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

[Myriad]

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.

That can only be true if the important documents are known to have been present, and known to be important, and known to be missing afterward. Otherwise, there is only the undefined and unevidenced possibility that there might have been unique documents destroyed that might have been important. Such a mere speculated possibility is not the slightest bit suspicious.

Since you are making the claim that missing documents are indeed suspicious in this case, you must know what those important documents were and have evidence that they were present in the building and are now missing. So, what were those documents, and what is that evidence?

 

[pgimeno]

Nope, not getting into that pointless debate. WTC 7's collapse lasted for as long as you wanted it to, but the motions of the building do show freefall. BTW where did you get "20 minutes" from?

I had to make a search for that claim, because I didn't remember having made it. It appears that it's Axxman300 who made it. I think you confused me with him.

I haven't made that point. I'm not sure what the starting point is in Axxman's claim, ask him.

NIST referred to the total time the façade took to go out of sight (17 stories) when they said it was about 40% the total free fall time. They were right. That was my point.

 

[tfk]

Quit that BS. You know NIST denied freefall and said that it can't happen. In the end, they couldn't even fool a high school physics teacher.

LOL. You aren't merely "not an expert", as you readily claim, whenever you want to avoid answering a question.

You are clueless.

Guess what, Junior, you've got that completely ass-backwards.
The high school physics teacher fooled you.

Or, more precisely, you allowed yourself to be fooled again, because another topic at which you're a helpless amateur is epistemology.

This is the very core of your problem:

You believe high school physics teachers (like Chandler), when the topic is "structural mechanics".

You believe particle physicists (like Steven Jones), when the topic is "forensic chemistry".

You believe architects (like Gage), when the topic is "structural engineering".

You believe sewer system designers (like Jonathan Cole), when the topic is "tall building collapse dynamics".

You believe "vibration table fixture designers" (like Tony Szamboti), when the topic is "structural engineering".

And you believe a complete, utter, clueless amateur (that would be yourself), when you make idiotic, wrong assertions like "the damage caused by the collapse of WTC 1 was insignificant" & "I'm capable of accurately interpreting what the NIST engineers wrote".
__

Let me suggest a much better strategy, that might help you out of your pit of ignorance.

Believe high school physics teachers when they're talking about ... high school physics.

Believe particle physicists when they're talking about ... particle physics.

Believe architects when they're talking about ... architecture.

Believe sewer system designers when they're talking about ... sewer system design.

You believe vibration table fixture designers when they're talking about ... vibration table fixture design.

Believe yourself when you're mulling over ... none of this stuff.
Trust me, you need all the help you can possibly get.

The thing that you need help with most is your completely broken, useless epistemology. That is in a coma.
__

Now, here is an interesting question for you: I've been a mechanical engineer for 40+ years. My specialties have been underwater cameras, motor driven switches, connector design, fuel metering valve design & medical device design. Why should you believe me on the topics of failure modes in large buildings, progressive failure, collapse dynamics, etc.?

 

[NoahFence]

You can hear the same noise in the last link on the CBS footage, too.

I've always wondered, if WTC 7 was only having relatively small partial collapses before the East Penthouse caved in, then why is does it make such a loud boom a moment before? Why on the CBS clip can you hear that but not the sound of the entire rest of the building coming down? What was going on inside the building that could possibly make such a loud noise before the East Penthouse fell?

BTW the Ashleigh Banfield footage uses a near-field microphone.

A huge fire and failing steel was going on inside the building. I imagine failing steel makes a heck of a racket.

 

[MicahJava]

That can only be true if the important documents are known to have been present, and known to be important, and known to be missing afterward. Otherwise, there is only the undefined and unevidenced possibility that there might have been unique documents destroyed that might have been important. Such a mere speculated possibility is not the slightest bit suspicious.

Since you are making the claim that missing documents are indeed suspicious in this case, you must know what those important documents were and have evidence that they were present in the building and are now missing. So, what were those documents, and what is that evidence?

Good question. When I got a free trial at newspapers.com, I remember finding an old article that said that paper-sensitive SEC files were lost in WTC 7, and that many cases would have to be rebuilt because there were no backups. Unfortunately, I forgot to save an image of this exact newspaper.

 

[MicahJava]

A huge fire and failing steel was going on inside the building. I imagine failing steel makes a heck of a racket.

That's what I'm saying, though. In the CBS footage, the loudest noise you can hear (which is also audible on the Ashleigh Banfield footage) is about 3 seconds before the East Penthouse caves in. You can't hear the rest of the building collapsing after that. A little falling steel vs. a lot of falling steel. That is, if falling steel is what truly made that racket.

 

[MicahJava]

LOL. You aren't merely "not an expert", as you readily claim, whenever you want to avoid answering a question.

You are clueless.

Guess what, Junior, you've got that completely ass-backwards.
The high school physics teacher fooled you.

Or, more precisely, you allowed yourself to be fooled again, because another topic at which you're a helpless amateur is epistemology.

This is the very core of your problem:

You believe high school physics teachers (like Chandler), when the topic is "structural mechanics".

You believe particle physicists (like Steven Jones), when the topic is "forensic chemistry".

You believe architects (like Gage), when the topic is "structural engineering".

You believe sewer system designers (like Jonathan Cole), when the topic is "tall building collapse dynamics".

You believe "vibration table fixture designers" (like Tony Szamboti), when the topic is "structural engineering".

And you believe a complete, utter, clueless amateur (that would be yourself), when you make idiotic, wrong assertions like "the damage caused by the collapse of WTC 1 was insignificant" & "I'm capable of accurately interpreting what the NIST engineers wrote".
__

Let me suggest a much better strategy, that might help you out of your pit of ignorance.

Believe high school physics teachers when they're talking about ... high school physics.

Believe particle physicists when they're talking about ... particle physics.

Believe architects when they're talking about ... architecture.

Believe sewer system designers when they're talking about ... sewer system design.

You believe vibration table fixture designers when they're talking about ... vibration table fixture design.

Believe yourself when you're mulling over ... none of this stuff.
Trust me, you need all the help you can possibly get.

The thing that you need help with most is your completely broken, useless epistemology. That is in a coma.
__

Now, here is an interesting question for you: I've been a mechanical engineer for 40+ years. My specialties have been underwater cameras, motor driven switches, connector design, fuel metering valve design & medical device design. Why should you believe me on the topics of failure modes in large buildings, progressive failure, collapse dynamics, etc.?

Why are you like this? Have I been disrespectful to you?

I have already said before that I don't "believe" anything. I hardly ever say that I completely "believe" in anything.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Why are you like this? Have I been disrespectful to you?

I have already said before that I don't "believe" anything. I hardly ever say that I completely "believe" in anything.

Just asking questions?

 

[tfk]

I have no professional expertise.

Trust me I already knew this.

Getting you to write it also was my way of trying to get you to recognize the absurdity of your making the laughably wrong assertions about structural mechanics that you’ve been sprinkling thru your comments.

I am waiting on NIST's answer … then we can compare notes.

All irrelevant.

My suspicion is that the engineer from the office of emergency management was the person who influenced almost all of the foreknowledge of the collapse ...

You really suck at identifying people's jobs.

It was not "The Office Of Emergency Engineering".
It was "The Office Of Emergency Management".

Do you think that that Giuliani was going to staff those key positions with engineers or managers?

In this "let's keep NYC functioning in a disaster" brain trust, what crucial, indispensable, top-level function do you guess would be served by "an engineer that can use a transit"??

In contrast, the Fire Department DOES have immediate, critical function that can only be served by "an engineer that can use a transit": determining whether a building is progressively moving, indicating that it is in danger of collapse.

So, let me ask you: Do you think that the Chief of the FDNY would choose to use someone INSIDE the FDNY, that he knows has been specifically trained to interpret the relationship between movement & stability of buildings? Or do you think that he'd take the word of some OEM flunky, whose training has been "keeping the sewer lines off of private property"?

Let me ask you a closely related question: Have you ever worked a union job in NYC?

Finally, it is YOU that have twisted up this story, by mashing together quotes that don't belong together, and then providing your clueless interpretation.

You pulled this quote out of thin air:

Captain Michael Currid, the president of the Uniformed Fire Officers Association, said that some time after the collapse of the Twin Towers, “Someone from the city's Office of Emergency Management” told him that building 7 was “basically a lost cause and we should not lose anyone else trying to save it," after which the firefighters in the building were told to get out.

September 11, An Oral History

You mashed it together with this:

"We had a discussion with one particular engineer there, and we asked him, if we allowed it to burn, could we anticipate a collapse, and if so, how soon? And it turned out that he was pretty much right on the money then. He said, 'In its current state you have about five hours.'"

-Chief Peter Hayden, BBC The Conspiracy Files: The Third Tower

And then you twisted it into this:

My suspicion is that the engineer from the office of emergency management was the person who influenced almost all of the foreknowledge of the collapse ...

Your suggestion that the guy with the transit was "an OEM engineer", rather than an FDNY technician, is absurd.

Your suggestion that an OEM flunky could "manipulate the opinion of the FDNY guy reading the transit", is absurd.

Your suggestion that some OEM flunky could drive the actions of the FDNY shows that you haven't the slightest clue how real-world organizations work. ESPECIALLY in union controlled cities, like NYC.

You spout crap.

and that no person on planet earth can predict the hour in which a giant skyscraper will collapse from fire.

And this is exactly correct.
And nobody did this. I don't give a rat's ass what Hayden or anyone else said a year later.

That (& more) was exactly the point of the exercise that I asked you to take 5 minutes & go thru. The steps before & after he took his measurements.

Unfortunately, you don’t seem inclined to put in any effort at all to learn something. Why is that?
Have you always been this lazy?
Or is this a new "Truther thing" for you?

 

[tfk]

Why are you like this? Have I been disrespectful to you?

Yes, Micah, as a matter of fact, you've been hugely disrespectful to me.
You've admitted that you have no background in the topics we're discussing.
I've told you that I've got >40 years experience as a mechanical engineer.
You listen to nothing. You blow off everything that I've written to you.
THAT is disrespectful, ya ignorant punk.

And you're disrespectful to the other people on this website.
For similar reasons.

And to everyone who reads your nonsense.
Because you spread unmitigated horse **** ...
... knowingly leveraging the illusion that you DO know what you're talking about.
THAT is disrespectful.

I'll leave off the "crapping on the graves of 3000 innocent victims."

I have already said before that I don't "believe" anything. I hardly ever say that I completely "believe" in anything.

... and you're lying again.

I don't know if you're just lying to us.
Or if in some bizarre, scorching case of cognitive dissonance, you're lying to yourself as well, as you switch your story back & forth, moment to moment to moment.

If you write crap like the following, then you are lying when you claim that you "don't believe anything".

"Lying" is very disrespectful.

The first thing I would do in a new investigation would be interviewing several first responders asking 1. how early they were told WTC 7 was in danger of collapse, and 2. who told them (who was that anonymous engineer guy who told Peter Hayden that WTC 7 was going to collapse at "5 or 6 PM"?). Figuring out how this foreknowledge went up the grapevine may lead to the people who did the demolition.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/consp...ed-w-111-a-post1065779666.html#post1065779666

Yeah, like the demolition supporters have always said, the WTC 7 foreknowledge is extremely suspicious. It doesn't matter if it was always under the veil of "safety reasons". As for the firefighters witnessing a bulge, are we really supposed to believe that a relatively small bulge in the perimeter can rationally cause the collapse of a skyscraper as wide as a football field? Either way, it looks like these reports came long after the initial warnings were given. Also, there I have not seen any photographic evidence for the building "leaning". Even if a plausible natural collapse scenario was made, the official story is still in the toilet.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/consp...ed-w-111-a-post1065781555.html#post1065781555

I, and several others, have spent a significant amount of time trying to help you see thru your disastrous failings.

If your learning something requires the SLIGHTEST amount of effort on your part, then you have ignored the response. You've blown off the effort, in favor of posting more brain-dead Trutner platitudes.
You are *********** lazy, when others are willing to put out a lot of effort to try to help you understand things.
That is disrespectful.

If you bother to READ & TRY TO UNDERSTAND the post that you are now whining about (regarding your broken epistemology), you might just realize that it is the ABSOLUTE KEY to your constant screw-ups.!!

Not giving the responses of the people, who have taken the time to write to you, ONE MOMENT'S CONSIDERATION is disrespectful.

Any other questions?

 

[ProBonoShill]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mo7zl62vNng

https://www.reddit.com/r/911truth/c...nyc_news_radio_on_9112001_and_9122001/d1zv5dt

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERhoNYj9_fg

Please provide a video that mimics what is seen here on a real CD.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6n7AG2YJ-I

Though hundreds of videos exist showing the collapse of WTC 7, not a single solitary truther has ever been able to provide one, why don't you be the first.

Also, how come the seismic instruments that day failed to capture the telltale explosions associated with CD?

 

[ProBonoShill]

You can hear the same noise in the last link on the CBS footage, too.

I've always wondered, if WTC 7 was only having relatively small partial collapses before the East Penthouse caved in, then why is does it make such a loud boom a moment before? Why on the CBS clip can you hear that but not the sound of the entire rest of the building coming down? What was going on inside the building that could possibly make such a loud noise before the East Penthouse fell?

BTW the Ashleigh Banfield footage uses a near-field microphone.

You do know lots of things can explode during a fire don't you?

You also know that what you're describing doesn't sound like CD at all right?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Please provide a video that mimics what is seen here on a real CD.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6n7AG2YJ-I

Though hundreds of videos exist showing the collapse of WTC 7, not a single solitary truther has ever been able to provide one, why don't you be the first.

Also, how come the seismic instruments that day failed to capture the telltale explosions associated with CD?

Truthers never mention seismic records. I don't think they know about them.

 

[tfk]

The FDNY acknowledged the use of a transit. They never produced any results that confirmed their fear that WTC7 might possibly be actively leaning

LMAO.
Yes they did.

Here's the proof: WTC7 collapsed.

and no such data was ever given to the NIST.

Ahhh, I see.
You, as chief of the FNDY, would require that the person taking the transit readings be properly documenting those readings in his lab notebook, in the midst of Ground Zero chaos, death & destruction ... before you'll accept them.

I guess it's a really good thing that you weren't Chief of the FDNY on 9/11/01.

Supposedly hour upon hour, you believe the transit was measuring the WTC7’s active creep as it steadily and inexorably leaned.

The first thing that you've said that is almost correct.

Hour after hour, the person using the transit was measuring WTC7’s active creep as it steadily and inexorably leaned.

The transit can't measure anything, being an inanimate object. A tool. (No jokes required.)

Hours later, the roofline showed no evidence of this progressing lean or any indication that “accumulated loading” was actually occurring.

And your proof of this is … where.?

 

[NoahFence]

That's what I'm saying, though. In the CBS footage, the loudest noise you can hear (which is also audible on the Ashleigh Banfield footage) is about 3 seconds before the East Penthouse caves in. You can't hear the rest of the building collapsing after that. A little falling steel vs. a lot of falling steel. That is, if falling steel is what truly made that racket.

It couldn't have been anything else. Not under any circumstances present on 9-11, not at that time and day.

 

[MicahJava]

Tfk, you seem very defensive and irritable. Why even come to the CT forum? You you enjoy just playing with yourself like everybody else on this forum recently?

You really suck at identifying people's jobs.

It was not "The Office Of Emergency Engineering".
It was "The Office Of Emergency Management".

Do you think that that Giuliani was going to staff those key positions with engineers or managers?

In this "let's keep NYC functioning in a disaster" brain trust, what crucial, indispensable, top-level function do you guess would be served by "an engineer that can use a transit"??

In contrast, the Fire Department DOES have immediate, critical function that can only be served by "an engineer that can use a transit": determining whether a building is progressively moving, indicating that it is in danger of collapse.

So, let me ask you: Do you think that the Chief of the FDNY would choose to use someone INSIDE the FDNY, that he knows has been specifically trained to interpret the relationship between movement & stability of buildings? Or do you think that he'd take the word of some OEM flunky, whose training has been "keeping the sewer lines off of private property"?

Dude, how should I know? Nobody knows who this guy in question really was. Hayden described him as an engineer and Currid said he was from the office of emergency management. From Hayden's other quotes, it would seem that who operated the transit was not the OEM engineer.

Finally, it is YOU that have twisted up this story, by mashing together quotes that don't belong together, and then providing your clueless interpretation.

There's a more specific quote from Hayden:

Chief of Department Peter Hayden consulted with an engineer:


"We posed to him the question that considering the structural
damage that was obvious to the – to the building on the southwest
corner, and the amount of fire damage that was occurring within
the building, could we anticipate a collapse and if so, when. He
said yes and he gave an approximate time of five to six hours,
which was pretty much right on the money because the building
collapsed about 5 o’clock that afternoon."


http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisio...3c33b98-9cbf-4b82-b557-6088e207c8f6/1/hilite/

Your suggestion that an OEM flunky could "manipulate the opinion of the FDNY guy reading the transit", is absurd.

Your suggestion that some OEM flunky could drive the actions of the FDNY shows that you haven't the slightest clue how real-world organizations work. ESPECIALLY in union controlled cities, like NYC.

You spout crap.

I think your mind has meshed random things from my comments into something I didn't say. I said that I find it extremely unlikely and suspicious that any person, no matter how skilled and experienced, can correctly predict the hour in which a skyscraper will collapse by fire. If Hayden's phrasing of what the engineer told him is right, the prediction would have been made no more than 1 hour after the heavy fires were burning. And you seem to agree with this:

And this is exactly correct.
And nobody did this. I don't give a rat's ass what Hayden or anyone else said a year later.

So you think Hayden was totally remembering wrong the two separate times he recalled this happening? You've tried throwing everything but the kitchen sink trying to convince whoever that WTC 7 was hanging by a thread, yet you still agree that Hayden's recollections of events are anomalous?

Yes, Micah, as a matter of fact, you've been hugely disrespectful to me.
You've admitted that you have no background in the topics we're discussing.
I've told you that I've got >40 years experience as a mechanical engineer.
You listen to nothing. You blow off everything that I've written to you.
THAT is disrespectful, ya ignorant punk.

And you're disrespectful to the other people on this website.
For similar reasons.

And to everyone who reads your nonsense.
Because you spread unmitigated horse **** ...
... knowingly leveraging the illusion that you DO know what you're talking about.
THAT is disrespectful.

I'll leave off the "crapping on the graves of 3000 innocent victims."

By "thousands have bet their lives on those odds", I was referring to those who died while fighting the war on terror because of 9/11 outrage.

>

If you write crap like the following, then you are lying when you claim that you "don't believe anything".

I was having fun with Fledermaus on debatepolitics, who I found to be a wiener. Are you really trying to psychoanalyze someone on the internet so you can find something to get offended at? You are so grouchy and nasty, even when I'm just asking questions. And I don't mean "just asking questions" in the dumb twoofer meme sense, I mean literally just asking questions. You're desperately trying to find things to get offended at just so you can act like a baboon on a forum.

I can see that the members of this forum are content with playing with themselves, with the exception of FalseFlag and Criteria.

 

[MicahJava]

Truthers never mention seismic records. I don't think they know about them.

"If the strategically placed charges had been detonated below ground, they would have delivered about the same amount of energy as a magnitude-1.1 earthquake, a small blip on a seismograph probably not strong enough to be felt by people.

But with the charges positioned above ground instead of within the crust -- where the release of strain results in powerful earthquakes -- the Aladdin implosion didn't even register on the nearby seismograph at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, according to geology professor Dave Weide."

https://web.archive.org/web/2012100..._home/1999/Apr-11-Sun-1999/news/10963838.html

 

[MicahJava]

It couldn't have been anything else. Not under any circumstances present on 9-11, not at that time and day.

So why would a little falling steel be so much louder than a lot of falling steel?

 

[NoahFence]

There's a more specific quote from Hayden:

Chief of Department Peter Hayden consulted with an engineer:


"We posed to him the question that considering the structural
damage that was obvious to the – to the building on the southwest
corner, and the amount of fire damage that was occurring within
the building, could we anticipate a collapse and if so, when. He
said yes and he gave an approximate time of five to six hours,
which was pretty much right on the money because .

It's too bad you can't see the obvious flaw here.

You don't believe someone could have predicted the collapse. Just not possible, despite having decades of experience to pull from. Not to mention several centuries worth of experiences that are now just common knowledge.

All that isn't worth anything to you.

But the fact that people who know nothing about the related science are more than qualified, in your opinion, to say what happened, that's ok?

 

[DGM]

I wonder at this point why anyone would want to talk MicahJava out of his belief.

MicahJava: I'm done with you, good luck with your belief. I have no doubt you will convince people with your equal qualifications.