Hardfire: Szamboti / Chandler / Mackey [Archive] - Page 5

Mangoose

25th November 2009, 02:24 AM

alienentity: This NBC video shows the tilt the best:

http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/2857/aniv.gif

Look particularly at these three things: (1) The tilt of the antenna, (2) the tilt of the northwest edge of the North Face, (3) The descent of the floor with fires on the East Face. Notice also that this is prior to any ejection of debris and dust clouds on the North Face, including the northwest corner.

The second really good video showing the tilt prior to any collapse on the North Face is the NBC video that appears on the National Geographic "Inside 9/11" video. It is the one that they very helpfully freeze-frame at the moment the collapse has reached the North Face, and up to that point we can see floor collapse on the West Face occur at the 98th Floor.

Several important observations can be made with this video:

First, the antenna mast starts dropping prior to any movement on the North Face. You can see it move relative to the white structure on the roof, the same one used in Tony's "Missing Jolt" paper as a marker. This shows that the upper block was leaning before this structure began to descend.

http://img65.imageshack.us/img65/9404/output2.gif

Now if we look at what is going on at the West Face during this brief moment, we can see the initial emergence of the dust cloud at the 98th Floor. This shows that the collapse began on the West Face prior to any collapse on the North Face. And if we look in further detail at the West Face, we can observe many other interesting things (consult your own copy of "Inside 9/11", as it is much clearer there in the original quality):

http://img260.imageshack.us/img260/4963/r1a.gif

(1) Prior to the dust cloud emerging at the 98th Floor, a fire flares up near the southwest corner at the 95th Floor (at column 405). This flare-up occurs simultaneous with the initial descent of the antenna mast. (2) Then in the next second, still prior to the dust cloud emerging on the 98th Floor, we can see a localized collapse occuring on the 96th and 97th Floors between columns 410-420. (3) When that happens, the fire directly above on Floor 104 (at columns 405-415) flares up and begins to descend. (4) It is then that we see a dust cloud appear on the 98th Floor, first around column 420 and then shooting northward across the West Face until it reaches the northwest corner (this is seen best frame by frame, as it occurs across just 5-7 frames).

The Sauret video shows that the earliest visible sign of column failure on the North Face occurred on the 94th and 95th Floors at the impact site, not on the 98th Floor above:

http://img203.imageshack.us/img203/6802/94646677.gif

Finally there is the helicopter video taken of the South Face at initiation (here sped up 3x), and it shows that the earliest sign of activity in fact was on the South Face in the area where bowed columns were photographed just minutes earlier:

http://img382.imageshack.us/img382/8177/asas.gif

TruthersLie

25th November 2009, 04:39 AM

There would be no seismic record if joints were heated or hydraulics were used to remove the columns of the first eight to nine floors to collapse in WTC 1. Even small explosives used that high probably wouldn't produce a seismic record. After that the collapse could probably proceed on it's own as at that point the floors outside the core would collapse due to a quasi-static overload.

The problem is that in the early stages there needed to be a jolt and there isn't one. You can't take out the core without one. It really is that simple.

Ummm tony.

Just a simple question.
HOw sensitive were the seismographs which recorded the collapse?

(do you know?) I know what I have read (no I don't have a citation) that any explosives over 20 lbs would have been transferred through the columns to the ground and detected.

are you saying they used less than 20lbs of explosives to bring down the towers?

BasqueArch

25th November 2009, 07:23 AM

Posted by Tony Szamboti
In the real world demolitions are done by removing a certain amount of structure and allowing momentum to build and then there is a jolt to destroy the lower intact structure.

Finally TS admits gravity-only can collapse remainder of structure.

Posted by Tony SzambotiI guess it is too hard for you to realize that the structure can just as well continue to be removed but it is cheaper to let gravity do some of the work in a legitimate CD.

Finally TS admits gravity-only can collapse remainder of structure.

Posted by Tony Szamboti In the real world buildings with huge amounts of reserve strength do not crumble without any evidence of a dynamic load. Ryan didn't explain how the central core came down without a jolt.

The central core WTC1,2 didn’t come down first, WTC1 south perimeter wall failed first, tilted that direction. WTC2 east perimeter wall failed first, tilted that direction. Tilt = columns above hit floors below not columns below = no jolt.

Posted by Tony SzambotiAdditionally, the NIST does a gigantic hand wave to get the east and west walls to just sympathetically fail due to the alleged demise of the south wall. They don't have the stresses in their analysis to show why they would collapse. No jolt does imply controlled demolition and nobody has shown any calculations to prove otherwise. Wrong.

1) Tilt = columns above hit floors below not columns below = no jolt.

2) Bazant has provided calculations TS hasn't read, calculates tilt of 2.8 degrees sheared columns on failed floor.
“Appendix II. Why Didn’t the Upper Part Pivot About Its Base?” Pp. 5.6
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf

3) Pictures of WTC2 north wall perimeter columns sheared off , not buckled, exploded, hydraulicked, as east wall collapsed- per Bazant’s analysis.
http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images/pagemaster/collapse9smhj6.jpg

Posted by Tony Szamboti
There would be no seismic record if joints were heated or hydraulics were used to remove the columns of the first eight to nine floors to collapse in WTC 1. Even small explosives used that high probably wouldn't produce a seismic record. After that the collapse could probably proceed on it's own as at that point the floors outside the core would collapse due to a quasi-static overload.

1) TS abandons explosives at core columns every three floors, adopts new flapdoodle - hydraulics verinage
2) Heated or hydraulics at core columns would have collapsed core first, didn’t happen, WTC1,2 perimeter collapsed first.
3) Finally TS admits gravity-only can collapse remainder of structure.
4) Smaller Part C can crush larger Part A, Heiwa betrayed.
5) Perimeter columns not propelled 600 feet horizontally, Chandler betrayed.
6) Pyroclastic clouds produced by gravity-only collapse, Gage betrayed.

================================================== =
You can't reason someone out of something they were not reasoned into. - Swift

Julio

25th November 2009, 07:33 AM

I'm not an expert on the details of the collapse but I know of a video that shows the core column for one of the towers was left standing for several seconds after the exterior columns and floors were on the ground, or close to it.

http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg

And also, the core can be seen in "Eyewitness", by Rick Seagal.

BigAl

25th November 2009, 07:33 AM

Ummm tony.

Just a simple question.
HOw sensitive were the seismographs which recorded the collapse?

(do you know?) I know what I have read (no I don't have a citation) that any explosives over 20 lbs would have been transferred through the columns to the ground and detected.

are you saying they used less than 20lbs of explosives to bring down the towers?

I think a look at the blasting manual I linked to below will show that 20 pounds of C4 doesn't cut a very large beam by WTC standards.

cantonear1968

25th November 2009, 08:00 AM

For my first jref post I just wanted to say what an excellent show this was. Ryan, a fantastic job of staying on point and arguing the science behind the collapses. Very, very informative. Mr. Szamboti, I congratulate you as well for appearing, as most from the truther movement will not come on and debate their position; David Ray Grifiin being most notable. And I also appreciated Ron's sometimes sides notes (to the annoyment of Ryan!) of how AE911truth's position completely contradicts facts outside of the science that they cannot explain or have completely ignored.

A good show all around, but my hope is that we are on the path to making these debates unnecessary.

cantonear1968

25th November 2009, 08:20 AM

Jono

25th November 2009, 08:59 AM

I'm certainly not a structural engineering expert, I have however smithed, heated, bent, pounded, twisted more steel in my career than most. The information oft abridged on the fires and structural movement of the WTC's is enough for me to explain what I did see in a reasonable manner.

I've had to work with steel in varying temperatures, but I had no idea people (up until recent years) thought steel to have these supermaterial qualities.

It doesn't it.
Very often, of course, I used furnaces or ovens. But for example, the reserve bar-holder where I had to put the pieces at first to just gently get them ready, like say 2 inch thick/1 foot long steel bars, experienced a moderate temperature of "only" 400-500 Celsius. And I was standing right next to it, fortunately the fan worked most of the time which blew the hot air to the sides.

After circa 10 minutes of exposure on the reserve bar-holder, the steel was far from melting point yet still I could take a hammer to it or a simple dime-store compressor and really mess it up beyond use. Heck, they used to be able to forge swords with such "low" temperatures back in the day. And a normal office fire can reach more than 2-3 times that temperature. Steel is strong, no doubt about it, but if it's not packed isolated inside concrete (or has otherwise wicked protection) then for God's sake keep it as far away from fire if you depend on it to hold up tons and tons of pressure.
Also, if the spray-on fire-proofing can be scraped off by your mere fingers, I wouldn't count on it when a plane smashes into it.

R.Mackey

25th November 2009, 10:12 AM

I did want to ask one question that was raised at the beginning of the show and was not revisited: it had to do with Szamboti's claim about Bazant's overestimation of the yield strength of the beams by a factor of 10. This has been quoted several times but I haven't found anything on it. I can appreciate that this may have been discussed before so even just a link to a thread on this subject would be appreciated.

Welcome to the Forum, glad you enjoyed the program.

This topic was handled earlier in this thread itself, here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5166056#post5166056).

In brief, Tony's assumptions that lead him to conclude Dr. Bazant underestimated the strength (actually "toughness," or aggregate energy absorption, not "strength" which is a measure of maximum load) are based on the following errors:

Uses a "first principles" analysis to estimate column strength rather than the actual structure -- some drafts making a bizarre and indefensible "spring constant" argument
Incorrectly treats columns as fully pinned, even during collapse
Incorrectly assumes columns buckle near material yield strain, instead of at elastic instability
Incorrectly assumes columns are loaded purely vertically during collapse
Incorrectly assumes structural strength is unchanged during collapse

In terms of strength, Tony has claimed that there was a Factor of Safety of 3 in the intact Towers, and more at the perimeter. This is wrong. NIST found this value to be closer to 2, as explained in the link above, and in its simulations describes how this reserve steadily eroded up until the point of collapse. NIST not only correctly predicts the onset of collapse, it also comes up with a reasonably good estimate of when, for both Towers. The Truth Movement, of course, waves this study away entirely on the thinnest of excuses.

Newtons Bit

25th November 2009, 10:26 AM

Welcome to the Forum, glad you enjoyed the program.

This topic was handled earlier in this thread itself, here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5166056#post5166056).

In brief, Tony's assumptions that lead him to conclude Dr. Bazant underestimated the strength (actually "toughness," or aggregate energy absorption, not "strength" which is a measure of maximum load) are based on the following errors:

Uses a "first principles" analysis to estimate column strength rather than the actual structure -- some drafts making a bizarre and indefensible "spring constant" argument
Incorrectly treats columns as fully pinned, even during collapse
Incorrectly assumes columns buckle near material yield strain, instead of at elastic instability
Incorrectly assumes columns are loaded purely vertically during collapse
Incorrectly assumes structural strength is unchanged during collapse

In terms of strength, Tony has claimed that there was a Factor of Safety of 3 in the intact Towers, and more at the perimeter. This is wrong. NIST found this value to be closer to 2, as explained in the link above, and in its simulations describes how this reserve steadily eroded up until the point of collapse. NIST not only correctly predicts the onset of collapse, it also comes up with a reasonably good estimate of when, for both Towers. The Truth Movement, of course, waves this study away entirely on the thinnest of excuses.

I think you mean fully fixed.

alienentity

25th November 2009, 11:38 AM

Edx

25th November 2009, 11:47 AM

wow, thanks! Saved me a lot of trouble...

Tony, it looks as though you argument is officially debunked.

I see NO TILT!

;)

twinstead

25th November 2009, 11:48 AM

Wow, thanks! Saved me a lot of trouble...

Tony, it looks as though you argument is officially debunked.

I don't know. In my experience, few if any truthers consider their argument officially debunked, no matter what and no matter how debunked.

bill smith

25th November 2009, 11:52 AM

Tony, of course, has picked a video looking almost directly in the plane of the tilt, and on the other side, so naturally it's harder to see in this video. But in others, and in the picture I showed, the tilt is obvious.

This is why, as far as I know, not even anyone else in the Truth Movement cares about this theory. You can see a great deal of skepticism, for instance, at Gregory's forum: http://the911forum.freeforums.org/did-wtc1-hinge-like-wtc2-t139.html

... or here: http://the911forum.freeforums.org/wtc-1-tilt-t235.html

I notice that RM did not think to mention the fact that the antenna was falling into the building a second or two before there was any other visible movement. Does anybody think that that early movement might have had any sognificance ? I have pefectly clear slow motion video of this happening available on request.

bill smith

25th November 2009, 11:58 AM

I see NO TILT!

;)

Keep listening to RM and you will do eventually.

Edx

25th November 2009, 12:02 PM

Keep listening to RM and you do will eventually.

I was being sarcastic Bill,

What do you see when you see those gifs?

DGM

25th November 2009, 12:08 PM

I notice that RM did not think to mention the fact that the antenna was falling into the building a second or two before there was any other visible movement. Does anybody think that that early movement might have had any sognificance ? I have pefectly clear slow motion video of this happening available on request.
Why don't you just show it then?

ETA: I bet I know what vantage point it was taken from.

bill smith

25th November 2009, 01:21 PM

Why don't you just show it then?

ETA: I bet I know what vantage point it was taken from.

We can assume that RM knows that the antenna begins to fall into the building prior to the collapse onset. Before the top block begins to move downwards as a whole in other words.

This would likely mean that the the entire hat truss (which spanned three floors) and which supported the 360-foot antenna had to be also moving downwards. The fact that the perimeter walls (to which the hat truss was also attached) are pulled inwards lends credence to this notion.

Can I suggest that somebody against whom RM has not raised his shields asks him to clarify whether he is aware of the early-falling antenna ? And if so why he has not thought it worth mentioning ?

DGM

25th November 2009, 01:28 PM

We can assume that RM knows that the antenna begins to fall into the building prior to the collapse onset. Before the top block begins to move downwards as a whole in other words.

This would likely mean that the the entire hat truss (which spanned three floors) and which supported the 360-foot antenna had to be also moving downwards. The fact that the perimeter walls (to which the hat truss was also attached) are pulled inwards lends credence to this notion.

Can I suggest that somebody against whom RM has not raised his shields asks him to clarify whether he is aware of the early-falling antenna ? And if so why he has not thought it worth mentioning ?
You still haven't shown that it happened. Remember, I (we all) know about video perspective.

bill smith

25th November 2009, 01:34 PM

You still haven't shown that it happened. Remember, I (we all) know about video perspective.

This will be virtually the best possible perspective to see the antenna clearly fall first. Remember that the three-floor hat truss was supported by some of the core columns. So what went first ?

So we will know more when RM clears this up by telling us why he thinks this is not worthy of even a mention.

cantonear1968

25th November 2009, 01:36 PM

Thank you very much for the reply Ryan. Is this something Tony addressed or fixed in his revised papers? I noticed you made mention that he had 6 revisions of his "Missing Jolt Paper".

Thanks all. Good to be here.

DGM

25th November 2009, 01:39 PM

This will be virtually the best possible perspective to see the antenna clearly fall first. Remember that the three-floor hat truss was supported by some of the core columns. So what went first ?

So we will know more when RM clears this up by telling us why he thinks this is not worthy of even a mention.
Bill, your pathetic. Put up or shut up.

bill smith

25th November 2009, 01:48 PM

Bill, your pathetic. Put up or shut up.

Do yourself a favour. ASK Mackey when he shows up. If he does.

DGM

25th November 2009, 01:53 PM

Do yourself a favour. ASK Mackey when he shows up. If he does.
Ask him what? If you have a video from a perspective that doesn't show the tilt? Your pathetic!

bill smith

25th November 2009, 01:55 PM

Ask him what? If you have a video from a perspective that doesn't show the tilt? Your pathetic!

Ask him whether what I said is true or not with the extrme significance it contains. I want to know why he was keeping it secret. I will keep the video to use as appropriate. That does not change the fact hat I am telling the Truth. Check online..

DGM

25th November 2009, 02:03 PM

Ask him whether what I said is true or not with the extrme significance it contains. I want to know why he was keeping it secret. I will keep the video to use as appropriate. That does not change the fact hat I am telling the Truth. Check online..
Bill: I'm going to say this nice. I have nothing to ask him because I know what your video contains. Stop trying to sound like your holding the "holy grail" because I (and everyone else) know your full of ****.

cantonear1968

25th November 2009, 02:03 PM

Ryan, ignore that last question. I just realized it was Szamboti who raised the question so he obviously has not changed this in his papers.

bill smith

25th November 2009, 02:16 PM

Bill: I'm going to say this nice. I have nothing to ask him because I know what your video contains. Stop trying to sound like your holding the "holy grail" because I (and everyone else) know your full of ****.

What a sweetie you are. lol. Well I urge any truly interested observers to watch carefully and see if my few simple questions get answered at all. Think about how important it would be if the 360-foot antenna began to fall into the building considerably before the top block began to move downwards as a whole ? It changes the entire dynamic. And yet RM does not think it worth even mentioning. That is not credible.

DGM

25th November 2009, 02:24 PM

What a sweetie you are. lol. Well I urge any truly interested observers to watch carefully and see if my few simple questions get answered at all. Think about how important it would be if the 360-foot antenna began to fall into the building considerably before the top block began to move downwards as a whole ? It changes the entire dynamic. And yet RM does not think it worth even mentioning. That is not credible.
Bill:
I agree it would be big news, if it actually happened. You need to separate fiction from reality.

Mangoose

25th November 2009, 03:19 PM

Think about how important it would be if the 360-foot antenna began to fall into the building considerably before the top block began to move downwards as a whole ? It changes the entire dynamic.

You do realize that in order for the top block to move downwards "as a whole", there has to be column failure on all four sides of the building. This did not happen simultaneously, as was also the case in WTC2. The tilt occurred from the very fact that the South Face failed first, and that tilt caused the antenna mast to tilt. The North Face on the opposite side was the last to undergo collapse, first on the 94th and 95th floors at the impact site and then near the northwest corner to the right of the impact hole. Only then did the upper block fall vertically "as a whole". That the antenna should undergo movement prior to anything on the North Face is *expected*, as it was the North Face that was the hinge for what would become the upper block.

This will be virtually the best possible perspective to see the antenna clearly fall first.

It was also the absolutely worst perspective to see the lean.

bill smith

25th November 2009, 03:31 PM

You do realize that in order for the top block to move downwards "as a whole", there has to be column failure on all four sides of the building. This did not happen simultaneously, as was also the case in WTC2. The tilt occurred from the very fact that the South Face failed first, and that tilt caused the antenna mast to tilt. The North Face on the opposite side was the last to undergo collapse, first on the 94th and 95th floors at the impact site and then near the northwest corner to the right of the impact hole. Only then did the upper block fall vertically "as a whole". That the antenna should undergo movement prior to anything on the North Face is *expected*, as it was the North Face that was the hinge for what would become the upper block.

It was also the absolutely worst perspective to see the lean.

We are not really interested in the tilt until RM clears up why he did not discuss or even mention the fact that the 30-story antenna began to fall into the building considerably before there was any other movement. This clearly has enormous ramifications for the collapse dynamic and we need to know why he neglected to mention it.

I take it that you agree that the antenna began to fall into the building first as I described ?

Are you watching DGM ? This could be the big news you mentioned above.

DGM

25th November 2009, 03:35 PM

We are not really interested in the tilt until RM clears up why he did not discuss or even mention the fact that the 30-story antenna began to fall into the building considerably before there was any other movement. This clearly has enormous ramifications for the collapse dynamic and we need to know why he neglected to mention it.

I take it that you agree that the antenna began to fall into the building first as I described ?

Are you watching DGM ? This could be the big news you mentioned above.
Bill:
You don't even understand when someone shows you that your full of ****. Your pathetic. You only see what you want to see.

bill smith

25th November 2009, 03:37 PM

Bill:
You don't even understand when someone shows you that your full of ****. Your pathetic. You only see what you want to see.

What will you say if Mongoose confirms what I said ?

DGM

25th November 2009, 03:40 PM

What will you say if Mongoose confirms what I said ?
I'll eat my keyboard and never post again. Will you do the same if he says your full of ****?

T.A.M.

25th November 2009, 03:42 PM

Can one of you record it and put it up on youtube?

TAM:D

bill smith

25th November 2009, 03:42 PM

I'll eat my keyboard and never post again. Will you do the same if he says your full of ****?
Lol Of course not.

DGM

25th November 2009, 03:43 PM

Lol Of course not.
Why not? Don't you believe what you post?

bill smith

25th November 2009, 03:44 PM

Can one of you record it and put it up on youtube?

TAM:D

You never heard about this before TAM ? Are you sure ?

DGM

25th November 2009, 03:45 PM

Can one of you record it and put it up on youtube?

TAM:D
I don't have a video recorder but. I don't think I'll need one.:D

T.A.M.

25th November 2009, 03:51 PM

You never heard about this before TAM ? Are you sure ?

no no, I meant the eating of the keyboard...lol

TAM:)

DGM

25th November 2009, 03:55 PM

no no, I meant the eating of the keyboard...lol

TAM:)
Just think, You could be the first MD to do a "keyboardectamy".:D

Mr.Herbert

25th November 2009, 04:14 PM

Just think, You could be the first MD to do a "keyboardectamy".:D

I think Bill is looking for an "addadicktamy." Rule 12 violation?

Mangoose

25th November 2009, 04:47 PM

We are not really interested in the tilt until RM clears up why he did not discuss or even mention the fact that the 30-story antenna began to fall into the building considerably before there was any other movement.

The tilt that you have no interest in is the very reason why the antenna *looks like* it falls "into the building" when you view videos that show the North Face straight on. The bias in the video record to the North Face (owing to the evacuation of lower Manhattan) predisposes you to view the collapse from the angle that most obscures the tilt; you see the antenna falling without anything on the North Face falling. The North Face however showed signs of the collapse later than the other sides of the building. You need to balance these videos with those taken from the northeast, northwest, and the south which show clearly that the antenna mast did not simply fall but tilted southward and such movement was synchronous with collapse activity visible on the South, East, and West Faces.

I take it that you agree that the antenna began to fall into the building first as I described ?

Of course not.

DGM

25th November 2009, 05:01 PM

The tilt that you have no interest in is the very reason why the antenna *looks like* it falls "into the building" when you view videos that show the North Face straight on. The bias in the video record to the North Face (owing to the evacuation of lower Manhattan) predisposes you to view the collapse from the angle that most obscures the tilt; you see the antenna falling without anything on the North Face falling. The North Face however showed signs of the collapse later than the other sides of the building. You need to balance these videos with those taken from the northeast, northwest, and the south which show clearly that the antenna mast did not simply fall but tilted southward and such movement was synchronous with collapse activity visible on the South, East, and West Faces.

Of course not.

Your post as Bill sees it (bold).

bill smith

25th November 2009, 05:37 PM

So where is RM then ? It would be best if he puts the stamp of authority on this and states clearly that the 30-storey antenna did NOT start falling into the building prior to collapse onset. Because if it did.......?

As DGM said, that would be really big news.

twinstead

25th November 2009, 05:46 PM

If Godzilla attacked the towers it would be really big news too.

bill smith

25th November 2009, 05:51 PM

If Godzilla attacked the towers it would be really big news too.

That's very profound twinstead and absolutely true.

9/11 Chewy Defense

25th November 2009, 05:55 PM

If Godzilla attacked the towers it would be really big news too.

Funny thing you should say that Twin. I've held onto this for quite a while:

Thunder

25th November 2009, 06:04 PM

sweet!!!!!

Seymour Butz

25th November 2009, 08:43 PM

In brief, Tony's assumptions that lead him to conclude Dr. Bazant underestimated the strength (actually "toughness," or aggregate energy absorption, not "strength" which is a measure of maximum load) are based on the following errors:

.

What I find strange is why the TM bothers with Bazant's paper much anyways.

If you read it carefully, IIRC, his calcs are for crushing all the columns during the collapse propagation. And since many of the core columns are seen standing after the collapse, it renders much of those moot,IMHO.

Granted, it can be used as an upper bound case, but attacking it is proven to be stupid.

Grizzly Bear

25th November 2009, 09:05 PM

Many of them seem to interpret his paper as an observation of the collapse rather than as a limiting case model.

Algebra34

25th November 2009, 09:13 PM

What I find strange is why the TM bothers with Bazant's paper much anyways.

If you read it carefully, IIRC, his calcs are for crushing all the columns during the collapse propagation. And since many of the core columns are seen standing after the collapse, it renders much of those moot,IMHO.

Granted, it can be used as an upper bound case, but attacking it is proven to be stupid.

Come on. How many core columns were still standing after the collapse? And I know you really mean just before the collapse was fully complete, but anyway ... how much is "many of the core columns"?

For the record the core columns all collapsed. All of them. In both buildings. Just because a few (not many) were the last to go down proves or disproves exactly what?

Mangoose

25th November 2009, 10:04 PM

For the record the core columns all collapsed. All of them. In both buildings.

Pasquale Buzzelli, Captain Jay Jonas, Josephine Harris, David Lim, Billy Butler, Matty Komorowski, and ten others wouldn't be alive if that were true.

Mel Odious

25th November 2009, 10:04 PM

Come on. How many core columns were still standing after the collapse? And I know you really mean just before the collapse was fully complete, but anyway ... how much is "many of the core columns"?

IIRC, the part of the core that remained standing after the collapse of tower 2 was about 40 stories in height, and the part of the core that remained standing after the collapse of tower 1 was 60 stories in height. If I'm remembering wrong, I'd appreciate it if someone would correct me.

In any case, if Bazant's paper includes destruction of core columns, then he's overestimating the energy needed to continue collapse, at least for the lower part of each tower.

twinstead

25th November 2009, 11:16 PM

That's very profound twinstead and absolutely true.

Yes, but only if it were true...

alienentity

26th November 2009, 12:53 AM

I just created a short video with timecode and also vertical reference lines so you can see exactly when the tilt happened.

Unfortunately for Tony Szamboti, it happened within the first second of collapse, immediately. There is no question about this.

Tony, your jolt theory is dead, and the sooner you wake up to the truth, the better. I've just taken the rotting corpse, riddled it with some new wholes, weighed it down with bricks and thrown it into the swamp.

Let it die already. You are wrong, plain and simple. Ryan Mackey is correct, as is Gregory Urich etc.... It would be great if you could join them instead of opposing them.

S66l28KveFw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S66l28KveFw

TruthersLie

26th November 2009, 03:39 AM

Come on. How many core columns were still standing after the collapse? And I know you really mean just before the collapse was fully complete, but anyway ... how much is "many of the core columns"?

For the record the core columns all collapsed. All of them. In both buildings. Just because a few (not many) were the last to go down proves or disproves exactly what?

<facepalm>
I love ignorant twoofs.
1. Bazant was calculating the BEST CASE scenerio. That is if all of the columns fall on OTHER columns directly. And even under that scenerio the building still collapses.

That is why Bazant does not match the reality... it didn't need to. It was to show that no matter what happened, once a collapse started it was going to progress.

Try to read for comprehension.

2. Now why are the core columns so important AFTER the collapse? Because if you are doing CD you implode the core columns from the bottoms. If the core columns are still standing... what does that mean? Oh no CD.

3. Another reason they are extremely important is that because they are still standing they give a very indepth insight into the collapse mechanics.

alienentity

26th November 2009, 09:54 AM

Come on. How many core columns were still standing after the collapse? And I know you really mean just before the collapse was fully complete, but anyway ... how much is "many of the core columns"?

For the record the core columns all collapsed. All of them. In both buildings. Just because a few (not many) were the last to go down proves or disproves exactly what?

It disproves the contention and speculation by truthers such as Steven Jones (who isn't an engineer anyway) and Tony Szamboti that explosives had to be placed at fairly close intervals all the way down the core to get the buildings to fall as fast as they did, and to pulverize the material.

They all deny that there was enough energy available in the collapse to do those things, a claim which is easily disproven using mathematics, but oh well.

It is not possible for a 60-story high section of core column to be standing if it was already blown up with explosives. No way. Plus, truthers fail completely to explain why the steel showed no signs of cutting charges (no, don't bother offering the diagonally-cut columns sticking up after the collapse, there are pictures of workers cutting them).

There is overwhelming positive proof of fire-driven collapse, and virtually zero to support claims of explosives. The core columns are yet another example.

alienentity

26th November 2009, 09:56 AM

IIRC, the part of the core that remained standing after the collapse of tower 2 was about 40 stories in height, and the part of the core that remained standing after the collapse of tower 1 was 60 stories in height. If I'm remembering wrong, I'd appreciate it if someone would correct me.

In any case, if Bazant's paper includes destruction of core columns, then he's overestimating the energy needed to continue collapse, at least for the lower part of each tower.

I think that's essentially correct.

tfk

26th November 2009, 10:14 AM

bs,

... blah, blah, usual blah...

It changes the entire dynamic. And yet RM does not think it worth even mentioning. That is not credible.

You need to learn to distinguish "... RM does not think [this topic] worth even mentioning ..." from "... RM does not think bothering with your demonstrably, determinedly ignorant butt to be a worthwhile expenditure of milliseconds ..."

The second thesis is far, FAR more than credible. It is the overwhelming consensus. And it is certain.

As in this note, people respond to you only as they would scratch an annoying rash.

Congrats on your chosen role in life: the brainless, thoughtless, pointless, persistent annoyance.

The illegitimate love-child of Gilbert Gottfried & Homer Simpson...

Let's have a show of hands for legalizing retroactive abortion. 18 years ought to be sufficient to distinguish the "keepers".

TomK

alienentity

26th November 2009, 10:19 AM

bs,

You need to learn to distinguish "... RM does not think [this topic] worth even mentioning ..." from "... RM does not think bothering with your demonstrably, determinedly ignorant butt to be a worthwhile expenditure of milliseconds ..."

The second thesis is far, FAR more than credible. It is the overwhelming consensus. And it is certain.

As in this note, people respond to you only as they would scratch an annoying rash.

Congrats on your chosen role in life: the brainless, thoughtless, pointless, persistent annoyance.

The illegitimate love-child of Gilbert Gottfried & Homer Simpson...

Let's have a show of hands for legalizing retroactive abortion. 18 years ought to be sufficient to distinguish the "keepers".

TomK

I've had bill on ignore for ages...life is good.;)

ETA 'The illegitimate love-child of Gilbert Gottfried & Homer Simpson...'

Maybe something like this...
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_304704b0eca6d61673.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18286)

bill smith

26th November 2009, 10:24 AM

bs,

You need to learn to distinguish "... RM does not think [this topic] worth even mentioning ..." from "... RM does not think bothering with your demonstrably, determinedly ignorant butt to be a worthwhile expenditure of milliseconds ..."

The second thesis is far, FAR more than credible. It is the overwhelming consensus. And it is certain.

As in this note, people respond to you only as they would scratch an annoying rash.

Congrats on your chosen role in life: the brainless, thoughtless, pointless, persistent annoyance.

The illegitimate love-child of Gilbert Gottfried & Homer Simpson...

Let's have a show of hands for legalizing retroactive abortion. 18 years ought to be sufficient to distinguish the "keepers".

TomK

Well hello there T. Heavy on the vitriol today I notice.

I guess that any interested observers will be noticing a certain reluctance on the part of debunkers (such as RM) to explain whether or not the 30-storey antenna starting to fall into WTC1 prior to any other movement is significant. Of course you may consider yurself free to address the issue as soon as you like. People will be asking by now why you guys are obviously avoiding the ssue like the plague.

twinstead

26th November 2009, 10:25 AM

The illegitimate love-child of Gilbert Gottfried & Homer Simpson...

D'oh!

Dave Rogers

26th November 2009, 10:31 AM

bill smith

26th November 2009, 10:37 AM

Still not bothered learning to read, then, bill?

Dave

I didn't bother responding Dave because it is too reminiscent of your own panicky statement that it was an 'optical illusion' when I first showed you the video. Remember ?

DGM

26th November 2009, 10:44 AM

I didn't bother responding Dave because it is too reminiscent of your own panicky statement that it was an 'optical illusion' when I first showed you the video. Remember ?
Bill:
You are essentially saying that a unicorn brought down the towers, do you have proof of this?

9/11 Chewy Defense

26th November 2009, 10:51 AM

Bill:
You are essentially saying that a unicorn brought down the towers, do you have proof of this?

It was Unicron from Transformers:

TG4GaPcLgOs

Mangoose

26th November 2009, 10:54 AM

I guess that any interested observers will be noticing a certain reluctance on the part of debunkers (such as RM) to explain whether or not the 30-storey antenna starting to fall into WTC1 prior to any other movement is significant.

No reluctance on my part....I've dealt with precisely this question and presented images that show that while the antenna started to fall prior to any movement on the North Face, its movement was simultaneous with movement on the East, South, and West Faces.

bill smith

26th November 2009, 11:03 AM

No reluctance on my part....I've dealt with precisely this question and presented images that show that while the antenna started to fall prior to any movement on the North Face, its movement was simultaneous with movement on the East, South, and West Faces.

Do you have some video of that from he beginning of the downwards movement of the antenna ? It would be very surprising if you don't have with three of the four sides to choose from.

A W Smith

26th November 2009, 11:22 AM

There was no downward movement of the antenna previous to tilt and collapse of the top floors.. and it is as simple as that.

Qiye0R-65RE

DGM

26th November 2009, 11:22 AM

Do you have some video of that from he beginning of the downwards movement of the antenna ? It would be very surprising if you don't have with three of the four sides to choose from.
So you haven't been reading his posts. You know you just admitted this?

bill smith

26th November 2009, 11:39 AM

There was no downward movement of the antenna previous to tilt and collapse of the top floors.. and it is as simple as that.

Qiye0R-65RE

Did you ever notice how the 360-foot (or 30-storey) antenna looks as though it has a free-falling heavy weight pulling it down. You can see by how the visible part of the antenna moves. Something long and heavy like a bunch of core columns is my guess. If it was only the hat truss ( three floors) I think the antenna would have fallen over sideways.

The question is How could the bunch of core columns fall straight down ? Where were the columns they had been sitting on ? It's almost as if those had been melted down into the basemant leaving a void for the bunch of core columns and the antenna to fall freely into.

A W Smith

26th November 2009, 11:48 AM

Did you ever notice how the 360-foot (or 30-storey) antenna looks as though it has a free-falling heavy weight pulling it down. You can see by how the visible part of the antenna moves. Something long and heavy like a bunch or core columns is my guess. If it was only the hat truss ( three floors) I think the antenna would have fallen over sideways.

The question is How could the bunch of core columns fall straight down ? Where were the columns they had been sitting on ? It's almost as if those had been melted down into the basemant leaving a void for the bunch of core columns and the antenna to fall freely into.

are you that stupid? the antenna was attached to the hat truss which was attached to the core and perimeter columns which were part of the top section which started falling through the lower portion. Of course its going to follow the top section down. Notice that at no point during the first clip does the antenna fall faster than the nearest 3 corners. Almost as if it is attached!!! with some sort of hat truss!!!

Toke

26th November 2009, 12:43 PM

Bill,
Have you seen the video where a large suspension bridge in the background moves from one side of the towers to the other?
A clear proof that the every video was manipulated in real time.

dafydd

26th November 2009, 12:46 PM

are you that stupid? the antenna was attached to the hat truss which was attached to the core and perimeter columns which were part of the top section which started falling through the lower portion. Of course its going to follow the top section down. Notice that at no point during the fist clip does the antenna fall faster than the nearest 3 corners. Almost as if it is attached!!! with some sort of hat truss!!!

Yes,Bill is that stupid,or pretending to be.

bill smith

26th November 2009, 01:53 PM

DGM

26th November 2009, 02:42 PM

If anybody sees RM you could ask him how did the antenna fall more or less straight downwards. I mean if the hat truss and attached core columns had put up even a moment's resistence the antenna would have fallen over sideways.
Reported as spam

Mangoose

26th November 2009, 02:54 PM

Do you have some video of that from he beginning of the downwards movement of the antenna ? It would be very surprising if you don't have with three of the four sides to choose from.

See the thread on the subject that alienentity started.

bill smith

26th November 2009, 03:03 PM

See the thread on the subject that alienentity started.

Don't you have anything more convincing than that ?

Dave Rogers

27th November 2009, 02:33 AM

I didn't bother responding Dave because it is too reminiscent of your own panicky statement that it was an 'optical illusion' when I first showed you the video. Remember ?

It's not that you didn't respond, it's that you pretended the post had never been made. Don't you find it difficult coping with the fact that you have to lie so often to reinforce your own beliefs? A bit like you lying about what I said about the difficulty of observing a tilt in a video taken from a direction at right angles to the tilt axis. Funny how the way you "remember" things is so rarely the way they actually happened. Perhaps you'd like to back up your recollections with a link? Or would you rather waffle about how you'll just leave it to everyone else to work it out for themselves? I wouldn't recommend the latter strategy; if you let people think for themselves, they tend not to swallow your lies.

Dave

Dave Rogers

27th November 2009, 02:34 AM

R.Mackey

29th November 2009, 05:28 PM

Welcome back, those of you who were on Thanksgiving vacation.

Over at 911 Myths, Mike has been kind enough to put up direct links to all three shows, along with the slides I used and the full transcript of the second show: http://911myths.com/index.php/Ryan_Mackey

In the presentation, only some of the slides are numbered. Those are the ones I thought I might use on the show. The others are backstory and additional information intended for those who read the presentation on its own. Some topics we never got to, i.e. Tony was going to make some complaint about the CCTV fire in China, so I preemptively described why its non-collapse is completely plausible. Enjoy.

---

Also, for those engaging bill smith about the "question" of why I didn't acknowledge something as fact that only happened in his imagination, this discussion belongs in a rubber room, not my thread. Any further postings or responses on that subject are off-topic and will be reported. This is your only warning. Don't feed obvious trolls.

bardamu

30th November 2009, 09:11 AM

Over at 911 Myths, Mike has been kind enough to put up direct links to all three shows, along with the slides I used and the full transcript of the second show: http://911myths.com/index.php/Ryan_Mackey

In the presentation, only some of the slides are numbered. Those are the ones I thought I might use on the show. The others are backstory and additional information intended for those who read the presentation on its own. Some topics we never got to, i.e. Tony was going to make some complaint about the CCTV fire in China, so I preemptively described why its non-collapse is completely plausible. Enjoy.

http://911myths.com/index.php/Image:Rm_hardfire_szamboti_ann.pdf

Inward bowing of WTC 1 perimeter
Eight minutes before collapse
Estimated up to 55 inches of perimeter deflection

•After the first few floors collapse, most of the interface is rubble –amorphous, heavy, and moving fast
–Tends to slide away from the heavier core, falling to the side and landing on the truss sections
–This breaks and shears off the trusses and pushes perimeter columns and spandrels outward

First the perimeter columns are pulled inward then they are pushed outward.

•Core beams are sitting on welded seats, but beams themselves are not welded to the columns and lift out easily

When the beams of the upper block fall onto the beams of the lower block, only the beams of the upper block could be lifted off their seats. What exactly lifts the beams of the lower block off of their seats at such a rate that each floor could collapse in around 150ms?

–Lower core resists impact, but upper core falls apart

Only a small part of the lower core is left standing. What causes the greater part of the lower core to fall apart?

•Tilt angle, however, channels rubble and mass mostly inside the perimeter columns

Wouldn't you just know it!

•WTC 7 suffered an almost total internal collapse before the perimeter started to fall

At the time the perimeter started to fall, what was holding up the West penthouse and the Screenwall if the building had suffered an almost total internal collapse? In the videos, they appear to collapse at virtually the same time as the perimeter.

Summary, Continued

•Now pretend the WTC was sabotaged

–How did the devices get there?
–Why are there no recorded sounds of explosives?
–Why weren’t thousands killed by flying glass?
–Why did occupants and security fail to detect them?
–Why would anyone plant them in the first place?
–Why is there no support at all for this hypothesis in the scientific and engineering community?

•The idea depends on numerous leaps of faith, and raises more questions than it solves

This is typical of conspiracy theories

Is it wise for scientists to dabble in politics?

R.Mackey

30th November 2009, 09:49 AM

First the perimeter columns are pulled inward then they are pushed outward.

Perimeter columns are pulled inwards until collapse initiation. Once the collapse is underway, we do not have slow sagging of floors anymore. Instead we have a large mass of rubble landing inside, which destroys the floor quickly and causes the now unrestrained perimeter columns to be pushed outward. Very simple.

When the beams of the upper block fall onto the beams of the lower block, only the beams of the upper block could be lifted off their seats. What exactly lifts the beams of the lower block off of their seats at such a rate that each floor could collapse in around 150ms?

They don't. The lower core survives the collapse, for a few seconds anyway. I have pictures of this in the presentation itself. Try reading it.

The part of the lower core that is destroyed is typified by the seats themselves being smashed off the columns. It happens, just with less efficiency than destruction of the upper core.

Only a small part of the lower core is left standing. What causes the greater part of the lower core to fall apart?

This "small part" is dozens of stories high.

The remnant cannot support itself even if intact. And it's damaged, and being loaded in funny ways by the huge pile of debris at the bottom. Shouldn't take much genius to figure out why it fell too.

At the time the perimeter started to fall, what was holding up the West penthouse and the Screenwall if the building had suffered an almost total internal collapse? In the videos, they appear to collapse at virtually the same time as the perimeter.

No, they don't.

Is it wise for scientists to dabble in politics?

Non sequitur.

newton3376

30th November 2009, 11:04 AM

3rd show was definately the best....good job Ryan.

bardamu

30th November 2009, 03:01 PM

They don't. The lower core survives the collapse, for a few seconds anyway. I have pictures of this in the presentation itself. Try reading it.

This "small part" is dozens of stories high.

http://911myths.com/index.php/Image:Rm_hardfire_szamboti_ann.pdf

•In both collapses, building cores were the last pieces left standing
•Core remnant is approximately 70 stories in height

There were 47 core columns. How many columns are still standing 70 storeys high? More than one? Over twenty floors of core were completely destroyed, and many more floors of core were almost completely destroyed.

Have you worked out which columns remain standing for a few seconds? According to some researchers, it was the weakest columns that survived the longest.

The part of the lower core that is destroyed is typified by the seats themselves being smashed off the columns. It happens, just with less efficiency than destruction of the upper core.

The question is, what smashes the seats off the columns of the lower section if the beams of the upper section just lift off?

•Clearly, the cores were not destroyed by explosives

A carefully worded sentence. Not ALL the cores were destroyed, but that doesn't mean the ones that WERE destroyed weren't destroyed by explosives.

No, they don't.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4k6GMddY-lQ

In this video the East penthouse starts to drop at 0:05s, then there's no observable movement of any other part of the roof until the Screenwall and the West penthouse begin to fall at 0:11s. After a further 0.7s - while these two structures are still moving downward - the perimeter begins to drop with them. In the scheme of the progressive collapse of a 47 storey steel-framed building, does 0.7s not count as 'virtually at the same time'?

According to NIST, during the 6.9 seconds between the first movement of the East penthouse and the initiation of global collapse, "The interior columns buckled in succession from east to west in the lower floors...". They admit that this is "Not observable". What this means is that the proposed 'successive buckling' is not part of the observed data, but a consequence of NIST's assumption that fires caused the collapse.

They sum up by saying: "Agreement between observations and simulations is reasonably good, validating probable collapse sequence." A more accurate conclusion might be: 'the probable collapse sequence is the result of circular logic'.

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7RevisedTechnicalBriefing111908.pdf (pages 36-46)

Non sequitur.

During the Hardfire debate you gave the impression you were annoyed at Ron for his tendency to stray from the subject of the collapse physics, yet in your presentation you ask the following question, which has nothing to do with science but everything to do with politics:

–Why would anyone plant them in the first place?

R.Mackey

30th November 2009, 04:27 PM

There were 47 core columns. How many columns are still standing 70 storeys high? More than one? Over twenty floors of core were completely destroyed, and many more floors of core were almost completely destroyed.

Get to the point, please?

Have you worked out which columns remain standing for a few seconds? According to some researchers, it was the weakest columns that survived the longest.

No, nobody has. It's not relevant.

The columns that survived are likely to be the interior columns, and those are weaker, yes, but this is coincidence.

The question is, what smashes the seats off the columns of the lower section if the beams of the upper section just lift off?

The impact from above still does damage. It can lift upper beams and smash off lower beams at the same time -- and it does.

A carefully worded sentence. Not ALL the cores were destroyed, but that doesn't mean the ones that WERE destroyed weren't destroyed by explosives.

There is absolutely no evidence for explosives. There is absolutely no need for explosives.

In this video the East penthouse starts to drop at 0:05s, then there's no observable movement of any other part of the roof until the Screenwall and the West penthouse begin to fall at 0:11s. After a further 0.7s - while these two structures are still moving downward - the perimeter begins to drop with them. In the scheme of the progressive collapse of a 47 storey steel-framed building, does 0.7s not count as 'virtually at the same time'?

No. The 0.7 second difference, in fact, disproves your previous claim.

According to NIST, during the 6.9 seconds between the first movement of the East penthouse and the initiation of global collapse, "The interior columns buckled in succession from east to west in the lower floors...". They admit that this is "Not observable". What this means is that the proposed 'successive buckling' is not part of the observed data, but a consequence of NIST's assumption that fires caused the collapse.

The actual core collapse is not directly observable because no one can see through opaque objects. Its collapse is inferred by the collapse of objects on top. There's no conflict here, just willing ignorance.

They sum up by saying: "Agreement between observations and simulations is reasonably good, validating probable collapse sequence." A more accurate conclusion might be: 'the probable collapse sequence is the result of circular logic'.

Nope. The probable collapse sequence was shown rigorously to be possible, and a better fit than any available alternate hypothesis. What you claim is "Circular" is, in fact, rigorous use of the Scientific Method.

During the Hardfire debate you gave the impression you were annoyed at Ron for his tendency to stray from the subject of the collapse physics, yet in your presentation you ask the following question, which has nothing to do with science but everything to do with politics:

Are you suggesting I shouldn't be allowed to ask that allegedly political question? A bit fascist, aren't you?

bardamu

1st December 2009, 02:16 PM

Get to the point, please?

You need to propose a mechanism for the breaking apart of the lower core, in its entirety for more than 20 floors, and virtually in its entirety for many more floors.

No, nobody has. It's not relevant.

The columns that survived are likely to be the interior columns, and those are weaker, yes, but this is coincidence.

The question for now is not whether it's coincidence or cock-up, but whether science can explain what could cause the strongest columns to be destroyed yet allow the weakest ones to survive. If your hypothesis can't explain this, you need to examine whether an alternative hypothesis can.

The impact from above still does damage. It can lift upper beams and smash off lower beams at the same time -- and it does.

Unless you can expand on this, it's nothing more than an assertion. Which individual pieces of falling debris could smash off the lower core beams? The hypothetical construct of 'amorphous rubble' is a fudge.

There is absolutely no evidence for explosives. There is absolutely no need for explosives.

This is a matter of opinion and currently at least 972 architectural and engineering professionals disagree with you.

No. The 0.7 second difference, in fact, disproves your previous claim.

I appreciate that expressions of time are relative, but I'd like somebody with the relevant qualifications and experience to put a figure on the dividing line between the notion of 'simultaneous' and the notion of 'progressive', in terms of the collapse of a 47 storey steel-framed building. For example, if all four corners dropped within 100ms of each other, could that be considered 'virtually at the same time'?

The actual core collapse is not directly observable because no one can see through opaque objects. Its collapse is inferred by the collapse of objects on top. There's no conflict here, just willing ignorance.

The Screenwall and the West penthouse are supported by the interior columns and can be seen on top of the roof by anyone who watches the videos. The observable fact that they show no movement until around 7 seconds after the first movement of the East penthouse infers that the interior columns are not progressively failing during those 7 seconds.

Nope. The probable collapse sequence was shown rigorously to be possible, and a better fit than any available alternate hypothesis. What you claim is "Circular" is, in fact, rigorous use of the Scientific Method.

The observable fact that failure of the remaining interior columns occurs 7 seconds after failure of the column supporting the East penthouse and 0.7s before failure of the entire perimeter of the roof rules out a progressive collapse. This is verified by the observable fact that the four corners of the roof then fall in unison at freefall or near-freefall speed. According to the Scientific Method, a new hypothesis is needed.

Are you suggesting I shouldn't be allowed to ask that allegedly political question?

Anybody is entitled to ask why people would want to plant explosives in WTC7, but the question has no business in a science-based presentation concerned with the collapse physics and the cause of collapse. If you choose to believe that it's inconceivable that anyone would want to plant explosives in the WTC, then the rest of your presentation is redundant. Your conclusion is then based on politics and not on science.

A bit fascist, aren't you?

To avoid delving even deeper into politics, I'll ignore that one.

TruthersLie

1st December 2009, 02:33 PM

This is a matter of opinion and currently at least 972 architectural and engineering professionals disagree with you.

ROFLMAO. Yes. Thank you for changing it from the normal truther lie. Usually it makes me go p "DOH!" when I hear that truther lie.

I love how it has switched from architects and engineers to architectural and engineering professionals. Why do twoofs have to lie and move the goal posts? I mean having 350 licensed and degreed engineers and architects is a good number. Why do they have to then shift from their original claims to include architectural and engineering professionals? that includes office workers, office managers, the guy who gets the coffee, the draftsmen, etc... why shift like that?

The appeal to authority is rejected. Are you new at this game twoof? you don't play it very well.

I'm enjoying watching Ryan demolish you, though I figure he will soon put you on ignore because you are an obvious waste of his time.

ETA:
I also love this gem.
Anybody is entitled to ask why people would want to plant explosives in WTC7, but the question has no business in a science-based presentation concerned with the collapse physics and the cause of collapse. If you choose to believe that it's inconceivable that anyone would want to plant explosives in the WTC, then the rest of your presentation is redundant. Your conclusion is then based on politics and not on science.

If you choose to believe that it is fully concieveable and the only explaination for the collapse of wtc, then the rest of your presentations are redundant. your conclusion is then based soley on politics and not on science.

Thank you for debunking Steven Jones and Richard Gage. I'm sure the twoof movement will not be happy with you.

The observable fact that failure of the remaining interior columns occurs 7 seconds after failure of the column supporting the East penthouse and 0.7s before failure of the entire perimeter of the roof rules out a progressive collapse. This is verified by the observable fact that the four corners of the roof then fall in unison at freefall or near-freefall speed. According to the Scientific Method, a new hypothesis is needed.

I love ignorant twoofs. What video are you watching where you can see the four corners of the roof fall at the same time? I'd love to see that video.

Oh back with the normal twoofer lie of freefall/near freefall. you really need to go back to school twoof. You just might learn something.

beachnut

1st December 2009, 02:43 PM

You need to propose...

...
Zero evidence to support false ideas about 911, implying, if not outright saying explosives or some other devices were used to destroy the WTC complex. It takes knowledge to understand 911 and enable people to fight the moronic delusions.

Tony failed to present evidence to support his real-cd-deal. The fantasy of explosives has failed to gather evidence and the failed movement remains for eternity like JFK CT, Apollo CT, and Bigfoot; in the delusional mode.

There is a reason only 0.0087 percent of engineers support the delusions of 911TruthLies.

Newtons Bit

1st December 2009, 02:54 PM

I appreciate that expressions of time are relative, but I'd like somebody with the relevant qualifications and experience to put a figure on the dividing line between the notion of 'simultaneous' and the notion of 'progressive', in terms of the collapse of a 47 storey steel-framed building. For example, if all four corners dropped within 100ms of each other, could that be considered 'virtually at the same time'?

There is no dividing line. They're not mutually exclusive: a progressive collapse is not defined by speed. The definition is: a loss of a single or small number of structural elements results in a disproportionate failure globally. I.e: a single element failure results in the destruction of the whole building (such as the Murrah Building or Bailey's Crossroads) or a single failure carries through the entire structure (such as Ronan Point).

A common truther misconception is that the load that would normally be resisted by a failed column gets magically transfered to adjacent columns with no other effects. This is obviously false. I go into how a single column pulls a structure inwards in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=107267) if you're interested in learning more.

TruthersLie

1st December 2009, 02:56 PM

A W Smith

1st December 2009, 03:05 PM

You need to propose a mechanism for the breaking apart of the lower core, in its entirety for more than 20 floors, and virtually in its entirety for many more floors.

the core cannot stand by itself. In fact the column to column connections are not even fully welded to their root. you can see proof of this in the debris, http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/core3.jpg

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/p032_1_01.pnghttp://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/jfk_column_s.jpg

The question for now is not whether it's coincidence or cock-up, but whether science can explain what could cause the strongest columns to be destroyed yet allow the weakest ones to survive. If your hypothesis can't explain this, you need to examine whether an alternative hypothesis can.

strongest columns were mainly at the perimeter of the core. The very reason that are stronger, to carry their share of the floor space outside the core, is the reason they were stripped away during the collapse.

Unless you can expand on this, it's nothing more than an assertion. Which individual pieces of falling debris could smash off the lower core beams? The hypothetical construct of 'amorphous rubble' is a fudge.
the seats of the top section are sheared upward as it collides with the lower section. the seats of the lower section are sheared off downward as the upper debris front impact them.

This is a matter of opinion and currently at least 972 architectural and engineering professionals disagree with you.

No, it is a matter of fact. not opinion. There never was evidence of explosives, And there never will be evidence of anything more than paint. The worlds architects and engineers disagree with your tiny fraction of agenda driven incompetents.

I appreciate that expressions of time are relative, but I'd like somebody with the relevant qualifications and experience to put a figure on the dividing line between the notion of 'simultaneous' and the notion of 'progressive', in terms of the collapse of a 47 storey steel-framed building. For example, if all four corners dropped within 100ms of each other, could that be considered 'virtually at the same time'?

Huh? oh i get it, false choice fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma) revealed. i thought i recognized it.

The Screenwall and the West penthouse are supported by the interior columns and can be seen on top of the roof by anyone who watches the videos. The observable fact that they show no movement until around 7 seconds after the first movement of the East penthouse infers that the interior columns are not progressively failing during those 7 seconds.

and how exactly is east to west movement taking seven seconds total NOT a sign of progressive collapse? Perhaps willful ignorance?

The observable fact that failure of the remaining interior columns occurs 7 seconds after failure of the column supporting the East penthouse and 0.7s before failure of the entire perimeter of the roof rules out a progressive collapse. This is verified by the observable fact that the four corners of the roof then fall in unison at freefall or near-freefall speed. According to the Scientific Method, a new hypothesis is needed.

are you watching what you are typing? because what you are describing is exactly a progressive collapse. Then you hand-wave away your own words with the last sentence. Anybody is entitled to ask why people would want to plant explosives in WTC7, but the question has no business in a science-based presentation concerned with the collapse physics and the cause of collapse. If you choose to believe that it's inconceivable that anyone would want to plant explosives in the WTC, then the rest of your presentation is redundant. Your conclusion is then based on politics and not on science.
i think you are confusing MOTIVE with politics. You are sweating it because it is inconvenient to your agenda driven fantasy which in fact is based on politics itself. Oh irony.

To avoid delving even deeper into politics, I'll ignore that one.Of course you will. You are very adept at ignorance. Just like you ignored thousands of eyewitnesses in the other thread who corroborate that they witnessed planes flying into the twin towers. An inconvenient truth that you hand-wave away as unreliable. The only things that are unreliable are your neurons and synapses.. Get professional help.

Newtons Bit

1st December 2009, 04:06 PM

Newton.

he isn't interested in learning more.. he is a no planer who thinks the verinage technique was used on the towers... why should he LEARN something from people with the education and experience that is lacking in Manchester.

Huh.

I thought all the no-planers had faked their own deaths and come up with new online handles rather than face the shame of having believed something so completely ridiculous.

twinstead

1st December 2009, 04:17 PM

I thought all the no-planers had faked their own deaths and come up with new online handles rather than face the shame of having believed something so completely ridiculous.

oh no he di'int!

BasqueArch

1st December 2009, 05:35 PM

Originally Posted by bardamu View Post
I appreciate that expressions of time are relative, but I'd like somebody with the relevant qualifications and experience to put a figure on the dividing line between the notion of 'simultaneous' and the notion of 'progressive', in terms of the collapse of a 47 storey steel-framed building. For example, if all four corners dropped within 100ms of each other, could that be considered 'virtually at the same time'?

There is no dividing line. They're not mutually exclusive: a progressive collapse is not defined by speed. The definition is: a loss of a single or small number of structural elements results in a disproportionate failure globally. I.e: a single element failure results in the destruction of the whole building (such as the Murrah Building or Bailey's Crossroads) or a single failure carries through the entire structure (such as Ronan Point).

A common truther misconception is that the load that would normally be resisted by a failed column gets magically transfered to adjacent columns with no other effects. This is obviously false. I go into how a single column pulls a structure inwards in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=107267) if you're interested in learning more.

The interior of the building collapsed first, as seen in the initial penthouse fall, and pulled the exterior columns last seconds later. This is normal in a progressive collapse. In the following video a small cause (one ball hit) produces a disproportionate large result (progressive collapse of an entire structure). The collapse occurs progressively, naturally and sequentially as in WTC7 , not simultaneously.

tIsE8CkZI6U

bardamu

2nd December 2009, 06:16 AM

I love how it has switched from architects and engineers to architectural and engineering professionals. Why do twoofs have to lie and move the goal posts? I mean having 350 licensed and degreed engineers and architects is a good number. Why do they have to then shift from their original claims to include architectural and engineering professionals? that includes office workers, office managers, the guy who gets the coffee, the draftsmen, etc... why shift like that?

The appeal to authority is rejected. Are you new at this game twoof? you don't play it very well.

Architects are professionals. Do you not respect professionals? Why do you ignore the opinion of 350 licenced and degreed engineers and architects. Building collapses, or rather their avoidance, is their speciality.

There is no dividing line. They're not mutually exclusive: a progressive collapse is not defined by speed. The definition is: a loss of a single or small number of structural elements results in a disproportionate failure globally. I.e: a single element failure results in the destruction of the whole building (such as the Murrah Building or Bailey's Crossroads) or a single failure carries through the entire structure (such as Ronan Point).

For a given structure built with given materials, there has to be a limit to how fast the collapse can progress.

A common truther misconception is that the load that would normally be resisted by a failed column gets magically transfered to adjacent columns with no other effects. This is obviously false. I go into how a single column pulls a structure inwards in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=107267) if you're interested in learning more.

The thread you linked to is not related to the collapse of WTC7.

strongest columns were mainly at the perimeter of the core. The very reason that are stronger, to carry their share of the floor space outside the core, is the reason they were stripped away during the collapse.

When the amorphous rubble falls onto the top floors of the lower section, you want the connections between the floor trusses and the perimeter columns to shear, hurling columns for hundreds of feet, while the connections between the same floor trusses and the core beams hold firmly enough to bring down the strongest columns of the core.

the seats of the top section are sheared upward as it collides with the lower section. the seats of the lower section are sheared off downward as the upper debris front impact them.

Which upper debris would that be? Individual beams, concrete, floor trusses, desks, filing cabinets? Has anybody worked out the energy required to shear off one seat?

No, it is a matter of fact. not opinion. There never was evidence of explosives, And there never will be evidence of anything more than paint. The worlds architects and engineers disagree with your tiny fraction of agenda driven incompetents.

Why would ANY architects be challenging NIST's explanation for the collapses? Are these clinically insane architects still allowed to design buildings? Have you complained to the architect licencing body?

Huh? oh i get it, false choice fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma) revealed. i thought i recognized it. and how exactly is east to west movement taking seven seconds total NOT a sign of progressive collapse? Perhaps willful ignorance? are you watching what you are typing? because what you are describing is exactly a progressive collapse. Then you hand-wave away your own words with the last sentence.

So could we ever visually spot the difference between a controlled demolition and a progressive collapse (ignoring flashes and broken windows)?

i think you are confusing MOTIVE with politics.

Science is for the crime lab. Motive is for the detectives.

Crime Laboratory

Lab personnel

A typical crime lab has two sets of personnel:

Field analysts - investigators that go to crime scenes, collect evidence, and process the scene.

Job titles include:

Forensic evidence technician
Crime scene investigator
Scenes of crime officer (SOCO)

Laboratory analysts - scientists or other personnel who run tests on the evidence once it is brought to the lab (i.e., DNA tests, or bullet striations).

Job titles include:

Forensic technician (performs support functions such as making reagents)
Forensic scientist/Criminalist (performs scientific analyses on evidence)
Fingerprint analyst
Forensic Photographer
Forensic Document Examiner

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_Lab

The motive behind the destruction of the WTC is inseparable from politics.

The interior of the building collapsed first, as seen in the initial penthouse fall, and pulled the exterior columns last seconds later. This is normal in a progressive collapse.

It's the kind of collapse demolition teams dream of.

In the following video a small cause (one ball hit) produces a disproportionate large result (progressive collapse of an entire structure). The collapse occurs progressively, naturally and sequentially as in WTC7 , not simultaneously.

tIsE8CkZI6U

I'd like to see a graph of this progressive collapse showing observable failures at the roof level plotted against time, then compare it to a similar graph of the WTC7 collapse. I suspect the former would be a straightish diagonal line, whereas the latter would rise briefly, remain flat for most of the graph, then hit a brick wall near the end.

twinstead

2nd December 2009, 06:24 AM

Why would ANY architects be challenging NIST's explanation for the collapses? Are these clinically insane architects still allowed to design buildings? Have you complained to the architect licencing body?

Why would ANY architects be challenging YOUR explanation for the collapses--in even larger numbers than your intrepid list of merry professionals? Are these whom you must consider incompetent or worse "in on it" still allowed to design buildings? Have YOU complained to the architect licencing body?

BigAl

2nd December 2009, 06:37 AM

Architects are professionals. Do you not respect professionals? Why do you ignore the opinion of 350 licenced and degreed engineers and architects. Building collapses, or rather their avoidance, is their speciality.

Since these these professionals don't speak in public we don't know why 348 of these 350 believe what they believe. None of them are eyewitnesses or have published anything about the WTC collapse. Maybe they have been fed incorrect information and becuase of that, their conclusions are wrong.

The other two are Richard Gage and the guy that gives Gage's presentation. That presentation is non-technical and makes provably false statements about what happened on 9/11 and makes claims that make no sense to any engineer I can speak with, and that's a lot of engineers.

None of the people at AE911 have exposed themselves to questions from knowledgeable engineers.

Nobody in AE911 will elaborate on their claims in terms that make sense to to someone with a bunch of university physics. Someone like me.

The engineers I can speak to can explain in terms of physics that I can understand why the AE911 claims are silly.

Maybe that's why the "Truth Movement" is tiny and shrinking.

Dave Rogers

2nd December 2009, 06:55 AM

Architects are professionals. Do you not respect professionals? Why do you ignore the opinion of 350 licenced and degreed engineers and architects. Building collapses, or rather their avoidance, is their speciality.

We don't ignore their opinion. We study the evidence they present as the basis for their opinion, and find it to be not only invalid but, in some cases, quite clearly based on deliberately misrepresented information. The appeal to authority does not overrule content, and in AE911T's case the content is clearly and obviously wrong.

Dave

RedIbis

2nd December 2009, 07:08 AM

ElMondoHummus

2nd December 2009, 07:16 AM

We don't ignore their opinion. We study the evidence they present as the basis for their opinion, and find it to be not only invalid but, in some cases, quite clearly based on deliberately misrepresented information. The appeal to authority does not overrule content, and in AE911T's case the content is clearly and obviously wrong.

Dave

Seconded, and QFT. It is not even a strawman to assert that people here are "ignoring" their opinion. On the contrary, what's happening is that you are presenting versions of their arguments, and we're showing you what's wrong with them. That is the complete and total opposite of what you're trying to say. Your own participation in this thread exposes you to what people like R.Mackey, Dave Rogers, Newton's Bit, etc. are doing, so I'm at a loss as to how you could even make the claim that somehow everyone's ignoring their opinion. The evidence is right in front of you that we're not.

ElMondoHummus

2nd December 2009, 07:39 AM

For a given structure built with given materials, there has to be a limit to how fast the collapse can progress.

That's not even a good objection. Newtons Bit laid out the criteria for what a progressive collapse is. Your response is basically a non sequitor. Regardless of how fast or slow components fail, a progressive collapse is defined by qualitative criteria, not the rate at which it occurs.

The thread you linked to is not related to the collapse of WTC7.

Of course it's not! It's about general principles! He's talking about load redistribution, and that can apply to everything from Ronan Point to Kader Toy Factory, to WTC 7.

The fact that you fail to recognize this is proof positive that what you seek to do is negate, not learn.

When the amorphous rubble falls onto the top floors of the lower section, you want the connections between the floor trusses and the perimeter columns to shear, hurling columns for hundreds of feet, while the connections between the same floor trusses and the core beams hold firmly enough to bring down the strongest columns of the core.

Word salad is not a response. First of all, the connections between the floor trusses and the core beams in the Twin Towers do not have to be strong enough to bring down the strongest columns of the core. On the contrary, when those connections between the trusses and the core columns sever, the core columns cannot stand on their own at all. They're too slender in relation to their length to do so. The thing that holds them up - the floors - are gone, so all they can do is collapse.

You really don't know the basic mechanics of any of the WTC collapses, do you?

Which upper debris would that be? Individual beams, concrete, floor trusses, desks, filing cabinets? Has anybody worked out the energy required to shear off one seat?

Probably not, but Bazant, Zhou, and others worked out the energy totals in the whole system and discovered that regardless of how you describe the collapse, once it got started there was more than enough energy to keep it going. Or in short, there was more than enough energy to fail all the connections, regardless of whether the failure modes were shear, buckling, or whatnot.

So could we ever visually spot the difference between a controlled demolition and a progressive collapse (ignoring flashes and broken windows)?

His point is that the very description you provide is consistent with a progressive collapse that wasn't induced by explosives or any other sort of intentional demolition. So what you'd have to do to further determine the collapse mechanism is study the evidence. And the fact of the matter is, there is zero evidence of intentional demolition of the structure.

The motive behind the destruction of the WTC is inseparable from politics.

That's true. Problem is, you deny the perpetrators of 9/11 and attempt to substitute the government in their place. So you start from a false premise.

Dave Rogers

2nd December 2009, 07:53 AM

Nothing wrong with that, so why don't you apply the same standard to NIST?

Show me the information NIST have deliberately misrepresented, and I'll happily do so. Alternatively, I can amuse myself by seeing how radically your personal definition of misrepresentation differs from a dictionary definition.

Dave

TruthersLie

2nd December 2009, 08:00 AM

Oh twoofie.

Architects are professionals. Do you not respect professionals? Why do you ignore the opinion of 350 licenced and degreed engineers and architects. Building collapses, or rather their avoidance, is their speciality.

I fully respect professionals. Having taken 3 years of engineering classes before changing my major, I have the utmost respect for engineers and architects.

I just despise peple who lie and then have to shift shift shift their statements to try to inflate their numbers.

Why do people who claim to be after the "truth" lie to inflate their numbers? First they were claiming they had 600 licensed AND degreed engineers and architects... then that was checked and no... (at the time) it was under 250. So then they changed it to degreed OR licensed engineers and architects, and they lied and said they had 700 (when they had under 500), and now they have shift shift shifted it to architecture and engineering professionals and they (and YOU JUST) claimed they have nearly 1,000. That is BS and a ploy to shift and try to INFLATE your numbers.

Why do you have to mislead people? They have less than 350 degreed AND licensed architects and engineers.

Now if we examine those they do have, they have less than 20 degreed and licensed engineers or architects who have high rise experience. Do you really want to try to quibble on the numbers?

I mean we have people like (your pal who you try to quote) Heiwa who says that if you dropped the top of the towers 2 miles high it wouldn't collapse. Really? Is that one of your "engineers" you really want cheerleading for you?

For a given structure built with given materials, there has to be a limit to how fast the collapse can progress.

GREAT. PROVE IT. Provide your math to show your claims. I eagerly await your thesis.

When the amorphous rubble falls onto the top floors of the lower section, you want the connections between the floor trusses and the perimeter columns to shear, hurling columns for hundreds of feet, while the connections between the same floor trusses and the core beams hold firmly enough to bring down the strongest columns of the core.

Ah... truther misstatements and strawmen. You might want to look up what that highlited portion means... It doesn't mean what you think it does. And it didn't happen. Nothing was "hurled" hundreds of feet. It fell out during the collapse due to the very chaotic collapse mechanisms.

So now you try to the explosives were used to "hurl columns for hundreds of feet" cannard. GREAT. Then provide the proof that explosives were used. The amount of explosive necessary to "hurl columns for hundreds of feet" would be very noticable during the collapse. Provide a video where you can hear this distinctive noises during the collapse. It should be EASY.

Which upper debris would that be? Individual beams, concrete, floor trusses, desks, filing cabinets? Has anybody worked out the energy required to shear off one seat?

Argument from ignorance noted. Why don't you do the math instead of begging everyone here to spoon feed you?

Why would ANY architects be challenging NIST's explanation for the collapses? Are these clinically insane architects still allowed to design buildings? Have you complained to the architect licencing body?

You are the one stating that NIST is wrong and full of crap. You even tried to point to 972 of them (which is in fact a bold faced lie). Yet not one of them can generate a single peer reviewed professional paper in any engineering or architectural journal anywhere in the world. Why is that?

If it is soooo easy that scooby and the gang (can't forget those manchester folks either, and college drop outs, army deserters, pizza delivery boys, fired professors and a theologian) can figure it out, you should have dozens of (if not HUNDREDS of) peer reviewed journals stating they are full of crap. Please provide just one. I'd love to read it.

So could we ever visually spot the difference between a controlled demolition and a progressive collapse (ignoring flashes and broken windows)?

Yes we can. If you play video of CD, then you will see tell tale reactions of CD. Especially if you have sound in the videos. Then you will HEAR the explosions necessary.

Or if it is the Verinage technique (which you say you don't believe in), then you would have Tony S's "missing Jolt."

or course if you had suicide ninjaneers run in and cut the columns and not care if they lived then no... is that your new claim?

Science is for the crime lab. Motive is for the detectives.

and you have neither on your side.

The motive behind the destruction of the WTC is inseparable from politics.

You are extremely right in this statement. 19 fundamentalist terrorists wanted to change the world and strike at the "big satan." And guess what, they did. In fact, they did it beautifully.

The convoluted twisted conspiracy necessary that employs thousands without anyone speaking from several countries is what is hillarious.

It's the kind of collapse demolition teams dream of.

argument from ignorance noted.

I'd like to see a graph of this progressive collapse showing observable failures at the roof level plotted against time, then compare it to a similar graph of the WTC7 collapse. I suspect the former would be a straightish diagonal line, whereas the latter would rise briefly, remain flat for most of the graph, then hit a brick wall near the end.

Ah.. now you are trying to go to david chandlers "work?" Really?

I still want to see your video where you can see all 4 corners of wtc7 during the collapse. Still waiting to see that video. I'm sure if you have it, it would help the analysis of the collapse immensely.

and again, how does a building which (according to you) collapses symmetrically and uniformly manage to strike the building across the street at the ROOF?

Newtons Bit

2nd December 2009, 08:16 AM

For a given structure built with given materials, there has to be a limit to how fast the collapse can progress.

Now your shifting the goal-post. You asked for someone with relevant experience and qualifications to answer you question. I'm an engineer who makes a living designing the structural systems of buildings. I gave you a text-book response to the definition of a progressive collapse.

You've now moved on to the "it can't collapse that fast" idiocy. This is an argument from incredulity. It has no bearing on the discussion at hand. If you would like to continue with that particular long debunked meme, then I ask you to prove it. The burden of proof is on you.

Myriad

2nd December 2009, 09:00 AM

Possibly useful essay on the nature of progressive failures, here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=102994). Includes an explanation of why progressive failures never happen rapdily in the movies, but often do in real life.

Respectfully,
Myriad

dafydd

2nd December 2009, 09:32 AM

Still refusing to answer my question bardamu? What happened on 9/11?

TruthersLie

2nd December 2009, 09:42 AM

Nothing wrong with that, so why don't you apply the same standard to NIST?

Red still waiting for you to come and provide a citation from any kind of engineering or architectural journal stating that the TVCC building in Beijing was steel framed.

Why do you run like a little girl when you have nothing instead of stating that you made a mistake?

RedIbis

2nd December 2009, 10:15 AM

Show me the information NIST have deliberately misrepresented, and I'll happily do so. Alternatively, I can amuse myself by seeing how radically your personal definition of misrepresentation differs from a dictionary definition.

Dave

Ok, let's start with the fuel loads on Floor 13 of WTC 7.

Dave Rogers

2nd December 2009, 10:17 AM

Ok, let's start with the fuel loads on Floor 13 of WTC 7.

That's a non-answer. If you have a case to present, please present it. What, specifically, did NIST say; what, specifically, was the truth; and how, specifically, did NIST's statement misrepresent the truth?

Dave

BigAl

2nd December 2009, 10:24 AM

Ok, let's start with the fuel loads on Floor 13 of WTC 7.

Why don't you spend time looking at the failure of the sprinklers and the lack of water for firefighting and the hour rating that all fireproofing has?

newton3376

2nd December 2009, 11:09 AM

Since these these professionals don't speak in public we don't know why 348 of these 350 believe what they believe. None of them are eyewitnesses or have published anything about the WTC collapse. Maybe they have been fed incorrect information and becuase of that, their conclusions are wrong.

The other two are Richard Gage and the guy that gives Gage's presentation. That presentation is non-technical and makes provably false statements about what happened on 9/11 and makes claims that make no sense to any engineer I can speak with, and that's a lot of engineers.

None of the people at AE911 have exposed themselves to questions from knowledgeable engineers.

Nobody in AE911 will elaborate on their claims in terms that make sense to to someone with a bunch of university physics. Someone like me.

The engineers I can speak to can explain in terms of physics that I can understand why the AE911 claims are silly.

Maybe that's why the "Truth Movement" is tiny and shrinking.

This is a point that deserves repeating....

Since 9/11 I have not met ONE fellow engineer or scientist who thinks there is any validity to the truthers claims....not one person in 8 years.

AZCat

2nd December 2009, 11:27 AM

This is a point that deserves repeating....

Since 9/11 I have not met ONE fellow engineer or scientist who thinks there is any validity to the truthers claims....not one person in 8 years.

Unfortunately I can't say that. There are three mechanical engineers I have worked with in the past few years who either wholeheartedly support the claims of organizations like AE911Truth or at least think their arguments have merit.

DavidJames

2nd December 2009, 11:39 AM

Unfortunately I can't say that. There are three mechanical engineers I have worked with in the past few years who either wholeheartedly support the claims of organizations like AE911Truth or at least think their arguments have merit.Is it fair to say that no architects or engineers have produced technical documentation supporting any 9/11 CT and presented it for peer review within their respective fields of expertise?

nicepants

2nd December 2009, 12:17 PM

Loved the third show. Tony seems stuck on his idea that there must be a DECELERATION, which I suppose would be the case if it wasn't for gravity.

If his claims were true we could all go skydiving with no parachutes because the air resistance would cause a deceleration that would bring us to a stop in mid-air.

I've seen many other truthers make this same mistake...they don't appreciate the difference between a deceleration and a reduction in the rate of acceleration (the latter of which was observed in the WTC collapses).

carlitos

2nd December 2009, 12:25 PM

I've seen many other truthers make this same mistake...they don't appreciate the difference between a deceleration and a reduction in the rate of acceleration (the latter of which was observed in the WTC collapses).
That's a great point. Like when Congress is going to 'cut' the rate of increase of some program or other, and the proponents of that program call it a 'cut' in funding. No, it's just slowing the rate of increase. Why can't Tony get this?

DavidJames

2nd December 2009, 12:35 PM

That's a great point. Like when Congress is going to 'cut' the rate of increase of some program or other, and the proponents of that program call it a 'cut' in funding.I don't want to derail, while technically I agree, but if a programs budget is tied to cost of living and the cost of living goes up while the budget doesn't, then the net result effectively is a cut and programs which relied on the expected increase may need to be cut. End of my derail.

BigAl

2nd December 2009, 12:40 PM

I don't want to derail, while technically I agree, but if a programs budget is tied to cost of living and the cost of living goes up while the budget doesn't, then the net result effectively is a cut and programs which relied on the expected increase may need to be cut. End of my derail.

If it's tied to cost of living, it's probably also subject to population growth. Zero budget increase results in a cut here, too.

carlitos

2nd December 2009, 12:44 PM

Oh, geez. I didn't specify what programs since I was trying to avoid this; I just thought it was a good illustration of the concept of acceleration vs. speed. The Space Program or Defense or capital funds have the same dynamics regarding spending.

newton3376

2nd December 2009, 03:00 PM

Unfortunately I can't say that. There are three mechanical engineers I have worked with in the past few years who either wholeheartedly support the claims of organizations like AE911Truth or at least think their arguments have merit.

There is a reason that there are so very few out there.....the arguments are so weak from a technical perspective that the engineering and scientific community as a whole have rejected the truthers claims.

So you meeting 3 doesn't really strike me as something good for the truthers....engineers who buy into the truth stuff are such an extreme minority in numbers and so underrepresented in peer reviewed literature that they might as well not exist.

rwguinn

2nd December 2009, 03:10 PM

There is a reason that there are so very few out there.....the arguments are so weak from a technical perspective that the engineering and scientific community as a whole have rejected the truthers claims.

So you meeting 3 doesn't really strike me as something good for the truthers....engineers who buy into the truth stuff are such an extreme minority in numbers and so underrepresented in peer reviewed literature that they might as well not exist.
I've met one. He is also a YEC, terracentric, and moon hoaxer. As long as he has a formula, from a book, and you don't go outside the limits of the formula, he is competent.
Unfortunately (for me, and aerospace), they laid me and 3 dozen other engineers off, and kept him--and only him...

beachnut

2nd December 2009, 06:21 PM

I've met one. He is also a YEC, terracentric, and moon hoaxer. As long as he has a formula, from a book, and you don't go outside the limits of the formula, he is competent.
Unfortunately (for me, and aerospace), they laid me and 3 dozen other engineers off, and kept him--and only him...
Maybe they kept him because they can pay him in trutherDollars!

AZCat

2nd December 2009, 06:43 PM

Is it fair to say that no architects or engineers have produced technical documentation supporting any 9/11 CT and presented it for peer review within their respective fields of expertise?

I think so, but I have seen truthers try to twist the purpose of legitimate papers in order to support their claims.

AZCat

2nd December 2009, 06:44 PM

There is a reason that there are so very few out there.....the arguments are so weak from a technical perspective that the engineering and scientific community as a whole have rejected the truthers claims.

So you meeting 3 doesn't really strike me as something good for the truthers....engineers who buy into the truth stuff are such an extreme minority in numbers and so underrepresented in peer reviewed literature that they might as well not exist.

I know - the rest of us have a good laugh at their expense. Considering I currently work in a firm of ~200 engineers, one nut is not surprising.

newton3376

2nd December 2009, 07:55 PM

rwguinn

2nd December 2009, 08:21 PM

Im sorry to hear you got laid off...
It ain't my first rodeo...
Allows me to take care of my wife, who just underwent bilateral knee replacement.
And, you can only work 10/7 for so long before you either 1. die, or 2. go postal...

rwguinn

2nd December 2009, 08:24 PM

Maybe they kept him because they can pay him in trutherDollars!

Likely they pay him in commodities--he's also one of them there "the Fed is an evil plot by the Rothchild's" types. Name a woo, he'sall over it:D...

newton3376

2nd December 2009, 11:51 PM

It ain't my first rodeo...
Allows me to take care of my wife, who just underwent bilateral knee replacement.
And, you can only work 10/7 for so long before you either 1. die, or 2. go postal...

Yikes! I hope she is okay...

Very true on the 10/7....of course if you are an engineer I doubt you will be home for long, especially if you are willing to relocate.....there are definately more jobs than engineers overall...

R.Mackey

3rd December 2009, 12:30 AM

Architects are professionals. Do you not respect professionals? Why do you ignore the opinion of 350 licenced and degreed engineers and architects. Building collapses, or rather their avoidance, is their speciality.

We ignore their opinion because it's stupid.

All those architects and engineers, working towards a common cause, with years and years to perfect their arguments... and not a single journal paper? Not even a conference paper?? How can this be?

This is only possible if they are actually avoiding a scientific argument. Or if they're so incompetent that they get summarily rejected with every submission, or if they know they're incompetent and don't even try.

Not good enough? Here's another reason. One of the very best of the AE911T morons is Tony Szamboti. Unlike most of them, he actually is an engineer. Unlike virtually all of them, he actually has written some whitepapers -- stupid ones, but at least he tried, and he did so with enough organization that we can find out where he went wrong, unlike the others who typically write in crayon. He's put out more original material than Richard Gage himself.

Well, guess what, I debated Mr. Szamboti. Maybe you've heard. You know, the subject of this thread, that you are so busily derailing. And I creamed him without cracking a sweat. You may therefore assume by induction I can humiliate the entire gang of them at will. I probably won't even have to work a single calculation to do it.

That is why we ignore them. Their incompetence is so phenomenal that they are not even recognizable as a parody of a valid authority.

Neither are you, for that matter. For instance:

For a given structure built with given materials, there has to be a limit to how fast the collapse can progress.

:dl: Well, sure, if sub-light counts. Or even subsonic, I think that's safe. One more time, my whitepaper, Appendix B. Real simple.

When the amorphous rubble falls onto the top floors of the lower section, you want the connections between the floor trusses and the perimeter columns to shear, hurling columns for hundreds of feet, while the connections between the same floor trusses and the core beams hold firmly enough to bring down the strongest columns of the core.

:dl: :dl:

I explained, in the presentation accompanying the debate, my hypothesis of why the lower core preferentially resists destruction. This matches what was actually observed, which is why I came up with it in the first place. Your response is not even babble. It's Truther Mad Libs.

Which upper debris would that be? Individual beams, concrete, floor trusses, desks, filing cabinets? Has anybody worked out the energy required to shear off one seat?

The force required is in NIST, of course. And in case you haven't heard, the "upper debris" massed about 34,000 tonnes.

Why would ANY architects be challenging NIST's explanation for the collapses? Are these clinically insane architects still allowed to design buildings? Have you complained to the architect licencing body?

Funny you mention that. Mr. Gage was forced to remove the AIA logo from his materials. Gee, I wonder why.

So could we ever visually spot the difference between a controlled demolition and a progressive collapse (ignoring flashes and broken windows)?

Pretty much always. The only confusion occurs among folks like you, and only when you start claiming that all collapses are controlled demolitions. Orwell said something about folks like you, I believe.

Science is for the crime lab. Motive is for the detectives.

I already demolished the motive argument as well. It's pretty easy to do.

The motive behind the destruction of the WTC is inseparable from politics.

If you mean the real motive, expressed by bin Laden, I might agree with you. But if you mean the "motive" of the FDNY, which you believe murdered a large fraction of its own staff, you're wrong. That "motive" is inseparable from insanity, not politics.

It's the kind of collapse demolition teams dream of.

:dl:

I'd like to see a graph of this progressive collapse showing observable failures at the roof level plotted against time, then compare it to a similar graph of the WTC7 collapse. I suspect the former would be a straightish diagonal line, whereas the latter would rise briefly, remain flat for most of the graph, then hit a brick wall near the end.

You suspect wrong. NIST describes why the collapse of WTC 7 progressed the way it did -- all of it. The falling penthouses, the timing, even the "free fall." Funny thing, I've never seen a single Truther even acknowledge this. It's as if you can't even read the report. Too many big words, I guess.

Anyway, it's come to my attention that you are a no-planer (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5355066#post5355066) and you do, in fact, accuse the FDNY of demolishing the Towers. You also evidently don't believe in Apollo 11 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5368898#post5368898), and who knows what else. Compared to this grand mal rejection of observable reality, the spurious complaints you've made in my thread are barely a chip in the iceberg of your ignorance -- I'd have better luck trying to teach Scrabble to a caveman than correct your drivel.

You need a doctor, not a scientist. And you've more than earned your ticket to Ignore, which I strongly suspect isn't your first. Read here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4461706#post4461706) if you have any further questions. Good luck to you.

Tony Szamboti

3rd December 2009, 03:50 AM

It is nice that you have confidence in yourself Ryan, but that doesn't equate to your winning any debate here. The only people I see sharing your opinion are rabid NIST report supporters and even you had to admit they didn't have it right.

You were wrong about or did not provide an answer on several points in the debate

1. The factor of safety of the core columns, which I have shown you to be at least 3.00 to 1. You accept G. Urich's mass analysis of 69 million lbs. above the 98th floor. The total cross sectional area of the core columns at the 98th floor was 2,645 sq. inches and the perimeter columns with a wall thickness of approximately .289 inhces had a total area of 3,682 sq. inches. That is a total of 6,327 sq. inches and the unit stress at each floor was kept the same on the core and perimeter to avoid warpage. The 69 million lb. load equates to a compressive stress on all columns of 11,000 psi. Since the ASTM A36 core columns had a minimum yield strength of 36,000 psi that is over 3.00 to 1. The buckling stresses of these low slenderness ratio columns was very close to the yield stress and thus the factor of safety was still above 3.00 to 1 for buckling. The NIST is either incorrect here or Gregory Urich's mass analysis isn't correct. You can't have it both ways.

3. You wrongly claimed that we overestimated the strength of the columns in the Missing Jolt paper. We used the actual column cross sections and yield strengths and did the analysis for buckling in the least radius of gyration.

2. The present official theory does not address the lack of a jolt by your own admission in the debate. The theory you and some others have, regarding the tilt obviating the need for a jolt, has not been shown analytically with precise measurements and timing of the tilt and published. We do know that the upper section of WTC 1 did not tilt 8 degrees or anywhere near that, before descending vertically. The simple diagrams you showed and pronouncements that you have explained it will not suffice.

3. You could not explain how the core columns collapsed with your "the tilt explains it all" theory.

4. You could not explain how the NIST gets the east and west walls of WTC 1 to rotate since their analysis does not provide the overload to cause failure of those columns.

5. You were wrong about the floor truss seats all being smashed off or broken on all floors below the collapse initiation. It turns out that while this is pretty much true for the perimeter floor truss seats it is just the opposite for the core column floor truss seats. Most of the core side floor truss seats remained attached to the channel joining them to the core columns. Read NCSTAR 1-3 Chapter 6.

6. You showed perimeter columns which were 5 to 8 floors below the collapse initiation in WTC 1 and attempted to use them to show there was no need for a jolt since they were not buckled and failed at the bolts. These columns are not germane to the argument. You didn't get into why you couldn't show the columns from the collapse initiation area. I would hope most people would realize that was because they were not saved for the NIST to use in their analysis.

No, the reality is that this debate is not over as you have not proven your contentions that the tilt obviates the need for a jolt to cause collapse propagation and that it explains the rapidness of the collapse. I will be doing precise measurements of the tilt and vertical drop magnitudes and timing and an analysis based on these measurements, which the NIST should have done. I suggest you do the same.

Dave Rogers

3rd December 2009, 04:10 AM

Irreducible delusion, here presented as a classic example.

Dave

bill smith

3rd December 2009, 04:20 AM

I submit hat mainstream scientific journals blackball papers hat they are told not to publish. A great example is the discussion paper by Anders Bjorkman (our very own Heiwa), an ae911truth.org member who submitted a paper to the ASCE early in 2009, had it accepted (see below) and yet publication has been stopped to this day.

There is therefore no reason to believe that other scientific papers by ae911truth.org or members of other 9/11 organisations would be published and every reason to believe that they would not..

'' Just a heads up, Anders Bjorkman, who some of you know... ( http://www.ae911truth.org/profile.php?uid=998594 , he was AE911truth petitioner of the month a few months back) has mentioned elsewhere that a paper he submitted to ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers) has been accepted for publication;

This is exactly what Mr. Bjorkman said;

"Just got following from ASCE

Ref.: Ms. No. EMENG-296
What Did and Did not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York
Anders Björkman, M.Sc.

Dear Mr Björkman,

Your Discussion, listed above, has been accepted for publication in ASCE's Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

...

You will be notified of a publication date once your paper has been schedule for an issue.

Thank you for submitting your work to ASCE's Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

Sincerely,

Jennifer Parresol
Editorial Coordinator"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/10/caught_up_in_a_conspiracy_theo.html?page=7

Tony Szamboti

3rd December 2009, 04:29 AM

Ryan, you also do not say how your "the tilt explains it all" theory provides an answer for the observation that it was the lower stories of the upper section of WTC 1 that were the first to collapse.

Tony Szamboti

3rd December 2009, 04:39 AM

Irreducible delusion, here presented as a classic example.

Dave

I think the real Irreducible Delusion belongs to those who first accepted Dr. Bazant's dynamic load (jolt) theory, but when shown that a dynamic load could not have occurred are scrambling to salvage the natural collapse hypothesis, and yet are not willing to provide an analysis to show it was possible in detail. Your behavior fits this description very well Dave.
On the other hand, while I initially accepted Dr. Bazant's hypothesis, superior data has shown that it does not conform to observation. This has caused me to now look for answers to the question of whether a natural collapse is even possible in accord with observation. This is just the opposite of what you imply and it seems you are simply projecting your own flaw of logic onto those you don't agree with.

Dave Rogers

3rd December 2009, 04:59 AM

Tony Szamboti

3rd December 2009, 05:04 AM

Tony, you're clearly intelligent enough to figure out for yourself that tilt removes the necessity for a jolt, yet you choose either not to do so, or to deny the existence of the visibly obvious tilt. This is not investigation; it's pathology.

Dave

ETA: And I've presented the analysis. You've seen it.

You have not presented an analysis. You simply showed a couple of graphs and that was it. You provided no backup data, which I asked you for several times.

How much tilt was there at initiation and during the first several floor drop?

Where is the data to support your conclusion Dave?

Dave Rogers

3rd December 2009, 05:35 AM

How much tilt was there at initiation and during the first several floor drop?

I've shown you a picture that demonstrates a 2º tilt when the highest point of the roofline had fallen at most a quarter of a storey. That's enough to remove the jolt. And that's your analysis refuted. Everyone but you can see that.

Dave

Grizzly Bear

3rd December 2009, 06:06 AM

I think most competent people who've read Bazant's paper already know it was a limiting case model. The only one here who seems to be having trouble understanding that is you Tony. :\

I agree with people who can not only explain data properly, but also interpret it. I will not bend my principals for people who cannot do either.

dafydd

3rd December 2009, 06:50 AM

Is there a minimum I.Q. level in order to qualify as a truther? Or maximum?

twinstead

3rd December 2009, 07:02 AM

I'm just curious as to how many people who obviously have a very good knowledge about a subject have to tell somebody he is wrong before he at least starts thinking something might be up.

Newtons Bit

3rd December 2009, 07:22 AM

1. The factor of safety of the core columns, which I have shown you to be at least 3.00 to 1. You accept G. Urich's mass analysis of 69 million lbs. above the 98th floor. The total cross sectional area of the core columns at the 98th floor was 2,645 sq. inches and the perimeter columns with a wall thickness of approximately .289 inhces had a total area of 3,682 sq. inches. That is a total of 6,327 sq. inches and the unit stress at each floor was kept the same on the core and perimeter to avoid warpage. The 69 million lb. load equates to a compressive stress on all columns of 11,000 psi. Since the ASTM A36 core columns had a minimum yield strength of 36,000 psi that is over 3.00 to 1. The buckling stresses of these low slenderness ratio columns was very close to the yield stress and thus the factor of safety was still above 3.00 to 1 for buckling. The NIST is either incorrect here or Gregory Urich's mass analysis isn't correct. You can't have it both ways.

No Tony. You're doing an incredibly oversimplified analysis of a complex problem. You need to:

1. Adjust the distribution of vertical forces based on actual tributary area and stiffness. (Hint: the perimeter columns take less than the core columns)

2. Include the moment in the columns due to eccentric unbalanced loads.

3. Include P-Delta effects. You'll also need to include for out-of-plumbness of the columns. See the Direct Analysis Method in AISC 13th.

WildCat

3rd December 2009, 07:24 AM

R.Mackey

3rd December 2009, 08:49 AM

It is nice that you have confidence in yourself Ryan, but that doesn't equate to your winning any debate here. The only people I see sharing your opinion are rabid NIST report supporters and even you had to admit they didn't have it right.

If you label everyone else in this thread (apart from the no-planers, of course) as "rabid NIST supporters," then your claim above is trivially satisfied... and completely meaningless, of course.

You were wrong about or did not provide an answer on several points in the debate

1. The factor of safety of the core columns, which I have shown you to be at least 3.00 to 1. [...] The NIST is either incorrect here or Gregory Urich's mass analysis isn't correct. You can't have it both ways.

No. Addressed in this very thread, here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5166056#post5166056). Rather than fix your calculation, you merely repeat it as though that will somehow make it more accurate.

And Gregory's mass analysis is consistent with NIST, which is one reason why I accept it in the first place.

3. You wrongly claimed that we overestimated the strength of the columns in the Missing Jolt paper. We used the actual column cross sections and yield strengths and did the analysis for buckling in the least radius of gyration.

See above. Also, in case you haven't learned this yet, 2 comes after 1, not 3.

2. The present official theory does not address the lack of a jolt by your own admission in the debate.

You mean to say, of course, that NIST doesn't address it. Correct. NIST doesn't address a lot of relatively irrelevant things. Pretty much everyone except the few hardy souls in the Truth Movement understand that once a structure starts moving, all bets are off, and the real problem is preventing it in the first place. You've had years to figure this out. Keep trying.

3. You could not explain how the core columns collapsed with your "the tilt explains it all" theory.

I just got done telling the no-planer that yes, I can, and I did. In print, even. It's pretty darn simple.

4. You could not explain how the NIST gets the east and west walls of WTC 1 to rotate since their analysis does not provide the overload to cause failure of those columns.

If you mean I could not explain this during the debate, that's true. You kept talking over me and derailing the discussion. If instead you mean I cannot explain it at all, that's yet another stupid lie. I already explained to you how the floors cannot resist a twisting moment, so the perimeter is in no position to withstand the tilt. Also see NIST NCSTAR1-6D which treats this quantitatively. :rolleyes:

5. You were wrong about the floor truss seats all being smashed off or broken on all floors below the collapse initiation. It turns out that while this is pretty much true for the perimeter floor truss seats it is just the opposite for the core column floor truss seats. Most of the core side floor truss seats remained attached to the channel joining them to the core columns. Read NCSTAR 1-3 Chapter 6.

The truss seats remained attached, but were flattened. This is different than bolt failure that leaves the trusses intact. You're trying to put words in my mouth. Tsk, tsk.

6. You showed perimeter columns which were 5 to 8 floors below the collapse initiation in WTC 1 and attempted to use them to show there was no need for a jolt since they were not buckled and failed at the bolts. These columns are not germane to the argument.

I picked an example that was clear to see, and well within the "9 floors" you said would have been definitely destroyed by nefarious means. I'm rather amazed that you can't figure this out.

Basically you're complaining that I didn't read the whole NIST report to you in the space of three 30-minute debates. That's dumb even for you.

No, the reality is that this debate is not over as you have not proven your contentions that the tilt obviates the need for a jolt to cause collapse propagation and that it explains the rapidness of the collapse...

It's over, all right. You can beg for "best 2 out of 3" in typical Truther fashion, but until you fix your mistakes, you deserve no attention at all.

Algebra34

3rd December 2009, 08:58 AM

.relatively irrelevant things

You crack me up Mackey. Get em Tony. I smell blood.

bardamu

3rd December 2009, 09:23 AM

That's not even a good objection. Newtons Bit laid out the criteria for what a progressive collapse is. Your response is basically a non sequitor. Regardless of how fast or slow components fail, a progressive collapse is defined by qualitative criteria, not the rate at which it occurs.

Speed of progression of column failure may not be relevant to a strict definition of a progressive collapse, but it's very relevant to an analysis of the WTC collapses. If the perimeter of the roof falls as one, all the perimeter columns must have failed together. We've seen videos of progressive collapses and videos of controlled demolitions, and only the controlled demolitions show the roof edge drop without completely breaking apart. In fact, even standard controlled demolitions seem to cause more initial destruction to the roof line than we see in the videos of the WTC7 collapse.

Word salad is not a response. First of all, the connections between the floor trusses and the core beams in the Twin Towers do not have to be strong enough to bring down the strongest columns of the core. On the contrary, when those connections between the trusses and the core columns sever, the core columns cannot stand on their own at all. They're too slender in relation to their length to do so. The thing that holds them up - the floors - are gone, so all they can do is collapse.

Are we talking about the same core, or even the same building?

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/docs/image5.jpg

Even if the beams could be smashed away from the columns, the columns might topple over eventually, but I've yet to see a plausible reason for them to completely fall apart as the collapse is progressing.

You really don't know the basic mechanics of any of the WTC collapses, do you?

One thing we all have in common here is we know the buildings were demolished. Some of us want to expose it, others want to cover it up.

Probably not, but Bazant, Zhou, and others worked out the energy totals in the whole system and discovered that regardless of how you describe the collapse, once it got started there was more than enough energy to keep it going. Or in short, there was more than enough energy to fail all the connections, regardless of whether the failure modes were shear, buckling, or whatnot.

Working out the energy totals in the whole system is an excellent way to avoid doing a meaningful analysis. Without a plausible mechanism to transfer the energy of the falling rubble onto the load-bearing structure below, there's no global collapse. Each lower core beam had to be hit by something from above to shear at least one of its connections with the columns. If the upper floor beams lifted off the seats easily, they could only hit the beams below with their own energy, not the combined energy of the whole upper block.

His point is that the very description you provide is consistent with a progressive collapse that wasn't induced by explosives or any other sort of intentional demolition. So what you'd have to do to further determine the collapse mechanism is study the evidence. And the fact of the matter is, there is zero evidence of intentional demolition of the structure.

Imagine WTC7 was brought down by a two-stage controlled demolition where one column is taken out first, then 7 seconds later, the remaining 80 columns are removed. The interior columns are removed slightly before the perimeter ones, so that the sides will fold inward to minimize damage to neighbouring buildings. In what way would the collapse mechanism of such a controlled demolition be visibly different from what we see in the videos from 9/11. I'm talking about the sequence and rate of column failures, not periphery characteristics, such as flashes and expulsions.

Ah... truther misstatements and strawmen. You might want to look up what that highlited portion means... It doesn't mean what you think it does. And it didn't happen. Nothing was "hurled" hundreds of feet. It fell out during the collapse due to the very chaotic collapse mechanisms.

You must think steel can descend horizontally:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtx_GcFCs6c&feature=related

The amount of explosive necessary to "hurl columns for hundreds of feet" would be very noticable during the collapse.

The explosions are very noticeable in the above video, where the corners are clearly being blown apart:

Now your shifting the goal-post. You asked for someone with relevant experience and qualifications to answer you question. I'm an engineer who makes a living designing the structural systems of buildings. I gave you a text-book response to the definition of a progressive collapse.

We're not trying to design a building or compile a glossary of structural engineering terms. We're trying to work out how three buildings collapsed. In the case of all three buildings, the rate of column failures rules out a random fire-induced progressive collapse. In order to divert attention away from that obvious fact, you chose to give a text book definition of a progressive collapse. I'm sure you weren't really expecting me to convert to a progressive-collapse believer after reading your explanation. Thou protesteth too much.

You've now moved on to the "it can't collapse that fast" idiocy. This is an argument from incredulity. It has no bearing on the discussion at hand. If you would like to continue with that particular long debunked meme, then I ask you to prove it. The burden of proof is on you.

Watch some videos of progressive collapses, then watch some videos of controlled demolitions. If it walks like one and quacks like one, the burden of proof is on anybody who says it isn't one.

Why would ANY architects be challenging YOUR explanation for the collapses--in even larger numbers than your intrepid list of merry professionals? Are these whom you must consider incompetent or worse "in on it" still allowed to design buildings? Have YOU complained to the architect licencing body?

How many architects are actively defending the official conspiracy theory?

Maybe they kept him because they can pay him in trutherDollars!

I laughed at that, beachnut. Much better than your usual rants.

Algebra34

3rd December 2009, 09:29 AM

Speed of progression of column failure may not be relevant to a strict definition of a progressive collapse, but it's very relevant to an analysis of the WTC collapses. If the perimeter of the roof falls as one, all the perimeter columns must have failed together. We've seen videos of progressive collapses and videos of controlled demolitions, and only the controlled demolitions show the roof edge drop without completely breaking apart. In fact, even standard controlled demolitions seem to cause more initial destruction to the roof line than we see in the videos of the WTC7 collapse.

Are we talking about the same core, or even the same building?

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/docs/image5.jpg

Even if the beams could be smashed away from the columns, the columns might topple over eventually, but I've yet to see a plausible reason for them to completely fall apart as the collapse is progressing.

One thing we all have in common here is we know the buildings were demolished. Some of us want to expose it, others want to cover it up.

Working out the energy totals in the whole system is an excellent way to avoid doing a meaningful analysis. Without a plausible mechanism to transfer the energy of the falling rubble onto the load-bearing structure below, there's no global collapse. Each lower core beam had to be hit by something from above to shear at least one of its connections with the columns. If the upper floor beams lifted off the seats easily, they could only hit the beams below with their own energy, not the combined energy of the whole upper block.

Imagine WTC7 was brought down by a two-stage controlled demolition where one column is taken out first, then 7 seconds later, the remaining 80 columns are removed. The interior columns are removed slightly before the perimeter ones, so that the sides will fold inward to minimize damage to neighbouring buildings. In what way would the collapse mechanism of such a controlled demolition be visibly different from what we see in the videos from 9/11. I'm talking about the sequence and rate of column failures, not periphery characteristics, such as flashes and expulsions.

You must think steel can descend horizontally:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtx_GcFCs6c&feature=related

The explosions are very noticeable in the above video, where the corners are clearly being blown apart:

We're not trying to design a building or compile a glossary of structural engineering terms. We're trying to work out how three buildings collapsed. In the case of all three buildings, the rate of column failures rules out a random fire-induced progressive collapse. In order to divert attention away from that obvious fact, you chose to give a text book definition of a progressive collapse. I'm sure you weren't really expecting me to convert to a progressive-collapse believer after reading your explanation. Thou protesteth too much.

Watch some videos of progressive collapses, then watch some videos of controlled demolitions. If it walks like one and quacks like one, the burden of proof is on anybody who says it isn't one.

How many architects are actively defending the official conspiracy theory?

I laughed at that, beachnut. Much better than your usual rants.

You are doing way too good here. Just be careful. They would like nothing more than not to debate you at all. Watch out for the teachers pets.

Dave Rogers

3rd December 2009, 09:39 AM

You are doing way to good here. Just be careful. They would like nothing more than not to debate you at all. Watch out for the teachers pets.

Thank you for that articulate, genuine evidence based and logical argument.

Dave

TruthersLie

3rd December 2009, 09:52 AM

You must think steel can descend horizontally:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtx_GcFCs6c&feature=related

No twoof. I think that steel when hooked to a lever arm can fall in an ARC from where it was attached and that is how you get steel girders severl hundred feet away from the towers.

or, the collapsing pile being very chaotic allows the steel to shift horizontally. It isn't that hard.

The explosions are very noticeable in the above video, where the corners are clearly being blown apart:

Great. Then you can provide video or audio of the collapse where you can easily hear the explosives.

Any explosives that have enough power to throw steel 600 feet would EASILY be heard. Please provide the evidence of explosions. (you know one of the dozens of videos with explosives in it, the seismic data showing explosives, or the explosive damage to any steel recovered.) It should be easy.

why can't you provide any of this easy to find proof?

We're not trying to design a building or compile a glossary of structural engineering terms. We're trying to work out how three buildings collapsed. In the case of all three buildings, the rate of column failures rules out a random fire-induced progressive collapse.

Why and how? Provide your mathematical proofs. I eagerly await your thesis.

Argument from ignorance and incredulity noted.

In order to divert attention away from that obvious fact, you chose to give a text book definition of a progressive collapse. I'm sure you weren't really expecting me to convert to a progressive-collapse believer after reading your explanation. Thou protesteth too much.

Your lack of understand and lack of education are on display for all to see.

Watch some videos of progressive collapses, then watch some videos of controlled demolitions. If it walks like one and quacks like one, the burden of proof is on anybody who says it isn't one.

you still haven't presented anything except wishful thinking and hopes.

You have claimed a uniform and symmetrical collapse of wtc7. PROVE IT. I'm still waiting to see that video of yours that shows all 4 corners falling a the same time. Where is it?

How many architects are actively defending the official conspiracy theory?

How many astrophysicists are actively defending the "earth is round" theory?
argument from ignorance noted and rejected. Try again.

If NIST is full of crap, there would EASILY be dozens of (if not hundreds of) peer reviewed engineering or architectural journals. Please provide just one. In any language.

Of course we can always post the 50+ real peer reviewed journal articles which support the NIST conclusions.

One would think that you would have learned about arguments from incredulity and ignorance in the UK public schools... Unless manchester is really that bad.[/QUOTE]

carlitos

3rd December 2009, 09:53 AM

You must think steel can descend horizontally:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtx_G...eature=related

The explosions are very noticeable in the above video, where the corners are clearly being blown apart:
<snip>
Watch some videos of progressive collapses, then watch some videos of controlled demolitions. If it walks like one and quacks like one, the burden of proof is on anybody who says it isn't one.
According to AE911Truth, it "looks like a classic controlled demolition" because the buildings "collapsed perfectly straight down at free-fall speed (sic) into their own footprints." And the proof for this is that silent explosives hurled beams outward "hundreds of feet." This is ridiculous, of course.

Here (http://www.designaids.com/wtc/chapter7.html) is analysis of the damage to the many other buildings around the WTC complex.

Here is a photo (http://www.debunking911.com/columnd.jpg) that shows how the outer wall fell outwards by 600 feet into the Winter Garden.

Stop believing the lies these people are telling you. It's for your own good. Learn how to think.

twinstead

3rd December 2009, 09:55 AM

How many architects are actively defending the official conspiracy theory?

Indeed. Depends on your definition of "actively defending", does it not? How many architects are ACTIVELY defending your position? Do You think all it takes is a name and an asinine comment on a website roster to be actively defending something? Where are their scientific papers, their press conferences, their books, their interviews?

Hell, if just putting your name to something means actively supporting, I'll take the hundreds of contributers to the NIST and Purdue reports alone. They certainly trump your delightful little group.

bardamu

3rd December 2009, 09:58 AM

We ignore their opinion because it's stupid.

All those architects and engineers, working towards a common cause, with years and years to perfect their arguments... and not a single journal paper? Not even a conference paper?? How can this be?

This is only possible if they are actually avoiding a scientific argument. Or if they're so incompetent that they get summarily rejected with every submission, or if they know they're incompetent and don't even try.

Here's one of the Climategate emails discussing how to stop sceptics from publishing their work:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017987/climategate-what-gores-useful-idiot-ed-begley-jr-doesnt-get-about-the-peer-review-process/ (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017987/climategate-what-gores-useful-idiot-ed-begley-jr-doesnt-get-about-the-peer-review-process/)
“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”

“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”
Edited misattributed quote. Please be careful using the quote function.

[/URL]

You may therefore assume by induction I can humiliate the entire gang of them at will.

I regret to inform you that the only person you've humiliated is yourself.

Orwell said something about folks like you, I believe.

Orwell based a character on you, Mackey. He was called O'Brien and his job was to pimp for Big Brother. O'Brien held four fingers up and forced Winston Smith to say he could see five. He threatened to set hungry rats on Winston Smith, which is rather appropriate considering some of the rodents on this forum.

Anyway, it's come to my attention that [URL="http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5355066#post5355066"]you are a no-planer (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017987/climategate-what-gores-useful-idiot-ed-begley-jr-doesnt-get-about-the-peer-review-process/)

Newton was an alchemist. Do you reject his physics on that basis?

And you've more than earned your ticket to Ignore, which I strongly suspect isn't your first

I thought you already had me on ignore. I've had to rely on elMondoHummus to provide any coherent answers my questions about your presentation.

carlitos

3rd December 2009, 10:03 AM

(lots of silly stuff)

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017987/climategate-what-gores-useful-idiot-ed-begley-jr-doesnt-get-about-the-peer-review-process/ (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017987/climategate-what-gores-useful-idiot-ed-begley-jr-doesnt-get-about-the-peer-review-process/)
Edited misattributed quote.
“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”

“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”

(more silly stuff)

I'm quoting because he can't see it. bardamu, if I were you, I would remove Mr. Mackey's name from that climategate quote. Unless you think he said those things.

twinstead

3rd December 2009, 10:03 AM

Newton was an alchemist. Do you reject his physics on that basis?

Interesting analogy. So you're saying we should believe your physics in spite of your belief in something stupid like no planes?

TruthersLie

3rd December 2009, 10:12 AM

I love ignorant, undereducated pompus twoofs.
Here's one of the Climategate emails discussing how to stop sceptics from publishing their work:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017987/climategate-what-gores-useful-idiot-ed-begley-jr-doesnt-get-about-the-peer-review-process/

See this is hilarious. Twoofs can't publish anywhere. If you all could get a decent paper together, I'm sure most mainstream journals would LOVE to publish it. It would increase readership and gain them attention.

of course, we also know that twoofs don't publish anywhere. Why? Because if they were submitting real journal articles and getting rejected, they would be all over JONES having twoofs publish the papers.

If they were valid papers, then it would create quite a stir. To have good,valid well researched papers (even on JONES) to examine would be fantastic. So far we have crapola. I mean huge steaming piles.

That is how I can definatevly say you are full of ****.

I regret to inform you that the only person you've humiliated is yourself.

<snort><snicker><ROFLMAO>

That is why "debating" twoofs is so much fun. Anyone with even a basic education in physics and engineering knows that Ryan has wiped the floor with you, heiwa and Tony S. BADLY.

Yet you think you have done something... You are so outclassed you are not even playing the same game, let alone in the same ballpark.

Orwell based a character on you, Mackey. He was called O'Brien and his job was to pimp for Big Brother. O'Brien held four fingers up and forced Winston Smith to say he could see five. He threatened to set hungry rats on Winston Smith, which is rather appropriate considering some of the rodents on this forum.

Ad hom noted and reported. Thank you twoof. Is this how you debate in manchester?

rsalinger

3rd December 2009, 10:27 AM

Newton was an alchemist at a time when chemistry was in it's infancy. No one even understood that atoms existed or what their structure was. So, transmutation is completely reasonable given the state of knowledge at the time. So, to compare Newton's speculations to "no planes" is completely off target. It would be better argumentation if you could show that say Einstein or Bohr were alchemists.

twinstead

3rd December 2009, 11:02 AM

bardamu

3rd December 2009, 12:29 PM

I'm quoting because he can't see it. bardamu, if I were you, I would remove Mr. Mackey's name from that climategate quote. Unless you think he said those things.

Careless use of the paste command on my part, and the edit button is not available any more. Not sure if a mod could remove it, but if not, I'd like to make it clear that the quote is from the Telegraph article on the Climategate emails and has nothing to do with Ryan Mackey. Sorry for the confusion.

alienentity

3rd December 2009, 12:58 PM

Tony Szamboti wrote to Ryan Mackey 'No, the reality is that this debate is not over as you have not proven your contentions that the tilt obviates the need for a jolt to cause collapse propagation and that it explains the rapidness of the collapse'

Tony, you have a funny way of admitting that your were wrong. You also have a peculiar habit of shifting the burden of proof onto others while it is you who makes the initial claims.
To summarize, you have explicitly been arguing that the impact between upper block and lower structure was square and simultaneous, column-on-column. You have denied that it wasn't actually column-on-column, which is expected (and inevitable) if the upper blocks tilted. You have found it necessary to deny that the tilt happened, to support your false assumptions.

You are wrong. You have lost the argument. Now if you wish to examine more precisely what the effects of the initial tilts were, abandoning your previous wrong assumptions, that's fantastic. Everyone makes mistakes Tony, including you and Ryan. The thing is you need to acknowledge your mistakes and correct your calculations.
You haven't gone thru all the Kubler-Ross stages of grief yet. You're still hanging onto a lot of denial, you're getting some anger, but you're not at acceptance yet.

You can heal if you try. Let the facts in, and let go of the myths. Stop resisting reality, it's futile.

Newtons Bit

3rd December 2009, 01:04 PM

We're not trying to design a building or compile a glossary of structural engineering terms. We're trying to work out how three buildings collapsed. In the case of all three buildings, the rate of column failures rules out a random fire-induced progressive collapse. In order to divert attention away from that obvious fact, you chose to give a text book definition of a progressive collapse. I'm sure you weren't really expecting me to convert to a progressive-collapse believer after reading your explanation. Thou protesteth too much.

Hey bub, you're the one who thinks progressive collapse has a speed parameter in it's definition. It doesn't. You've seemed to accept that fact but you've conveniently forgotten that you were the one who brought it up.

Watch some videos of progressive collapses, then watch some videos of controlled demolitions. If it walks like one and quacks like one, the burden of proof is on anybody who says it isn't one.

Again, speed is not a parameter in progressive collapses. It's a factor in the mode in which the elements failed.

Take WTC1&2 for example:

Damaged and destroyed columns in the core of the building pulled all of the exterior columns inwards through centenary action. The fire heated an entire walls-length of perimeter columns to the point where they failed. This resulted in the complete global failure of an entire floor of columns. Global collapse ensues. Speed isn't an issue because of the load redistribution resulted in an entire floor of columns failing near simultaneously. This is obvious.

The information needed to see this is available in the NIST report. Try to read it for understanding. Come here with questions. People like myself or Mackey can answer them. Even a few of the achitecture people will try and help you out. They're not experts, but they had to learn a small amount of structural engineering to pass their license exam.

alienentity

3rd December 2009, 01:07 PM

Tony, don't forget to include WTC2 in your tilt calculations. Remember that the first 20 stories fell at less than freefall acceleration, with a large column offset.

You will probably find that a jolt would not be expected in that case, which inevitably renders your argument moot and irrelevant. Which, to state the obvious, means that explosives were not necessary to produce the effects seen.

Never mind that WTC2 is harder to measure (acceleration). Just measure the degree of tilt, that's what's important in terms of your calculations. Don't run away from the truth because it threatens you. It's only threatening to fools, and you're not a fool.

rsalinger

3rd December 2009, 01:07 PM

alienentity

3rd December 2009, 01:12 PM

bardamu, I would add to Newton's comment that the towers didn't fall like controlled demolitions. There was no initial stage in freefall, as you would see if columns were blown out by explosives or hydraulics.
The initial failures of the towers were more gradual. You can see that very clearly on the videos, and there were no giant explosions at onset either. Neither feature is like a controlled demolition.

Here's a little clip which demonstrates the initial failure of WTC2 was slower than freefall. I've done some recent calculations using overall acceleration in the 64% to 70% of freefall range, as measured in WTC1 by David Chandler, and mentioned by Tony Szamboti, for the remaining 90 stories of WTC2. This is intended to give a reasonable estimate of the overall collapse time - I came up with roughly 11 to 12 seconds. This figure is very close to the mathematical estimates given by various published papers and consistent with other observations.

rOIebjT2jaM

With WTC7, the initial failures were internal, progressive, and without any evidence of explosions. The final stage of global collapse was the drop of the entire curtain wall, while much of the internal structure had already fallen.
Again, not like any controlled demolition you can find on youtube. I challenge you to find a single example which exactly matches the WTC collapses.

You're just wrong, plain and simple.

Newtons Bit

3rd December 2009, 01:27 PM

Furcifer

3rd December 2009, 02:01 PM

*deleted the thread isn't about stupidity.

GlennB

3rd December 2009, 03:16 PM

Imagine WTC7 was brought down by a two-stage controlled demolition where one column is taken out first, then 7 seconds later, the remaining 80 columns are removed. The interior columns are removed slightly before the perimeter ones, so that the sides will fold inward to minimize damage to neighbouring buildings.

As has been mentioned, this is a bizarre concept given the horrific devastation wreaked on Lower Manhattan that day. Knowingly wreaked in your view, it seems.

But, can you give us your thoughts on why WTC7 was CD'd?
Also how it was rigged, and when?

Y'know, crimes require motive, method and opportunity.

Newtons Bit

3rd December 2009, 03:50 PM

As has been mentioned, this is a bizarre concept given the horrific devastation wreaked on Lower Manhattan that day. Knowingly wreaked in your view, it seems.

But, can you give us your thoughts on why WTC7 was CD'd?
Also how it was rigged, and when?

Y'know, crimes require motive, method and opportunity.

They also require evidence that they actually happened. So far the "truthers" have nothing that hasn't been proven incorrect.

bardamu

3rd December 2009, 04:47 PM

Hey bub, you're the one who thinks progressive collapse has a speed parameter in it's definition. It doesn't. You've seemed to accept that fact but you've conveniently forgotten that you were the one who brought it up.

Again, speed is not a parameter in progressive collapses. It's a factor in the mode in which the elements failed.

Take WTC1&2 for example:

Damaged and destroyed columns in the core of the building pulled all of the exterior columns inwards through centenary action. The fire heated an entire walls-length of perimeter columns to the point where they failed. This resulted in the complete global failure of an entire floor of columns. Global collapse ensues. Speed isn't an issue because of the load redistribution resulted in an entire floor of columns failing near simultaneously. This is obvious.

The information needed to see this is available in the NIST report. Try to read it for understanding. Come here with questions. People like myself or Mackey can answer them. Even a few of the achitecture people will try and help you out. They're not experts, but they had to learn a small amount of structural engineering to pass their license exam.

I just wanted a rough figure that could be used as a guideline to differentiate between a planned demolition and a random collapse. I can see now that 'simultaneous' and 'progressive' were a bad choice of words.

I still think that in the real world there must be a point when a number of columns fail together in such a short time that it would be reasonable to assume it was done intentionally. NIST claim the interior columns of WTC7 were buckling progressively for 7 seconds, but there's no visual evidence for that whatsoever. The screenwall starts to drop at the end of the 7 second period, the west penthouse follows, then the roof perimeter starts to drop within 0.7s of the screenwall. If the collapse of the east penthouse was caused by the failure of 1 column, then according to the observed movement of the structures on the rooftop, the other 80 columns failed within 700ms of each other. To assume the progressive collapse of all interior columns over a period of 7 seconds is to work backwards from the conclusion that the building collapsed due to fire, and it flies in the face the evidence.

bardamu, I would add to Newton's comment that the towers didn't fall like controlled demolitions. There was no initial stage in freefall, as you would see if columns were blown out by explosives or hydraulics.
The initial failures of the towers were more gradual. You can see that very clearly on the videos, and there were no giant explosions at onset either. Neither feature is like a controlled demolition.

Here's a little clip which demonstrates the initial failure of WTC2 was slower than freefall. I've done some recent calculations using overall acceleration in the 64% to 70% of freefall range, as measured in WTC1 by David Chandler, and mentioned by Tony Szamboti, for the remaining 90 stories of WTC2. This is intended to give a reasonable estimate of the overall collapse time - I came up with roughly 11 to 12 seconds. This figure is very close to the mathematical estimates given by various published papers and consistent with other observations.

This is just splitting hairs. 12 seconds is ridiculously fast.

9/11 Chewy Defense

3rd December 2009, 04:49 PM

I just wanted a rough figure that could be used as a guideline to differentiate between a planned demolition and a random collapse. I can see now that 'simultaneous' and 'progressive' were a bad choice of words.

I still think that in the real world there must be a point when a number of columns fail together in such a short time that it would be reasonable to assume it was done intentionally. NIST claim the interior columns of WTC7 were buckling progressively for 7 seconds, but there's no visual evidence for that whatsoever. The screenwall starts to drop at the end of the 7 second period, the west penthouse follows, then the roof perimeter starts to drop within 0.7s of the screenwall. If the collapse of the east penthouse was caused by the failure of 1 column, then according to the observed movement of the structures on the rooftop, the other 80 columns failed within 700ms of each other. To assume the progressive collapse of all interior columns over a period of 7 seconds is to work backwards from the conclusion that the building collapsed due to fire, and it flies in the face the evidence.

This is just splitting hairs. 12 seconds is ridiculously fast.

Then what's the speed for free fall?

carlitos

3rd December 2009, 04:50 PM

I still think that in the real world there must be a point when a number of columns fail together in such a short time that it would be reasonable to assume it was done intentionally.
You still think that, even after being corrected by people who actually understand these concepts. This is called "willful ignorance." You really aren't willing to learn anything, are you?

Mancman

3rd December 2009, 05:12 PM

This is just splitting hairs. 12 seconds is ridiculously fast.

How long should it have taken, in your estimation?

alienentity

3rd December 2009, 06:03 PM

I still think that in the real world there must be a point when a number of columns fail together in such a short time that it would be reasonable to assume it was done intentionally. NIST claim the interior columns of WTC7 were buckling progressively for 7 seconds, but there's no visual evidence for that whatsoever.

You haven't read the report, have you? First, how many times must you be corrected in terms of visual evidence before the facts finally sink in? The E PH fell into the building - where do you think it went, and why?
This event is not speculation, as your explosives theory is - it is a simple fact.

Therefore we already know that major failures were occurring, I guess you are arguing that silent explosives did it, whereas we're arguing a more real-world explanation of fires and thermal expansion leading to failure.

Take a look at the seismic data for WTC7. It takes about 17 to 18 seconds for the building to completely collapse.
Again, this cannot and has not been explained by controlled demolition theory. That glib label is applied by truthers who don't, or won't take the trouble to understand the facts at hand.

Third, NIST created an engineering-based computer model which demonstrated how the building could fail due to fires alone. You and other truthers haven't even begun to refute this engineering data thru your own inquiry.

Why don't you do that and report back to us? Seriously.

This is just splitting hairs. 12 seconds is ridiculously fast.

According to what engineering and physics principles is it ridiculously fast? You don't know what you're talking about. Read a few of the peer-reviewed papers on the subject before opining.

Besides, in both towers significant portions of the cores remained standing after the floors and perimeters had met their demise, so the overall collapse time is of course longer than 12 seconds.

Finally, if you think buildings shouldn't collapse very fast, try to explain how the upper block of this buiilding, when dropped a couple of stories max, crushed down the rest of the building so quickly.......without explosives and without weakening the structure below the collapse.

Yup, you read that right. No explosives, no weakening below. Fast crush anyway. You can't just handwave that away, 'cause it's irrefutable, dude.

EY3nj728WPY

newton3376

3rd December 2009, 06:13 PM

If some non expert tried to argue with me in my area of expertise I would likely get pissed off eventually....I don't know how some of you continue to debate these truthers without being a bit frustrated and maybe even a bit insulted too....

But hats off to you structural guys who continue to try and educate them.

Grizzly Bear

3rd December 2009, 06:15 PM

I just wanted a rough figure that could be used as a guideline to differentiate between a planned demolition and a random collapse. I can see now that 'simultaneous' and 'progressive' were a bad choice of words.

I still think that in the real world there must be a point when a number of columns fail together in such a short time that it would be reasonable to assume it was done intentionally.
No there's really no distinction. If a column buckles then it has no value as a supporting structural element; it'll fail and it's normally sudden. You can only lose so many (and depending on how the loads are distributed) before you get a rapid succession of failures in the remaining structure.

Gage usually talks about how you have sagging that indicates how structures fail. From what I've been able to ascertain of his remark on that area he's talking about the creep behavior without actually getting into the critical failure point; he stops short of it. Dunno if that's why you object to the rapid failure issue, but if you want I can scan a page from one of my reference books so you can read on it yourself. PM me if you want any scans.

alienentity

3rd December 2009, 07:38 PM

OK Bardamu, you want to debate the collapse time? Well, I've just created a brand new video which proves conclusively that there was still major collapse occurring at 15 seconds in, and that the core elements held up at least 31 seconds.

I was partially inspired (aggravated) by last week's Fifth Estate program on CBC TV, which wrongly stated the towers collapsed in 9 seconds at up to freefall speed.

Well, I guess if you include the stuff that fell off the buildings in the air, yes, that was obviously freefall, but the collapse wasn't nearly so fast. And it does make a big difference IMHO.

Just for fun, try to calculate the size of the WTC tower footprints based on where the major debris landed. Truthers always like to say they fell 'into their own footprints', who knew that the footprints included all the surrounding buildings? Go figure....

Just another dumb truther talking point D.O.A.

MAYXdafNl6E

Furcifer

3rd December 2009, 07:53 PM

I still think that in the real world there must be a point when a number of columns fail together in such a short time that it would be reasonable to assume it was done intentionally.

Why? I don't get this at all. Any kid can tell you when you crush a pop can it resists to a point then all of a sudden crushes. In order to maximize material, building elements are bu it significantly stronger in the intended plane. Once you get out of alignment all bets are off.

Haven't you ever done that trick with the egg, trying to crush it? In one direction its almost impossible to crack, but you put it another position and it breaks easily. What's so freaking hard to comprehend here?

There's some basic principles at work in this example. So basic you seem a fool if you don't comprehend this, and you can't extend them to the WTC.

TruthersLie

4th December 2009, 06:26 AM

I just wanted a rough figure that could be used as a guideline to differentiate between a planned demolition and a random collapse. I can see now that 'simultaneous' and 'progressive' were a bad choice of words.

Really? Coming in a place where real engineers post and then using your piss poor understanding of the terms and your own personal ignorance to try to back up a claim? Yea, bad choice of words.

I still think that in the real world there must be a point when a number of columns fail together in such a short time

Ah... personal incredulity and ignorance. Got it.

that it would be reasonable to assume it was done intentionally.

That is the problem there. You are making assumptions which are not backed up by reality.

You do know what happens when you make an assumption right? You make an ASS out of U and MPTION. You have done a good job doing that already.

NIST claim the interior columns of WTC7 were buckling progressively for 7 seconds, but there's no visual evidence for that whatsoever.

Wrong. You can see the upper corner where the eastern mechanical penthouse was has collapsed. You don't need to have xray vision to figure out why it collapsed and how the collapse progresses. It comes from YEARS of (get ready for it) education and experience in the field of engineering.

How many years of education or experience do you have in that field? Oh none. right. argument from incredulity and ignorance noted.

The screenwall starts to drop at the end of the 7 second period, the west penthouse follows, then the roof perimeter starts to drop within 0.7s of the screenwall. If the collapse of the east penthouse was caused by the failure of 1 column, then according to the observed movement of the structures on the rooftop, the other 80 columns failed within 700ms of each other. To assume the progressive collapse of all interior columns over a period of 7 seconds is to work backwards from the conclusion that the building collapsed due to fire, and it flies in the face the evidence.

What evidence do you have of CD? I'm still waiting to see any proof or evidence that you have... still waiting to see anything that isn't incredulity or ignorance.

what flies in the face of the evidence is the idea of super duper super silent explosives planted without anyone noticing.

This is just splitting hairs. 12 seconds is ridiculously fast.
ah.. personal incredulity again. And it wasn't 12 seconds. Full collapse including eastern mechanical penthouse took between 16 and 20 seconds. Try again.

Justin39640

4th December 2009, 11:18 AM

How long should it have taken, in your estimation?

How long does it take you to say "clunkity clunk"? lol :mgbanghead

Myriad

4th December 2009, 12:00 PM

If you put an increasing load on a rope, it will eventually break. When it does, a large number of individual fibers fail simultaneously or in such rapid succession as to appear simultaneous. So when that happens, is the simultaneous breaking of hundreds or thousands of fibers an improbable occurrence, or evidence that the rope must have been cut or otherwise sabotaged?

Truthers promote the idea that increasing instability and overload culminating in near-simultaneous failure of multiple members is improbable or impossible. Their argument might seem "intuitively" reasonable at first glance. But when you turn it around and ask, what should have happened instead, it ceases to be so.

Ironically, it's the least rational Truthers who most successfully take that notion to its logical conclusion, and claim that all global structural collapse is therefore impossible. The more rational ones hesitate to assert such a bold (and patently false) conclusion. But what are the logical implications of accepting that global failure is possible while denying that rapid progressive failure of multiple individual structural elements is plausible?

The resulting implied claim can only be, "Unless there was sabotage, the building cannot have collapsed without pausing for dramatic effect between individual column failures." Which of course is consistent with how structural failures are depicted in Hollywood, at least when the hero is standing under them.

But applied to reality, it's silly.

Respectfully,
Myriad

bardamu

4th December 2009, 12:06 PM

Maybe you've heard. You know, the subject of this thread, that you are so busily derailing.

You posted a link to the material you prepared for the debate and I commented on the content of that material.

http://911myths.com/index.php/Image:Rm_hardfire_szamboti_ann.pdf

I explained, in the presentation accompanying the debate, my hypothesis of why the lower core preferentially resists destruction. This matches what was actually observed, which is why I came up with it in the first place.

Is this 'hypothesis' the short sentence claiming that debris was channelled to the sides? If there's more on that subject, I'd like to see it.

The force required is in NIST, of course. And in case you haven't heard, the "upper debris" massed about 34,000 tonnes.

As in the case of the 'slug of fuel', the force is an abstraction, and we need to know exactly how it comes into contact with the structure it collides with.

Pretty much always. The only confusion occurs among folks like you, and only when you start claiming that all collapses are controlled demolitions.

How about a detailed description of how WTC7 might have collapsed if it had been brought down by controlled demolition?

I already demolished the motive argument as well. It's pretty easy to do.

It's pretty easy when your world view only allows one conclusion.

But if you mean the "motive" of the FDNY, which you believe murdered a large fraction of its own staff, you're wrong.

Straw man. I've never suggested the FD planned the operation.

You suspect wrong. NIST describes why the collapse of WTC 7 progressed the way it did -- all of it. The falling penthouses, the timing, even the "free fall." Funny thing, I've never seen a single Truther even acknowledge this. It's as if you can't even read the report. Too many big words, I guess.

I've read the relevant sections of the report, and it doesn't describe what I see in the videos. The report says the interior columns are progressively buckling during the 7 seconds following the first movement of the East penthouse, then the buckling rapidly spreads to the outer columns. The trouble is, the interior columns are supporting the Screenwall and the West penthouse. So why aren't these rooftop structures progressively collapsing during those 7 seconds?

WildCat

4th December 2009, 12:07 PM

WildCat

4th December 2009, 12:13 PM

How about a detailed description of how WTC7 might have collapsed if it had been brought down by controlled demolition?
It would look, and just as importantly, sound, like this:

79sJ1bMR6VQ

Note you do not see any deformation until the building is actually collapsing. Also note the very loud explosions, heard even though there are helicopters hovering nearby.

Have you learned anything from this video of an actual, real controlled demolition bardamu?

bardamu

4th December 2009, 12:20 PM

How long should it have taken, in your estimation?

How long does it take you to say "clunkity clunk"?

In my estimation, you should be able to read 'War and Peace' and the building will still be there.

You haven't read the report, have you? First, how many times must you be corrected in terms of visual evidence before the facts finally sink in? The E PH fell into the building - where do you think it went, and why?
This event is not speculation, as your explosives theory is - it is a simple fact.

We agree that the east penthouse fell into the building. Let's take it from there. What's the next observable movement on the roof of WTC7, and how many seconds separate that movement and the first movement of the east penthouse?

Third, NIST created an engineering-based computer model which demonstrated how the building could fail due to fires alone. You and other truthers haven't even begun to refute this engineering data thru your own inquiry.

We have a choice whether to believe NIST's computer model or whether to believe the videos of the collapse. I choose the videos because I have no reason to believe they were faked. You choose to believe NIST's model in spite of what the videos clearly show.

Yup, you read that right. No explosives, no weakening below.

No steel core?

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/docs/image5.jpg

ah.. personal incredulity again. And it wasn't 12 seconds. Full collapse including eastern mechanical penthouse took between 16 and 20 seconds. Try again.

We were talking about the south tower. Go back to sleep.

Edx

4th December 2009, 12:24 PM

We have a choice whether to believe NIST's computer model or whether to believe the videos of the collapse. I choose the videos because I have no reason to believe they were faked. You choose to believe NIST's model in spite of what the videos clearly show.

The videos dont prove explosive demolition, they prove exactly the opposite.

No steel core?

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/docs/image5.jpg

What the hell does that have to do with what Alien said? And what the hell does that picture have to do with it? OMG There is steel in the building! So?

We were talking about the south tower. Go back to sleep.

It still look longer than 12 seconds.

WildCat

4th December 2009, 12:28 PM

It would look, and just as importantly, sound, like this:

79sJ1bMR6VQ

Note you do not see any deformation until the building is actually collapsing. Also note the very loud explosions, heard even though there are helicopters hovering nearby.

Have you learned anything from this video of an actual, real controlled demolition bardamu?
bardamu?

twinstead

4th December 2009, 12:29 PM

In my estimation, you should be able to read 'War and Peace' and the building will still be there.

Huh? In your estimation? What the hell does that mean? In what possible way are you qualified to make an estimation on how fast, or IF even, the building should have fallen?

Yea. An "edumacated" estimation. Like my math teacher always used to say, can you show your work?

TruthersLie

4th December 2009, 12:47 PM

Straw man. I've never suggested the FD planned the operation.

No you have just stated they murdered 384 firefighters.

I've read the relevant sections of the report,

Just like a twoof. In fact you haven't read any part of the report, and if you did you didn't understand it. try again.

and it doesn't describe what I see in the videos. The report says the interior columns are progressively buckling during the 7 seconds following the first movement of the East penthouse, then the buckling rapidly spreads to the outer columns. The trouble is, the interior columns are supporting the Screenwall and the West penthouse. So why aren't these rooftop structures progressively collapsing during those 7 seconds?

argument from incredulity and ignorance noted. You might want to go back and actually try to read the report. It is fully described.

I'm still waiting to see your video where you can see the uniformity and symmetrical collapse by seeing all four corners descend at the same time. Where is that video?

TruthersLie

4th December 2009, 12:52 PM

We were talking about the south tower. Go back to sleep.

That is it? I completely take you apart in full posts, and that is it? That is all you have?

ROFLMAO.

Oh twoofie... you were talking about wtc7 first... 18 seconds.

but lets look at the south tower twoofie.
collapse time took about 15 seconds according to the seismographs. It took over 13 seconds by video alone.

Can you not use a simple video timer?

AT 10 seconds in the collapse the south tower is still above the 30 story marriot hotel. How does a building collapse 30 stories in 2 seconds?
(pssss... it doesn't.)

massive swing and massive miss.
I mean with your massive investigoogling skills you must have found this right?
qLShZOvxVe4

TruthersLie

4th December 2009, 12:56 PM

We have a choice whether to believe NIST's computer model or whether to believe the videos of the collapse. I choose the videos because I have no reason to believe they were faked. You choose to believe NIST's model in spite of what the videos clearly show.

I love the hypocrisy. It is absolutely amazing.

YOu don't believe the mainstream media video of the jets impacting the towers.

you don't believe in the video from the hundreds of eyewitnesses who videotaped the jets impacting the towers.

But you want to hold on tight for the video of the wtc7 collapse from the same people. OF course I am still waiting for you to show me that video where you can see all 4 corners start the collapse.

ROFLMAO!!!!!

alienentity

4th December 2009, 01:41 PM

We agree that the east penthouse fell into the building.

I asked you a question, please answer it. 'The E PH fell into the building - where do you think it went, and why?'
Explain what was happening inside the building, including how the failures could be induced by explosive charges which were neither heard, nor seen, nor captured on seismographs, nor left any evidence on the steel.

That would be a good start, if you're honest. If you're not honest, and you just want to waste my time, then avoid those questions, by all means. Every other truther deflects away at that point....why should you be different?

We have a choice whether to believe NIST's computer model or whether to believe the videos of the collapse. I choose the videos because I have no reason to believe they were faked. You choose to believe NIST's model in spite of what the videos clearly show.

Are you saying you don't think the engineering models are legitimate and valid? On what basis are you making that claim? Personal ignorance isn't a good enough reason, Bard.

As I said, no truther has yet managed to refute the NIST LS-DYNA model by using another, legitimate engineering analysis of equal or greater sophistication (that's the ability to accurately model the possible failure and collapse).

Just repeating 'I don't believe' is not good enough. A small child can do that, it doesn't take any great knowledge or intelligence.

no steel core?

You don't understand how things fail yet, clearly. They do not s-l-o-w-l-y fail, do they? Explain, in engineering terms, why steel would fail more slowly than reinforced concrete, once it is loaded to failure.

Or at least consult and engineer about it and get back to us. I think there are a few on these forums who could help you. In the meantime, stop pretending that you know something you don't. Please. It's very tedious.

tsig

4th December 2009, 05:00 PM

This is just splitting hairs. 12 seconds is ridiculously fast.

As opposed to stupidly slow?

Mancman

4th December 2009, 05:26 PM

In my estimation, you should be able to read 'War and Peace' and the building will still be there.

Pathetic dodge. You think 12 seconds is 'ridiculously fast', so what would be reasonable? The 'building shouldn't have collapsed' is not an answer to this question.

bardamu

4th December 2009, 05:35 PM

I asked you a question, please answer it. 'The E PH fell into the building - where do you think it went, and why?'
Explain what was happening inside the building, including how the failures could be induced by explosive charges which were neither heard, nor seen, nor captured on seismographs, nor left any evidence on the steel.

I think the east penthouse went downwards into the building. I think it did so because the columns that were supporting it failed. I can't see through walls, so I don't know what was happening inside the building. I prefer to base my conclusions on observations, not on speculation.

Are you saying you don't think the engineering models are legitimate and valid? On what basis are you making that claim? Personal ignorance isn't a good enough reason, Bard.

As I said, no truther has yet managed to refute the NIST LS-DYNA model by using another, legitimate engineering analysis of equal or greater sophistication (that's the ability to accurately model the possible failure and collapse).

Just repeating 'I don't believe' is not good enough. A small child can do that, it doesn't take any great knowledge or intelligence.

I'm not saying NIST's models are just illegitimate and invalid. I'm saying they are fraudulent. I'm making that claim on the basis that they have replaced gaps in the observable data with stuff from their imagination. As Mr. Chandler says, science starts with observation. NIST appear to agree with that statement when they say: "Agreement between observations and simulations is reasonably good". Now let's look at two crucial events in NIST's timeline and try to verify when they were observed:

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7RevisedTechnicalBriefing111908.pdf (page 46)

Buckling of Column 79, quickly followed by buckling of Columns 80 and 81 - Not observable

Buckling of Columns across core, starting with Column 76 - Not observable

Did you notice? The alleged progressive buckling of the entire core is "not observable". To make matters worse, we can see in the videos that the screenwall and the west penthouse don't budge while this buckling is assumed to be occurring, even though they are supported by the interior columns that are assumed to be buckling one after the other. If NIST's simulations were based on observations, the simulations would show that the columns supporting the east penthouse fail suddenly, then 7 seconds later the columns supporting the screenwall and west penthouse fail suddenly. The (probable) progressive collapse is not observed at all, but simply assumed.

You don't understand how things fail yet, clearly. They do not s-l-o-w-l-y fail, do they? Explain, in engineering terms, why steel would fail more slowly than reinforced concrete, once it is loaded to failure

The upper section could not suddenly drop onto the lower section, because steel columns don't just disappear spontaneously. Even if that was possible, the core columns in the towers could not be loaded to failure, because there's no means of transferring enough energy from the falling debris onto the columns.

but lets look at the south tower twoofie.
collapse time took about 15 seconds according to the seismographs. It took over 13 seconds by video alone.

Can you not use a simple video timer?

AT 10 seconds in the collapse the south tower is still above the 30 story marriot hotel. How does a building collapse 30 stories in 2 seconds?
(pssss... it doesn't.)

I was using alienentity's calculations:

Here's a little clip which demonstrates the initial failure of WTC2 was slower than freefall. I've done some recent calculations using overall acceleration in the 64% to 70% of freefall range, as measured in WTC1 by David Chandler, and mentioned by Tony Szamboti, for the remaining 90 stories of WTC2. This is intended to give a reasonable estimate of the overall collapse time - I came up with roughly 11 to 12 seconds. This figure is very close to the mathematical estimates given by various published papers and consistent with other observations.

I love the hypocrisy. It is absolutely amazing.

YOu don't believe the mainstream media video of the jets impacting the towers.

you don't believe in the video from the hundreds of eyewitnesses who videotaped the jets impacting the towers.

But you want to hold on tight for the video of the wtc7 collapse from the same people. OF course I am still waiting for you to show me that video where you can see all 4 corners start the collapse.

ROFLMAO!!!!!

You couldn't be more wrong. I believe the videos that show the cgi planes. That's the evidence. If they hadn't faked the videos, it would be a lot harder to prove there were no planes.

I agree, Newton can't be blamed for his alchemy; he couldn't have known any better. That's not the way bardamu meant it though.

What if I believed in ghosts instead of no planes? Would that discredit my work in other fields?

alienentity

4th December 2009, 06:18 PM

Bard wrote 'I'm not saying NIST's models are just illegitimate and invalid. I'm saying they are fraudulent'

And you refuse to deal with the obvious question, as I asked again 'how the failures could be induced by explosive charges which were neither heard, nor seen, nor captured on seismographs, nor left any evidence on the steel.'

Ok then. End of discussion. You're not offering any alternative engineering-based hypothesis, as expected.

You'll notice that the W PH only begins to move momentarily before the whole curtain wall comes down. There was no large lag - once support failed across the building, it was almost simultaneous. There's no mystery. Remember, those massive failures were not expected to be slow - only truthers think they would be.
And there's still no evidence of controlled demolition, and never was. It is a fiction.

The kind of explosions necessary to destroy large columns wouldn't have been unnoticed and undetected - that's just not plausible, sorry. Try a different theory.

twinstead

4th December 2009, 06:36 PM

What if I believed in ghosts instead of no planes? Would that discredit my work in other fields?

Are you even qualified enough in ANY field relating to the collapses to say "my work in other fields"? I'll look the other way for now, though. Regardless, you must remember that you leave most of the world in abject confusion when you deny the existence of something witnessed by so many people. The plane impact was literally witnessed first hand by thousands of people. I understand that you weren't there, but I can imagine that the roar of the incoming jet and resulting impact left a pretty big impression on most of them. You disbelief is irrational.

Hell, sometimes I wonder myself if ghosts exist. If you thought they did I wouldn't give it a second thought concerning your other beliefs. That said, your belief in no planes is SO irrational that at least to me I have to look askew at your other 'proclamations'. It also doesn't help that you have absolutely NO obvious expertise in the sciences involved. It's a lose-lose situation as far as I'm concerned.

R.Mackey

4th December 2009, 06:41 PM

Furcifer

4th December 2009, 06:49 PM

...snip I see dead movements! ...snip

Gave up smoking and took up dance did yah? Nice!

WildCat

4th December 2009, 07:07 PM

twinstead

4th December 2009, 07:11 PM

Gave up smoking and took up dance did yah? Nice!

I live to dance.

Grizzly Bear

4th December 2009, 07:22 PM

Rather, I think at this point the derail is itself instructive.

Nobody's backing Tony up. Nobody even seems to care.

The Truth Movement is in such utter disarray that the only response they can concoct is the pre-programmed one, of just spamming their garbage over and over again, diving off into the weeds of whatever each particular individual believes (no matter how stupid), or nit-picking anything I say or do.

My only opinion at this point is if Tony or any other individual has complaints regarding the code changes brought about by the NIST report they have plenty of time to bring their concerns up to the appropriate venues. I believe the inaction on that area is telling in of itself. I was kind of slow on watching the hardfire debates so I don't know how practical it is to comment on them at this point except to say that it's interesting to be able to watch the debate from person to person rather than through a text-based reading. But with the repetitiveness of the points it was still strange to read it and then see it spoken. Just my piff of the day :\

R.Mackey

4th December 2009, 07:25 PM

[...] it's interesting to be able to watch the debate from person to person rather than through a text-based reading. But with the repetitiveness of the points it was still strange to read it and then see it spoken.

It was even weirder to say it. :boggled:

Going over it yet again a dozen times here, after the debate was over, I've gotten used to after dealing with these people. Some folks simply will not let go, no matter what.

triforcharity

4th December 2009, 09:41 PM

Straw man. I've never suggested the FD planned the operation.

Neither did he.

Some of them must have been in on it, or at the very least they kept quiet after the fact.
.

Yeah, so they were in on it.

bill smith

5th December 2009, 07:17 AM

Neither did he.

Yeah, so they were in on it.

You don't seem to understand Tri. Some of the firemen were in on it without a doubt. Perhaps a few dozen or even less. The rest just did their job. I hope you have it straight now.

In other words nobody is saying, or has ever said that all of the firemen were in on it.

triforcharity

5th December 2009, 07:22 AM

Bill,

You have no evidence, or anything really.

Please, in another thread, provide evidence of such. I would love to see it. I will even start your own thread for you.

triforcharity

5th December 2009, 07:26 AM

here you go Bill!! Please feel free to NOT run away from this one.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5379253#post5379253

bill smith

5th December 2009, 07:26 AM

Bill,

You have no evidence, or anything really.

Please, in another thread, provide evidence of such. I would love to see it. I will even start your own thread for you.

Your thread, not mine. But I probably have a few bits and pieces.

BigAl

5th December 2009, 07:41 AM

You don't seem to understand Tri. Some of the firemen were in on it without a doubt. Perhaps a few dozen or even less. The rest just did their job. I hope you have it straight now.

What did this handful of firemen do on 9/11? Did they light the invisible fuse that set of the silent demolition explosives in WTC7 that none of the eyewitnesses saw?

Tony Szamboti

5th December 2009, 08:12 AM

What did this handful of firemen do on 9/11? Did they light the invisible fuse that set of the silent demolition explosives in WTC7 that none of the eyewitnesses saw?

All that had to be done was to prevent the fires in WTC 7 from being fought, so they could be used as a cover for it's demolition.

One would not need to go in the building to fight the fires either. The fireboats only a few hundred yards away could have been used with the siamese fittings on the outside of WTC 7 to supply the sprinkler systems. Hoses from distant fire hydrants could have also been run. There were several siamese fittings on the outside of WTC 7 and they were never hooked up to at any time, due to the orders of a certain fire chief. So maybe it wouldn't even be a handful but as little as one person with authority from the FDNY that would need to be involved.

There are quotes of many firefighters who were befuddled that they weren't being allowed to fight the fires in WTC 7.

Curiosly, by about 12:30 PM on 911 the Giulliani administration was saying WTC 7 was lost, even though there is no photographic evidence of fires in WTC 7 until 12:15 PM. Think about that.

TruthersLie

5th December 2009, 08:14 AM

All the small handful had to do was prevent the fires in WTC 7 from being fought, so they could be used as a cover for it's demolition.

There was no reason that the fireboats only a few hundred yards away couldn't have been used with the siamese fittings on the outside of WTC 7 to supply the sprinkler systems. Hoses from distant fire hydrants could have also been run. There were several siamese fittings on the outside of WTC 7.

Are you really going there tony? Really?

By all means please provide the names of these "few" who let 343 of their fellows be murdered.

Not one has come forward with a guilty concience? Really? Parts of that massive conspiracy in the thousands without a single person going to the NYTimes, the BBC, or the Hague.

Such operational security... wow... but it can be figured out by scooby and the gang... if it wasn't for those blased kids.

BigAl

5th December 2009, 08:36 AM

The fireboats only a few hundred yards away could have been used with the siamese fittings on the outside of WTC 7 to supply the sprinkler systems. Hoses from distant fire hydrants could have also been run. There were several siamese fittings on the outside of WTC 7 and they were never hooked up to at any time due to the orders of a certain fire chief. So maybe it wouldn't even be a handful but one or two people from the FDNY that would need to be involved.

One fireboat. It was in use to squelch fires in support of search and rescue.

WTC7 was a lost cause, even if water reduced the collapse, the structure was beyond use. As an engineer, you should realize that any large structure that is visibly out of plumb is going to come down one way or another.

Curiosly, by about 12:30 PM on 911 the Giulliani administration was saying WTC 7 was lost, even though there is no photographic evidence of fires in WTC 7 until 12:15 PM. Think about that.

No pictures? So what? There are a bunch of reasons why images from the south side fire are poor and rare. The billowing smoke fron WTC7 and haze from the rest of WTC, for starters.

Protracted fire exceeded the capability of fireproofing to protect the structure. It collapsed.

Both of these fire scientists have first-hand experience with WTC and say you are wrong.

Glenn Corbett, professor of fire science at John Jay College of
Criminal Justice says that fire and damage caused all collapse at WTC.
relevant expertise. John Jay is part of the City University of New
York, emphasizing criminal justice and fire science.
http://www.jjay.cuny.edu/

http://audio.wnyc.org/bl/bl091407e.mp3
(Colbert starts 5 minutes into the audio)

Corbett trains NY firemen and is involved with setting fire
codes. It's his job to understand what happened so as to
teach firemen how to stay alive and to make buildings safe.

Prof. Jonathan Barnett, Fire protection engineer
Professor Jonathan R. Barnett, Ph.D.
Center For Firesafety Studies
Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Worcester, Massachusetts, USA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWpOfUMz6SE
(WTC5 WTC7 40 seconds.)
http://www.asce.org/pdf/bio_jbarnett.pdf

There are quotes of many firefighters who were befuddled that they weren't being allowed to fight the fires in WTC 7

Even if true, so what? It's like asking a private why the generals are asking him to do something he doesn't understand.

I'd actually see a name or two to confirm your claim. Got one?

T.A.M.

5th December 2009, 08:39 AM

Are you really going there tony? Really?

By all means please provide the names of these "few" who let 343 of their fellows be murdered.

Not one has come forward with a guilty concience? Really? Parts of that massive conspiracy in the thousands without a single person going to the NYTimes, the BBC, or the Hague.

Such operational security... wow... but it can be figured out by scooby and the gang... if it wasn't for those blased kids.

The TM is not into the "naming names" business, because then they would have to face those they accuse publicly. Nah, best to cowardly accuse "generic higher ups" in organization X, so that no one in particular can get in their face and pommel it to a pulp.

TAM:)

Tony Szamboti

5th December 2009, 08:43 AM

One fireboat. It was in use to squelch fires in support of search and rescue.

WTC7 was a lost cause, even if water reduced the collapse, the structure was beyond use. As an engineer, you should realize that any large structure that is visibly out of plumb is going to come down one way or another.

No pictures? So what? There are a bunch of reasons why images from the south side fire are poor and rare. The billowing smoke fron WTC7 and haze from the rest of WTC, for starters.

Protracted fire exceeded the capability of fireproofing to protect the structure. It collapsed.

Both of these fire scientists have first-hand experience with WTC and say you are wrong.

Are you saying the city of New York only had one fireboat?

You really should stop using the ridiculous talking point about a building with the footprint of a football field having a wall which was purportedly bulged having anything to do with it's total collapse.

There were siamese fittings on three sides of WTC 7 and they were never hooked up to. That is something which needs to be questioned and there is a certain fire chief who needs to answer for it.

Tony Szamboti

5th December 2009, 08:44 AM

The TM is not into the "naming names" business, because then they would have to face those they accuse publicly. Nah, best to cowardly accuse "generic higher ups" in organization X, so that no one in particular can get in their face and pommel it to a pulp.

TAM:)

I have no problem naming names. I want fire chief Daniel Nigro deposed under oath and asked the types of questions I am bringing up here.

RedIbis

5th December 2009, 08:44 AM

All that had to be done was to prevent the fires in WTC 7 from being fought, so they could be used as a cover for it's demolition.

One would not need to go in the building to fight the fires either. The fireboats only a few hundred yards away could have been used with the siamese fittings on the outside of WTC 7 to supply the sprinkler systems. Hoses from distant fire hydrants could have also been run. There were several siamese fittings on the outside of WTC 7 and they were never hooked up to at any time, due to the orders of a certain fire chief. So maybe it wouldn't even be a handful but as little as one person with authority from the FDNY that would need to be involved.

There are quotes of many firefighters who were befuddled that they weren't being allowed to fight the fires in WTC 7.

Curiosly, by about 12:30 PM on 911 the Giulliani administration was saying WTC 7 was lost, even though there is no photographic evidence of fires in WTC 7 until 12:15 PM. Think about that.

They won't think about it because an explanation is good enough. The fires weren't fought, the water was cut off, what more do you need to know? Forget about the fact that a rather endless supply of water was only a few hundred yards away

BigAl

5th December 2009, 08:48 AM

They won't think about it because an explanation is good enough. The fires weren't fought, the water was cut off, what more do you need to know? Forget about the fact that a rather endless supply of water was only a few hundred yards away

The building was out of plumb due to fire and therefore a write-off. No lives were at risk.

Grizzly Bear

5th December 2009, 08:51 AM

There were siamese fittings on three sides of WTC 7 and they were never hooked up to. That is something which needs to be questioned and there is a certain fire chief who needs to answer for it.

As I recall a couple of 110 story buildings collapsed rendering the city's water supply in that area practically useless.

Tony Szamboti

5th December 2009, 08:56 AM

Are you really going there tony? Really?

By all means please provide the names of these "few" who let 343 of their fellows be murdered.

Not one has come forward with a guilty concience? Really? Parts of that massive conspiracy in the thousands without a single person going to the NYTimes, the BBC, or the Hague.

Such operational security... wow... but it can be figured out by scooby and the gang... if it wasn't for those blased kids.

Being involved in dropping WTC 7 doesn't equate to letting 343 of their fellow firefighters be murdered. Nobody died in WTC 7.

Tony Szamboti

5th December 2009, 08:59 AM

As I recall a couple of 110 story buildings collapsed rendering the city's water supply in that area practically useless.

Distant hydrants would not have been affected and the city of New York had several fireboats. Firefighters routinely run lines from distances when necessary.

Sorry but the water mains in the area were broken by the tower collapses excuse doesn't hack it.

T.A.M.

5th December 2009, 08:59 AM

I have no problem naming names. I want fire chief Daniel Nigro deposed under oath and asked the types of questions I am bringing up here.

Ok, so you feel Nigro is on it. That is one. Got any more.

TAM:)

R.Mackey

5th December 2009, 09:01 AM

I have no problem naming names. I want fire chief Daniel Nigro deposed under oath and asked the types of questions I am bringing up here.

So in your paranoid universe, the FDNY is "in on it."

Got it. :rolleyes:

BigAl

5th December 2009, 09:02 AM

Are you saying the city of New York only had one fireboat?

You really should stop using the ridiculous talking point about a building with the footprint of a football field having a wall which was purportedly bulged having anything to do with it's total collapse.

There were siamese fittings on three sides of WTC 7 and they were never hooked up to. That is something which needs to be questioned and there is a certain fire chief who needs to answer for it.

Total collapse was unnecessary to know that the structure was beyond use. Partial collapse would have done it. The fact that the collapse was total speaks to the intensity and duration of the fire on the south side.

I'm not a fireman but I'll guess that WTC7 was written off before more fireboats were brought on the scene and water wasn't helping the search and rescue effort.

The boat that did show up, the John Harvey, was something of a fluke. It was literally a museum item and parked very close to WTC. The crew were volunteers and they decided to go to WTC without having any task other than picking survivors off the piers, something lots of boats were doing.
http://www.fireboat.org/

The general use of the one fireboat for water was discontinued early on 9/11 because of the risk of drowning people that they were digging to find.

Source: Nine Months at Ground Zero By Stout, Vitchers, & Gray (highly recommend, especially for anyone in the construction trades.)

T.A.M.

5th December 2009, 09:02 AM

Being involved in dropping WTC 7 doesn't equate to letting 343 of their fellow firefighters be murdered. Nobody died in WTC 7.

So is it your opinion that the WTC7 plot was separate from the WTC1/2 plot? In other words do you feel that Nigro was in on a secret plan to have WTC7 demolished but was totally without knowledge that the WTC1/2 collapses were also orchestrated by the Nefarious Neocons and others?

TAM:)

BigAl

5th December 2009, 09:03 AM

Distant hydrants would not have been affected and the city of New York had several fireboats. Firefighters routinely run lines from distances when necessary.

Sorry but the water mains in the area were broken by the tower collapses excuse doesn't hack it.

Tell it to a fireman.

T.A.M.

5th December 2009, 09:06 AM

Isn't pressure inversely proportional to distance?

TAM;)

Mangoose

5th December 2009, 09:08 AM

Grizzly Bear

5th December 2009, 09:09 AM

i'm beginning to think that his argument is changing from one of actual complicity to one of criminal negligence.

BigAl

5th December 2009, 09:12 AM

Isn't pressure inversely proportional to distance?

TAM;)

Good point, and using pumped water to fight fire on the ground and using the pumper to get water hundreds of yards inland and up 20s of floors WTC7 are two entirely different things. Besides, one hose can help keep a search & rescue worker cool but countless hoses going full blast would be needed to fight the fully involved fires on multiple floors in WTC7.

Tony Szamboti

5th December 2009, 09:18 AM

So is it your opinion that the WTC7 plot was separate from the WTC1/2 plot? In other words do you feel that Nigro was in on a secret plan to have WTC7 demolished but was totally without knowledge that the WTC1/2 collapses were also orchestrated by the Nefarious Neocons and others?

TAM:)

The non-detail attempts by others here to say the fireboats were small or that the pressure would not be great enough to run hoses from a distance are a joke.

Right now there are serious questions which have not been answered and Nigro is a known person who was involved in deciding not to fight the fires in WTC 7. It could be that Nigro was manipulated himself. He needs to answer these questions and that could lead to other issues.

R.Mackey

5th December 2009, 09:21 AM

The non-detail attempts by others here to say the fireboats were small or that the pressure would not be great enough to run hoses from a distance are a joke.

Appeal to ignorance.

Right now there are serious questions which have not been answered and Nigro is a known person who was involved in deciding not to fight the fires in WTC 7. It could be that Nigro was manipulated himself. He needs to answer these questions and that could lead to other issues.

Textbook case of Inflation (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2320446#post2320446). Know how I know you're a conspiracy theorist?

TruthersLie

5th December 2009, 09:21 AM

All that had to be done was to prevent the fires in WTC 7 from being fought, so they could be used as a cover for it's demolition.

One would not need to go in the building to fight the fires either. The fireboats only a few hundred yards away could have been used with the siamese fittings on the outside of WTC 7 to supply the sprinkler systems. Hoses from distant fire hydrants could have also been run. There were several siamese fittings on the outside of WTC 7 and they were never hooked up to at any time, due to the orders of a certain fire chief. So maybe it wouldn't even be a handful but as little as one person with authority from the FDNY that would need to be involved.

There are quotes of many firefighters who were befuddled that they weren't being allowed to fight the fires in WTC 7.

Curiosly, by about 12:30 PM on 911 the Giulliani administration was saying WTC 7 was lost, even though there is no photographic evidence of fires in WTC 7 until 12:15 PM. Think about that.

Curiously... you again went back and changed your original post where you basically say some of the firefighters MURDERED their own...and then you change it after being called on it.

What a moral coward.

so now you change and equivocate... GREAT, please give us the NAME of this ONE person who profited from murdering 343 of his fellows?

Myriad

5th December 2009, 09:29 AM

He needs to answer these questions and that could lead to other issues.

He does not need to answer any such questions, unless someone with the legal authority to demand answers from a Fire Chief poses them.

The Truth Movement and its supporters, individually and collectively, have failed to cause any such thing to happen.

Therefore, no, he absolutely does not need to answer your questions.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Edx

5th December 2009, 09:29 AM

The non-detail attempts by others here to say the fireboats were small or that the pressure would not be great enough to run hoses from a distance are a joke.

Right now there are serious questions which have not been answered and Nigro is a known person who was involved in deciding not to fight the fires in WTC 7. It could be that Nigro was manipulated himself. He needs to answer these questions and that could lead to other issues.

Uh lots of firefighters commented on not fighting the fires and none of them had a dissenting opinion about fighting the fires.

As usual you guys say the firefighters are in on it, what a lovelly lot you are.

TruthersLie

5th December 2009, 09:36 AM

Being involved in dropping WTC 7 doesn't equate to letting 343 of their fellow firefighters be murdered. Nobody died in WTC 7.

Follow the line of reasoning tony.

Especially since you say there were explosives in the tower.

So the fire chief and firemen were involved in allowing wtc7 to collapse because they had preknowledge.

what they only had preknowledge of wtc7, but didn't know about the towers? REally?

Edx

5th December 2009, 09:48 AM

And why would they not admit that? They would have had to lie in all their interviews.

BigAl

5th December 2009, 09:55 AM

The non-detail attempts by others here to say the fireboats were small or that the pressure would not be great enough to run hoses from a distance are a joke.

The idea that a fireboat can pump water hundreds of yards inland and up 10s of floors needs some defense.

The Siamese connectors are there to fight the fires the construction codes planned for. That would fire limited to one floor and controlled by sprinklers to give the firemen enough time to show up and pressurize the risers.

Even if the pumpers existed, there is no way that enough water could be pumped through the risers to fight the fires on multiple floors in WTC7.

Edx

5th December 2009, 09:58 AM

WnYBX6QT0R4

Dont worry Tony, just another one of your lying firefighters!

bardamu

5th December 2009, 10:06 AM

In case anyone wonders why I'm not fussing over the continuing derails (viz. no-planers deigning to lecture others on the scientific method...), it's not just because it represents a record seventh time a split is needed and I've given up.

Rather, I think at this point the derail is itself instructive.

It's hard to understand how my comments on your slides for the Hardfire debate could qualify as a derail. It was you who brought up no planes, the FDNY and Apollo 11. The reason you did that was to try to discredit me before addressing my points. You have a record of debating in that manner. In fact, that's exactly how you began the Hardfire debate, with your "irreducible delusion" smear. It's a classic case of accusing your opponent of the very thing you're guilty of yourself. It followed Ron's rant against David Ray Griffin, when he tried to insinuate that Tony was in league with "a man who traffics in dishonesty". These two snidey maneouvres combined took up the first 6 minutes of the debate.

The Hardfire viewers who witnessed your apparent show of humility when you said "I dont have the same kind of disgust for members of the truth movement that Ron probably does", might be surprised to hear you refer to a group of professional engineers as "the AE911T morons" whose "incompetence is so phenomenal that they are not even recognizable as a parody of a valid authority."

And by the way, a jury doesn't need to know who the real murderer is before they can decide there's reasonable doubt that the accused is not guilty. It's not necessary for the defence to provide an alternative theory.

Myriad

5th December 2009, 10:09 AM

The force of the explosions at the World Trade Center had ruptured virtually every water main in downtown Manhattan, leaving firefighters with no water, and no way to fight the fires raging in the buildings left standing in World Trade Plaza. Since the Fire Department had only two under-sized fireboats, and its fire engines were worthless, the Harvey was now an answer to a fireman's prayer.

Pulling up to the seawall in North River, the closest proximity possible to the World Trade Center, the Harvey set up alongside the Fire Department's other two fireboats to begin her work. Fire hoses were quickly run from the Harvey to the World Trade Center, and the firefighters were able to put down the remaining fires, saving everything but World Trade Center 7, which collapsed later that day.

The Harvey worked non-stop until Friday night, September 14, when water service to the City's fire hydrants was restored.

http://everything2.com/title/The+John+J.+Harvey%253A+Fireboat+Hero+of+9%252F11 (http://everything2.com/title/The+John+J.+Harvey%253A+Fireboat+Hero+of+9%252F11)

There were other buildings on fire that could be saved, as well as the WTC site itself where scores of their brethren were trapped.

Well, that completely settles it. Evidence that the Fire Department DID run hoses and pump water from the river, to the limit of its capacity and beyond (to the point of pressing a literal museum piece into service). This had to have required a major effort -- consider, for example, the difficulty of routing the hoses without further restricting the already compromised routes available to emergency vehicles.

With enough time, equipment, and personnel, any amount of water can be pumped anywhere. In the real world, time and equipment and personnel are always limited. Anyone in a position for Chief Nigro to have to answer to would understand that very well.

Respectfully,
Myriad

WildCat

5th December 2009, 10:13 AM

The non-detail attempts by others here to say the fireboats were small or that the pressure would not be great enough to run hoses from a distance are a joke.
There's certainly a joke here Tony. Unfortunately, you're the butt of it.

Have you submitted your ground-breaking paper for peer review yet, or is the pretend peer review all you aspire to?

WildCat

5th December 2009, 10:20 AM

Mangoose

5th December 2009, 10:23 AM

The first supply line was to a manifold opposite 90 West Street. The second and third lines were supplying E-219 at the intersection of Albany and West Streets, adjacent to 90 West Street. At one point 90 West Street was thought to be in danger of collapse due to numerous interior fires. The area was evacuated on orders received via handi talkie, leaving both the manifold and E-219 pumps unmanned. After about a half hour, firefighters, unfamiliar with inactivity at a disaster, started filtering back to continue doing what they could. (90 West Street still stands.)

Though the McKean was pumping at capacity, water pressure at West Street was barely adequate due to the long distance. D.C. Mosier, Sector Chief at Albany and West Streets, had E-228 and E-216 respond to Albany and South End Avenue. With the assistance of firefighters on scene, many from New Jersey communities, these pumpers were inserted into the supply lines, each receiving two 3 inch lines and relayed water to West Street. Subsequently E-14 was at the same location and was supplied with a 3 inch for relay. The two 3 inch lines supplying E-219 could not be interrupted due to the fact that it could not be determined who or what they were supplying and how critical those lines were.

http://www.nyfd.com/marine/Marine_1_page2.html

From a video taken the afternoon of 9/11:

http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/3586/fireline.jpg