I found the missing Jolt.

[beachnut]

Beachnut, what is your opinion on the death of Officer Terrance Yeakey? Do you think his family members are liars?

Instead of evidence for 9/11 as an inside job, you bring up a suicide with nothing to do with 9/11, or OKC delusions you have.
Like 9/11 being an inside job, you believe lies about OKC based on BS you google, lies you google; you are gullible. You need to present evidence for 9/11, and here you are pushing delusional claims from idiots on OKC.

Is this part of your cover for CD too, or just the inside job fantasy you have?

The aircraft impacts were used as causal ruses to blame outsiders. ...

Was it a ruse; is Tony right, or paranoid.

 

[FalseFlag]

You and other Troofers throw around the phrase "office fire" as if it is like a camp fire, or a fireplace fire.

Let's all gather around for S'more skeptic fraud.

First, it wasn't "an office fire" but hundreds of office fires which spread throughout the entire building,

Please provide a link to a credible source that supports your claim

and burned out of control, unfought for almost eight hours.

Why? Oh, that's right, the sprinklers didn't work. Too bad there wasn't a river nearby. /sarcasm

The acreage alone would technically classify it as a wildfire

Please post a link to a credible source that supports your claim.

Plus, you've ignored the damage caused by WTC1,

So did NIST.

I also like how a skeptic can compare an overpass to a high-rise, but other skeptics will raise hell if anyone compares any other high rise to the WTC buildings.

 

[FalseFlag]

Out of all the buildings in Manhattan they were viewed at the easiest to bring down.

Please post a link to a credible source that supports your claim.

 

[FalseFlag]

*temporarily deleted*

 

[FalseFlag]

found the computer model to sufficiently match the physical evidence generated by the steel testing.
THUS: the computer program is validated for its predictions in those areas.
THUS: the computer program can be expected to be valid for other, higher temp areas.

Please post a link to where NIST released the data for their computer model. Also, please post a link to a credible source that supports your claims.

 

[FalseFlag]

Come on Tony.... do you really think that unfought fires for 7 hrs would do nothing to a steel frame?

I am not an expert, but I am 100 percent certain this question needs to be rephrased.

What needs to be asked is how can we know what damage was done to each steel member when we don't know the duration and temperature of every fire that burned. The claim that "fires burned in WTC7 for 7 hours" might be correct, but I have never seen any documentation that one fire of any specific temperature burned under, over, on, or around any specific steel member for any specific length of time. If this document exists, I would really like to read it.

I do know that steel loses strength when it is heated, but it also dissipates heat very well. Once the heat is removed, the steel cools. Right? I'm pretty sure this is correct.

Please provide a link to a credible source that shows how long each steel member was heated and what temperature it was heated to. Thanks.

Of course, I am not an expert, but it seems like this information might be important when discussing the strength of specific girders and columns.

 

[FalseFlag]

Because it's produced by a piece of debris falling between two perimeter columns and removing the wall between them. The mechanics are pretty obvious if you can be bothered to think about it.

Dave

OK. Please explain the mechanics. I am serious. I would like to know what this is and how you explain it. I'm listening (for real).

Nevermind. I see you already explained.

 

[FalseFlag]

There's a well-known picture of the collapse of WTC1 that shows a trail of dust from a big piece of debris that fell outwards and hit WTC7 at the top of the south façade.

Can you post this picture?

If that piece of debris struck somewhere between two columns, it could have taken out the cross-member between them, and with enough weight and speed it could then have fallen on to the next cross-member down, and the next, and so on down the façade. The result would be a vertical gash with well-defined edges and the floors visible behind, which is exactly what we see in the pictures of WTC7. The effect of this on the stability of the building would be quite drastic. The tube-in-tube design of WTC1, 2 and 7 relied on the stiffness of the perimeter column assembly to resist sideways forces on the building. The damage to WTC7 appears to have cut the south façade in half, meaning that about half the resistance to bending and twisting of the structure in that direction was gone. It clearly didn't contribute to the actual collapse we saw - the details of the penthouse collapses make it clear that the core collapse came first - but it must have weakened the building, and opened up large areas to admit enough air to allow the fires to burn hotter and faster.

Dave

I would like to see the picture.

I am not an expert. I am not an expert. I am not an expert.

My non-expert opinion on this is that part of the CD went off early. Why? As you claim, "The damage to WTC7 appears to have cut the south façade in half, meaning that about half the resistance to bending and twisting of the structure in that direction was gone" and " but it must have weakened the building, and opened up large areas to admit enough air to allow the fires to burn hotter and faster." Also, if any part of the CD would cause visible external damage without collapse, it would have to go off at a time when it would not be noticed.

My non-expert opinion, based on the fact that the gash is symmetrical and goes from top to bottom, is that this is part of the CD. It was timed to coincide (as closely as possible) with the collapse of WTC1.

Again, I am not an expert, and that is my non-expert opinion, but I doubt a falling piece of debris would create such symmetrical and complete damage in such a critical area.

ETA: I was at Ground Zero a few times shortly after 9/11, and I saw the damage the collapsing towers did to surrounding buildings. None of it was symmetrical.

Also ETA: I am not an expert, and I am only expressing my opinion.

Once again, ETA: This explains why NIST didn't want to use any external damage as a reason for the collapse. It would bring attention to it and open up a can of worms, so to speak.

ETA part 4: "The damage to WTC7 appears to have cut the south façade in half, meaning that about half the resistance to bending and twisting of the structure in that direction was gone." How very smart of them. This would cause the building to twist and bend in that direction, away from undamaged buildings (if it was required for the building to collapse into its own footprint, or if the CD did not go as planned).

Has anyone brought this up before, or is this another "fake Mary" and "VCR artifact" that everyone overlooked (or they didn't think anyone would see it)?

I guess it might be a good thing that I'm not an expert, and I have no credibility. My life might depend on it.

 

[FalseFlag]

I assure you, I am NOT that incompetent.

You know, I need to get this out of the way.

I have to agree with you. I believe you are competent.

The issue is that you are using your competency to commit fraud.

 

[beachnut]

... 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.

Have proved there is no evidence for CD. And then the claims get dumber...

The aircraft impacts were used as causal ruses to blame outsiders. ...

Closed, gee, this single silly claim takes a lot of hand waving and when you come down from LEO, try to join reality.

Better claim the tread is closed, as you declare victory and run away, unable t prove aircraft were a ruse, and proving without a doubt, you have no evidence for the realcddeal.

 

[GlennB]

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.

One thing we DO know is the minimum requirement in your scenario - one explosive charge per column per floor. And detonated over the course of about 1 second, if I recall your claim correctly.

Is that a fair summary? If so, that's a minimum of 192 explosions in 1 second, each of which sufficiently powerful to break a column splice in the affected area.

If that's your claim then there's probably someone here who could work out a plausible-yet-conservative size for a typical charge of this nature. R Mackey (I think) did it years ago for WTC1, but its columns were much less substantial at the point of collapse than WTC7's.

 

[ozeco41]

One thing we DO know is the minimum requirement in your scenario - one explosive charge per column per floor. And detonated over the course of about 1 second, if I recall your claim correctly.

Probably a minimum of two per column - "cutter" AND "kicker" - you have to both cut the columns AND get the ends misaligned otherwise it will "hang up".

And if it was a military scenario I would advocate two cutters and one kicker. In a military scenario you are probably getting the hell out of there because the other side is too tough - so you make sure - go for overkill - and get the **** out of there.

...and isn't "make sure by overkill" appropriate for 9/11 WTC? I mean anyone - terrorist or inside jobber - who made the dubious strategic choice to use CD would want to be sure that it worked.

AND left ZERO evidence behind.

AND ... well no point pursuing common sense and rational reasoning - we are discussing with an obsessed truther.

Is that a fair summary? If so, that's a minimum of 192 explosions in 1 second, each of which sufficiently powerful to break a column splice in the affected area.

AND dislodge one side to ensure misalignment.

If that's your claim then there's probably someone here who could work out a plausible-yet-conservative size for a typical charge of this nature.

Me thirty years back but not now - I'm way out of practice and don't have the books of tables which make it easy for simple soldiers.

R Mackey (I think) did it years ago for WTC1, but its columns were much less substantial at the point of collapse than WTC7's.

Yes - and bigger charges mean bigger bangs - unless you are a truther with access to bangless cutting charges.

The rest of us have this funny idea that the action of explosives which cuts steel also makes a hell of a lot of noise. And once you have heard it you wont mistake it. (I've long recommended that some of us take a bunch of truthers to an army demolition range and let them hear cutting charges - and of the scale needed for WTC column cutting. Could even be a viable strategy for US authorities to stop much of the call for "New Investigation' ) (Yeah - I know - they are not influenced by reality.)

But all of that is rational people thinking.....


And "truther thinking" is an oxymoron.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

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.

What could you have learned from it, seeing that the photos you, yourself mentioned show no
Explosives were used?

Also would you and your, fellow members at AE/911 truth, have been willing to pay for further storage, along with the trucking fees, that were paid from recycling the steel?

Would you have been willing to fork over the money to store non evidence, of crime?

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Probably a minimum of two per column - "cutter" AND "kicker" - you have to both cut the columns AND get the ends misaligned otherwise it will "hang up".

And if it was a military scenario I would advocate two cutters and one kicker. In a military scenario you are probably getting the hell out of there because the other side is too tough - so you make sure - go for overkill - and get the **** out of there.

...and isn't "make sure by overkill" appropriate for 9/11 WTC? I mean anyone - terrorist or inside jobber - who made the dubious strategic choice to use CD would want to be sure that it worked.

AND left ZERO evidence behind.

AND ... well no point pursuing common sense and rational reasoning - we are discussing with an obsessed truther.
AND dislodge one side to ensure misalignment.

Me thirty years back but not now - I'm way out of practice and don't have the books of tables which make it easy for simple soldiers.

Yes - and bigger charges mean bigger bangs - unless you are a truther with access to bangless cutting charges.

The rest of us have this funny idea that the action of explosives which cuts steel also makes a hell of a lot of noise. And once you have heard it you wont mistake it. (I've long recommended that some of us take a bunch of truthers to an army demolition range and let them hear cutting charges - and of the scale needed for WTC column cutting. Could even be a viable strategy for US authorities to stop much of the call for "New Investigation' ) (Yeah - I know - they are not influenced by reality.)

But all of that is rational people thinking.....


And "truther thinking" is an oxymoron.

I agree One hundred percent, it all ways has been oxymoron, total fallacy, by people who have no clue that real world application of energy has consequences, that are easily detected.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Probably a minimum of two per column - "cutter" AND "kicker" - you have to both cut the columns AND get the ends misaligned otherwise it will "hang up".

And if it was a military scenario I would advocate two cutters and one kicker. In a military scenario you are probably getting the hell out of there because the other side is too tough - so you make sure - go for overkill - and get the **** out of there.

And that's just for one storey; don't forget, Tony thinks the lower storeys of the core in WTC1 and WTC2 were being progressively destroyed in precise synchronisation with the fall of the upper block, and that the corner spandrels were also being blown out floor-by-floor. So that's an absolute minimum of 202 charges (47 core columns, four corner spandrels, four charges each) multiplied by the number of storeys to be destroyed (which, according to Jonathan Cole's Law, should be 110 minus twice the number of storeys in the upper block, to ensure propagation of the collapse to the ground), so something like 84 storeys in WTC1 and 56 in WTC2. Let's round that down to 50 storeys per building, and we've got 11,000 charges minimum that nobody saw the flashes from or heard going off. And that's assuming that a single charge can cut an H or box column, which it probably can't.

In general, it only takes simple arithmetic to see how stupid CD claims are.

Dave

 

[Tony Szamboti]

What could you have learned from it, seeing that the photos you, yourself mentioned show no
Explosives were used?

Also would you and your, fellow members at AE/911 truth, have been willing to pay for further storage, along with the trucking fees, that were paid from recycling the steel?

Would you have been willing to fork over the money to store non evidence, of crime?

It is the government (local, state, and federal) that has a responsibility to store evidence and investigate crimes.

The U.S. federal government put up 20 billion dollars of taxpayer money (which came from all of us) towards getting NYC back on its feet after 911 and you are going to ask people to privately put up the money to store the steel that should have been kept to help in the investigation.

How ridiculous, disingenuous, and telling.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Let's all gather around for S'more skeptic fraud.



Why? Oh, that's right, the sprinklers didn't work. Too bad there wasn't a river nearby. /sarcasm

Are you proposing that they form a bucket line from the river too the building?

Rivers do you no good without pumps and hoses DA.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

And that's just for one storey; don't forget, Tony thinks the lower storeys of the core in WTC1 and WTC2 were being progressively destroyed in precise synchronisation with the fall of the upper block, and that the corner spandrels were also being blown out floor-by-floor. So that's an absolute minimum of 202 charges (47 core columns, four corner spandrels, four charges each) multiplied by the number of storeys to be destroyed (which, according to Jonathan Cole's Law, should be 110 minus twice the number of storeys in the upper block, to ensure propagation of the collapse to the ground), so something like 84 storeys in WTC1 and 56 in WTC2. Let's round that down to 50 storeys per building, and we've got 11,000 charges minimum that nobody saw the flashes from or heard going off. And that's assuming that a single charge can cut an H or box column, which it probably can't.

In general, it only takes simple arithmetic to see how stupid CD claims are.

Dave

Okay Dave, tell us how you it was done cheaper. I do consider you and other regulars here an active part of the cover-up. Nobody would be spending the amount of time on a forum like this that you people do otherwise.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

It is the government (local, state, and federal) that has a responsibility to store evidence and investigate crimes.

The U.S. federal government put up 20 billion dollars of taxpayer money (which came from all of us) towards getting NYC back on its feet after 911 and you are going to ask people to privately put up the money to store the steel that should have been kept to help in the investigation.

How ridiculous, disingenuous, and telling.

Not evidence if is shows nothing that couldn't implicate the guilty party, if it didn't show signs of explosives, it was merely dead weight that had to be trucked off site, and disposed of.
Selling it helped recoup some of the clean up costs, and was a good move for the US taxpayers.
It saved the taxpayer money, and that is what the function of government is for to spend resources wisely for the benifit of all.
Your buddy Gage certainly profited from the decisions made during the clean up, it allowed him to form his fraudulent group.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Okay Dave, tell us how you it was done cheaper. I do consider you and other regulars here an active part of the cover-up. Nobody would be spending the amount of time on a forum like this that you people do otherwise.

Why not do you realize your comedy gold to people, who actually know wtf they are talking about?
You can't get these great big belly laughs anywhere else.