Coast to Coast AM Debate, August 21 2010

[Disbelief]

Clever double talk. It is not a characteristic of CD but FFA is only possible by removing all the supporting structure on 7 to 8 floors. The NIST model does not fall at FFA because there is always resistance.

Once again, you need to show how this is possible with any type of CD. Just because you say that a CD can accomplish this is not proof. The characteristics of thermite are known and it is impossible to use in the manner you describe. Also, it is impossible to time explosives to be simultaneous in multiple locations on multiple floors.

This one did as is evidenced by the result.

Nope, you can not use this. Whenever debunkers point to the fall of the WTC buildings as proof that fire can cause global collapse, you in the TM whine abaout it. Therefore, you can not use the "first time in history CD of WTC7" as proof to support your argument.

 

[BadBoy]

It might be over for you but it's definitely not over for us and millions of others.

Thats right Bill. Its not over for all the friends and famillies of the victims of 9/11 and probably never will be.

Its not over for the people still physically and mentally disabled from the experience of 9/11 and wont be for a long time to come.

 

[BadBoy]

Also, it is impossible to time explosives to be simultaneous in multiple locations on multiple floors.

unless it was wired and controlled by computer. But thats the point hu, the amount of prep required to do what they think was done would be thousands of man hours of work.

Now they could argure that only the initial floors were CD'd, but that would require an acceptance of self sustained collapse. And so we are left with the idea that they rigged the whole building - all three of them, and hid all the timed detonator wiring which would have to go atleast a couple of blocks, not to mention how the core columns would need to be cut and preped, all the way down.

what I dont get is how they managed to get the collapse to initiate exactly where the planes hit, with no CD above the impact site. These truthers are seriously deluded. Its like they want it so much to be true, but who on earth understands why.

 

[Christopher7]

So, FFA isn't proof of a CD. Just happy that you've finally admitted it, Chris. It took some coercion, but we've finally made some progress.

So very wrong.

 

[Disbelief]

unless it was wired and controlled by computer. But thats the point hu, the amount of prep required to do what they think was done would be thousands of man hours of work.

Nope, still impossible according to the conditions set forth by C7 and bardamu. They say that everything occurred simultaneously and it is impossible for that many switches to be that precise to go off simultaneously. Then you have to consider whether the lag between when the switch is set and when the explosives actually detonate. However, I agree that you can get very close.

Now they could argure that only the initial floors were CD'd, but that would require an acceptance of self sustained collapse. And so we are left with the idea that they rigged the whole building - all three of them, and hid all the timed detonator wiring which would have to go atleast a couple of blocks, not to mention how the core columns would need to be cut and preped, all the way down.

And that these survived the impact and fires. Of course, they can not accept self sustained collapse since that would destroy the rest of their "arguments."

what I dont get is how they managed to get the collapse to initiate exactly where the planes hit, with no CD above the impact site. These truthers are seriously deluded. Its like they want it so much to be true, but who on earth understands why.

Yes, the planners were amazing! Many in the TM blame the Bush administration, which boggles the mind even more. Did they not watch these guys in action?

 

[Christopher7]

All this repetitive denial and double talk is a cover to facilitate the exit of Dave who cannot defend his statement and will not admit it was wrong.

"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."

The 2.25 seconds of FFA was measured using a point on the roof line of the north wall. The "part of the building underneath" the north wall had NOT collapsed already.

 

[BadBoy]

All this repetitive denial and double talk is a cover to facilitate the exit of Dave who cannot defend his statement and will not admit it was wrong.

"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."

The 2.25 seconds of FFA was measured using a point on the roof line of the north wall. The "part of the building underneath" the north wall had NOT collapsed already.

What do you mean by "double talk"? You keep using that word as if you have intellectually pulled apart another persons position, but it means nothing at all in the context of the argument.

I wonder if woo dealers like yourself pick a subject like 9/11 to propergate myth and delusion because the conspiracy IS unprovable in the first instance. i.e. its difficult to prove that something didnt happen and so can carry on arguing about it forever, bit like the davinci code. I could say that a tea pot is spinning around the moon, you could say dont be daft, I could say prove me wrong.

If it was provable, it would have been by now. There's plenty of professional journalists out there who would be looking at winning various professional prizes if they could get the real story. But of course that would require real proof.

 

[Christopher7]

What do you mean by "double talk"?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6305617&postcount=1227

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6305933&postcount=1245

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6305973&postcount=1247

 

[BadBoy]

Nope, still impossible according to the conditions set forth by C7 and bardamu. They say that everything occurred simultaneously and it is impossible for that many switches to be that precise to go off simultaneously. Then you have to consider whether the lag between when the switch is set and when the explosives actually detonate. However, I agree that you can get very close.

From what I have seen of the way a CD works, its all timed exactly with computers to ensure collapse happens exactly the correct way. If that structure was impervious to collapse, I would say getting CD to create a collapse exactly the way it did would be very difficult.

If it wasnt all in such bad taste, it would be funny.

 

[BadBoy]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6305617&postcount=1227

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6305933&postcount=1245

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6305973&postcount=1247

yes, exactly. Its just a way for you to ignore the point. Not a very subtle either.

 

[Gamolon]

I've been trying to confirm this from the report without success. Can you please source that assertion?

I was asking Chris this before and this is what he said about the model graphic:

Using the scale on screen method I came up with ~20 feet at the north west corner. Your measurement is probably more accurate than mine so shall we settle on ~30 feet?

I edited the graphic to be more accurate and changed "1-2 sec" to "About 1 sec".
http://a.imageshack.us/img826/7267/nistwtc7modelvideo14s16.jpg

Q: Do you detect any movement from 14 to 15 sec? If not, I will change that too.

How many feet would the northwest corner have to fall in one second to constitute free fall?

 

[Disbelief]

From what I have seen of the way a CD works, its all timed exactly with computers to ensure collapse happens exactly the correct way. If that structure was impervious to collapse, I would say getting CD to create a collapse exactly the way it did would be very difficult.

If it wasnt all in such bad taste, it would be funny.

I understand completely, so I am not arguing with you. What C7 and bardamu fail to see, is that the precision they are attributing to the collapse is impossible by CD. The explosions (or groupings; not sure the technical term) are sequential for a certain fall pattern, not simultaneous.

Now, if I could just get C7 to define what he means by removed when he talks about 7 to 8 floors.

 

[uke2se]

So very wrong.

Every time you bring up this whole "FFA = CD" crap, I can just point to your post were you admit that FFA isn't a characteristic of a CD.

Thanks, Chris.

 

[pgimeno]

CD is an explanation for the 100 feet of FFA. Buckling columns is not.

You claim CD is an explanation but don't show how it explains that. You just repeat that all columns were simultaneously removed but don't provide a mechanism. I provide a mechanism and you dismiss it as "assumption" without any argument, having failed to provide anything but assumptions about how CD "explains" that. You even provided a quote by NIST which confirms my "assumption":

The exterior columns buckled at the lower floors (between Floors 7 and 14) due to load redistribution to the exterior columns from the building core as the interior columns buckled and the building core moved downward. The entire building above the buckled-column region then moved downward in a single unit, as observed, completing the global collapse sequence.
​

(NCSTAR 1A, p.55)
Therefore, you have it in reverse: CD is not an explanation for the 100 feet of FFA, but buckling columns is.

No, you have admitted that you don't have a mechanism to explain the simultaneous failure in case of demolition.

That's what happens in a building implosion.

In the case of building implosions, simultaneous failure is the result of an induced collapse in progress. Loud booms can be heard. Removal of supports is not simultaneous.

You haven't explained how could it be done in the case of WTC7, where no thermite was found in any structural elements and no sounds of explosions were heard. You have explicitly said that you don't know how thermite was used, therefore you haven't explained the mechanism by which simultaneous failure happened. The score remains as it was:

Explanation of simultaneous failure for fire-induced collapse: 1
Explanation of simultaneous failure for CD: 0

No, it is not. You say that CD the only possibility, but that rules it out as a possibility, thus proving you wrong. A natural collapse is the only valid explanation so far.

That is first rate double talk.
Well done.

No it's not. NIST explained how a natural collapse happened, therefore there's a valid explanation. You say that CD is the only possibility, but lack of proof of thermite in any structural elements and lack of sounds of explosions during the collapse rules it out as an explanation. My sentence was exact. No ambiguities, no reversal of meanings.

Fine details?
It does not look like the videos of the actual collapse and it does not match the text. Note that there has been NO horizontal collapse.

I'll take that as an admission that every time you use the graph of the simulation you are lying.

I don't see any error analysis

What analysis?

Analysis of the error range for the measurement. Do you see any ± sign that I'm missing?

No, I did the math.

Show us the math.

 

[Gamolon]

Chris. Any reason why you removed the caption "The NIST computer model is not falling at free fall acceleration" from your graphic below...

...to now look like this...

How far would the northwest corner have had to have fallen in one second to make it free fall?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

unless it was wired and controlled by computer. But thats the point hu, the amount of prep required to do what they think was done would be thousands of man hours of work.

Now they could argure that only the initial floors were CD'd, but that would require an acceptance of self sustained collapse. And so we are left with the idea that they rigged the whole building - all three of them, and hid all the timed detonator wiring which would have to go atleast a couple of blocks, not to mention how the core columns would need to be cut and preped, all the way down.

what I dont get is how they managed to get the collapse to initiate exactly where the planes hit, with no CD above the impact site. These truthers are seriously deluded. Its like they want it so much to be true, but who on earth understands why.

The actual initiation floors in WTC 1 and WTC 2 were just above the actual impact zones, on floors with little to no damage and where there would have been almost no jet fuel. The 98th in WTC 1 and 82nd in WTC 2.

Think about that!

 

[uke2se]

The actual initiation floors in WTC 1 and WTC 2 were just above the actual impact zones, on floors with little to no damage and where there would have been almost no jet fuel. The 98th in WTC 1 and 82nd in WTC 2.

Think about that!

Yes, that's a good point. That's exactly were I would expect a fire induced collapse to begin, as gravity pushes the intact floors down on the damaged ones. Good catch, Tony. Another evidence for the NIST model.

 

[tsig]

I have answered this many times.

There are no other CDs that fall at FFA to my knowledge, but every CD is unique and apparently they needed to achieve FFA for ~100 feet to get the job done.

Your assertion that FFA means it was not a CD, is wrong.

FFA for ~100 feet means all the supporting structure has been removed on 7 to 8 floors.

If every CD is unique how can you say WT7 looked like CD?

 

[BadBoy]

I understand completely, so I am not arguing with you. What C7 and bardamu fail to see, is that the precision they are attributing to the collapse is impossible by CD. The explosions (or groupings; not sure the technical term) are sequential for a certain fall pattern, not simultaneous.

Now, if I could just get C7 to define what he means by removed when he talks about 7 to 8 floors.

yes, quite.

 

[triforcharity]

Bardamu,
Pardon me for jumping in here but triforcharity is talking thru his hat.

In order for the entire upper portion to fall at FFA as a single unit, all 58 exterior columns had to fail simultaneously. If they had not failed simultaneously, the top part would have fallen to one side.

NIST says:
"Exterior column buckling spread from column to column, as loads were redistributed, until all the exterior columns had buckled between floors 7 and 14 within approximately 2s. [1-9 Vol.2 pg 588] This is consistent with Stage 1. [1A pg 45]

Then "The entire building above the buckled-column region then moved downward in a single unit, as observed" [1A pg 55 ] At FFA - Stage 2

Oh, you mean like the leaning that was witnessed? And the fact that it hit two other buildings, one on it's ROOF? You mean that kind of lean?

Notice even the NIST report that you quoted does not say "The entire building fell as a single unit"? Notice it give that little qualifier of "Above the buckled-column region?

You REALLY need to try reading for comprehension.