I found the missing Jolt.

[MileHighMadness]

I know you have something symmetrical under the back of your pants. Are you talking out of it right now?

Tony...You know, I hope Gage paid for your dinner in Philadelphia, because that is the only thing you will ever get out of the 9/11 truth movement.

 

[jaydeehess]

Indeed the contention that a period of free fall is indicative of demolition has never been more than unsupported bald assertion.
The contention always was that ALL vertical support must be removed in order for free fall and that this meant all columns needed to be exploively removed.. Debunkers pointed out that various mechanisms meant that such full removal of columns was not required. Tony agrees.
It is not necessary for all vertical support to be removed over 8 storeys in order to have the collapsing structure achieve free fall.

No, now we are told that only interior columns need be removed with explosives, and that the NW and NE corners beginning their downward movement in sync is what is indicative of interior explosive use. Little mention of free fall.
Odd though, debunkers point out that the commonly accepted scenario includes destruction of interior columns too.
How is it that destruction of only interior columns both can and cannot cause the east and west faces to fail at the same time?

Please provide a link to support your claim. Thanks.

I am looking for the part where Tony agrees completely with the statement.

There was no need for charges on the exterior columns. This has already been explained and how free fall would still result from just a large number of floors of the core columns being removed.
.

http://www1.ae911truth.org/news-section/41-articles/872-freefall-and-building-7-on-911-by-david-chandler.html

fact remains that freefall is not consistent with any natural scenario involving weakening, buckling, or crushing because in any such a scenario there would be large forces of interaction with the underlying structure that would have slowed the fall. Given that even known controlled demolitions do not remove sufficient structure to allow for actual freefall, how could a natural fire-induced process be more destructive? Add to that the synchronicity of the removal of support across the whole width of the building, evidenced by the levelness of the roofline as it came down, and the suddenness of onset of collapse, and the immediate transition from full support to total freefall. Natural collapse resulting in freefall is simply not plausible. It did not happen. It could not happen. Yet freefall did in fact happen. This means it was not a natural collapse. Forces other than the falling upper section of the building suddenly destroyed and removed the supporting columns for at least eight stories across the entire length and width of the building.

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

Really not that hard to see that TSz and Chandler disagree.

Its quite funny really. Chandler comes out and states unequivocally that every single column, interior & exterior, had to be removed to effect a period of free fall. Debunkers were assailed time and again with the "if any vertical supports remained at all then it could not be free fall". Debunkers point out that such would be really really LOUD, so then along comes Jowenko and TSz to tell us that 'oh, no, no, no, only the interior columns need be blown all at once on 8 floors. That would be much less loud, trust me.'
I seem to recall MM telling us that the explosives sounds would be greatly muffled by the windows of WTC 7. You know, the building with many of those broken windows on all sides.

So which is it? Chandler or TSz?

If it can be something less than every single column over 8 floors then what's the minimum number? Is there a study, a proposed plan of explosive layout in the WTC1 debris damaged WTC7 structure? Chandler says it was massive over kill (before you ask for a link FF read the link a few paragraphs above), Tony says it was much less than that. What's Gage's take on this? What is the AE911T official proposal on this? What was proposed to the AIA members about this? WTC 7 is supposed to be the 'smoking gun' but there's seems to be a bit of confusion about what is believed did happen.

wait, I know,,,, we need a new investigation to find out what really happened. AE911T has been looking at this for only 15 years, not nearly enough time to come up with anything on their own.

ETA: ,,,, and why take out all that support AFTER the entire building had been dropping for 1.75 seconds?

 

[jaydeehess]

Nice try.

Trickery is all you have, so I can't blame you for using it.

There's a new dance craze its the dodge dodge dodge, the troll dodge dodge. Its just a jump to the left and a skip to the right. Pick up a goal post and disappear into the night.

Trickery?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Really not that hard to see that TSz and Chandler disagree.

It's better than that. TSz even disagrees with TSz. He says that the reason that WTC1 and WTC2 accelerated at significantly less than 1G was that only the cores and the corners of the perimeters were demolished, and the perimeter provided significant resistance to the collapse (though this didn't produce any instantaneous decreases in deceleration because for some reason these go to zero when the static strength is less than the load). He also says that WTC7 accelerated at 1G even though only the core was demolished, even though in this case there should be more resistance to collapse from the absence of charges on the corners. As usual, whatever happened, it's always proof of CD for Tony.

Dave

 

[ProBonoShill]

There's a new dance craze its the dodge dodge dodge, the troll dodge dodge. Its just a jump to the left and a skip to the right. Pick up a goal post and disappear into the night.

Trickery?

They should create a new show, dancing with the truthers!

 

[jaydeehess]

Where did I say that?

Also, why does it matter who I agree with? What I think does not matter, remember?

If I listen to your lies,
Would you say I'm a man without conviction,
I'm a man who doesn't know
How to sell a contradiction?
You come and go, you come and go.

Karma, karma, karma, karma, karma, chameleon,
You come and go, you come and go.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I am looking for the part where Tony agrees completely with the statement.



Really not that hard to see that TSz and Chandler disagree.

Its quite funny really. Chandler comes out and states unequivocally that every single column, interior & exterior, had to be removed to effect a period of free fall. Debunkers were assailed time and again with the "if any vertical supports remained at all then it could not be free fall". Debunkers point out that such would be really really LOUD, so then along comes Jowenko and TSz to tell us that 'oh, no, no, no, only the interior columns need be blown all at once on 8 floors. That would be much less loud, trust me.'
I seem to recall MM telling us that the explosives sounds would be greatly muffled by the windows of WTC 7. You know, the building with many of those broken windows on all sides.

So which is it? Chandler or TSz?

If it can be something less than every single column over 8 floors then what's the minimum number? Is there a study, a proposed plan of explosive layout in the WTC1 debris damaged WTC7 structure? Chandler says it was massive over kill (before you ask for a link FF read the link a few paragraphs above), Tony says it was much less than that. What's Gage's take on this? What is the AE911T official proposal on this? What was proposed to the AIA members about this? WTC 7 is supposed to be the 'smoking gun' but there's seems to be a bit of confusion about what is believed did happen.

wait, I know,,,, we need a new investigation to find out what really happened. AE911T has been looking at this for only 15 years, not nearly enough time to come up with anything on their own.

ETA: ,,,, and why take out all that support AFTER the entire building had been dropping for 1.75 seconds?

David Chandler now knows and accepts that only the core columns needed to be removed in WTC 7 to cause its collapse and that it could cause a free fall acceleration shortly after starting to drop. I explained it to him in the last year.

A lot of people initially assumed it would require all columns to be removed to get free fall. It is a nuanced situation where 8 stories of the core are removed and 8 stories of the exterior are then unsupported and being pulled inward at the same time.

The roof dropped about a half meter (20 inches) across the full length and width and then went into free fall.

To get a 20 inch drop pulling in 8 stories the pull in would have been about 110 inches or a little over 9 feet.

The columns would have provided a little resistance at first but once the pull-in became significant the p-delta load would get very large and completely overcome any resistance of the now slender columns.

 

[DGM]

David Chandler now knows and accepts that only the core columns needed to be removed in WTC 7 to cause its collapse and that it could cause a free fall acceleration shortly after starting to drop. I explained it to him in the last year.

A lot of people initially assumed it would require all columns to be removed to get free fall. It is a nuanced situation where 8 stories of the core are removed and 8 stories of the exterior are then unsupported and being pulled inward at the same time.

The roof dropped about a half meter (20 inches) across the full length and width and then went into free fall.

To get a 20 inch drop pulling in 8 stories the pull in would have been about 110 inches or a little over 9 feet.

The columns would have provided a little resistance at first but once the pull-in became significant the p-delta load would get very large and completely overcome any resistance of the now slender columns.

How many core columns do you think were rigged and by how many charges? Certainly you have calculated this by now. Would this need to be all the core columns over 8 stories or is there a way to remove all support without this?

 

[jaydeehess]

David Chandler now knows and accepts that only the core columns needed to be removed in WTC 7 to cause its collapse and that it could cause a free fall acceleration shortly after starting to drop. I explained it to him in the last year.
s.

The artucle I quoted is from 2014 iirc. PfT never bothered to delete or correct its 11g 'paper'.
Are AE911T and Chandler doing similar?

 

[MicahJava]

David Chandler now knows and accepts that only the core columns needed to be removed in WTC 7 to cause its collapse and that it could cause a free fall acceleration shortly after starting to drop. I explained it to him in the last year.

A lot of people initially assumed it would require all columns to be removed to get free fall. It is a nuanced situation where 8 stories of the core are removed and 8 stories of the exterior are then unsupported and being pulled inward at the same time.

The roof dropped about a half meter (20 inches) across the full length and width and then went into free fall.

To get a 20 inch drop pulling in 8 stories the pull in would have been about 110 inches or a little over 9 feet.

The columns would have provided a little resistance at first but once the pull-in became significant the p-delta load would get very large and completely overcome any resistance of the now slender columns.

If just removing the girders would cause a column to buckle without lateral stability, could only the girders have been brought down to achieve the same effect?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

If just removing the girders would cause a column to buckle without lateral stability, could only the girders have been brought down to achieve the same effect?

Very unlikely in my opinion. I would think when you are doing something required to occur in about a second, with milliseconds between center core columns and outer core columns to create an overall inward pull to keep the debris falling inward as well as down, that one would not take a chance on that being a secondary effect.

It may be that the girder connections were removed and small kicker charges placed at column splices.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

The artucle I quoted is from 2014 iirc. PfT never bothered to delete or correct its 11g 'paper'.
Are AE911T and Chandler doing similar?

I explained it to several people.

However, I would imagine many people are still not fully appreciative of the fact that only the core columns over a significant number of stories (like eight) needed to be removed nearly simultaneously to implode the building, that it would cause a free fall with the entire building coming down at the same time, and that this scenario explains the behavior of the exterior seen in the measurement of the descent.

 

[FalseFlag]

Its quite funny really. Chandler comes out and states unequivocally that every single column, interior & exterior, had to be removed to effect a period of free fall.

Chandler does not say that. He says the support columns had to be removed. That implies, as your buddy skeptic Dave Rogers has said, that whatever columns remaining that still provided support had to be removed simultaneously.

ETA: I am not an expert. I just read Tony's post above, and I would refer you to his post over mine.

 

[beachnut]

... The roof dropped about a half meter (20 inches) across the full length and width and then went into free fall. ...

Show your work. How is the CD fantasy going? Got some evidence for the inside job?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Show your work. How is the CD fantasy going? Got some evidence for the inside job?

The math is not hard, it is essentially a trig problem. To shorten a 104 foot tall (1,248 inches) column by 20 inches by pulling on it in the middle just divide it in two and pull both 624 inch sections out in the center and consider them the hypotenuses of two right triangles. Do this until you get two 614 inch tall adjacent sides. That gives you a 20 inch reduction in height.

Now to find out how far you need to pull sideways take the arccosine of 614/624 and find the angle. It is 10.27 degrees. Taking the sine of that gives .178, and multiplying by the 624 inch hypotenuse to find the pull in, gives 111 inches, which is a little over 9 feet.

At least I can explain what the observations mean and determine that the buildings had to be taken down via controlled demolition. The fire induced failure theory is not explanatory and nobody advocating it (including NIST) can show their work. It is nothing but poppycock and rhetoric.

 

[beachnut]

The math is not hard, it is essentially a trig problem. To shorten a 104 foot tall (1,248 inches) column by 20 inches by pulling on it in the middle just divide it in two and pull both 624 inch sections out in the center and consider them the hypotenuse. Do this until you get a 614 inch tall adjacent. That gives you a 20 inch reduction in height.

Now to find out how far you need to pull sideways take the arccosine of 614/624 and find the angle. It is 10.27 degrees. Take the sine of that which gives .178 and multiply by the 624 inch hypotenuse to find the pull in which is 111 inches.

At least I can explain how the buildings were taken down. The fire induced failure theory is not explanatory and nobody advocating it can show their work. It is nothing but rhetoric.

Rational Engineers disagree with NIST, but don't disagree with fire effects causing the collapse. The fantasy of CD failed on 9/11. What is the next step to save us from the NWO inside job CD?

A lie, people have shown their work. Your CD fantasy is where your paranoia shows, you zero evidence fantasy inside job is based on? Simile? Got some thermite damage to steel? No. Got evidence for explosives? No. What you have is BS and failed papers. To get a paper published you have to take out the woo to get past the editors; or pay and hope for editors to fail to see the woo.

14 years of failure to launch the CD fantasy. You can't explain why your failed fantasy of CD explains more than some paranoid BS, as you accuse people of being paid to explain you are spreading a failed fantasy; aka the truth.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Rational Engineers disagree with NIST, but don't disagree with fire effects causing the collapse. The fantasy of CD failed on 9/11. What is the next step to save us from the NWO inside job CD?

A lie, people have shown their work. Your CD fantasy is where your paranoia shows, you zero evidence fantasy inside job is based on? Simile? Got some thermite damage to steel? No. Got evidence for explosives? No. What you have is BS and failed papers. To get a paper published you have to take out the woo to get past the editors; or pay and hope for editors to fail to see the woo.

14 years of failure to launch the CD fantasy. You can't explain why your failed fantasy of CD explains more than some paranoid BS, as you accuse people of being paid to explain you are spreading a failed fantasy; aka the truth.

You need to start giving the names of these so-called rational engineers you claim support the NIST fire effects caused the collapses theory and a discussion by them explaining why they do so that does more than say they are just going along to get along.

You should know that Zdenek Bazant's papers have been discredited as he wildly embellished kinetic energy and underestimated column resistance for the North Tower.

 

[jaydeehess]

Chandler does not say that. He says the support columns had to be removed. That implies, as your buddy skeptic Dave Rogers has said, that whatever columns remaining that still provided support had to be removed simultaneously.

ETA: I am not an expert. I just read Tony's post above, and I would refer you to his post over mine.

You go back and read what Chandler said.
I quoted it.
Supporting columns over "at least" 8 storeys all across the length and width of the building.

Whatever columns are left? LOL

So not only backpedaling on free fall means every single column being removed, now doing so on the number of core columns needing to be removed.
Yeah yeah we know, you're not an expert.

 

[jaydeehess]

I explained it to several people.

However, I would imagine many people are still not fully appreciative of the fact that only the core columns over a significant number of stories (like eight) needed to be removed nearly simultaneously to implode the building, that it would cause a free fall with the entire building coming down at the same time, and that this scenario explains the behavior of the exterior seen in the measurement of the descent.

Yet we still wonder at the relative silence of these explosives. How many per each of those 8 floors. All within "milliseconds" right?

You really think back pedaling away from exterior columns will make hush-a-booms a reality?

ETA: then there is the feature of the multi second visible effect on the rooftop structures. First the EPH, then western structures begin falling in, in sequence from east to the west.

Then the supposed explosives get used AFTER the building has been dropping for 1.75 seconds already.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

You go back and read what Chandler said.
I quoted it.
Supporting columns over "at least" 8 storeys all across the length and width of the building.

Whatever columns are left? LOL

So not only backpedaling on free fall means every single column being removed, now doing so on the number of core columns needing to be removed.
Yeah yeah we know, you're not an expert.

It really does not matter what David Chandler said earlier, before the motion at the beginning of the collapse of WTC 7 was better understood and explained.

The half second at a meter/sec^2 acceleration at the beginning of WTC 7's descent actually hadn't been scrutinized very well until Oystein was wondering about it out loud here last year. I was never very sure or comfortable with all 82 columns needing to be removed and the initial 20 inch drop at a meter/sec^2 acceleration for half a second needed to be explained. The near simultaneous center outward complete core only removal over about 8 stories explains it very well. There is some initial resistance from the exterior but it is quickly eliminated as the p-delta load becomes quite large very quickly due to the pull-in and it happens on all sides of the building simultaneously, as evidenced by all four corners of the exterior dropping at the same time.

The NIST north to south and then east to west progressive interior collapse theory does not work as it can't explain the east side exterior sitting there waiting for the west side interior to come down after its interior had already been alleged to have collapsed.