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 28th May 2016, 06:21 PM   #81
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,310
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
WTC 7 was certainly falling at full gravitational acceleration (9.81 m/sec^2) for over two seconds at the beginning of its descent and then a little less, but it was continuously picking up speed until it finally had a negative acceleration about 16 stories into the fall (a deceleration where velocity loss occurred). The North Tower was falling at about 52% of gravitational acceleration through its first story and then at 64% of gravitational acceleration (6.3 m/sec^2) continuously for as long as it could be measured (about ten stories).

You seem to have some issues with terminology and don't realize how embarrassing your comment here is in that regard, or you probably wouldn't have said it.
No, I define embarrassing as claiming CD, and then describing what is clearly structural failure. Two very different things.
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2016, 06:28 PM   #82
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
No, I define embarrassing as claiming CD, and then describing what is clearly structural failure. Two very different things.
You obviously aren't a detail guy and don't seem to let anything get in the way of what can only be termed biases. Good luck.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 28th May 2016 at 06:29 PM.
Tony Szamboti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2016, 07:56 PM   #83
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,842
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
You obviously aren't a detail guy and don't seem to let anything get in the way of what can only be termed biases. Good luck.
You do realize I can make a model of glass plates, and graphite rods that will demonstrate no Jolt do you not? Although I would not do such a worthless model, not when I have already done all I need to, to understand the collapses.
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 28th May 2016, 09:18 PM   #84
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,080
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
You obviously aren't a detail guy and don't seem to let anything get in the way of what can only be termed biases. Good luck.
Where is your evidence for CD? The simile is not evidence.

14 years, no Pulitzer for the fantasy of an inside job. A bad fiction.

What frame rate to we need to capture a jolt if the WTC acted like a perfect model WRT momentum? What about pixels? Did you do the error budget?

You got anything other than the CD fantasy for 9/11 issues? Do you know 19 terrorists were solely responsible for the damage on 9/11? no
__________________
"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

Last edited by beachnut; 28th May 2016 at 09:19 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2016, 10:28 PM   #85
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,343
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
You can see this on the graph of the measurement and it makes perfect sense from a mechanics point of view.
I agree with the highlighted, but not for the reason I suppose you have in mind.

Can you explain why, if the supports were removed since the beginning, it didn't fall at g from the start?
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.

Last edited by pgimeno; 28th May 2016 at 10:29 PM.
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 29th May 2016, 02:16 AM   #86
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
I agree with the highlighted, but not for the reason I suppose you have in mind.

Can you explain why, if the supports were removed since the beginning, it didn't fall at g from the start?
First, only the core columns were artificially removed in WTC 7 and the exterior fall is what was being measured.

When the core was cut the exterior columns were being pulled inward by the dropping core and a vertical height loss would result, which is proportional to the pull in but lower dimensionally. This would not happen at g.

The columns then buckled once they got to a certain point due to high slenderness and p-delta loads. The reason for essentially no resistance after about half a second is that the resistance is inversely proportional to the unsupported length and then decreases as the buckling increases. It is thus greater at the beginning of buckling, but I think there would have actually been about 33 unsupported stories. That resistance is quite low even at the start of the buckling and with the pull in creating a p-delta load it pretty much vanished after about a half meter of downward travel.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 29th May 2016 at 03:19 AM.
Tony Szamboti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2016, 02:53 AM   #87
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,842
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
When the core was cut the exterior columns were being pulled inward by the dropping core and a vertical height loss would result, which is proportional to the pull in but lower dimensionally. This would not happen at g.

The columns then buckled once they got to a certain point. The reason for essentially no resistance after about half a second is that the resistance is inversely proportional to the unsupported length and is greater at the beginning of buckling. I think there would have actually been about 33 unsupported stories. That resistance is quite low even at the start of the buckling and with the pull in creating a p-delta load it pretty much vanished after about a half meter of downward travel.
What about the resistance and jolts seen in the seismic data, how do you explain those?
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 29th May 2016, 02:57 AM   #88
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
What about the resistance and jolts seen in the seismic data, how do you explain those?
We are talking about WTC 7 and why the exterior fall was momentarily less than g after it first started. It isn't clear how what you are saying has anything to do with that.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 29th May 2016 at 03:01 AM.
Tony Szamboti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2016, 03:36 AM   #89
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,261
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
First, only the core columns were artificially removed in WTC 7 and the exterior fall is what was being measured.

When the core was cut the exterior columns were being pulled inward by the dropping core and a vertical height loss would result, which is proportional to the pull in but lower dimensionally. This would not happen at g.

The columns then buckled once they got to a certain point due to high slenderness and p-delta loads. The reason for essentially no resistance after about half a second is that the resistance is inversely proportional to the unsupported length and then decreases as the buckling increases. It is thus greater at the beginning of buckling, but I think there would have actually been about 33 unsupported stories. That resistance is quite low even at the start of the buckling and with the pull in creating a p-delta load it pretty much vanished after about a half meter of downward travel.
#oysteinbookmark

Haven't thusly tagged a post in a long time. Thanks Tony.
This is a good explanation for the free-fall of the north wall roofline.

(Of course it is premised on the core failing first - not necessarily on the cause of the core failure)
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2016, 03:37 AM   #90
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,842
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
We are talking about WTC 7 and why the exterior fall was momentarily less than g after it first started. It isn't clear how what you are saying has anything to do with that.
World Trade Center 7 would also show up in the seismic data.
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 29th May 2016, 03:53 AM   #91
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,343
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
The columns then buckled once they got to a certain point due to high slenderness and p-delta loads. The reason for essentially no resistance after about half a second is that the resistance is inversely proportional to the unsupported length and then decreases as the buckling increases. It is thus greater at the beginning of buckling, but I think there would have actually been about 33 unsupported stories. That resistance is quite low even at the start of the buckling and with the pull in creating a p-delta load it pretty much vanished after about a half meter of downward travel.
So, are you saying that free fall is not in itself an indicator of controlled demolition, and that instead it is just an indicator that the core fell first?
__________________
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 29th May 2016, 03:58 AM   #92
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
So, are you saying that free fall is not in itself an indicator of controlled demolition, and that instead it is just an indicator that the core fell first?
The symmetric free fall is indicative of controlled demolition. The fly in the ointment of a progressive east to west core collapse is that it would have had to start taking the exterior down from east to west. That is not what happened. The exterior comes down evenly.

The core was dropped somewhat simultaneously with the charges set to go off from center outward in a fraction of a second.

The east penthouse fall was a separate and distinct event and the core was largely intact on the east side. This is provable due to the shock wave going from top to bottom, dust not emanating from the exterior until it falls itself, and only fifteen stories of windows at the top of the building are broken on the east side when the east penthouse goes down.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 29th May 2016 at 04:01 AM.
Tony Szamboti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2016, 04:02 AM   #93
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,343
I'll rephrase.

Do you agree that the speed of the fall alone is not an indicator of CD?
__________________
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 29th May 2016, 04:06 AM   #94
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,842
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
The symmetric free fall is indicative of controlled demolition. The fly in the ointment of a progressive east to west core collapse is that it would have had to start taking the exterior down from east to west. That is not what happened. The exterior comes down evenly.

The core was dropped somewhat simultaneously with the charges set to go off from center outward in a fraction of a second.

The east penthouse fall was a separate and distinct event and the core was largely intact on the east side. This is provable due to the shock wave going from top to bottom, dust not emanating from the exterior until it falls itself, and only fifteen stories of windows at the top of the building are broken on the east side when the east penthouse goes down.
While that may be true of an undamaged building, that might not be the case for one that has significant damage.
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 29th May 2016, 04:10 AM   #95
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
I'll rephrase.

Do you agree that the speed of the fall alone is not an indicator of CD?
I would say it actually is as a progressive collapse could never get free fall going even on part of the structure due to connectivity with adjacent structure. Only CD could have caused free fall acceleration under any circumstances with a connected exterior structure.
Tony Szamboti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2016, 04:11 AM   #96
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: 27,884
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
The core was dropped somewhat simultaneously with the charges set to go off from center outward in a fraction of a second.
Other than flashes and sounds of explosives, which we know were not observed, please list the key characteristics in which such a demolition would differ from a progressive failure starting at the centre and propagating outwards due to successive failure of components and load transfer.

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 29th May 2016, 04:17 AM   #97
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Other than flashes and sounds of explosives, which we know were not observed, please list the key characteristics in which such a demolition would differ from a progressive failure starting at the centre and propagating outwards due to successive failure of components and load transfer.

Dave
First, you are throwing out the column 79 initiation if you start your progressive collapse from center and you need it to happen extraordinarily fast which you probably can't explain. You can't explain the rapidity of the symmetric fall with your theory.

Your argument about not seeing flashes is somewhat arbitrary. Any charge flash in the core would be hard to see and hear and they could have been tamped and covered making it even harder. On top of that they were probably between the 14th and 22nd stories and that is 182 to 286 feet above ground and would not be visible from ground level in the core. There was only one camera taking high shots and it was from a long distance.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 29th May 2016 at 04:20 AM.
Tony Szamboti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2016, 04:20 AM   #98
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: 27,884
Somehow I knew you would evade the question. Thanks for confirming, yet again, that you won't ever give a straight answer.

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 29th May 2016, 04:23 AM   #99
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Somehow I knew you would evade the question. Thanks for confirming, yet again, that you won't ever give a straight answer.

Dave
How cute you are Dave, a regular smarty pants without answers throwing out unsupported barbs at someone who actually provides answers to the questions, but not what you want to hear.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 29th May 2016 at 04:24 AM.
Tony Szamboti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2016, 04:25 AM   #100
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: 27,884
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
How cute you are Dave, a regular smarty pants without answers throwing out unsupported barbs at someone who actually provides answers to the questions, but not what you want to hear.
Sorry, I must have missed the list of characteristics I asked for. Where did you post it?

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 29th May 2016, 04:26 AM   #101
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Sorry, I must have missed the list of characteristics I asked for. Where did you post it?

Dave
It is quite clear that the core of WTC 7 was removed artificially as it is the only way to cause the symmetric free fall.

Your smarmy comments don't contribute to the conversation.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 29th May 2016 at 04:28 AM.
Tony Szamboti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2016, 04:29 AM   #102
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: 27,884
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
It is quite clear that the core of WTC 7 was removed artificially as it is the only way to cause the symmetric free fall.
As usual, you decline to support this claim with plausible evidence.

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Your smarmy comments are garbage and don't contribute to the conversation.
And, also as usual, resort to insults when challenged.

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 29th May 2016, 04:34 AM   #103
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,842
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
First, you are throwing out the column 79 initiation if you start your progressive collapse from center and you need it to happen extraordinarily fast which you probably can't explain. You can't explain the rapidity of the symmetric fall with your theory.

Your argument about not seeing flashes is somewhat arbitrary. Any charge flash in the core would be hard to see and hear and they could have been tamped and covered making it even harder. On top of that they were probably between the 14th and 22nd stories and that is 182 to 286 feet above ground and would not be visible from ground level in the core. There was only one camera taking high shots and it was from a long distance.
How then do you rule out a natural thermite or hydrogen reaction if a flash can not be detected?
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 29th May 2016, 04:54 AM   #104
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
As usual, you decline to support this claim with plausible evidence.
The symmetric free fall proves it and it is more than plausible. It is reality.


Quote:
And, also as usual, resort to insults when challenged.

Dave
There is no pleasing you Dave. Your comments are not challenging, they are smarmy and you need to be told that.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 29th May 2016 at 04:56 AM.
Tony Szamboti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2016, 04:56 AM   #105
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,842
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
As usual, you decline to support this claim with plausible evidence.



And, also as usual, resort to insults when challenged.

Dave
Actually Dave, he gives us ample evidence against CD.

Would you like some fudge?

∏ = Pav h = 325.4 × 106 N × 3.7 m = 1,204 × 106 N-m.
The potential energy for a one-story drop is:
U = Wh = 325.4 × 106 N × 3.7 m = 1,204 × 106 N-m.

That is from Tony's 2012 paper, and it is a mathematical impossibility that the structure
Has the same energy value as the Force of the falling upper mass.
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 29th May 2016, 05:07 AM   #106
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,045
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post



There is no pleasing you Dave. Your comments are not challenging, they are smarmy and you need to be told that.
This looks like a smarmy comment to me. But what would I know ?
Spanx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2016, 05:38 AM   #107
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: 27,884
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
The symmetric free fall proves it and it is more than plausible. It is reality.
As usual, this is not proof, just an assertion that proof exists, which as usual you won't back up by quantifying your terms. "Symmetrical" is a classic truther weasel word, which you think means what you want it to mean at the time; you'll never actually quantify what you mean by it.

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
There is no pleasing you Dave. Your comments are not challenging, they are smarmy and you need to be told that.
And more insults. As usual, all you have is assertions, insults, and accusations, which I'm sure you'll get round to soon. In the meantime, here are two more questions for you to evade:

What was the observed rate of propagation of failure across the face of WTC7?
What is the maximum possible rate of lateral propagation due to sequential failure?

A few posts upthread you've made a positive claim that the first of these is greater than the second. Please justify that claim with values.

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

Last edited by Dave Rogers; 29th May 2016 at 05:40 AM.
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 29th May 2016, 07:48 AM   #108
Criteria
Critical Thinker
 
Criteria's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 458
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
The symmetric free fall proves it and it is more than plausible. It is reality.
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
As usual, this is not proof, just an assertion that proof exists, which as usual you won't back up by quantifying your terms.

"Symmetrical" is a classic truther weasel word, which you think means what you want it to mean at the time; you'll never actually quantify what you mean by it.
Mostly your usual ‘gobbledygook’ Dave.

Indications of evenness, regularity, balance, conformity etc. in the symmetry of a huge collapsing office tower like WTC7 legitimately supports the argument for intentional collapse.

An uneven, irregular, unbalanced, symmetry of a huge collapsing office tower like WTC7 legitimately supports the argument for an unintentional collapse.

A building like WTC7, having a footprint roughly the size of a football field faces improbable impossible odds of encountering sufficient heat to induce failure simultaneously throughout the building’s perimeter.

Even though such a fire-induced collapse would require extremely conspicuous over-engineering to perform without using explosive technology, you are content to believe that random, unchecked fires accidentally managed to achieve this.

It is truly amazing what you willingly accept as believable in order to adamantly resist the truth.
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 29th May 2016, 08:33 AM   #109
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 11,097
Explosives do not make a building fall down.
Fire does not make a building fall down.
Damage to the structure makes a building fall down--specifically, damage to the structural components that carry and distribute the loads.
That damage may be caused by fire, explosives, airplanes crashing into it, pygmy gypsies, or death rays from motherships.

Once the damage occurs, the building has absolutely no way to fall other than straight down, primarily (Ignoring the incidental scatter from parts that have acquired angular momentum via collisions). Period

CD, fire, or terrorism. The building will come Down. Not sideways, not up. Gravity applies the force that does the work.
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
"
I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275
rwguinn 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 29th May 2016, 09:09 AM   #110
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,261
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Somehow I knew you would evade the question. Thanks for confirming, yet again, that you won't ever give a straight answer.

Dave
+1
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2016, 10:21 AM   #111
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Mostly your usual ‘gobbledygook’ Dave.

Indications of evenness, regularity, balance, conformity etc. in the symmetry of a huge collapsing office tower like WTC7 legitimately supports the argument for intentional collapse.

An uneven, irregular, unbalanced, symmetry of a huge collapsing office tower like WTC7 legitimately supports the argument for an unintentional collapse.

A building like WTC7, having a footprint roughly the size of a football field faces improbable impossible odds of encountering sufficient heat to induce failure simultaneously throughout the building’s perimeter.

Even though such a fire-induced collapse would require extremely conspicuous over-engineering to perform without using explosive technology, you are content to believe that random, unchecked fires accidentally managed to achieve this.

It is truly amazing what you willingly accept as believable in order to adamantly resist the truth.
The building comes down even with the horizon and Dave somehow thinks the word symmetric is inappropriate. It is quite unbelievable.

Of course, the reason is that the symmetry along with the free fall refutes any possible counter he would have, and he.....doesn't like that. He is going to have to get used to it, because it is the reality.

Did you notice Dave actually tried to say the building's core could have started collapsing from its center outward due to fire, essentially throwing NIST's column 79 and east to west progression under the bus? Unfortunately for him, that doesn't work as you can't get free fall with a connected exterior without removing the core much faster than his fire can.

The above really isn't surprising as Dave seems to be all over the place here, he actually showed support for the NIST report here or on another thread in just the last 24 hours.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 29th May 2016 at 10:33 AM.
Tony Szamboti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2016, 10:24 AM   #112
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,045
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
The building comes down even with the horizon and Dave somehow thinks the word symmetric is inappropriate. It is quite unbelievable.

Of course, the reason is that the symmetry along with the free fall refutes any possible counter he, or anyone trying to make a natural collapse argument, would have, and they.....don't like that. They are going to have to get used to it, because it is the reality.
Tony,

How should the building have come down?

What should we be expecting to see?
Spanx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2016, 10:59 AM   #113
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,637
Originally Posted by Spanx View Post
Tony,

How should the building have come down?

What should we be expecting to see?
I think he claims it couldn't have come down due to fire.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2016, 11:08 AM   #114
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,045
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
I think he claims it couldn't have come down due to fire.
The arsonists weren't needed then
Spanx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2016, 11:21 AM   #115
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,637
Originally Posted by Spanx View Post
The arsonists weren't needed then
They were part of the diversion. The part that makes me really wonder is why "they" needed to demo the penthouses and roof line as a separate event.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2016, 11:30 AM   #116
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,080
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
The symmetric free fall proves ...
The darn symmetric claim prove you don't know what symmetry is. The CD claim proves you don't understand simile.

Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
... Indications of evenness, regularity, balance, conformity etc. in the symmetry of a huge collapsing office tower like WTC7 legitimately supports the argument for intentional collapse. ...
Then Criteria says symmetry is proof of CD too. Yet there was no symmetry.

At least you and tony have the silent explosives from the fantasy silent explosive NWO MIB explosives RUs store of woo.

Is it silent explosives, or are you forced to use the fantasy of thermite?

CD evidence amounts to witnesses who said it sounded "like". Simile, evidence for explosives in the world of delusions known as 9/11 truth. 14 years of lies and no evidence.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
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 29th May 2016, 11:34 AM   #117
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,045
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
They were part of the diversion. The part that makes me really wonder is why "they" needed to demo the penthouses and roof line as a separate event.
Perhaps it was to show that the arsonists had carried their work out correctly?
Spanx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2016, 11:45 AM   #118
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,310
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Your argument about not seeing flashes is somewhat arbitrary. Any charge flash in the core would be hard to see and hear and they could have been tamped and covered making it even harder. On top of that they were probably between the 14th and 22nd stories and that is 182 to 286 feet above ground and would not be visible from ground level in the core. There was only one camera taking high shots and it was from a long distance.
The firefighters at the pile would have seen and heard the charges go off as much of the face of the building was gone. The sure as hell would have heard them.

You still haven't explained how hiding the existence of explosives, pointing to additional AQ operators, benefited conspirators or anybody else.

And while you have all kinds of nifty calculations the fact is that WTC7 began failing 20 minutes (at least) before its death plunge. It's hard to say what the interior of 7 looked like 20 seconds before it went down.
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2016, 11:46 AM   #119
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: 27,884
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
The building comes down even with the horizon and Dave somehow thinks the word symmetric is inappropriate. It is quite unbelievable.
Youi claimed that the collapse was too symmetric to be caused by anything but explosives. Please quantify how symmetric the collapse was, and how symmetric it could possibly have been without explosives.

You won't, of course, do either. We all know why not. It's the same reason why you won't answer my previous question: you actually have no idea, you just throw out declarations and for some reason expect everyone to believe you.

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Did you notice Dave actually tried to say the building's core could have started collapsing from its center outward due to fire, essentially throwing NIST's column 79 and east to west progression under the bus?
That is an outright lie. Please quote the post where I said the core collapsed from the centre outward. You can't, because it's a lie.

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
The above really isn't surprising as Dave seems to be all over the place here, he actually showed support for the NIST report here or on another thread in just the last 24 hours.
It's not really surprising that Tony won't answer any questions honestly, and that he lies about what other people have said.

Dave

ETA: By the way, Tony, nice job sidestepping the question about collapse propagation. One more area where you have no actual argument, but like to pretend you have one.
__________________
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

Last edited by Dave Rogers; 29th May 2016 at 11:48 AM.
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 29th May 2016, 11:50 AM   #120
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: 27,884
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Indications of evenness, regularity, balance, conformity etc. in the symmetry of a huge collapsing office tower like WTC7 legitimately supports the argument for intentional collapse.

An uneven, irregular, unbalanced, symmetry of a huge collapsing office tower like WTC7 legitimately supports the argument for an unintentional collapse.
Since we know that you are completely uninformed on the subject, what authority on building collapses is the source for these assertions of yours?

Oh, and look up the word "quantify" some time.

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
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 05:11 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.