• 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.

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

Dave Rogers said:
8/47 = 0.17

17% isn't a particularly large fraction.

Dave
Click to expand...

It most certainly is when you are not talking about a dropped ball.

17% of the 47 storey WTC7 office tower is huge!

Why focus on the smallness of the fractional value without giving thought to the amount that it applys to?

Where is the scientific credibility in that?

MM
 
Miragememories said:
It most certainly is when you are not talking about a dropped ball.

17% of the 47 storey WTC7 office tower is huge!

Why focus on the smallness of the fractional value without giving thought to the amount that it applys to?

Where is the scientific credibility in that?

MM
Click to expand...

I noticed that you ignored GlennB's post above his. Interesting.
 
Why focus on the smallness of the fractional value without giving thought to the amount that it applys to?

Where is the scientific credibility in that?
Click to expand...

YOU'RE talking about credibility?

Special.

Let me ask you this - why focus on the smallness of WTC 7 when 9/11 was so much more? After 10 years you can't even invent a full narrative?

There's only one full narrative of 9/11 and until proven otherwise, it's the right one. The one we all saw in reality.

10 years of failed twoof. Give it up!
 
GlennB said:
Simultaneous removal of all columns over 8 storeys is ~ 80x8x2 explosions, assuming only 2 devices per column length.

That's ~1280 explosions.

That's your theory, and it's utterly absurd.
Click to expand...

Your imaginary numbers based on your imagined belief that you know the only means of achieving what occurred.

And before you rant about no one heard the explosions, keep in mind that the Official Story calls for almost a total internal failure before the visible external global collapse.

Aside from the miracle that the attached perimeter walls were not being pulled in, where were the massive noise signatures that such a huge amount of heavy steel destruction should have generated?

How much of that was heard or recorded?

MM
 
Miragememories said:
It most certainly is when you are not talking about a dropped ball.

17% of the 47 storey WTC7 office tower is huge!

Why focus on the smallness of the fractional value without giving thought to the amount that it applys to?
Click to expand...

What an utterly absurd piece of semantic nitpicking. Your desperation to find fault with something I say is getting quite embarrassing. The amount that it applies to, in absolute terms, has already been discussed to death; all that's required for an eight-storey freefall drop is a multi-storey buckle over more than eight storeys, hardly surprising in a building in which an internal column failed due to being unsupported over roughly that length. So you're reduced to claiming that the word "small" can't be applied even in a relative sense to a large object. When you need to redefine language like that to make it look like you've got an argument, it's about time you gave up arguing.

Dave
 
Miragememories said:
Your imaginary numbers based on your imagined belief that you know the only means of achieving what occurred.
Click to expand...

No, based on your contention that all support had to be simulataneously removed over the entire floor area of some 8 storeys.
 
Miragememories said:
Your imaginary numbers based on your imagined belief that you know the only means of achieving what occurred.
Click to expand...

You have no idea how you believe occurred could have been achieved. You just believe.

And before you rant about no one heard the explosions, keep in mind that the Official Story calls for almost a total internal failure before the visible external global collapse.

Aside from the miracle that the attached perimeter walls were not being pulled in, where were the massive noise signatures that such a huge amount of heavy steel destruction should have generated?

How much of that was heard or recorded?
Click to expand...

We know exactly what massive noise signatures would have been generated by CD, we have examples. I've watched dozens of CD's on video and have heard the, "BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM" every time.

How exactly do you know what "massive noise signatures" would have been generated during the internal failure? I submit that the noise heard was exactly what that would have sounded like. You disagree? Provide some examples of other internal collapses similar to the one that the commonly-held narrative describes, and tell us how it's different.

Oh. Wait. Never mind. You have nothing to compare it too. You just "know".
 
GlennB said:
Simultaneous removal of all columns over 8 storeys is ~ 80x8x2 explosions, assuming only 2 devices per column length.

That's ~1280 explosions.

That's your theory, and it's utterly absurd.
Click to expand...


MM doesn't have a theory just incredulity based on a lack of intelligence and education and a surfeit of paranoia.

He seems to find a simple buckling over 8 floors less likely than 1280 silent cutter charges that leave no cut columns, no shock cord, no timers, no unexploded charges, no time to place charges, no witnesses to the placing of charges and no point in the first place..............:rolleyes:
 
Miragememories said:
Your imaginary numbers based on your imagined belief that you know the only means of achieving what occurred.
Click to expand...

What imaginary about his numbers? How do you explain the complete disappearance of 8 floors if not by hundreds of charges? How many charges do you think would be needed and where would they have been placed?


Aside from the miracle that the attached perimeter walls were not being pulled in,
Click to expand...

What miricle? Perhaps thats what did happen to 8 plus floors lower down in the building.

where were the massive noise signatures that such a huge amount of heavy steel destruction should have generated?
Click to expand...

Please show that these would be noisier than 1000 plus cutter charges and that the north wall would have not greatly attenuated the noise (something it could not do to explosives on the outer columns in your scenario.)

How much of that was heard or recorded?
Click to expand...

certainly no cutter charges were recorded and with the distance the videos were taken some of the noise attributed to the outside collapse may well have been from the inside.....sound is much slower than light...or it may be the ambient noise that day, traffic, sirens etc etc was enough to muffle the internal collapse. Please show otherwise if you can .
Click to expand...
 
GlennB said:
Simultaneous removal of all columns over 8 storeys is ~ 80x8x2 explosions, assuming only 2 devices per column length.

That's ~1280 explosions.
Click to expand...
Miragememories said:
Your imaginary numbers based on your imagined belief that you know the only means of achieving what occurred.
Click to expand...


You have another theory about how 80 columns over 8 stories would "simultaneously" lose their ability to support the structure above? Or are you just taking it on faith that they did?
 
Last edited:
Miragememories said:
A small part of the collapse?

8 stores is small?

The videos show the east, north and west sides falling in sync.

You just see it the way you want to don't you David.

Can't let a little thing like the truth get in your way.

MM
Click to expand...

414px-Fiterman_hall_damage.jpg


911_HighQualityPhotos7784.jpg


wtc7f1.jpg


wtc7f2.jpg



Yeah, you wouldn't know what a fact was if it jumped up, punched you in the face, and left a note.
 
Clayton Moore said:
48,000 tons is a mere pittance.


http://the911forum.freeforums.org/calculation-of-weight-of-wtc-complex-t263.html
Click to expand...

Cool link.

You need to first learn how to use a pocket calculator.
In the thread you reference, Matt puts the mass of WTC7 at 267,000 tons (imperial). 17% of 267,000 tons is 45,390 tons, not your value.

Secondly, you need to read the entire thread, including replies:
Matt almost certainly overestimated the mass ot the twin towers by a considerable factor. Since Matt bases his estimate for WTC7 on the estimate for the twin towers, he gets the WTC7 mass too high by the same margin.

Also, he factors in the mass estimate for WTC3, which has added mass because of the different structural layout, he shouldn't have done that at gone with 252,000 tons to start with, where you chose to go with the 281,422 tons, arrived at by extapolating assumptions for the Marriott Hotel.

I have my own estimate here: http://oystein-issues.blogspot.com/2010/09/gpe-of-building-wtc7.html
I estimate 116,000 metric tons, which is approx. 130,000 imperial tons. Only about half of what Matt estimated. 17% of that is 22,100 tons

Thirdly, we are not talking about 17% of the entire builing, only 17% of a part of the outer shell, which in turn is only a part of the entire building. If we assume that the outer shell is approx 1/3 of the total building (core and floors being the other thirds, as a first rough approximation), and that only the upper half of the north face was visible, we are talking about only 1/6 of 17%, or 3% of the entire building, or about 3,500 tons.


So yes, 3,500 tons is a mere pittance, compared to the 116,000 tons that fell.
 
Clayton Moore said:
48,000 tons is a mere pittance.


http://the911forum.freeforums.org/calculation-of-weight-of-wtc-complex-t263.html
Click to expand...
Are you at all able to grasp the concept of relative? The absolute value of the size of something has nothing to do with whether it constitutes a small or large part something else.

Here is the quote from Dave's original post (bolding mine):

Dave Rogers said:
(1) The collapse was not a "freefall collapse"; a small part of the facade collapse was at an acceleration of about 1G.
Click to expand...
 
Clayton Moore said:
48,000 tons is a mere pittance.
Click to expand...

As I think I said a long time ago, conspiracy theorists have no notion of context. If you're a truck driver, 48,000 tons is a heck of a lot of loads. If you're a naval architect, it's comfortably within the range of what you're used to dealing with. If you're an astrophysicist, it's an insignificant speck. And if you're an engineer studying the time dependence of the acceleration of a collapsing building, then the fact that you're talking about weights at all suggests that you're laughably incompetent.

Dave
 
Miragememories said:
Yawn.

I never said the force of gravity stopped acting on the ball, or WTC7 for that matter.

What makes no sense in your argument is the statement; "While the ball is in motion, neglecting air resistance, this is the only force acting on it."

Clearly, the ball is moving upward because of an initial force F1.

Your argument only addresses the gravitational attracting force G, gravity. You do not address the force opposing gravity. The upward force F1, which made the ball oppose gravity in the first place.

So at the point where the ball stops, we have the canceling sum of the two forces (F1, upward, and G, downward, gravitational), I'll use illustrative numbers here, (+1) + (-1) = zero.

So based on Newton's second law, this sum of the two forces, zero equals the mass M times its acceleration a. We know the mass M is a real value greater than zero, so. if 0=M x a, then a must also equal zero.

So, as I previously stated, an object that is not moving, "has no velocity or acceleration."

That condition is met when the upward force, F1, equals the gravitational force, T=zero for my purposes.

velocity = the speed of something in a given direction.

acceleration = the increase in the rate of speed of something.
Click to expand...

So, per your 'logic' please explain by what mechanics the ball falls once it reaches its apogee. Or that controlled demolition works since both objects are at rest and (if my understanding of your reasoning as demonstrated in this post is correct). Or are both supposed to just float a la Wile E. Coyote?

As one Toronto-based, 50-something, Mother Corp© television editor with experience dating back to the quad era to another, this isn't college-level physics; this was covered in high school. So if you got either your OSSGD or OSSHGD, you would've had this drilled into you

Fitz
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom