Merged New video! Architects and Engineers - Solving the Mystery of Building 7

[Edx]

You do realize verinage requires a great deal of precise preparation?

Do tell us what kind of preparation you believe is required and how that affects the comparision I am making. Thnx.

 

[Edx]

There have been many booms on 9/11 videos posted on this site. In those videos TV news commentators mentioned them when they occurred. Did you miss that?

Where are the booms that are occuring when all this steel flinging is meant to be happening? When the 8-10 floors were meant to have been instantly vaporised somehow with WTC7?

 

[lapman]

NIST didn't even test for explosives. what the hell else do we need to know/?

They didn't test for rabid, vorple unicorns either. So what?

NIST was tasked with finding out why they blew up and fell down.
They should have tested for explosives. WHY WOULDNT THEY?

For the same reason that they didn't test for rabid, vorple unicorns. THERE IS ZERO EVIDENCE THAT POINTS TO EXPLOSIVES. You can make up all you want, but the real world knows that there are no explosives in the known universe that could create the affect that was seen and heard that day. I know, you will use the usual cop-out that the government has all sorts of "super sekrit" stuff while ignoring the fact that such "stuff" does not stay sekrit for long.

 

[Marokkaan]

I admit - it - was - a - typo... and? My point is you claim you only just noticed a word I have used in every single post to you in this argument.

pffffff

20% of the building easily crushes the 80% of the building below it straight down, pancake style, rapidly.

Why you dont answer the questions?

No, and neither is your chinese demolition. It also does starts to collapse as soon as the explosives start and it causes rapid propulsion of debris. You guys claim explosives so powerful went off that hurled heavy steel around hundreds of feet but didnt cause any effects associated with high explosives. To cover up the sound Ive just been told they used even more explosives so that you wouldnt be able to hear individual blasts. Sorry, but explosives and sound do not work this way.

So for next time, do not use a bad example

But you dont tell me why its relevant to say it has to be steel. As if steel is somehow indestructible.

Because there are a lot of factors, who are important, there is a difference between a building with concrete and steel, you can not compare them with eachother, if you dont even know that, ask your buddies for some information.

Why are highrise buildings differenct? You claim i have to show you an example of a steel frame HIGHRISE collapsing from fire? Why do I have to show you a highrise? Why do you seem to think a highrise makes it stronger?

Because its about highrise buildings.

Thats like saying I will refer you to Creationist biologists to explain why evolution is wrong. Sorry, but your pathetically fringe bunch of nobodies irrelevant in every professional area you can think of does not impress me.

Wtf you are asking questions which showing your lack of knowledge. Show i was advising you to go to an architect or an engineer for further questions.

I really do not understand why you are talking about creationist

So...

1. Explosions - that make no explosive sound, dont cause a shock wave, dont cause air to visibly condence

Yes, there was explosive sound, its your lack of knowledge who doesnt know that.

Just one example.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NzSxSUb0Kk&feature=related

2. Free fall - that doesnt occur in demolitions anyway

Near freefall i said. Every cd has a moment of freefall, because you are destroying a part of the building to get the building collapse.

Well... thats it.

Verinage has ...

Ejections of debris, large dust cloud, rapid onset, rapid collapse, and shows that a smaller part of a building can easily crush the larger part below it. No explosives required.

Do not lie, there is no ejection of debris you can compare with cd.
This is your own opinion, show me proof. You tried to, but you failed with that videoclip.

Again a lie, you are not talking about the whole building, and you are not talking about a steel frame building, etc.

Thanks to your lack of knowledge, you are talking gibberish

Saying explosives werent used would still make your claims crazy, but at least you'd be less crazy.

???

You love telling people what they dont know, and yet you dont know anything. You talk about explosives that can literally only exist in StarTrek and in fiction. Quiet explosives cannot exist, vaporizing entire floors in one go cannot exist. You are a fool that doesnt know anything about anything and thinks the only way you can argue is by just projecting your own inadequacies onto everyone else. You have no evidence, even a theory, for how these explosives could exist yet you demand I acknowledge their existence. Sorry buddy, I am not going to jump into crazy town with the rest of the lunatic brigade just because it makes life a bit more interesting. You tell people they are not experts in explosives in the hope that they are not so you can discount everything they are saying, yet even when they are experts and prove it you move the goal posts anyway in the case of Sam.I.Am which had more experience in his left finger than you'll ever have

.

Just say you dont have the knowledge about cd, or do you?

Well we have classic explosive demolition seen on most videos you can find on Youtube, we have the chinese demolition you posted, we have the other chinese demolition where the buildings just fall over like a tree being toppled and we have verinage. They all have different effects. Comparing the WTC collapses to a "CD" is very vague. What kind of CD?

just pick one

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Because its about highrise buildings.

No go... as long as you're aware of the limitations to the applicability using examples of smaller building fires are valid to illustrate that steel framed construction has vulnerabilities which are present. There are three overall factors that drive the severity of a collapse; the extent of the damage caused, the extent of the failure, and how the structural system responded to it. These will explain why in examples such as Meridian Plaza didn't collapse, whereas the WTC did. In our previous exchange you demonstrated you were incapable of looking at examples from that context. Smaller buildings exemplify that skyscrapers face the same challenges that smaller buildings do and must account for what is feasibly addressable.

Near freefall i said. Every cd has a moment of freefall, because you are destroying a part of the building to get the building collapse.

I would suggest looking into a book called "why building fall down" by Matthys Levy and Mario Salvadori. It analyzes building failures caused by various factors. In fact it does so in a far superior manor to your pseudoscience approach. Here's an excerpt from them on a topic, which you call me a liar on:

It may be thought that since compression shortens and tension lengthens,
the behavior of a strut is the "opposite" of that of a bar, but this is not
so. The more you pull a bar, the straighter it becomes (Fig. D3c), but if you
compress a strut too hard, something unexpected takes place. As first proved mathematically by the Swiss mathematician Leonhard Euler (1707-83), a thin strut submitted to an axial compressive load will not remain straight but bend out suddenly, or buckle, at a specific value of the compressive load, called its critical or Euler value (Fig. D4). It is worth mentioning that Euler really had found a solution "in search of a problem" because in his time columns were made out of rather weak materials and were chunky; in practice they did not buckle. Today buckling is considered a very dangerous structural phenomenon because our strong materials allow us to design thin elements in compression (columns, struts, arches, and domes) that buckle without giving notice.

 

[Edx]

Why you dont answer the questions?

The question is irrelevant. 20% of building matter easily crushes the 80% of the building matter below it straight down, pancake style, rapidly. That is what truthers claim cannot happen. I am not going further than that.

No, and neither is your chinese demolition. It also does starts to collapse as soon as the explosives start and it causes rapid propulsion of debris. You guys claim explosives so powerful went off that hurled heavy steel around hundreds of feet but didnt cause any effects associated with high explosives. To cover up the sound Ive just been told they used even more explosives so that you wouldnt be able to hear individual blasts. Sorry, but explosives and sound do not work this way.

So for next time, do not use a bad example

How does that relate to a single thing you just replied to?

You believe impossible explosives destroyed the towers. Got it? Impossible explosives in every way.

But you dont tell me why its relevant to say it has to be steel. As if steel is somehow indestructible.

Because there are a lot of factors, who are important, there is a difference between a building with concrete and steel, you can not compare them with eachother, if you dont even know that, ask your buddies for some information.

You still dont tell me, because you have heard its different but have no idea why its different. You apparently imagine steel to be indestructible, sorry but if you're just going to insist you're right with no argument at all I'm not going to bother with it.

Why are highrise buildings differenct? You claim i have to show you an
example of a steel frame HIGHRISE collapsing from fire? Why do I have to
show you a highrise? Why do you seem to think a highrise makes it
stronger?

Because its about highrise buildings.

Err, what? If I showed you a collapse of a 2 story steel framed building from fire you'd claim it has to be a high rise. I am asking you why do you think a high rise is somehow stronger and less capable of collapse. If you cant even come up with an answer to this, like the above point, I cannot be bothered with it. I have more important things to do.

Thats like saying I will refer you to Creationist biologists to explain
why evolution is wrong. Sorry, but your pathetically fringe bunch of
nobodies irrelevant in every professional area you can think of does not
impress me.

*Wtf you are asking questions which showing your lack of knowledge. Show i was advising you to go to an architect or an engineer for further questions.

Except the only engineers and architects you will believe are the pathetically tiny fringe irrelevant nobodies in your conspiracy group. Dont you get that?

You are like a Creationist, most experts do not agree with you. That is why since Gage has started collecting names he has only 1.5k architects and engineers and computer programmers (which apparently he classes as engineers) from all over the world including those that are retired to sign his stupid list. NIST as an organisation contains more experts with actual relevant experience in high rise structural engineering than that entire figure, just in the US alone Dept of Labour shows around 17,000 new engineers enter the workforce every single year. Statistically, Gage has shown he has zero support since if you were to make a graph you would barey see his little group register on it.

I really do not understand why you are talking about creationist

Yes you do, you like to pretend you're that stupid but you're not. I'll spell it out for you anyway. Creationists are a tiny fringe minority that no one in the professional world cares about, yet even they are more relevant than truthers. That is how irrelevant and useless you guys are. No one cares.

Yes, there was explosive sound, its your lack of knowledge who doesnt know that.

Just one example.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NzSxSUb0Kk&feature=related
...


Near freefall i said. Every cd has a moment of freefall, because you are
destroying a part of the building to get the building collapse.

Demolitions are not free fall. Why? Because matter still needs to be pushed out of the way. All you are doing with an explosive is cutting columns and knocking some of the supports away. They are not powerful enough to fling heavy steel around, it does not pulverize the entire building into dust, it isnt intended to be that powerful.

You however claim that an entire 8 floors in WTC7 was removed instantly and completely all in one go. That is physically impossible and only possible with Star Trek weapons. You claim that heavy steel was hurled around, yet it didnt exhibit any characteristics of an explosive that powerful that would be required to be able to do that.

This is what a real demolition sounds like. It is not powerful enough to eject heavy steel away, it is not powerful enough to vaporise entire floors into nothing (nothing is)

Do not lie, there is no ejection of debris you can compare with cd.
This is your own opinion, show me proof. You tried to, but you failed with that videoclip.

Yes there is an ejection of debris, with the same trajectory away from the collapse front. The only explosive demolition you have found that looks remotely like the WTC collapses is that of the chinese demolition you posted earlier and you dont even have any more information about the technique or the building, or any more buildings demolished that way and you don't care about how different it is.

Again a lie, you are not talking about the whole building, and you are not talking about a steel frame building, etc.

You are an idiot. I am telling you the similarities of verinage compared with WTC collapses. If you like I could tell you all the differences between the WTC collapses and all the demolition videos you care to cite, but of course you will reject all the differences and focus - hypocritically - on only what you think is similar about them.

Saying explosives werent used would still make your claims crazy, but at least you'd be less crazy.

???

What dont you understand? Saying it was demolished by some other means other than explosives would still be crazy, but just less crazy. You aren't this stupid, I dont know why you think acting stupid makes you look better.


.

Just say you dont have the knowledge about cd, or do you?

I am a composer, I know about sound. I have no problems saying that. You however demand everyone else be experts, even though you yourself are not an expert, just so you can ignore all their points. But even when they show they are experts like Sam.I.Am you ignore them anyway. In short you dont really want people to be experts, you want any reason possible to ignore all critical questions.

just pick one

No you're the one claiming it was a CD, you tell me.

 

[triforcharity]

You do realize verinage requires a great deal of precise preparation?

Yeah, remove the recycleable items, put in rams, push start button.

Quite precise.

But, I could be wrong. Can you provide a source for this newfound information?

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore
You do realize verinage requires a great deal of precise preparation?

Well at least we are getting somewhere. Apparently you are now aware that a great deal of precise preparation would be noticed. Let's assume that (for the sake of argument) Verinage does require a great deal of precise preparation. Preparation for using explosives also requires a great deal of precise preparations. None were observed. What does that tell you Clayton?

 

[Marokkaan]

The question is irrelevant. 20% of building matter easily crushes the 80% of the building matter below it straight down, pancake style, rapidly. That is what truthers claim cannot happen. I am not going further than that.

IRrelevant????

I can only say this is gibberish, if you really think a partial collapse is the same as a total collapse, then its your own opinion. In the real world, its crazy talk.

You still dont tell me, because you have heard its different but have no idea why its different. You apparently imagine steel to be indestructible, sorry but if you're just going to insist you're right with no argument at all I'm not going to bother with it.

Ow my... you do not even know the difference between a concrete structure and a steel structure.

Go to the experts they will explain you.

Err, what? If I showed you a collapse of a 2 story steel framed building from fire you'd claim it has to be a high rise. I am asking you why do you think a high rise is somehow stronger and less capable of collapse. If you cant even come up with an answer to this, like the above point, I cannot be bothered with it. I have more important things to do.

ITs about high rise buildings.

Except the only engineers and architects you will believe are the pathetically tiny fringe irrelevant nobodies in your conspiracy group. Dont you get that?
You are like a Creationist, most experts do not agree with you. That is why since Gage has started collecting names he has only 1.5k architects and engineers and computer programmers (which apparently he classes as engineers) from all over the world including those that are retired to sign his stupid list. NIST as an organisation contains more experts with actual relevant experience in high rise structural engineering than that entire figure, just in the US alone Dept of Labour shows around 17,000 new engineers enter the workforce every single year. Statistically, Gage has shown he has zero support since if you were to make a graph you would barey see his little group register on it.

This debate shows you have trouble with understanding reading and it also shows you really dont know a lot about buildingstructures.

Again this is gibberish talk, about truthers a&e and about creationists Nobody is talking about them, and you do like to talk about them

Yes you do, you like to pretend you're that stupid but you're not. I'll spell it out for you anyway. Creationists are a tiny fringe minority that no one in the professional world cares about, yet even they are more relevant than truthers. That is how irrelevant and useless you guys are. No one cares.

Gibberish

Demolitions are not free fall. Why? Because matter still needs to be pushed out of the way. All you are doing with an explosive is cutting columns and knocking some of the supports away. They are not powerful enough to fling heavy steel around, it does not pulverize the entire building into dust, it isnt intended to be that powerful.

Who said to you the demolition have to be in freefall? Why do you have trouble with understanding reading?

Read again the quote and try again to reply.

You however claim that an entire 8 floors in WTC7 was removed instantly and completely all in one go. That is physically impossible and only possible with Star Trek weapons. You claim that heavy steel was hurled around, yet it didnt exhibit any characteristics of an explosive that powerful that would be required to be able to do that.

Physically impossible? Please use arguments, why?

This is what a real demolition sounds like. It is not powerful enough to eject heavy steel away, it is not powerful enough to vaporise entire floors into nothing (nothing is)

There are thousands of demolitions, with a lot of different explosives. why you are claiming that it has to be sound like a real demolition.

Why the **** you really think you can know that every cd has the same sounds?

Why do you ignore the videoclip i show to you, where you can here the loud noise of explosions?

Yes there is an ejection of debris, with the same trajectory away from the collapse front. The only explosive demolition you have found that looks remotely like the WTC collapses is that of the chinese demolition you posted earlier and you dont even have any more information about the technique or the building, or any more buildings demolished that way and you don't care about how different it is.

Then SHOW it to me.

You are an idiot. I am telling you the similarities of verinage compared with WTC collapses. If you like I could tell you all the differences between the WTC collapses and all the demolition videos you care to cite, but of course you will reject all the differences and focus - hypocritically - on only what you think is similar about them.

I think i dont really want to debate with you, you are insulting, you can not read quotes, you have a lot of lack of knowledge, but still you are acting like an expert.

What dont you understand? Saying it was demolished by some other means other than explosives would still be crazy, but just less crazy. You aren't this stupid, I dont know why you think acting stupid makes you look better.

No i never said that, why do you lie?



.

I am a composer, I know about sound. I have no problems saying that. You however demand everyone else be experts, even though you yourself are not an expert, just so you can ignore all their points. But even when they show they are experts like Sam.I.Am you ignore them anyway. In short you dont really want people to be experts, you want any reason possible to ignore all critical questions.

Well composer, explain this sound please.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NzSxSUb0Kk&feature=related

No you're the one claiming it was a CD, you tell me

You are just even lazy to pick a cd.

But never mind, forget it. You can not even see when a building has a partial collapse or a total collapse.

So its hopeless.

 

[Edx]

This is like debating an illiterate child with a learning difficulty. I cant keep saying the same things over and over again, you ignore all my points and then restate the same thing as if I never said anything. I have better things to do than waste my time with you Marokkaan

You'll be forever inconsequential and irrelevant. You'll forever fail to understand that explosives in a demolition are not powerful enough to propel steel around and that nothing except fictional Star Trek weapons can vaporise an entire 8 stories in an instant which is what you fools claim happened.

 

[bill smith]

This is like debating an illiterate child with a learning difficulty. I cant keep saying the same things over and over again, you ignore all my points and then restate the same thing as if I never said anything. I have better things to do than waste my time with you Marokkaan

You'll be forever inconsequential and irrelevant. You'll forever fail to understand that explosives in a demolition are not powerful enough to propel steel around and that nothing except fictional Star Trek weapons can vaporise an entire 8 stories in an instant which is what you fools claim happened.

You should just give it up EDX. You are outclassed.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

EDIT: stupid forum hiccup made me double post... deleted extra content

 

[Edx]

You should just give it up EDX. You are outclassed.

Thats like saying I am outclassed by the crazy man screaming about the end of the world on the street corner because I decide Im bored. A crazy person can keep coming up with more and more insane responses, eventually you just have to stop.

Marokkaan does not read my posts correctly, does not understand the sources he quotes, he does not understand what is being debated, tries to find any way he can to hand wave all critical questions by demanding everyone else be an expert even if he himself is not one, but when his opponent is actually what he demands they be he ignores them anyway. He deliberately misunderstands the arguments on purpose, he deliberately ignores all critical points and questions.

At the end of the day he and atavisms are arguing for explosives so powerful they completely obliterated the WTC by continuous detonations of high explosives for 15 seconds so you cant pick out individual detonations and they were so powerful they flung heavy steel hundreds of feet away. He believes that 8-10 stories were entirely vaporised into nothing instantly to cause the 2.25 seconds of of free fall acceleration with WTC7. These are explosives that cannot even exist in theory, forget about thermite and wether it can be made into some kind of shaped charge. This stuff is way beyond that. This is Judy Wood style idiocy. There is only so much stubborn arrogant deliberately dishonest and childish responses I can take with someone making these kinds of claims before its just too stupid and just a waste of my time. Its just not entertaining anymore, its boring. No one takes any of you guys seriously, we only reply here for fun but I guess it gives you guys a sense that people care more than they do. They don't. Thats why you have such a pathetically irrelevant amount of support from the expert community.

 

[bill smith]

You owe me a new keyboard. I couldn't stop laughing at how serious this is supposed to sound.

And how did your keyboard get smashed then ? lol

 

[Grizzly Bear]

You should just give it up EDX. You are outclassed.

I couldn't stop laughing at how serious this is supposed to sound.
bill smith, I applaud your ability to remain calm in any exchange you've been in, of course the theories you support, and what constitutes "outclassing" are extremely skewed.

 

[Edx]

I do want to reply to one thing though as its something all truthers have no frickin clue about.

There are thousands of demolitions, with a lot of different explosives. why you are claiming that it has to be sound like a real demolition.

Why the **** you really think you can know that every cd has the same sounds?

1. You will find no explosive demolition that sounds like the WTC collapse.

2. You will find no demolition where the explosive detonations are not clearly audiable.

3. Normal demolition explosives are not powerful enough to hurl heavy steel around. Normal demolitions are clearly picked up on video (see 1 and 2)

4. You specifically tell us what the effects of the explosives caused which requires an explosive of a certain magnitude in order to achieve those effects.

Atavisms claims 15 seconds of continuous detonations were occuring yet they do not cause any blast trauma to anyone, the sound is gradual and progressive, we do not see air condense as seen in high explosive detonations, we do not see a blast wave. We do not see any characteristics associated with high explosives whatsoever.

5. No one claims the collapse was silent, simply that if what you claim actually happened it would have destroyed half the city along with it. But as it stands it isnt even as powerful as a normal demolition, why? Because in a normal demolition the charges are easily heard and arent powerfull enough to hurl steel anywhere.

6. You believe that 8-10 stories each the size of a city block were instantly removed all at the same time, essentially vaporised like in Star Trek, with WTC7. The problem with this is not the sound, it is that no weapon known to man is capable of doing what you claim happened.

 

[WildCat]

There have been many booms on 9/11 videos posted on this site. In those videos TV news commentators mentioned them when they occurred. Did you miss that?

None of them are consistent with the booms required to cut steel found in 100% of actual explosive controled demolitions. Lots of truther "booms" are, however, consistent with wind noise on camcorder microphones.

 

[dafydd]

Gibberish



.

What qualifies you to call it gibberish? Where did you study engineering and what are your qualifications?

 

[Clayton Moore]

At the end of the day he and atavisms are arguing for explosives so powerful they completely obliterated the WTC by continuous detonations of high explosives for 15 seconds so you cant pick out individual detonations and they were so powerful they flung heavy steel hundreds of feet away. He believes that 8-10 stories were entirely vaporised into nothing instantly to cause the 2.25 seconds of of free fall acceleration with WTC7. These are explosives that cannot even exist in theory, forget about thermite and wether it can be made into some kind of shaped charge. This stuff is way beyond that. This is Judy Wood style idiocy. There is only so much stubborn arrogant deliberately dishonest and childish responses I can take with someone making these kinds of claims before its just too stupid and just a waste of my time. Its just not entertaining anymore, its boring. No one takes any of you guys seriously, we only reply here for fun but I guess it gives you guys a sense that people care more than they do. They don't. Thats why you have such a pathetically irrelevant amount of support from the expert community.

explosives so powerful they completely obliterated the WTC

And yet you're saying that the WTC(buildings) were completely obliterated without any explosives.


A freaking amazing.

 

[Animal]

explosives so powerful they completely obliterated the WTC

And yet you're saying that the WTC(buildings) were completely obliterated without any explosives.

Yes. There is no evidence what so ever of explosive use. No sound, no debris, no seismic recording.

A freaking amazing.

The only thing amazing is the troofer cult continuing to ignore the overwhelming evidence in order to maintain their religious beliefs.