Have Truthers ever been able to produce proof to back their conspiracy theories?

[Titanic Explorer]

The 9/11 Truther world is filled with conspiracy theories, some at odds with one another- but as far as I can see, NONE of them have produced so much as a shred of concrete proof to back any of their theories. Many of them don't even make the effort to look for proof to back their claims, and I suspect most of them just make sh*t up as they go along...

When pressed to back their crazy claimes that the the planes didn't exist, or were holograms, etc- they can't. They back peddle and jump into another theory. When they try to take a quote out of context to support their case, and are called on it, they just take another quote out of context.

Truthers are welcome to answer this- what PROOF do you have that 9/11 was an inside job? Not speculation, not opinion, but solid PROOF, that would be concrete enough to be used as evidence in a court of law.

If you doubt planes crashed in NY, Washington or PA, what is your proof?

If you think airplane wreckage was planted at the crash sites, what is your proof?

If you doubt there were any witnesses to any of the crashes, what is your proof?

If you think the calls from the planes were fakes, what is your proof?


If you doubt the authenticty of the videos of the planes hitting the WTC, the video of the plane hitting the Pentagon, or the photo of the smoke cloud in Shanksville, what is your proof?


If you think the Twin Towers and building 7 were destroyed by 'controlled demolition', what is your proof?

If you think thermite was used in the Twin towers, what is your proof?


If you beleive, as some truthers claim, that Jews were warned not to come to work at the WTC on 9/11, what is your proof?

If you think Bush was behind 9/11, what is your proof?

If you think the Jews are to blame, what is your proof?

If you think the WTC was wired with explosives, what is your proof?


Truthers have no proof of an inside job...because there was no inside job.

Truthers need to be aware the burden is on THEM to provide proof to back their claims- and opinion and paranoia fueled speculation is NOT proof.

[DGM]

Have Truthers ever been able to produce proof to back their conspiracy theories?



NO

[uke2se]

Truthers don't care about truth, thus they don't care about evidence, science or rationalism. Trutherism is a religious cult, and you are supposed to accept on blind faith anything that is spoken by their masters.

[Titanic Explorer]

Truthers don't care about truth, thus they don't care about evidence, science or rationalism. Trutherism is a religious cult, and you are supposed to accept on blind faith anything that is spoken by their masters.

Truthers are VERY much like Creationists.

[dafydd]

Truthers are VERY much like Creationists.

And about as intelligent.

[Java Man]

Personally I think the fall speed is one of the most convincing pieces of evidence that something is wrong. Buildings do fall to fast as seen in the videos. About 13 and 20 seconds.

[uke2se]

Personally I think the fall speed is one of the most convincing pieces of evidence that something is wrong. Buildings do fall to fast as seen in the videos. About 13 and 20 seconds.

That's not free fall, though. Buildings falling fast isn't suspicious.

[Macgyver1968]

Personally I think the fall speed is one of the most convincing pieces of evidence that something is wrong. Buildings do fall to fast as seen in the videos. About 13 and 20 seconds.

I'm just wondering how you know this. Exactly how many 110 story "box within a box" designed buildings have you seen collapse before 9/11?

[Java Man]

That's not free fall, though. Buildings falling fast isn't suspicious.

It is suspicious if the fall is as fast as pool ball dropping from the top floor. It as if the top floor just dropped down in free fall.

In other words a skydiver would have a hard time beating the tower to the ground. It's that fast. Odd isn't it?

[Java Man]

I'm just wondering how you know this. Exactly how many 110 story "box within a box" designed buildings have you seen collapse before 9/11?

None, but I've seen quite a few other objects fall and I'm confident that the towers behave under the same laws of gravity. There was no G911 so things accelerated just the same that day.

From 417 meters a free fall object would reach the ground in 9.2 seconds aprox. That not considering air resistance. If you do you need to consider terminal velocity. For it to make it in 9.2 seconds the speed as it reaches the ground would be in the order of 320km/h. As a reference a skydiver drops at 180-190km/h and can reach 300+ km/h in a head first dive.

[excaza]

In other words a skydiver would have a hard time beating the tower to the ground. It's that fast. Odd isn't it?

no, not really

[Java Man]

no, not really

Really? Can you sustain that statement?

[Giggywig]

It is suspicious if the fall is as fast as pool ball dropping from the top floor. It as if the top floor just dropped down in free fall.

In other words a skydiver would have a hard time beating the tower to the ground. It's that fast. Odd isn't it?
How long would you expect it to take and what do you base the number on?

[beachnut]

It is suspicious if the fall is as fast as pool ball dropping from the top floor. It as if the top floor just dropped down in free fall.

In other words a skydiver would have a hard time beating the tower to the ground. It's that fast. Odd isn't it?
The WTC did not fall as fast as a pool ball dropped.

Please state the time of collapse for the WTC and a pool ball dropped from the top time. OOPS, the pool ball wins by a lot. The WTC fell as it would in a gravity collapse; it take math and physics to understand; get some education and avoid making failed statement based on ignorance.

Do the physics; the fall checks! Got Physics?

[BigAl]

None, but I've seen quite a few other objects fall and I'm confident that the towers behave under the same laws of gravity. There was no G911 so things accelerated just the same that day.

From 417 meters a free fall object would reach the ground in 9.2 seconds aprox. That not considering air resistance. If you do you need to consider terminal velocity. For it to make it in 9.2 seconds the speed as it reaches the ground would be in the order of 320km/h. As a reference a skydiver drops at 180-190km/h and can reach 300+ km/h in a head first dive.

But nothing fell from 417m in 9.2 seconds on 9/11.

[beachnut]

But nothing fell from 417m in 9.2 seconds on 9/11.
Massive objects falling from less than 417m do not reach terminal velocity; the new guy is falling faster than free fall.

Welcome to the new guy

[Java Man]

Please state the time of collapse for the WTC and a pool ball dropped from the top time. OOPS, the pool ball wins by a lot.

Well a pool ball would drop in 9.22 with no air resistance. In plenty of videos I've seen, quite a few from conspiracy debunkers, the time stated is between 12.5 and 13.5 seconds.

Now a skydiver would reach terminal velocity and could not accelerate indefinitely.

Do you believe the WTC can accelerate indefinitely without air resistance playing a major role in the fall?

[Java Man]

Massive objects falling from less than 417m do not reach terminal velocity; the new guy is falling faster than free fall.

Welcome to the new guy

Can you support that statement with some math?

[excaza]

Can you support that statement with some math?

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

The terminal velocity of something that weighs as much as half a building is going to take significantly longer than 400m to reach terminal velocity unless it's fired out of a gigantic cannon. And that's neglecting the resistance from the failing structural members below.

[beachnut]

Can you support that statement with some math?
The WTC fell at times above 12.08 seconds; free fall from the top of the WTC take 9.22 seconds. You failed. 12.08 is not close to free fall; try saying your best 100 m time is close to the world record and be 2 seconds behind. You lost, you are not close.

Massive objects falling never got to terminal velocity on 911; it is called physics. Prove me wrong; do the math

[SOdhner]

It is suspicious if the fall is as fast as pool ball dropping from the top floor. It as if the top floor just dropped down in free fall.

If you don't mind, I have a few questions. I've never quite understood some aspects of the Truther arguments.

1. Are you proposing that something propelled the building downward, or otherwise sped up the descent? I'm not aware of anything that would cause this other than some pretty silly ideas like jet engines on the roof or something, and I know that's not what you are saying.

2. I've seen several independant sources carefully do the math and declare that the falling time was as expected and not a sign of anything fishy. Are you suggesting that all of them are wrong, or all of them are lying? Or some third option I can't think of?

[Java Man]

The terminal velocity of something that weighs as much as half a building is going to take significantly longer than 400m to reach terminal velocity unless it's fired out of a gigantic cannon. And that's neglecting the resistance from the failing structural members below.

Based on your link which I've read before BTW.

" terminal velocity is approached. In this example, a speed of 50% of terminal velocity is reached after only about 3 seconds, while it takes 8 seconds to reach 90%, 15 seconds to reach 99% "

Clearly you see that air resistance is coming into play way before terminal velocity is reached. It takes more than twice as long to gain 40% than it did the first 50% and 5 times longer to reach the next 9% than it did the first 50%.

So in one case there's about a 4 second difference between a no air resistance free fall and what really happens (9.8 vs 13.5 sec). It just seems to unreal doesn't it?

[beachnut]

Can you support that statement with some math?
Yes!

Taking the WTC towers falling.
As the top collapsed it had to hit each floor, this caused the collapse to slow. If you take the momentum transfer using math and physics you get exactly 12.08 seconds. Math proves the WTC collapse as physics predicts! I love physics. PLUS, the core was still standing for over 10 seconds after the first debris hit the ground! OOPS!

Math and physics prove you are only skeptical of physics and math. You need to be skeptical of the liars who spew the nonsense you are failing to support with science.

[excaza]

No, it doesn't seem unreal.

[BigAl]

Based on your link which I've read before BTW.

" terminal velocity is approached. In this example, a speed of 50% of terminal velocity is reached after only about 3 seconds, while it takes 8 seconds to reach 90%, 15 seconds to reach 99% "

Clearly you see that air resistance is coming into play way before terminal velocity is reached. It takes more than twice as long to gain 40% than it did the first 50% and 5 times longer to reach the next 9% than it did the first 50%.

So in one case there's about a 4 second difference between a no air resistance free fall and what really happens (9.8 vs 13.5 sec). It just seems to unreal doesn't it?

What is your source for 9.8 (or 9.2) seconds?

[NutCracker]

None, but I've seen quite a few other objects fall and I'm confident that the towers behave under the same laws of gravity. There was no G911 so things accelerated just the same that day.

From 417 meters a free fall object would reach the ground in 9.2 seconds aprox. That not considering air resistance. If you do you need to consider terminal velocity. For it to make it in 9.2 seconds the speed as it reaches the ground would be in the order of 320km/h. As a reference a skydiver drops at 180-190km/h and can reach 300+ km/h in a head first dive.

Well then, explain two things for me.

1) The umbrella shaped debris plume. If the towers fell at free fall accel., how come the debris plume was racing ahead of the crush front?

2) If the towers collapsed in 9.2 seconds , how come when actually timing the collapses one arrives at a time far in excess of this 9.2 seconds?

[Java Man]

The WTC fell at times above 12.08 seconds; free fall from the top of the WTC take 9.22 seconds. You failed. 12.08 is not close to free fall; try saying your best 100 m time is close to the world record and be 2 seconds behind. You lost, you are not close.

Massive objects falling never got to terminal velocity on 911; it is called physics. Prove me wrong; do the math

Let's take something dense and with a relatively good aerodynamic profile like a pool ball. Everybody knows them and has worked with them.

Some conspiracy debunkers have posted times in the order of 13.5 sec. We can work with that since it's larger than your stated 12.08. Are you okay with that? Hopefully in a few posts I'll be able to publish a link.

Now a pool ball dropped from the 110 floor would reach the floor in 9.22 in the vacuum of space. A bit more on earth, but as you state let's take air resistance out of the way because terminal velocity isn't reached that quickly. Although strictly speaking we should. Are you ok with this so far?

[excaza]

2) If the towers collapsed in 9.2 seconds , how come when actually timing the collapses one arrives at a time far in access of this 9.2 seconds?

He's not arguing the towers came down in 9.2 seconds, he's arguing that 12.whatever is close to 9.2 and that means something fishy happened.

[excaza]

Let's take something dense and with a relatively good aerodynamic profile like a pool ball. Everybody knows them and has worked with them.

Some conspiracy debunkers have posted times in the order of 13.5 sec. We can work with that since it's larger than your stated 12.08. Are you okay with that? Hopefully in a few posts I'll be able to publish a link.

Now a pool ball dropped from the 110 floor would reach the floor in 9.22 in the vacuum of space. A bit more on earth, but as you state let's take air resistance out of the way because terminal velocity isn't reached that quickly. Although strictly speaking we should. Are you ok with this so far?

Can you just get to the point?

[Java Man]

Can you just get to the point?

I'm getting there. I assume then we are ok so far.

Now lets add another pool ball on floor 55 (208 meters up). The falling ball has to hit this ball which is at stand still right now. Just like the floors had to hit the others below them which were initially at stand still.

This ball is 209 meters below the point from which we dropped the first pool ball. The first pool ball takes 6.5 seconds to reach the second and comes it at about 65 m/s. When they hit and start traveling together the mass has increased. By conservation of momentum the speed afterwards is cut by half. They start a drop to the ground at 32.5 m/s.

Do you see were I'm getting to?

[uke2se]

It is suspicious if the fall is as fast as pool ball dropping from the top floor. It as if the top floor just dropped down in free fall.

In other words a skydiver would have a hard time beating the tower to the ground. It's that fast. Odd isn't it?

No, because it didn't fall at free fall speed.

[Titanic Explorer]

Truthers amuse me in how most of them think they are experts in physics and chemistry. I love the ones that try to cite 'proof' of the use of thermite being footage of molten metal dripping down from around the 82nd floor.
A couple problems- when asked details about thermite, they usually respond with blank stares. The area of the 'molten metal' was where airplane debris was piled up as a result of the crash. How convenient thermite just happened to be planted in that area. Truthers can never seem to provide proof to back their claim that thermite just happened to be planted in the area where the planes hit..

[Java Man]

No, because it didn't fall at free fall speed.

Neither does the skydiver. They're both under the influence of air resistance. But like I'm showing with the pool ball the skydiver doesn't add on another skydiver to it's mass every 3.7 meters (one floor's height)

[excaza]

I'm getting there. I assume then we are ok so far.

Now lets add another pool ball on floor 55 (208 meters up). The falling ball has to hit this ball which is at stand still right now. Just like the floors had to hit the others below them which were initially at stand still.

This ball is 209 meters below the point from which we dropped the first pool ball. The first pool ball takes 6.5 seconds to reach the second and comes it at about 65 m/s. When they hit and start traveling together the mass has increased. By conservation of momentum the speed afterwards is cut by half. They start a drop to the ground at 32.5 m/s.

Do you see were I'm getting to?

When half a building lands on 1 floor, how much does it slow down each time, and how long does it have to accelerate before it hits the next one? The decrease in velocity is going to be much less as you add more floors to the collapsing mass.

Get to the point please.

[uke2se]

Neither does the skydiver. They're both under the influence of air resistance. But like I'm showing with the pool ball the skydiver doesn't add on another skydiver to it's mass every 3.7 meters (one floor's height)

Show your math and stop insinuating.

[Java Man]

Truthers can never seem to provide proof to back their claim that thermite just happened to be planted in the area where the planes hit..

What I understand from conspiracy theorists. At least the controlled demolition ones is that thermite was part of the charges set all along the build. Not just were the airplanes hit. It just so happens that that thermite was set ablaze by the fuel fires.

[uke2se]

What I understand from conspiracy theorists. At least the controlled demolition ones is that thermite was part of the charges set all along the build. Not just were the airplanes hit. It just so happens that that thermite was set ablaze by the fuel fires.

And that's just retarded. Do you understand why? Please tell me you do.

[Java Man]

Get to the point please.

Well let's keep along with this example I was showing.

The first ball hits the second one at 6.5 seconds and then they both travel down at 32 m/s aprox. The remainder of the drop (starting from 209 m) takes about 4 more seconds.

So now a "free fall" (with minimal air resistance) has gone from 9.2 seconds to 10.4 (6.5+4). And we still haven't added the remaining 108 other balls that represent the other floors.

[excaza]

Can you even ignite thermite with a fuel fire?

[Java Man]

And that's just retarded. Do you understand why? Please tell me you do.

I understand because I read it as so. Doesn't mean I agree with that, but that is the explanation given in controlled demolition theories. And it makes sense given other examples of CDs being shown on TV. Whole floors are rigged with V shaped hollow charges.

[uke2se]

Well let's keep along with this example I was showing.

The first ball hits the second one at 6.5 seconds and then they both travel down at 32 m/s aprox. The remainder of the drop (starting from 209 m) takes about 4 more seconds.

So now a "free fall" (with minimal air resistance) has gone from 9.2 seconds to 10.4 (6.5+4). And we still haven't added the remaining 108 other balls that represent the other floors.

This is starting to sound like a clunkityclunk argument. Java Man, do you understand momentum?

[excaza]

This is starting to sound like a clunkityclunk argument. Java Man, do you understand momentum?

No

[uke2se]

I understand because I read it as so. Doesn't mean I agree with that, but that is the explanation given in controlled demolition theories. And it makes sense given other examples of CDs being shown on TV. Whole floors are rigged with V shaped hollow charges.

It makes no sense, period. First, thermite has never been shown to have been used for controlled demolition. Second, neither thermite nor explosives react well to aircraft damage and fire. Third, no evidence for either thermite or explosives have been discovered. Fourth, no evidence for detonation is apparent in any of the video and audio evidence. Fifth, no window of opportunity for the installation of literally tons of explosives into the towers exist. I'm sure I've forgotten a few things too.

[Java Man]

Can you even ignite thermite with a fuel fire?

I've seen thermite ignited to burn hard drives with much less than A1 Jet Fuel. Considerably less than a 767's load of it BTW.

[beachnut]

And that's just retarded. Do you understand why? Please tell me you do.
that is funny; he has no knowledge, he makes up stuff...

... It just so happens that that thermite was set ablaze by the fuel fires.
Do you wake up one day and google 911 and find all these lies and fail to check them out first?

[excaza]

I've seen thermite ignited to burn hard drives with much less than A1 Jet Fuel. Considerably less than a 767's load of it BTW.

Ignited with what? It doesn't matter if you dump an ocean of fuel on it if it doesn't burn hot enough to ignite the thermite.

[Java Man]

This is starting to sound like a clunkityclunk argument. Java Man, do you understand momentum?

Yes I do. Have you ever seen the blue ball and the white ball hit and roll off at the same speed the white ball came in? Neither have I.

[NutCracker]

He's not arguing the towers came down in 9.2 seconds, he's arguing that 12.whatever is close to 9.2 and that means something fishy happened.

Well, that is reassuring.

On the other hand.. Now the towers NOT free-falling is suspicious.. begging the question.. why?

[Java Man]

Ignited with what? It doesn't matter if you dump an ocean of fuel on it if it doesn't burn hot enough to ignite the thermite.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite#Ignition

"Ignition of a thermite reaction normally requires only a simple child's sparkler or easily obtainable magnesium ribbon"

Fire could set off the magnesium or other chemical in the detonator and this in turn sets of the thermite. Either way I'm more interested in the fall.

[uke2se]

Yes I do. Have you ever seen the blue ball and the white ball hit and roll off at the same speed the white ball came in? Neither have I.

Mhmmm... but you see, a tall building collapsing is somewhat different than a pool table. However, let's see your work. Do the math, all of it, and give us the time it should have taken for the towers to collapse for it not to be suspicious to you. Don't just make up a number. Do the math and show your work.

[excaza]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite#Ignition

"Ignition of a thermite reaction normally requires only a simple child's sparkler or easily obtainable magnesium ribbon"

Fire could set off the magnesium or other chemical in the detonator and this in turn sets of the thermite. Either way I'm more interested in the fall.

:rolleyes: Magnesium burns at about 3000 degrees Celsius. Sparklers around 1000. Jet fuel burns at 300.

[beachnut]

Yes I do. Have you ever seen the blue ball and the white ball hit and roll off at the same speed the white ball came in? Neither have I.
The WTC fell down, not across a pool table.

[Java Man]

:rolleyes: Magnesium burns at about 3000 degrees Celsius. Sparklers around 1000. Jet fuel burns at 300.

Like I said, I'm no demolitions expert. But just take a look at this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L27p-P85BI8

[excaza]

Like I said, I'm no demolitions expert. But just take a look at this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L27p-P85BI8

Is it someone igniting thermite with jet fuel?

[beachnut]

Like I said, I'm no demolitions expert. But just take a look at this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L27p-P85BI8
You proved there was no thermite used on 911; the products of thermite were all over the computer; none found at the WTC. You debunked all of the liars who said thermite did 911. Good job.

[Java Man]

Don't just make up a number. Do the math and show your work.


Here's a quick calculation. First column is the floor number as it drops on to the next we get the K is constant g/2, vi is initial velocity at that floor, distance is 3.7 meters dropped. From that we calculate drop time, then speed and adjust speed for the added mass for the next value of vi.

You can see that the total drop time goes from 9.2 of free fall to 14.84 seconds. Quite a difference. And it is also greater than the 12 to 13.5 seconds measured and proposed here so far. And we are assuming the floor is just waiting there in some statis field waiting to drop the instant its touched by the incoming.


d K vi distance(m) drop time speed
1 4.91 -3.7 0.87 8.52
2 4.91 4.26 -3.7 0.54 9.53
3 4.91 6.35 -3.7 0.44 10.63
4 4.91 7.97 -3.7 0.38 11.67
5 4.91 9.33 -3.7 0.34 12.64
6 4.91 10.53 -3.7 0.31 13.55
7 4.91 11.61 -3.7 0.28 14.40
8 4.91 12.60 -3.7 0.27 15.21
9 4.91 13.52 -3.7 0.25 15.98
10 4.91 14.38 -3.7 0.24 16.72
11 4.91 15.20 -3.7 0.23 17.42
12 4.91 15.97 -3.7 0.22 18.10
13 4.91 16.71 -3.7 0.21 18.76
14 4.91 17.42 -3.7 0.20 19.39
15 4.91 18.10 -3.7 0.19 20.00
16 4.91 18.75 -3.7 0.19 20.60
17 4.91 19.39 -3.7 0.18 21.17
18 4.91 20.00 -3.7 0.18 21.74
19 4.91 20.59 -3.7 0.17 22.29
20 4.91 21.17 -3.7 0.17 22.82
21 4.91 21.74 -3.7 0.16 23.35
22 4.91 22.28 -3.7 0.16 23.86
23 4.91 22.82 -3.7 0.16 24.36
24 4.91 23.34 -3.7 0.15 24.85
25 4.91 23.86 -3.7 0.15 25.33
26 4.91 24.36 -3.7 0.15 25.81
27 4.91 24.85 -3.7 0.14 26.27
28 4.91 25.33 -3.7 0.14 26.73
29 4.91 25.80 -3.7 0.14 27.17
30 4.91 26.27 -3.7 0.14 27.62
31 4.91 26.73 -3.7 0.14 28.05
32 4.91 27.17 -3.7 0.13 28.48
33 4.91 27.62 -3.7 0.13 28.90
34 4.91 28.05 -3.7 0.13 29.32
35 4.91 28.48 -3.7 0.13 29.72
36 4.91 28.90 -3.7 0.13 30.13
37 4.91 29.31 -3.7 0.12 30.53
38 4.91 29.72 -3.7 0.12 30.92
39 4.91 30.13 -3.7 0.12 31.31
40 4.91 30.53 -3.7 0.12 31.69
41 4.91 30.92 -3.7 0.12 32.07
42 4.91 31.31 -3.7 0.12 32.45
43 4.91 31.69 -3.7 0.11 32.82
44 4.91 32.07 -3.7 0.11 33.19
45 4.91 32.45 -3.7 0.11 33.55
46 4.91 32.82 -3.7 0.11 33.91
47 4.91 33.19 -3.7 0.11 34.26
48 4.91 33.55 -3.7 0.11 34.61
49 4.91 33.91 -3.7 0.11 34.96
50 4.91 34.26 -3.7 0.11 35.30
51 4.91 34.61 -3.7 0.11 35.65
52 4.91 34.96 -3.7 0.10 35.98
53 4.91 35.30 -3.7 0.10 36.32
54 4.91 35.65 -3.7 0.10 36.65
55 4.91 35.98 -3.7 0.10 36.98
56 4.91 36.32 -3.7 0.10 37.30
57 4.91 36.65 -3.7 0.10 37.63
58 4.91 36.98 -3.7 0.10 37.95
59 4.91 37.30 -3.7 0.10 38.26
60 4.91 37.63 -3.7 0.10 38.58
61 4.91 37.95 -3.7 0.10 38.89
62 4.91 38.26 -3.7 0.10 39.20
63 4.91 38.58 -3.7 0.09 39.51
64 4.91 38.89 -3.7 0.09 39.81
65 4.91 39.20 -3.7 0.09 40.12
66 4.91 39.51 -3.7 0.09 40.42
67 4.91 39.81 -3.7 0.09 40.72
68 4.91 40.12 -3.7 0.09 41.01
69 4.91 40.42 -3.7 0.09 41.31
70 4.91 40.72 -3.7 0.09 41.60
71 4.91 41.01 -3.7 0.09 41.89
72 4.91 41.31 -3.7 0.09 42.17
73 4.91 41.60 -3.7 0.09 42.46
74 4.91 41.89 -3.7 0.09 42.74
75 4.91 42.17 -3.7 0.09 43.03
76 4.91 42.46 -3.7 0.09 43.31
77 4.91 42.74 -3.7 0.09 43.59
78 4.91 43.03 -3.7 0.09 43.86
79 4.91 43.31 -3.7 0.08 44.14
80 4.91 43.59 -3.7 0.08 44.41
81 4.91 43.86 -3.7 0.08 44.68
82 4.91 44.14 -3.7 0.08 44.95
83 4.91 44.41 -3.7 0.08 45.22
84 4.91 44.68 -3.7 0.08 45.49
85 4.91 44.95 -3.7 0.08 45.75
86 4.91 45.22 -3.7 0.08 46.02
87 4.91 45.49 -3.7 0.08 46.28
88 4.91 45.75 -3.7 0.08 46.54
89 4.91 46.02 -3.7 0.08 46.80
90 4.91 46.28 -3.7 0.08 47.06
91 4.91 46.54 -3.7 0.08 47.31
92 4.91 46.80 -3.7 0.08 47.57
93 4.91 47.06 -3.7 0.08 47.82
94 4.91 47.31 -3.7 0.08 48.07
95 4.91 47.57 -3.7 0.08 48.32
96 4.91 47.82 -3.7 0.08 48.57
97 4.91 48.07 -3.7 0.08 48.82
98 4.91 48.32 -3.7 0.08 49.07
99 4.91 48.57 -3.7 0.08 49.32
100 4.91 48.82 -3.7 0.08 49.56
101 4.91 49.07 -3.7 0.07 49.80
102 4.91 49.32 -3.7 0.07 50.05
103 4.91 49.56 -3.7 0.07 50.29
104 4.91 49.80 -3.7 0.07 50.53
105 4.91 50.05 -3.7 0.07 50.77
106 4.91 50.29 -3.7 0.07 51.00
107 4.91 50.53 -3.7 0.07 51.24
108 4.91 50.77 -3.7 0.07 51.48
109 4.91 51.00 -3.7 0.07 51.71
110 4.91 51.24 -3.7 0.07 51.94
14.84

[alienentity]

What I understand from conspiracy theorists. At least the controlled demolition ones is that thermite was part of the charges set all along the build. Not just were the airplanes hit. It just so happens that that thermite was set ablaze by the fuel fires.


Slow down, Java man. The OP is for evidence to support the claims. It's not about reiterating all the thousands of claims as bare assertion fallacies. We've all heard them many times before.

Your argument is that the towers fell at virtually freefall speed. Unfortunately, your data is incorrect. They did not.
According to measurements taken by various truthers like David Chandler, the WTC towers fell at approximately 64% to 70% of the acceleration that freefall would have produced.

That's a massive difference, and indicates a great deal of energy.

So please do everyone a favour and put those fallacies back in your pocket. They're not true. If you're not willing to accept the truth, you are not worth talking to.

Please watch this short video I made to see, for yourself, what a more accurate time was for WTC1. There are many more vids on my channel.
MAYXdafNl6E

[excaza]

The initial mass isn't just one floor.

[alienentity]

Now, Java Man, you mustn't waste our time with dissertations on freefall. The towers didn't fall at freefall acceleration, so the discussion is irrelevant and is not a proof.

Moving on to thermite, the question is what the evidence for it is.

Can you provide any evidence that thermite or thermate can be used in a controlled demolition? I'm not asking you to provide a theory, I'm just asking for concrete proof that it can happen - you need to provide some real-world examples where it has been used.
Or provide an experiment which shows it working that way. Your choice.

Otherwise you're just retreading the same tired path that most truthers do. It's very tedious, and not very intelligent to do so. Please don't do it.

[Java Man]

The initial mass isn't just one floor.

What value do you find the initial mass to be? I can feed it in as multiples of floors and start from there.

[Java Man]

Now, Java Man, you mustn't waste our time with dissertations on freefall. The towers didn't fall at freefall acceleration, so the discussion is irrelevant and is not a proof.

I know they didn't fall in freefall acceleration. That's exactly my issue. I just proposed a model in which the time to fall takes longer than the time measured once we take momentum into consideration.

I'll wait for the response to the initial mass value to further refine the model and work from there. Ok?

[alienentity]

Yes I do. Have you ever seen the blue ball and the white ball hit and roll off at the same speed the white ball came in? Neither have I.

Buildings can and do completely collapse without explosives or thermite.

This is a fact, not in dispute. Conservation of momentum does not mean that a building cannot collapse, it just means that it will not collapse soley at freefall acceleration. And none of the WTC buildings did.

Neither tower collapsed very close to freefall acceleration, and WTC7 only experience a brief 15% interval, about halfway thru the collapse, at freefall acceleration.

In spite of that fact, FFA, even if it occurs, does not prove controlled demolition.

EY3nj728WPY

[alienentity]

I know they didn't fall in freefall acceleration. That's exactly my issue. I just proposed a model in which the time to fall takes longer than the time measured once we take momentum into consideration.

I'll wait for the response to the initial mass value to further refine the model and work from there. Ok?


The OP is evidence for claims of CD. An argument about exactly how fast a collapsing building might collapse in theory, vs actual, is not a proof, nor will it ever by a evidence to support controlled demolition.

So why are you wasting everyone's time with this off-topic tedium?

[alienentity]

Java Man, why don't you just measure the acceleration of a top-down verinage collapse and see what happens? Those examples will give you the closest physical approximation of the crush-down from the WTC upper blocks, while verinage will probably give faster initial acceleration because of the simultaneous and symmetrical removal of support.

Obviously in the towers the initiation was more complex. Any model will be less complex I think.

But again this is not a topic for this thread. It's just a standard engineering question, not a conspiracy theory.

[Java Man]

Buildings can and do completely collapse without explosives or thermite.

Got some proof to show for that?

[Java Man]

So why are you wasting everyone's time with this off-topic tedium?

I can start a new thread if that pleases you

[beachnut]

Here's a quick calculation. First column is the floor number as it drops on to the next we get the K is constant g/2, vi is initial velocity at that floor, distance is 3.7 meters dropped. From that we calculate drop time, then speed and adjust speed for the added mass for the next value of vi.

You can see that the total drop time goes from 9.2 of free fall to 14.84 seconds. Quite a difference. And it is also greater than the 12 to 13.5 seconds measured and proposed here so far. And we are assuming the floor is just waiting there in some statis field waiting to drop the instant its touched by the incoming.


d K vi distance(m) drop time speed
1 4.91 -3.7 0.87 8.52
2 4.91 4.26 -3.7 0.54 9.53
...

109 4.91 51.00 -3.7 0.07 51.71
110 4.91 51.24 -3.7 0.07 51.94
14.84
You proved the WTC fell due to gravity using physics. Now adjust your work for where the collapse started at the impact floor. And you will get 12.08 seconds for one of the towers. You debunked 911 truth! Good job.

You forgot to start the collapse at the correct floor; that gives you 12.08 seconds for one tower. Means you debunked 911 truth.

[alienentity]

Got some proof to show for that?

I just gave it to you in the video above. It's done by a technique called 'verinage' developed in the late 1990's in France.

It relies entirely on the upper mass crushing down the lower floors.

btw, please don't try to bait and switch or move the goalposts. You now say that you're not arguing freefall, yet you wrote (in perhaps your second post)
'It is suspicious if the fall is as fast as pool ball dropping from the top floor. It as if the top floor just dropped down in free fall.

In other words a skydiver would have a hard time beating the tower to the ground. It's that fast. Odd isn't it?'

So you were definitely arguing freefall for the towers. You've now backed down from that false myth. Good for you.
But don't think we didn't notice you jump from one unproven false argument to yet another.
We've seen it a million times, so to speak. :)

Please stay on topic.

[alienentity]

I can start a new thread if that pleases you

Better you should find a previous thread where this topic has already been beaten to death.

But I'm trying to spare you a huge amount of wasted time by pointing you towards verinage, where you can measure the acceleration yourself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EY3nj728WPY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prwvj-npt5s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIsE8CkZI6U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GNhEpHfgfI

[Java Man]

You proved the WTC fell due to gravity using physics. Now adjust your work for where the collapse started at the impact floor. And you will get 12.08 seconds for one of the towers. You debunked 911 truth! Good job.

Actually I get less than that. Taking initial mass as 20 floors. Hit between floor 93 an 99 ("impacting between the 93rd and 99th floors", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center)

I get 9.33. That assumes the upper 20 floors dropped as a whole mass. But I understand that the where "collapsed upward".

If I feed it 10 floors as initial mass I get 11.60 seconds. And all this is assuming perfect impact conditions and no internal waste of energy in deformation. Which there was! And no loss in energy in outward flying debris. Which there were.


d K vi distance(m) drop time speed
20 4.91 -3.7 0.87 8.52
21 4.91 8.11 -3.7 0.37 11.77
22 4.91 11.23 -3.7 0.29 14.10
23 4.91 13.48 -3.7 0.25 15.95
24 4.91 15.29 -3.7 0.23 17.50
25 4.91 16.80 -3.7 0.21 18.84
26 4.91 18.11 -3.7 0.19 20.02
27 4.91 19.28 -3.7 0.18 21.07
28 4.91 20.32 -3.7 0.17 22.04
29 4.91 21.28 -3.7 0.17 22.92
30 4.91 22.15 -3.7 0.16 23.74
31 4.91 22.97 -3.7 0.16 24.50
32 4.91 23.73 -3.7 0.15 25.22
33 4.91 24.45 -3.7 0.15 25.89
34 4.91 25.13 -3.7 0.14 26.54
35 4.91 25.78 -3.7 0.14 27.15
36 4.91 26.40 -3.7 0.14 27.74
37 4.91 26.99 -3.7 0.13 28.30
38 4.91 27.56 -3.7 0.13 28.84
39 4.91 28.10 -3.7 0.13 29.37
40 4.91 28.63 -3.7 0.13 29.87
41 4.91 29.15 -3.7 0.12 30.37
42 4.91 29.64 -3.7 0.12 30.84
43 4.91 30.13 -3.7 0.12 31.31
44 4.91 30.60 -3.7 0.12 31.76
45 4.91 31.05 -3.7 0.12 32.20
46 4.91 31.50 -3.7 0.12 32.63
47 4.91 31.94 -3.7 0.11 33.06
48 4.91 32.37 -3.7 0.11 33.47
49 4.91 32.79 -3.7 0.11 33.88
50 4.91 33.20 -3.7 0.11 34.27
51 4.91 33.60 -3.7 0.11 34.67
52 4.91 34.00 -3.7 0.11 35.05
53 4.91 34.39 -3.7 0.11 35.43
54 4.91 34.77 -3.7 0.10 35.80
55 4.91 35.15 -3.7 0.10 36.17
56 4.91 35.52 -3.7 0.10 36.53
57 4.91 35.89 -3.7 0.10 36.89
58 4.91 36.25 -3.7 0.10 37.24
59 4.91 36.61 -3.7 0.10 37.59
60 4.91 36.96 -3.7 0.10 37.93
61 4.91 37.31 -3.7 0.10 38.27
62 4.91 37.65 -3.7 0.10 38.60
63 4.91 37.99 -3.7 0.10 38.93
64 4.91 38.32 -3.7 0.10 39.26
65 4.91 38.66 -3.7 0.09 39.58
66 4.91 38.98 -3.7 0.09 39.90
67 4.91 39.31 -3.7 0.09 40.22
68 4.91 39.63 -3.7 0.09 40.54
69 4.91 39.95 -3.7 0.09 40.85
70 4.91 40.26 -3.7 0.09 41.16
71 4.91 40.58 -3.7 0.09 41.46
72 4.91 40.88 -3.7 0.09 41.76
73 4.91 41.19 -3.7 0.09 42.06
74 4.91 41.49 -3.7 0.09 42.36
75 4.91 41.80 -3.7 0.09 42.65
76 4.91 42.09 -3.7 0.09 42.95
77 4.91 42.39 -3.7 0.09 43.24
78 4.91 42.68 -3.7 0.09 43.52
79 4.91 42.97 -3.7 0.09 43.81
80 4.91 43.26 -3.7 0.08 44.09
81 4.91 43.55 -3.7 0.08 44.38
82 4.91 43.83 -3.7 0.08 44.65
83 4.91 44.12 -3.7 0.08 44.93
84 4.91 44.40 -3.7 0.08 45.21
85 4.91 44.68 -3.7 0.08 45.48
86 4.91 44.95 -3.7 0.08 45.75
87 4.91 45.23 -3.7 0.08 46.02
88 4.91 45.50 -3.7 0.08 46.29
89 4.91 45.77 -3.7 0.08 46.56
90 4.91 46.04 -3.7 0.08 46.82 9.33

[excaza]

From truther to debunker in 23 posts

brings a tear to my eye *sniff*

[Java Man]

btw, please don't try to bait and switch or move the goalposts. You now say that you're not arguing freefall, yet you wrote (in perhaps your second post)
'It is suspicious if the fall is as fast as pool ball dropping from the top floor. It as if the top floor just dropped down in free fall.
...
Please stay on topic.


I did start the comment around free fall as that is generally what it is addressed as. But I haven't seem much analysis into momentum and I believe that's an interesting point to pick up. So I'm not switching nor moving goalposts. I'm trying to have a mature discussion in which we will see various opinions and will adjust according lot arrive at something rather than adjust accordingly to evade something. Which is what you'r accusing me of doing and which is not my intention here.

[Java Man]

From truther to debunker in 23 posts

brings a tear to my eye *sniff*

I never said I'm a truther or debunker. I just said I had this issue with the fall. I can not take sides and then try to prove my point. I must take the observations and see were they lead me. If it makes me a truther so be it. If it makes me a debunker so be it.

To do otherwise would be wrong.

[excaza]

And you answered your fall question all on your own. Why didn't you do it before posting all the nonsense?

[Java Man]

And you answered your fall question all on your own. Why didn't you do it before posting all the nonsense?

The more important question is why didn't all the hardcore debunkers her do it?

And in a way I haven't fully answered it either. As this model is extremely simplistic. We still need to justify how the floor "become loose" and fall. And I don't mean a written explanation. I mean energy wise how that happens.

[excaza]

because it's trivial, it's been done a bajillion times, and you try it yourself if you have an issue with it before demanding someone else does it for you

[alienentity]

The more important question is why didn't all the hardcore debunkers her do it?

And in a way I haven't fully answered it either. As this model is extremely simplistic. We still need to justify how the floor "become loose" and fall. And I don't mean a written explanation. I mean energy wise how that happens.

Agreed with excaza - it's been done to death already.

And again it really isn't evidence as laid out by the OP so it's the wrong thread. Sorry to keep reminding you but derails are a pain.

[Captain_Swoop]

I thought we were going to get into a 'Gish Gallop' tehre with the switch from Freefall to Thermite.

[Java Man]

And again it really isn't evidence as laid out by the OP so it's the wrong thread. Sorry to keep reminding you but derails are a pain.

I beg to disagree. If the buildings fall too fast to be explained by the self collapsing theory then yes there is proof of an inside job. How else did it get rigged.

Regarding your point on Verinage, although a viable explanation it still lacks substance.

First of all Verinage looks like a very complex technique. Why else would the guy hold a patent for it?

So an airplane crash produces the required preconditions equivalent to a Verinage technique for a perfectly vertical drop of a building 110 stories high? Twice?

Now if you take a quick look at the videos you posted showing the Verinage technique we clearly observe the building is prepared. The floors that are going to collapse are weakened and rigged in accordance to the technique. Now WTC 7 doesn't have those telltale signs of Verinage. How did that one fall? It wasn't hit by the "Verinaging" airplanes and it wasn't "Verinaged" in broad daylight. What's your explanation for that?

[R.Mackey]

Sweet FSM, not this crap again. My whitepaper, Appendix B, thank you drive through.

I'll be really happy when school starts again.

[beachnut]

Actually I get less than that. Taking initial ...
What mass are you using? You left out too many floors (funny stuff). You already debunked 911 truth (twice); now you are lost trying to help them.

Thermite and fall time are now debunked by you; you persist on trying to go back and fail.

[Java Man]

What mass are you using? You left out too many floors (funny stuff). You already debunked 911 truth (twice); now you are lost trying to help them.

Thermite and fall time are now debunked by you; you persist on trying to go back and fail.

I'm assuming each floor is of equal mass or so similar differences can be ignored and the equation simplified. It does sound reasonable doesn't it? That all floors have the same mass more or less.

[Captain_Swoop]

I beg to disagree. If the buildings fall too fast to be explained by the self collapsing theory then yes there is proof of an inside job. How else did it get rigged.

Regarding your point on Verinage, although a viable explanation it still lacks substance.

First of all Verinage looks like a very complex technique. Why else would the guy hold a patent for it?

So an airplane crash produces the required preconditions equivalent to a Verinage technique for a perfectly vertical drop of a building 110 stories high? Twice?

Now if you take a quick look at the videos you posted showing the Verinage technique we clearly observe the building is prepared. The floors that are going to collapse are weakened and rigged in accordance to the technique. Now WTC 7 doesn't have those telltale signs of Verinage. How did that one fall? It wasn't hit by the "Verinaging" airplanes and it wasn't "Verinaged" in broad daylight. What's your explanation for that?

Why would enyone deliberately demolish WTC7?
What was it's part in the grand conspiracy?

[alienentity]

I beg to disagree. If the buildings fall too fast to be explained by the self collapsing theory then yes there is proof of an inside job. How else did it get rigged.

Regarding your point on Verinage, although a viable explanation it still lacks substance.

First of all Verinage looks like a very complex technique. Why else would the guy hold a patent for it?

So an airplane crash produces the required preconditions equivalent to a Verinage technique for a perfectly vertical drop of a building 110 stories high? Twice?

Now if you take a quick look at the videos you posted showing the Verinage technique we clearly observe the building is prepared. The floors that are going to collapse are weakened and rigged in accordance to the technique. Now WTC 7 doesn't have those telltale signs of Verinage. How did that one fall? It wasn't hit by the "Verinaging" airplanes and it wasn't "Verinaged" in broad daylight. What's your explanation for that?

Are you asking questions because you want answers, or are you just going to deny every answer?

There are valid answers to all your questions. Question for you - are you willing to accept any answer that doesn't = controlled demolition?

[Java Man]

Are you asking questions because you want answers, or are you just going to deny every answer?

I definitely want answers and I'm not denying every answer. Just don't think that any argument set forth by you will not be scrutinized.

Don't you think for a second that being a debunker allows me to accept any debunking theory as true just because it benefits my cause. That's probably causing a lot of confusion here and the belief that I'm "moving the goalpost". I don't take sides and then defend that side. I look at what each side brings to the table and decide from there.

Looking forward to the answer regarding the WTC7 building.

[Java Man]

Why would enyone deliberately demolish WTC7?

Beats me! But that's in the part of motives and we can list many and all would derail the conversation. What I'm interested right now is the Verinage technique, it explanation on the collapse of buildings in the WTC complex and the fact that WTC7 doesn't look anything like a Verinage prepared building. And I also find it odd that such an elaborate technique as Verinage can be performed by an airplane crash, twice! Leaves me with this "I'm using a shotgun to perform open heart surgery" kinda feeling.

We'll see what he answers.

[alienentity]

I beg to disagree. If the buildings fall too fast to be explained by the self collapsing theory then yes there is proof of an inside job. How else did it get rigged.
To start with it is doubtful you are more qualified and competent than the many before you who have already done the calculations and concluded (read their papers) that the collapses were consistent with gravitational collapse.

Regarding your point on Verinage, although a viable explanation it still lacks substance.

First of all Verinage looks like a very complex technique. Why else would the guy hold a patent for it?
The salient feature is a symmetrical, even collapse of the floors in question. This creates a nice, square and simultaneous impulse between the upper block and the floors below.
The result is that you'll be more likely to see a period of freefall acceleration followed by a deceleration as the first major collision happens.

The WTC building collapses were far more complex and chaotic. Just for example, the towers were structurally compromised such that loads were carried in ways unintended by the designers.
The fires further weakened, in entirely random ways, the integrity of the structure.
By the time the upper blocks began to move downward, there was asymmetrical failure and motion, resulting in a very imperfect set of collisions - hence the lack of single, gigantic impulses. Also the upper blocks were not completely rigid, so the whole structure absorbed some energy.

So an airplane crash produces the required preconditions equivalent to a Verinage technique for a perfectly vertical drop of a building 110 stories high? Twice?
This question is basically a strawman. There was nothing perfect at all in the chaotic collapses, so you've got it wrong. Gravity, however, always accelerates perfectly downwards, so yes, that element is identical.

The mechanism for acceleration of the upper blocks differs in the extreme between WTC towers and the verinage buildings, for example. But the physics are the same.

Now if you take a quick look at the videos you posted showing the Verinage technique we clearly observe the building is prepared. The floors that are going to collapse are weakened and rigged in accordance to the technique. Now WTC 7 doesn't have those telltale signs of Verinage. How did that one fall? It wasn't hit by the "Verinaging" airplanes and it wasn't "Verinaged" in broad daylight. What's your explanation for that?

According to the patent, only the collapse floors are weakened (for safety reasons), but not the floors below.
Therefore the energy to destroy the structure actually is derived from the momentum of the upper block. It need only accelerate for a floor or so to get the job done.
Pretty clever stuff.

You're right. WTC7 showed absolutely no signs at all of being prepared for controlled demolition. That's the whole point.
Truthers are enamored with the idea that it was somehow prepared without any evidence being left at all. That's how they get around the obvious lack of evidence.
The problem is, that the most likely reason for the lack of evidence is that there never was any controlled demolition to begin with. Now that theory is tight!

WTC7's collapse was obviously quite different from that of the towers. You really should read the entire 2008 NIST report before jumping to any conclusions.
Unless you either:
1) are a real expert in controlled demolitions
2) are a structural engineer who designs hi-rises

Then you wouldn't need to ask these questions anyway. Just read the NIST report.

[alienentity]

Again, this discussion is getting way OT.

The OP is about proof for the theories. You really should do this research elsewhere.

[Java Man]

The salient feature[Verinage technique] is a symmetrical, even collapse of the floors in question. This creates a nice, square and simultaneous impulse between the upper block and the floors below.

...

The WTC building collapses were far more complex and chaotic. Just for example, the towers were structurally compromised such that loads were carried in ways unintended by the designers.
The fires further weakened, in entirely random ways, the integrity of the structure.


That's exactly my point and you seem to be dodging it. You clearly state that what happened in the WTC is diametrically opposite to the salient feature of the Verinage technique. Thus I find it very difficult to accept your Verinage technique theory when you contradict yourself on this.


You're right. WTC7 showed absolutely no signs at all of being prepared for controlled demolition.


So if it wasn't prepared, how did it fall?

[Java Man]

Truthers are enamored with the idea that it was somehow prepared without any evidence being left at all. That's how they get around the obvious lack of evidence.

Take a look at this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8U4erFzhC-U

no outside evidence of it being prepared. Yet it is an explosion driven controlled demolition. So I guess they don't need to get around the lack of evidence.

[beachnut]

Take a look at this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8U4erFzhC-U

no outside evidence of it being prepared. Yet it is an explosion driven controlled demolition. So I guess they don't need to get around the lack of evidence.
LOL
The windows are gone! You are funny. Did you miss the massive blast sounds made by explosives?
The blast sounds are a clue of CD. The missing windows are the clue to massive preparation.
The WTC collapse destroyed and littered debris for 19 acres; which is a clue to a gravity collapse.
No Blast sound from explosives on 911. You are debunking 911 truth faster than free-fall.

So far you proved
. thermite was not used at the WTC because thermite leaves behind messy piles of iron.
. That the WTC towers fell consistent with a gravity collapse by physics.
. Now you proved WTC towers were not CD, there were no blasts of explosives.

[Titanic Explorer]

Take a look at this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8U4erFzhC-U

no outside evidence of it being prepared. Yet it is an explosion driven controlled demolition. So I guess they don't need to get around the lack of evidence.

this is what you call proof???

[Titanic Explorer]

LOL
The windows are gone! You are funny. Did you miss the massive blast sounds made by explosives?
The blast sounds are a clue of CD. The missing windows are the clue to massive preparation.
The WTC collapse destroyed and littered debris for 19 acres; which is a clue to a gravity collapse.
No Blast sound from explosives on 911. You are debunking 911 truth faster than free-fall.

So far you proved
. thermite was not used at the WTC because thermite leaves behind messy piles of iron.
. That the WTC towers fell consistent with a gravity collapse by physics.
. Now you proved WTC towers were not CD, there were no blasts of explosives.


Ever notice that Truthers do such a great job at discrediting themselves, they usually don't need the help of debunkers?

[Java Man]

LOL
The windows are gone! You are funny. Did you miss the massive blast sounds made by explosives?

Hahaha, you're not serious are you really? Take a look at the videos for verinage techniques. Whole walls and support structures are missing, beams are added and guess what windows are missing too.

Now I'm no structural engineer, but I really don't think windows add up that much to a buildings structure. I wouldn't call taking out the windows as a preparation for demolition. Surely it cuts down on debris, it is also easily recyclable, but thinking that the building will not fall because the windows are still present is a bit far fetched.

Anyway, let's see what the proponent of the verinage technique has to say. Because clearly WTC7 was not prepared as other verinage demolished buildings.

[funk de fino]

Hahaha, you're not serious are you really? Take a look at the videos for verinage techniques. Whole walls and support structures are missing, beams are added and guess what windows are missing too.

Now I'm no structural engineer, but I really don't think windows add up that much to a buildings structure. I wouldn't call taking out the windows as a preparation for demolition. Surely it cuts down on debris, it is also easily recyclable, but thinking that the building will not fall because the windows are still present is a bit far fetched.

Anyway, let's see what the proponent of the verinage technique has to say. Because clearly WTC7 was not prepared as other verinage demolished buildings.

What a moronic post. What do you think all that flying glass would have done? It's nothing to do with weakening the structure. Walk away now, you have just made a prize pumpkin of yourself.

[Java Man]

What a moronic post. What do you think all that flying glass would have done? It's nothing to do with weakening the structure. Walk away now, you have just made a prize pumpkin of yourself.

Moronic in what way? Would you care to contribute any value to defend the other members post?

[sheeplesnshills]

Truthers don't care about truth, thus they don't care about evidence, science or rationalism. Trutherism is a religious cult, and you are supposed to accept on blind faith anything that is spoken by their masters.

They are like the religious is that they "need" something to believe in.......now that "God" or "Gods" are clearly silly ideas they latch onto something else.
The events of 911 are beyond their intellectual abilities to understand so they cannot see that Truther CTs are just as false.

[funk de fino]

Moronic in what way? Would you care to contribute any value to defend the other members post?

Your posts on removing windows are ignorant of why they remove the windows. You made a fool of yourself.

[Java Man]

Your posts on removing windows are ignorant of why they remove the windows. You made a fool of yourself.

So you believe windows (meaning glass) are structural elements of a building? The lack of windows severely cripples a building to the point of making it "prepared for controlled demolition"?

[beachnut]

Hahaha, ...
Cool.
... no outside evidence of it being prepared. ...
The windows are missing; evidence, outside evidence of it being prepared.

You make up stupid statement to support 911 truth as you post proof 911 truth is full of lies and delusions. You missed.

The building you showed was prepared by cutting beams almost completely. Any preparation at all in the WTC for explosives to bring down the WTC towers or WTC 7 would have been caught after 1993; you want to know why? Look it up!

Can't wait for you to spew the terrorists can't fly, the plane can't fly that fast, and more nonsense from the bag of lies and delusions 911 truth has failed with for over 8 years. It give me something to read as I spill glue and purple junk on my sch40 pvc, engineering the most hideous water system on earth. Keep up the delusions; thank netgear for my wireless backyard.

Sorry for the comment about the windows being missing, you need to understand in the WTC no glass was blasted by explosives charges; "the rest of the story" as you gloss over the details proves your 911 truth nonsense is garbage made up out of ignorance.

[funk de fino]

So you believe windows (meaning glass) are structural elements of a building?

No.

The lack of windows severely cripples a building to the point of making it "prepared for controlled demolition"?

No

They remove them so that the flying glass does not harm people.

I wouldn't call taking out the windows as a preparation for demolition.

You are wrong.

[Java Man]

The windows are missing; evidence, outside evidence of it being prepared.


Oh ok I get it. They were meant to rig the building with explosives and then take out the windows and hope nobody would notice the missing glass. Right? Rather than say, rig the building with explosives and not give a darn about the glass because it really doesn't add any structure to the building nor hampers the demolition in any way.

In the context of a thread discussing a cover up your argument sounds extremely funny LOL. I can hear them already, "He John uhh lets finish off by taking out the glass on WTC 7 and pray nobody notices."

Give me a freaking break! I sure hope you don't use that debunking argument anywhere else but here. You'd be laughed at!.

[Java Man]

You are wrong.

Well certainly I'd be wrong in an everyday demolition, but in a cover up? The whole point would be to make it look as normal as any other day. You don't remove any glass and pray nobody is near when the explosions go off.

So for all practical purposes the building can be preped for demolition even if the glass is still there as cover up. In other words it will go down as if the glass was taken out. Just more debris will be created. Yet from the outside it would look just like any other building. Unlike the Verinage technique which shows tell tale signs of tampering of the floors that will initiate the collapse.

[Titanic Explorer]

Well certainly I'd be wrong in an everyday demolition, but in a cover up? The whole point would be to make it look as normal as any other day. You don't remove any glass and pray nobody is near when the explosions go off.

So for all practical purposes the building can be preped for demolition even if the glass is still there as cover up. In other words it will go down as if the glass was taken out. Just more debris will be created. Yet from the outside it would look just like any other building. Unlike the Verinage technique which shows tell tale signs of tampering of the floors that will initiate the collapse.

Like all Truthers, you offer theories and opinions- but no proof.

[Titanic Explorer]

Beats me! But that's in the part of motives and we can list many and all would derail the conversation. What I'm interested right now is the Verinage technique, it explanation on the collapse of buildings in the WTC complex and the fact that WTC7 doesn't look anything like a Verinage prepared building. And I also find it odd that such an elaborate technique as Verinage can be performed by an airplane crash, twice! Leaves me with this "I'm using a shotgun to perform open heart surgery" kinda feeling.

We'll see what he answers.


Tinfoil hat speculation & useless opinion.
No proof...

[Java Man]

Like all Truthers, you offer theories and opinions- but no proof.

What proof do I need to show? I'm still waiting on the response regarding the Verinage technique from alienentity. His main argument was that buildings are know to fall for themselves without explosives. Yes, as long as they're prepared and setup according to a procedure known as Verinage. But then he clearly states with his own words that the WTC (main towers and 7) looked and fell nothing like Verinage prepared buildings. They were "chaotic" instead of "symmetrical".

Would you care to help him out given your interest in having proof brought forward.

I have, BTW, brought forth calculations. Which has been more than what most others have done, yourself included.

[ktesibios]

You appear to have completely missed the point of funk de fino's posts. Perhaps I can be of assistance.

The essence of thinking diagnostically is denying the consequent (no, this is not a fallacy; I don't mean the errors of affirming the consequent or denying the antecedent), in other words, testing a hypothesis about what is going on by finding a necessary consequence if the hypothesis is true and, if the consequence is not found, rejecting the hypothesis, like so:

A implies B (IOW, if A is true, B will necessarily be true.
B is not true.
Therefore A is not true.

To give a trivial example:

If the mains fuse is blown the pilot lamp will not light.
The pilot lamp is lit.
Therefore the mains fuse is not blown (and I need to come up with another testable hypothesis for why the damned thing don't work).

To apply this to the case at hand,

If buildings at the WTC were demolished by explosives without the customary preparatory step of removing all window glass, we would necessarily expect to observe many shards of glass propelled outward at high velocities by the explosions.

We observe no such thing, even though the window glass was mostly still in place.

Therefore the buildings at the WTC were not demolished by explosives.

Or,

If buildings at the WTC were demolished by explosives we would necessarily expect to observe a series of bangs so loud that nobody in the vicinity could fail to notice and remark upon them and that no recording device in the vicinity could fail to record them.

We observe no such thing.

Therefore the buildings at the WTC were not demolished by explosives.

I hope this has been helpful.

[beachnut]

... I have, BTW, brought forth calculations. Which has been more than what most others have done, yourself included.
Which debunks 911 truth. Good job. Your momentum transfer clearly debunks 911 truth lies about free-fall. Your presentation of CD information debunks CD lies. What is next on your list of lies from 911 truth that can't be proved and are easy to debunk?

[Java Man]

Which debunks 911 truth. Good job. Your momentum transfer clearly debunks 911 truth lies about free-fall. Your presentation of CD information debunks CD lies. What is next on your list of lies from 911 truth that can't be proved and are easy to debunk?

Like I said, I'm neither a truther nor debunker, just asking questions. I'm still waiting for the answer to the Verinage issue.

See what really ticks me off is people who believe they're right just because they're supporting something that is right. Thus they throw forth any argument which sounds ok, but doesn't hold. Strangely if I challenge it I get labeled as a truther rather than a debunker who is not willing to stand beside a pro debunker statement that is clearly wrong.

Now so far the momentum transfer model I've show clearly debunks the 911 free-fall supporters. But it is also an extremely simplistic model which as I've said doesn't contemplate any internal loss. It still takes energy to break the structure. And I'm still not considering air resistance. Of course I will be far from terminal velocity, but that does not mean I can disregard air resistance. I am by no ways home free.

If I take the model to start with 20 floors on top I get about 9.3 seconds. If i take the upper number of 10 floors remaining (from 99 up) then time goes to about 10.5 seconds. I still have to subtract the energy required to crush the structure and hope that doesn't add up too much time.

You see, I started posting about the free fall and a lot of posts disregarded the momentum issue (even making fun with pool table analogies and what not). Up to the point were I brought the calculations. It turned out to be no trivial difference. From 9.2 seconds to 14.8 when momentum is considered.

[tsig]

Truthers are VERY much like Creationists.


More like the proponents of ID where you never have to pove your theory just prove the "official" one wrong.

[tsig]

It is suspicious if the fall is as fast as pool ball dropping from the top floor. It as if the top floor just dropped down in free fall.

In other words a skydiver would have a hard time beating the tower to the ground. It's that fast. Odd isn't it?

No, gravity effects them both in the same way.

[Java Man]

If buildings at the WTC were demolished by explosives without the customary preparatory step of removing all window glass, we would necessarily expect to observe many shards of glass propelled outward at high velocities by the explosions.

Really? Why is that so? Shards would be propelled outward if the explosions happened in the upper floors before the building falls. But if the explosions happen from ground level going up as the building falls you never really see anything because it's all in the dust cloud.

More so, I invite you to see this video:

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

A controlled demolition of a building with glass still on. See how the reflection shifts as the building begins to topple? They didn't take the mirrored windows out and yet we don't see a blast of glass. Conclusion: controlled demolition does not require glass to be taken out for the building to fall and even with the glass on it controlled demolition doesn't turn the building into one huge glass fragmentation grenade.

To quote your words:


We observe no such thing, even though the window glass was mostly still in place.




Therefore the buildings at the WTC were not demolished by explosives.


Jeess, what can I say. You'll need to rethink that statement.




If buildings at the WTC were demolished by explosives we would necessarily expect to observe a series of bangs so loud that nobody in the vicinity could fail to notice and remark upon them and that no recording device in the vicinity could fail to record them.

We observe no such thing.


Is there such a thing to observe? I mean is there a video from the vicinity of WTC7 that has those loud bangs? Maybe they were, but nobody recorded them or was near the vicinity to notice it because everything was evacuated.

Do you have a video from the vicinity that shows such bangs?

[dafydd]

Like I said, I'm neither a truther nor debunker, just asking questions. I'm still waiting for the answer to the Verinage issue.

See what really ticks me off is people who believe they're right just because they're supporting something that is right. Thus they throw forth any argument which sounds ok, but doesn't hold. Strangely if I challenge it I get labeled as a truther rather than a debunker who is not willing to stand beside a pro debunker statement that is clearly wrong.

Now so far the momentum transfer model I've show clearly debunks the 911 free-fall supporters. But it is also an extremely simplistic model which as I've said doesn't contemplate any internal loss. It still takes energy to break the structure. And I'm still not considering air resistance. Of course I will be far from terminal velocity, but that does not mean I can disregard air resistance. I am by no ways home free.

If I take the model to start with 20 floors on top I get about 9.3 seconds. If i take the upper number of 10 floors remaining (from 99 up) then time goes to about 10.5 seconds. I still have to subtract the energy required to crush the structure and hope that doesn't add up too much time.

You see, I started posting about the free fall and a lot of posts disregarded the momentum issue (even making fun with pool table analogies and what not). Up to the point were I brought the calculations. It turned out to be no trivial difference. From 9.2 seconds to 14.8 when momentum is considered.

"Just asking questions'',the leidmotief of the truther.What are your qualifications? Are you an architect or an engineer?

[Java Man]

No, gravity effects them both in the same way.

True, but not air resistance.

[Java Man]

"Just asking questions'',the leidmotief of the truther.What are your qualifications? Are you an architect or an engineer?

I'm an electronics engineer.

[beachnut]

I'm an electronics engineer.
What school?


Funny on the glass again. There were no charges in the top stories if the glass did not blow out. Cool, how you debunk 911 truth as you go and fail to make a point to point it out. You are a great debunker, but you fail to realize it. Keep up the Columbo/Monk act.

[funk de fino]

Well certainly I'd be wrong in an everyday demolition, but in a cover up? The whole point would be to make it look as normal as any other day. You don't remove any glass and pray nobody is near when the explosions go off.

So for all practical purposes the building can be preped for demolition even if the glass is still there as cover up. In other words it will go down as if the glass was taken out. Just more debris will be created. Yet from the outside it would look just like any other building. Unlike the Verinage technique which shows tell tale signs of tampering of the floors that will initiate the collapse.

You still made a fool of yourself. There were no CD explosions. The windows would have blown out all over the place. This did not happen

There were demolition experts within a few hundred feet of WTC7 when it collapsed. they do not recall hearing those explosions. They say you are wrong.

[tsig]

Like I said, I'm neither a truther nor debunker, just asking questions. I'm still waiting for the answer to the Verinage issue.

See what really ticks me off is people who believe they're right just because they're supporting something that is right. Thus they throw forth any argument which sounds ok, but doesn't hold. Strangely if I challenge it I get labeled as a truther rather than a debunker who is not willing to stand beside a pro debunker statement that is clearly wrong.

Now so far the momentum transfer model I've show clearly debunks the 911 free-fall supporters. But it is also an extremely simplistic model which as I've said doesn't contemplate any internal loss. It still takes energy to break the structure. And I'm still not considering air resistance. Of course I will be far from terminal velocity, but that does not mean I can disregard air resistance. I am by no ways home free.

If I take the model to start with 20 floors on top I get about 9.3 seconds. If i take the upper number of 10 floors remaining (from 99 up) then time goes to about 10.5 seconds. I still have to subtract the energy required to crush the structure and hope that doesn't add up too much time.

You see, I started posting about the free fall and a lot of posts disregarded the momentum issue (even making fun with pool table analogies and what not). Up to the point were I brought the calculations. It turned out to be no trivial difference. From 9.2 seconds to 14.8 when momentum is considered.

There's the money quote.

[Java Man]

You still made a fool of yourself. There were no CD explosions. The windows would have blown out all over the place. This did not happen

There were demolition experts within a few hundred feet of WTC7 when it collapsed. they do not recall hearing those explosions. They say you are wrong.

For your benefit I'll repost the link of a CD with windows on.

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

Now let me explain it again. If you trigger the explosions from the ground up at a rate that the collapsing building keeps up with the rising explosions you will not see glass flying out because you're covered by other buildings. In other words the detonations are not happening in line of sight.

[funk de fino]

More so, I invite you to see this video:

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

The glass is removed on the floors that the explosives are placed. Any idiot can see that.

Jeess, what can I say. You'll need to rethink that statement.

I think you do.

[tsig]

What school?


Funny on the glass again. There were no charges in the top stories if the glass did not blow out. Cool, how you debunk 911 truth as you go and fail to make a point to point it out. You are a great debunker, but you fail to realize it. Keep up the Columbo/Monk act.

It looks like he studied physics at Google U.

[funk de fino]

I'm an electronics engineer.

Don't believe you, sorry.

Now let me explain it again. If you trigger the explosions from the ground up at a rate that the collapsing building keeps up with the rising explosions you will not see glass flying out because you're covered by other buildings. In other words the detonations are not happening in line of sight.

Where did the WTC7 collapse begin? At the bottom?

No.

[Java Man]

There were no charges in the top stories if the glass did not blow out.

They could have been, but as long as they don't detonate in line of sight you won't see much. They can be made to detonate when the floor drops below a certain altitude. Electronics can do marvels these days. That I know :)

[funk de fino]

I repeat

There were demolition experts within a few hundred feet of WTC7 when it collapsed. They do not recall hearing those explosions. They say you are wrong.

[Java Man]

It looks like he studied physics at Google U.

Well then please enlighten my lacking knowledge. Look at the numbers I present them and tell me something. Pointless bashing like this doesn't count.

[Java Man]

Don't believe you, sorry.



Where did the WTC7 collapse begin? At the bottom?

No.

Oh it didn't happen from the bottom up? Can you show me a video of the WTC7 where the top floor collapses on the next to last floor and so forth downward.

Now the videos I have look a lot like this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A

It clearly shows the intact upper floors crushing the lower floors.

Maybe you have another video of the WTC7. But then again that would put a great spin to this whole WTC conspiracy thing. You wouldn't be a Truther nor a Debunker, but rather a third type. One that holds the real footage of what happened.

[TokenMac]

Well then please enlighten my lacking knowledge.

From what you have posted so far it seem like you haven't read the NIST or any other reports. I would highly suggest you do that now before demanding any explanations.

[beachnut]

They could have been, but as long as they don't detonate in line of sight you won't see much. They can be made to detonate when the floor drops below a certain altitude. Electronics can do marvels these days. That I know :)
... wrong again on the explosives...
Is your degree a BS degree or Masters? Stanford or Clemson?

There is no need to expend explosives on floors which will use gravity to be the "energy source" for destruction. Gravity is the main energy source for CD. Study your topic first and stop making up BS as you go.

[BigAl]

They could have been, but as long as they don't detonate in line of sight you won't see much. They can be made to detonate when the floor drops below a certain altitude. Electronics can do marvels these days. That I know :)

How complex is your plan? What vintage is your electronics? Where do you plug the stuff in?

As an EE, you will appreciate the fact that the entire WTC complex was subject to an RF field from the North tower antenna well above the safety limit for setting explosives.

Source: Army Field Manual 5-250 Explosives & Demolition

[Java Man]

I repeat

There were demolition experts within a few hundred feet of WTC7 when it collapsed. They do not recall hearing those explosions. They say you are wrong.

Ok I'll buy that for a moment then. The question still stands. Why did it fall? It can't be Verinage because it clearly wasn't prepared as such.

BTW, may I ask. Why were there demolition experts in the area? What needed demolishing?

[TokenMac]

Ok I'll buy that for a moment then. The question still stands. Why did it fall? It can't be Verinage because it clearly wasn't prepared as such.No one ever said WTC7 was a verinage.

BTW, may I ask. Why were there demolition experts in the area? What needed demolishing?
Most demo teams do two jobs, demolition and cleaning up.

ETA
From what you have posted so far it seem like you haven't read the NIST or any other reports. I would highly suggest you do that now before demanding any explanations.
and http://forums.randi.org/local_links.php?catid=18

[BigAl]

Ok I'll buy that for a moment then. The question still stands. Why did it fall?

Fire and lack of water for firefighting in an all-steel structure. Thar combination had never happened prior to 9/11/2001.

[Java Man]

As an EE, you will appreciate the fact that the entire WTC complex was subject to an RF field from the North tower antenna well above the safety limit for setting explosives.

Source: Army Field Manual 5-250 Explosives & Demolition

I didn't know that. I'm not quite sure what that value would be. I'm not sure if that value is higher than human allowable limits. Because if so I have two concerns in mind.

People in the upper floors would have been hazardously radiated if the safety limit you mention is above human tolerable limits.

Now if the limit is below human tolerable then humans can be in the area, but explosives couldn't. But then I guess the explosives you're thinking of could be set off by walkie talkies or cellphones or what not.

Can you develop this further?

[Java Man]

Fire and lack of water for firefighting in an all-steel structure.

Hadn't happened before. Actually whole buildings have been consumed by fire and never collapsed. WTC7 was not consumed by fire. There was fire in certain areas, but it was not a blazing torch.

[beachnut]

Oh it didn't happen from the bottom up? Can you show me a video of the WTC7 where the top floor collapses on the next to last floor and so forth downward.

Now the videos I have look a lot like this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A

It clearly shows the intact upper floors crushing the lower floors.

Maybe you have another video of the WTC7. But then again that would put a great spin to this whole WTC conspiracy thing. You wouldn't be a Truther nor a Debunker, but rather a third type. One that holds the real footage of what happened.
http://img177.imageshack.us/i/wtc7penthouse2rk4.gif/

WTC 7 Penthouse fell first; Penthouse is like at the top. The WTC 7 is unique, you need to study the structure and the NIST report prior to making failed remarks. WTC 7 collapse was unique; had no explosives, no thermite. You have debunked 911 Truth again without any effort.

[Java Man]

No one ever said WTC7 was a verinage.




Alienentity is suporting verinage as a reason for the collapse. Read a bit back

[Titanic Explorer]

Hadn't happened before. Actually whole buildings have been consumed by fire and never collapsed. WTC7 was not consumed by fire. There was fire in certain areas, but it was not a blazing torch.

the fire in WTC 7 raged for hours, and the building was severely damaged when the towers fell...

[funk de fino]

Oh it didn't happen from the bottom up? Can you show me a video of the WTC7 where the top floor collapses on the next to last floor and so forth downward.

The East penthouse collapsed into the building first. You can see it at the top. The collapse started around the 13th floor if memory serves me well.

Now the videos I have look a lot like this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A

It clearly shows the intact upper floors crushing the lower floors.

Maybe you have another video of the WTC7. But then again that would put a great spin to this whole WTC conspiracy thing. You wouldn't be a Truther nor a Debunker, but rather a third type. One that holds the real footage of what happened.

have you read the NIST report?

[BigAl]

Hadn't happened before. Actually whole buildings have been consumed by fire and never collapsed. WTC7 was not consumed by fire. There was fire in certain areas, but it was not a blazing torch.

Let me repeat this in small words; Prior to WTC
no building fire was in a building that was an all-steel structure and there was no water for firefighting.

[funk de fino]

Hadn't happened before. Actually whole buildings have been consumed by fire and never collapsed. WTC7 was not consumed by fire. There was fire in certain areas, but it was not a blazing torch.

Try again



http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1824447b1cfcfa7614.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=10770)

Fires were reported and seen on many floors.

[Java Man]

WTC 7 Penthouse fell first; Penthouse is like at the top.

That's it? That's the best you can do? The penthouse could have fallen for many many reasons and regardless of them it stops there and doesn't keep on taking the floors below it. You clearly see the building dropping as a whole. Try harder please.

I want to see a video with the upper floors crushing the lower floors as the lower floors stand still. Not what we see in the video. Even your video shows the top floors falling together practically intact.

[Titanic Explorer]

Java Man, do you think you have provided proof to back your claims?

[funk de fino]

Ok I'll buy that for a moment then. The question still stands. Why did it fall? It can't be Verinage because it clearly wasn't prepared as such.

Handwave again eh?

BTW, may I ask. Why were there demolition experts in the area? What needed demolishing?

read this.

http://www.jod911.com/WTC%20COLLAPSE%20STUDY%20BBlanchard%208-8-06.pdf

[beachnut]

Hadn't happened before. Actually whole buildings have been consumed by fire and never collapsed. WTC7 was not consumed by fire. There was fire in certain areas, but it was not a blazing torch.
Wrong again; WTC 7 was consumed by fire. You are fooled by night photos of other fires presented by idiots in 911 truth.

Why do you lie about fire? This is the not a blazing torch fires you talk about? I talked to people in NYC walking past WTC 7 on 911 and it was fully involved in fire. Why do you spew lies and disrespect those who died on 911 by making up lies?
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/wtc7fire3.jpg
out of control fire, not fought... what could happen?

The fires at the Madrid building were fought, the building did not collapse because the core was concrete; the building was totaled by fire like WTC 7.

One Meridian Plaza was on fire, the fires were fought, the fire department left the building for fear of collapse continued fighting from other buildings and the building sprinklers kicked in and stopped the fire; Building Totaled by fire like WTC 7. All three buildings a total loss. How does fire destroy steel, it is so strong??

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/woodsteelfire.jpg
Have you been hiding for 8 years?

Two high rises completely destroyed by fire; they had to be dismantled. Oops.

WTC 7 fire not fought, no water! What do buildings do in fire; they are destroyed. Why did firefighters leave building in the past; for fear of collapse. Sorry to mess up your day, steel fails in fire.

[Java Man]

the fire in WTC 7 raged for hours, and the building was severely damaged when the towers fell...

Vs say :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZLjxUM1aXc

lots of damage, things falling off and all, but it doesn't collapse on itself. An the fire was way more intense than in WTC7

[TokenMac]

Alienentity is suporting verinage as a reason for the collapse. Read a bit back

I looked back at AE's post he only brings up verinage in respose to towers 1&2, but in post 87 he might have been using it as an example for WTC7 I can't really tell so I will let him answer. He did how ever say this...
WTC7's collapse was obviously quite different from that of the towers. You really should read the entire 2008 NIST report before jumping to any conclusions.


Can I ask have you read the NIST reports?
If not then Why haven't you?

[funk de fino]

That's it? That's the best you can do? The penthouse could have fallen for many many reasons and regardless of them it stops there and doesn't keep on taking the floors below it. You clearly see the building dropping as a whole. Try harder please.

I want to see a video with the upper floors crushing the lower floors as the lower floors stand still. Not what we see in the video. Even your video shows the top floors falling together practically intact.


Read the report as you clearly fail to understand how the building collapsed.

[funk de fino]

Vs say :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZLjxUM1aXc

lots of damage, things falling off and all, but it doesn't collapse on itself. An the fire was way more intense than in WTC7

Well done you have proved that the steel framed parts collapsed in that video. You do not need us to debunk you. You manage fine yourself.

[Java Man]

Two high rises completely destroyed by fire; they had to be dismantled. Oops.



Why did they have to be dismantled? Because they didn't collapse on their own down to the ground.

The issue I see here is that alienentity brings to the table a theory for the collapse which requires a set of very well defined prerequisites. And then goes on to say that the situation in the WTC was far from it. It was chaotic. And I agree that it was chaotic.

More so like you show us. Heat will deform metal. Deformed metal will carry load in different directions not initially contemplated. I find alienentitie's theory hard to believe because we have a heat deformed building falling in a very precise way.

Clearly stated, the prerequisites for his theory are not present.

[beachnut]

Vs say :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZLjxUM1aXc

lots of damage, things falling off and all, but it doesn't collapse on itself. An the fire was way more intense than in WTC7

Where is the building now? ... destroyed by fire. Once again you debunk 911 truth and don't have a clue.

Terrorists did 911; who did 911 in your fantasy world of failed physics and zero fire science knowledge?

[Java Man]

Well done you have proved that the steel framed parts collapsed in that video. You do not need us to debunk you. You manage fine yourself.

It would be absurd to believe steel wont collapse. But the chaotic fall of parts and the destruction in that building does not correspond with the nice precise fall we see in WTC 7.

The issue here is not if fire will damage a steel structure. It will. But how can that damaged steel structure fall in such an orderly manner as the WTC 7 did.

[BigAl]

Why did they have to be dismantled? Because they didn't collapse on their own down to the ground.

The issue I see here is that alienentity brings to the table a theory for the collapse which requires a set of very well defined prerequisites. And then goes on to say that the situation in the WTC was far from it. It was chaotic. And I agree that it was chaotic.

More so like you show us. Heat will deform metal. Deformed metal will carry load in different directions not initially contemplated. I find alienentitie's theory hard to believe because we have a heat deformed building falling in a very precise way.

Clearly stated, the prerequisites for his theory are not present.

The fact that WTC7 structure was all-steel and there was no water for firefighting was all the prerequisites necessary for fire to cause the collapse.

[TokenMac]

Why did they have to be dismantled? Because they didn't collapse on their own down to the ground.

The issue I see here is that alienentity brings to the table a theory for the collapse which requires a set of very well defined prerequisites. And then goes on to say that the situation in the WTC was far from it. It was chaotic. And I agree that it was chaotic.

More so like you show us. Heat will deform metal. Deformed metal will carry load in different directions not initially contemplated. I find alienentitie's theory hard to believe because we have a heat deformed building falling in a very precise way.

Clearly stated, the prerequisites for his theory are not present.

You ignored this part:The fires at the Madrid building were fought, the building did not collapse because the core was concrete; the building was totaled by fire like WTC 7.

One Meridian Plaza was on fire, the fires were fought, the fire department left the building for fear of collapse continued fighting from other buildings and the building sprinklers kicked in and stopped the fire; Building Totaled by fire like WTC 7. All three buildings a total loss. How does fire destroy steel, it is so strong??


One last time, have you read the NIST reports?

[TSR]

Now if you take a quick look at the videos you posted showing the Verinage technique we clearly observe the building is prepared. The floors that are going to collapse are weakened and rigged in accordance to the technique. Now WTC 7 doesn't have those telltale signs of Verinage. How did that one fall? It wasn't hit by the "Verinaging" airplanes and it wasn't "Verinaged" in broad daylight. What's your explanation for that?
.
We clearly observe the building is not prepared fpr CD. The floors that are going to collapse are not rigged in accordance to the CD. Now WTC 7 doesn't have those telltale signs of CD. How did that one fall? What's your explanation for that?
.

[Java Man]

Try again



http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1824447b1cfcfa7614.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=10770)

Fires were reported and seen on many floors.

May I ask what that is?

[Java Man]

Java Man, do you think you have provided proof to back your claims?

Yes, partially. My claims are regarding the fall times. The issue with the fire and all the other stuff was brought in later by alienentity.

I'm working a bit more to add drag and see what possible effects that could have. Overall I see drag kicking in quickly and being a strong countering force in the fall.

[Java Man]

The fact that WTC7 structure was all-steel and there was no water for firefighting was all the prerequisites necessary for fire to cause the collapse.

Any odd collapse or crumbling yes. I agree. But such a precise drop requires more than just parts falling off at odd times.

[AJM8125]

As a building management professional, threads like this one are always good for a laugh as the JAQoff of the day tries to reconcile his beliefs that either:

The building was prepared for CD without anyone noticing - 100% impossible, or:

The building was prepared and the tenants and staff were all in on it. - 100% impossible, or:

There never were any tenants, The building was stuffed with documents the Bush Administration wanted to destroy, making WTC 7 the largest, most expensive paper shredder ever conceived. - 100% percent crap.

[BigAl]

Any odd collapse or crumbling yes. I agree. But such a precise drop requires more than just parts falling off at odd times.

Make stuff much?

Nothing about the collapse surprises anyone with relevant expertise that is familiar with WTC7's unusual all-steel structure and that the water source was destroyed on 9/11.

You'd never learn this stuff from Richard Gage, AIA.

[beachnut]

That's it? That's the best you can do? ...
You prefer to lie about 911. I don't; yes that is the best I can, point out your failed ideas on 911 amount to nonsense and you fail to see it.

... you show a building where the steel only structure (like the WTC) is totally collapsed. ... failed logic.

... the terrorists were speeding, a 200 mph impact would not damage the WTC towers fatally; that takes physics and knowledge to figure out. Tools you have decided to ignore as you post in a thread about the failure of 911 truth to prove anything. You are proving it is true. 911 truth has no evidence and can't prove a single claim after 8 years of failure and delusions.

I know... you are just asking questions.

... you show videos of fires being fought! Do you pay attention to what you post?

Yes, partially. My claims are regarding the fall times. The issue with the fire and all the other stuff was brought in later by alienentity.

I'm working a bit more to add drag and see what possible effects that could have. Overall I see drag kicking in quickly and being a strong countering force in the fall. Drag is negligible for massive objects. You don't have a college degree or any practical physics. Your times for collapse have proved 911 truth are liars.

The only thing you have proved is 911 truth has no evidence and can't prove any of the idiotic delusions they have; all their ideas are idiotic delusions. Which idiotic delusion will you debunk next?

[Java Man]

.
We clearly observe the building is not prepared fpr CD. The floors that are going to collapse are not rigged in accordance to the CD. Now WTC 7 doesn't have those telltale signs of CD. How did that one fall? What's your explanation for that?
.

I don't know. It is quite clear that there are no visible rigging for CD and there is no visible prepping for Verinage.

Now I can tell you I lived through the 1985 Mexico City earthquake and very healthy looking buildings just sandwiched themselves in seconds. Perfect vertical drop. Some did fall down and they topple over giving an accordion look. Very troubling memories. But then again it was a very big quake with trepidatory and oscilatory components affecting the whole structure at once.

What concerns me about the WTC 7 is that a debunker here proposes a theory that requires a great deal of order an preparation and applies it to a scenario with a lot of chaos. The fire burns for hours, but the building drops instantly, perfectly down as if hit by a quake. Instead of bending and twisting and falling apart in bits and pieces like we see others do.

[AJM8125]

I don't know. It is quite clear that there are no visible rigging for CD and there is no visible prepping for Verinage.

Now I can tell you I lived through the 1985 Mexico City earthquake and very healthy looking buildings just sandwiched themselves in seconds. Perfect vertical drop. Some did fall down and they topple over giving an accordion look. Very troubling memories. But then again it was a very big quake with trepidatory and oscilatory components affecting the whole structure at once.

What concerns me about the WTC 7 is that a debunker here proposes a theory that requires a great deal of order an preparation and applies it to a scenario with a lot of chaos. The fire burns for hours, but the building drops instantly, perfectly down as if hit by a quake. Instead of bending and twisting and falling apart in bits and pieces like we see others do.

It did not fall "perfectly down".

[TokenMac]

I don't know. It is quite clear that there are no visible rigging for CD and there is no visible prepping for Verinage.

Now I can tell you I lived through the 1985 Mexico City earthquake and very healthy looking buildings just sandwiched themselves in seconds. Perfect vertical drop. Some did fall down and they topple over giving an accordion look. Very troubling memories. But then again it was a very big quake with trepidatory and oscilatory components affecting the whole structure at once.

What concerns me about the WTC 7 is that a debunker here proposes a theory that requires a great deal of order an preparation and applies it to a scenario with a lot of chaos. The fire burns for hours, but the building drops instantly, perfectly down as if hit by a quake. Instead of bending and twisting and falling apart in bits and pieces like we see others do.

Once a building's support starts "bending and twisting" it will so longer be able to support the weight above it. When the support gives way that will cause the building's weight the shift as it falls much like an earthquake.;)

ETA:
Almost forgot, why are you ignoring the NIST report?

[Java Man]

Drag is negligible for massive objects.

Hahaha, too funny. According to you a DU (depleted uranium) round fired from an A-10 should have infinite range. It's massive because uranium is very very dense. More so than steel or concrete. But even considering it streamlined bullet shape the round does slow down.

Now consider a floor of the WTC. It is very heavy, but not very dense. You can't build very tall buildings with very dense material. It would weigh too much. So we have a very thin and wide slab of material dropping to earth. That's a lot of drag.

[BigAl]

I don't know. It is quite clear that there are no visible rigging for CD and there is no visible prepping for Verinage.

Now I can tell you I lived through the 1985 Mexico City earthquake and very healthy looking buildings just sandwiched themselves in seconds. Perfect vertical drop. Some did fall down and they topple over giving an accordion look. Very troubling memories. But then again it was a very big quake with trepidatory and oscilatory components affecting the whole structure at once.

What concerns me about the WTC 7 is that a debunker here proposes a theory that requires a great deal of order an preparation and applies it to a scenario with a lot of chaos. The fire burns for hours, but the building drops instantly, perfectly down as if hit by a quake. Instead of bending and twisting and falling apart in bits and pieces like we see others do.

Nothing about the collapse surprises anyone with relevant expertise that is familiar with WTC7's unusual all-steel structure and that the water source was destroyed on 9/11.

You'd never learn this stuff from Richard Gage, AIA.

[TokenMac]

Hahaha, too funny. According to you a DU (depleted uranium) round fired from an A-10 should have infinite range. It's massive because uranium is very very dense. More so than steel or concrete. But even considering it streamlined bullet shape the round does slow down.

Unless the A-10 is fired straight down, the drag on the round would come mostly from gravity not the air.

[TSR]

What concerns me about the WTC 7 is that a debunker here proposes a theory that requires a great deal of order an preparation and applies it to a scenario with a lot of chaos. The fire burns for hours, but the building drops instantly, perfectly down as if hit by a quake. Instead of bending and twisting and falling apart in bits and pieces like we see others do.

.
Except that no debunker here has offered verniage as a theory for how WCT7 collapsed. It was offered as an example of a building falling without explosives, not did WCT7 drop "perfectly down." Google "Verizon building" or "Fiterman Hall" and WTC7 and get back to us.

You dishonesty does nothing for your credibility.
.

[Java Man]

Unless the A-10 is fired straight down, the drag on the round would come mostly from gravity not the air.

So in a vacuum, say the Moon, all drag would be from gravity and not air. Right?

Now looking at this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5C5_dOEyAfk

I honest to god don't see any drag slowing down the feather. That must be because gravity has nothing to do with drag. If you're floating in a spaceship you'll still have drag.

[AJM8125]

Hahaha, too funny. According to you a DU (depleted uranium) round fired from an A-10 should have infinite range. It's massive because uranium is very very dense. More so than steel or concrete. But even considering it streamlined bullet shape the round does slow down.

Now consider a floor of the WTC. It is very heavy, but not very dense. You can't build very tall buildings with very dense material. It would weigh too much. So we have a very thin and wide slab of material dropping to earth. That's a lot of drag.

So how much does an acre of very thin concrete weigh?

[TSR]

So how much does an acre of very thin concrete weigh?
.
And how much drag, exactly, does it have when it's broken into teeny tiny bits?
.

[Java Man]

What would you guys say the weight of each floor is?

[Java Man]

.
And how much drag, exactly, does it have when it's broken into teeny tiny bits?
.

Why would it break into tiny bits if there were no explosives?

[TokenMac]

So in a vacuum, say the Moon, all drag would be from gravity and not air. Right?

Now looking at this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5C5_dOEyAfk

I honest to god don't see any drag slowing down the feather. That must be because gravity has nothing to do with drag. If you're floating in a spaceship you'll still have drag.:confused:

Yes I know air will cause drag on something light that is falling sraight down, but the reason a tank round or a bullet or a baseball falls to the ground when lauched sideways, has very little to do with air resistance and much more to do with gravity.

[Java Man]

So how much does an acre of very thin concrete weigh?

According to some references 3.5 x 10^6 kg to 4.0 x 10^6 kg per floor. Bottom floors being heavier.

[Titanic Explorer]

Java, you have a theory and opinion, but no proof...

[Java Man]

Java, you have a theory and opinion, but no proof...

You don't even have a theory or opinion. You're just nagging at what I say without coming up with numbers.

[TSR]

Why would it break into tiny bits if there were no explosives?
.
What do you think happens when you drop the weight of 17 floors down on to a thin, acre long piece of concrete?

How could there be explosives with no residue and no seismic signature? Not to mention no opportunity to plant them?
.

[Titanic Explorer]

You don't even have a theory or opinion. You're just nagging at what I say without coming up with numbers.


The subject of this thread has to do with Truthers never seeming to back up their theories with proof. We know what happened on 9/11. Truthers need to provide proof to back their claims. The burden is not on me to prove anything. I know what happened on 9/11, it's been established.

[Java Man]

.
What do you think happens when you drop the weight of 17 floors down on to a thin, acre long piece of concrete?

.

It goes down with it. When a truck rams a car the car gets squished, but it doesn't blow into a million pieces. The floor is not a concrete slab. It's got metal.

http://www.european911citizensjury.com/WTC-fig%202-8%20floor%20construction.jpg

[AJM8125]

Java, you have a theory and opinion, <snip>

I'm still waiting for a theory and / or an opinion.

[TokenMac]

Java Man Everytime I or someone else asked you about your knowledge of the NIST reports you have not only ignored the questions but deleted them from the quote boxes in your responses.

Asking you to read the NIST reports is not so kind of insult or a tactic to get rid of you for a few days, We ask because the NIST report represents the closest* thing to the beliefs of most of the "debunkers" here. Coming here without having first read the reports demanding to know how the towers fell is really just a waste of everyones time including your own.

*I say closest because not all "debunkers" agree with NIST

[TSR]

It goes down with it. When a truck rams a car the car gets squished, but it doesn't blow into a million pieces.

.
...mainly because a car isn't concrete.
.

The floor is not a concrete slab. It's got metal.

.
How much metal vs how much concrete?

A percentage will do...
.

http://www.european911citizensjury.com/WTC-fig%202-8%20floor%20construction.jpg

.
You don't have permission to access /WTC-fig 2-8 floor construction.jpg on this server.

You're really not all that good at this, are you?
.

[Java Man]

.
You don't have permission to access /WTC-fig 2-8 floor construction.jpg on this server.

You're really not all that good at this, are you?
.[/QUOTE]

Works fine here, check your browser.

[TSR]

Works fine here, check your browser.

.
Then perhaps you have credentials cached -- there's nothing wrong with my browser.

Is there a reason you skipped the rest of my post, other than the obvious?

ETA: Apparently, you have to navigate from the home page, then it's in your cache.

What, exactly, do you think this picture shows?
.

[AJM8125]

You're really not all that good at this, are you?
.

On a positive note, this might be a valuable addition to another research thread:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=181563

[Java Man]

.
Then perhaps you have credentials cached -- there's nothign wrong with my browser.

Is there a reason you skipped the rest of my post, other than the obvious?
.

It's not my server. I can reproduce your error in IE8 on a Windows 2008 Enterprise server I'm working on. Same thing happens with Chrome on that machine, but my Linux desktop has no issues. It's got to do with the spaces in the name the put on the file.

Try this and work from there

http://www.european911citizensjury.com/10a.htm

[Titanic Explorer]

Java Man Everytime I or someone else asked you about your knowledge of the NIST reports you have not only ignored the questions but deleted them from the quote boxes in your responses.

Asking you to read the NIST reports is not so kind of insult or a tactic to get rid of you for a few days, We ask because the NIST report represents the closest* thing to the beliefs of most of the "debunkers" here. Coming here without having first read the reports demanding to know how the towers fell is really just a waste of everyones time including your own.

*I say closest because not all "debunkers" agree with NIST



In addition to not backing their theories with any kind of proof or evidence, I also noticed Truthers seem unwilling or unable to give a clear answer to a direct question.

[carlitos]

just asking questions.

"Just asking questions'',the leidmotief of the truther.What are your qualifications? Are you an architect or an engineer?

I'm still waiting for a theory and / or an opinion.

Java Man,

There is a thread topic for you to post your hypothesis about the event of 9/11/01. Please give it a try. If you have a better explanation of the events, this is the place for it.

Here is the link (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=149321&page=7).

[AJM8125]

The Target is to reach £750,000.00

;)

[TexasJack]

This is just a classic case of how I went from JAQ to a full-blown truther in 50 posts or less in one day.

[TSR]

It's not my server.

.
Nor did I claim it was, so what's your point?

Or is that an admission that you own that server, and are asserting that the problem is not there? If the latter, why didn't you say up front it was your own site?
.

I can reproduce your error in IE8 on a Windows 2008 Enterprise server I'm working on. Same thing happens with Chrome on that machine,

.
So, you should really not make statements like "it's your browser" when you have no more evidence for it that you do for "it was explosives."

And you're still avoiding the rest of my post.

It's okay to say "I have no answers for this, which trashes my entire implied opinions on 9/11."

It's not like anyone here is under any delusions regarding the factually of that opinion.
.

[Java Man]

In addition to not backing their theories with any kind of proof or evidence, I also noticed Truthers seem unwilling or unable to give a clear answer to a direct question.

True, but I was addressing the issue of the non-explosive fall of a building brought forth by alienentity. I understand the NIST report is out there and can be read. But alienentity brings forth an reason that doesn't match the evidence. Now you can't all go hide behind the NIST report.

He claims that a french developed demolition technique can bring down a building without explosives. Great. But the WTC buildings show no evidence of such a preparation. Nor do they show it of CD. Now the french technique is not a trivial procedure and alienentity clearly states that the airplane crashes and subsequent fires where chaotic events.

My point is we can not throw out half baked reasons and hope they'll stick just because we are on the "debunker side". It expressed this to him clearly. That he shouldn't put forth an argument and not expect to be scrutinized. Now if you don't want to scrutinize his argument just because he's on your side. That's to bad for you. Now don't go running back to NIST.

You have a fellow debunker who put forth a half baked reason that holds no water. Same goes for the radiation and explosives post. Still no response from him either. Radiations levels can set off explosives, but don't cook humans? Jeeess, hard to believe without any further explanation.

[Java Man]

.
And you're still avoiding the rest of my post.

It's okay to say "I have no answers for this, which trashes my entire implied opinions on 9/11."

It's not like anyone here is under any delusions regarding the factually of that opinion.
.

Addressing the rest of your post depends greatly on you seeing the picture. If you haven't seen it there is no point in moving along before you do. Clearly you'll see steel.

[TokenMac]

True, but I was addressing the issue of the non-explosive fall of a building brought forth by alienentity. I understand the NIST report is out there and can be read. But alienentity brings forth an reason that doesn't match the evidence. Now you can't all go hide behind the NIST report.

He claims that a french developed demolition technique can bring down a building without explosives. Great. But the WTC buildings show no evidence of such a preparation. Nor do they show it of CD. Now the french technique is not a trivial procedure and alienentity clearly states that the airplane crashes and subsequent fires where chaotic events.

My point is we can not throw out half baked reasons and hope they'll stick just because we are on the "debunker side". It expressed this to him clearly. That he shouldn't put forth an argument and not expect to be scrutinized. Now if you don't want to scrutinize his argument just because he's on your side. That's to bad for you. Now don't go running back to NIST.

You have a fellow debunker who put forth a half baked reason that holds no water. Same goes for the radiation and explosives post. Still no response from him either. Radiations levels can set off explosives, but don't cook humans? Jeeess, hard to believe without any further explanation.

I believe you missed the point of the Verinage and RF arguments, but I will leave that to the people making them.

So did you read the NIST reoprt or not?

[Java Man]

.
...mainly because a car isn't concrete.
.

.
How much metal vs how much concrete?

A percentage will do...

Is the ratio really relevant? NIST doesn't find it so.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

[TokenMac]

Addressing the rest of your post depends greatly on you seeing the picture. If you haven't seen it there is no point in moving along before you do. Clearly you'll see steel.

Save the picture then go to tinypic.com and upload it.

[TSR]

Addressing the rest of your post depends greatly on you seeing the picture. If you haven't seen it there is no point in moving along before you do. Clearly you'll see steel.

.
No, I see what is apparently metal of some sort -- the shot is too far away to be more precise. It is normal that such concrete floor are reinforced by what is called rebar.

What is your point?

Your turn: how much of this metal made up the floors vs. how much concrete?
.

[TSR]

Is the ratio really relevant? NIST doesn't find it so.

.
NIST isn't attempting the argument that the floors would not have fragmented upon impact with the upper floors falling on them.

You are.

And you are apparently arguing that the metal would have prevented this fragmentation, so the ratio is entirely relevant to your argument.

Will you stop dodging the question now?
.

[AJM8125]

So far we've got acre-sized floors slabs made of concrete and steel which aren't very dense but are very heavy which did not fall at free-fall speeds and this is supposed to prove some point, which hasn't been made yet.

(Update for those playing along at home.)

[CompusMentus]

You're really not all that good at this, are you?
.

The site he's linking to describes itself as "a Definitive Investigation into the Atrocities of September 11th 2001"

having got as far as the main header of that page.......

"WTC Construction started in 1970, completed in 1978"


I couldn't be bothered any further.

Compus

[Dog Town]

See what really ticks me off is people who believe they're right just because they're supporting something that is right.


STUNDIED!
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6177433&postcount=265

[triforcharity]

But nothing fell from 417m in 9.2 seconds on 9/11.

Except for the people whom jumped.....*shudder*.......

[triforcharity]

I've seen thermite ignited to burn hard drives with much less than A1 Jet Fuel. Considerably less than a 767's load of it BTW.

LOL, do you know how they ignited that?

[AJM8125]

"WTC Construction started in 1970, completed in 1978"

Well it was the finishing touches, wasn't it. The C-4 was painted on the 47 massive core columns to ensure they'd fall at free fall speeds and in the path of greatest resistance three decades later.

Do keep up :-]

[The Platypus]

How do we know that leprechauns didn't use leprechaun magic on 911? I'm just asking questions!

[Java Man]

I believe you missed the point of the Verinage and RF arguments, but I will leave that to the people making them.

So did you read the NIST reoprt or not?

Yes, did you? Let's keep it simple shall we and go down to the FAQ. I hope to satisfy you as well as Titanic Explorer.

Let's start:
URL : http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Section 6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?

See, we already start off with the wrong foot. The time proposed here was about 12 seconds wasn't it?

Let's take a look at BigAl's post

But nothing fell from 417m in 9.2 seconds on 9/11.

Now according to NIST it did (WTC 2) in 9 seconds. Does that count? Maybe not or maybe BigAl didn't read the NIST report either.

beachnut a bit further down

The WTC fell at times above 12.08 seconds;

Guess he didn't read the report either.

Nutcraker even goes out to say

2) If the towers collapsed in 9.2 seconds , how come when actually timing the collapses one arrives at a time far in excess of this 9.2 seconds?

Guess 11 seconds is "far in excess" of 9.2 and don't even get me started with NIST's 9 seconds for WTC 2.

Now lets keep going

“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

Good no energy loss in deformation. That's good because any extra energy used to deform has to come from somewhere right? So floors didn't blow up into bits and pieces. Then later..

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.

So NIST basically believes the buildings were falling in free fall speed. What does alienentity have to say about this?

Your argument is that the towers fell at virtually freefall speed. Unfortunately, your data is incorrect. They did not.
According to measurements taken by various truthers like David Chandler, the WTC towers fell at approximately 64% to 70% of the acceleration that freefall would have produced.

and...

The towers didn't fall at freefall acceleration, so the discussion is irrelevant and is not a proof.

Guess he didn't read the NIST paper either. But that doesn't stop him from recommending it to me.

You really should read the entire 2008 NIST report before jumping to any conclusions.
Unless you either:
1) are a real expert in controlled demolitions
2) are a structural engineer who designs hi-rises
Then you wouldn't need to ask these questions anyway. Just read the NIST report.

He must be a real expert in controlled demolitions or a structural engineer who does hi-rises. That's probably why he didn't read it. Is that right alienentity?

And now the interesting part and the real challenge of my questioning.

In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

NIST says the lower floors were unable to stop the fall. Maybe so structurally, like they said "structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance". That doesn't mean the floors don't have mass. NIST says so: "The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass." So the blob was getting more and more massive, but NIST doesn't address the impact of that mass in overall momentum of the blob itself and it's speed.

The mass that is being added is in stand still. My data showed how adding this into the equation takes the values from the 9 second range into the 14 second range. The only way the mass of each added floor could not slow down the falling blob is when the added floor was already traveling downward prior to getting hit by the falling stories. A possible explanation for the floors falling before getting hit is explosives. A chain of detonations going from the ground up setting the things in motion before the blob arrives.

I hope that answers your question regarding the reading of the NIST report. I'll be honest. I have not read through all of it, but enough to find these inconsistency jewels.

[BigAl]

You have a fellow debunker who put forth a half baked reason that holds no water. Same goes for the radiation and explosives post. Still no response from him either. Radiations levels can set off explosives, but don't cook humans? Jeeess, hard to believe without any further explanation.

So much for your claim that your an electrical engineer.

[AJM8125]

So much for your claim that your an electrical engineer.

:dl:

[Dog Town]

Now according to NIST it did (WTC 2) in 9 seconds


FAIL!
And not even original!

[Java Man]

The site he's linking to describes itself as "a Definitive Investigation into the Atrocities of September 11th 2001"

having got as far as the main header of that page.......

"WTC Construction started in 1970, completed in 1978"


I couldn't be bothered any further.

Compus

Sorry about the original content. I just googled for the image. You can see the schematics on the NIST link I posted though. I do prefer the color photo even if it's from that site.

[triforcharity]

I beg to disagree. If the buildings fall too fast to be explained by the self collapsing theory then yes there is proof of an inside job. How else did it get rigged.

Regarding your point on Verinage, although a viable explanation it still lacks substance.

First of all Verinage looks like a very complex technique. Why else would the guy hold a patent for it?

So an airplane crash produces the required preconditions equivalent to a Verinage technique for a perfectly vertical drop of a building 110 stories high? Twice?

Now if you take a quick look at the videos you posted showing the Verinage technique we clearly observe the building is prepared. The floors that are going to collapse are weakened and rigged in accordance to the technique. Now WTC 7 doesn't have those telltale signs of Verinage. How did that one fall? It wasn't hit by the "Verinaging" airplanes and it wasn't "Verinaged" in broad daylight. What's your explanation for that?

No, he holds the patent so he can make a ****ton of money if he wants to see his company.

Secondly, the patent specifically state that they do NOT pre-weaken ANY of the floors, making it vey safe for workers to enter and exit.

As far as 7WTC- Fire.

[Java Man]

.

And you are apparently arguing that the metal would have prevented this fragmentation, so the ratio is entirely relevant to your argument.

Will you stop dodging the question now?
.

Isn't it obvious? The metal is underneath the concrete. There are who knows how many stories above and a solid metal slab below. Even if the concrete breaks up it is going nowhere. It is literally stuck between the rock and a hard place.

[TSR]

There are who knows how many stories above and a solid metal slab below.

.
And your evidence for the "solid metal slab" is ... ?

And we know how many stories above: none, for each floor. Floors 93 - 110 crashed into floor 92 with nothing in between. Then the rubble from that crashed into floor 91 with nothing in between. Then the rubble from thaat crashed into floor 90 with nothing in between. Then the rubble from that crashed into floor 89 with nothing in between...

Are you beginning to see the pattern here?
.

[triforcharity]

Take a look at this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8U4erFzhC-U

no outside evidence of it being prepared. Yet it is an explosion driven controlled demolition. So I guess they don't need to get around the lack of evidence.

FFS, of course you do not see it, as it takes weeks, sometimes MONTHS to prepare a building for a CD. GD truthers......

[AJM8125]

Have I missed the part where it's explained how somebody's gonna come into my building unannounced and start preparing it for a controlled demolition? I'm not seeing that yet.

[Java Man]

Secondly, the patent specifically state that they do NOT pre-weaken ANY of the floors, making it vey safe for workers to enter and exit.

As far as 7WTC- Fire.

Well the floors were the collapse starts do look like they're missing parts the other floors do have. Why is that? It costs money to do that, why should they then?

[Java Man]

FFS, of course you do not see it, as it takes weeks, sometimes MONTHS to prepare a building for a CD. GD truthers......

Excuse me can you explain your point. What's months of preparation got to do with not seeing it. If you can't see it the moment it goes down you can't see it. I mean it's got to be there, how else is it bringing the building down?

[triforcharity]

Hahaha, you're not serious are you really? Take a look at the videos for verinage techniques. Whole walls and support structures are missing, beams are added and guess what windows are missing too.

No, they actually are not. Read the patent.



Now I'm no structural engineer,


Der. We can see that....

but I really don't think windows add up that much to a buildings structure. I wouldn't call taking out the windows as a preparation for demolition. Surely it cuts down on debris, it is also easily recyclable, but thinking that the building will not fall because the windows are still present is a bit far fetched.


Actually, it is. And the reason that the windows are removed is for the safety of the people around that are going to watch it. Glass traveling at high speeds can be very dangerous.

The second part is a strawman. Nobody claimed that.


Anyway, let's see what the proponent of the verinage technique has to say. Because clearly WTC7 was not prepared as other verinage demolished buildings.

Der. 7WTC fell because of fire and gravity.

[AJM8125]

Well the floors were the collapse starts do look like they're missing parts the other floors do have. Why is that? It costs money to do that, why should they then?

'the F? :boggled:

[Java Man]

.
And your evidence for the "solid metal slab" is ... ?

.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006_clip_image002.jpg

"solid metal slab" aka metal deck

[TSR]

I mean it's got to be there, how else is it bringing the building down?

.
It's not. That's the whole point. WCT7 was not rigged for a CD, a process which would take months, and could not be done without the tenants noticing something was going on.
.

[Java Man]

No, they actually are not. Read the patent.



Do you have a link for that patent?

[Java Man]

.
It's not. That's the whole point. WCT7 was not rigged for a CD, a process which would take months, and could not be done without the tenants noticing something was going on.
.

I'm not addressing that point. I'm addressing the argument that you can do a controlled demolition on a building without any externally visible marks. Even the glass having to be removed argument has been addressed and debunked.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8U4erFzhC-U

[AJM8125]

I'm not addressing that point. I'm addressing the argument that you can do a controlled demolition on a building without any externally visible marks. Even the glass having to be removed argument has been addressed and debunked.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8U4erFzhC-U

Great. Now how do you do it without leaving any internally visible marks?

[triforcharity]

Alienentity is suporting verinage as a reason for the collapse. Read a bit back

Liar.

Java Man, why don't you just measure the acceleration of a top-down verinage collapse and see what happens? Those examples will give you the closest physical approximation of the crush-down from the WTC upper blocks, while verinage will probably give faster initial acceleration because of the simultaneous and symmetrical removal of support.

Obviously in the towers the initiation was more complex. Any model will be less complex I think.

But again this is not a topic for this thread. It's just a standard engineering question, not a conspiracy theory.

[TokenMac]

Yes, did you? Let's keep it simple shall we and go down to the FAQ. I hope to satisfy you as well as Titanic Explorer.

Let's start:
URL : http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Section 6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?

See, we already start off with the wrong foot. The time proposed here was about 12 seconds wasn't it?

Let's take a look at BigAl's post

But nothing fell from 417m in 9.2 seconds on 9/11.

Now according to NIST it did (WTC 2) in 9 seconds. Does that count? Maybe not or maybe BigAl didn't read the NIST report either.

beachnut a bit further down

The WTC fell at times above 12.08 seconds;

Guess he didn't read the report either.

Nutcraker even goes out to say

2) If the towers collapsed in 9.2 seconds , how come when actually timing the collapses one arrives at a time far in excess of this 9.2 seconds?

Guess 11 seconds is "far in excess" of 9.2 and don't even get me started with NIST's 9 seconds for WTC 2.

Now lets keep going

“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

Good no energy loss in deformation. That's good because any extra energy used to deform has to come from somewhere right? So floors didn't blow up into bits and pieces. Then later..

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.

So NIST basically believes the buildings were falling in free fall speed. What does alienentity have to say about this?

Your argument is that the towers fell at virtually freefall speed. Unfortunately, your data is incorrect. They did not.
According to measurements taken by various truthers like David Chandler, the WTC towers fell at approximately 64% to 70% of the acceleration that freefall would have produced.

and...

The towers didn't fall at freefall acceleration, so the discussion is irrelevant and is not a proof.

Guess he didn't read the NIST paper either. But that doesn't stop him from recommending it to me.

You really should read the entire 2008 NIST report before jumping to any conclusions.
Unless you either:
1) are a real expert in controlled demolitions
2) are a structural engineer who designs hi-rises
Then you wouldn't need to ask these questions anyway. Just read the NIST report.

He must be a real expert in controlled demolitions or a structural engineer who does hi-rises. That's probably why he didn't read it. Is that right alienentity?

And now the interesting part and the real challenge of my questioning.

In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

NIST says the lower floors were unable to stop the fall. Maybe so structurally, like they said "structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance". That doesn't mean the floors don't have mass. NIST says so: "The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass." So the blob was getting more and more massive, but NIST doesn't address the impact of that mass in overall momentum of the blob itself and it's speed.

The mass that is being added is in stand still. My data showed how adding this into the equation takes the values from the 9 second range into the 14 second range. The only way the mass of each added floor could not slow down the falling blob is when the added floor was already traveling downward prior to getting hit by the falling stories. A possible explanation for the floors falling before getting hit is explosives. A chain of detonations going from the ground up setting the things in motion before the blob arrives.

I hope that answers your question regarding the reading of the NIST report. I'll be honest. I have not read through all of it, but enough to find these inconsistency jewels.

Did you read this part?
NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).

Oh and this
From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely

[TSR]

I'm not addressing that point.

.
Obviously.
.

I'm addressing the argument that you can do a controlled demolition on a building without any externally visible marks. Even the glass having to be removed argument has been addressed and debunked.

.
No one is claiming that you can.

Do you often waste time debunking claims that were never made?
.

[triforcharity]

Why did they have to be dismantled? Because they didn't collapse on their own down to the ground.

The issue I see here is that alienentity brings to the table a theory for the collapse which requires a set of very well defined prerequisites. And then goes on to say that the situation in the WTC was far from it. It was chaotic. And I agree that it was chaotic.

More so like you show us. Heat will deform metal. Deformed metal will carry load in different directions not initially contemplated. I find alienentitie's theory hard to believe because we have a heat deformed building falling in a very precise way.

Clearly stated, the prerequisites for his theory are not present.

You call THIS http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h131/triathlete247/WTC%20Attack/414px-Fiterman_hall_damage.jpg PRECISE?!?!?!

[triforcharity]

Why would it break into tiny bits if there were no explosives?

That's what happens to concrete when you drop a whole ****ton of weight on it from above. Der.

[triforcharity]

It goes down with it. When a truck rams a car the car gets squished, but it doesn't blow into a million pieces. The floor is not a concrete slab. It's got metal.

http://www.european911citizensjury.com/WTC-fig%202-8%20floor%20construction.jpg

http://www.davidburt.co.uk/yesterday/images/LaughingDog.gif

[TexasJack]

So much for your claim that your an electrical engineer.

Maybe he meant he owns a train set.

[TokenMac]

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006_clip_image002.jpg

"solid metal slab" aka metal deck

That is a floor truss, it is made of many thin steel beems bolted to many indivual sheets of metal to make a floor for the concrete to be poured on to.

I fail to see how when you "drop the weight of 17 floors" down it, it could not break in to smaller pieces.

[Java Man]

Did you read this part?


Oh and this

Yes I read both. What's your point regarding them?

[Java Man]

You call THIS http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h131/triathlete247/WTC%20Attack/414px-Fiterman_hall_damage.jpg PRECISE?!?!?!

No, would you?

[AJM8125]

I'm not addressing that point. I'm addressing the argument that you can do a controlled demolition on a building without any externally visible marks. Even the glass having to be removed argument has been addressed and debunked.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8U4erFzhC-U

Great. Now how do you do it without leaving any internally visible marks?

Bump.

[triforcharity]

Well the floors were the collapse starts do look like they're missing parts the other floors do have. Why is that? It costs money to do that, why should they then?

Derpa.

Read the patent.

[TokenMac]

Yes I read both. What's your point regarding them?

That NIST made no claim of a free fall collapse at least with WTC1&2, and that your omission of the bits about exterior panels and how long the core stood after the start of the collapse, was very dishonest.

Also I don't believe that you read any thing more than the FAQ page of the NIST report.

[triforcharity]

Excuse me can you explain your point. What's months of preparation got to do with not seeing it. If you can't see it the moment it goes down you can't see it. I mean it's got to be there, how else is it bringing the building down?

Excuse me, can you see the supporting structure? I mean, we know it's there, how else is the building standing?

The preperation that goes into bringing a building down in very labor intensive. Weakening the structure in key places, cutting columns, installing charges, wiring those charges...

The point is, just because you cannot see the pre-weakening and preperation, doesn't mean its not there.

[Java Man]

Great. Now how do you do it without leaving any internally visible marks?

With lots of care I suppose. But what's the relevance of that? The question that remains unanswered is how does a chaotic incident like a fire lead to such a coordinated collapse. It's as if the fire started all along the building instantly, burned and weakened the beams for the same exact time and then caused the coordinated collapse of all floors at the same exact time.

How do you explain that?

[Java Man]

The point is, just because you cannot see the pre-weakening and preperation, doesn't mean its not there.

Exactly my point. Thanks for agreeing.

[BigAl]

Why would it break into tiny bits if there were no explosives?

The concrete in WTC1/2 was "lightweight" and only 4 inches thick. Lightweight concrete doesn't have the strength of regular concrete. As the supporting truss system for each floor gave way the slab it supported would begin to break up.

Nobody heard man-made explosions. There are no silent explosives.

[BigAl]

With lots of care I suppose. But what's the relevance of that? The question that remains unanswered is how does a chaotic incident like a fire lead to such a coordinated collapse. It's as if the fire started all along the building instantly, burned and weakened the beams for the same exact time and then caused the coordinated collapse of all floors at the same exact time.

How do you explain that?



Nothing about the collapse surprises anyone with relevant expertise that is familiar with WTC7's unusual all-steel structure and that the water source was destroyed on 9/11.

You'd never learn this stuff from Richard Gage, AIA.

[AJM8125]

With lots of care I suppose. But what's the relevance of that?

It isn't possible to do it undetected, for starters.

The question that remains unanswered is how does a chaotic incident like a fire lead to such a coordinated collapse. It's as if the fire started all along the building instantly, burned and weakened the beams for the same exact time and then caused the coordinated collapse of all floors at the same exact time.

How do you explain that?

You're making things up and letting your fevered imagination get the better of you. That's how I'd explain it because you've given me no evidence that would convince me to think otherwise.

[tsig]

This is just a classic case of how I went from JAQ to a full-blown truther in 50 posts or less in one day.

They go from knowing nothing about 911 to being full blown experts* from one post to the next.


*experts in all troofer knowledge.

At good ol' GU the students learn real fast.

[The Platypus]

It is amazing how everyone that is "just asking questions" always argues the conspiracy theory side and never accepts any answers to those questions except conspiracy theorist answers.

Gee isn't the peculiar :rolleyes:

[TSR]

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006_clip_image002.jpg

"solid metal slab" aka metal deck

.
Not even close to the same thing.

How thick was that deck, and what percentage of the total wight of the floor was it?
.

[Java Man]

That NIST made no claim of a free fall collapse at least with WTC1&2, and that your omission of the bits about exterior panels and how long the core stood after the start of the collapse, was very dishonest.

Also I don't believe that you read any thing more than the FAQ page of the NIST report.

Excuse me? What's this then?

the building section above came down essentially in free fall

Now according to the first paragraph:

These elapsed times [for the exterior panels you mention] were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y. that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A)

Yet a few paragraphs below

Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.

So the seismograph and video is good to detect some exterior panels, but not good enough to detect the major mass? The devices were precisely tuned to get small pieces, but fail with the main body?

[triforcharity]

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006_clip_image002.jpg

"solid metal slab" aka metal deck

It was actually corrugated steel pans.

You can see it in this picture, just below the American Flag.
http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h131/triathlete247/WTC%20Attack/FEMAphoto_WTC-122.jpg

[Java Man]

You're making things up and letting your fevered imagination get the better of you. That's how I'd explain it because you've given me no evidence that would convince me to think otherwise.

Well see now you're dodging. Simply answer the question. How can a fire burn in such a way that it weakens the structure so evenly it falls perfectly down. You don't see the building slanting. You don't see one side dropping first. It all goes down at the same time. How is that possible? What are the odds for that.

[triforcharity]

Do you have a link for that patent?

Nope, but do you speak French?

http://www.ferrari-demolition.fr