 AM   #2435
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,679
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Nope, not getting into that pointless debate. WTC 7's collapse lasted for as long as you wanted it to, but the motions of the building do show freefall. BTW where did you get "20 minutes" from?
The FF motion... was basically the moment frame and the attached curtain wall and perhaps parts of the floors dropping down when the "structure" below it folded or was pulled in by the collapse of the transfer trusses and cantilever girders below floor 8.

The rest of the building... parts of floors and the core section dropped before the facade and it dropped inside and unseen from the outside aside from some tell tail signs such as the IB of the north face and the broken windows as the NW section of floors under the EPH collapsed.
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 19th May 2016, 10:47 AM   #2436
MicahJava
Graduate Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 1,805
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
Have you been to YouTube and watched a few videos of commercial cd's, of the that use explosives? They're accompanied by a series of very visible flashes and an unmistakable string of very loud cracks. No such thing happened at WTC7. CD on 9/11 is total nonsense.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mo7zl62vNng

https://www.reddit.com/r/911truth/co...122001/d1zv5dt

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERhoNYj9_fg
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 19th May 2016, 11:04 AM   #2437
NoahFence
Psycho Kitty
 
NoahFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 20,825
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
The FDNY acknowledged the use of a transit. They never produced any results that confirmed their fear that WTC7 might possibly be actively leaning and no such data was ever given to the NIST.

Supposedly hour upon hour, you believe the transit was measuring the WTC7’s active creep as it steadily and inexorably leaned.

Hours later, the roofline showed no evidence of this progressing lean or any indication that “accumulated loading” was actually occurring.
Not that you can see from a stupid video on Richard Gage's website.
__________________
you to the ignorant, uneducated portion ofAmerica too short sighted to see what's right in front of your cheeto loving faces.
NoahFence 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 19th May 2016, 11:06 AM   #2438
NoahFence
Psycho Kitty
 
NoahFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 20,825
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Explosive devices used in most commercial demolitions are designed to rip through solid steel and concrete. That makes the characteristic loud noise, as well as creates obvious rips in the steel. The photographic evidence and Arthur Scheuerman's witness account say that the steel did not show that kind of damage. The noises heard from all three buildings were not as loud as commercial cutter charges. If the three towers were demolished with explosive devices, they would have been more sophisticatedly implemented.

OR!

They collapsed due to fire. Much quieter, and it has the added benefit of being what actually happened.
__________________
you to the ignorant, uneducated portion ofAmerica too short sighted to see what's right in front of your cheeto loving faces.
NoahFence 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 19th May 2016, 11:11 AM   #2439
NoahFence
Psycho Kitty
 
NoahFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 20,825
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I love that last link. SOOOO funny. They had to use frequency filters to make it seem like there were explosions.

Dude. Just no.

From the distance they were from that building, if there were explosions capable of taking it down, they probably would have suffered trauma.
__________________
you to the ignorant, uneducated portion ofAmerica too short sighted to see what's right in front of your cheeto loving faces.
NoahFence 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 19th May 2016, 11:20 AM   #2440
MicahJava
Graduate Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 1,805
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
I love that last link. SOOOO funny. They had to use frequency filters to make it seem like there were explosions.

Dude. Just no.

From the distance they were from that building, if there were explosions capable of taking it down, they probably would have suffered trauma.
You can hear the same noise in the last link on the CBS footage, too.

I've always wondered, if WTC 7 was only having relatively small partial collapses before the East Penthouse caved in, then why is does it make such a loud boom a moment before? Why on the CBS clip can you hear that but not the sound of the entire rest of the building coming down? What was going on inside the building that could possibly make such a loud noise before the East Penthouse fell?

BTW the Ashleigh Banfield footage uses a near-field microphone.

Last edited by MicahJava; 19th May 2016 at 11:21 AM. Reason: edit
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
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:45 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
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.