Tower Collapse Questions for Critical Thinkers

sylvan8798 said:
Here is another good one:

http://911guide.googlepages.com/debris.jpg/debris-full;init:.jpg

Remember how we've been told time and again that the collapses could not happen in such a symmetrical manner unless the resistance of every column was removed at the same time for each floor? Notice the INTACT frames in both of these pictures?

Time to goalpost move...T-10, 9, 8...
Click to expand...

Gee, it almost looks like one wall of WTC 7 fell intact towards 30 W.Broadway only breaking apart as it hit that structure. Though we cannot be sure its part of the north wall or part of the east wall can we?
 
jaydeehess said:
Gee, it almost looks like one wall of WTC 7 fell intact towards 30 W.Broadway only breaking apart as it hit that structure. Though we cannot be sure its part of the north wall or part of the east wall can we?
Click to expand...

The east and west walls had horizontal and vertical strips of facing between the windows, and the north and south walls had only horizontal strips. To the extent that the exterior is intact, you can tell which is which.

ETA: Evidently they built building 7 IN Barclay street, since here it lies, in its footprint:

http://images.google.com/imgres?img...ilding+7&hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&sa=N&um=1
Not sure why that didn't come up with the right page, but can follow it back around to building 7's rubble pile pics.
 
Last edited:
3bodyproblem said:
Lol, from my perspective its harder finding someone neutral. Everyones got an opinion. :) LashL is a lawyer and might consider being the keeper of the cheese. I can assure you she is an honest person, well respected here, and harbours no particular shine towards me or you. Then again she is a professional and lending herself to administrating bets on an internet forum isn't exactly in her job description. We might be able to convince her to referee this is we consider an even bet. $50 gets donated to the forum in LashL's name or person of her choice. Winner gets even money, loser gets the satisfaction of having indirectly donated to a worthy foundation. Just a thought.
Click to expand...


I would be amenable to administering an even bet if the two of you can come to agreement on the parameters of it, but I would suggest that any donation to the JREF forum should be made in the name of either the winner or the loser of the bet (user name will suffice) or, alternatively, it could be submitted as an anonymous donation (i.e., forwarded by me with instructions that it be designated as coming from an anonymous donor, because I would not want there to be any suggestion that I would derive any personal benefit from administering the bet). I would be amenable to facilitating it, though, as long as it's an even bet and does not, therefore, [ETA: amount to] gambling for profit, which would violate the MA.
 
Last edited:
LashL said:
I would be amenable to administering an even bet if the two of you can come to agreement on the parameters of it, but I would suggest that any donation to the JREF forum should be made in the name of either the winner or the loser of the bet (user name will suffice) or, alternatively, it could be submitted as an anonymous donation (i.e., forwarded by me with instructions that it be designated as coming from an anonymous donor, because I would not want there to be any suggestion that I would derive any personal benefit from administering the bet). I would be amenable to facilitating it, though, as long as it's an even bet and does not, therefore, gambling for profit, which would violate the MA.
Click to expand...

I think this should be agreeable. Two money orders for $25 each (as the Canadian and US dollar are almost at par I don't see the need to specify a currency) one made out to cash and the other made out to JREF, and a SASE could be sent to an address of LashL's choosing. (I'll include a $0.98 stamp for mailing the donation to JREF)

The rest is up to kyle. You've got until December 31st at midnight to get 2 engineers to admit Copperfield vanished (or dematerialized) the Statue of Liberty then rematerialized it. I'm not really sure how you are going to do it. I think it would be a great idea if you used video to document your search. I'm not saying this has to be a stipulation of the bet. But it's probably the easiest way of documenting the claim. It might also help prevent someone from disclosing their belief and then retracting later. It would be a shame for you to actually find someone who believes in magic or teleportation technology, then later retracts their statement.

Let me know what you have in mind. Good Luck.
 
Last edited:
jaydeehess said:
Beyond all possibility no. Well beyond the realm of probability, yes. That is to say that if you are in essence saying that some sort of technological magic (which I would define as invoking technology that is as yet shown to be available), then yes it could be considered. However it is akin to saying that the "Matrix" movies just might be docuementaries.

ETA: I see there will be no further discussion from Ragnarok
Click to expand...

I know Ragnarok is gone again, but for the benefit of other readers, I have a small, pedantic nitpick here: Ragnarok was presumably limiting his question to the September 11th events. Due to that, it is indeed beyond the realm of possibility because the evidence contradicts his proposal; once again, I point to the types of damage inflicted on the recovered steel components as one such piece of evidence eliminating explosives from consideration. As we both know, there are tons and tons of other pieces of evidence doing the same thing. So hopefully without giving offense here, I feel obliged to say that I must respectfully disagree with you. I feel that it indeed is beyond all possibility, since the case is self limiting to 9/11, and therefore includes all the known facts of that event, facts which work to eliminate many proposals.

Yeah, I'm being technical and nitpicky, I know. And I fully realize that you weren't trying to give his question any credence, but were instead including fantastically ridiculous possibilities. So I'm sorry to take aim here, but I figured that saying this would at least be of benefit to other readers, especially new folks who might be cruising here.
 
sylvan8798 said:
The east and west walls had horizontal and vertical strips of facing between the windows, and the north and south walls had only horizontal strips. To the extent that the exterior is intact, you can tell which is which.

ETA: Evidently they built building 7 IN Barclay street, since here it lies, in its footprint:

http://images.google.com/imgres?img...ilding+7&hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&sa=N&um=1
Not sure why that didn't come up with the right page, but can follow it back around to building 7's rubble pile pics.
Click to expand...

I can see the difference you refer to, between the facing on the sides, in those pics. I also like the way they illustrate the roof top set back on the south side.
 
ElMondoHummus said:
I know Ragnarok is gone again, but for the benefit of other readers, I have a small, pedantic nitpick here: Ragnarok was presumably limiting his question to the September 11th events. Due to that, it is indeed beyond the realm of possibility because the evidence contradicts his proposal; once again, I point to the types of damage inflicted on the recovered steel components as one such piece of evidence eliminating explosives from consideration. As we both know, there are tons and tons of other pieces of evidence doing the same thing. So hopefully without giving offense here, I feel obliged to say that I must respectfully disagree with you. I feel that it indeed is beyond all possibility, since the case is self limiting to 9/11, and therefore includes all the known facts of that event, facts which work to eliminate many proposals.

Yeah, I'm being technical and nitpicky, I know. And I fully realize that you weren't trying to give his question any credence, but were instead including fantastically ridiculous possibilities. So I'm sorry to take aim here, but I figured that saying this would at least be of benefit to other readers, especially new folks who might be cruising here.
Click to expand...

I fully understand your point but of course if one is essentially invoking the possibility of magic (any technology sufficiently advanced as to be indistiquishable from the supernatural) then all evidence of a impact damage and fire damage initiated, gravity driven collapse is irrellevent since the arguer can simply state that it was all made to look that way.

A prime example of such invocation would be the possibility of a virgin human birth. Although it is extremely unlikely to have been possible 2030 years ago there is one report in history of such an occurance, not to mention that with today's tech it would be possible. Therefore although the probability approaches zero so closely it cannot be said to be absolutely zero.

So in invoking magic the 911 Conspiracy Speculators can indeed say that it is not "really beyond absolutely all possibility".
Thus we get faked videos of planes hitting the WTC towers, unspecified beam weapons, super-nano-therm?te, mini-nukes, pyroclastic clouds, and thermobaric bombs to 'explain' how the destruction occured.
 
Last edited:
TruthersLie said:
This was the damage to the roof of fitterman hall
[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/11/Fiterman_hall_damage.jpg/414px-Fiterman_hall_damage.jpg[/qimg]

The problem is that it was left to sit, and had massive mold growing inside the seriously damaged building. Couple that with the exposed asbestos in the building and it is needing to be brought down.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boroug...ge#Fiterman_Hall_and_the_September_11_attacks

But again, how does a building that "collapses into own footprint" and "collapses symetrically" do this damage to the ROOF of a buidling across the street?

ETA: From the Fema building report http://911research.com/mirrors/guar...nce keeps refuting truther talking points....
Click to expand...
 
jaydeehess said:
So all you require is to be shown that there was a period of time, 2.5 seconds IIRC, during which there was a coincident destruction of up to 8 lower floors?

OK, the core area of the structure failed first. This is patently evident in the video as we see the top floor center of the structure begin to fall several seconds before the north facade begins its descent.

If you look at the construction of WTC 7 you will see that the 60-70% of width of the north facade above the 7th floor is being held up by 7 or 8 cantilever trusses that extend to the centeral core of the building. Take out the core columns that are supporting those cantilever trusses and the entire north facade has no support whatsoever. This is what can be expected to occur before the north facade comes down completely since it begins it descent well after the core.

Mystery solved?

It can also be noted that perhaps not coincidentally, much of the portion of the structure to the east of those cantilever trusses fell not to the south, but instead, to the northeast. It impacted 30 West Broadway so severly that it also had to be torn down.
the 'kink' in the building occurs just east of the eastern most cantilever truss and the roof structure descent progresses westward from that kink (ie. towards the support of those trusses)
Click to expand...

Bump for Kyle?

Did I and others solve the supposed mystery of the 2.5 sec of near free fall acceleration of the north facade/wind frame of WTC 7 for you?

Your silence would suggest so but on an internet forum one never knows unless confirmed by the person who originated the inquiry.
 
3bodyproblem said:
He's out getting money orders. I doubt we will hear from him until then.
Click to expand...

Oh yes, the little wager/ He is supposed to get two engineers who believe that Copperfeild actually caused the Statue of Liberty to disappear and then re-appear, was that it?

IIRC he has until Christmas, so in addition to the time and expense of going to a bank and getting a money order, then mailing it to LashL he has the task to find two of the most gullible engineers on the planet who believe in magic....... That could keep him busy for a while then.

OK, Kyle, you can get back to me on the WTC free fall thingy some time after Dec. 26th.

ETA: Oh what the heck, take until Jan. 02/10 to get back to me on that, Kyle. I won't mind.
 
Last edited:
kyle didn't stop, he just relocated

3bodyproblem said:
He's out getting money orders. I doubt we will hear from him until then.
Click to expand...

Actually, if you all are interested. When kyle couldn't prove his point here, he took his argument to another forum in hopes that nobody there could understand physics. If you just want a good chuckle and a nice long read (over 1400 posts at the moment) it is at

*edit well anti spam prevents me from posting the url.*

the location is at forums dot anandtech dot com under the social section, and politics and news subsection. The thread title is "What brought down WTC7".

He did learn one lesson, since he doesn't understand math or physics, he would never say anything other then "It is physically impossible" when someone would ask him for the physics to prove it.

Just a friendly announcement from a member of another forum. (we dug up this thread because he said "I've posted math elsewhere" and this was the only place we could find him posting any sort of math.) :D
 
Last edited:
Cogman said:
Actually, if you all are interested. When kyle could prove his point here, he took his argument to another forum in hopes that nobody there could understand physics. If you just want a good chuckle and a nice long read (over 1400 posts at the moment) it is at

*edit well anti spam prevents me from posting the url.*

the location is at forums dot anandtech dot com under the social section, and politics and news subsection. The thread title is "What brought down WTC7".

He did learn one lesson, since he doesn't understand math or physics, he would never say anything other then "It is physically impossible" when someone would ask him for the physics to prove it.

Just a friendly announcement from a member of another forum. (we dug up this thread because he said "I've posted math elsewhere" and this was the only place we could find him posting any sort of math.) :D
Click to expand...

That's kinda awesome. The donation is well spent even if he finds someone. I think this forum is prepared for any takers. If I have to pay up even under then most dubious circumstances I will. At least he's trying.
 
3bodyproblem said:
That's kinda awesome. The donation is well spent even if he finds someone. I think this forum is prepared for any takers. If I have to pay up even under then most dubious circumstances I will. At least he's trying.
Click to expand...

:) these threads are going to stand as monuments to kyle's unwillingness to learn or listen to anyone else.

BTW From my forum lurking, these are pretty interesting forums. I think I'll be contributing more in the future (If I can pry myself away from vector calculus :))
 
Yeah... kyle when he first started posting here claimed he had studied architecture (albeit unfinished education). His posting at the very least proves any education he might have gotten didn't do anything for him. He's played his cards almost precisely the same way he played them here... lots of talk, but very little substance
 
Ragnarok said:
Is it really beyond absolutely all possibility that the planes were just covers for a non-conventional, yet still controlled demolition, or do most of you just refuse to dwell on the idea, content as you are to argue "the official position"?

Don't argue the "why's" and "what fors", but try and imagine the "what ifs"!
Click to expand...

I'll argue the "why", "what for" & "what if" questions!

Why the need for a "controlled demolition" if WTC7 was heavily damaged by WTC1 debris falling on top of it & causing a 20 story hole & the resulting fires that eventually brought down the tower?

What's this non-sense for about a CD for WTC7 when you haven't got any evidence (primacord/copper residue on columns) to prove it was a CD?

and.....

get ready for it......

What if it was a CD? Could you actually prove it with evidence?
 
Last edited:
Not that I have any issues with you responding to him but the disclaimer being that since he's banned it's going to be a bit of a dilemma for him to respond back to you....
 
Grizzly Bear said:
Not that I have any issues with you responding to him but the disclaimer being that since he's banned it's going to be a bit of a dilemma for him to respond back to you....
Click to expand...

That's the point! I love the torture of them not responding. That's the funnier & lighter side of it. :D
 
Cogman.

Feel free to just copy and paste for good ole ata... he couldn't answer anything here, and got PWNED repeatedly (several times by me). So just copy and paste them.

He didnt' post ANY math here to back up his claims.

Again, point out the unbroken windows in the buildings around ground zero and compare it with OKC bombing. Once that was done here, he ran like a little girl.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom