On 9/11, WTC7 Collapse Was Firemen's Concern (controlled demolition debunked)

[SpringHallConvert]

what were the differences and how do they matter in technical terms?
If you cannot answer this in detail your rejection is without merit

First of all, what were the similarities and how do they matter in technical terms?

If you cannot answer this in detail your protest is without merit.

 

[carlitos]

Seriously, what would it take for the posters here, en masse, to ignore this act? No value is added. None. Can I PM you a lollipop or something?

 

[SpringHallConvert]

Seriously, what would it take for the posters here, en masse, to ignore this act? No value is added. None. Can I PM you a lollipop or something?

Amazing.

1. A government truther posts something without citing evidence.

2. A non-government truther responds by rejecting his claims.

3. A different government truther demands evidence for the rejection.

4. The non-government truther clarifies his position by demanding evidence for the original government truther claim.

5. Another government truther comes along and cries foul, begging for people to ignore the guy who wants evidence to be cited.

Conclusion: You government truthers are hostile to the idea of providing evidence for your own claims. You demand it of your opposition, but don't hold yourself to the same standard. This is intellectually disingenuous, and exactly why the Government Truth Movement is failing all across America.

 

[tfk]

Answer rejected.

None of those examples were similar to the WTC7 collapse.

Sigh. Does your mom know that you're playing on the computer this late?

Every single one of those examples was EXACTLY like WTC7 in every respect that matters:

1. A robust steel frame building was erected.
2. It served its purposes well for many years.
3. It caught fire.
4. It collapsed as a direct result of the fire.
5. Zero evidence of any explosives found in rubble.


Rejection rejected.

 

[jaydeehess]

First of all, what were the similarities and how do they matter in technical terms?

If you cannot answer this in detail your protest is without merit.

I am not the one trying to ignore precedents showing major steel strutural failure as a result of fire. In the case of Kader, a complete collapse.
Many decades of research shows that this does occur.

Your objection then can onlyy be that the WTC structures collapsed globally which is mainly attributable to the long span floor design and inthe case ofWTC7 of other characteristics of its design.
Although I am not an engineer I have a background in physics and other technical training which allows me to follow many of the technical descriptions of 911 topics

You make no claim of any math or technical training or expertise, nor is such in evidennce in any of your posts.

Your turn,but of course if you had anything, you had opportunity to post it when I asked

ETA:You did not clarify your position at a. You asked me instead to clarify mine. Are you now moving on from misrepresenting others to misrepresenting your own posts?

 

[SpringHallConvert]

Sigh. Does your mom know that you're playing on the computer this late?

Every single one of those examples was EXACTLY like WTC7 in every respect that matters:

No, not really, but I'll let you humor me for moment.

1. A robust steel frame building was erected.

Good going, Captain Obvious.

2. It served its purposes well for many years.

Wow. You're really pulling out the big guns here. What next? Are you going to point out that they all had elevators?

3. It caught fire.

Or maybe WTC7 was set on fire.

4. It collapsed as a direct result of the fire.

Speculative. For all you know, it collapsed due to sabotage.

5. Zero evidence of any explosives found in rubble.

Speculative. You don't know this. Perhaps evidence was found and covered up?

Rejection rejected.

Rejected rejection rejected.

 

[tfk]

Rejected rejection rejected.

yawwwnnnn...

PS. You know, in the 1930 & '40s, they occasionally did prefrontal lobotomies on misbehaving children.

I've always contended that this was a horrific practice.

I'm beginning to reconsider...

 

[JohnG]

Perhaps evidence was found and covered up?

Perhaps you have unreasonable standards for evidence and believe what you want to believe?

 

[SpringHallConvert]

Perhaps you have unreasonable standards for evidence and believe what you want to believe?

My standards only seem unreasonable to those who'll believe whatever they're told by a lying, criminal government.

 

[tfk]

Actually, this one deserves more of a response than I gave it at first.

Sigh. Does your mom know that you're playing on the computer this late?

[no response]

I'll take "no answer" as a "No, she doesn't know your up past your bedtime, playing with strangers on the computer."

Naughty, naughty...

Every single one of those examples was EXACTLY like WTC7 in every respect that matters:

No, not really, but I'll let you humor me for moment.

Uh, yeah, really they were.
But you don't know jack about structures, so you're unequipped to recognize the obvious.

And I ain't interested in humoring you.

1. A robust steel frame building was erected.

Good going, Captain Obvious.

If you knew jack about structures, you'd understand why this is important, and not a trivial detail.

But you don't know jack about structures. So it goes over your head.

2. It served its purposes well for many years.

Wow. You're really pulling out the big guns here. What next? Are you going to point out that they all had elevators?

If you knew jack about structures, you'd understand why this is important, and not a trivial detail.

But you don't know jack about structures. So it goes over your head.

3. It caught fire.

Or maybe WTC7 was set on fire.

If you knew jack about how fires interact with structures, you'd understand why it doesn't matter one iota whether it caught fire or was set on fire.

But you don't know jack about how fires interact with structures. So it goes over your head.

4. It collapsed as a direct result of the fire.

Speculative. For all you know, it collapsed due to sabotage.

If you knew jack about structures, you'd understand nothing ever collapses "due to sabotage". Sabotage is a human motive. Motives have precisely zero effect on structures. You are invited to stand in front of a building that you don't like & think very, very destructive thoughts. Do it for a couple of years. Come back & tell us how the building responded.

Sabotage must be implemented by some mechanism (explosives, fires, etc.) that DOES have an effect on a building.

And it turns out that the building doesn't give a rat's ass about the motivation behind that mechanism. Accident? sabotage? Absolutely irrelevant.

But you don't know jack about structures. So all this goes over your head.

5. Zero evidence of any explosives found in rubble.

Speculative. You don't know this. Perhaps evidence was found and covered up?

If you knew jack about explosives, you'd understand why it is 100% impossible for explosives to have been involved in the collapse of any of those buildings.

But you don't know jack about explosives. So it goes over your head.

Rejection rejected.

Rejected rejection rejected.

Based on the fact that you don't know jack about jack.

Thanks for clearing all that up so explicitly.

 

[SpringHallConvert]

Actually, this one deserves more of a response than I gave it at first.



I'll take "no answer" as a "No, she doesn't know your up past your bedtime, playing with strangers on the computer."

Naughty, naughty...



Uh, yeah, really they were.
But you don't know jack about structures, so you're unequipped to recognize the obvious.

And I ain't interested in humoring you.



If you knew jack about structures, you'd understand why this is important, and not a trivial detail.

But you don't know jack about structures. So it goes over your head.



If you knew jack about structures, you'd understand why this is important, and not a trivial detail.

But you don't know jack about structures. So it goes over your head.



If you knew jack about how fires interact with structures, you'd understand why it doesn't matter one iota whether it caught fire or was set on fire.

But you don't know jack about how fires interact with structures. So it goes over your head.



If you knew jack about structures, you'd understand nothing ever collapses "due to sabotage". Sabotage is a human motive. Motives have precisely zero effect on structures. You are invited to stand in front of a building that you don't like & think very, very destructive thoughts. Do it for a couple of years. Come back & tell us how the building responded.

Sabotage must be implemented by some mechanism (explosives, fires, etc.) that DOES have an effect on a building.

And it turns out that the building doesn't give a rat's ass about the motivation behind that mechanism. Accident? sabotage? Absolutely irrelevant.

But you don't know jack about structures. So all this goes over your head.



If you knew jack about explosives, you'd understand why it is 100% impossible for explosives to have been involved in the collapse of any of those buildings.

But you don't know jack about explosives. So it goes over your head.



Based on the fact that you don't know jack about jack.

Thanks for clearing all that up so explicitly.

There's no reason to believe you know jack about what you are talking about in this thread, so, rejected again.

 

[JohnG]

My standards only seem unreasonable to those who'll believe whatever they're told by a lying, criminal government.

Again with the strawmen. Get this through your noggin, junior. No one on planet Earth with an IQ above room temperature believes "whatever they're told" by the government, whether the government is "lying" and "criminal" or not.

Go visit the Politics section and witness some of the same people who disagree with you, disagree with each other about the government and then come back here with a straight face and tell me that people here believe "whatever they're told".

People who rail at the real or imagined stupidity, ignorance and cruelty of others but can't/won't see the stupidity, ignorance and cruelty inherent in themselves are not only hypocrites, they are also crashing bores, and your shtick is really starting to get boring.

 

[tfk]

There's no reason to believe you know jack about what you are talking about in this thread, so, rejected again.

Uh, yeah, actually there are several reasons that your statement is wrong.

Allow me to list a few reasons (#2, 3 & 6-13) why you're wrong. Along with a couple of reasons (1, 4 & 5) that you are singularly unqualified to offer any opinion on the matter.

1. You're the wet-behind-the-ears noobie here. Or the intentionally clueless reincarnation of someone who chooses to know nothin' bout nothin'.

2. I've been posting here for 5+ years.

3. The people who post here know my credentials.

4. Of course, you refuse to say squat about your credentials. You think that leaves us uninformed about your background & expertise. Sorry, that's wrong.

5. We all know from long, reliable experience why you refuse to divulge anything: because you have no relevant background or expertise. It's as reliable as the sun rising in the East. It also comes thru loud & clear on the very rare occasions that you actually try to say something.

6. Rest assured that BOTH of us are very well known by our posting styles and, much more important, our content. (In your case, an utter lack thereof.)

7. In my time here, I've explained several aspects of various technical issues to various people, usually things related to mechanical engineering. Such as here.

Just like a mechanical engineer would do.

8. When I do explain things, as above, I'm careful to define my terms, give quantitative information about the variables, and be as clear & succinct as possible.

Just like an old school engineer would do.

9. Over the course of my time here, I've presented more than a dozen analyses of my own of various aspects of the mechanical issues related to 9/11. Such as here.

Just like an engineer would do.

10. I am a real stickler for people considering carefully, and quantifying, the errors associated with any measurement.

Just like an old school engineer would do.

11. In my career, I've been in charge of the design & manufacture of mission critical equipment that went to the bottom of the Marianas Trench & to Jupiter.

Just like a Project Engineer might be.

12. In my career, I've done dozens of original designs, hundreds of stress analyses, FMEAs, and failure analysis reports for engineering groups like NASA.

Just like a Principle Engineer might do.

13. When I write, I write in simple, clear declarative sentences. I make my point, take a stand, provide answers and laugh at useless wimps who "just ask questions".

Just like every self-respecting, old school engineer in the world does.

There is a very specific reason that items 2, 3 & 6 - 13 (the items referring to me) are true.

Can you guess what it might be?

Those are just a few reasons for you to believe that I do know jack about these issues.

Of course, items 1, 4 & 5 (the ones that refer to you) may prohibit you from understanding anything regarding these issues.

In that case, I fully expect you to offer your typically juvenile bit of puffery in response.
___

But I'll tell ya what, SHC. Let's put aside our respective backgrounds, and settle the matter on the issues raised.

Let's hear you demonstrate that you can actually string together a minimally-coherent, somewhat self-consistent, chain of logic.

Why don't you take the simple, declarative sentences that I made in any of these recent posts, and tell us why I am wrong, and what the right answer is.

Complete with definitions, axioms, if-then clauses, etc. You know, the whole works.

If you do that, then I'll respond only to the technical details of your argument.

Here's your choice of posts. (Or any one of mine you care to cite.)

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8170564&postcount=530

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8169092&postcount=515

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8170339&postcount=3946


Impress us ...

... or ignore the issue, just like you've ignored all others, and prove once again that you've got nothing of any substance to offer to the discussion.

Care to take a guess at the house odds on which path you're going to take?

 

[Spektator]

(snip)
Anyone remember Margaret Mitchell?

I do, but she wrote Gone With the Wind a long time before Watergate. She died a long time before Watergate, too.

Martha Mitchell, maybe?

 

[000063]

...

One outgrowth of the theory is that "the greater the scaling factor, the more erroneous your results will be if you don't take this theory into account." And the towers were so huge, that the scaling factor for any practical model is going to be very large (on the order of 1/100th the original size). Some factors will scale as the square of this ratio, meaning that the calculated dimensionless parameters will be off by a factor of 10,000.

Not a trivial error. One might invoke a new unit of measure for this sort of error called the "DickGage". ...

Sorry, I exaggerated. At the extreme ends, the models are often not very useful for reliably figuring out how the full scale will act.

 

[000063]

I like how SHC can't even respond to my post about why the theoretical charges were in 7 in the first place, because the logic makes sense. Since its not a question of fact, but simple reason, he can't do his usual "do we really know anything?" handwave.

And that's leaving aside the fact that WTC 1 collapsed, and when it stopped, both WTC 7 and 6 were on fire and damaged. The only reasonable assumption is that the collapse caused it. Unless the charges somehow set the fires and caused the damage, which is impossible for the same reasons CD is impossible.

Even in the Bush White House itself, they couldn't keep the Pat Tillman friendly fire incident covered up. It was revealed by a leaked "personal for" message. And that was just one guy and his family affected, not 3000 people and the economy of the world.

Considering that some of the people who died in the Pentagon probably knew the planners personally, and the odds go down even farther then their very low level.

 

[SpringHallConvert]

Uh, yeah, actually there are several reasons that your statement is wrong.

Allow me to list a few reasons (#2, 3 & 6-13) why you're wrong. Along with a couple of reasons (1, 4 & 5) that you are singularly unqualified to offer any opinion on the matter.

1. You're the wet-behind-the-ears noobie here. Or the intentionally clueless reincarnation of someone who chooses to know nothin' bout nothin'.

2. I've been posting here for 5+ years.

3. The people who post here know my credentials.

4. Of course, you refuse to say squat about your credentials. You think that leaves us uninformed about your background & expertise. Sorry, that's wrong.

5. We all know from long, reliable experience why you refuse to divulge anything: because you have no relevant background or expertise. It's as reliable as the sun rising in the East. It also comes thru loud & clear on the very rare occasions that you actually try to say something.

6. Rest assured that BOTH of us are very well known by our posting styles and, much more important, our content. (In your case, an utter lack thereof.)

7. In my time here, I've explained several aspects of various technical issues to various people, usually things related to mechanical engineering. Such as here.

Just like a mechanical engineer would do.

8. When I do explain things, as above, I'm careful to define my terms, give quantitative information about the variables, and be as clear & succinct as possible.

Just like an old school engineer would do.

9. Over the course of my time here, I've presented more than a dozen analyses of my own of various aspects of the mechanical issues related to 9/11. Such as here.

Just like an engineer would do.

10. I am a real stickler for people considering carefully, and quantifying, the errors associated with any measurement.

Just like an old school engineer would do.

11. In my career, I've been in charge of the design & manufacture of mission critical equipment that went to the bottom of the Marianas Trench & to Jupiter.

Just like a Project Engineer might be.

12. In my career, I've done dozens of original designs, hundreds of stress analyses, FMEAs, and failure analysis reports for engineering groups like NASA.

Just like a Principle Engineer might do.

13. When I write, I write in simple, clear declarative sentences. I make my point, take a stand, provide answers and laugh at useless wimps who "just ask questions".

Just like every self-respecting, old school engineer in the world does.

There is a very specific reason that items 2, 3 & 6 - 13 (the items referring to me) are true.

Can you guess what it might be?

Those are just a few reasons for you to believe that I do know jack about these issues.

Of course, items 1, 4 & 5 (the ones that refer to you) may prohibit you from understanding anything regarding these issues.

In that case, I fully expect you to offer your typically juvenile bit of puffery in response.
___

But I'll tell ya what, SHC. Let's put aside our respective backgrounds, and settle the matter on the issues raised.

Let's hear you demonstrate that you can actually string together a minimally-coherent, somewhat self-consistent, chain of logic.

Why don't you take the simple, declarative sentences that I made in any of these recent posts, and tell us why I am wrong, and what the right answer is.

Complete with definitions, axioms, if-then clauses, etc. You know, the whole works.

If you do that, then I'll respond only to the technical details of your argument.

Here's your choice of posts. (Or any one of mine you care to cite.)

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8170564&postcount=530

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8169092&postcount=515

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8170339&postcount=3946


Impress us ...

... or ignore the issue, just like you've ignored all others, and prove once again that you've got nothing of any substance to offer to the discussion.

Care to take a guess at the house odds on which path you're going to take?

I still see no evidence of your supposed expertise. Anybody can beat their chest and claim they are something they are not.

Regardless, none of this changes the fact that you don't really know what brought WTC7 down, nor do you really know who Al-Qaeda was working on behalf of that day. Your 9/11 conspiracy theory is based on speculation, just like mine is.

 

[000063]

I'm not reading SHC's post, but I'm betting it focuses on the Pentagon part and the second paragraph.

 

[Sabretooth]

I'm not reading SHC's post, but I'm betting it focuses on the Pentagon part and the second paragraph.

Oooo! This sounds like a fun game!

I'm going to say he mentions "government truthers" and that we should be asking who set the fires on multiple floors of WTC7.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Amazing.

1. A government truther posts something without citing evidence.

I don't know what the so-called "government truther" was claiming, but I can guarantee that whatever it is, it's been discussed over and over again for the last six years right here in these forums. Use the search function if you're curious.

(You're not, I know. That's the whole problem, isn't it?)