Coast to Coast AM Debate, August 21 2010

[ozeco41]

Tony, I apologize for jumping in here but I have a few comments on this.

How can the exterior columns be bypassed?...

Explanation if really needed BUT it is observed fact that the global collapse occurred without end for end loading the outer tube columns to failure....

... If the building is coming straight down the exterior columns of the upper part are crushing the exterior columns of the lower part and likewise the core columns of the upper part are crushing the core columns of the lower part....

Which did not happen. So you are describing some fantasy collapse mechanism. Not the mechanism which occurred with WTC1 and WTC2 on 9/11. The outer columns peeled off essentially undamaged other than for the shearing of the floor connectors...

... Columns crushing columns precludes free fall at any time....

I fully understand why you need this claim to support your fantasy. Only problem is it didn't happen. Hence the multiple times I have asked "which columns are being crushed?" or equivalent.. BTW don't despair - even the good guys get this one wrong.

...Dave's answer does not address the resistance of the buckling columns.

...which buckling columns. I'll even shortcut it for you. "Which proportion of the core columns do you claim buckled".

 

[Tony Szamboti]

When a structure weighing a thousand tons sitting on top of a building suddenly falls down into that building, that means something inside the main body of that building has gone seriously wrong.

Do you understand the significance of this, Tony? The collapse of the EMP was due to failures inside the main body of WTC7. That ~IS~ the start of the collapse sequence.

Your whining, bitching and prattling is every bit as transparently dishonest as Christopher7s. You know damn well it was 16 seconds, you are flat out lying (in complete violation of any sort of professional ethics, I might add) about the Penthouse collapse because you can't handle it and you don't want your audience knowing about it.

The 9/11 truth movement doesn't want people knowing the whole truth.

There are plenty of examples of demolitions where a secondary roof structure is taken down separately seconds before the main collapse.

The notion that an east to west interior collapse could happen, with no visible deformation of the exterior, and for the entire exterior shell to wait until the interior was done across the building and only then come down in freefall by itself is absolutely ridiculous. It cannot be supported by any model as it defies the laws of mechanics. It is obviously a political explanation not a scientific one.

 

[Christopher7]

You know damn well it was 16 seconds

You missed this:

You are playing with semantics when you say 16 seconds. Technically you are correct but so is Mr. Gage.

You define "the building is collapsing" as any part of the building collapsing.

Mr. Gage and all those who say the building collapsed in 6.5 seconds [actually 6.6] define "the building is collapsing" as when the whole building starts to fall at FFA.


You know this yet you assail people for "flat out lying" and feign indignation using your different interpretation.

 

[ozeco41]

...WTC1 was different. It couldn't involve clean axial impact between column ends, by definition. The building only began to fall because columns were bending and/or connections breaking. Collapse initiation guaranteed a tangled mess of columns...

The central point that so many people miss - from both sides of the argument sadly.

At the initial collapse - ie the top block is moving downwards - there cannot be any columns bearing much load. THEREFORE the columns have already got the top bits bypassing the bottom bits of each column. The detail matters not. Whether there is already a clean break OR the bit in the middle between top and bottom is buckling but not yet fully failed by separating.

...In addition - even if we allow the patent absurdity of clean axial impact - what makes you thing any 'jolt' would be measurable at the roofline of a steel-framed structure that is much less rigid than RC?

...for WTC1 and WTC2 the base error of the "Missing Jolt" fantasy is that it is not based on any plausible understanding of how the collapse occurred as a cascading failure leading to the initial downward movement of the top block - leading into global collapse BUT requiring just a little bit of thinking about what the conditions at that stage must have been. No significant end for end load transfer through the columns and therefore no big jolt.

In fact the "missing jolt" logic is probably circular based on the presumption of explosive cut columns allowing an initial free fall before a "jolt". That ain't the way it fell for either WTC1 or WTC2.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

There are plenty of examples of demolitions where a secondary roof structure is taken down separately seconds before the main collapse.

It wasn't a demolition.

FACT: "There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."
The report issued by Lamont-Doherty includes various graphs showing the seismic readings produced by the planes crashing into the two towers as well as the later collapse of both buildings. WhatReallyHappened.com chooses to display only one graph (Graph 1), which shows the readings over a 30-minute time span.
On that graph, the 8- and 10-second collapses appear—misleadingly—as a pair of sudden spikes. Lamont-Doherty's 40-second plot of the same data (Graph 2) gives a much more detailed picture: The seismic waves—blue for the South Tower, red for the North Tower—start small and then escalate as the buildings rumble to the ground. Translation: no bombs.

As your colleague Steven Jones once said "A viable theory must explain all of the evidence."

Try again, Tony... this time without any references to demolition.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Technically you are correct

Thank you, Christopher.

 

[triforcharity]

The progression of the interior collapse is pure supposition on the part of NIST. The exterior collapse we can all see. The critical part is that 2.25 seconds of FFA. It proves 9/11 was an inside job.

BZZZTTTTT......WRONG AGAIN!!

So, are you trying to tell me that the interior collapse is not supported by any visual evidence? Because that would be just swell if you believed tht horse****.

 

[triforcharity]

You missed this:

You are playing with semantics when you say 16 seconds. Technically you are correct but so is Mr. Gage.

You define "the building is collapsing" as any part of the building collapsing.

Mr. Gage and all those who say the building collapsed in 6.5 seconds [actually 6.6] define "the building is collapsing" as when the whole building starts to fall at FFA.


You know this yet you assail people for "flat out lying" and feign indignation using your different interpretation.

This is the same a lying. It is dishonest, and only serves one purpose. To discount the significance of the EMP collapse, due to the fact that it would mean the collapse has already began.

It lying Chris. You, Tony, and Gage are liars. Plain and simple.

 

[Scott Jurgenson]

This is the same a lying. It is dishonest, and only serves one purpose. To discount the significance of the EMP collapse, due to the fact that it would mean the collapse has already began.

It lying Chris. You, Tony, and Gage are liars. Plain and simple.

He's the biggest liar of them all. He also is full of contradictions which are unreal. I think a thread should be made about him where we just talk about Richard Gage and his ever long list of contradictions.

 

[carlitos]

He's the biggest liar of them all. He also is full of contradictions which are unreal. I think a thread should be made about him where we just talk about Richard Gage and his ever long list of contradictions.

Try the search function.

 

[Scott Jurgenson]

Try the search function.

lol, classic message board response. I did "Try the search function". I don't see one specifically slated towards contradictions. Not to say it's not out there. **** every single thread on here is repeated x times with different titles it makes no difference, either way truthers are exposed as frauds.

 

[T.A.M.]

Any thread about Gage is useless anyway, as he is simply a parrot of DRG and his insane claims....we have a few threads deconstsructing DRGs nonsense, if you look him up.

TAM

 

[carlitos]

lol, classic message board response.

I was being serious. If you didn't find it, I'm guessing that you didn't look.

From the links page at the top, I found this site, which attempts to deal with all aspects of the ae911truth claims. The Coast to Coast AM debate is currently on the front page.

http://ae911truth.info/wordpress/

There are several threads dealing with Gage, including one titled Richard Gage's explosive contradictions.

A long list of Gage's contradictions, with links, can be found here.

I would recommend finding his interview with Kim Hill on NZ radio. Another classic.

 

[Christopher7]

At the initial collapse - ie the top block is moving downwards - there cannot be any columns bearing much load.

The remaining 158 columns are buckling. The upper portion is not falling at FFA

THEREFORE the columns have already got the top bits bypassing the bottom bits of each column.

Bits You reduced columns down to a "bits". Sophistry anyone?

Bypassing: How does a square fit inside a square of equal size?

If all the columns fall to one side the exterior wall is outside the footprint on one or two sides and the collapse will not be symmetrical.

The detail matters not. Whether there is already a clean break

There could not be a "clean break" [simultaneous] of 158 columns.

OR the bit in the middle between top and bottom is buckling but not yet fully failed by separating

In that case, there is no FFA.

 

[lapman]

There are plenty of examples of demolitions where a secondary roof structure is taken down separately seconds before the main collapse.

Please provide one that was done before or since 9/11.

 

[Scott Jurgenson]

I was being serious. If you didn't find it, I'm guessing that you didn't look.

From the links page at the top, I found this site, which attempts to deal with all aspects of the ae911truth claims. The Coast to Coast AM debate is currently on the front page.

http://ae911truth.info/wordpress/

There are several threads dealing with Gage, including one titled Richard Gage's explosive contradictions.

A long list of Gage's contradictions, with links, can be found here.

I would recommend finding his interview with Kim Hill on NZ radio. Another classic.

Thanks man. I did some searching too and found some more. God I hate that Richard Gage ! lol.

EDIT: Ok that site whereyou show the "Long list of .." is great. It's exactly what I was looking for. Thanks.

 

[Gorgonian]

The notion that an east to west interior collapse could happen, with no visible deformation of the exterior,

This is silly. There is visibile deformation of the exterior. I'm at my office and therefore cannot access youtube, but there are videos that show, with color manipulation very clearly, that the the exterior deforms significantly as the interior collapses. The light reflecting off of the windows of the building changes angles as the building deforms.

The video I'm thinking of also plays the main part of the collapse at a faster speed and you can see the entire structure wobbling.

This might be the wrong video, but I have this in a txt document from when I referenced it on another forum. If it's wrong and someone else knows what I'm talking about, I'd appreciate a correction.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvbkhGaviwg

 

[beachnut]

There are plenty of examples of demolitions where a secondary roof structure is taken down separately seconds before the main collapse.

The notion that an east to west interior collapse could happen, with no visible deformation of the exterior, and for the entire exterior shell to wait until the interior was done across the building and only then come down in freefall by itself is absolutely ridiculous. It cannot be supported by any model as it defies the laws of mechanics. It is obviously a political explanation not a scientific one.

LOL, you are making up your own opinions and acting as if they were based on reality. You are making you own ideas on what you think should happen on a building.

A gravity collapse is what all CDs look like because gravity is the primary energy used to destroy buildings. This is why you are fooled, you have no respect for physics, or gravity. Zero evidence for CD and you make it up my making up your own real CD deal on how things should behave. That is nonsense and you can't cure yourself from the the delusion of CD.

Bush is not in office, I see your CT tendencies may not be tied to your political baggage. Or did you miss the election?

 

[GlennB]

Bypassing: How does a square fit inside a square of equal size? .

The whole point is that they can't. They must slide past each other and the falling upper block will force them further apart as the building falls. A stick of spaghetti under load is a perfectly good example to illustrate. It will bend and suddenly snap. While the ends are apart the load will force the upper section downwards. Even 1mm of fall prevents those ends ever meeting again.

Whether a column fails through buckling and snapping, breaking at a joint or being severed by explosives, the Szambotian column end to column end impact can never happen. By definition. Any snapped column stumps or loose ends will most likely spear the first area of floor pan coming their way or conceivably hit a beam.

If all the columns fall to one side the exterior wall is outside the footprint on one or two sides and the collapse will not be symmetrical. .

The column ends slide over each other at an angle and are twisted/pushed aside as the building falls. Or a column snapped at a weld finds itself spearing a floor pan. Column remnants pushing the entire upper block sideways to produce the fall is not the way to look at it. The falling block pushes the column remnants out of its way.

There could not be a "clean break" [simultaneous] of 158 columns.

In that case, there is no FFA.

Agreed, but nobody has claimed FFA for WTC1 so I'm not sure what point you're making here.

 

[beachnut]

You missed this:

You are playing with semantics when you say 16 seconds. Technically you are correct but so is Mr. Gage.

You define "the building is collapsing" as any part of the building collapsing.

Mr. Gage and all those who say the building collapsed in 6.5 seconds [actually 6.6] define "the building is collapsing" as when the whole building starts to fall at FFA.


You know this yet you assail people for "flat out lying" and feign indignation using your different interpretation.

If the whole building starts to fall it would be in freefall. Darn, you can't have a whole building start to fall. It took hours for WTC7 to a fall due to fire. You want a big idiotic delusions of CD. There was no evidence of CD.

Produce evidence of CD. You can't because there was not any explosives, no thermite, and no beam weapon.

With your statement of the whole building starts to fall and ignoring the internal collapse running for seconds before the facade falls, no wonder a section of the WTC fell close to g for a short time of a long, very long collapse. Whole building started to fall is on par for Gage, he acts like an idiot to fool gullible people who fund his life, and travel. He is a fraud, and his work matches your delusions. A perfect match, you and Tony can post nonsense for eternity proving your prefer fantasy over reality and failing to gain knowledge or skills required to understand 911; an event figure out in minutes by Flight 93 passengers and an event never figured out by 911 truth; 8 years of moronic failure for 911 truth.

Stop using NIST, show us your work. Show us your evidence. Where did you get your engineering degree? Evidence?