Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.
This is one of the things that makes the collapse of WTC7 stand out as a CD. It defies credibility that fires and fate were able to accidentally engineer such a sophisticated and perfectly timed collapse.
What in the blue hell are you talking about? The building was on fire from WTC1 debris and a perimeter was cleared around it because it was buckling. It collapsed across the street. How is that sophisticated and perfectly timed?
This is basically the sharpshooter fallacy. Someone shot an arrow at a wall, and you drew a target around it, assuming that the arrow hit the wall precisely where intended.
What makes you believe that just because an engineering technology is normally used for peaceful purposes that it would never be used for sinister purposes?
The intention was to make sure that WTC7 came down down. The fact that CD kept it from completely toppling over meant that peripheral damage was greatly reduced and no other buildings outside of the WTC complex were rendered unrepairable.
Toppling over is another thing you might want to avoid using, it exposes great ignorance on how a steel building would fall. You mean topple like a tree? lol, have you been using MM as your guide on woo.
The interior failed due to effects of fire. You can't grasp reality, so you make up or plagiarize the dumbest claims of 9/11 truth.
Where do you get silent explosives? What did your inside job fantasy CD?
Why not get help from an engineer you trust? Try not to confer with a 9/11 truth nut, or get MM to confer for you.
I am not about to dispute the importance of the World Trade Center Complex building damage vs. that sustained by the surrounding buildings.
Regardless of your wish to pursue the inane, the governing point is that CD was engineered on such a scale that success was assured.
With profitability not at issue, the most advanced and reliable CD technology available could have been installed in WTC7.
The cleaner the removal of those lower 8 stories of vertical support, the less likely WTC7 would initially enter into an irreversible topple.
It takes either perfectly engineered and designed core take-out damage to prevent leaning and toppling, or the application of sufficient overkill technology as to make only the timing sequence the most important concern for success.
I have yet to see a plausible scenario presented that would explain how the combination of known existing damage and roaming office cubicle fires could result in an instantaneous common failure across the lengths of the N, E and W sides of WTC7.
This is one of the things that makes the collapse of WTC7 stand out as a CD. It defies credibility that fires and fate were able to accidentally engineer such a sophisticated and perfectly timed collapse. When you consider that the record for the tallest building to face a regular designed ’non-toppling’ commercial CD was the 26-story Hudson’s Department Store in Detroit, the 'non-toppling' collapse of the 47-story WTC7 is all the more special.
[IMGw=500]http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/onemeridiansag.jpg[/IMGw]
Roaming Office fires, oops, steel failed... guess you have no clue what fire can do to steel. You have been debunked, trying to use a cute new term to down play fire, "roaming office fires"; are they colder than office fires, or plain fire?
[IMGw=500]http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/woodsteelfire.jpg[/IMGw]
In 9/11 truth steel does not fail in fire; where do you get silent explosives.
Where? Why can't you do more than offer opinions (aka fantasy) based on complete ignorance of fire science, and structural engineering?
I am not about to dispute the importance of the World Trade Center Complex building damage vs. that sustained by the surrounding buildings.
Regardless of your wish to pursue the inane, the governing point is that CD was engineered on such a scale that success was assured.
Yes, you are. YOU stated that the CD was 'engineered' to limit damage to nearby buildings. Now you wish to simply let that idiocy stand on its own and refuse to discuss it, calling it "inane"!!??
With profitability not at issue, the most advanced and reliable CD technology available could have been installed in WTC7.
Again, why is that important if "profitability is not an issue, if the destruction of at least 9 structures is not an issue, if the deaths of thousands is not an issue?
It takes either perfectly engineered and designed core take-out damage to prevent leaning and toppling, or the application of sufficient overkill technology as to make only the timing sequence the most important concern for success.
Still does not explain why it is required to have the structure enter free fall AFTER it has already begun a phase of collapse that has the entire structure moving. Its as if no one has asked you that question half a dozen times lately.
I have yet to see a plausible scenario presented that would explain how the combination of known existing damage and roaming office cubicle fires could result in an instantaneous common failure across the lengths of the N, E and W sides of WTC7.
ONCE AGAIN, only you are characterizing it as such. Why continue to do so?
OTOH I have yet to see a plausible scenario that explains how a CD was carried out, or WHY a CD was carried out on a structure that practically no one outside of Manhattan even knew existed.
This is one of the things that makes the collapse of WTC7 stand out as a CD. It defies credibility that fires and fate were able to accidentally engineer such a sophisticated and perfectly timed collapse. When you consider that the record for the tallest building to face a regular designed ’non-toppling’ commercial CD was the 26-story Hudson’s Department Store in Detroit, the 'non-toppling' collapse of the 47-story WTC7 is all the more special.
I have yet to see a plausible scenario presented that would explain how the combination of known existing damage and roaming office cubicle fires could result in an instantaneous common failure across the lengths of the N, E and W sides of WTC7.
I already explained. The core pulled from the façade down as it collapsed inside the building and overwhelmed the façade. The façade was too sturdy to break up in pieces as it failed, so it failed all essentially at the same time.
This is one of the things that makes the collapse of WTC7 stand out as a CD. It defies credibility that fires and fate were able to accidentally engineer such a sophisticated and perfectly timed collapse.
Doesn't matter, he will likely fail to realize his own fallacious thought process anyway. No matter how many times its pointed out.
Same goes for the cognitive dissonance that entails seeing the supposed perpetrators of these acts as having no regard for lives and property and capable of orchestrating the largest loss of both in the USA, in a single deliberate act, since Dec. 7/41,,, and yet desiring to "greatly" reduce property damage by arranging for a supposedly classic explosive demolition of a structure. A structure that had to be demolished in order to ensure that documents or equipment was utterly destroyed despite the fact that simply letting it continue to burn would have been a much more effective means of destroying such items within the building. (OR simply removing said items ahead of the attacks!)
Ever since, oh, about September 12, 2001, I've been wondering why some folks think that gravity works differently if you wipe out the structural integrity of a building with an airplane and fires, as opposed to using C-4...
”Again, why is that important if "profitability is not an issue, if the destruction of at least 9 structures is not an issue, if the deaths of thousands is not an issue?”
Where did I say it was important? It is a fact that accounts for what was observed. An incomplete removal of those 8 stories of vertical support would have made WTC7 immediately lean and topple.
”It takes either perfectly engineered and designed core take-out damage to prevent leaning and toppling, or the application of sufficient overkill technology as to make only the timing sequence the most important concern for success.”
”Still does not explain why it is required to have the structure enter free fall AFTER it has already begun a phase of collapse that has the entire structure moving. Its as if no one has asked you that question half a dozen times lately.”
Your statement makes little sense. NIST separated the 5.4 seconds of global collapse of WTC7 into 3 stages. The NIST estimated that after 1.75 seconds, WTC7 was dropping at free fall acceleration. Without the lower floor core implosion, the total collapse of WTC7 would never occurred. Free fall was part of the result, but total destruction was the only necessity.
”I have yet to see a plausible scenario presented that would explain how the combination of known existing damage and roaming office cubicle fires could result in an instantaneous common failure across the lengths of the N, E and W sides of WTC7.”
”I have yet to see a plausible scenario that explains how a CD was carried out, or WHY a CD was carried out on a structure that practically no one outside of Manhattan even knew existed.”
So, because you were not in the information loop, cannot determine a motive, and because you believe it impossible for a CD to be rigged so stealthily, you have passed judgement that it was impossible. It must be nice being so omniscient.
”I already explained opined. The core pulled from the façade down as it collapsed inside the building and overwhelmed the façade. The façade was too sturdy to break up in pieces as it failed, so it failed all essentially at the same time.”
?? That makes little to no sense. You are saying “the core”, “as it collapsed inside WTC7”, “pulled from the façade” (pulled away from the façade?) and “overwhelmed the façade” but, because the façade “was too sturdy”, “it did not break up in pieces as it failed”, “all at the same time.”
So you opine that in spite of all the interconnected interior steel that was securely joined to the façade, that aside from some minor window breakage and minimal exterior deformation, the façade remained virtually unaffected until it was observed to drop at free fall acceleration.
How did fire induce an implosion which knocked 8 stories of the south side façade, the east side façade, and the north side façade simultaneously into free fall acceleration?
I do not dispute that this was caused by a massive core implosion.
What I have yet to see is a plausible engineering explanation as to how roaming office cubicle fires combined with some superficial external damage could EVER achieve this.
Remember that English is not my first language. I mean that the core exerted a pulling force on the façade through the girders connecting the core and the façade.
So you opine that in spite of all the interconnected interior steel that was securely joined to the façade, that aside from some minor window breakage and minimal exterior deformation, the façade remained virtually unaffected until it was observed to drop at free fall acceleration.
Until later, actually. It exceeded free fall acceleration and continued down at a lesser acceleration, and only in the latest moments before it disappeared into the dust is it seen to break apart.
Also, it didn't "drop at free fall acceleration". You're forgetting to take into account a very important point which you also note and that I will highlight:
The building was not at free fall right as it dropped. It took some time (1.75 seconds according to NIST, other measurements may differ) to reach free fall. That means that all the columns had already failed BEFORE it reached free fall. That's a very significant point to keep in mind, because that shreds into pieces the hypothesis that the cause of the free fall was columns being removed with explosives.
That time is enough for at least two things to happen that can explain the façade reaching free fall acceleration: the buckled columns may reach an angle where they oppose negligible resistance, and the connections may break.
About the negligible resistance, I already posted this video and I'll repeat it again:
Note how the falling part falls virtually unimpeded because it has already buckled. (It also shows an acceleration far greater than that of free fall on the tip of the crane, through a mechanism that is most likely very similar to the one that produced it in the case of WTC7, save for the elasticity of the cable compared to that of the girders).
How did fire induce an implosion which knocked 8 stories of the south side façade, the east side façade, and the north side façade simultaneously[1]into free fall acceleration[2]?
[1] Simultaneously, I have explained why. It just could not fail piece by piece. It had to fail all at the same time*, or not fail.
[2] Into free fall acceleration, and I must insist, some time after all the columns had already failed, because the already failed columns reached a condition where they could exert negligible (if they bucked without breaking) or no (if the connections broke) resistance, plus there was an additional force acting on them, namely the façade's downwards pulling force. I already explained this too.
So, your questions were already answered. Look at my sig.
What I have yet to see is a plausible engineering explanation as to how roaming office cubicle fires combined with some superficial external damage could EVER achieve this.
If you want to understand how the unfought fires that raged simultaneously in several floors of a football-field-sized WTC7 led to its complete collapse, you have to focus on how the core collapsed, because the rest was just a consequence of that.
* For the pedantic: Whenever I say "all at the same time" referring to how the columns fail in a collapse, it must be understood as "virtually at the same time". I'm aware that it isn't simultaneous, but it's quick enough as to not matter for this discussion's purposes.
Where did I say it was important? It is a fact that accounts for what was observed. An incomplete removal of those 8 stories of vertical support would have made WTC7 immediately lean and topple.
Well only incompetent perpetrators would risk unnecessary rigging of explosives. So it had to be important in your scenario. Still waiting....
Your statement makes little sense. NIST separated the 5.4 seconds of global collapse of WTC7 into 3 stages. The NIST estimated that after 1.75 seconds, WTC7 was dropping at free fall acceleration. Without the lower floor core implosion, the total collapse of WTC7 would never occurred. Free fall was part of the result, but total destruction was the only necessity.
AGAIN. Total collapse was already assured before that period of free fall. So according to your own scenario, free fall was engineered. Yet the only, patently ridiculoys, reason you can come up with is that thone who orchestrated this, who had already engineered the loss of 4 pkanes, at least 7 other structures worth billions of dollars, would have known that their planned event would cause global markets to fall, and kill thousands of people,,,,, needed to "greatly" reduce damage to the surroundings of WTC7.
So, because you were not in the information loop, cannot determine a motive, and because you believe it impossible for a CD to be rigged so stealthily, you have passed judgement that it was impossible. It must be nice being so omniscient
No, I wish to see a proposal put forth by a 911"truth" entity, that has even a fraction of the in depth work performed by NIST, or Purdue, or Nordenson, etc.
Your response doesn't even make sense.
The building was not at free fall right as it dropped. It took some time (1.75 seconds according to NIST, other measurements may differ) to reach free fall. That means that all the columns had already failed BEFORE it reached free fall. That's a very significant point to keep in mind, because that shreds into pieces the hypothesis that the cause of the free fall was columns being removed with explosives.
Oooohh see I knew that, so I expected he was saying a further round of explosives were set off AT THE POINT when free fall occurred.
Its like this:
Fire for hours,,,, then,,,,
Explosives take out column 79, EPH falls in explosives take out one column on the north face to cause the "kink".
Then explosives take out the core.
Then explosives take out three corners ( I assume, since no demolition if the SW corner was required), and the entire building begins to fall for 1.75 seconds.
THEN, explosives take out all columns below 8th floor, and free fall occurs.
Since there has never been anything produced by any 911"truth" group that is at least as detailed as the above half dozen lines of text, I have deduced it by knowing what the video illustrates and what people like Criteria have said about CD.
Don't forget the early motion history - and the fun femr2 and I had for months describing it somewhat obscurely so that everyone who wasn't thinking missed the point.
Early motion doesn't line up comfortably with any cut and immediate drop scenario. Unless you can access T Szamboti's "Delayed Action Gravity".
PS It is relatively easy to develop a better pro-CD argument than a truther. BUT they all have dead ends. Remember my two experiences - 98% completed and agreed CD hypothesis negotiated with two old fashioned genuine truthers - remember the honest ones?
The problem was that missing 2% - needed fire suited suicide volunteer team(s) to place charges whilst the fires raged. Even the truthers couldn't come at that bit.
Interestingly, it seems that AE911Truth has the goal for 2016 to begin producing such a narrative of mechanisms for the three towers: http://www.ae911truth2016membership.org/
AE911T said:
RESEARCH AND PUBLICATIONS
...
The “How” of Controlled Demolition: AE911Truth will begin researching the methods used in the controlled demolition of World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2, and 7, and will be publishing our findings.
... An incomplete removal of those 8 stories of vertical support would have made WTC7 immediately lean and topple.
...
What I have yet to see is a plausible engineering explanation as to how roaming office cubicle fires combined with some superficial external damage could EVER achieve this.
Proof you did not read NIST, and can't do engineering.
The topple was cute; is that engineering for something? Is that topple like a tree. Did you get the topple stuff from miragememories?
Without a uniform core removal starting below each impact zone, the off-balance collapses, which started as upper section topples, would have continued to topple and the global collapses would not have occurred..
It is a fact that accounts for what was observed. An incomplete removal of those 8 stories of vertical support would have made WTC7 immediately lean and topple.
Ok, assume the structure would topple at this point if not for removal of all lower floor support. The center has already gone, both east and west parts are leaning into the middle of the building.
Obviously it cannot topple towards either Verizon or Post Office buildings. That leaves going south or north. To the south is WTC6, a structure already destroyed. So toppling in that direction is of zero consequence. So the only building the supposed perpetrators of this CD were concerned about was 30 West Broadway, aka the Fitterman Building.
You are quite the optimist, including the mechanical engineer (borderline relevant expertise) and the physics teacher (some pretense of relevance).
Their last celebrated technical publication, "Beyond Misinformation" (2015) was authored by Ted Walter (lawyer, afaik), helped by techical editor Chris Sarns (carpenter) and contributing writers Craig McKee and Andrew Steele (both jouralists). They have ZERO architects or engineers producing technical documents these days.
I haven't forgotten it. But it's pointless to bring it up to a discussion with technically impaired people (that includes most truthers) because they won't understand the methods and will therefore reject the data as soon as they learn that it debunks them. So I try to focus on whatever they bring up, which also happens to be the topic of the thread.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
