• 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.

Care to Comment

Seymour Butz said:
As the internal collapse was occuring, ext columns were developing long spans without bracing.

Buckling ensued.

Buckling columns give very little resistance.

End of story.

YOU FAIL.
Click to expand...

Um, freefall acceleration means no resistance could have been occurring, but I'll cut you some slack and go along with your less than detailed comment on very little resistance.

However, if what you say about the exterior developing long unsupported lengths is true then why doesn't the east side exterior of the building, where the interior had already allegedly collapsed, begin to collapse earlier?

If the exterior had collapsed due to unsupported lengths then it should have happened from east to west like the alleged interior collapse, but it doesn't, the whole exterior of WTC 7 collapsed as a unit. Do you have an answer for this?
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
WTC 7 fell at near free-fall for only a short amount of time and WTC 1 did in fact show signs of deceleration (you only choose to define the term differently).
Click to expand...

No Doug,

WTC 7 was in FULL freefall acceleration for 2.25 seconds, and this is irrefutable and has been admitted to by NIST.

WTC 1 does not exhibit any deceleration in its fall, no matter what some here try to say. You should measure it yourself if you don't believe me.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
No Doug,

WTC 7 was in FULL freefall acceleration for 2.25 seconds, and this is irrefutable and has been admitted to by NIST.

WTC 1 does not exhibit any deceleration in its fall, no matter what some here try to say. You should measure it yourself if you don't believe me.
Click to expand...
femr2's measurements seem to differ from your (revised as to you first do show deceleration) findings. I seem to remember the NIST findings a near free-fall. That's not important.

(I don't really have any problem with you using my real name although I find it curious that you do so considering I have not done so on this forum. This is information that I disclosed to you in private.)
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Um, freefall acceleration means no resistance could have been occurring,
Click to expand...

And just like your jolt insanity, video resolution is an issue. Well, that and the fact that "near freefall" and its meaning escapes you.

However, if what you say about the exterior developing long unsupported lengths is true then why doesn't the east side exterior of the building, where the interior had already allegedly collapsed, begin to collapse earlier?
Click to expand...

Why should it?

Do you have an answer for this?
Click to expand...

Yes.

Your statement is an unsupported belief, not a fact.
 
DGM said:
femr2's measurements seem to differ from your (revised as to you first do show deceleration) findings. I seem to remember the NIST findings a near free-fall. That's not important.

(I don't really have any problem with you using my real name although I find it curious that you do so considering I have not done so on this forum. This is information that I disclosed to you in private.)
Click to expand...

femr2 admits that even if what he is seeing is real it is quite small and not evidence of a jolt which could have had something to do with the collapse continuation of WTC 1.

NIST did initially try to say WTC 7 did not fall at gravitational acceleration in their press conference and draft report for comment release on WTC 7 in August of 2008. However, they were confronted about it in response to their draft report for comment and did finally admit to FULL freefall acceleration for 2.25 seconds in their final report on WTC 7 in November 2008.

Freefall acceleration and a lack of deceleration can't occur in natural collapses.

As for the use of your first name, I didn't think anything about it, as I thought it had been used before in public.
 
Last edited:
Seymour Butz said:
And just like your jolt insanity, video resolution is an issue. Well, that and the fact that "near freefall" and its meaning escapes you.



Why should it?



Yes.

Your statement is an unsupported belief, not a fact.
Click to expand...

You obviously can't answer the question as to why the east side exterior didn't collapse first if what you were saying was the reason for the collapse, so your reasoning can't be taken seriously.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
You obviously can't answer the question as to why the east side exterior didn't collapse first if what you were saying was the reason for the collapse, so your reasoning can't be taken seriously.
Click to expand...


You obviously can't answer the question as to why the east side exterior should collapse first, so your reasoning can't be taken seriously.

See how that works?
 
Tony Szamboti said:
femr2 admits that even if what he is seeing is real it is quite small and not evidence of a jolt which could have had something to do with the collapse continuation of WTC 1.
Click to expand...

I don't think this is entirely accurate. He seems to be arguing (like Gregg) against CD.

Tony Szamboti said:
NIST did initially try to say WTC 7 did not fall at gravitational acceleration in their press conference and draft report for comment release on WTC 7 in August of 2008. However, they were confronted about it in response to their draft report for comment and did finally admit to FULL free fall acceleration for 2.25 seconds in their final report on WTC 7 in November 2008.
Click to expand...

I don't really see how this matters. We're talking about what is seen. Is there any dispute that the interior of the building is leading and dragging the exterior with it?

Tony Szamboti said:
Free-fall acceleration and a lack of deceleration can't occur in natural collapses.
Click to expand...

Now that's something your going to have to prove.

Tony Szamboti said:
As for the use of your first name, I didn't think anything about it, as I thought it had been used before in public.
Click to expand...

Not a big problem.
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
I don't think this is entirely accurate. He seems to be arguing (like Gregg) against CD.
Click to expand...
I still have issues with initiation, which I'm still looking at.

I haven't ruled out invoked initiation (MIHOP) but do reject *CD* theories such as *exploding towers*, *floor by floor explosives*...all that sort of thing. *CD* as a phrase has now become so polluted with bizarre theories that I don't use the term.

Post-initiation, WTC 1 was going to ground. Gravity sucks :eye-poppi

That still apparently makes me a *twoofer*, which is fine, sticks and stones and all that, but it does irritate when I perform a lot of study on things like the Sauret footage tracing, openly and honestly, to have folk suggesting that I'm playing games or trying to deceive. The raw data is online, and similar results have already been replicated by other folk from both sides of proverbial *fence*.

Fully aware of the studies and engineering perspective on initiation...CC creep leading to global failure, but still looking at it with a fine tooth-comb. Focussed on what is physically observable rather than computer model predictions (which doesn't make me a popular bunny round these parts I know).
 
Thanks for the clarification! :)

Whatever floats your boat. Good luck with your pursuit of truth (I hope you don't set the bar artificially too high).

I really don't have any problem with people asking questions as long as they have no problem with listening to the answers.

Good luck with your search (I do mean this, let me know if there's something I should pay attention to)
 
DGM said:
I don't really see how this matters. We're talking about what is seen. Is there any dispute that the interior of the building is leading and dragging the exterior with it?
Click to expand...

The west penthouse starts to go down a split second before the entire exterior and it's eastern side was well past the middle of the roof.

Additionally, there is no exterior deformation observed in the videos.

NIST says the interior collapsed first and then the exterior.

It would seem your position that the interior dragged down the exterior of WTC 7 is on its own. What observable evidence do you think even supports that notion?
 
Tony Szamboti said:
The west penthouse starts to go down a split second before the entire exterior and it's eastern side was well past the middle of the roof.

Additionally, there is no exterior deformation observed in the videos.

NIST says the interior collapsed first and then the exterior.

It would seem your position that the interior dragged down the exterior of WTC 7 is on its own. What observable evidence do you think even supports that notion?
Click to expand...
How about the east (?) penthouse. That could be seen moving well before anything else.

If I'm wrong on my geography please post a video that shows the penthouse "disappearing" as split second before the total collapse.
 
DGM said:
How about the east (?) penthouse. That could be seen moving well before anything else.

If I'm wrong on my geography please post a video that shows the penthouse "disappearing" as split second before the total collapse.
Click to expand...

The CBS video with Dan Rather commenting shows the west penthouse going down just as the entire building starts to collapse, refuting the notion that the exterior was left standing by itself and that it then collapsed. It is here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4k6GMddY-lQ
 
DGM said:
So your claiming the other penthouse didn't go first? :confused:
Click to expand...

Of course the east penthouse went down first, but that isn't the point I am making.

What I am saying is that the west penthouse falls just a split second before the entire building showing the proposition that the entire exterior was left unsupported to be nonsense.

I am also saying that your point that the interior dragged down the exterior was impossible, as it would have deformed the exterior, but that is not observed.

As I said to Mr. Butz above, the collapse of the exterior also cannot be attributed to the interior collapse causing the exterior columns to be unbraced and buckle either, as that would mean the exterior columns on the east side should have collapsed first, but they don't, the entire exterior comes down as a unit.

There is only one answer to the collapse of WTC 7 and that is a deliberate controlled implosion, where the interior collapse is initiated just a split second before the exterior, to cause the debris to fall towards the center of the building and control the debris field and limit damage to adjacent structures.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
Of course the east penthouse went down first, but that isn't the point I am making.

What I am saying is that the west penthouse falls just a split second before the entire building showing the proposition that the entire exterior was left unsupported to be nonsense.
Click to expand...

Uh... it never had to get to this extreme for the exterior to lose it's ability to stand... I have no idea why you're portraying this hyperbole as the major argument of your peers. It may have been similar in one section of the building where the east penthouse was sitting on, but the NIST report explains that the one of the significant failures leading from the east-west progression was in the core structure, of particular attention one of the transfer trusses in the lower floors. When the lower structure was no longer able to support everything above it the the upper floors essentially fell as a unit.


Tony Szamboti said:
I am also saying that your point that the interior dragged down the exterior was impossible, as it would have deformed the exterior, but that is not observed.
Click to expand...
The failure that brought on global collapse of the remainder of the building was on a lower floor, beyond the view of cameras. The remainder with the exterior falling as a unit can be attributed to the greater stiffness and strength of it relative to the interior framing.

Also, you might like attributing WTC's "cleanliness" to that of a CD, but you obviously hold a different standard for the definition of "controlled" that most other people clearly can't relate to. I can't help you on that one...
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
What I am saying is that the west penthouse falls just a split second before the entire building showing the proposition that the entire exterior was left unsupported to be nonsense.
Click to expand...

So how far in advance should the west penthouse have fallen? All I see is a statement from you that sounds suspiciously like incredulity.

Explain to us all, using sound engineering principles, that a split second isn't enough time for load transfers to ake place and buckling of the ext to commence.

I am also saying that your point that the interior dragged down the exterior was impossible, as it would have deformed the exterior, but that is not observed.
Click to expand...

Tony, meet the kink.

As I said to Mr. Butz above, the collapse of the exterior also cannot be attributed to the interior collapse causing the exterior columns to be unbraced and buckle either, as that would mean the exterior columns on the east side should have collapsed first, but they don't, the entire exterior comes down as a unit.
Click to expand...

I'll provide just as much here for my statement as you do.

1- I say it is expected and normal

2- well, that's a match with Tony's support

to cause the debris to fall towards the center of the building and control the debris field and limit damage to adjacent structures.
Click to expand...

Well, since it tilted to the south, rather than towards the center, I guess you debunked yourself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom