Coast to Coast AM Debate, August 21 2010

[Disbelief]

Like a 3 year old you keep asking the same question over and over again. I have said many times that I don't know how they did it but there is no other possibility.

I am asking how it is possible. Thermite is not precise enough to do this simultaneously. Explosives do not act simultaneously. However, this is key to your argument against the fires. Do you not see the disconnect.

This will be your last ad hom against me, as I have always been respectful to you. I will report you if you do so again, and I do not believe I have reported anyone before.

 

[Christopher7]

I am asking how it is possible. Thermite is not precise enough to do this simultaneously. Explosives do not act simultaneously.

You keep repeating the same questions and making the same false statements. You don't know what can be done with nano-thermite.

However, this is key to your argument against the fires. Do you not see the disconnect.

False. The argument against the fires is that fires cannot cause the simultaneous failure of all the support columns. A fire induced collapse would take a long time like the Windsor Tower.

 

[GlennB]

You will say anything no matter how obviously false. The dots are the the data. The line does not follow the dots.

http://a.imageshack.us/img259/4716/nistfreefallgraphe.jpg

http://a.imageshack.us/img266/1849/nistfreefallgraphe3.jpg

I'll try to be patient here.

If your analysis is correct, then the slope between the points at 2.0 secs and 2.25 secs represents less than g right?
Ditto 2.5 - 2.75
Ditto 3.0 - 3.25
Ditto 3.5 - 3.75

Meaning a less than FFA phase in each of those 0.25 sec intervals, therefore resistance.

I'm arguing here from your pov, of course, but you just debunked yourself.

 

[Disbelief]

You keep repeating the same questions and making the same false statements. You don't know what can be done with nano-thermite.

Nor do you. However, there are some things you can take from how thermite works, and one thing is that you can not control it so precisely. If this your claim, you need to do a much better job of providing evidence. Ask your heroes to make some nanothermite and demonstrate some of the properties that you/they claim.

False. The argument against the fires is that fires cannot cause the simultaneous failure of all the support columns. A fire induced collapse would take a long time like the Windsor Tower.

The key to your argument is that you claim everything collapsed simultaneously, as you point out repeatedly. Are you now denying this?

Can you show the progression of the Windsor Tower collapse? From the video, it seems to collapse rather quickly.

 

[Christopher7]

I'll try to be patient here.

If your analysis is correct, then the slope between the points at 2.5 secs and 2.75 secs represents less than g right? Meaning a less than FFA phase in those 0.25 secs, therefore resistance.

Good point. The dots are not exact due to the fact that they are counting pixels and that is not exact. An average must be drawn.

If the dot at 1.5 seconds is a little off like the one at 2.5 seconds, the decent could be slow rather than none. Note that every fourth dot is a little high. Your point is well taken.

 

[GlennB]

Good point. The dots are not exact due to the fact that they are counting pixels and that is not exact. An average must be drawn.

If the dot at 1.5 seconds is a little off like the one at 2.5 seconds, the decent could be slow rather than none. Note that every fourth dot is a little high. Your point is well taken.

http://a.imageshack.us/img821/4926/nistfreefallgraphe4.jpg

Spoken like a gent.

Does this mean we can drop the "instantaneous" transition to FFA concept?

 

[bardamu]

I am asking how it is possible. Thermite is not precise enough to do this simultaneously. Explosives do not act simultaneously. However, this is key to your argument against the fires. Do you not see the disconnect.

Speaking of disconnects, here's what you're suggesting:

1. Demolition teams could bring down buildings by lighting fires at strategic points to weaken the structure.

2. In the interests of efficiency, precision and control, demolition teams prefer to use explosives.

3. On 9/11, random fires brought down WTC 7 in a manner that was more efficient, precise and controlled than would be possible using explosives.

 

[Disbelief]

Speaking of disconnects, here's what you're suggesting:

1. Demolition teams could bring down buildings by lighting fires at strategic points to weaken the structure.

2. In the interests of efficiency, precision and control, demolition teams prefer to use explosives.

3. On 9/11, random fires brought down WTC 7 in a manner that was more efficient, precise and controlled than would be possible using explosives.

PLease go back and address what I asked and try not to change the subject. Dodging and weaving does not help your argument.

 

[Christopher7]

Spoken like a gent.

Does this mean we can drop the "instantaneous" transition to FFA concept?

No
The north wall was moving downward at about 3 feet per second and then it instantaneously transitions into FFA.

 

[BigAl]

No
The north wall was moving downward at about 3 feet per second and then it instantaneously transitions into FFA.

Which a weakening and buckling of column would cause.

 

[Christopher7]

Which a weakening and buckling of column would cause.

No, the 58 buckling exterior columns could not all instantaneously snap because of the moment frames. [a steel belt every other floor that held the columns together]

 

[Justin39640]

Impossible because of the strength and redundancy built into modern high rise buildings. They cannot "collapse" completely - naturally.

Every firefighter knows that a fire can cause ANY structure to collapse. Stop making your own rules. Fire is a very destructive force. Your (and other truthers) underestimation of it scare me for those around you.

Absolutely false. A steel framed high rise is not a house of cards. The horizontal collapse across the core in a few seconds is ridiculous. It cannot happen. A steel frame cannot come apart that fast without explosives.

So how long should the redistribution of hundreds of thousands of tons take in your mind?

 

[ozeco41]

...
<popcorn> where's the damn popcorn smiley in the list?

Be my guest:

 

[uke2se]

Chris, if FFA = CD, why do no other CDs cause FFA? Could you answer this question finally?

No, you haven't answered it before. You have just provided a quote from Sunder which doesn't answer the question.

 

[alienentity]

Who cares what C7 thinks? Clearly he is not able to think logically and rationally, so cannot form reasoned opinions about this subject, let alone any other.

Unless he demonstrates some change of character, I suggest you stop feeding him. He's been making similar bare assertions for weeks. Unless you just like poking him for fun...then carry on.

 

[BigAl]

No, the 58 buckling exterior columns could not all instantaneously snap because of the moment frames. [a steel belt every other floor that held the columns together]

I think it's time for the troll to go om a diet, Bye.

 

[triforcharity]

You keep repeating the same questions and making the same false statements. You don't know what can be done with nano-thermite.

Well, we do know that it is not an explosive, that is for sure. WE also know that you don't know what it can or can't do either. That much is obvious.

False. The argument against the fires is that fires cannot cause the simultaneous failure of all the support columns. A fire induced collapse would take a long time like the Windsor Tower.

Argument from personal ignorance.

Also, can you cite your source for this? Thanks.

 

[triforcharity]

Speaking of disconnects, here's what you're suggesting:

1. Demolition teams could bring down buildings by lighting fires at strategic
points to weaken the structure.

In theory, you could, but there are so many variables to contend with. Time, temperature, humidity, wind direction, speed, crosswind, ventalation effeciency, etc etc. Explosives remove all those variables.

2. In the interests of efficiency, precision and control, demolition teams prefer to use explosives.

Yes, correct.

3. On 9/11, random fires brought down WTC 7 in a manner that was more efficient, precise and controlled than would be possible using explosives.

No, they usually try to avoid hitting other buildings when they CD a building. 7WTC hit two other buildings, one on the roof.

 

[triforcharity]

No, the 58 buckling exterior columns could not all instantaneously snap because of the moment frames. [a steel belt every other floor that held the columns together]

All 58 exterior columns did not fail simultaneously. Only portions of the N face fell in FFA.

 

[GlennB]

Spoken like a gent.

Does this mean we can drop the "instantaneous" transition to FFA concept?

No
The north wall was moving downward at about 3 feet per second and then it instantaneously transitions into FFA.

But you just agreed that nothing can be made of the interval between two adjacent points on the graph. That the graph has to be smoothed out, taken as an average.

Now you do want to find significance in the slope between two adjacent points ???

OK - then the reduced slope between 2.5 and 2.75 secs shows < g acceleration, therefore resistance, therefore not CD. OK?

Which way do you want to play this?

I've seen you write some weird stuff but never blatant deliberate trolling. Not before now, anyway.