I found the missing Jolt.

JSanderO said:
The Con Ed was mostly in the NW quadrant. The moment frame remained coupled to the foundation there and broke loose last... the movement resulting was rotation about the NW quadrant above Con Ed. The torque / twist caused the kink as the columns connecting col 73 to the north facade held the west part from probably last floor sections to drop... those west of col 73 to the nw corner. The twist can be explained by the NE quadrant leading the collapse. Perhaps... The 2+ seconds of approximate FF acceleration tells us that the collapsing moment frame broke free at the 8th floor... just above the 2 story section of load transfer structures.
Click to expand...

A better explanation of what I was saying above JSO.
 
Bump for FF who requested it.
jaydeehess said:
http://www1.ae911truth.org/news-section/41-articles/872-freefall-and-building-7-on-911-by-david-chandler.html
Hilite and bolds mine.

Apparently, as of 2014, AE911T was content with Chandler expressing the view that ALL COLUMNS for 8 floors height, were removed "suddenly".

So, I assume that FF and TSz disagree with Chandler?
Click to expand...

jaydeehess said:
Tony says that only the core columns need be taken out. The NIST scenario has the core columns being destroyed.
Chandler stated clearly that ALL support over 8 storeys had to be removed. Debunkers said no, Tony says no.

But Tony says that the observed collapse cannot be brought about by the NIST scenario of core destruction.

So, again I ask, how is it that destruction of core columns both can, and cannot, result in the observed collapse?

So does Tony fully agree? Well he notes a period of free fall, and he states that the exterior columns need not have been blown out with explosives to result in that period of free fall. So yes, Tony fully agrees.
Click to expand...
 
tfk said:
I am not "claiming" that they were not.
I am telling you that they were not.
Click to expand...
OK.

Any argument would be one of semantics, and it's not worth pursuing.

Obviously, the velocities of the WTC foundations were not increasing over time. Using the simplest and most common definition of "accelerating", if the velocity does not increase with respect to time, then an object can not be "accelerating".
 
tfk said:
False Flag [is] basing their stupidity on YOUR assurances to them that you are correct in your stupidity.
Click to expand...
No.

I can think for myself. I have not read all of Tony's posts, so it is certainly possible he has made mistakes.

His mistakes, if they exist, would not change my mind.

Please leave me out of your personal attacks on other members.
 
tfk said:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=176&pictureid=10629[/qimg]

Do you see the outward 3-hinge buckle, that I’ve emphasized in red?
Click to expand...
Yes, I see what you have highlighted.

Why would a competent engineer rely on a model that anyone can see does not even remotely match what actually happened?

Please show me a video of the actual collapse that matches the NIST videos. If you somehow manage to do that, please show me a video of the actual collapse where the behavior you have highlighted can be observed.

I keep mentioning credibility. I have to point out that your post is yet another example of how you keep destroying it. Only someone with extraordinary denial and delusions would ever make an argument based on a computer model that doesn't even come close to what was actually observed.

If you don't want to accept that you suffer from denial and delusions, then the only other explanation is incompetence. Which one is it?
 
Last edited:
jaydeehess said:
Tony says that only the core columns need be taken out. The NIST scenario has the core columns being destroyed.
Chandler stated clearly that ALL support over 8 storeys had to be removed. Debunkers said no, Tony says no.

But Tony says that the observed collapse cannot be brought about by the NIST scenario of core destruction.

So, again I ask, how is it that destruction of core columns both can, and cannot, result in the observed collapse?

So does Tony fully agree? Well he notes a period of free fall, and he states that the exterior columns need not have bee blown out with explosives to result in that period of free fall. So yes, Tony fully agrees.
Click to expand...
Please link to the exact text.
 
jaydeehess said:
Ok, so you agree with Chandler but disagree with Szamboti. You cannot have it both ways. One says quite clearly that explosives took out all columns over 8 floors, the other, only core columns.
Click to expand...
Where did I say that?

Also, why does it matter who I agree with? What I think does not matter, remember?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom