• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Some simple Tower 7 questions

aggle-rithm said:
The larger the scale of an event, the more symmetrical it looks from a distance. Imagine, for instance, you are out in space, observing a mile-wide asteroid hitting the Earth. You would see a flash of light, then a rapidly growing, perfectly symmetrical dome of energized material raising from the surface (in perfect silence, of course). After the site cooled, you would probably see a very neat, circular crater where the asteroid landed.

Now imagine what it would look like if observed from the surface. You would be in the middle of hell.

Take what you've learned here and apply it to the collapse of WTC7. It looks pretty smooth from a distance. How would it look if you were standing in the street beneath it?
Click to expand...


Like this


http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/fsn/b7pile2.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
MG1962:

However, a number of countries have introduced codes involving the speed at which people can be exacuated. I believe as a result of 911 the Petronas Towers were retrofited with a larger cross over bridge than was originally built to try and meet the new code for a maximum 25 minutes to evacuate the whole building.

I guess the other issue to consider. Can a building be constructed to withstand or even repell a hit from a modern jet airliner

The new WTC 7 building was built with a number of improvements following
9/11.

The stairways are bigger - twice the size required by code (44" wide , barely
wide enough for two people), the stairs are encased in concrete several
inches thick, not flimsy sheet rock. every couple floors have a landing
where handicapped and injured people can be staged. Evacuation chairs
and other emergency gear are housed here.
 
Wizard said:
No I am saying they don't know why it collapsed and are therefore saying nothing.

Answer the question...why aren't there at least dozens of papers detail the total collapse of 2 110 storey buildings? I doubt there has been a more baffling engineering failure. Engineers should be all over this like a rash
Click to expand...

And you were complaining about someone else moving the goalposts?

You proposition is exactly reversed. Researchers publish about things that are in dispute. Were there thousands of papers, that would indicate that engineers are not in agreement about what happened.

NIST used the leading structural engineers and demolitions experts for their report (about 75 from outside the govt.). Since their research was published in the NIST report, they would have no motivation for publishing individual papers unless they disputed the NIST report. So this eliminates many of the people who would otherwise have published papers.
 
TellyKNeasuss said:
And you were complaining about someone else moving the goalposts?

You proposition is exactly reversed. Researchers publish about things that are in dispute. Were there thousands of papers, that would indicate that engineers are not in agreement about what happened.

NIST used the leading structural engineers and demolitions experts for their report (about 75 from outside the govt.). Since their research was published in the NIST report, they would have no motivation for publishing individual papers unless they disputed the NIST report. So this eliminates many of the people who would otherwise have published papers.
Click to expand...

In my post I said the total collapse of the towers. NIST don't cover that.
 
Wizard said:
In my post I said the total collapse of the towers. NIST don't cover that.
Click to expand...
Well, you see, the fact that once several floors failed, the whole building would collapse is only seen as a mystery to CTers. Everybody else seem to know that once a weight-carrying structure is seriously compromized, failure will progress catastrophically. Let's talk demolitions. There are exceptions, but most demolitions of buildings go like this: You blow out crucial supports in he bottom of the building, and gravity does the rest. Once a tall building starts falling, it takes unusual circumstances to stop it.

Hans
 
Wizard said:
In my post I said the total collapse of the towers. NIST don't cover that.
Click to expand...

Maybe it's because no one would think it necessary to publish a paper proving that the weight of 25 floors of a building falling on the floors below would be sufficient to cause the rest of the building to collapse. Is that a possibility?
 
MRC_Hans said:
Well, you see, the fact that once several floors failed, the whole building would collapse is only seen as a mystery to CTers. Everybody else seem to know that once a weight-carrying structure is seriously compromized, failure will progress catastrophically. Let's talk demolitions. There are exceptions, but most demolitions of buildings go like this: You blow out crucial supports in he bottom of the building, and gravity does the rest. Once a tall building starts falling, it takes unusual circumstances to stop it.

Hans
Click to expand...


So you agree that crucial lower supports were blown out. Now we are making progress
 
Wizard said:
So you agree that crucial lower supports were blown out. Now we are making progress
Click to expand...

I don't know how you can combine such a superior and patronising tone with such utter idiocy.

You either failed the most basic reading comprehension or your playing ridiculous games.

Either way, it doesn't look good.

I'm hoping you're still a teenager and will grow out of this sort of thing.
 
Just look at the thread that 28th Kingdom started. Skeptics keep posting pictures of cats.

How dare you call me a troll because I made a flippant remark that is at least on topic. That really is pathetic
 
maccy said:
I don't know how you can combine such a superior and patronising tone with such utter idiocy.

You either failed the most basic reading comprehension or your playing ridiculous games.

Either way, it doesn't look good.

I'm hoping you're still a teenager and will grow out of this sort of thing.
Click to expand...
Wizard is the latest CT troll. Like every CT troll before him he brings no relevant educational background or professional expertise. He has the intellectual debate capability of a 15 year old along with an inflated ego and arrogance. If he hangs around long enough he will provide no substantial arguments and no evidence beyond his amateurish interpretation of videos and pictures. He will cherry pick data and quotes and he will provide no intellectually honest rebuttal to the mountains of scientifically validated data produced by NIST and FEMA. He will not make one assertion that hasn't been made on the dozens of CT boards and which has been addressed ad nauseum on this site. He will directly or indirectly accuse innocent people of murder or complicity of murder yet will get his panties in a bunch if he perceives he is being treated rudely. When accusing people of murder, he will not provide specific names. He will become offended if accused of implicating fireman, first responders or other "down to earth" people. He will not provide any details on how these nameless people carried out their crime.

Wizard: Prove me wrong.

Please refrain from personalizing the issues.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Patricio Elicer
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Cats come in when argument fails. Late on in threads, usually.

We generally take argument very seriously here.

Unfortunately the stupidity of the arguments we get from some CTists makes it hard to spot jokes. A smiley will always help in these situations :).

Sorry for misinterpreting your post.

However, I reserve the right to grumpily say I don't think it was very funny. And to split infinitives. And to start sentences with "and". And to use a preposition to end them with.

Bah humbug etc.

:)

(for clarity)
 
DavidJames said:
Wizard is the latest CT troll. Like every CT troll before him he brings no relevant educational background or professional expertise. He has the intellectual debate capability of a 15 year old along with an inflated ego and arrogance. If he hangs around long enough he will provide no substantial arguments and no evidence beyond his amateurish interpretation of videos and pictures. He will cherry pick data and quotes and he will provide no intellectually honest rebuttal to the mountains of scientifically validated data produced by NIST and FEMA. He will not make one assertion that hasn't been made on the dozens of CT boards and which has been addressed ad nauseum on this site. He will directly or indirectly accuse innocent people of murder or complicity of murder yet will get his panties in a bunch if he perceives he is being treated rudely. When accusing people of murder, he will not provide specific names. He will become offended if accused of implicating fireman, first responders or other "down to earth" people. He will not provide any details on how these nameless people carried out their crime.

Wizard: Prove me wrong.
Click to expand...


I didn't realise I had to have scientific qualifications or rebuttals of NIST and FEMA to join this site. It is not on the joining form. I don't have anything to prove to you
 
maccy said:
Cats come in when argument fails. Late on in threads, usually.

We generally take argument very seriously here.

Unfortunately the stupidity of the arguments we get from some CTists makes it hard to spot jokes. A smiley will always help in these situations :).

Sorry for misinterpreting your post.

However, I reserve the right to grumpily say I don't think it was very funny. And to split infinitives. And to start sentences with "and". And to use a preposition to end them with.

Bah humbug etc.

:)

(for clarity)
Click to expand...

Maccy a smiley may well help. I have looked at other threads and they are not being taken seriously atall. Many have this strange posting of cats and many others are full of CTs being ridiculed without provocation.
 
The provocation comes from the Cters who refuse to aknowledge answers which are given to them time and time again, but instead proceed to post the same old debunked rubbish as if it's new and exciting.

The provocation also comes from the Cters who post from a position of personal incredulity in the face of technical expertise.
 
uk_dave said:
The provocation comes from the Cters who refuse to aknowledge answers which are given to them time and time again, but instead proceed to post the same old debunked rubbish as if it's new and exciting.

The provocation also comes from the Cters who post from a position of personal incredulity in the face of technical expertise.
Click to expand...


None of the above is an excuse for personal attacks and name calling. That is the 15 year old standard of debating
 
Wizard said:
Skeptics are impossible to satisfy. They ask for an expert or a whistleblower that supports the CT. As soon as one is produced they are declared to be nuts!
Click to expand...
A whistleblower would not be someone with a degree in a relevant field who disagrees. A whistleblower is someone with first-hand knowledge of bad activity, who comes forward with information about it.

I agree that we skeptics are misguided when we ask for even one civil engineer who disagrees with the official version, because every field has a few kooks. But if you can come up with more than a few, that would be something to talk about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom