Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[dafydd]

If you have a point then go ahead and make it.

What are your qualifications? If you have the training and knowledge I might start listening to you. All I have seen so far is the usual truther evasions and 'it doesn't look right to me',which is what trutherism boils down to. Where did you study and what do you think happened on 911?

 

[NoahFence]

If you have a point then go ahead and make it.

The point is, claiming small fires because you see a picture of the north side of the building is OLD NEWS. The south side of the building, the one struck by debris from WTC 1 was almost completely engulfed in flames. The thing is, you know that. And you ignore it. Why?

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

The point is, claiming small fires because you see a picture of the north side of the building is OLD NEWS. The south side of the building, the one struck by debris from WTC 1 was almost completely engulfed in flames. The thing is, you know that. And you ignore it. Why?

Perhaps this image will help tempesta29.

Hint: the south side is the one that's engulfed in flames.

 

[TexasJack]

I don't think the purpose of this thread is debate truthers on old long debunked beliefs. Rather it is for them, or anyone to present something new. If they want to present the ancient material that has got them nowhere for years and pretend it is new, let them. I suggest either ignore those posts are just leave a link to an appropriate thread.

 

[alienentity]

Significant = measurable. Are you implying that all that steel offered no more resistance than air?

I'm sure it's possible that a steel framed skyscraper could collapse due to fire. I've never seen it personally, but it may be possible. Then again, WTC 7 was hardly engulfed in flames, as you can hardly even see fires from the north side.

The point still stands: WTC 7 was in free fall for most of its 47 stories.

Specifically, part of the building (the North face exterior) which collapsed last (about 8 seconds after the rest of the building had already started collapsing) seems to have collapsed at roughly gravitational acceleration. Femr2 has measured this independently as exceeding freefall for a brief period, and postulates (as do others such as I) that this is due to twisting of the structure and also to connections with internal structure which is already collapsing.


To state, as you have, that the building fell at freefall is a gross oversimplification of the observables. In fact, the progressive collapse, from the time the E Penthouse descended into the building (which means the structure below was collapsed already) is something like 14 to 18 seconds.

For a 47 story building, if it were to have fallen at G that would have taken only 6 seconds.

By analogy, if you take a trip in your car and want to calculate in advance how long it will take, you cannot just apply the maximum speed of one part of the trip and extrapolate for the entire distance.
That would be grossly incompetent and your estimate would be totally wrong.

That's exactly what you're doing (and you're not the only one making such errors) when analyzing the collapse of WTC 7. Ryan Mackey can't be bothered to humor you, and I don't blame him.

 

[femr2]

Oversimplification

I note your use of the word oversimplification later in your post...

Specifically, part of the building (the North face exterior) which collapsed last

Oversimplification. At least the West face descended at *the same time*, and most probably the East and South perimeters too.

(about 8 seconds after the rest of the building had already started collapsing)

More than oversimplification, wrong. East core->East Penthouse->West Core+West Penthouse+Perimeter at almost the same time. Rest of the building ? Your statement implies the West perimeter started descent 8 second before the North. Clearly not the case.

In fact, the progressive collapse, from the time the E Penthouse descended into the building (which means the structure below was collapsed already) is something like 14 to 18 seconds.

Collapsed already is inaccurate.
Adding separate descent event times together is misleading.

Don't interpret this as support for whoever you were responding to, but if you're going to criticise for oversimplification, I suggest not doing so yourself.

 

[NoahFence]

Collapsed already is inaccurate.Adding separate descent event times together is misleading.

Don't interpret this as support for whoever you were responding to, but if you're going to criticise for oversimplification, I suggest not doing so yourself.

What?!?

How do you suppose the penthouse falls if the structure beneath it hasn't collapsed?

 

[cantonear1968]

I was referring to WTC 7, which, for the majority of its 47 floors, fell at free-fall acceleration.

But you already knew that, right? But if you knew that, why wouldn't you assume I was referring to WTC 7, whose collapse speeds are such common knowledge?



Hyperbole and ad hominem in the same sentence. Congrats.

In what world is 8 out of 47 a majority?

 

[Childlike Empress]

Perhaps this image will help tempesta29.

Hint: the south side is the one that's engulfed in flames.

[qimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/uploads/ats27400_WTC7b03.jpg[/qimg]

Here's a different perspective:

 

[000063]

What?!?

How do you suppose the penthouse falls if the structure beneath it hasn't collapsed?

Clearly, Silverstein kept a Bag Of Holding under it.

 

[Oz1976]

Should all momentous events be celebrated? I sure hope not.

Yes, I believe people who go into the streets to celebrate someone's death are dumbed down. I would never celebrate anyone's death.

Are they SOLELY celebrating his death? NO! They're expressing their relief, their pain, the feelings that have built up over the last 10 years since 911 when it looked like we would never get the sonofab...

It doesn't matter WHAT your thoughts are on 911 and OBL. You claim "critical thinking" and then make a swooping large rash generalization / assumption of everyone that took to the streets that night. Did you not even watch the interviews? A large portion were not there to celebrate his death at all, but to share relief that the man that perpetrated attacks on their friends and family had been brought to some measure of justice.

You know what they say when you ASSume something...if your rhetoric wasn't always so obnoxious and antagonistic, maybe you'd be more convincing in your arguments. Food for thought.

 

[tempesta29]

Are they SOLELY celebrating his death? NO! They're expressing their relief, their pain, the feelings that have built up over the last 10 years since 911 when it looked like we would never get the sonofab...

It doesn't matter WHAT your thoughts are on 911 and OBL. You claim "critical thinking" and then make a swooping large rash generalization / assumption of everyone that took to the streets that night. Did you not even watch the interviews? A large portion were not there to celebrate his death at all, but to share relief that the man that perpetrated attacks on their friends and family had been brought to some measure of justice.

You know what they say when you ASSume something...if your rhetoric wasn't always so obnoxious and antagonistic, maybe you'd be more convincing in your arguments. Food for thought.

Nonsense. The college kids in the streets of the US chanting "USA!" were not expressing pent up pain in any sense. They were celebrating death like people celebrate a victory on a football field. Nothing more. Don't be deluded.

Family members seeking closure comprised a very small percentage of the celebrating crowds.

 

[Oz1976]

Nonsense. The college kids in the streets of the US chanting "USA!" were not expressing pent up pain in any sense. They were celebrating death like people celebrate a victory on a football field. Nothing more. Don't be deluded.

Family members seeking closure comprised a very small percentage of the celebrating crowds.

And you lumped them all together...rash broad generalization...not "critical thinking"...understand yet?

 

[tempesta29]

And you lumped them all together...rash broad generalization...not "critical thinking"...understand yet?

What percentage of people celebrating worldwide would you estimate actually lost loved ones on 9/11?

 

[tempesta29]

Specifically, part of the building (the North face exterior) which collapsed last (about 8 seconds after the rest of the building had already started collapsing) seems to have collapsed at roughly gravitational acceleration. Femr2 has measured this independently as exceeding freefall for a brief period, and postulates (as do others such as I) that this is due to twisting of the structure and also to connections with internal structure which is already collapsing.


To state, as you have, that the building fell at freefall is a gross oversimplification of the observables. In fact, the progressive collapse, from the time the E Penthouse descended into the building (which means the structure below was collapsed already) is something like 14 to 18 seconds.

For a 47 story building, if it were to have fallen at G that would have taken only 6 seconds.

By analogy, if you take a trip in your car and want to calculate in advance how long it will take, you cannot just apply the maximum speed of one part of the trip and extrapolate for the entire distance.
That would be grossly incompetent and your estimate would be totally wrong.

That's exactly what you're doing (and you're not the only one making such errors) when analyzing the collapse of WTC 7. Ryan Mackey can't be bothered to humor you, and I don't blame him.

You keep missing the same point: WTC 7, during stage 2 of the collapse, fell at gravitational acceleration, meaning that all of the structural components that failed during that time offered no resistance, none, the same amount of resistance as air. That's the whole reason NIST broke it up into stages: simply calculating the total time for the collapse isn't the point. The velocities of the collapsing structure in its stages are what is significant. During stage 2, all of that steel offered no resistance to collapse.

Comprehend this very simple concept and come back. Then we'll try it again.

 

[tempesta29]

The point is, claiming small fires because you see a picture of the north side of the building is OLD NEWS. The south side of the building, the one struck by debris from WTC 1 was almost completely engulfed in flames. The thing is, you know that. And you ignore it. Why?

I never said otherwise.

Funny then that the side virtually unscathed by fire and debris still managed to reach gravitational acceleration.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Here's a different perspective:

Hint for Dave Thomas: The smoke is not coming from WTC7.

 

[Oz1976]

What percentage of people celebrating worldwide would you estimate actually lost loved ones on 9/11?

What does that have to do with your hypocrisy? Which is what I was pointing out and you failed to comprehend.

 

[Oz1976]

Hint for Dave Thomas: The smoke is not coming from WTC7.

Pray tell where it's coming from then:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxGRUjnDwLo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afb7eUHr64U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hx8oOVm7zvg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDySukkcn3g

^^ these are not "Truther" or "debunker" vids, just footage of WTC 7...seems to me the picture accurately shows the smoke coming from 7...as do the vids. I would like to know what you think it's coming from and your proof of that.

 

[tempesta29]

What does that have to do with your hypocrisy? Which is what I was pointing out and you failed to comprehend.

Yeah great work there. Yes, I generalized the crowds I saw that chanted "USA!". I'm willing to bet they didn't lose loved ones on 9/11. Call that whatever you want. I don't care.