If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. Part II

[MicahJava]

I'd suggest you try this one:


I also you suggest you watch the whole thing, being that it's the most complete record of the "102 minutes" and tell us "Where is the kaboom?"

Off topic and also the thumbnail appears to show that the video was taken hundreds of feet away from the Twin Towers.

 

[DGM]

Arsonists often cover up their crimes. If the WTC was a demolition and one of the motives was to destroy files, then the arsonists did a very good job.

Why? Because no one found anything you think should have been found?

 

[DGM]

That's really not what I care to discuss.

Of course not............

 

[MicahJava]

So you have no actual statement from the NIST for this?

They never made this claim. Stop believing people that lie.

BS, just click my link and I give three hard examples straight from the mouth of NIST.

The goal of debunker rhetoric is to bog down discussion.

 

[Mentalpygmy]

Why? Because no one found anything you think should have been found?

The dog did not Bark.

No evidence of arson is evidence of a really good arson. Or some crap like that.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[MicahJava]

Of course not............

Because obviously you need a motive before you bother investigating a possible crime.

 

[DGM]

BS, just click my link and I give three hard examples straight from the mouth of NIST.

The goal of debunker rhetoric is to bog down discussion.

I did, not a single direct quote.
Prove me wrong.

 

[MicahJava]

Why? Because no one found anything you think should have been found?

Yeah, set fires on a few floors of a skyscraper and then destroy it in classic implosion style for the whole world to see. Wait a second... that's actually a horrible plan. Any reasonable person would see the freefall of a skyscraper straight down to the ground and get suspicious! Man, if someone tried that in real life, there would be investigations.

 

[MicahJava]

Except for the "Kaboom". The all-important sign. WHERE'S THE KABOOM?

NFPA 921 – 23.1.4 Definition of an Explosion

“Although an explosion is almost always accompanied by the production of a loud noise, the noise itself is not an essential element in the definition of an explosion. The generation and violent escape of gases are the primary criteria for an explosion.”

 

[ComfySlippers]

Arsonists often cover up their crimes.
...

That's just... No.

 

[tfk]

Can you debunk the NFPA 921? You don't need Gage or Cole or anybody to justify an investigation into insider foul play, only that. Passages from the NFPA 921 eerily describe the WTC destruction.

And just another example of you attempting to get your facts from amateurs.

Why the hell do you care what WE think of the implementation of NFPA 921 on 9/11?

You haven't bothered to ask if anyone here is a fire investigator.
IIRC, Triforcharity was/is a fireman, and very knowledgeable about NFPA 921.

I am DAMN sure that you haven't asked that question at any of your truther websites, either.

So, let's get to see what a couple of real fire investigators say about this issue:

In this thread, lot's of real firefighters post. And this same issue was brought up.

http://www.firehouse.com/forums/t107457/

And Erik Lawyer, the idiot who makes such a big deal of it, posts, too, as "koolaid1" (starting in post 18).

You'll do well to see how REAL fire investigators respond to Lawyer's stupidity. (Lawyer is NOT a fire investigator, BTW.)

Pay attention to "GeorgeWendt" (posts 15, 24, and others) and Dickey (post 29 & others) who both ARE professional fire investigators.

You'd do well to read the entire thread.
It ends with a Truther doing what you guys do best: Making a complete ass of himself.

The most important thing that you'll learn from this is that there is often a vast difference between what professionals think on some topic & what a clueless bunch of amateurs with an agenda think.

 

[Mentalpygmy]

NFPA 921 – 23.1.4 Definition of an Explosion

“Although an explosion is almost always accompanied by the production of a loud noise, the noise itself is not an essential element in the definition of an explosion. The generation and violent escape of gases are the primary criteria for an explosion.”

Indeed. Where was the violent escape of gasses? (Bearing in mind an explosion has gasses travelling at above 1800 m/s - hence the sound).

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[DGM]

Yeah, set fires on a few floors of a skyscraper and then destroy it in classic implosion style for the whole world to see. Wait a second... that's actually a horrible plan. Any reasonable person would see the freefall of a skyscraper straight down to the ground and get suspicious! Man, if someone tried that in real life, there would be investigations.

No one ever tried this, how would you know?

 

[tfk]

MicahJava

There is like one or two sparse quotes about a transit detecting movement of the building. Still no photographic evidence presented to make the case that it was "leaning". I'm not claiming they're liars, just sometimes wrong, like the firefighters who claimed that all 47 stories were involved in fire.


None of this proves that anybody had any basis to predict, at 12-1 PM, that the building was going to collapse at 5-6PM.

I've asked you before to tell us your educational & professional background.

With this comment, you appear to be making a claim to having a structural engineering background, with a specialization in “fire damage assessment” & “progressive collapse”.

EDIT: It would appear that there is at least one quote by Peter Hayden about a transit detecting movement in the building. If so, when was this done and how could it relate to the perimeter bulge that was also witnessed, which in hindsight could in no way bring down a 47-story football field sized skyscraper?

Sometime sarcasm doesn’t transmit well in this medium, so let me be clear.
I have complete confidence that you’ve never set foot in a mechanical/structural engineering classroom.

Care to share your real background?
We’ve all found out that truthers rarely share their backgrounds. The main reason: they have none that is pertinent to any of these issues. They are amateurs.
And they get their information from other amateurs.
Which is exactly what you have done.

We’ve all found out that debunkers almost always share their backgrounds. The main reason: debunkers are smart enough to listen to, & depend upon, the opinions & conclusions of experts.
__

One of your real problems is that you accept entirely implausible reports in the media as “facts”.

Here’s an interesting exercise, and it will be enlightening, if you play along.

Walk thru ALL the steps that you believe culminated in the decision for Hayden to order the clearing of the perimeter around WTC7, because it might be in danger of collapse.

Ignore the numbers. Put in whatever you want, but start with …

1. WTC 1 collapses, breaking water mains, causing some amount of damage to WTC7 & starting some fires inside.
2. …
3. …
4. ….
5. Someone called for somebody with a transit.
6. A guy with a transit arrives & does (something)
7. …
8. …
9. …
10. And Deputy Chief Hayden gets the message that (… something).
11. …
12. …
13. Deputy Chef Hayden records his oral history, asserting that “someone told him that the building was going to collapse around 5 to 6 pm.”

I am really curious what you are going to say.

I am pretty damn sure that both of the following are false:

1. the engineer / fireman taking those measurements said “the building was going to collapse around 5 to 6 pm.”.
2. the engineer based his measurements on measurements of “the bulge”.

My confidence is due to the fact that I’ve been the engineer taking measurements like that, in some perilous situations. Dangerous to fewer other people, so less of a disaster. But potentially fatal to me, so more of a catastrophe.

After you present your sequence, I’ll present mine & we’ll compare notes.

 

[Redwood]

Pick a time between 2.25 seconds and infinity. It does not matter what time you pick. Why? Simple. The roof line collapsed at freefall for approximately 2.25 seconds. The total collapse time is not nearly important as the 2.25 seconds of freefall.

Neither the collapse time nor the 2.25 seconds are important. What's important is the collapse of the East Penthouse, the events leading up to it, and the events afterward leading to the collapse of the West Penthouse. Everything else is minor detail. If you think it's not minor detail, use your engineering expertise (or someone's at AE911T) to explain why it's not.

 

[Redwood]

Oh, awesome. There was an investigation? Can you link to me the inquiry into who that engineer was who told Chief Peter Hayden at 12:00-1:00 PM that WTC 7 was going to collapse in "five or six hours"?

What difference does it make? To the average person, it just proves he was right! The burden is upon you to prove he couldn't possibly be right. I suggest reading standard textbooks on the subject of collapse from fires. It can't do you any harm, and it may even make you smarter.

I was pretty curious of who that character was.

Do you think he wasn't a real engineer? Maybe an NWO agent who fooled all the FDNY into believing it would collapse, when their own judgment said it wouldn't?

Predicting when a skyscraper will collapse from fire when the heavy fires were only burning for about an hour, I think he deserves James Randi's million dollar prize because he's psychic!

Or maybe it just means he's a seasoned professional who knows more than you do. That's what the average person thinks. This is the granite wall of reality that Truthers have been slamming their heads against and coming off second best every time.

 

[MicahJava]

Where did they "deny free-fall and said that it can't happen"?

Quote the statement.

Bet you can't.............

Stop making **** up!

The first version of the BBC's Conspiracy Files Third Tower program, aired July 6 2008, has the denial of freefall. This was edited out of subsequent airings, after NIST confirmed freefall.

Narrator: "The scientists timed the fall of the top 17 floors before they disappeared from view. It took 5.4 seconds. A free-fall collapse will have taken 3.9 seconds."

Shayam: "Clearly, the time that this building took to collapse was longer by almost 40-50% than the free-fall time of an object. Well, 40% is a lot longer. It's not 5%, it's 40%. It's huge."

Link to portion of video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJAu_OtQsK4&t=0m47s

Subtitle file for original airing: http://subsaga.com/bbc/documentarie.../2-9-11-the-truth-behind-the-third-tower.html

In NIST NCSTAR 1A draft for public comments, published August 01, 2008 (page 79 of pdf), says this about the motions of the building:

"the actual time for the upper 18 stories to collapse, based on video evidence, was approximately 40 percent longer than the computed free fall time and was consistent with physical principles." -NIST NCSTAR 1A draft for public comments, published August 01, 2008 (page 79 of pdf)

http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=909254

In their final report, usage of the phrase "consistent with physical principles" was edited out.

In NIST's technical briefing on WTC 7 (August 26 2008), Shayam Sunder had this to say:

"Well, the-first of all, gravity is the loading function that applies to the structure-applies to all bodies on this particular-on this planet, not just in Ground Zero. The analysis showed there is a difference in time between a free fall time-a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it. And if you look at the analysis of the video, it shows that the time it takes for the 17-for the roof line of the video to collapse down the 17 floors that you can actually see in the video, below which you can't see anything in the video, is about 3.9 seconds. What the analysis shows, and the structural analysis shows, or the collapse analysis shows, is that same that it took for the structural model to come down from the roof line all the way for those 17 floors to disappear is 5.4 seconds. It's about 1.5 seconds, or roughly 40 percent, more time for that free fall to happen. And that is not at all unusual, because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous."

WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part I): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rkp-4sm5Ypc&list=PL206C1F5EDFC83824

Full transcript of technical briefing: http://911speakout.org/NIST_Tech_Briefing_Transcript.pdf

 

[MicahJava]

That's just... No.

So arsonists never start a fire near an circuit breaker or a fireplace to hide their deeds and ward off investigations?

 

[MicahJava]

And just another example of you attempting to get your facts from amateurs.

Why the hell do you care what WE think of the implementation of NFPA 921 on 9/11?

You haven't bothered to ask if anyone here is a fire investigator.
IIRC, Triforcharity was/is a fireman, and very knowledgeable about NFPA 921.

I am DAMN sure that you haven't asked that question at any of your truther websites, either.

So, let's get to see what a couple of real fire investigators say about this issue:

In this thread, lot's of real firefighters post. And this same issue was brought up.

http://www.firehouse.com/forums/t107457/

And Erik Lawyer, the idiot who makes such a big deal of it, posts, too, as "koolaid1" (starting in post 18).

You'll do well to see how REAL fire investigators respond to Lawyer's stupidity. (Lawyer is NOT a fire investigator, BTW.)

Pay attention to "GeorgeWendt" (posts 15, 24, and others) and Dickey (post 29 & others) who both ARE professional fire investigators.

You'd do well to read the entire thread.
It ends with a Truther doing what you guys do best: Making a complete ass of himself.

The most important thing that you'll learn from this is that there is often a vast difference between what professionals think on some topic & what a clueless bunch of amateurs with an agenda think.

The point I'm making by quoting the NFPA 921 is that it describes characteristics of intentional destruction that apply to the WTC. I know that the NFPA material has no legal grounds.

 

[DGM]

The first version of the BBC's Conspiracy Files Third Tower program, aired July 6 2008, has the denial of freefall. This was edited out of subsequent airings, after NIST confirmed freefall.

Narrator: "The scientists timed the fall of the top 17 floors before they disappeared from view. It took 5.4 seconds. A free-fall collapse will have taken 3.9 seconds."

Shayam: "Clearly, the time that this building took to collapse was longer by almost 40-50% than the free-fall time of an object. Well, 40% is a lot longer. It's not 5%, it's 40%. It's huge."

Link to portion of video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJAu_OtQsK4&t=0m47s

Subtitle file for original airing: http://subsaga.com/bbc/documentarie.../2-9-11-the-truth-behind-the-third-tower.html

In NIST NCSTAR 1A draft for public comments, published August 01, 2008 (page 79 of pdf), says this about the motions of the building:

"the actual time for the upper 18 stories to collapse, based on video evidence, was approximately 40 percent longer than the computed free fall time and was consistent with physical principles." -NIST NCSTAR 1A draft for public comments, published August 01, 2008 (page 79 of pdf)

http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=909254

In their final report, usage of the phrase "consistent with physical principles" was edited out.

In NIST's technical briefing on WTC 7 (August 26 2008), Shayam Sunder had this to say:

"Well, the-first of all, gravity is the loading function that applies to the structure-applies to all bodies on this particular-on this planet, not just in Ground Zero. The analysis showed there is a difference in time between a free fall time-a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it. And if you look at the analysis of the video, it shows that the time it takes for the 17-for the roof line of the video to collapse down the 17 floors that you can actually see in the video, below which you can't see anything in the video, is about 3.9 seconds. What the analysis shows, and the structural analysis shows, or the collapse analysis shows, is that same that it took for the structural model to come down from the roof line all the way for those 17 floors to disappear is 5.4 seconds. It's about 1.5 seconds, or roughly 40 percent, more time for that free fall to happen. And that is not at all unusual, because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous."

WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part I): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rkp-4sm5Ypc&list=PL206C1F5EDFC83824

Full transcript of technical briefing: http://911speakout.org/NIST_Tech_Briefing_Transcript.pdf

Where is the denial for "free-fall and the claim it can't happen?