• 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.

Gravity defying buildings? :D

bardamu said:
Do you agree that, if NIST's "probable collapse sequence" is correct, then somebody with knowledge of WTC 7's design flaws could have brought the building down in exactly the same way using nothing more than a box of matches?
Click to expand...

No. Absolutely not. WAY too many variables. Wind direction, speed, time, temerature, and humidity all effect fire in unique ways. It would be absolutely impossible to replicate that.

Sorry about your fail though.......
 
bardamu said:
If I'm ever accused of taking part in a terrorist attack, I'll hire you as my lawyer!

It was a match that accidently started fires in all the right places.
Click to expand...

If you're gonna be accused of being a terrorist, I'll gladly send you to Afghanistan with a 1 way ticket!

And gravity helped along the way.
 
triforcharity said:
No. Absolutely not. WAY too many variables. Wind direction, speed, time, temerature, and humidity all effect fire in unique ways. It would be absolutely impossible to replicate that.
Click to expand...

Did NIST's simulation take all these variables into account?
 
triforcharity said:
No. Absolutely not. WAY too many variables. Wind direction, speed, time, temerature, and humidity all effect fire in unique ways. It would be absolutely impossible to replicate that.
Click to expand...

So even if somebody knew which parts of the structure were vulnerable to thermal expansion and even if they could open the windows and turn off the sprinkler system, they'd still have a hard time bringing the building down by starting fires, because too many conditions that are out of their control would have to be just right. Have I got it?
 
Grizzly Bear said:
Oh look he (bardamu's quote) even said irrelevant yet pretty numbers about to amount of time the building held itself up when it was in pristine condition!
Click to expand...

Well, well. Grizzly Bear is keen to focus on irrelevant details, but has no interest in discussing how the perimeter held itself up for 7 whole seconds while the core was collapsing progressively from east to west. Very much like NIST, in that respect.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
tu quoque doesn't work as well as you seem to think.
Click to expand...

I wonder why it is that JREFers know the names of all the logical fallacies but fail utterly when they try to apply them to real-life arguments.

In my opinion, the length of time the building had been standing before it collapsed is relevant to the context, particularly so in a thread with the title: "Gravity defying buildings?" You, on the other hand, have gone out of your way to comment on details you claim in the same post are not relevant at all. There's no need for me to attempt to justify my behaviour by comparing it to yours, because only you have behaved badly.

Truthers generally try to focus on the almost instantaneous dropping of the entire roofline and the 6.5 seconds it took for it to fall to the ground. Debunkers argue that we have to include the 7 previous seconds. Not happy with that fanciful doubling of the collapse time, triforcharity wants to include the 7 previous hours! Going back even further in time is inconvenient for the debunkers' argument, so it's assumed to be irrelevant.
 
bardamu said:
I wonder why it is that JREFers know the names of all the logical fallacies but fail utterly when they try to apply them to real-life arguments.

In my opinion, the length of time the building had been standing before it collapsed is relevant to the context, particularly so in a thread with the title: "Gravity defying buildings?" You, on the other hand, have gone out of your way to comment on details you claim in the same post are not relevant at all. There's no need for me to attempt to justify my behaviour by comparing it to yours, because only you have behaved badly.

Truthers generally try to focus on the almost instantaneous dropping of the entire roofline and the 6.5 seconds it took for it to fall to the ground. Debunkers argue that we have to include the 7 previous seconds. Not happy with that fanciful doubling of the collapse time, triforcharity wants to include the 7 previous hours! Going back even further in time is inconvenient for the debunkers' argument, so it's assumed to be irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Without any evidence of any kind to help prove your theories Bard. You've done a bang up job at nothing!
 
bardamu said:
Do you agree that, if NIST's "probable collapse sequence" is correct, then somebody with knowledge of WTC 7's design flaws could have brought the building down in exactly the same way using nothing more than a box of matches?
Click to expand...

triforcharity said:
No. Absolutely not. WAY too many variables. Wind direction, speed, time, temerature, and humidity all effect fire in unique ways. It would be absolutely impossible to replicate that.
Click to expand...

bardamu said:
So even if somebody knew which parts of the structure were vulnerable to thermal expansion and even if they could open the windows and turn off the sprinkler system, they'd still have a hard time bringing the building down by starting fires, because too many conditions that are out of their control would have to be just right. Have I got it?
Click to expand...

Bump!
 
bardamu said:
I'm trying to understand why the building succumbed to gravity.
Click to expand...

Because uncontrolled fires destroyed the structural integrity of the building. Once the support system failed, gravity did the rest...

Now, if you disagree with that statement, please explain how you feel the WTC7 collapsed. Facts, real-world physics, and evidence will be necessary to back up your theory.

Ready? Go!
 
sabretooth47 said:
Because uncontrolled fires destroyed the structural integrity of the building. Once the support system failed, gravity did the rest...
Click to expand...

How can uncontrolled fires bring down the building if it's "absolutely impossible" to do it with controlled (targetted) fires?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom