Coast to Coast AM Debate, August 21 2010

[triforcharity]

Your reading comprehension is still zero.

Really? Did you post a link to a CD that achieves a period of FFA?

I seem to have missed that.

Fire will cause building collapses. Been shown time and time again. Why do you deny fire's ability to hard a steel framed structure?

Is it because you've been hanging out at AE911T for too long? You know thay most of those idiots couldn't find their ass with both hands and a road map right?

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

How long is a long second?

It's one thousand long milliseconds.

 

[Gamolon]

The computer graphic clearly shows the exterior columns folding up but still providing resistance well into the period of FFA.

So this is the crux of your argument? You seem to think that buckling/failed columns provide some sort of support to the load/weight above.

Can you provided the information/proof that backs up this thinking of yours?

 

[Gamolon]

ETA: Dr. Sunder admitted this when he said "there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case."

What was the exact question Sunder was answering when he made this statement and who asked it?

Can you please quote it for us here?

 

[Christopher7]

It's one thousand long milliseconds.

Dave,
You missed this.
The lower part of the north wall did NOT collapse prior to the FFA.

Will you acknowledge that your statement is incorrect?
"There were 2 seconds of free fall at world Trade Center 7 but that's because the collapse took 16 long seconds and by the time those 2 seconds happened the part of the building underneath had collapsed already."

 

[BigAl]

Dave,
You missed this.
The lower part of the north wall did NOT collapse prior to the FFA.

Will you acknowledge that your statement is incorrect?
"There were 2 seconds of free fall at world Trade Center 7 but that's because the collapse took 16 long seconds and by the time those 2 seconds happened the part of the building underneath had collapsed already."

Please respond to #1064
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6295061#post6295061

 

[Gamolon]

Tell you what Chris. Here is the exact question posed by Chandler which prompted Sunder's response/explanation:

Any number of competent measurements using a variety of methods indicate the northwest corner of WTC7 fell with an acceleration within a few percent of the acceleration of gravity. Yet your report contradicts this claiming 40% slower than free fall based on a single data point. How can such a publicly visable, easily measureable quantity get set aside?

I see nothing in his question SPECIFIC to the 2.5 seconds of free fall. As a matter of fact, Chandler specifically mentions the the 40% claim from NIST which was directly related to the video from camera #3 which shows more that the free fall portion you speak of.

Why do you keep saying that Sunder is speaking of the 2.5 seconds of free fall when he is CLEARLY addressing the collapse as a whole?

 

[tsig]

No, you don't know that. You are not an expert and you don't know what is possible. You are ignoring thermite. That is a possibility. I don't have to prove how it was used so don't ask. The point is, your assumption is just that, an assumption based on a lack of knowledge [and a denial that thermite is a possibility]. Give it up.

WTC 7 fell at FFA and you have no alternate explanation for the simultaneous removal of 7 to 8 floors of supporting structure.

The "It can't be because" is a BS denial tactic.

You can't explain how thermite produces free fall.

 

[tsig]

Your reading comprehension is zero.

PKB*

*pot/kettle/black

 

[Gamolon]

Christopher7.

To make this clear, let me ask you this.

Let's say another skyscraper collapsed and it took 20 seconds. Someone did a calculation and figured that it would have taken 14 seconds to collapse if it collapsed at FFA.

1. If I asked you if the building discussed above collapsed at free fall acceleration, what would you say?

Let's say two weeks later, someone came back and said that for 5 seconds the building was in free fall.

2. If I asked you again after this new information came out if the building collapsed at free fall, would you say yes or no?

 

[Gamolon]

Christopher7.

Question about NIST's images you keep posting.

Can you tell me how far the "At 16 sec." frame's northwest corner has fallen compared to the "At 15 sec." frame's northwest corner?

There is a one second difference between frames.

I used 621 feet as the height and came up with 2.81 feet per pixel measurement.

Can you tell me what you get? I get about a 33 foot difference.

 

[A W Smith]

C7, still a basking shark in a sea of ignorance

You don't need to be an engineer to understand that FFA means falling thru air.

I know what a moment frame is and I can see in the computer model that the moment frames held the exterior walls together as they were designed to do. They did not break apart and were providing resistance well into the FFA portion of the collapse. The computer model is not falling at FFA.

No, you don't know that. You are not an expert and you don't know what is possible. You are ignoring thermite. That is a possibility. I don't have to prove how it was used so don't ask. The point is, your assumption is just that, an assumption based on a lack of knowledge [and a denial that thermite is a possibility]. Give it up.

WTC 7 fell at FFA and you have no alternate explanation for the simultaneous removal of 7 to 8 floors of supporting structure.

The "It can't be because" is a BS denial tactic.

It cannot be because it is a fact. not a denial tactic. Thermite cannot "instantly" remove anything. You continue to affirm the consequent which as has been explained to you, is a logical fallacy.

You need to show us an example of FFA caused by CD. That is your burden. You know you cannot. You also know you cannot provide a CD scenario for bld 7. It is apparent you have much ignorance invested in your conspiracy theory right down to the 7 you have attached to your moniker . Your desperation here is showing. You are failing badly.

take note @1.57 in this video "the outside shell of the building fell" Which I had explained to you pages ago in this thread.


You can hand wave this fact away and continue to be a basking shark in a sea of ignorance Chris. Perhaps if you didnt smoke so much pot back when you were a roadie your critical thinking skills would have survived.

 

[carlitos]

Wow, C7 is that old? I would have guessed college-aged. My God.

 

[TruthersLie]

You don't need to be an engineer to understand that FFA means falling thru air.

Never said you did.

I know what a moment frame is and I can see in the computer model that the moment frames held the exterior walls together as they were designed to do. They did not break apart and were providing resistance well into the FFA portion of the collapse. The computer model is not falling at FFA.

So then you aren't an engineer, and really don't understand the explainations given to you by engineers. Got it.

Chris. It really is a simple thing. Get any one of those 1200 architectural and/or engineering professionals at AE911twoof to put together just one peer reviewed engineering/architectural paper which shows that NIST is wrong. It should be easy.

As for your inability (denial) of understanding the facts as they have been laid out, and your desire to keep on spewing the same answers, maybe you should contact a local university (I'm sure there is at least one withing a few hours of your home) and ask to have a long chat with one of the structural or civil engineering professors. Schedule a meeting, and then talk to them about it.

They can SHOW you, much easier than we can TELL you.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

No, you don't know that.

Yes, I do. Not only for the reason I described in that particular post your are quoting, but also because of the seismographs set up all over Manhattan, the research seismographs at LDEO, the bomb sniffing dogs mentioned by RonMossad, the tens of thousands of CD leftovers that weren't recovered by the ATF and FBI agents sifting through the debris, and so on and so on...

You are not an expert and you don't know what is possible.

You don't need to be an expert to spew garbage over the web, but I do?

Edited by LashL: 

Removed breach of Rule 0.

Not only that, but you don't know what a "book" is, I and the others here do. This gives each of us an insurmountable advantage over you in any intellectual endeavor. We can take in new information, apply it to future decision and to improve analysis of past actions. You cannot. That's why we always beat you.

You are ignoring thermite. That is a possibility.

Nope. Again, for reasons already listed. The nose of a bomb sniffing dog is more sensitive than any electronic sniffer we can create and there was a hundred of them combing the wreckage. Additionally, the failures shown were in vertical columns. Therm*te doesn't flow sideways.

I don't have to prove how it was used so don't ask.

Yes you do. If you wanna nail the badguys in a court of law, you need to show the jury.

Edited by LashL: 

Removed innapropriate content.

 

[bardamu]

As for your inability (denial) of understanding the facts as they have been laid out, and your desire to keep on spewing the same answers, maybe you should contact a local university (I'm sure there is at least one withing a few hours of your home) and ask to have a long chat with one of the structural or civil engineering professors.

The correct expressions are: "inability to understand" and "denial of the facts". Maybe you should sign up to one of your wife's English grammar classes and refrain from posting until you can write properly.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

A significant and measurable deceleration is found in every single Verinage demolition. Their falls, after the initial unnatural instigation by removing the columns of a couple of stories, are examples of naturally caused collapse due to dynamic loading.

If WTC 1's upper section was somehow able to generate an amplified load without an observable deceleration, or collapse without needing a dynamic load as some here have claimed was possible, it would be a severe exception.

Sorry for digging this up after so long... but because it became relevant in a separate discussion I just jumped into with someone else I wanted to point out since Bazant's work seems to be the center point of your argument is something you shouldn't have had any trouble overlooking on the very first pages of his papers:

For our purpose, we may assume that all the impact forces go into the columns and are distributed among them equally. Unlikely though such a distribution may be, it is nevertheless the most optimistic hypothesis to make because the resistance of the building to the impact is, for such a distribution, the highest. If the building is found to fail under a uniform distribution of the impact forces, it would fail under any other distribution. According to this hypothesis, one may estimate that C'71 GN/m ~due to unavailability of precise data, an approximate design of column cross sections had to be carried out for this purpose.

This should clear up any and all confusion as to why I continually advise you to reread the paper and review the interpretation you've taken of it.

 

[alienentity]

Lyrics to C7's 'Bomb of Therm*te'
(Sung to the tune of Neil Young 'Heart of Gold'

It's this evidence
I never give
That keep me searching
for a bomb of therm*te
And I'm getting old.
Keeps me searching
for a bomb of therm*te
And I'm getting old

 

[pgimeno]

NIST, in effect, said the amount of resistance provided by the columns was too small to be considered. i.e. virtually zero. But a progressive collapse is always providing some resistance as Dr. Sunder stated.

Why are you concerned with an amount that is too small to be considered?

Oh, good!

So you're agreeing that the amount of support during the second stage of the façade collapse was negligible, even if the overall collapse experienced resistance, as Dr. Sunder stated? I agree on that! What was all the fuss about then?

No, you don't know that. You are not an expert and you don't know what is possible. You are ignoring thermite. That is a possibility. I don't have to prove how it was used so don't ask.

And you're ignoring Mothra, which is also a possibility. You are not a Mothra expert and therefore you don't know what is possible. And I don't need to provide any proof of how Mothra did it, so don't ask.

 

[Chorduroy]

No, you don't know that. You are not an expert and you don't know what is possible. You are ignoring thermite. That is a possibility. I don't have to prove how it was used so don't ask. The point is, your assumption is just that, an assumption based on a lack of knowledge [and a denial that thermite is a possibility]. Give it up.

WTC 7 fell at FFA and you have no alternate explanation for the simultaneous removal of 7 to 8 floors of supporting structure.

The "It can't be because" is a BS denial tactic.

Nobody here is "ignoring" thermite. Evaluating the available evidence leads most rational people to determine that thermite is clearly an extremely unlikely candidate to have been the cause of the collapse of WTC7.

The reason is because while it might be true that you don't have to "prove" how it was used, you do have to make a persuasive argument that some method of its use is plausible based on EVIDENCE. You can't. That's why you don't try. You just keep parroting the same garbage ad nauseum, trying to distract people from the inescapable FACT that there is ZERO EVIDENCE of anything other than a collapse due to fire. NONE. PERIOD.