I found the missing Jolt.

[tfk]

I also come here to force the fraud supporters to try to explain their position and show the inanity of it for all to see.

And your strategy for doing this is to ...

... run away from the discussion every single time it turns "technical"???

That's some clueless (aka "Twoofer brilliant") strategy, Tony.

 

[JSanderO]

I would really like to debate tfk one on one with no interference from other posters on a different forum. Maybe the 911 free forum will host it if tfk agrees.

Doubt it...

 

[tfk]

My ass is amazingly lean and tight for my age. I doubt you have the grip strength to pinch it. It would be like trying to noogie a bowling ball. Like trying to nipple-tweak the Venus de Milo. Like trying to Indian burn a tree limb. You might as well try to spank the Rock of Gibraltar. Or just The Rock. Either way. I'm saying it's firm, baby. Mosquitoes bounce off.

Nope, if you want to assault my ass I strongly suggest sinking your teeth in and applying your jaw strength.

Metaphorically speaking, of course.

I could have happily gone to my grave without having read this post..!!

Now, I've got to figure some way to get it the hell out of my memory.

 

[tfk]

I don't think my reputation has any problems. The webinar I did on WTC 7 for AE911Truth a few weeks ago had 300 people watching live and it is over 2,700 views now. An engineer I work with, that I gave the link to, watched it and said it was impressive.

And you're too much of a *********** coward to bring this crap to a panel of independent, unbiased structural engineers.

You don't know the meaning of the word honesty.
Or courage.

I also get thanked for speaking out about the problems with the 911 story we were told by authorities quite often. I'll bet none of the anti-controlled demolition regulars here can say they are thanked for trying to stand up and keep the fraud which has been perpetrated intact.

There are probably around 20 people posting here, who say that they were once Truthers, but have seen the light.

I'd suggest that every one of those people have thanked those of us who presented rational arguments exposing the idiocy of trutherism.

And, quite a few times, exposing YOUR personal stupidity in the process.

I don't know of a single person who was a debunker who converted over to Truther.

 

[Axxman300]

Do you really think your ideas are correct? YOU asserted to me, without explanation or evidence, that the creep measured on WTC 7 could determine whether or not it would collapse, and that the measurement could predict the approximate time in which the building would collapse. I asked why that measurement couldn't just be a small insignificant portion of the facade warping from heat later in the afternoon, and you gave no strong reasons to think otherwise.

Whatever "creep" there may have been measured on WTC 7, it doesn't fit in with any collapse scenarios given over the years. You just said that because you understand that what Peter Hayden said about what the engineer told him at the scene makes no sense in retrospect.

The damage was obvious to the FDNY chiefs on the ground, and they cleared firefighters from the WTC1 wreckage once they assessed that 7 was coming down. This is why nobody was killed when it came down - the damage was evident to the EXPERTS on the ground.

You keep talking about other building fires without keeping them in context, the most important being that NO BUILDING HAD EVER BEEN STRUCK INTENTIONALLY BY A LARGE, HIJACKED, COMMERCIAL JETLINER, AND NO HIGH-RISE OFFICE BUILDING OF WTC7'S DESIGN HAD EVER BEEN STRUCK BY A LARGER OFFICE BUILDING'S WRECKAGE.

CD is 911Truth's Waterloo.

 

[MicahJava]

I don't know of a single person who was a debunker who converted over to Truther.

That's me. After viewing the film September 11: The New Pearl Harbor, I decided it might be fun to gather enough evidence to argue online with people about 9/11 conspiracies. Being a debunker seemed pretty fun, actually. Besides the stuff about the Pentagon and Shankesville, I was pretty compelled. I found enough information to perhaps write a constructive criticism regarding the CD portion of the film, but I ended up being pretty compelled by everything else. And now with reading stuff about more events like the OKC bombing, I see that the conspiracy crowd usually have a point.

 

[MicahJava]

The damage was obvious to the FDNY chiefs on the ground, and they cleared firefighters from the WTC1 wreckage once they assessed that 7 was coming down. This is why nobody was killed when it came down - the damage was evident to the EXPERTS on the ground.

You keep talking about other building fires without keeping them in context, the most important being that NO BUILDING HAD EVER BEEN STRUCK INTENTIONALLY BY A LARGE, HIJACKED, COMMERCIAL JETLINER, AND NO HIGH-RISE OFFICE BUILDING OF WTC7'S DESIGN HAD EVER BEEN STRUCK BY A LARGER OFFICE BUILDING'S WRECKAGE.

CD is 911Truth's Waterloo.

Do you believe that WTC 7 collapsed from North Tower rubble damage alone? That's one of the things that is required to explain how any person could predict the hour in which Seven would collapse, because the prediction was made some time before or shortly after there was even any photographic evidence of fire.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Do you really think your ideas are correct? YOU asserted to me, without explanation or evidence, that the creep measured on WTC 7 could determine whether or not it would collapse, and that the measurement could predict the approximate time in which the building would collapse. I asked why that measurement couldn't just be a small insignificant portion of the facade warping from heat later in the afternoon, and you gave no strong reasons to think otherwise.

Whatever "creep" there may have been measured on WTC 7, it doesn't fit in with any collapse scenarios given over the years. You just said that because you understand that what Peter Hayden said about what the engineer told him at the scene makes no sense in retrospect.

Creep of the building indicates movement of the structure, the facade was granite the structure can only move so far before gravity brings it down.

 

[JSanderO]

If one accepts the more sensible over arching view that hijacked planes and fires caused the twin towers to collapse... damage other nearby buildings... starting fires in 7wtc which lost all fire fighting and burned for 7 hrs until it too collapsed there is not point in hosting seminars about possible minor technical flaws in the official explanation. No one writes papers about pancakes collapsing.... a popular belief right after the event.

On a political level there is much to complain about and forums to make those complaints... official and unofficial. The Left Forum recently took place and even allowed a few 9/11 truth presentations. But the LF has an obliviously political agenda... unlike AE911T which claims it's all about the science! We need a new investigation!

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

This thread is overpolluted with crap about silent explosives. Although passages in the NFPA 921 clearly match some of the events on 9/11 that warrant an explosive investigation, the dynamics issue warrants an investigation for different reasons. It has already been pointed out that almost totally silent demolition fittings do exist.

I have investigated your evidence and found none that is relevant, there you go you just had an independent investigation.

The pictures you posted show no explosive damage, just sheer and bending what would be expected.

 

[MicahJava]

Creep of the building indicates movement of the structure, the facade was granite the structure can only move so far before gravity brings it down.

The exterior was steel, the cladding was granite. We already know about the bulge that was noticed, which in retrospect couldn't have done anything. The "creep" could just be a small insignificant portion of the perimeter warping from heat. If anything, it would have negatively affected someone's abilities to know if it was going to collapse. Knowing whether or not a skyscraper will collapse is hard enough to imagine, but predicting the hour when it will sounds more fantastic. The creep could have also been measured later in the afternoon after the engineer already made the prediction.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

It appears to me that Tony is totally on board with AE911T's bullet points especially that the buildings were made to come down with CD as part of a inside job false flag. AE doesn't generate technical materials on its own to support its mission. It uses the work of people like Tony, Cole, Chandler, Harrit and so on. There is a hand in glove relationship between AE and those who supply material/presentations and papers. AE does not send those papers to independent groups for review / vetting. They accept them on face value and consider the work flawless. (it's definitely not)

AE's latest effort is the Hulsey FEA. No one can predict the outcome. But if it doesn't confirm AE's "beliefs" it will be branded incompetent... or similar. If the thrust of the report doesn't support AE... it will not change their position. They are sort of a trapped in maintaining their position because I suppose they fear the backlash from their supporters... who might demand their money back feeling they were scammed or lied to. So as long as they can go on.... claiming CD and asking for an independent investigation.... they will continue to raise money to raise money... and not alienate their supporters who will parrot their talking points and deny all the work which refutes it. Until their mothership cries UNCLE... they will follow the leader.

You have a situation which allows AE and the people who produce material to support them... to maintain their "fiction" because the official engineering world doesn't refute them... most likely because they don't take their work seriously. Why bother giving quacks the standing by responding. This would be like having creationists present papers at a science conference on evolutionary biology. Creationists use all manner of "tricks" to try to gain acceptance including calling their beliefs creation science. And this is hardly different from letting someone like Harrit or Cole of Tony claims professional standing in the engineering community for their "engineering and science".

I'll put it to you this way. If the Hulsey report is accurate then the chips need to fall where they may. I don't think anyone will demand their money back as long as the report is well done and doesn't play games like leaving out pertinent stiffeners and shear studs, and using an infinite stiffness point load in an impact where it is critical to determine the shock load amplification.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

The exterior was steel, the cladding was granite. We already know about the bulge that was noticed, which in retrospect couldn't have done anything. The "creep" could just be a small insignificant portion of the perimeter warping from heat. If anything, it would have negatively affected someone's abilities to know if it was going to collapse. Knowing whether or not a skyscraper will collapse is hard enough to imagine, but predicting the hour when it will sounds more fantastic. The creep could have also been measured later in the afternoon after the engineer already made the prediction.

It isn't hard to know, that steel will fail in fire, bolts are highly susceptible to thread pull or sheer when heated.
Welds will fracture from uneven expansion.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

And you're too much of a *********** coward to bring this crap to a panel of independent, unbiased structural engineers.

You don't know the meaning of the word honesty.
Or courage.



There are probably around 20 people posting here, who say that they were once Truthers, but have seen the light.

I'd suggest that every one of those people have thanked those of us who presented rational arguments exposing the idiocy of trutherism.

And, quite a few times, exposing YOUR personal stupidity in the process.

I don't know of a single person who was a debunker who converted over to Truther.

When and where (besides here) do you want to debate one on one?

You tried to say I was wrong with no basis.

This is not a venue for legitimate debate and you know it. It is a place where piranha like behavior occurs against anyone who dares to question the primary point of view here.

Can you chance going without your supporters and meeting me in a neutral venue, where thoughtful discussion could occur with just one response per day?

Surely if you feel you actually have a good argument you wouldn't fear doing that.

 

[MicahJava]

It isn't hard to know, that steel will fail in fire, bolts are highly susceptible to thread pull or sheer when heated.
Welds will fracture from uneven expansion.

The closest example I could find is One Meridian Plaza. After 11 hours of raging fires which spread floor-to-floor, an engineer on the scene did say that it may collapse. Also, three firefighters died. So they withdrew and made a collapse zone. It did not collapse.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

The exterior was steel, the cladding was granite. We already know about the bulge that was noticed, which in retrospect couldn't have done anything. The "creep" could just be a small insignificant portion of the perimeter warping from heat. If anything, it would have negatively affected someone's abilities to know if it was going to collapse. Knowing whether or not a skyscraper will collapse is hard enough to imagine, but predicting the hour when it will sounds more fantastic. The creep could have also been measured later in the afternoon after the engineer already made the prediction.

Interestingly, I think it was.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

It isn't hard to know, that steel will fail in fire, bolts are highly susceptible to thread pull or sheer when heated.
Welds will fracture from uneven expansion.

Yes, one here or there okay in extreme cases.

Usually not all at the same time and in the same direction needed to bring about the collapse of a redundant structure.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Yes, one here or there okay in extreme cases.

Usually not all at the same time and in the same direction needed to bring about the collapse of a redundant structure.

Not very many buildings were ever built Like the towers or building 7.
They were innovative in many ways but the chief flaw was the fire proofing used, a comparison of similar design problems, and conditions occurred in World War 2, on a small aircraft Carrier where the steel failed from fire do to a planes impact and igniting fuel in a small tank that was not properly flooded with CO.
I read about it years ago, while conversing with Jones, Fetzer, Woods, and Frank when they were part of the scholars for truth group.
It was an assessment of damage caused, by the fires, and what would have to be done to repair the carrier.
It was amazing what a small unfought fire could do.
http://www.paperlessarchives.com/wwii_naval_damage_reports.html

 

[MicahJava]

Not very many buildings were ever built Like the towers or building 7.
They were innovative in many ways but the chief flaw was the fire proofing used, a comparison of similar design problems, and conditions occurred in World War 2, on a small aircraft Carrier where the steel failed from fire do to a planes impact and igniting fuel in a small tank that was not properly flooded with CO.
I read about it years ago, while conversing with Jones, Fetzer, Woods, and Frank when they were part of the scholars for truth group.
It was an assessment of damage caused, by the fires, and what would have to be done to repair the carrier.
It was amazing what a small unfought fire could do.

But you're the one saying that there was basis to predict the hour in which the building would collapse before or shortly after 12:10, when the first photographic evidence for fires appeared.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

But you're the one saying that there was basis to predict the hour in which the building would collapse before or shortly after 12:10, when the first photographic evidence for fires appeared.

The Engineer didn't predict he gave a probability of collapse, if the creep continued, an the fires went unfought.

Engineers are not fortune tellers, they give probabilities, not predictions.