• 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.

Coast to Coast AM Debate, August 21 2010

Question for Dave Thomas

Dave,

In the first part of the debate you stated there was a velocity drop by the upper section at each floor collision.

What evidence do you have for any velocity loss by the upper section of WTC 1?
 
I downloaded the torrent already but I don't think it was a problem with your encodes or anything. My connection was just being assy... even the large file would have been done within 15 minutes on my connection.

Any way I just started listening to the third hour where Gage talks about bilding 7... it's apparent to me from his comments on the columns (he comments that even when the core fails there's 50 "striong intact" left) that he fails to address any problems that introduces concerning his knowledge of the importance of the load path or the direction in which the loads are applied to the supports :\
 
Last edited:
A point for Dave Thomas to ponder and explain

Dave,

You made a comment at the end of the debate that no controlled demolition mechanism can account for the inward pull on the perimeter columns.

It can be shown structurally that if the outer core columns were dropping they would in fact pull the perimeter columns inwardly through the floor system, which would then cause them to buckle.

It is very plausible that a demolition could be set up to remove the outer core columns. If the corners of the perimeter are then cut the building will come straight down with the perimeters losing their orthogonal support and petaling outward as observed.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
Dave,

You made a comment at the end of the debate that no controlled demolition mechanism can account for the inward pull on the perimeter columns.

It can be shown structurally that if the outer core columns were dropping they would in fact pull the perimeter columns inwardly through the floor system, which would then cause them to buckle.

It is very plausible that a demolition could be set up to remove the outer core columns. If the corners of the perimeter are then cut the building will come straight down with the perimeters losing their orthogonal support and petaling outward as observed.
Click to expand...

I think that he's talking about the forces gradually pulling them in prior to the collapse initiation. Your scenario as stated means that there would have to be pressure of some type pressing inwards. That leads to explosives being placed on the external faces of the buildings and the detonated. That clearly didn't happen. So while your scenario is "Plausible" there is absolutely no evidence for it in this particular case, which makes it impossible except as fuel for mental masturbation. NTTAWWT.
 
Sam.I.Am said:
I think that he's talking about the forces gradually pulling them in prior to the collapse initiation. Your scenario as stated means that there would have to be pressure of some type pressing inwards. That leads to explosives being placed on the external faces of the buildings and the detonated. That clearly didn't happen. So while your scenario is "Plausible" there is absolutely no evidence for it in this particular case, which makes it impossible except as fuel for mental masturbation. NTTAWWT.
Click to expand...

You apparently did not understand what was meant by the outer core columns.

These columns are on the inside of the building (being the outer columns of the central core) and if they were dropping they would be applying a force which would pull inward on the exterior columns through the floor systems which were attached to both.
 
Last edited:
You apparently did not understand what was meant by the outer core columns.
Click to expand...

You would be correct, I missed the core part and only saw the outer columns part. My bad. Of course again, that's all mental masturbation for numerous other reasons (all of which have been covered a million times here as far as CD goes) in this case but as a strict mental exercise I suppose that it's possible for it to work
 
Tony Szamboti said:
You apparently did not understand what was meant by the outer core columns.

These columns are on the inside of the building (being the outer columns of the central core) and if they were dropping they would be applying a force which would pull inward on the exterior columns through the floor systems which were attached to both.
Click to expand...
How does this fit into your cd delusion? When will you understand gravity collapse? Are you a Gage thermite believer?
 
Last edited:
beachnut said:
How does this fit into your cd delusion? When will you understand gravity collapse?
Click to expand...


Sorry Charlie, but you are the one who seems to be missing something and not really understanding things here.

A natural gravity collapse would require deceleration of the upper section. This is seen in every single Verinage demolition, where one can actually say the upper section is causing the collapse of the lower section while being destroyed itself due to the equal and opposite forces involved.

However, the measurements of the descent of the upper section of WTC 1 show it never decelerates, so you have no mechanism for a natural gravity driven collapse of the lower structure which is designed to take several times the load above it.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
It is very plausible that a demolition could be set up to remove the outer core columns. If the corners of the perimeter are then cut the building will come straight down with the perimeters losing their orthogonal support and petaling outward as observed.
Click to expand...

Seriously Tony you seem like a nice guy,as one casual internet acquaintance to another, move on. You're grasping at straws with these constant strings of "What ifs..."and "But how abouts...". All of them contradict one another and the sad fact is after 9 years there isn't a single cogent theory that comes close to explaining the events of 911 of the official story.

Best of luck.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
A natural gravity collapse would require deceleration of the upper section.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. Not if you have thousands of tons pressing on the bottom part of the structure like a pile driver... Charlie!
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
Sorry Charlie, but you are the one who seems to be missing something and not really understanding things here.

A natural gravity collapse would require deceleration of the upper section. This is seen in every single Verinage demolition, where one can actually say the upper section is causing the collapse of the lower section while being destroyed itself due to the equal and opposite forces involved.

However, the measurements of the descent of the upper section of WTC 1 show it never decelerates, so you have no mechanism for a natural gravity driven collapse of the lower structure which is designed to take several times the load above it.
Click to expand...
8 years of CD delusions. Sorry Tony, there is no CD. The building does not accelerate at g, it slows as new mass is added. The velocity of the collapse is constantly changing, and the rate changes based on collisions. You can't grasp gravity collapse because you have a delusion of CD. The timing of collapse is nearly a model for momentum transfer; you be proved wrong by physics. This is sad a fellow engineer fails for so long.

You attempt to spread the moronic lie of CD based on ignorance of engineering, physics, and more. I know you are an engineer, what happen? You and 0.001 percent of all engineers can't figure out 911 given the answers.

Is your delusion based on thermite or explosives? You understand many of the explosives sounds Gage talks about are bodies hitting the ground? You guys are sick.
 
Heh... I just finished playing catch up with the debate on C2C and came to the same not so shocking conclusion a few others came to already that nobody was really swayed in either direction....


A couple of recurring points I've heard before :\
Gage appears to believe based on the Underwriter's laboratory's tests that viscoelastic creep would not pose any threat to the structural integrity purely on the basis that the connections are the "strongest" parts of the assemblies. One of the other posters already commented on this too... Connection elements have to resist all kinds of forces, especially moment forces and a number of other situations that could put them under as much if not more strain that the spanning members themselves, and many times extensive engineering has to be poured into designing these areas properly, more so than what spans across spaces. This is rather troubling that he doesn't account for that, and incorrectly assumes that they aren't susceptible when many times they're engineered to carry loads in a very specific manner. It's exactly because they're the most susceptible that so much engineering has to go into their designs...

The other was with Harrit claiming that steel buildings "just don't collapse from fire." Last I checked most of your small scale construction uses the same steel that goes into skyscraper steel frame designs (obviously here you're getting into different grades of the material). He really seems content upon ignoring why codes require fire proofing in the first place... I really can't advocate a claim with so little going into supporting it, that was ludicrous :\
 
Last edited:
Grizzly Bear said:
The other was with Harrit claiming that steel buildings "just don't collapse from fire." Last I checked most of your small scale construction uses the same steel that goes into skyscraper steel frame designs (obviously here you're getting into different grades of the material). He really seems content upon ignoring why codes require fire proofing in the first place... I really can't advocate a claim with so little going into supporting it, that was ludicrous :\
Click to expand...

Yes, and the reasoning always seems to be X has never happened, therefore X CANNOT happen.

What is ignored in this bizarre illogical inference is that non-Truther architects and engineers seem to believe that X CAN happen and work hard to prevent X.
 
angrysoba said:
Yes, and the reasoning always seems to be X has never happened, therefore X CANNOT happen.

What is ignored in this bizarre illogical inference is that non-Truther architects and engineers seem to believe that X CAN happen and work hard to prevent X.
Click to expand...

It wasn't just 'X' Angrysoba. It was X.Y and Z. Three buildings collapsing and all three being declared the first events of their kinds in the recorded history of this Planet. For a government explanation of 9/11 to include such rubbish should tell you all you need to know.

The tinfoil hat is clearly becoming de rigueur among you official conspiracy types.

http://www.eclectech.co.uk/mindcontrol.php
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
It wasn't just 'X' Angrysoba. It was X.Y and Z. Three buildings collapsing and all three being declared the first events of their kinds in the recorded history of this Planet.
Click to expand...

Never before in the history of the planet has a building been brought down in a controlled demolition by use of thermite, micro-nukes and/or death rays from space. Yet according to tin-foilers, not only did it happen once but three times on 9/11.

Nice job shooting yourself in the foot there, Billy.
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
Never before in the history of the planet has a building been brought down in a controlled demolition by use of thermite, micro-nukes and/or death rays from space. Yet according to tin-foilers, not only did it happen once but three times on 9/11.

Nice job shooting yourself in the foot there, Billy.
Click to expand...

You official conspiracy theorists will believe anything.

Next you will be saying that a Spaceship landed on the Loch Ness monster's head with Elvis at the controls..lol
 
Awww... poor Billy wanna cry now?

You shut down your own case with an argument that cuts harder against you than it does against us.

You got no one to blame but yourself, Billy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom