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
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags controlled demolition , free fall , wtc7

Reply
Old 3rd July 2013, 06:51 AM   #161
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pie City, Arcadia
Posts: 22,966
deleted

Last edited by GlennB; 3rd July 2013 at 06:52 AM.
GlennB is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2013, 08:52 AM   #162
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
"You still fear showing the aerial pic that has wtc7 draped across WTC 7?

Those exterior panels lying on top of the rubble, north face panels lying on top of debris south of the building MM. Shows that the major part of the building fell south

North perimeter columns below the transfer trusses were shoved north as the south end of those trusses collapsed when the columns of the core failed. That resulted in no ability of the north side to be supported.

There is NO sustained descent at g which would be required in your scenario. Instead acceleration ramps up to and exceeds g. Your assertions cannot explain that at all.

Basically yours is nothing but bare assertion with no technical backing whatsoever. Isn't it about time that AE911T actually did an engineering study , an FEA, to determine if their bald claims have any weight. Talk about insufficient support.......
"

WTC7 South Side viewing from SE corner

Clearly you see only what you wish to see.

Good luck with that.

MM
Miragememories is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2013, 09:21 AM   #163
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
http://imageshack.us/a/img189/8922/7xw3.jpg
WTC7 South Side viewing from SE corner

Clearly you see only what you wish to see.

Good luck with that.

MM
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.
000063 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2013, 10:05 AM   #164
Gamolon
Master Poster
 
Gamolon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,136
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
http://imageshack.us/a/img189/8922/7xw3.jpg

Yes.

You can see down to the SW corner of WTC7 with only a bit of the base cropped.

It is obvious the collapsing south side was not predominantly in the street as you would have everyone believe.
Obvious eh?
Gamolon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2013, 10:23 AM   #165
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 17,264
Originally Posted by Gamolon View Post
No, per MM, that's just a wide sidewalk. Including the building across the street. It's all just a matter of perspective.


It's all still a dodge. No support for constant free fall, and any free fall acceleration can be caused by load vs. resistance.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2013, 10:50 AM   #166
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pie City, Arcadia
Posts: 22,966
Originally Posted by Gamolon View Post
Obvious eh?
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?
GlennB is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2013, 12:06 PM   #167
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by Gamolon View Post
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
Miragememories is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2013, 12:22 PM   #168
Gamolon
Master Poster
 
Gamolon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,136
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
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
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.
Gamolon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2013, 02:19 PM   #169
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pie City, Arcadia
Posts: 22,966
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
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.
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?

Last edited by GlennB; 3rd July 2013 at 02:22 PM.
GlennB is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2013, 03:45 PM   #170
swright777
Muse
 
swright777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 897
Originally Posted by Gamolon View Post
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.
http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/f...ps1d947602.jpg

Here is the next picture. More damage to the pedestrian bridge, some debris in the street. WTC7 still up.
http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/f...ps86c7a809.jpg

Last picture. Pedestrian bridge down. WTC7 down.
http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/f...ps0e366eaf.jpg

Now you tell me what the majority of the "street debris" in that last picture was from.
Ouch!

MM, doesn't it bother you that you're always wrong?
swright777 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2013, 03:58 PM   #171
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 17,264
Originally Posted by swright777 View Post
Ouch!

MM, doesn't it bother you that you're always wrong?
Double ouch, when he is addressing a problem he substituted, symmetrical collapse, for one he couldn't solve in his favor, free fall. As if a big square, hard walled, moment framed building wouldn't look symmetrical when it fell anyway.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2013, 01:40 PM   #172
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
http://imageshack.us/a/img189/8922/7xw3.jpg
WTC7 South Side viewing from SE corner

Clearly you see only what you wish to see.

Good luck with that.

MM
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'.

Last edited by jaydeehess; 4th July 2013 at 01:51 PM.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2013, 02:48 PM   #173
Clayton Moore
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 7,508
Originally Posted by marcus777 View Post
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lcb37yyHgT8

If you watch this CD here, there is a brief period of silence between the initial explosions and the explosions in which the building starts to fall.

What would happen to the building if the final explosives didn't go off?
I'm guessing it would sit there all day, maybe leaning or bulging a bit but would still be standing......and would need very little to finish the job.


Were explosions going off 'slowly' throughout the day? who knows. Did the majority of explosions occur whilst the towers were collapsing? who knows
.

The above could explain why very little explosives would be needed to finish the job so to speak and I'm yet to see a video of 7 going down that has a clear sound recording.
Jennings knew and told the world. The mainstream media scumsuckers ignored him. And the neocons likely sealed his deal.
Clayton Moore is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2013, 02:59 PM   #174
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 17,264
Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post
Jennings knew and told the world. The mainstream media scumsuckers ignored him. And the neocons likely sealed his deal.
Off topic, reported.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2013, 04:07 PM   #175
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
"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.
"
I have no interest in playing dueling debris piles.

Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
"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'.
"
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
Miragememories is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2013, 04:10 PM   #176
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,594
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post

The prime suspect for the 47-story WTC7 collapsing at FFA, or close, is CD.

MM
Now all you have to do is accept the rest of the collapse and you might understand WTC 7.

I'm not holding my breath until you accept reality.
__________________
"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 online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2013, 04:21 PM   #177
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 17,264
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
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
If the fall was above, below, not constant at g, how could it be from freely dropping? I showed you in the OP how the collapse could naturally be around g.

What's sophisticated about the sides of a building being pulled down by a collapse?
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2013, 04:58 PM   #178
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
I have no interest in playing dueling debris piles.
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:
The prime suspect for the 47-story WTC7 collapsing at FFA, or close, is CD.
Barring the whole "physically impossible by any known conventional or unconventional method of controlled demolition" aspect, yes.

Quote:
Un-fought office furnishing's fires are an extremely poor candidate for such a smoothly executed collapse.
More words with vague, subjective meanings.

Quote:
Can you rationally explain how natural causes allowed WTC7 to have such a sophisticated high speed collapse.

MM
Again, more meaningless technoblather. That sort 'o talk might impress the folks in the cheap seats, but not us.
000063 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2013, 06:02 AM   #179
Miragememories
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
Miragememories is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2013, 06:08 AM   #180
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
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.

Last edited by 000063; 5th July 2013 at 06:16 AM.
000063 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2013, 08:52 AM   #181
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pie City, Arcadia
Posts: 22,966
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
What natural cause could have made those 8 storeys of perimeter columns fail together?
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.
GlennB is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2013, 08:59 AM   #182
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 17,264
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
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.

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/g...NISTgraph2.jpg

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.
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
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2013, 09:00 AM   #183
Grizzly Bear
このマスクによっ
 
Grizzly Bear's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,777
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.
__________________

Last edited by Grizzly Bear; 5th July 2013 at 09:04 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 5th July 2013, 11:48 AM   #184
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
Originally Posted by Grizzly Bear View Post
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.
In other words, they're not just putting the cart before the horse, they can't even be sure there's a horse in the first place.
000063 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2013, 01:50 PM   #185
fitzgibbon
Master Poster
 
fitzgibbon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Just west of the centre of the universe
Posts: 2,829
Originally Posted by fitzgibbon View Post
You claim to work in a position that would require accurate visual analysis (ie reading a waveform, recognising an unwanted jump-cut, etc.). Even a cursory examination of the two images you provided shows that WTC7 didn't retain "amazing vertical stability". A quick look at the angle of the roofline between the left corner and the centre block shows the angle increasing. Since this would've been recorded by a camera on the long end of zoom (if not at full zoom), we can rule out an optical illusion created by a lens at wide angle.

This leaves 3 possibilities in my book (there's probably more but I'm limiting this to my experience and judgment as an editor [that plus I really haven't the time/inclination to chase truthers down the WTC7 rabbit hole]):

1. The left corner of the building is descending at a slower rate than the centre section of the building thus increasing the angle of the roofline between the left corner of the building and the centre section

2. Both sections are descending at the same rate but the left corner is pivoting towards the camera thus increasing the angle of the roofline between the left corner of the building and the centre section

3. Both sections are descending at the same rate but the centre section is pivoting away the camera thus increasing the angle of the roofline between the left corner of the building and the centre section

To use an analogy you should be familiar with, imagine you're using the joystick on an Abekas A51 to adjust an image. The X axis is left-right, the Y axis is the vertical axis and the Z is the zoom (or in this case closer-to or further-away from the camera). So in instance #1, there's a change in ∆Y, that is to say, there's a change in relative heights between the left corner and the centre section. In instances #2 & #3, there's a change in ∆Z with either the left corner coming closer to the camera relative to the centre section or else the centre section receeding.

In any case, it can't with any honesty be said that the left corner and the centre section stay in "amazing vertical stability" because that conclusion can't be exclusively drawn from the data you're providing.

HTH
Fitz
Bumping for MirageMemories. What say you?

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"
fitzgibbon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2013, 01:52 PM   #186
fitzgibbon
Master Poster
 
fitzgibbon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Just west of the centre of the universe
Posts: 2,829
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"
fitzgibbon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2013, 01:53 PM   #187
fitzgibbon
Master Poster
 
fitzgibbon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Just west of the centre of the universe
Posts: 2,829
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
http://imageshack.us/a/img189/8922/7xw3.jpg
WTC7 South Side viewing from SE corner

Clearly you see only what you wish to see.

Good luck with that.

MM
Pot? Meet kettle!

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"
fitzgibbon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2013, 03:44 PM   #188
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
Originally Posted by fitzgibbon View Post
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
Don't be absurd. For what reason would he possibly put someone on ignore?
000063 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2013, 03:49 PM   #189
fitzgibbon
Master Poster
 
fitzgibbon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Just west of the centre of the universe
Posts: 2,829
Originally Posted by 000063 View Post
Don't be absurd. For what reason would he possibly put someone on ignore?
Oh, I dunno. Inconvenient truth from someone nearby in the same industry mebbe? Beyond that, I couldn't say with certainty. He just seems not to....notice...direct questions

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"
fitzgibbon 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 6th July 2013, 01:37 PM   #190
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
I have no interest in playing dueling debris piles.



The prime suspect for the 47-story WTC7 collapsing at FFA, or close, is CD.
In the fevered dreams of truthers such as yourself MM.


Quote:
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
You, and AE911T have yet to prove that the fire damage scenario is "an extremely poor candidate" and have done even less to support a scenario of controlled demolition.
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.
jaydeehess 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 6th July 2013, 02:27 PM   #191
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
[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:
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.
[Quote
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
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 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?

Last edited by jaydeehess; 6th July 2013 at 02:38 PM.
jaydeehess 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 6th July 2013, 02:58 PM   #192
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Related - wrong thread
jaydeehess 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 9th July 2013, 07:13 AM   #193
Gamolon
Master Poster
 
Gamolon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,136
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
I have no interest in playing dueling debris piles.
Right.

You make a statement, are then shown it to be completely wrong, and now you don't want to play anymore.

I notice you do that quite often.

Gamolon 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 9th July 2013, 09:59 AM   #194
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
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.
jaydeehess 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 9th July 2013, 11:25 AM   #195
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Lightbulb

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post

WTC7 north side showing ~8 storeys removed to permit FFA.


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?
jaydeehess 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 9th July 2013, 11:29 AM   #196
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Question

Originally Posted by Gamolon View Post
Right.

You make a statement, are then shown it to be completely wrong, and now you don't want to play anymore.

I notice you do that quite often.

It seems to me he brought the idea that the debris pile indicates something relevant to the thread topic and now states he is no longer interested in discussing it.
jaydeehess 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 9th July 2013, 11:55 AM   #197
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
"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."
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
Miragememories 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 9th July 2013, 12:15 PM   #198
MarkLindeman
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 493
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
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.
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
The collapse of WTC7 displayed an implosion profile which well matched the industry standard.
Devastating damage to a nearby building well matches the industry standard?
MarkLindeman 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 9th July 2013, 12:20 PM   #199
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Now that's a leap.

The collapse of WTC7 displayed an implosion profile which well matched the industry standard.
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:
Of course a commercially planned CD would pre-rig the building (remove windows etc.) to minimize collateral damage. ...
Did...did you just pre-emptively backpedal?

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.
000063 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 9th July 2013, 01:39 PM   #200
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Now that's a leap.
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:
The collapse of WTC7 displayed an implosion profile which well matched the industry standard.
No it matches what one would expect with loss of core capacity following loss of a major column in a structure with long span open floor design erected over an existing, much lower, structure. Did the north face collapse to the south? Yes it did, it collapsed towards the failed core, Did the south part fail to the south? Yes, it collapsed towards the significantly damaged south perimeter
Quote:
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.
You keep saying that but you seem to be hoping that doing so will make it so.
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:

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.
If the falling debris, air handling/air conditioning units and other dense material, is punching though floors for 40 floors until it reaches the core at the level of those cantilever trusses it would indeed show little effect on the windows.
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:

The kink is forming as global collapse begins. There is noticeable window breakage that looks related to column 79.
Yes, the kink, occurring well before the entire facade reaches FFA, demonstrates that at this point the building is doomed. Yes despite a supposed explosion massive enough to sever col 79 only windows long the greatest line of deformation have broken.Despite dozens of following explosions few other windows break as the entire north face begins moving.
Quote:
Somehow the internal crushing forces were not visibly pulling the perimeter columns in, nor dramatically fracturing the hundreds of window frames.
I've seen photos of buildings that have toppled due to earthquakes yet have windows still intact. No explosives required. In this case the windows were part of a frame that was coming down due to loss at the level of the cantilever trusses. There's your eighth storey failure.
Quote:
Why do all 4 sides drop in unison?
Did they? Iirc, femr2 showed a few delays in that regard. Certainly the parts nearer the kink began moving before the perimeters, otherwise there'd have been no kink. However if the cause of failure which had the east,west and north perimeters falling is directly related to the failure of col 79, then we cannot expect east and west to react highly differently. Nor can we expect that the south side, already significantly damaged, to react grossly different.
You are not making a case foe CD, MM.

Quote:
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?
You misrepresent it as in unison. Obviously there was a separate initial column failure, col 79, followed quickly but sequentially by other, core column, failures. There is also a sequence to the moving of the north face, first the movement towards the kink, visible even up to the roofline, a distortion that broke few windows. Only after this does the north face sections begin moving downward, and quite evidently tilting southwards(that is where the west side, north portion ended up). Moving down won't break windows and with the entire plane falling south there's little to cause window breakage. Certainly no more than the initial kink would have caused.
Quote:
By human engineering. Yes.

By roaming office furnishing's fires. No.

MM
Neither you or anyone else, has come up with a human engineered controlled demolition scenario that satisfies all the criteria that you say shows it was not the result of fire induced structural failure. When will we expect a CD scenario detailing how col 79 was severed first, then the progressive collapse of rooftop structures was effected, then further column failures were made to occur such as to cause the north face to experience an acceleration profile as observed for wtc7?
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.

Last edited by jaydeehess; 9th July 2013 at 01:46 PM.
jaydeehess 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 02:00 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.