Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[T.A.M.]

You don't explain the free fall in any way. You just sidestep it like everyone else here. I never ever said the collapse was caused by CD. Read the thread to see for yourself. What I said was the collapse required more energy than was available by fire alone. This extra energy is ignored by the official crackpot theory and therefore it violates the (conservation) laws of physics.

I have not sidestepped anything.

However, you have failed to produce one equation/formula/mathematic proof to support your argument that the 2.25 seconds of observed free fall breaks the laws of physics.

Do you plan on showing us any time soon?

TAM

 

[cmatrix]

I have not sidestepped anything.

However, you have failed to produce one equation/formula/mathematic proof to support your argument that the 2.25 seconds of observed free fall breaks the laws of physics.

Do you plan on showing us any time soon?

TAM

I will not provide any equation/formula/mathematic proof whatsoever as none are needed. I have several times explained how the crackpot NIST _theory_ violates the (conservation) laws of physics. No one here has shown how my analysis is wrong. All they can do is attempt to sidetrack the discussion.

One more time. Free fall means no resistance. Normal office fires can't blow out 8 stories of structure simultaneously. If fire didn't do it something else did which is not acknowledged in the US government's official loony theory. So their crackpot theory violates the (conservation) laws of physics.

 

[TJM]

Define normal office fire

 

[cmatrix]

Yep... cmatrix doesn't understand the collapse progression. The link is above, but before you read it, let's see your explanation.

You mean NIST's completely unverified, untested, unsupported collapse progression theory? The theory that does not explain the free fall period? The theory that violates the laws of physics? Well I admit it. I don't understand crackpot science.

 

[Telltale Tom]

In order for a demolition's procedure to cause 8 storeys to go into free fall it would be required to remove the support NOT just of one or two storeys but all columns in all 8 storeys.(Seems to me I counted well over 100 required, very closely timed, severings)

This amounts to many dozens of cutting charges of some sort. Explosives will HAVE TO be large enough to sever these columns, some of which are quite large. A thermite melting is a slow process and cannot be timed.
Thermitic material used in an EXPLOSIVE will increase the heat output and the velocity of the expanding gasses which will still make a very very loud BOOM!

However, if the core columns failed, and they most certainly did as evidenced by the progression (yes Bill, it did progress) of central collapse seen at the rooftop prior to the collapse of the north face, then the cantilever trusses over the pre-existing Con-Ed building will have lost their major support at their south end. This would cause the lower 8 storeys to buckle outward(to the north) and at some point the remaining columns on the north side of the building would be basically useless with the vast majority of the weight above them no longer bearing anywhere close to axially on them.

SO, Nist says col 79 failed initiating a vertical progression(there's that word again Bill) at the location of col 79 and up to the roof where we see the east penthouse fall in. The debris from this vertically progressing (there it is again) failure is impacting proximate areas of the floors and columns and failing them resulting in a horizontal progression (wow its still there and we have not even gotten to the final 3 seconds of the collapse yet) which sees the core structure being badly damaged and failing.
Had this been a typical post and beam construction this might have ended there BUT it was far from that. The cantilever (look up that word) trusses were required to take the added weight of 40 more storeys and keep that added weight from crushing the Con-Ed structure. The existing columns of the Con-ed were bolstered as well but were never expected to have to hold the entire mass of 40 storeys. As progressive supports at the south end of the cantilever trusses fail, more and more mass is now being supported by columns never designed to do so. At some point during this horozontal progression eye-poppi)of core failure the south most columns of the Con-Ed structure will fail adding more load to the remaining ones and so on, which means a very quick tilting of the cantilever trusses, the northward buckling of the north wall below the 8th floor and the essentially zero load bearing capacity of , now, radically tilted, and/or buckled, and/or snapped columns.

The rest of the building goes BOOM.

In fact had Bill or cmatrix bothered to peruse the thread discussing Chandler's use of the physics tool kit they would know by now that a period of free fall does indeed indicate very little(or nothing at all) about what caused the global collapse.


There IS one way for some nefarious planting of column severing devices to cause this to occur exactly as seen;
simply fail col 79 and then , progressively, the other core columns.
Of course you come right back to the problem of silent explosives or remarkably timed thermite severing of vertical structures.

Ha! You really expect us to believe that.!

Perhaps explanations like that might convince engineers and help to explain why only 4 PE's from New York State have signed our petition, but it will never convince the likes of me and cmatrix.

Its just a bunch of words. I bet you don't even have a decent video to prove your theory. Bill show them a relevant video please.

 

[T.A.M.]

I will not provide any equation/formula/mathematic proof whatsoever as none are needed. I have several times explained how the crackpot NIST _theory_ violates the (conservation) laws of physics. No one here has shown how my analysis is wrong. All they can do is attempt to sidetrack the discussion.

One more time. Free fall means no resistance. Normal office fires can't blow out 8 stories of structure simultaneously. If fire didn't do it something else did which is not acknowledged in the US government's official loony theory. So their crackpot theory violates the (conservation) laws of physics.

Sorry, this explains nothing. Can you point out where NIST's present theory for WTC7 Collapse fails to account for the 2.25 seconds of free fall. So far you have not. Please show us how the failure of column 79, and subsequent collapse does not account for, or is in violation of 2.25 seconds worth of velocity equal to that seen in free fall.

Thanks

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

You mean NIST's completely unverified, untested, unsupported collapse progression theory? The theory that does not explain the free fall period? The theory that violates the laws of physics? Well I admit it. I don't understand crackpot science.

All of the above is presently your unsupported speculative and from what I can see uneducated OPINION. Please provide evidence backing up the bolded sections above, or simply admit they are your opinion.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

Ha! You really expect us to believe that.!

Perhaps explanations like that might convince engineers and help to explain why only 4 PE's from New York State have signed our petition, but it will never convince the likes of me and cmatrix.

Its just a bunch of words. I bet you don't even have a decent video to prove your theory. Bill show them a relevant video please.

lol...thanks Tom, I needed that.

TAM

 

[cmatrix]

Sorry, this explains nothing. Can you point out where NIST's present theory for WTC7 Collapse fails to account for the 2.25 seconds of free fall. So far you have not. Please show us how the failure of column 79, and subsequent collapse does not account for, or is in violation of 2.25 seconds worth of velocity equal to that seen in free fall.

Thanks

TAM

Well WTC 7 had 58 perimeter columns and 25 massive core columns. One failed column still leaves a lot of structure that had to be removed simultaneously over 8 stories to allow the free fall period. There is also no evidence C 79 even failed, just completely unsupported speculation.

 

[beachnut]

Sure. Free fall means nothing is resisting the building's fall. Fire is not explosive. It gradually weakens steel. It can't simultaneously remove 8 stories of structure. Either some extra energy was involved in removing the structure that should have been in the way or some extra energy was somehow propelling the building downward (highly unlikely). The NIST fairly tale doesn't account for this extra energy so it violates the (conservation) laws of physics.

Nothing in the collapse violated the laws of physics. Do you need help with physics you you will not fall for the delusional lies of 911 truth.

Prove NIST was wrong with a paper; publish the paper. With Gage and all his donated funds this could happen in less than 6 months. Gage is a fraud, you will find out when you try to get anyone who signed up with his liars club to do reality based work.

Publish your work; it will most likely be judged delusional by experts in structural engineering because your conclusion is a fantasy. Where is your work?

 

[cmatrix]

All of the above is presently your unsupported speculative and from what I can see uneducated OPINION. Please provide evidence backing up the bolded sections above, or simply admit they are your opinion.

TAM

I can't prove a negative and I have several times explained how the crackpot NIST _theory_ violates the (conservation) laws of physics. No one here has shown how my analysis is wrong. All they can do is attempt to sidetrack the discussion.

One more time. Free fall means no resistance. Normal office fires can't blow out 8 stories of structure simultaneously. If fire didn't do it something else did which is not acknowledged in the US government's official loony theory. So their crackpot theory violates the (conservation) laws of physics.

 

[beachnut]

Well WTC 7 had 58 perimeter columns and 25 massive core columns. One failed column still leaves a lot of structure that had to be removed simultaneously over 8 stories to allow the free fall period. There is also no evidence C 79 even failed, just completely unsupported speculation.

This is what 911 truth says, and they have no evidence for it.

If you believe everything someone says without question then you're most certainly too gullible to be a skeptic.

Why are you so gullible; where is your journal paper to prove your point?

You call a scientific investigation completely unsupported speculation, but you think thermite did WTC7; a complete fantasy based on delusional opinions, hearsay and lies. You have no evidence and hate science.

Start a thread and present the enormous amount of incriminating evidence you have. I smell Pulitzer! (your analysis is wrong; anyone can see it)

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

[...] I have several times explained how the crackpot NIST _theory_ violates the (conservation) laws of physics.

Repetition of the initial claim is not explanation of said claim.

You must have verifiable information that led you to conclude that NIST's report violates the laws of physics. What is it? You seem curiously reluctant to present it...

No one here has shown how my analysis is wrong.

I think you're confusing "conclusion" with "analysis". You repeatedly state your conclusion several times, but you have yet to show us your analysis which led you to that conclusion.

One more time. Free fall means no resistance. Normal office fires can't blow out 8 stories of structure simultaneously. If fire didn't do it something else did which is not acknowledged in the US government's official loony theory. So their crackpot theory violates the (conservation) laws of physics.

Oh, wait... This is your analysis? And here I thought you had something insightful, or even somewhat intelligent.

Since the rest of the world's experts aren't clamoring to expose such an allegedly horrific abortion of logic on NIST's part, then it's implied that you and only a handful of others are the ones to have figured it out. It's not even possible in your mind that the situation may be vastly more complex than your limited education can handle?

 

[TJM]

I can't prove a negative and I have several times explained how the crackpot NIST _theory_ violates the (conservation) laws of physics. No one here has shown how my analysis is wrong. All they can do is attempt to sidetrack the discussion.

One more time. Free fall means no resistance. Normal office fires can't blow out 8 stories of structure simultaneously. If fire didn't do it something else did which is not acknowledged in the US government's official loony theory. So their crackpot theory violates the (conservation) laws of physics.

I've looked over the WTC7 videos a few times. Could you point out the part where eight stories are "blown out", as you seem to be fixated on that.

 

[cmatrix]

Repetition of the initial claim is not explanation of said claim.

You must have verifiable information that led you to conclude that NIST's report violates the laws of physics. What is it? You seem curiously reluctant to present it...




I think you're confusing "conclusion" with "analysis". You repeatedly state your conclusion several times, but you have yet to show us your analysis which led you to that conclusion.




Oh, wait... This is your analysis? And here I thought you had something insightful, or even somewhat intelligent.

Since the rest of the world's experts aren't clamoring to expose such an allegedly horrific abortion of logic on NIST's part, then it's implied that you and only a handful of others are the ones to have figured it out. It's not even possible in your mind that the situation may be vastly more complex than your limited education can handle?

Yes that's my simple easy to understand analysis that you (and everyone else here) are completely unable to refute except by resorting to an incredibly pathetic argumentum ad populum logical fallacy. The number of people that agree with an analysis have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the merit of that analysis.

 

[Dog Town]

So their crackpot theory violates the (conservation) laws of physics.

Yet oddly, you still can't show that, with any numbers. Color me surprised!

 

[Reactor drone]

Good god! I have never said explosives were used to bring down WTC 7. So I do not have to explain how they were used. Is that simple enough for you? Your turn. Explain the free fall. Unless you can't that is.

This does make me wonder why you mentioned that fire was not explosive (bolding mine)

Sure. Free fall means nothing is resisting the building's fall. Fire is not explosive. It gradually weakens steel. It can't simultaneously remove 8 stories of structure. Either some extra energy was involved in removing the structure that should have been in the way or some extra energy was somehow propelling the building downward (highly unlikely). The NIST fairly tale doesn't account for this extra energy so it violates the (conservation) laws of physics.

One more time. Free fall means no resistance. Normal office fires can't blow out 8 stories of structure simultaneously. If fire didn't do it something else did which is not acknowledged in the US government's official loony theory. So their crackpot theory violates the (conservation) laws of physics.

When you use the term 'blow out" (bolding mine) what do you mean by it if not explosives? All this talk of fire not being explosive, extra energy being required and "blowing out 8 stories" of the structure does seem to me to suggest that you're implying explosives, even if you're careful to never actually say it plainly.

So, if you didn't mean explosives, the question is, "what did cause the blowing out?".


Strong gust of wind, big bad wolf maybe?

 

[TJM]

I've looked over the WTC7 videos a few times. Could you point out the part where eight stories are "blown out", as you seem to be fixated on that.

*cough*

 

[Telltale Tom]

Well WTC 7 had 58 perimeter columns and 25 massive core columns. One failed column still leaves a lot of structure that had to be removed simultaneously over 8 stories to allow the free fall period. There is also no evidence C 79 even failed, just completely unsupported speculation.

You mean column C79 is still standing.. just checked you are wrong, so there is lots of evidence it failed.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Yes that's my simple easy to understand analysis that you (and everyone else here) [...]

Not just here, apparently. Experts all across the globe are somehow blind to your simplistic view of things. How can that be?

[...] are completely unable to refute [...]

There's nothing to refute.

The number of people that agree with an analysis have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the merit of that analysis.

That's quite possibly the dumbest thing you've said so far...

Can you offer any thoughts on why experts within the relevant field(s) agree with a report that not only contains, but essentially is, by your account, a massive mistake that no one with a grade-school education could make?

Can you offer any thoughts on why very, very few experts within the relevant field(s) publicly disagree with the report on such grounds?