I found the missing Jolt.

tfk said:
“… a falling beam & girder assembly from one floor above.”

Well, I’m pretty DAMN certain that you’re wrong about this. Because you’re ignoring the fact that the girder that it is falling onto has no bolts retaining it, and the dynamics of the impact are virtually certain to knock it off its tenuous perch on its seat.

But, regardless of what I think, NIST never says that the collapse resulted from “[one] falling beam & girder assembly.”

Here’s what it does say, Tony.


pg. 572

Can you read, Tony.

Portions of TWO fire-weakened floors (13 & 14) collapsed onto one lower, fire-weakened floor (12) below.

From Fig 11-36, it shows 17 beams & 2 girders have lost their vertical support on floor 14, and fallen two stories onto Floor 12.

From Fig 11-35, it shows 24 beams & 2 girders have lost their vertical support, on floor 13, and fallen one story onto Floor 12.

And all of the above is falling onto Floor 12, which Fig 11-34 shows has 22 beams & 2 girders that have lost their vertical support. And have substantial damage to all the connections that remain in this quadrant of the building.

The collapse would have happened in one of 2 ways, depending on whether Floor 13 or Floor 14 collapsed first.

Let's assume Floor 13 collapses first.

Then a large portion of floor 13 falls one story onto a fire damaged Floor 12. Let's assume the (highly unlikely) circumstance that Floor 12, in its significantly weakened state, can support twice its static live load, plus one floor's dead load, plus the dynamic overload of the impact. THEN it must withstand 1 extra floor (13) live load plus one extra floor (13) dead load, PLUS one more floor's (14) live load, One extra floor's dead load (14), and the dynamic impact of the last two component's falling thru 2 stories. All onto massively weakened beams & girders.

Your representation of it being just A2001 (one girder & 6 attached beams) falling onto a relatively pristine floor 12 represents about 1/8th the mass and about 1/10th the energy imparted on the 12th floor by the partial collapses of the two floors above.

Your representation is a bad joke.
__

Finally, it’s ALWAYS hilarious when some Truther invokes a real engineer’s data & contradicts his conclusions.

You use Nordenson’s analysis, ostensibly to bolster your “the collapse couldn’t progress a multifloor collapse”.



Let’s see what Nortenson has to say about that, shall we?


page B1

Note that, unlike NIST, Nordenson is invoking only the A2001 girder & its attached beams.
And only a drop of 1 floor.

But his analysis is not as incompetent as yours, Tony.

In fact, the main difference is that you simply assert your nonsense.
Nordenson actually did an FEA.

You?
... not so much …
Click to expand...

Once again, the bombastic one (tfk) asks us to experience the pain of his nonsensical drivel. No thanks.

I would really like the chance to face you in a one on one public debate. I don't think you will do it, as you probably realize your bombast won't fly there.
 
MicahJava said:
Of course, totally unrelated to the original subject of the thread. It's almost as if some of the people here are out of their old tricks and decide to spend time every day talking about "silent explosives".

Even if there were clear examples of all the things you ask for, you would still ignore it. Murrah building, anyone? :runaway
Click to expand...

There is a definite pattern and apparently you have noticed it.

When those who don't want to acknowledge the collapses were due to controlled demolition lose the argument all they can do is try to ask others to speculate on something they can't know with certainty.

One does not need to know the precise demolition devices used to know the collapse was due to artificial removal of structural integrity. The dynamics of the collapse is proof of that and can be known with certainty.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
It isn't hard to see the pattern and apparently you have.

When those who don't want to acknowledge the collapses were due to controlled demolition lose the argument all they can do is try to ask others to speculate on something they can't know with certainty.
Click to expand...

As opposed to the pattern of posting a theory that doesn't hold up, to support a larger theory that there is no actual evidence. Then whining about the results.
 
Axxman300 said:
As opposed to the pattern of posting a theory that doesn't hold up, to support a larger theory that there is no actual evidence. Then whining about the results.
Click to expand...

Didn't you admit you don't have much of a background in math and science a few posts ago?
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Didn't you admit you don't have much of a background in math and science a few posts ago?
Click to expand...

So?

I'm not the guy touting his bonafides while trying to float what is clearly a failed argument for something that didn't happen. I'm not arguing the engineering aspects, just the physical aspects which in this case is the LACK of explosives used in any of the buildings at the WTC.
 
This thread is full of professionals discussing and debating the topic like grown-ups:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=305974

The debate centers around a few aspects that are way out of my depth (which is why I'm happy to sit back and read and learn). At no point do explosives come into play, and these gentlemen would spot such things easily with their work.
 
MicahJava said:
... Even if there were clear examples of all the things you ask for, you would still ignore it. Murrah building, anyone? :runaway
Click to expand...
What is real sad for the fantasy of CD and the inside job lies; having similar failed claims with zero evidence for OKC and 9/11. You believe lies about OKC, and 9/11 - is evidence for being gullible.

Tony Szamboti said:
The aircraft impacts were used as causal ruses to blame outsiders. ...
Click to expand...

How does this fit with your CD fantasy? Were aircraft a ruse for you too, in your fantasy?
 
After reading tfk's response I don't think I need to add anything.

Sad to see your reaction to it, Tony. It pretty conclusively shows that your claim that a floor couldn't collapse another floor was not realistic, and rather than addressing the good arguments it contains, you dismiss it. Not good for your credibility.

It looks more and more like you're dismissing his posts because you can't refute them.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Thanks for that. They were the photos I had in mind.
Click to expand...

They show no shrapnel, no abrasions, no Monroe's effect from cutter charges, have you actually used explosives, even low explosive black powder leaves more surfac damage than
Seen in those. Photos.

You probably never have seen sand or gravel stripes.

I have seen sand embedded in steel from TNT and explosive grade Ammonium nitrate, helped scrap a dresser Bull dozer accidently blown up at a sand Quarry.

Where is the evidence Tony?
 
Actually, the silver lining in the attempts by some to change the subject to something that can't be known with certainty, over that which can, is a cue that the argument is over and those changing the subject are more or less conceding the original argument.

That is how I will start looking at it.

As far as I am concerned this thread is closed. The argument is over and those supporting the controlled demolition argument have proved their case.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Your understanding of why WTC 2 fell first is flawed. The tower columns were heavier the further down you were and the factor of safety would have been the same. If there was twice the load the column would have had twice the cross sectional area.
Click to expand...

This may be a first. I agree with something you say.

2 fell first cuz the plane did more damage AND because it was hit off center, making it harder to distribute loads to the rest of the building - the loss were distributed locally.

1 was hit close to center and was better able to distribute loads to more columns after the plane hit.
 
pgimeno said:
After reading tfk's response I don't think I need to add anything.

Sad to see your reaction to it, Tony. It pretty conclusively shows that your claim that a floor couldn't collapse another floor was not realistic, and rather than addressing the good arguments it contains, you dismiss it. Not good for your credibility.

It looks more and more like you're dismissing his posts because you can't refute them.
Click to expand...

Can I see some math from you or are you going to be bombastic like tfk?

tfk shows no calculation and his comments are nothing but denigration garbage. There is no substance to what he is saying.

I would like to debate tfk one on one with no interference from other posters and in a different venue than this forum.
 
Last edited:
beachnut said:
What is real sad for the fantasy of CD and the inside job lies; having similar failed claims with zero evidence for OKC and 9/11. You believe lies about OKC, and 9/11 - is evidence for being gullible.


How does this fit with your CD fantasy? Were aircraft a ruse for you too, in your fantasy?
Click to expand...

Beachnut, a while ago I gave you plenty of evidence that the FBI covered up the existence of surveillance tapes showing more that one person with McVeigh. Jesse Trantadue, a man who has a decade+ long dedication to uncovering the lies surrounding the death of his brother, was given some other surveillance tapes in 2009, and he has stated that four of the tapes go blank at the same time. These still aren't the infamous tapes as clear as what the KFOR4 reenactment details.

You brushed it off. I forgot to give you another one:

http://www.tulsaworld.com/archives/...cle_3b5a0912-6104-5197-9680-50a81a0a0007.html

"Among the defense exhibits, according to the brief filed Monday, are timeline entries made by the Secret Service in the days after the bombing.

An alleged April 25 Secret Service entry focuses on possible detonation devices that could have set off the truck bomb, the motion says.

'Security videotapes from the area show the truck detonation three minutes and six seconds after the suspects exited the truck,' defense attorney Brian Hermanson wrote, quoting from the alleged timeline."

edit: Secret service timeline here from Trentadue: https://www.corbettreport.com/cache/timeline.pdf
 
Last edited:
JSanderO said:
She is not a 9/11 Truth/ conspiracy supporter or advocate.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter. The point was that Rudy Giuliani's office was asked forcefully by victim's family members and others to stop recycling the steel so it could be used for investigatory purposes and they just continued to do so.

There could only be one reason for that and it is that there was a conspiracy to get rid of it and Rudy had to be okay with it. I am sure if you asked Sally if she thought there was a conspiracy to get rid of the steel she would say yes. She was down at Rudy's office asking about it and they brushed her off just saying they thought it was prudent.
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
Beachnut, a while ago I gave you plenty of evidence that the FBI covered up the existence of surveillance tapes showing more that one person with McVeigh. Jesse Trantadue, a man who has a decade+ long dedication to uncovering the lies surrounding the death of his brother, was given some other surveillance tapes in 2009, and he has stated that four of the tapes go blank at the same time. These still aren't the infamous tapes as clear as what the KFOR4 reenactment details.

You brushed it off. I forgot to give you another one:

http://www.tulsaworld.com/archives/...cle_3b5a0912-6104-5197-9680-50a81a0a0007.html

"Among the defense exhibits, according to the brief filed Monday, are timeline entries made by the Secret Service in the days after the bombing.

An alleged April 25 Secret Service entry focuses on possible detonation devices that could have set off the truck bomb, the motion says.

'Security videotapes from the area show the truck detonation three minutes and six seconds after the suspects exited the truck,' defense attorney Brian Hermanson wrote, quoting from the alleged timeline."
Click to expand...
MicahJava, you need to produce evidence for your inside job on 9/11, not spread lies about OKC, and expose a general gullibity for all CTs based on zero evidence. You have zero evidence for an inside job for 9/11, the same as the BS you fall for on OKC.

It is not about OKC, but you insist on failing for both at the same time. Can you help with the realCDdeal Tony's work? Like FalseFlag, Tony first showed up as the realcddeal, and has failed to produce evidence for CD.

Where is your evidence for you 9/11 claims? You have nothing.
Go start a OKC thread, spread some lies and BS - that is all you have for 9/11.


MicahJava, is this part of your fantasy?
Tony Szamboti said:
The aircraft impacts were used as causal ruses to blame outsiders. ...
Click to expand...
Got some evidence to help Tony with his fantasy version of 9/11?
 
beachnut said:
MicahJava, you need to produce evidence for your inside job on 9/11, not spread lies about OKC, and expose a general gullibity for all CTs based on zero evidence. You have zero evidence for an inside job for 9/11, the same as the BS you fall for on OKC.

It is not about OKC, but you insist on failing for both at the same time. Can you help with the realCDdeal Tony's work? Like FalseFlag, Tony first showed up as the realcddeal, and has failed to produce evidence for CD.

Where is your evidence for you 9/11 claims? You have nothing.
Go start a OKC thread, spread some lies and BS - that is all you have for 9/11.


MicahJava, is this part of your fantasy?
Got some evidence to help Tony with his fantasy version of 9/11?
Click to expand...

Beachnut, what is your opinion on the death of Officer Terrance Yeakey? Do you think his family members are liars?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom