AE911Truth.INFO - First Draft of 7 World Trade Debunk Up!

[boloboffin]

As you folks are aware, I've started a little project (http://ae911truth.info). I'm debunking Richard Gage's Powerpoint presentation slide by slide and putting this up on the web.

Well, I've got the first draft of the 7 World Trade section up (http://ae911truth.info/misinfo/aeppt97/067.html). What that means is that I've got to go back and rewrite the slides to accommodate any additional information that appears in Gage's video presentation. That shouldn't be too much, but there will be some things, I'm sure.

I've also learned that Gage has a brand new version of this Powerpoint up! Some of the worst errors have been eliminated, but there is still more woo in that presentation that a discount barrel of Tarot cards. The old Powerpoint is still available online, so I'm going to have two tracks for this slide by slide debunking. Don't worry about the workload, though. It's mostly juggling a lot of information I've already written.

So I'm hoping to have both 7 World Trade presentations debunked (with final versions of the pages) by the end of February. Then this hobbit will begin the long, hard slog through the Twin Towers sections. If anyone has directions to Rivendell, I would greatly appreciate it.

Incredibly enough, I've discovered that Richard Gage hasn't managed to prove a single one of his points. I was fully expecting to have given him one or two since his argument is so detailed, but it's crap from stem to stern. Not only do none of his controlled demolition features apply to 7 World Trade, but I've managed to demonstrate that two of his destruction by fire features actually DO apply to 7 World Trade.

In other words, Gage's argument actually proves the opposite of what he intends! Does anybody have a word for a Texas Sharpshooter with this bad an aim? My wit is failing me.

[Redtail]

As you folks are aware, I've started a little project (http://ae911truth.info). I'm debunking Richard Gage's Powerpoint presentation slide by slide and putting this up on the web.

Well, I've got the first draft of the 7 World Trade section up (http://ae911truth.info/misinfo/aeppt97/067.html). What that means is that I've got to go back and rewrite the slides to accommodate any additional information that appears in Gage's video presentation. That shouldn't be too much, but there will be some things, I'm sure.

I've also learned that Gage has a brand new version of this Powerpoint up! Some of the worst errors have been eliminated, but there is still more woo in that presentation that a discount barrel of Tarot cards. The old Powerpoint is still available online, so I'm going to have two tracks for this slide by slide debunking. Don't worry about the workload, though. It's mostly juggling a lot of information I've already written.

So I'm hoping to have both 7 World Trade presentations debunked (with final versions of the pages) by the end of February. Then this hobbit will begin the long, hard slog through the Twin Towers sections. If anyone has directions to Rivendell, I would greatly appreciate it.

Incredibly enough, I've discovered that Richard Gage hasn't managed to prove a single one of his points. I was fully expecting to have given him one or two since his argument is so detailed, but it's crap from stem to stern. Not only do none of his controlled demolition features apply to 7 World Trade, but I've managed to demonstrate that two of his destruction by fire features actually DO apply to 7 World Trade.

In other words, Gage's argument actually proves the opposite of what he intends! Does anybody have a word for a Texas Sharpshooter with this bad an aim? My wit is failing me.

If it wasn't for gravity, that boy couldn't hit the ground.

[Gravy]

Texas Footshooter?

Great work, bolo!

[OldTigerCub]

If it wasn't for gravity, that boy couldn't hit the ground.

:dl:
I listened to his "election analysis" last night. All I heard was his "virtually freefall speed" and "nothing but controlled demolition" spiel. It took 3 tubes of Super Glue to put my head back together after it exploded (most likely from mini-nukes):p

[R.Mackey]

Nicely done. I'm glad you found some use for my whitepaper -- however, since your presentation is in a form much more attractive to non-technical people, I imagine you will get a lot more feedback. Give 'em hell.

[slyjoe]

Does he still have the slide with gravity = 9.1 m/s^2?

[Terral]

Hi Bolo:

Bolo >> As you folks are aware, I've started a little project. I'm debunking Richard Gage's Powerpoint presentation slide by slide and putting this up on the web.


Thank you for characterizing your ‘debunking’ (heh (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/YoSoFunny.gif)) as ‘a little project.’ The idea that you are going to ‘debunk’ the CD Explanation (http://www.ae911truth.org/) (my JREF WTC-7 CD Thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=105459)) with “The 19 Bearded Jihadist Radicals And Building Fires Did It” Hypothesis is one of the most ridiculous ‘debunker’ claims these eyes have ever seen. You say this was done by building fires (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WTC7_Collapse.mpg) in just a few hours. :0) How does this overbuilt 47-story steel-framed skyscraper (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/WTC7Steel.jpg) collapse into its own footprint (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/wtc7-debris.jpg) in just a few hours, when the evidence shows no buildings fires through any of the unbroken windows (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/fig-5-20.jpg) at all? How do building fires create this telltale ‘kink’ in the roofline (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/fig-5-23.jpg), as the 47-story skyscraper is collapsing at freefall speed apart from the use of Controlled Demolition techniques (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uNbKJofv3c)? Richard Gage’s CD Analysis and Explanation are based upon the work of Dr. Steven Jones posted here (http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2006/WTC-Jones19mar06.htm) for your ‘debunking’ (heh) convenience. Start debunking . . . :0) (http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=Cfm9I6uLemU)

Since Richard is not here to defend himself, then I hope you do not mind if a registered AE911Truther posts defending arguments to keep Bolo the 'debunker' (heh) honest . . .

GL, because you need it,

Terral

[DGM]

Terral:
Your profile at AE 911 truth states you are a General contractor and demolition supervisor. Both of these require licenses in the state of Florida. You are not listed as holding a license in that state.

Did you lie to Richard?

[peteweaver]

A&E 911 truth, the 'brains' behind the 'truthburn' project, and now purporting to be the ace investigators of what happened to WTC7

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1549047ab3dd14d9f1.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=10637)

So funny.

[boloboffin]

If it wasn't for gravity, that boy couldn't hit the ground.

Texas Footshooter?

Great work, bolo!

:dl: :dl:

Texas Footshooter it is. Mark Roberts scores again!

Nicely done. I'm glad you found some use for my whitepaper -- however, since your presentation is in a form much more attractive to non-technical people, I imagine you will get a lot more feedback. Give 'em hell.

Well, I get some. I'm hoping to include a lot more as I get into the second draft and the Towers debunk. You've got great arguments and solid analysis there, Ryan.

Does he still have the slide with gravity = 9.1 m/s^2?

Yes, he does. The new slides are configured differently than the old, and it is very difficult to link to them. The slide's number is #33, and it is still there.

Gage doesn't identify 9.1 m/s^2 as gravity in so many words. But he does say the building falls at freefall speed, and his graph of the fall is labeled with an "assumed constant acceleration" of 9.1 m/s^2. Gage either doesn't understand what this slide is saying, or he's party to a poker-faced bluff.

Thank you for characterizing your ‘debunking’ (heh (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/YoSoFunny.gif)) as ‘a little project.’ The idea that you are going to ‘debunk’ the CD Explanation (http://www.ae911truth.org/) (my JREF WTC-7 CD Thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=105459)) with “The 19 Bearded Jihadist Radicals And Building Fires Did It” Hypothesis is one of the most ridiculous ‘debunker’ claims these eyes have ever seen. You say this was done by building fires (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WTC7_Collapse.mpg) in just a few hours. :0) How does this overbuilt 47-story steel-framed skyscraper (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/WTC7Steel.jpg) collapse into its own footprint (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/wtc7-debris.jpg) in just a few hours, when the evidence shows no buildings fires through any of the unbroken windows (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/fig-5-20.jpg) at all? How do building fires create this telltale ‘kink’ in the roofline (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/fig-5-23.jpg), as the 47-story skyscraper is collapsing at freefall speed apart from the use of Controlled Demolition techniques (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uNbKJofv3c)? Richard Gage’s CD Analysis and Explanation are based upon the work of Dr. Steven Jones posted here (http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2006/WTC-Jones19mar06.htm) for your ‘debunking’ (heh) convenience. Start debunking . . . :0) (http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=Cfm9I6uLemU)

Since Richard is not here to defend himself, then I hope you do not mind if a registered AE911Truther posts defending arguments to keep Bolo the 'debunker' (heh) honest . . .

GL, because you need it,

Terral

The first thing I would like you to acknowledge, Terral, is that the progressive collapse of 7 isn't just due to fire. There are three components of that collapse, and fire is only one of them. WTC 7 had an unusual structure which played a part in its progressive collapse, and it suffered severe damage to that structure from falling debris. There will be no pretending that it's just fire that any official explanation does or will rely upon.

Until you demonstrate that you can stop the straw man argument of "fire did it," there is no further need to respond to you.

[Swing Dangler]

As you folks are aware, I've started a little project (http://ae911truth.info). I'm debunking Richard Gage's Powerpoint presentation slide by slide and putting this up on the web.

Well, I've got the first draft of the 7 World Trade section up (http://ae911truth.info/misinfo/aeppt97/067.html). What that means is that I've got to go back and rewrite the slides to accommodate any additional information that appears in Gage's video presentation. That shouldn't be too much, but there will be some things, I'm sure.

I've also learned that Gage has a brand new version of this Powerpoint up! Some of the worst errors have been eliminated, but there is still more woo in that presentation that a discount barrel of Tarot cards. The old Powerpoint is still available online, so I'm going to have two tracks for this slide by slide debunking. Don't worry about the workload, though. It's mostly juggling a lot of information I've already written.

So I'm hoping to have both 7 World Trade presentations debunked (with final versions of the pages) by the end of February. Then this hobbit will begin the long, hard slog through the Twin Towers sections. If anyone has directions to Rivendell, I would greatly appreciate it.

Incredibly enough, I've discovered that Richard Gage hasn't managed to prove a single one of his points. I was fully expecting to have given him one or two since his argument is so detailed, but it's crap from stem to stern. Not only do none of his controlled demolition features apply to 7 World Trade, but I've managed to demonstrate that two of his destruction by fire features actually DO apply to 7 World Trade.

In other words, Gage's argument actually proves the opposite of what he intends! Does anybody have a word for a Texas Sharpshooter with this bad an aim? My wit is failing me.

Can you source who you are and your credentials? Nevermind, I withstood the opening parts of the site.
Bolobofin-
My name is Joseph Nobles, by the way. I'm a live voice writer and actor. Please update the thread when you become an architect or engineer and not one gained from a play!. Then, you might be able to hold a candle to the following:
Seven Senior Federal Engineers and Scientists Call for New 9/11 Investigation (http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alan_mil_071211_seven_senior_federal.htm)

Your response to the FEMA melted steel point in the email exchange sums it up quite nicely:
I understand that some evidence could be interpreted in more than one way.

[DGM]

Can you source who you are and your credentials? Nevermind, I withstood the opening parts of the site.
Please update the thread when you become an architect or engineer and not one gained from a play!. Then, you might be able to hold a candle to the following:
Seven Senior Federal Engineers and Scientists Call for New 9/11 Investigation (http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alan_mil_071211_seven_senior_federal.htm)

Your response to the FEMA melted steel point in the email exchange sums it up quite nicely:
James Quintiere says the conspiracy theories are hog wash.

What does boloboffin get wrong? (here we go again, bolo check your spelling)

[boloboffin]

Can you source who you are and your credentials? Nevermind, I withstood the opening parts of the site.
Please update the thread when you become an architect or engineer and not one gained from a play!. Then, you might be able to hold a candle to the following:
Seven Senior Federal Engineers and Scientists Call for New 9/11 Investigation (http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alan_mil_071211_seven_senior_federal.htm)

:dl:

You're funny.

Did you realize that one of those seven scientists is James Quintiere? Dr. Quintiere has expressly disavowed controlled demolition as a hypothesis. His questions are within the commonly-called "official explanation." His citation on that page calls into serious question the compiler's ability or desire to represent the truth.

I'll tell you what. Since I'm just a live voice writer and an actor, it should be easy for you, an architect or an engineer, to point out mistakes at my website. Please present YOUR credentials when you bring back any mistakes you might find. Thank you in advance.

ETA: That quote you gave from the "email exchange" is from Shane Geiger, the person with whom I was exchanging emails. I don't blame you for the mixup - Geiger's email is pretty hard to make heads or tails of.

[boloboffin]

James Quintiere says the conspiracy theories are hog wash.

What does boloboffin get wrong? (here we go again, bolo check your spelling)

Oh, boy, I try to check my spelling every chance I get. If you see something, let me know. :)

[Terral]

Hi Pete:

Pete >> A&E 911 truth, the 'brains' behind the 'truthburn' project, and now purporting to be the ace investigators of what happened to WTC7. So funny.


Should that ‘ace investigator’ title be given to AE professionals (http://www.ae911truth.org/) and supporting scientists (http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2006/WTC-Jones19mar06.htm) or PeteWeaver (http://forums.randi.org/customavatars/avatar15490_3.gif)? :0) The AE911Truth people have much more going for them than I see from you.

GL,

Terral

[Good Lt]

Hi Pete:

Should that ‘ace investigator’ title be given to AE professionals (http://www.ae911truth.org/) and supporting scientists (http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2006/WTC-Jones19mar06.htm) or PeteWeaver (http://forums.randi.org/customavatars/avatar15490_3.gif)? :0) The AE911Truth people have much more going for them than I see from you.

GL,

Terral

Considering AEFrauds for 9-11 Troof have nothing going for them, this isn't much of an accomplishment.

[peteweaver]

Hi Pete:




Should that ‘ace investigator’ title be given to AE professionals (http://www.ae911truth.org/) and supporting scientists (http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2006/WTC-Jones19mar06.htm) or PeteWeaver (http://forums.randi.org/customavatars/avatar15490_3.gif)? :0) The AE911Truth people have much more going for them than I see from you.

GL,

Terral

What ever they have 'going for them' Terral, they spectacularly failed to prove the thermite theory and debunked themselves in the process LOL!!!

Hence the Epic fail pic.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1549047ab3dd14d9f1.jpg

Basically these guy's are using pseudo science, to try and prove the unprovable to people without the common sense to know better.

If you want to understand what happened to the twin towers try talking to experts who deal with structural fire safety all the time.

http://www.steelinfire.org.uk has a list of fully qualified Professionals who all have an interest in protecting steel buildings from fire.

IF there were any truth to your theories, they'd have noticed.

If you want to save yourself time, I can tell you what they'll tell you in four words:
Read the NIST reports.

Thats what they'll say.

[Terral]

Hi Bolo:

Bolo >> The first thing I would like you to acknowledge, Terral, is that the progressive collapse of 7 isn't just due to fire.


Spoken like a true ‘debunker.’ :0) Now we can waste time talking about what the WTC-7 collapse ‘isn’t due to . . .’. In other words, you have no reply to anything appearing in Post #7 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3411378&postcount=7), because ‘debunking’ (heh (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/YoSoFunny.gif)) only requires casting stones at the work of others without any solid hypothesis of your own. Please point me to Bolo’s thesis papers for the WTC-7 collapse and for what really crashed into the Pentagon. Since I know Bolo is not chicken (http://www.nextnature.net/research/wp-content/uploads/2006/10/chicken3~.jpg), then I will thank you in advance.

Bolo >> There are three components of that collapse, and fire is only one of them.


Bullony. The WTC-7 collapse (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WTC7_Collapse.mpg) was ‘symmetrical’ (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/symmetry.html) like both of the Twin Towers, which had NOTHING to do with any building fires at all. None. I hope your ‘debunking’ of Richard’s work is based upon more than just ‘talk, talk, talk’ with no evidence based anywhere in reality. Building fires do NOT (http://www.schwabcorp.com/faqs.htm#fire_safe) burn hot enough to even play a role (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uNbKJofv3c) in the symmetrical collapse of any steel-framed skyscraper. Period. Now I am beginning to wonder about Bolo’s credentials in the architectural field for him to be making these wild unsupportable claims . . .

Bolo >> WTC 7 had an unusual structure which played a part in its progressive collapse, and it suffered severe damage to that structure from falling debris.


This is more nonsense from what appears to be a fellow without even a clue. The ‘gouge’ arguments actually work against your ‘Building Fire’ hypothesis, because of the same ‘symmetrical’ collapse situation described above. Your problem is that we have pictures of WTC-7 collapsing in full freefall mode here (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/fig-5-20.jpg) (from this website (http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_ch5.htm)) and NONE of the windows are broken and NONE of the windows show the signs of building fires at all. Another picture (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/fig-5-23.jpg) shows clear evidence of Controlled Demolition, as the center of WTC-7 is collapsing more quickly than the two sides. How does falling debris cause an overbuilt 47-story skyscraper to collapse in just a few hours? If your ‘gouges’ caused the collapse, then why did the building fall straight down and not to ‘your’ damaged side? :0) How does Bolo explain this (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/9-11Picture1.jpg) being transformed into this (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/wtc7-debris.jpg) in just a few hours? :0) Never mind, Bolo, because we both know you are here to ‘talk, talk, talk’ and prove nothing at all . . .

Bolo >> There will be no pretending that it's just fire that any official explanation does or will rely upon.


Oh. So you intend on pretending fire and WTC-1 debris from 350 feet away (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/fig-5-14.jpg) caused WTC-7 to fall demolition-style. How original. :0) (http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=Cfm9I6uLemU)

Bolo >> Until you demonstrate that you can stop the straw man argument of "fire did it," there is no further need to respond to you.


Please stop embarrassing yourself, Bolo. We both know you have NO CASE for the basis of any serious Controlled Demolition Rebuttal or Counterproposal. Your ‘little project’ is nothing but a guy playing with a topic he knows very little about, so let’s try not to kid ourselves or these readers. What I hope to find is Bolo’s Thesis Paper for this WTC-7 case or the Pentagon Case, so my rebuttal can bring that nonsense back to the top of the Conspiracies Forum Board and these readers can see, like I do, that Bolo is full of nothing but himself and hot air.

You can run and you can hide, but you cannot do both and convince these readers of anything.

GL in the debates,

Terral

[peteweaver]

Terral, you've no evidence for the Controlled demolitions theory.

Care to try and provide some.

Perhaps start by showing thermite in the process of making a diagonal cut through a vertical steel beam, instead of misrepresenting a photograph of steel columns which had obviously been cut with Oxy Acetylene torches.

[Good Lt]

Hi Bolo:




Spoken like a true ‘debunker.’ :0) Now we can waste time talking about what the WTC-7 collapse ‘isn’t due to . . .’. In other words, you have no reply to anything appearing in Post #7 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3411378&postcount=7), because ‘debunking’ (heh (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/YoSoFunny.gif)) only requires casting stones at the work of others without any solid hypothesis of your own. Please point me to Bolo’s thesis papers for the WTC-7 collapse and for what really crashed into the Pentagon. Since I know Bolo is not chicken (http://www.nextnature.net/research/wp-content/uploads/2006/10/chicken3%7E.jpg), then I will thank you in advance.




Bullony. The WTC-7 collapse (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WTC7_Collapse.mpg) was ‘symmetrical’ (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/symmetry.html) like both of the Twin Towers, which had NOTHING to do with any building fires at all. None. I hope your ‘debunking’ of Richard’s work is based upon more than just ‘talk, talk, talk’ with no evidence based anywhere in reality. Building fires do NOT (http://www.schwabcorp.com/faqs.htm#fire_safe) burn hot enough to even play a role (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uNbKJofv3c) in the symmetrical collapse of any steel-framed skyscraper. Period. Now I am beginning to wonder about Bolo’s credentials in the architectural field for him to be making these wild unsupportable claims . . .




This is more nonsense from what appears to be a fellow without even a clue. The ‘gouge’ arguments actually work against your ‘Building Fire’ hypothesis, because of the same ‘symmetrical’ collapse situation described above. Your problem is that we have pictures of WTC-7 collapsing in full freefall mode here (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/fig-5-20.jpg) (from this website (http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_ch5.htm)) and NONE of the windows are broken and NONE of the windows show the signs of building fires at all. Another picture (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/fig-5-23.jpg) shows clear evidence of Controlled Demolition, as the center of WTC-7 is collapsing more quickly than the two sides. How does falling debris cause an overbuilt 47-story skyscraper to collapse in just a few hours? If your ‘gouges’ caused the collapse, then why did the building fall straight down and not to ‘your’ damaged side? :0) How does Bolo explain this (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/9-11Picture1.jpg) being transformed into this (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/wtc7-debris.jpg) in just a few hours? :0) Never mind, Bolo, because we both know you are here to ‘talk, talk, talk’ and prove nothing at all . . .




Oh. So you intend on pretending fire and WTC-1 debris from 350 feet away (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/fig-5-14.jpg) caused WTC-7 to fall demolition-style. How original. :0) (http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=Cfm9I6uLemU)




Please stop embarrassing yourself, Bolo. We both know you have NO CASE for the basis of any serious Controlled Demolition Rebuttal or Counterproposal. Your ‘little project’ is nothing but a guy playing with a topic he knows very little about, so let’s try not to kid ourselves or these readers. What I hope to find is Bolo’s Thesis Paper for this WTC-7 case or the Pentagon Case, so my rebuttal can bring that nonsense back to the top of the Conspiracies Forum Board and these readers can see, like I do, that Bolo is full of nothing but himself and hot air.

You can run and you can hide, but you cannot do both and convince these readers of anything.

GL in the debates,

Terral

None of this is A) evidence of a controlled demolition, B)explanatory of who executed this imaginary controlled demolition, or C) proof supporting any 9-11 conspiracy fantasy.

I suggest you take a close look at the EPIC FAIL graphic peteweaver is showing you. You are that hunk of metal.

[Brainache]

Umm Terral, if it was CD, howcome none of the windows were shattered by the charges going off?

[Terral]

Hi Good:

Good >> Considering AEFrauds for 9-11 Troof have nothing going for them, this isn't much of an accomplishment.


Really? Where is Good’s WTC-7 Thesis Paper or your Pentagon Thesis Paper? I would settle for your rebuttal to ANY Controlled Demolition paper from Richard Gage (http://www.ae911truth.org/), Dr. Steven Jones (http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2006/WTC-Jones19mar06.htm) or anyone. Please help me to locate your work ASAP, and I will be happy to stand in as the CD champion and allow these readers to decide for themselves. All of your two-sentence drivel combined on this thread does not equal one argument from Richard’s work (http://www.ae911truth.net/ppt_web/slideshow.php).

GL,

Terral

[Terral]

Hi Brain:

Brain >> Umm Terral, if it was CD, how come none of the windows were shattered by the charges going off?


Thank you for asking a good question. The answer is in the “C” of the “CD” acronym, which means “Controlled Demolition.” The Demolition Team produced the Silverstein desired result for whatever he was willing to pay. However, buildings fires have nothing to do with ‘control’ and this CD job had NOTHING to do with any building fires, WTC-1 debris, 19 Bearded Jihadist Radicals (http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/3320063.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=86F19F6C94FCC84F80381553BD8DFACBA55A1E4F32AD3138 ) or any other related Cover Story Nonsense . . .

GL,

Terral

[Redtail]

This is more nonsense from what appears to be a fellow without even a clue. The ‘gouge’ arguments actually work against your ‘Building Fire’ hypothesis, because of the same ‘symmetrical’ collapse situation described above. Your problem is that we have pictures of WTC-7 collapsing in full freefall mode here (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/fig-5-20.jpg) (from this website (http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_ch5.htm)) and NONE of the windows are broken and NONE of the windows show the signs of building fires at all. Another picture (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/fig-5-23.jpg) shows clear evidence of Controlled Demolition, as the center of WTC-7 is collapsing more quickly than the two sides. How does falling debris cause an overbuilt 47-story skyscraper to collapse in just a few hours? If your ‘gouges’ caused the collapse, then why did the building fall straight down and not to ‘your’ damaged side? :0) How does Bolo explain this (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/9-11Picture1.jpg) being transformed into this (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/wtc7-debris.jpg) in just a few hours? :0) Never mind, Bolo, because we both know you are here to ‘talk, talk, talk’ and prove nothing at all . . .

Terral
http://www.stevespak.com/fires/manhattan/7wtc.jpg

So fire was passing through the glass leaving said glass unharmed? Also where is the audio of the CD charges?

[boloboffin]

Hi Bolo:

:words:

Terral

You did not acknowledge what I asked you to acknowledge. In fact, you demonstrated that you will continue to bash your particular straw man.

Since you don't wish to have a discussion but a streetcorner rant, I feel no need to address you again.

[Good Lt]

Hi Good:

Really? Where is Good’s WTC-7 Thesis Paper or your Pentagon Thesis Paper? I would settle for your rebuttal to ANY Controlled Demolition paper from Richard Gage (http://www.ae911truth.org/), Dr. Steven Jones (http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2006/WTC-Jones19mar06.htm) or anyone. Please help me to locate your work ASAP, and I will be happy to stand in as the CD champion and allow these readers to decide for themselves. All of your two-sentence drivel combined on this thread does not equal one argument from Richard’s work (http://www.ae911truth.net/ppt_web/slideshow.php).

GL,

Terral

Where is the evidence the AEFrauds for 9-11 Troof are offering of a CD? Where is any evidence, AEFrauds for 9-11 Troof or elsewhere, of a CD?

Why can't you produce any? Where is your paper proving CD? What is your evidence?

I'm not aware of anything that these frauds have written than as NOT been debunked.

You can start with a compendium of papers and sites debunking the "work" of Stephen Jones, Richard Gage, etc.

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/theyoughtaknowbetter%3Acritiquesoftheinept

Don't fear exposing yourself to the truth about 9-11: it wasn't an inside job or CD. Sorry to rain on your kindergarten happy-super-fun hour. More debunking of your idols:

http://forums.randi.org/local_links.php?action=jump&id=106&catid=18
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=1
http://forums.randi.org/local_links.php?action=jump&id=86&catid=18
http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/sciam/

there's also the search function here at JREF where you can access any number of threads addressing every single point or lack-of-a-point you've posited here in your meaningless quest to divert people's attention from the truth about 9-11.

It doesn't take an expert to refute and debunk the distortions, bad science and outright lies of self-appointed "experts" on 9-11 like AEFrauds for 9-11 Troof or yourself.

The mere fact that your 9-11 Troof cult has not produced anything contribution of significance to the actual truth and physical reality of what happed on 9-11 (most recently underscored by the non-starter campaign of your EPICFAIL Presidential candidate named Ron Paul) is a testament to the utter idiocy of the movement's core beliefs and their desperate attempts to prop up those insane beliefs with bad science, misrepresentations, lies, quote mining, incompetent analyses, paranoia, logical fallacies and, quite frankly, world-class stupidity.

Thanks for playing, and continue deluding yourself.

[Redtail]

Hi Brain:




Thank you for asking a good question. The answer is in the “C” of the “CD” acronym, which means “Controlled Demolition.” The Demolition Team produced the Silverstein desired result for whatever he was willing to pay. However, buildings fires have nothing to do with ‘control’ and this CD job had NOTHING to do with any building fires, WTC-1 debris, 19 Bearded Jihadist Radicals (http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/3320063.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=86F19F6C94FCC84F80381553BD8DFACBA55A1E4F32AD3138 ) or any other related Cover Story Nonsense . . .

GL,

Terral

... WHAT!?!??

[GreNME]

Hi Brain:




Thank you for asking a good question. The answer is in the “C” of the “CD” acronym, which means “Controlled Demolition.” The Demolition Team produced the Silverstein desired result for whatever he was willing to pay. However, buildings fires have nothing to do with ‘control’ and this CD job had NOTHING to do with any building fires, WTC-1 debris, 19 Bearded Jihadist Radicals (http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/3320063.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=86F19F6C94FCC84F80381553BD8DFACBA55A1E4F32AD3138 ) or any other related Cover Story Nonsense . . .

GL,

Terral

Is it possible for you to be just a tiny bit less of a bigot, please?

[16.5]

Swing:

Hey welcome back, we missed you at the end of the list of Gravy error thread! Say, pal, why don't we do this: feel free to share your most withering critiques of Bolo's article. That Gravy thread went on for pages and pages, and I think maybe you might have caught a spelling error in one of Gravy's posts. Maybe you can meet that high standard of Twoofer scholarship here?

Have at it!

[Jonnyclueless]

Bullony. The WTC-7 collapse (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WTC7_Collapse.mpg) was ‘symmetrical’ (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/symmetry.html) like both of the Twin Towers, which had NOTHING to do with any building fires at all. None. I hope your ‘debunking’ of Richard’s work is based upon more than just ‘talk, talk, talk’ with no evidence based anywhere in reality. Building fires do NOT (http://www.schwabcorp.com/faqs.htm#fire_safe) burn hot enough to even play a role (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uNbKJofv3c) in the symmetrical collapse of any steel-framed skyscraper. Period. Now I am beginning to wonder about Bolo’s credentials in the architectural field for him to be making these wild unsupportable claims . . .

Terral

So what you're saying is that you have no understanding about what you're talking about. I guess that would go along with your ignoring the post pointing out that your lisc isn't listed. That would make sense.

[Jonnyclueless]

dupe

[peteweaver]

Hi Good:




Really? Where is Good’s WTC-7 Thesis Paper or your Pentagon Thesis Paper? I would settle for your rebuttal to ANY Controlled Demolition paper from Richard Gage (http://www.ae911truth.org/), Dr. Steven Jones (http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2006/WTC-Jones19mar06.htm) or anyone. Please help me to locate your work ASAP, and I will be happy to stand in as the CD champion and allow these readers to decide for themselves. All of your two-sentence drivel combined on this thread does not equal one argument from Richard’s work (http://www.ae911truth.net/ppt_web/slideshow.php).

GL,

Terral

Terral, if those papers are 'that good' why haven't they been sent to a real engineering journal like ASCE for peer review?

Answer cos they're cobblers.

[1337m4n]

AE911Truth inflates their numbers using deception, they have maybe 50 qualified people and the rest are things like "software engineer" and "computer programmer" and "concerned citizen". I don't know how people like Terral and Swing can consider them to be an honest organization.

[chillzero]

Terral, Swingdangler, perhaps you could each remember Rule 12, and discuss the topic rather than attacking the member?

[twinstead]

If I were Terral and SD I would be really pushing for the truth movement to publish something in a real engineering journal like ASCE if only to shut us up about it.

Obviously you think such a paper would easily pass legitimate peer review, or you wouldn't be holding the position you do. Doesn't it bother you that none has been submitted?

[ckent2]

bolo, I'm a fan of your efforts so far. Great job.

I wondered if Terral wanted to reply to DGM's question regarding the existence of his license in the state of Florida...

Terral:
Your profile at AE 911 truth states you are a General contractor and demolition supervisor. Both of these require licenses in the state of Florida. You are not listed as holding a license in that state.

Did you lie to Richard?

[1337m4n]

Terral, Swingdangler, perhaps you could each remember Rule 12, and discuss the topic rather than attacking the member?

ROFL, even the mods are starting to get fed up with these guys.

[D'rok]

This is more nonsense from what appears to be a fellow without even a clue. The ‘gouge’ arguments actually work against your ‘Building Fire’ hypothesis, because of the same ‘symmetrical’ collapse situation described above. Your problem is that we have pictures of WTC-7 collapsing in full freefall mode here (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/fig-5-20.jpg) (from this website (http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_ch5.htm)) and NONE of the windows are broken and NONE of the windows show the signs of building fires at all. Another picture (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/fig-5-23.jpg) shows clear evidence of Controlled Demolition, as the center of WTC-7 is collapsing more quickly than the two sides. How does falling debris cause an overbuilt 47-story skyscraper to collapse in just a few hours? If your ‘gouges’ caused the collapse, then why did the building fall straight down and not to ‘your’ damaged side? :0) How does Bolo explain this (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/9-11Picture1.jpg) being transformed into this (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/wtc7-debris.jpg) in just a few hours? :0) Never mind, Bolo, because we both know you are here to ‘talk, talk, talk’ and prove nothing at all . .

I'm just a lowly lurker...but something smells fishy here. (Bolded). Freefall you say?

ETA:

this telltale ‘kink’ in the roofline (http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c266/Terral03/fig-5-23.jpg), as the 47-story skyscraper is collapsing at freefall speed

Stranger and stranger.

[DGM]

Yup, Terral:
No problems with fire in this building.:rolleyes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afb7eUHr64U

[1337m4n]

Swing Dangler:

Why do you think AE911Truth inflates their numbers and deceptively makes it look as though they have more qualified experts than they actually do?

I would like to hear your explanation of this.

[pomeroo]

Can you source who you are and your credentials? Nevermind, I withstood the opening parts of the site.
Please update the thread when you become an architect or engineer and not one gained from a play!. Then, you might be able to hold a candle to the following:
Seven Senior Federal Engineers and Scientists Call for New 9/11 Investigation (http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alan_mil_071211_seven_senior_federal.htm)

Your response to the FEMA melted steel point in the email exchange sums it up quite nicely:



Why won't any of your fellow liars explain to the BBC's wordwide audience what the real researchers are missing?

[Christopher7]

Yup, Terral:
No problems with fire in this building.:rolleyes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afb7eUHr64UThose fires were at the SW corner.
They had nothing to do with the collapse at the other end of the building.

The fires at the end of the video were on floors 11 and 12 on the east face, between 2:00 and 3:00 p.m.
These were in the area of the initiating event [AIE].
The fire on floor 11 did not progress along the east face to the north face.
Fire on floor 11 near the middle of the north face around 4:45 p.m.
The fire on floor 12 had burned out by this time.
There were also fires on floors 8 and 13 in the east end of WTC 7 sometime after 3:00 p.m.

These were the only fires in the AIE.

[boloboffin]

Your account of the fires in 7 is factually inaccurate, Christopher7.

From 11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.:

* No diesel smells reported from the exterior, stairwells, or lobby areas
* No signs of fire or smoke were reported below the 6th Floor from the exterior, stairwells or lobby areas
* In the east stairwell, smoke was observed around Floors 19 or 20, and a signs of a fully involved fire on the south side of Floor 23 were heard/seen/smelled from Floor 22.
* Interviews place a fire on Floor 7 at the west wall, toward the south side, at approximately

12:15 p.m.

* From West and Vesey Streets near the Verizon Building, fires were observed in floors estimated to be numbered in the 20s and 30s.

Looking from the southwest corner at the south face:

* Fire was seen in the southwest corner near Floor 10 or 11
* Fire was seen on Floors 6, 7, 8, 21, and 30
* Heavy black smoke came out of a large, multi-story gash in the south face

Looking from the southeast corner of the south face:

* Fire seen on Floor 14 (reported floor number) on south face; the face above the fire was covered with smoke
* Fire on Floor 14 moved towards the east face

Looking at the east face:

* Fire on Floor 14 (reported floor) moved along east face toward the north side

Photographs and videos were used with these interview accounts to document fire progression in the building. The fires seen in photographs and videos are summarized:

Before 2:00 p.m.

* Figures L-22a shows fires that had burned out by early afternoon on Floors 19, 21, 22, 29, and 30 along the west face near the southwest corner.

2:00 to 2:30 p.m.

* Figure L-24a shows fires on east face Floors 11 and 12 at the southeast corner. Several photos during this time show fires progressing north.

3:00 to 5:00 p.m.

* Around 3 p.m., fires were observed on Floors 7 and 12 along the north face. The fire on Floor 12 appeared to bypass the northeast corner and was first observed at a point approximately one third of the width from the northeast corner, and then spread both east and west across the north face.
* Some time later, fires were observed on Floors 8 and 13, with the fire on Floor 8 moving from west to east and the fire on Floor 13 moving from east to west. Figure L-24b shows fires on Floors 7 and 12.
* At this time, the fire on Floor 7 appeared to have stopped progressing near the middle of the north face.
* The fire on Floor 8 continued to move east on the north face, eventually reaching the northeast corner and moving to the east face.
* Around 4:45 p.m., a photograph showed fires Floors 7, 8, 9, and 11 near the middle of the north face; Floor 12 was burned out by this time.


That's what the NIST Interim Report documented back in June 2004.

[boloboffin]

As of right now, the old slideshow is no longer available on AE911Truth's website. I was just checking some slides and discovered that they had all been pulled.

However, the slide on the front page is still from the old slideshow set, not the new one, and the Gage-disavowed argument about squibs is still present in both the new slideshow and the front page.

Gage can flush this all down the memory hole, but he can't hide.

[Christopher7]

Your account of the fires in 7 is factually inaccurate, Christopher7.

That's what the NIST Interim Report documented back in June 2004.I listed all the fires in the AIE [area of the initiating event]
The fires at the SW corner did not contribute to the initiating event.

[Christopher7]

As of right now, the old slideshow is no longer available on AE911Truth's website. I was just checking some slides and discovered that they had all been pulled.

However, the slide on the front page is still from the old slideshow set, not the new one, and the Gage-disavowed argument about squibs is still present in both the new slideshow and the front page.

Gage can flush this all down the memory hole, but he can't hide.There was a discussion at 911 Blogger and Richard decided to drop the reference to the squibs at the request of vesa who pointed out the flaws in that argument.

[Arus808]

I listed all the fires in the AIE [area of the initiating event]
The fires at the SW corner did not contribute to the initiating event.


sure, you have evidence of this claim? What if the fires were created from those that CAUSED the initating event?

speculating without proof? I can do it too

[boloboffin]

I listed all the fires in the AIE [area of the initiating event]
The fires at the SW corner did not contribute to the initiating event.

sure, you have evidence of this claim? What if the fires were created from those that CAUSED the initating event?

speculating without proof? I can do it too

Exactly as Arus said. Those are the observable fires. The NIST Final Report ran computer models on the likelihood of fires on floor 5 which would not have been observable outside.

There was a discussion at 911 Blogger and Richard decided to drop the reference to the squibs at the request of vesa who pointed out the flaws in that argument.

It's been over 30 days since (as I said) Gage disavowed that argument, Christopher. It's still loud and proud on the front page, and in the new slideshow. How hard is it to rewrite some HTML? Doesn't anybody have a copy of PowerPoint to whip up five or six new slides?

And since he's pulled the old slideshow, when is he going to disappear the video presentation that uses it? He is going to make sure all the copies (besides the one I've downloaded) disappear, isn't he?

[Christopher7]

Exactly as Arus said. Those are the observable fires. The NIST Final Report ran computer models on the likelihood of fires on floor 5 which would not have been observable outside.They have since given up on the diesel fuel fire on floor 5.[NIST 12-18-07]

It's been over 30 days since (as I said) Gage disavowed that argument, Christopher. It's still loud and proud on the front page, and in the new slideshow. How hard is it to rewrite some HTML? Doesn't anybody have a copy of PowerPoint to whip up five or six new slides?
And since he's pulled the old slideshow, when is he going to disappear the video presentation that uses it? He is going to make sure all the copies (besides the one I've downloaded) disappear, isn't he?I don't know.

It is definitely something that need to be corrected but it's not a major point.

"All the columns failed at the same time" needs to be corrected too.
I'll email Richard and inform him that columns 79, 80 and/or 81 failed first and about 6 seconds later the rest of the core columns failed.

Is there anything else?

[Christopher7]

sure, you have evidence of this claim? I listed the fires in the AIE as stated in NIST Apx. L

There were NO reports of fire below the 8th floor in the AIE and no reason to believe that there were any.

[R.Mackey]

They have since given up on the diesel fuel fire on floor 5.[NIST 12-18-07]


NIST gave up on the diesel fuel fire causing collapse, not that it happened at all. This is reasonable given the predicted burnout of diesel was much faster than the collapse.

[boloboffin]

They have since given up on the diesel fuel fire on floor 5.[NIST 12-18-07]

Given up? They said that their working hypothesis has never relied on the diesel fuel.

I don't know.

It is definitely something that need to be corrected but it's not a major point.

Yes, it is. Without "squibs", you don't have any evidence of explosive devices in WTC 7. Of course, the seismographs are positive evidence of no explosive devices in WTC 7, since they lack any of the identifiable spikes associated with demo charges.

This means that Gage's entire argument is shot. He says that 7 demonstrates ALL the characteristic features of controlled demolition using explosives (CDUE). However, his list is something he feels free to alter as the mood strikes. He's already added "microspheres" to the list (and how is that a feature of CDUE?), and now he's either got to remove "squibs" or start saying MOST.

"All the columns failed at the same time" needs to be corrected too.
I'll email Richard and inform him that columns 79, 80 and/or 81 failed first and about 6 seconds later the rest of the core columns failed.

Actually the rest of the core columns failed progressively, as you can tell by the west penthouse sinking from east to west before the exterior walls start to fall. This is consistent with the building failing in the 79-81 area first and destroying the transfer trusses holding the rest of the internal structure up. THEN the perimeter columns, and on that you guys should listen to Danny Jowenko. He doesn't think that charges were necessary on the perimeter columns.

Jowenko only thinks charges were necessary on the core columns, but when you examine the actual structure, even they are not necessary. As the seismograph and audio evidence shows, they weren't there at all. 7 fell due to a classic progressive collapse.

Is there anything else?

http://ae911truth.info

As I said in the first post, Gage hasn't provided conclusive evidence for ANY of his characteristic features of CDUE. There is more evidence for his characteristic features of destruction by fire.

Gage is spreading lies behind the banner of patriotism. In that alone, he is a menace, no better than the political figures he excoriates. He's no different than Uri Gellar or Sylvia Brown. I won't be satisfied until he takes down the Paypal button and closes up shop for good.

[DGM]

Boloboffin:

Excellent work!!!!!!!

After an email confrontation with Gage last year I applaud your patience in dealing with his blatant lies and deception. I can't quote from our last exchange due to the rule 10 infractions but needless to say my patience had reached it's end. I hope you don't mind that I linked to your work in my sig and hope you keep up the great work. Thanks again.

[boloboffin]

Boloboffin:

Excellent work!!!!!!!

After an email confrontation with Gage last year I applaud your patience in dealing with his blatant lies and deception. I can't quote from our last exchange due to the rule 10 infractions but needless to say my patience had reached it's end. I hope you don't mind that I linked to your work in my sig and hope you keep up the great work. Thanks again.

Thanks, DGM! It's a lot easier to deal with Gage the way I am. I just don't have time to deal with an email exchange from Gage or his minions. After seeing a couple of videos of him in action, I just don't think that would be a good use of anyone's time, LOL.

Thanks for the link and keep up the good work!

[Christopher7]

Given up? They said that their working hypothesis has never relied on the diesel fuel.FEMA dedicated 4 pages to diesel fuel fires and NIST included the possibility of diesel fuel fires in it's summary.
Normal building fires don't burn hot enough to heat a column weighing over 4 tons per floor to over 1000° F. [on 4 contiguous floors]
Fire temp:
http://www.schwabcorp.com/faqs.htm#fire_safe
8) How adequate is a fire safe product rated for (http://www.schwabcorp.com/faqs.htm#fire_safe)one hour during a fire? (http://www.schwabcorp.com/faqs.htm#fire_safe)Answer: A typical fire burns at around 800°F. As it passes through the building, the fire's intensity changes as flammable items are consumed. Fires usually average only 20 minutes in any location.

Yes, it is. Without "squibs", you don't have any evidence of explosive devices in WTC 7. Of course, the seismographs are positive evidence of no explosive devices in WTC 7, since they lack any of the identifiable spikes associated with demo charges.I've heard just the opposite about the seismic data.
Your source?

Actually the rest of the core columns failed progressively, as you can tell by the west penthouse sinking from east to west before the exterior walls start to fall. Not so.
The screenwall and the west penthouse fall at the same time.
NIST L-33
"The simultaneous failure of screenwall and west penthouse structures,"

This is consistent with the building failing in the 79-81 area first and destroying the transfer trusses holding the rest of the internal structure up.The transfer trusses did NOT hold up the rest of the internal structure nor did they cause a horizontal progression.
See this post
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3416966#post3416966

THEN the perimeter columns, and on that you guys should listen to Danny Jowenko. He doesn't think that charges were necessary on the perimeter columns.I agree with Danny.
Richard and others who are saying "all the columns failed at the same time" need to change their statements accordingly.

7 fell due to a classic progressive collapse.Pg L-51 The working hypothesis, for the collapse of the 47-story WTC 7, if it holds up upon further analysis, would suggest that it was a classic progressive collapse ...
classic:
1]top quality, the highest quality
2]definitive , a standard of it’s kind
Progressive collapses of the kind in WTC 7 have occurred only in controlled demolitions.
WTC 7 imploded [fell in on itself and straight down - FEMA 5-31].
Building implosion is a fine art. It cannot happen by chance.

[boloboffin]

FEMA dedicated 4 pages to diesel fuel fires and NIST included the possibility of diesel fuel fires in it's summary.
Normal building fires don't burn hot enough to heat a column weighing over 4 tons per floor to over 1000° F. [on 4 contiguous floors]
Fire temp:
http://www.schwabcorp.com/faqs.htm#fire_safe
8) How adequate is a fire safe product rated for (http://www.schwabcorp.com/faqs.htm#fire_safe)one hour during a fire? (http://www.schwabcorp.com/faqs.htm#fire_safe)Answer: A typical fire burns at around 800°F. As it passes through the building, the fire's intensity changes as flammable items are consumed. Fires usually average only 20 minutes in any location.

Including the possibility doesn't mean the working hypothesis is dependent on it. Calling it a possibility is rather clearly NOT basing the working hypothesis on it.

I've heard just the opposite about the seismic data.
Your source?

You're heard wrong. Brett Blanchard (http://www.ae911truth.info/pdf/blanchard_implosion.pdf) of ImplosionWorld.com.

Any detonation powerful enough to defeat steel columns would have transferred excess energy through those same columns into the ground, and would certainly have been detected by at least one of the monitors that were sensitive enough to record the structural collapses.

Continuing...

Not so.
The screenwall and the west penthouse fall at the same time.
NIST L-33
"The simultaneous failure of screenwall and west penthouse structures,"

LOOK AT IT ON VIDEO. The literal-mindedness of the CT crowd is worthy of fundamentalist Christians. The west penthouse clearly sinks into the building from east to west as the columns underneath it fail from east to west.

The transfer trusses did NOT hold up the rest of the internal structure nor did they cause a horizontal progression.
See this post
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3416966#post3416966

Your mistake there is assuming that the strength of TT#2 was what pulls the internal structure. I'm saying that TT#2 is ripped in half, and no longer supports the internal structure. It isn't TT#2's pull, but the push from the mass of the structure unleashed that signals the beginning of the horizontal failure.

I agree with Danny.
Richard and others who are saying "all the columns failed at the same time" need to change their statements accordingly.

Yay.

Pg L-51 The working hypothesis, for the collapse of the 47-story WTC 7, if it holds up upon further analysis, would suggest that it was a classic progressive collapse ...
classic:
1]top quality, the highest quality
2]definitive , a standard of it’s kind
Progressive collapses of the kind in WTC 7 have occurred only in controlled demolitions.
WTC 7 imploded [fell in on itself and straight down - FEMA 5-31].
Building implosion is a fine art. It cannot happen by chance.


Hoo boy. FEMA doesn't use the term implosion to imply explosive devices. It is REALLY time for you guys to stop pretending that they did.

[Christopher7]

Including the possibility doesn't mean the working hypothesis is dependent on it. Calling it a possibility is rather clearly NOT basing the working hypothesis on it.Agreed

You're heard wrong. Brett Blanchard (http://www.ae911truth.info/pdf/blanchard_implosion.pdf) of ImplosionWorld.com.I'll study his report, find the alternate report, and get back to you.

LOOK AT IT ON VIDEO. The west penthouse clearly sinks into the building from east to west as the columns underneath it fail from east to west.In about 1/2 second. Most people, including the experts at NIST would say:
"The simultaneous failure of screenwall and west penthouse structures,"

A steel frame building could not 'progressively' collapse that fast without explosives.
The closely spaced core column failures, east to west, is precisely what would happen in a CD after clearing out a hole in the east end.
This sequence causes the building to IMPLODE, which is what it did.

Your mistake there is assuming that the strength of TT#2 was what pulls the internal structure. I'm saying that TT#2 is ripped in half, and no longer supports the internal structure. It isn't TT#2's pull, but the push from the mass of the structure unleashed that signals the beginning of the horizontal failure.
Actually, that was NIST's mistake
Figure L-49 assumes the east half of T2 has been taken out by falling debris.
Figure 5-8 shows the detail of T2.
The girder connection in the center of T2 is the weakest point and will fail before bending a built up column weighing 730 pounds per lineal ft.

http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/1120/l49ja3.jpg

http://img182.imageshack.us/img182/4788/t2esp7.jpg



FEMA doesn't use the term implosion to imply explosive devices. How do you know?

They used it twice. [pg 30 & 31]

Repeating something is to emphasize it.

Did it ever occur to you that the honest people at FEMA and NIST put some truth in what they knew was a BS report?

[boloboffin]

In about 1/2 second. Most people, including the experts at NIST would say:
"The simultaneous failure of screenwall and west penthouse structures,"

More fun with the word "simultaneous" in the NIST Interim Report on Building 7:

p. L-34 - "Since the screenwall and west penthouse fell almost simultaneously, it is reasonable to assume that the horizontal progression captured all the columns that support these building parts."

p. L-51 - "The horizontal progression requires further analysis and investigation, but observations indicate that the remaining core columns appeared to fail almost simultaneously, approximately 5 second after the east penthouse failed."

Once again the extreme literal-mindedness of alternate theorists fails them.

A steel frame building could not 'progressively' collapse that fast without explosives.
The closely spaced core column failures, east to west, is precisely what would happen in a CD after clearing out a hole in the east end.
This sequence causes the building to IMPLODE, which is what it did.

Yes, it could, with sufficient force generated from the failure of crucial transfer trusses.

Actually, that was NIST's mistake
Figure L-49 assumes the east half of T2 has been taken out by falling debris.
Figure 5-8 shows the detail of T2.
The girder connection in the center of T2 is the weakest point and will fail before bending a built up column weighing 730 pounds per lineal ft.

No, that is your mistake. From the NIST Interim Report:

If one of the diagonals of truss # 2 and/or the east transfer girder was damaged or severed by collapse debris from the vertical progression, there would be a horizontal force developed in the Floor 7 slab as columns 77 and 78 became unstable.

The horizontal force is coming from the slab in the T2 failure sequence, NOT from T2. The truss fails, the columns become unstable, and the lack of the east crossbracing creates the horizontal force. That's what NIST is saying there. They are NOT saying that T2 pulls the column apart.

How do you know?

They used it twice. [pg 30 & 31]

Repeating something is to emphasize it.

Did it ever occur to you that the honest people at FEMA and NIST put some truth in what they knew was a BS report?

How do I know that FEMA didn't mean to imply explosive devices by the use of the term "implosion"?????? Because they didn't mention explosive devices at all in their report!

Are you honestly suggesting that the "honest folks at FEMA and NIST" are playing Jeremiah Denton here, trying to signal to the oh-so-clever people that it really was a controlled demolition? REALLY?

[Christopher7]

More fun with the word "simultaneous" in the NIST Interim Report on Building 7:
Almost simultaneous, is more accurate but it ain't no big deal.
My point is, most people would say simultaneous because they don't consider the qualifier 'almost' to be necessary.
You may use the qualifiers 'almost' and 'mostly' when describing the implosion of WTC 7 if you like, but don't be upset if others choose not to do so.

A steel frame building could not 'progressively' collapse that fast without explosives.
Yes, it could, with sufficient force generated from the failure of crucial transfer trusses.No, i just showed you that T2 could not buckle 1 column sideways, much less 5.

The girder connection in the center of T2 is the weakest point and will fail before bending a built up column weighing 730 pounds per lineal ft.
No, that is your mistake.
Do you really think that the welded on splice plate in the center of T2 is strong enough to bend a built up column weighing 730 pounds per lineal ft.?

http://img61.imageshack.us/img61/7948/nistw28smlk9.jpg
http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/5149/t2eend0.jpg

From the NIST Interim Report:
The horizontal force is coming from the slab in the T2 failure sequence, NOT from T2. The truss fails, the columns become unstable, and the lack of the east crossbracing creates the horizontal force. That's what NIST is saying there. They are NOT saying that T2 pulls the column apart.They are describing and graphically depicting T2 pulling 5 columns sideways.
[column 62 not shown]

http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/1120/l49ja3.jpg

The hypothesis assumes the falling debris has taken out the east half of T2.
Therefore, floor 7, and all the floors above it, between 80 and 77, are no longer there.

T2 was supporting column 77. When the east half of it was taken out, the 41 floor slabs above floor 6, between 77 and 74, started falling and pushed downward on what was left of T2 through column 77.
Somethings gotta give.
It would not be the 5 columns bending and breaking at splices as depicted.
It would be the the girder to column 77 splice.
http://img118.imageshack.us/img118/9232/fl7ebs9.png


Are you honestly suggesting that the "honest folks at FEMA and NIST" are trying to signal people that it really was a controlled demolition? The term 'implosion' was coined by the Loizeaux family to describe the fine art of getting a building to fall in on itself using timed explosions.
No building has ever imploded that was not a CD.

[beachnut]

No building has ever imploded that was not a CD. LOL, lol, wow.
Willie Nelson: Twin Towers Were Imploded On 9/11; oops, there was no explosives on 9/11. Willie used the term wrong, or is he just making it up; or stupid?
Imploded, Formed by implosion. A violent collapse inward; oops, WTC imploded without explosives.
I wonder what looks like an implosion means. Did someone say implosion for some WTC buildings and the idiot dictionary police say it has to be CD? Dumber than dirt.
So we can say the WTC imploded; the term is in the dictionary, and it means a violent collapse inward; kind of like the over 100 tons of TNT release of KE at the WTC. Just how stupid is 9/11 truth to make up CD of the WTC with zero evidence. Witnesses to the gravity collapse of all three buildings. Funny stuff, CD does not get exclusive use of a word. Sorry, failed point, match, game.

More examples with no CD. The building imploded from the massive weight of the top section falling on the lower section. The building imploded after the internal structure began to fail, exacerbated by a major structure falling through the central section several seconds before implosion. After fires raged all day, the structural literally imploded.

Why can I use implosion? Because I can. Implosion means - a sudden inward collapse; collapse - a natural event caused by something suddenly falling down or caving in; the roof is in danger of collapse; gravitational collapse - the implosion of a building resulting from its own gravity -

I can use implosion. No CD required.
You have got to be joking. That is one dumb thing to say.

[boloboffin]

Almost simultaneous, is more accurate but it ain't no big deal.
My point is, most people would say simultaneous because they don't consider the qualifier 'almost' to be necessary.
You may use the qualifiers 'almost' and 'mostly' when describing the implosion of WTC 7 if you like, but don't be upset if others choose not to do so.

I will correct you and others if they use the term "simultaneous" to imply that the building was demolished with devices set by humans. At that point, an insistence on precise terminology is required.[/quote]


No, i just showed you that T2 could not buckle 1 column sideways, much less 5.


Do you really think that the welded on splice plate in the center of T2 is strong enough to bend a built up column weighing 730 pounds per lineal ft.?

Yay, you are right! Whoop-de-do. THAT'S NOT WHAT NIST IS SAYING.

You have proven something that no one is or should be disputing. T2 didn't rip the column loose, not in the NIST sequence of T2 failure.

http://img61.imageshack.us/img61/7948/nistw28smlk9.jpg
http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/5149/t2eend0.jpg

They are describing and graphically depicting T2 pulling 5 columns sideways.
[column 62 not shown]

http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/1120/l49ja3.jpg

The hypothesis assumes the falling debris has taken out the east half of T2.
Therefore, floor 7, and all the floors above it, between 80 and 77, are no longer there.

T2 was supporting column 77. When the east half of it was taken out, the 41 floor slabs above floor 6, between 77 and 74, started falling and pushed downward on what was left of T2 through column 77.
Somethings gotta give.
It would not be the 5 columns bending and breaking at splices as depicted.
It would be the the girder to column 77 splice.
http://img118.imageshack.us/img118/9232/fl7ebs9.png

I am aware that you are going to believe exactly what you want to believe about this. I have quoted the Interim Report to you and shown you exactly how you have misinterpreted that diagram. The NIST report is not saying what you claim. The failure of T2 created a horizonal force from the slab. That is what ripped the columns loose. It was not T2.

Since you show no signs of dispelling your illusion, there's no need for this conversation to continue.


The term 'implosion' was coined by the Loizeaux family to describe the fine art of getting a building to fall in on itself using timed explosions.
No building has ever imploded that was not a CD.

You didn't answer the question. Are you seriously suggesting that the "honest people at FEMA and NIST" are pulling a Jeremiah Denton here?

Implosion mean collapse into itself. That is what 7 World Trade did. This can be due to explosives, and it can be due to simple structural failure. FEMA was not saying that explosives were used. FEMA went on to describe several internal failure sequences and NONE of them used explosives to explain the implosion. THAT is why you can know that FEMA didn't think explosives were used.

[Christopher7]

I can use implosion. No CD required.
You have got to be joking. That is one dumb thing to say.

Stacy Loizeaux: The term "implosion" was coined by my grandmother back in, I guess, the '60s. It's a more descriptive way to explain what we do than "explosion." There are a series of small explosions, but the building itself isn't erupting outward. It's actually being pulled in on top of itself. What we're really doing is removing specific support columns within the structure and then cajoling the building in one direction or another, or straight down.

[boloboffin]

Stacy Loizeaux: The term "implosion" was coined by my grandmother back in, I guess, the '60s. It's a more descriptive way to explain what we do than "explosion." There are a series of small explosions, but the building itself isn't erupting outward. It's actually being pulled in on top of itself. What we're really doing is removing specific support columns within the structure and then cajoling the building in one direction or another, or straight down.

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g171/boloboffin2/911/stickdog.jpg

[beachnut]

Stacy Loizeaux: The term "implosion" was coined by my grandmother back in, I guess, the '60s. It's a more descriptive way to explain what we do than "explosion." There are a series of small explosions, but the building itself isn't erupting outward. It's actually being pulled in on top of itself. What we're really doing is removing specific support columns within the structure and then cajoling the building in one direction or another, or straight down.
Your lack of knowledge is due to experience? I heard the word implode in the 50s. Darn, beat by experience. You read the work of people who have more experience and they use a term you are unable to understand except in a 9/11 truth mode. Most people can think and use words well beyond your narrow experience and maturity.

You are making a simple error in using a term, and not understanding it is a word. You are confusing what you will learn to be procedures with technique. But that is an analogy I did not do well, but you could fix it if you had experience. I never paid much attention to your posts, but this shows me I was correct, your lack of knowledge and experience drives your ignorance on 9/11 issues. Nice for you to stumble and remind me.
At least you ego thinks you are right. And that is most important.

No building has ever imploded that was not a CD.I thought you said this wrong statement. It is still wrong.

[Christopher7]

you are right! THAT'S NOT WHAT NIST IS SAYING.
You are also right.
L-50
H1.4 Truss #2 and/or East Transfer Girder: If one of the diagonals of truss # 2 and/or the east transfer girder was damaged or severed by collapse debris from the vertical progression, there would be a horizontal force developed in the Floor 7 slab as columns 77 and 78 became unstable.
• H2.6 Collapse Does Not Progress: The Floor 7 slab may fail at adjacent columns prior to imposing lateral displacements sufficient to fail the columns or their splices.
• H2.7 Collapse Progresses: The horizontal tensile force would tend to pull the line of columns 74, 71, 68, 65, and 62 towards the east. The general absence of the Floor 7 slab and braced frames around the center core column line, due to the presence of elevators shafts, creates a more likely scenario for the simultaneous lateral displacement of the center core columns without similarly displacing other core columns. The possible result is a failure of all the columns at their splices, as shown in Fig. L–49.

http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/1120/l49ja3.jpg

They are saying that the floor 7 slab pulled 5 core columns sideways simultaneously.
This means that column 74 would have to BEND below floor 5 and break at 2 splice joints.
The other 4 columns would have to break at 3 splice joints.

Do you agree?

[funk de fino]

Stacy Loizeaux: The term "implosion" was coined by my grandmother back in, I guess, the '60s. It's a more descriptive way to explain what we do than "explosion." There are a series of small explosions, but the building itself isn't erupting outward. It's actually being pulled in on top of itself. What we're really doing is removing specific support columns within the structure and then cajoling the building in one direction or another, or straight down.

Show us again C7 where NIST use implosion instead of collapse?