Merged David Chandler (ae911) sez "WTC7 was in free fall part of the time"

[BigAl]

Upon seeing video of the collapse of WTC 7 a rational person would have to conclude that its fall was most likely due to controlled demolition.

Not a single eyewitness to WTC7's fire and collapse agrees with you.

 

[triforcharity]

Your attempts to lump everyone who is questioning the present official explanations, for the NYC high rise collapses on Sept. 11, 2001, into the same camp and then call them insane is an adhominem itself.

No, It's not. He did not single you out.

Upon seeing video of the collapse of WTC 7 a rational person would have to conclude that its fall was most likely due to controlled demolition.

Where are the loud booms that went off before the collapse?
Why did the penthouse collapse into the building, before the rest of the building even began to fall?

Care to take a stab at those?

And let us not forget that none of the steel from WTC 7 was saved for analysis and less than 0.5% from the towers, yet you want to call people insane for thinking there might be some level of impropriety there.

(This is not a perfect analogy, but you will hopefully get my point.)

I have done many fire investigations. Many. Now, when we try to decipher the cause of a fire, we focus on the place where the most severe charring is visible. It's usually pretty obvious.

We then focus on that area to find as much information as we possibly can. We will sometimes take entire circuit breaker panels back to the lab for analysis. Do I need to take the pole that the wires came into the house on to find out if a breaker failed? No. No I need to take the ceiling fan in the bedroom to find out what happened in the garage? No.

Now, If I cannot pinpoint an exact cause, I can usually contact the state fire college, or the ATF, or the FDLE, and they can do computer modeling for me. I give them all the pertient information, and they can model it. It's actually quite impressive. I wish I had the money for the programs that they use.
Now, It is rare that I have had to do this. But in the 6 or so times they have modeled something for me, They give me a point of origin. Attic, kitchen, whatever. I then go over that area with a fine toothed comb. I have yet to this day, not found the origin of a fire.

They don't need the entire building and it's contents to find the origin of the failure. You should know this.

When you model something on a computer....Oh wait, nevermind, you're not an engineer. Anyway, engineers can model what will happen to certain materials when you load them, or move them, etc. etc. etc. Does that mean that they need to practice first on an exact replica to figure out how a building will react to certain events? No.

Now, does any of this make sense to you Mr. Szambot?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I have done many fire investigations. Many. Now, when we try to decipher the cause of a fire, we focus on the place where the most severe charring is visible. It's usually pretty obvious.

We then focus on that area to find as much information as we possibly can. We will sometimes take entire circuit breaker panels back to the lab for analysis. Do I need to take the pole that the wires came into the house on to find out if a breaker failed? No. No I need to take the ceiling fan in the bedroom to find out what happened in the garage? No.

Now, If I cannot pinpoint an exact cause, I can usually contact the state fire college, or the ATF, or the FDLE, and they can do computer modeling for me. I give them all the pertient information, and they can model it. It's actually quite impressive. I wish I had the money for the programs that they use.
Now, It is rare that I have had to do this. But in the 6 or so times they have modeled something for me, They give me a point of origin. Attic, kitchen, whatever. I then go over that area with a fine toothed comb. I have yet to this day, not found the origin of a fire.

They don't need the entire building and it's contents to find the origin of the failure. You should know this.

When you model something on a computer....Oh wait, nevermind, you're not an engineer. Anyway, engineers can model what will happen to certain materials when you load them, or move them, etc. etc. etc. Does that mean that they need to practice first on an exact replica to figure out how a building will react to certain events? No.

Now, does any of this make sense to you Mr. Szambot?

In fact, I am a mechanical engineer and I do computer modeling myself and have taken part in a number of structural failure analyses in my career.

The physical evidence in a structural failure analysis is primary and needs to be examined carefully and documented before any further conclusions can be drawn including any from computer modeling, to ensure you are replicating the failure in a model. That was not done in the case of WTC 7 as you can hear Jonathan Barnett say on this short video here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgCoV7phKa8

There is no good reason for it not being done. Even if the steel was removed from the scene it should have been saved for analysis as it would show the failure modes and likely causes.

Additionally, your experience seems to be in investigating where and why a fire started, not structural failure. There is a big difference.

 

[beachnut]

In fact, I am a mechanical engineer and I do computer modeling myself and have taken part in a number of structural failure analyses in my career. ...

Off topic Tony,
you fail to understand WTC7, fire, gravity, sample theory, and 911. 19 terrorist did 911, 4 pilots flew the planes into buildings; I am on topic and you are not. Typical of 911 truth being in some delusional fantasy-land and making up lies about 911 and claiming to be engineers. You did go to engineering school, bet they are cringing, but the only thing you engineer is bad science and delusions on 911.

The topic is how did the planes hit the WTC and Pentagon; the answer is terrorists flew them. You need to concentrate and stay on topic and not drift into your fantasy of CD and the real cd deal failure 8 years and counting.

...
The physical evidence in a structural failure analysis is primary and needs to be examined carefully ... Additionally, your experience seems to be in investigating where and why a fire started, not structural failure. There is a big difference.

The fireman wins over the conspiracy theorist engineer who engineering has failed. The big difference is you have delusions on 911, fireman don't.
What was your answer on how the aircraft hit the WTC and Pentagon? Another delusional opinion.

 

[BigAl]

The physical evidence in a structural failure analysis is primary and needs to be examined carefully and documented before any further conclusions can be drawn including any from computer modeling, to ensure you are replicating the failure in a model. That was not done in the case of WTC 7 as you can hear Jonathan Barnett say on this short video here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgCoV7phKa8

Cherrypick much? Insinuate much? A 45 second outtake leaves much unsaid.

Does Barnett think that something that could have been done wasn't?

I'd like to hear Barnett say there is insufficient evidence collected for him to conclude that fire and lack of firefighting made WTC7 collapse.

http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/2007/04/professor-jonathan-r-barnett.html

None of this was ignored. But having looked at the debris myself, I saw no sign of an explosion or explosions. The collapse of towers 1 and 2 occurred exactly as one would expect from a fire.....I don't know what else to say. Finally, there was no predetermined theory. As you know I was part of the original investigation and a group leader. Neither I nor anyone else in the process went into the investigation with predetermined ideas. In fact, as this was the first collapse of a protected steel structure due to a fire, we were very open in our conversations as we looked for the truth.

[Jonathan]
2 January 2007

 

[funk de fino]

Your attempts to lump everyone who is questioning the present official explanations, for the NYC high rise collapses on Sept. 11, 2001, into the same camp and then call them insane is an adhominem itself.

What about people who lie about things they say they have seen on TV to try and support their fantasy claims about 911?

Upon seeing video of the collapse of WTC 7 a rational person would have to conclude that its fall was most likely due to controlled demolition. After comparing what is seen in the video to what the NIST WTC 7 report claims, a rational person would have to reject that report, because it does not replicate the collapse. It was obviously a controlled demolition and the only logical conclusion is that the charges had to be pre-positioned, as a building of that size could not be rigged in one day, especially with fires in it.

Moronic and you know it.

If WTC 7 had pre-positioned charges in it, and those in official capacities responsible for explaining the collapse are not admitting to it, then the explanations for the rapid falls of the towers by those same people need to be scrutinized also.

It didnt

And let us not forget that none of the steel from WTC 7 was saved for analysis and less than 0.5% from the towers, yet you want to call people insane for thinking there might be some level of impropriety there.

Thats a lie right there. All the steel was inspected by forenic examiners.

Rational and mature people do not want to be fed nonsense and it is ridiculous to call them insane because they don't accept it. The fact that you are doing that says more about you than it does about those rightly questioning the present explanations for these collapses.

People who lie about things Larry Silverstein said are not rational or mature.

 

[triforcharity]

In fact, I am a mechanical engineer and I do computer modeling myself and have taken part in a number of structural failure analyses in my career.

The physical evidence in a structural failure analysis is primary and needs to be examined carefully and documented before any further conclusions can be drawn including any from computer modeling, to ensure you are replicating the failure in a model. That was not done in the case of WTC 7 as you can hear Jonathan Barnett say on this short video here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgCoV7phKa8

There is no good reason for it not being done. Even if the steel was removed from the scene it should have been saved for analysis as it would show the failure modes and likely causes.

Additionally, your experience seems to be in investigating where and why a fire started, not structural failure. There is a big difference.

So, what you're saying, is that because they didn't save any steel, there is no chance that we can find out what happened?

No, my experience with structural failure is limited. However, my education in fire science tells me that fire will in fact cause massive structural failures; not just in wood, but also in steel, and occasionally concrete, is quite extensive.

I apologize, I mistook you for David Chandler, the high school physics teacher. I apologize.

Now, why do we need the steel to decipher how the collapse started, when we know how steel will react in a fire?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

So, what you're saying, is that because they didn't save any steel, there is no chance that we can find out what happened?

No, my experience with structural failure is limited. However, my education in fire science tells me that fire will in fact cause massive structural failures; not just in wood, but also in steel, and occasionally concrete, is quite extensive.

I apologize, I mistook you for David Chandler, the high school physics teacher. I apologize.

Now, why do we need the steel to decipher how the collapse started, when we know how steel will react in a fire?

I already mentioned that the steel will show the actual failure modes and likely causes can be discerned from them. This is where a computer model can come in and put it all together by replicating the failure modes. If you don't have the steel to show you how it failed the computer model is no better than guessing as to how it failed and the causes.

The present NIST attempt to explain the collapse of WTC 7 by their own admission supposes a first time ever seen mode of failure in the sense that they say it was from thermal expansion. So you can't say it is a case of knowing how it will react, since there are many possible failure scenarios. You need the steel to see how it actually failed.

 

[Scott Sommers]

Do I understand correctly what's happening here? On one post, we have Tony arguing that because he and a bunch of his friends think it's just plain common sense that WTC 7 was a controled demolition, that makes it a controled demolition.

Upon seeing video of the collapse of WTC 7 a rational person would have to conclude that its fall was most likely due to controlled demolition. After comparing what is seen in the video to what the NIST WTC 7 report claims, a rational person would have to reject that report, because it does not replicate the collapse. It was obviously a controlled demolition and the only logical conclusion is that the charges had to be pre-positioned, as a building of that size could not be rigged in one day, especially with fires in it.

And on another post we have Jammonius arguing that numerous videos and eyewitness accounts of planes crashing into the WTC buildings prove that ray guns in space really destroyed them.

Is this was 911 Truth is? This is just silly. No wonder you guys can't get more than a couple of dozen people out to a demonstration.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Cherrypick much? Insinuate much? A 45 second outtake leaves much unsaid.

Does Barnett think that something that could have been done wasn't?

I'd like to hear Barnett say there is insufficient evidence collected for him to conclude that fire and lack of firefighting made WTC7 collapse.

I wouldn't take anything out of context. You can watch the whole 8 minute video portion on WTC 7 from the History Channel show here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLKih5Hp3UQ&NR=1

The bottom line is there was no analysis of the steel from WTC 7 and that is not the protocol for a structural failure analysis and Barnett alludes to that in his comment.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Do I understand correctly what's happening here? On one post, we have Tony arguing that because he and a bunch of his friends think it's just plain common sense that WTC 7 was a controled demolition, that makes it a controled demolition.



And on another post we have Jammonius arguing that numerous videos and eyewitness accounts of planes crashing into the WTC buildings prove that ray guns in space really destroyed them.

Is this was 911 Truth is? This is just silly. No wonder you guys can't get more than a couple of dozen people out to a demonstration.

What is actually silly is even associating nonsensical claims about ray guns from space with legitimate questions concerning why the steel from WTC 7 wasn't saved and analyzed and why the NIST WTC 7 model doesn't replicate the failure with its massive exterior deformation which wasn't observed in the real collapse.

 

[Scott Sommers]

Your attempts to lump everyone who is questioning the present official explanations, for the NYC high rise collapses on Sept. 11, 2001, into the same camp and then call them insane is an adhominem itself.

Upon seeing video of the collapse of WTC 7 a rational person would have to conclude that its fall was most likely due to controlled demolition. After comparing what is seen in the video to what the NIST WTC 7 report claims, a rational person would have to reject that report, because it does not replicate the collapse. It was obviously a controlled demolition and the only logical conclusion is that the charges had to be pre-positioned, as a building of that size could not be rigged in one day, especially with fires in it.

No Tony, it is not an adhominium. WTC 7 was not demolished in a controled demoilition and no one who was there has ever suspected this. Your refusal to deal with this is what lumps you in the same group as the No Planers.

In fact, we have talked about this before. In those posts, you refused to acknowledge that the whole idea of thermite at the WTC collapses is a fairy story on par with space rays. Say anything you want. Tell me, like you did before, that thermite needs to be excluded as a cause, or something like that. But that just puts you back in the looney bin with my friend Jammonius. That you can't see this is my point. Thermite is just as crazy as space-based ray guns.

 

[George 152]

Your attempts to lump everyone who is questioning the present official explanations, for the NYC high rise collapses on Sept. 11, 2001, into the same camp and then call them insane is an adhominem itself.

Upon seeing video of the collapse of WTC 7 a rational person would have to conclude that its fall was most likely due to controlled demolition. After comparing what is seen in the video to what the NIST WTC 7 report claims, a rational person would have to reject that report, because it does not replicate the collapse. It was obviously a controlled demolition and the only logical conclusion is that the charges had to be pre-positioned, as a building of that size could not be rigged in one day, especially with fires in it.

If WTC 7 had pre-positioned charges in it, and those in official capacities responsible for explaining the collapse are not admitting to it, then the explanations for the rapid falls of the towers by those same people need to be scrutinized also.

And let us not forget that none of the steel from WTC 7 was saved for analysis and less than 0.5% from the towers, yet you want to call people insane for thinking there might be some level of impropriety there.

Rational and mature people do not want to be fed nonsense and it is ridiculous to call them insane because they don't accept it. The fact that you are doing that says more about you than it does about those rightly questioning the present explanations for these collapses.

There was no controlled demolition.
No video soundtrack has such explosive sounds.
None of the people there heard the explosions required to bring a building down.
The steel from WTC7 (and WTC1 and2) -was- examined and removed from the site.
Rational (and mature) people know that 911 was perpetrated by 19 mad muslims.
Eight years since 911 and no-one has come up with a viable alternative to otherwise explain 911

 

[BigAl]

I wouldn't take anything out of context. You can watch the whole 8 minute video portion on WTC 7 from the History Channel show here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLKih5Hp3UQ&NR=1

The bottom line is there was no analysis of the steel from WTC 7 and that is not the protocol for a structural failure analysis and Barnett alludes to that in his comment.

It's still just 47 seconds of Barnett. We know that Barnett thinks that protracted fire was the basic cause of WTC7's collapse because we have this quote.

None of this was ignored. But having looked at the debris myself, I saw no sign of an explosion or explosions. The collapse of towers 1 and 2 occurred exactly as one would expect from a fire.....I don't know what else to say. Finally, there was no predetermined theory. As you know I was part of the original investigation and a group leader. Neither I nor anyone else in the process went into the investigation with predetermined ideas. In fact , as this was the first collapse of a protected steel structure due to a fire, we were very open in our conversations as we looked for the truth.

[Jonathan]
2 January 2007

http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/2007/04/professor-jonathan-r-barnett.html

 

[Tony Szamboti]

No Tony, it is not an adhominium. WTC 7 was not demolished in a controled demoilition and no one who was there has ever suspected this. Your refusal to deal with this is what lumps you in the same group as the No Planers.

In fact, we have talked about this before. In those posts, you refused to acknowledge that the whole idea of thermite at the WTC collapses is a fairy story on par with space rays. Say anything you want. Tell me, like you did before, that thermite needs to be excluded as a cause, or something like that. But that just puts you back in the looney bin with my friend Jammonius. That you can't see this is my point. Thermite is just as crazy as space-based ray guns.

There are millions of people, including many professional technical people who don't believe WTC 7 came down due to fire and they aren't no planers. Your logic here is ridiculous.

As for thermite, it was nano-thermite found in the dust. I believe I have told you before that the American Chemical Society is quoted as saying nano-energetics are tailorable to produce just the amount of fragmentation needed while minimizing noise.

There is very sound logic for suspecting a covert controlled demolition of WTC 7, while yours seems to be what you want to think as opposed to a lucid explanation of the actual observations and discoveries. It would seem that puts your thinking more in line with the surreal no planers.

 

[BigAl]

As for thermite, it was nano-thermite found in the dust. The American Chemical Society is quoted as saying nano-energetics are tailorable to produce just the amount of fragmentation needed while minimizing noise.

source, please

 

[Scott Sommers]

There are millions of people who don't believe WTC 7 came down due to fire and they aren't no planers. Your logic here is ridiculous.

As for thermite, it was nano-thermite found in the dust. I believe i told you before that the American Chemical Society is quoted as saying nano-energetics are tailorable to produce just the amount of fragmentation needed while minimizing noise.

There is very sound logic for suspecting a covert controlled demolition of WTC 7, while yours seems to be what you want to think as opposed to a lucid explanation of the actual observations and discoveries. It would seem that puts your thinking more in line with the surreal no planers.

Is this your public confession of insanity?

Tony, let me tell you something, if this was true, we wouldn't be here on the JREF pretending this is an important issue. If real chemists from the ACS believed they had found thermite in the dust of the WTC, the FBI would be investigating this and every newspaper in the world would be writing about it. That is...unless you think it's all being covered by the reptilian shape-shifters who really control the Earth.

That's right...911 Truth is the most divisive issue in America. It splits families, friends, colleagues. Thousands march in the streets calling for justice. 911 Truth was the issue of the last presidential election. It is in every speech from the President's office.

Like I said Tony. thermite makes you as nutty as space-based lasers. If you can't get it, isn't that I'm saying?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

As for thermite, it was nano-thermite found in the dust. The American Chemical Society is quoted as saying nano-energetics are tailorable to produce just the amount of fragmentation needed while minimizing noise.
[/QUOTE

source, please

I would imagine you would like to see what was said at the annual ACS meeting in April 2001 http://ammtiac.alionscience.com/pdf/AMPQ6_1ART06.pdf.

 

[Hokulele]

There are millions of people, including many professional technical people who don't believe WTC 7 came down due to fire and they aren't no planers. Your logic here is ridiculous.

Name That Fallacy!

 

[BigAl]

I would imagine you would like to see what was said at the annual ACS meeting in April 2001 http://ammtiac.alionscience.com/pdf/AMPQ6_1ART06.pdf.

A text search finds no occurrences of "noise" or "fragmentation". Those were the properties you claim made nano-something relevant to claims of man-made demolition.

I wait for someone that knows what they are talking about to explain how fragmentation is relevant to the cutting beams as big as large trees.

Do you want to try again?