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

NoahFence said:
As I said, you weren't there. WTC 7 had heavy fire as soon as the north tower hit it.
Click to expand...

Are you referring to the smoke that was sticking to the south face of the building? I think that is what many firefighters are referring to when they say things like "All forty seven stories were engulfed in fire".
 
MicahJava said:
Lol. 9/11 actually lead me to JFK. I stopped posting to that thread because that rabbit hole is so complicated. I tried arguing for a sniper behind the picket fence on the grassy knoll, but now I actually think it's a distinct possibility that some kind of firecracker was used near there as a diversion. If there was a shooter from the upper right front, they could have been from the grassy knoll storm drain near the bridge.
Click to expand...

As opposed to this rabbit hole?

9-11 Truth was a dead end before it started. Nothing adds up except the actual known event. No CD, no special thermite. It is an example of a CT back-engineered in hopes of fitting a counter narrative to a short list of unimportant facts.

WTC7 took 20 minutes to collapse, hardly free-fall speed. Also, there is no such thing as free fall speed, it a phrase from the intellectual sphincter of Truthers, not science.

The CIA was not listed in the building, the Secret Service was, and it would be easy to verify because someone had to pay the rent, and the Secret Service didn't have the CIA's budget. But let's pretend the CIA was there - so what? I guarantee that nobody in the entire city cared. Destroying documents, if it came to that, is almost a religious process for Langley, and it would have been done so fast that nobody would have known.

No reason to destroy a building when all you need is a couple of guys, a van, and a secure incinerator. When time comes to cough up subpoenaed documents the Agency would do what it always does: stall for as long as possible, and then claim shock when they discover that the documents had been destroyed as part of a "scheduled" mcguffin procedure. We saw this with the video and audio tapes of CIA interrogation/torture sessions.

So there was no logical reason to destroy WTC7, hell, Al Qaeda didn't know it was there.
 
MileHighMadness said:
Check with Richard Gage, maybe he will loan you his copy.
Click to expand...

I found a 2010 edition ebook of Collapse of Burning Buildings : A Guide to Fireground Safety by Vincent Dunn, but it references the World Trade Center 1, 2, and 7 several times and cites NIST. Do you think I'm "dodging" by asking for a pre-9/11 source? I want to see material written from a pre-9/11 perspective.
 
MicahJava said:
I found a 2010 edition ebook of Collapse of Burning Buildings : A Guide to Fireground Safety by Vincent Dunn, but it references the World Trade Center 1, 2, and 7 several times and cites NIST. Do you think I'm "dodging" by asking for a pre-9/11 source? I want to see material written from a pre-9/11 perspective.
Click to expand...

That'll prove controlled demolition? Nice. How about the rest of the day?
 
MicahJava said:
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.
Click to expand...


Your claim was that destroying documents with a paper shredder would be more likely to lead to suspicion and an investigation than an elaborate arson.

This is an example of what we call the "unevaluated inequality fallacy" here. It's a claim that one quantity (in this case, the likelihood of destroying documents with a paper shredder leading to an investigation) is greater than another quantity (in this case, the likelihood of an elaborate arson leading to an investigation), without specifying either quantity.

Given that virtually all structure fires are investigated to determine their causes, while anyone can walk into any office supply store and buy a paper shredder with cash without being tailed from the store by any government agents (and larger-scale document destruction is a legal multi-billion dollar business), it's pretty clear why you've left the inequality unevaluated. Because once you do evaluate it, it makes the claim sound as ridiculous as it actually is.
 
Myriad said:
Your claim was that destroying documents with a paper shredder would be more likely to lead to suspicion and an investigation than an elaborate arson.

This is an example of what we call the "unevaluated inequality fallacy" here. It's a claim that one quantity (in this case, the likelihood of destroying documents with a paper shredder leading to an investigation) is greater than another quantity (in this case, the likelihood of an elaborate arson leading to an investigation), without specifying either quantity.

Given that virtually all structure fires are investigated to determine their causes, while anyone can walk into any office supply store and buy a paper shredder with cash without being tailed from the store by any government agents (and larger-scale document destruction is a legal multi-billion dollar business), it's pretty clear why you've left the inequality unevaluated. Because once you do evaluate it, it makes the claim sound as ridiculous as it actually is.
Click to expand...

Important documents suddenly going missing is more suspicious than important documents being lost in the destruction of a building that is assumed to be nothing more than an unpreventable accident.
 
MicahJava said:
Yeah right, that guy predicted a total historical first with no basis.
Click to expand...
[Steel] structures collapsing from fire is not a historical first. High rises are structures, and being a high rise does not immunize them from the effects of fire. If anything, I'd say it makes them more vulnerable

Structural engineers are trained to deal with structures.

The guy predicted a predictable event.

Like many others did.
 
MicahJava said:
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.
Click to expand...
I hope you can see the difference between being wrong about eyeballing the huge smoke cloud coming out of the WTC7 façade and being wrong with the use of a precision measuring instrument, used for the purpose it is designed for, and the information of which may be critical to save lives.
 
MicahJava said:
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.
Click to expand...
A fire investigator in that forum says that the 921 quotes are taken out of context and that they don't mean what you say they mean.

That's the part you have missed. There's no need for an investigation based on your claims, because your claims are the result of misinterpretation.
 
DGM said:
So? Are you accusing this person of being "in on it"?

Do you really believe that the first fires were when the first photo evidence was? Mr Jennings disagrees as does several fire fighters that gave testimony. Were they lying in your professional opinion?
Click to expand...
And an engineer. Mike Catalano I think was his name. He reports the generators as the source of the fire, when WTC2 fell.
 
MicahJava said:
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
Click to expand...
Sunder is right.

The time it took the building to fall 17 floors was about 40% higher than that it would have taken if it was falling in free fall for the same height.

But in fact the whole building started moving before it reached g (gravity acceleration), which means that, before the time it reached g, all columns had already failed. This, by the way, disproves that free fall is an indicator of explosive demolition, unless you can explain why anyone would blow exterior columns, and how would it be boom-less (being the exterior, i.e. more exposed than the interior).

That introduced a delay. After that, the acceleration was also less than g. Both delays combined account for the 40% more than free-fall time that Sunder reports.

In these quotes he doesn't deny free fall. He denies free fall for 17 floors. And indeed it didn't happen.
 
MicahJava said:
Nope, NIST and Shayam Sunder not only erroneously claimed that there was no freefall, but stated that freefall would be incompatible with the structural failure they were studying. Only in their Final Report did they get around to admitting freefall and omitting the phrase "consistent with physical principals".
Click to expand...

Liar

MicahJava said:
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"? I was pretty curious of who that character was. 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!
Click to expand...

I gave you a link to some fire experts, stop being so lazy and go ask them.
 
pgimeno said:
[Steel] structures collapsing from fire is not a historical first. High rises are structures, and being a high rise does not immunize them from the effects of fire. If anything, I'd say it makes them more vulnerable
Click to expand...

Tall buildings have stronger and larger structural components than short buildings.

Structural engineers are trained to deal with structures.

The guy predicted a predictable event.

Like many others did.
Click to expand...

The closest example I could find is the One Meridian Plaza fire.

"All interior firefighting efforts were halted after almost 11 hours of uninterrupted fire in the building. Consultation with a structural engineer and structural damage observed by units operating in the building led to the belief that there was a possibility of a pancake structural collapse of the fire damaged floors. Bearing this risk in mind along with the loss of three personnel and the lack of progress against the fire despite having secured adequate water pressure and flow for interior fire streams, an order was given to evacuate the building at 0700 on February 24.

http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/analysis/compare/iklim_meridienplaza.html

"The entire city block surrounding the damaged building, One Meridian Plaza, was roped off today.

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/02/26/us/philadelphia-fire-officials-rule-out-collapse-of-tower.html

1. The engineer told them that it may be in danger of collapse. He did not say with great certainty that it would collapse, nor did he predict the hour in which it would collapse.

2. It did not collapse.
 
Last edited:
pgimeno said:
Sunder is right.

The time it took the building to fall 17 floors was about 40% higher than that it would have taken if it was falling in free fall for the same height.

But in fact the whole building started moving before it reached g (gravity acceleration), which means that, before the time it reached g, all columns had already failed. This, by the way, disproves that free fall is an indicator of explosive demolition, unless you can explain why anyone would blow exterior columns, and how would it be boom-less (being the exterior, i.e. more exposed than the interior).

That introduced a delay. After that, the acceleration was also less than g. Both delays combined account for the 40% more than free-fall time that Sunder reports.

In these quotes he doesn't deny free fall. He denies free fall for 17 floors. And indeed it didn't happen.
Click to expand...

WTC 7 took 13.8 billion years to collapse. Source: Big Bang theory.
 
pgimeno said:
I hope you can see the difference between being wrong about eyeballing the huge smoke cloud coming out of the WTC7 façade and being wrong with the use of a precision measuring instrument, used for the purpose it is designed for, and the information of which may be critical to save lives.
Click to expand...

Transits aren't used to measure when a fire began burning, but ok. At what time was this instrument used during the day? If the instrument was placed near where the bulge was forming on the perimeter, could that give a wrong impression that the entire building was shifting, rather than a relatively small part of it? What could specifically be the cause of the building "shifting"/"moving"? How can that relate to the collapse that occurred?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom