in-progress, appropriately named truther site

[tfk]

I was not the one who brought up the name of DRG, nor did I cite him for anything.

Tracing back thru 5 post, I see that it was Oystein who specifically brought up DRG.

But his was a fair point that you did bring him into the conversation, unintentionally, by asserting:

Truth people don't share any of the characteristics of charlatans. None of them sell the relevant information to the message they are spreading. Everything information-related they produce is available for free on the internet.

DRG is part of “truth people”, whether or not you cite or believe him.

And it is clear that you have a scorching case of Cognitive Dissonance, when you state:

Either way, I strongly disagree with DRG on most things, his WTC 7 book is his best but it was nothing that anybody couldn't figure out for themselves.

You “strongly disagree”, but “it’s nothing anybody couldn’t figure out for themselves”.???
Perhaps you should go figure out for yourself whether you agree with him or not. And then stick with that position.

Further, you say that “when you say ‘truth people’, you mean AE911T…", but as I pointed out, DRG’s incompetent delusions were the “factual” foundation upon which the Numero Uno Truth Person at AE911T (Gage) built his incompetent edifice.

You can NOT accept Gage while rejecting DRG, because Gage is built upon DRG.

Is your attention span so deteriorated that you can't even process the comment which you have quoted in your actual reply?

You started you post by providing links to 3 of DRG’s books.

http://www.krusch.com/books/911/Debunking_911_Debunking.pdf
http://www.krusch.com/books/911/New_Pearl_Harbor_Revisited.pdf
http://www.krusch.com/books/911/Mysterious_Collapse_World_Trade_Center_7.pdf

Yes, I confess that it is true. You got me.

I admit that “tracing back thru several posts, to find out whether this example of your idiocy is distinguishable in any way from all the other examples of your idiocy” does not, in fact, rise to the level of "something significant enough to warrant any amount of my attention".

Almost all the talking points Gage brings up in his presentations are and have always been considered evidence of arson.

And there you go again. Citing amateurs.

Gage has no more knowledge of either arson or “evidence requiring arson investigations” than he does of “structural engineering”.

There WAS an expert on the scene, who IS an expert on both arson & “evidence requiring arson investigation”.
His name is Daniel Nigro.

It turns out that you can’t be a complete, utter moron & rise to the level of Chief of the FDNY.
He had very reliable reports that two planes fly into two buildings. Two buildings had enormous fires in them, and then collapsed. Setting off fires in ALL of the surrounding buildings, cars, fire trucks, busses, etc.

One of the other tall building (WTC 7), which had its fire start when WTC 1 fell on it (as did all those other buildings, cars, busses, etc), had unfought, raging fires on multiple floors.

[Interesting aside: ONLY brain dead Truthers, excuse me, Twoofers, think that a modern office building, crammed full of paper, wood, paper, plastics, paper, and other combustibles (like paper), will burn in small, low temperature fire, when the fires are left unfought.]
​

So, Chief Nigro, NOT being an utter moron, figured that he had a pretty good handle on what caused the fire.

And, as a direct result of that - pay very close attention here, Micah - all of the requirements of NFPA 921 WERE followed to the letter.

The investigative suggestions of NFPA 921 are invoked when the cause of the fires is unknown.
The causes were NOT unknown.

NFPA 921 gives wide latitude & discretion to the chief fire investigator on the scene to use his judgment as to whether or not further suggested tests are required in order to figure out the cause of the fire.
Chief Nigro correctly assessed that those additional suggested tests were not required.
Chief Nigro followed the intent of NFPA 921 to the letter, when he determined that “tests for thermite & other exotic accelerants” were not warranted in this case.

Because there was absolutely zero question as to the cause of those fires.

Maybe when you grow up, you can become a big city fire investigator.
Maybe then, it might become YOUR call.
And maybe then, if you call for investigations of “thermite & other exotic accelerants” in the case of a plane flying into a building, you can experience the warm & fuzzy feeling of every thinking person around calling for you to be “fired for wasting taxpayers money”.

The NFPA 921 passages I have quoted a few times confirm that.

The problem is that “the NFPA 921 passages that [you] have quoted”, were quoted by a clueless amateur who hasn’t the slightest notion what he is talking about.

The nail in the coffin to your idiotic claims is the fact that multiple experts, who DO know what they are talking about, have stated, clearly & unequivocally, that your interpretation of NFPA 921 is uninformed & moronic.

Other than all of the above, I support you 100%.

You keep at it.
Keep pushing for a new investigation for “thermite & other accelerants” in the debris pile of Ground Zero.
Perhaps you could do the investigation yourself.
After all, you do have your copy of NFPA 921. That’s all you really need.
Who needs understanding & experience, when some kid can cluelessly extract a few quotes here & there…??

Be sure to keep me informed at all of your progress.
I’ll clear of all of my other tasks so that I can focus all of my attention on you.

That way, I’ll be sure to not have any more embarrassing “lapses in my attention span” when it comes to the slightest thing that you are doing …
Really.

 

[ProBonoShill]

For those who are interested, I read the first linked paper. The authors argue that WTC 7 did not have enough gravitational potential energy to crush all the concrete floors (they use what they argue is a conservative assumption about the distribution of chunk/particle size after crushing) and bend all the columns on every floor through 0.9pi radians of plastic hinge rotation.

Since we already know that nothing remotely like this happened to building 7, even if the calculations are right, they are of little significance to discussions of how building 7 collapsed.

Exactly. Crushing the concrete to their chosen range of particle sizes is an arbitrary requirement that they've imposed in order to demonstrate the lack of sufficient PE to do that much crushing. If the floor connections fail at each impact then the concrete could theoretically have ended up lying there relatively unscathed.

A house of cards springs to mind - it isn't necessary to shred the cards to get the structure to collapse.

In short, they're trying to give the impression of doing proper science.

Great observations, thanks for those.

 

[beachnut]

http://www.challengejournal.com/index.php/cjsmec/article/view/50 (read for free on page)

Why include a standard 9/11 truth tag-line;

Our conclusion suggests that Newton’s laws of motion and energy conservation considerations would have had to have been violated to explain that building’s total collapse within a debris pile several storeys high.

This means they failed to figure out why 7 WTC collapsed, or ignored it failed internally first. But they did mention it failed interally, then failed to think past their goal... Which appears to be using more 9/11 truth tag-lines.

– a debris pile a few storeys high, largely within its footprint.

So? What it this footprint stuff, the building was all over the place. As for largely within its footprint; which way does gravity work? Either they have no clue 9/11 truth uses the "footprint" woo, and the "broke the laws of physics woo, or they are leaning towards 9/11 truth, repeating meaningless tag-lines of CD.

What does it mean, "laws... had to have been violated"... Why is crap like this in the abstract? Is this a veiled attempt to back in CD?

Why do they mention Bazant for 7 WTC?

Who pays the fees for the "challenge journal of structural mechanics", where the challenged are the failed reviewers who let BS in. The paper does not do more than review other work, and claim the building can't fall - as they left out how it did fall. Did they mention the penthouse falling into 7 WTC?
Is this a vanity journal? No evidence for CD, or an inside job... Batting zero so far... Strike one

http://www.challengejournal.com/index.php/cjsmec/article/view/36 (read for free on page)

Wow, they disagree with NIST on what started the collapse; not news, so do other engineers. Again no evidence for CD, or an inside job, only evidence they disagree with NIST.
No evidence for CD or inside job from this paper which is not a 9/11 truth paper... Strike two...

http://prs.sagepub.com/content/4/2/117.abstract (read for free here)

Wow, a sort of real journal, and the 9/11 truth CD BS had to be kept out or the paper by these fantasy CD 9/11 truth guys would be rejected hopefully as woo... Thus we see 9/11 truth CD believers can make a paper pass the review and be published by keeping out the woo. However, it is poor form to do a paper which makes up BS about other papers, and expose a failed knowledge of the limitation of the other papers.

And the conclusion for this paper is?

A number of simple, transparent calculations of the North Tower collapse were presented in [5] and the conclusion was that assuming even a modest resistance of columns during their destruction would cause an unacceptably long collapse time. It is only when perfectly frangible columns were adopted that the fall time was as low as 15.3 s. This removes the PCF mode, as defined here, as a viable hypothesis of collapse.
Yet, the PCF achieved significant popularity, as based on [1] and [2], while the next work [12] did not contribute anything new to the core of the subject. These papers, purporting to explain the collapse, suffered from three fatal errors, as detailed above. Also, the whole methodology was not justified. Some incredibly short fall times were quoted by the authors, while all solutions were of a black-box type. The presentations in these papers are not a valid description of what happened. The reasons for a smooth motion history and promptness of collapse of the North Tower remain yet to be determined.

Gee, the core of the WTC was still standing for over 20 seconds... And the paper makes no conclusion except, "remain yet to be determined". The paper was a weak attack on Bazant, and others, and failed to explain the limitations of the other papers. The paper also ignores why the WTC collapse continued after the top failed.
The paper does not support CD, and fails to meet the stated goals.
The paper is worthless for your inside job, or your CD fantasy; I forgot what your fantasy of 9/11 is - as you present a paper which is good for nothing.

No evidence in this no real conclusion paper for CD, or an inside job.
Strike three.

Three papers which offer no evidence for CD, no evidence for an inside job.

What was the point? One paper with a hint of woo, the broke the laws of physics BS, one paper which disagrees with NIST on what started 7 WTC collapse, and one paper with a conclusion they don't know beans about anything.

 

[MicahJava]

Which papers? You lost them again? 9/11 truth's CD claims, or is it the inside job for you? Which fantasy do you have, and why have you failed to get a Pulitzer for all your evidence to support your claim? You don't have evidence.
You lost it with the three paper you can't remember.

Which papers, which journals? Did they pay to publish?

A flick of the scroll bar and a morsel of memory will do ya.

 

[MicahJava]

Exactly. Crushing the concrete to their chosen range of particle sizes is an arbitrary requirement that they've imposed in order to demonstrate the lack of sufficient PE to do that much crushing. If the floor connections fail at each impact then the concrete could theoretically have ended up lying there relatively unscathed.

A house of cards springs to mind - it isn't necessary to shred the cards to get the structure to collapse.

In short, they're trying to give the impression of doing proper science.

But GlennB, isn't some extent of pulverization of all the concrete floor slabs necessary in any WTC 7 collapse model? Isn't that why the rubble pile was so small and there are no large pieces of concrete in photographs?

 

[beachnut]

But GlennB, isn't some extent of pulverization of all the concrete floor slabs necessary in any WTC 7 collapse model? Isn't that why the rubble pile was so small and there are no large pieces of concrete in photographs?

The debris pile is small because you can't rent solid space. The building is 90 to 95 percent air, you rent space. Love the easy ones, did you know the building was not solid?

What is your evidence for your inside job fantasy? oops, fantasy needs no evidence

 

[FalseFlag]

The building is 90 to 95 percent air

Then why did it collapse so easily? How can air and gravity pulverize a building or cause one to collapse at freefall for 2.25 seconds?

 

[beachnut]

Then why did it collapse so easily?

Why can't you provide answers? Is it due to your lack of knowledge?

I have never said I am an expert. ...

How is fire for burning for hours so easily?

... what I think does not matter.

What? You have no clue how long it too 7 WTC to start to fail internally? A process which took over 16 seconds. Do you understand engineering, fire, steel?

I have never said I am an expert. ...

Thus your questions are based on overwhelming ignorance? What do you think caused the collapse of 7 WTC?

... what I think does not matter.

Your past posts, and failure at physics... irony... ff (think programming, a long, long time ago.... okay a while back...)

 

[ProBonoShill]

Then why did it collapse so easily? How can air and gravity pulverize a building or cause one to collapse at freefall for 2.25 seconds?

Maybe because nothing "pulverized" the building, fire, failure and gravity did?

What exactly pulverized the building??? Include some math if you think that would be helpful.

Please explain.

Obligatory popcorn

 

[GlennB]

But GlennB, isn't some extent of pulverization of all the concrete floor slabs necessary in any WTC 7 collapse model? Isn't that why the rubble pile was so small and there are no large pieces of concrete in photographs?

Some degree of comminution is inevitable, but it certainly isn't necessary for collapse to progress to the ground. Why would it be? The floors didn't hold the building up, it was primarily the column/girder connections that did that.

More to the point - the pile had external wall sections over the top, not concrete floors. Where are the photos showing typical WTC7 concrete remains that allow the writers to come to conclusions about the degree of comminution? I'm not aware of any rubble analysis of WTC7 that would help either.

No, they presented numbers based on no actual evidence and surrounded them with complex formulae in order to impress people. The ultimate absurdity is that if there wasn't sufficient PE in the building to account for their comminution figures then how did it happen? Explosives that nobody heard.

 

[MicahJava]

Some degree of comminution is inevitable, but it certainly isn't necessary for collapse to progress to the ground. Why would it be? The floors didn't hold the building up, it was primarily the column/girder connections that did that.

More to the point - the pile had external wall sections over the top, not concrete floors. Where are the photos showing typical WTC7 concrete remains that allow the writers to come to conclusions about the degree of comminution? I'm not aware of any rubble analysis of WTC7 that would help either.

No, they presented numbers based on no actual evidence and surrounded them with complex formulae in order to impress people. The ultimate absurdity is that if there wasn't sufficient PE in the building to account for their comminution figures then how did it happen? Explosives that nobody heard.

There are no photographs of large pieces of concrete slabs from WTC 7, even though it's alleged internal failure was completely different and less energetic than the Twin Towers collapse. Here's Leslie Robertson describing the WTC 7 rubble as "a big sand pile", "sand and gravel".

Pulverization is a characteristic of a completely unrestrained collapse. The pulverization does not have to be the result of hypothetical explosive devices to be considered a sign of intentional destruction. Does the pulverization of commercial CDs even happen as a result of the high explosives, or is it more as a result of the structure gaining momentum and crushing itself?

 

[GlennB]

There are no photographs of large pieces of concrete slabs from WTC 7, even though it's alleged internal failure was completely different and less energetic than the Twin Towers collapse. Here's Leslie Robertson describing the WTC 7 rubble as "a big sand pile", "sand and gravel".

Pulverization is a characteristic of a completely unrestrained collapse. The pulverization does not have to be the result of hypothetical explosive devices to be considered a sign of intentional destruction. Does the pulverization of commercial CDs even happen as a result of the high explosives, or is it more as a result of the structure gaining momentum and crushing itself?

You prefer to go with the ~800 shaped charges in one second theory then? How bizarre.

 

[pgimeno]

There are no photographs of large pieces of concrete slabs from WTC 7

... therefore they didn't exist?

Pulverization is a characteristic of a completely unrestrained collapse.

Pulverization is a characteristic of the fracturing of concrete. It doesn't matter whether the collapse is restrained or unrestrained.

 

[JSanderO]

There are no photographs of large pieces of concrete slabs from WTC 7, even though it's alleged internal failure was completely different and less energetic than the Twin Towers collapse. Here's Leslie Robertson describing the WTC 7 rubble as "a big sand pile", "sand and gravel".

Pulverization is a characteristic of a completely unrestrained collapse. The pulverization does not have to be the result of hypothetical explosive devices to be considered a sign of intentional destruction. Does the pulverization of commercial CDs even happen as a result of the high explosives, or is it more as a result of the structure gaining momentum and crushing itself?

Here are concrete beams and encased columns surviving the 7wtc collapse.

 

[MicahJava]

Here are concrete beams and encased columns surviving the 7wtc collapse.

Thanks for the photo, but that isn't really what I mean. A layman's understanding of the official story of WTC 7 is that floors within the building were partially collapsing onto another until the interior became more or less empty, leaving the perimeter as a hollow shell. I would expect to see recognizable floors with this and that strewn about. The apparent pulverization of this rubble pile looks more like the entire building fell as a unit, crushing itself with momentum from the freefall.

 

[JSanderO]

Thanks for the photo, but that isn't really what I mean. A layman's understanding of the official story of WTC 7 is that floors within the building were partially collapsing onto another until the interior became more or less empty, leaving the perimeter as a hollow shell. I would expect to see recognizable floors with this and that strewn about. The apparent pulverization of this rubble pile looks more like the entire building fell as a unit, crushing itself with momentum from the freefall.

The concrete used is thin, light weight no stone aggregate which broke up rather quickly with consideration to tens of thousands of mechanical impacts. These impacts rendered virtually all of the concrete to sand and portland cement/limestone dust.

Have you pics of any very tall buildings which were CDed with light weight concrete slabs and there were a stack of slabs at the end?

I think this is what happens when very tall buildings collapse.... the slabs are turned to pretty much sand and dust and twisted re bar and mesh.

 

[tfk]

Then why did it collapse so easily? How can air and gravity pulverize a building or cause one to collapse at freefall for 2.25 seconds?

And it is brain-dead questions exactly like this that prove how insincere you are. And how this is all just a pathetic game to you.

"... air & gravity ..."???

Nothing else happened to WTC7 that day, except "air & gravity"??
Really?

Is that the conclusion of the NIST engineers?
"Air & gravity"?

 

[MicahJava]

The concrete used is thin, light weight no stone aggregate which broke up rather quickly with consideration to tens of thousands of mechanical impacts. These impacts rendered virtually all of the concrete to sand and portland cement/limestone dust.

The official story of WTC 7 have smaller internal collapses which are much less energetic than the Twin Tower, until the perimeter fall as more or less a hollow shell. With that considered, why shouldn't I expect something akin to the rubble piles of buildings that collapsed in earthquakes, with recognizable floors and their sandwiched contents?

Have you pics of any very tall buildings which were CDed with light weight concrete slabs and there were a stack of slabs at the end?

I think this is what happens when very tall buildings collapse.... the slabs are turned to pretty much sand and dust and twisted re bar and mesh.

What do you think is the most likely way WTC 7 failed? Similar to how CD advocates say it was done, but done naturally?

 

[JSanderO]

The official story of WTC 7 have smaller internal collapses which are much less energetic than the Twin Tower, until the perimeter fall as more or less a hollow shell. With that considered, why shouldn't I expect something akin to the rubble piles of buildings that collapsed in earthquakes, with recognizable floors and their sandwiched contents?



What do you think is the most likely way WTC 7 failed? Similar to how CD advocates say it was done, but done naturally?

I think that very tall building with open office plans... column free using light weight concrete slabs will all collapse with little to no big chunks of floor slabs in the debris. I think the forces involved would crush the slabs pretty completely and the number of collisions.

The way I see the explanation for 7wtc is that there was a failure below floor 8 which easily and rapidly propagated from the east side across the north side of the core... to the west side. It was a wide building but the spans were pretty long. And there were a lot of load transfer structures... meaning that the forces in columns above had no direct coupling to the foundation. I suspect this accounts for the rapid "gutting" of the interior... followed by the collapse of the perimeter moment frame.

I can't detail how these failure were initiated or precisely where. But I think hours of heat could warp, expand steel and shear / fail connections and the member don't work when their connections fail.

 

[FalseFlag]

And it is brain-dead questions exactly like this that prove how insincere you are. And how this is all just a pathetic game to you.

"... air & gravity ..."???

Nothing else happened to WTC7 that day, except "air & gravity"??
Really?

Is that the conclusion of the NIST engineers?
"Air & gravity"?

You're right. Air and gravity didn't cause the collapse. Explosives did.

Stop taking my posts out of context. It's obvious you're pi**ed off that a non-expert is kicking your a** by pointing out the fraud you keep committing.

If you want me to stop then stop posting your nonsense.