WTC7 and the girder walk-off between column 79 and 44

Status
Not open for further replies.
beachnut said:
Don't be upset you failed to go to engineering school, it is was hard work; much easier to make up nonsense and publish it on youtube. How is that working out? 10 years and you can't figure out fire and gravity did it.

If the fires had been fought, no collapse. When will you publish your paper? What journal?
Click to expand...

Not upset at all here, but thanks for the concern. As for youtube, that is working out just fine and happens to be the subject of this thread. what part of the video specifically is nonsense?
 
gerrycan said:
I will take on board what you say about the total collapse time.And how long do you think the NW corner took to reach the ground? Where should we start the collapse time from? Should it be from the failure of column 79 maybe? This would be before the penthouse collapsed obviously. When exactly should we start the stopwatch do you think?
Click to expand...

I have severe doubts you will take anything on board. It's your video series - you choose (east penthouse is observable) - anything like an honest assessment of the total collapse time won't play too well with the DIF audience who like their WTC7 collapse to be "nearly at free fall speed".
 
gerrycan said:
Not upset at all here, but thanks for the concern. As for youtube, that is working out just fine and happens to be the subject of this thread. what part of the video specifically is nonsense?
Click to expand...
The entire video is nonsense. If you don't believe this engineer, then take it to your nearest university and learn why it is nonsense. You have a delusions 911 was an inside job, you have no respect for fire and gravity and never took a single physics course. You can't publish your work because it is nonsense. Prove me wrong, publish your great stuff in a paper in major engineering journal. Simple stuff, you prove you are right and you win. Based on engineering, your work is worthless drivel.

Publish, or perish.
 
Last edited:
slowsmile said:
I have severe doubts you will take anything on board. It's your video series - you choose (east penthouse is observable) - anything like an honest assessment of the total collapse time won't play too well with the DIF audience who like their WTC7 collapse to be "nearly at free fall speed".
Click to expand...

OK I chose to start it when the edge of the roofline moves. I think that 6.6s is a fair approximation. As for freefall, that occurs for over 2.25s no matter when we start the stopwatch doesn't it? But really this is about the initiating event that we are told got us to that point. The video talks about mainly the connection failure theory that NIST has, so maybe I should forget about the 6.6s thing and just mention how NIST admitted that freefall occured for 2.25s.
 
beachnut said:
The entire video is nonsense. If you don't believe this engineer, then take it to your nearest university and learn why it is nonsense. You have a delusions 911 was an inside job, you have no respect for fire and gravity and never took a single physics course. You can't publish your work because it is nonsense. Prove me wrong, publish your great stuff in a paper in major engineering journal. Simple stuff, you prove you are right and you win. Based on engineering, your work is worthless drivel.

Publish, or perish.
Click to expand...

Again, my qualifications are none of your business. And you have failed to point out where the video is wrong.
 
gerrycan said:
OK I chose to start it when the edge of the roofline moves. I think that 6.6s is a fair approximation. As for freefall, that occurs for over 2.25s no matter when we start the stopwatch doesn't it? But really this is about the initiating event that we are told got us to that point. The video talks about mainly the connection failure theory that NIST has, so maybe I should forget about the 6.6s thing and just mention how NIST admitted that freefall occured for 2.25s.
Click to expand...

So in the finest tradition of the "truth" movement you are going to ignore the collapse of the east penthouse - bravo - just what your target audience on DIF loves.
 
gerrycan said:
Again, my qualifications are none of your business. And you have failed to point out where the video is wrong.
Click to expand...
Being unqualified to do engineering work is nothing to be ashame of. Not being an engineer does not mean you can't understand 911, but you really have no clue why fire and gravity can cause a building to collapse. Bet you fail to realize the main energy used in CD is E=mgh; but then you never took physics, and you are proud Guinness knowledge is all you need.

You failed to point out what you got right. You can't do engineering so you do youtube videos. After you finish engineering school you will understand why you offer nothing of value on 911, and why your youtube videos have not picked up Pulitzer Prize winning attention. You never took physics. Did you really put "free-fall speed" in your video? lol

As usual 911 truth followers think they have something, but fail to prove it. The burden is on you! Publish your work in an engineering journal and rub it it! Good luck. Wait, all you want is a new investigation, because you can't do the engineering to figure out the many other investigations. lol, I decided to save my tax dollars, you do the investigation, use Gage's 1600 great nuts to help you. lol only on the Internet, want to be engineers spew nonsense and demand an explanation of their fantasy work.
 
slowsmile said:
So in the finest tradition of the "truth" movement you are going to ignore the collapse of the east penthouse - bravo - just what your target audience on DIF loves.
Click to expand...

Not at all. The penthouse collapse is crucial. It is an indication of the structural integrity below it. I will say that regardless of when we start to measure the collapse, and regardless of what we believe was the cause, the one thing that we can agree on is that the building fell at a rate indistinguishable from freefall acceleration for at least 2.25s.
What does DIF stand for?
 
beachnut said:
Being unqualified to do engineering work is nothing to be ashame of. Not being an engineer does not mean you can't understand 911, but you really have no clue why fire and gravity can cause a building to collapse. Bet you fail to realize the main energy used in CD is E=mgh; but then you never took physics, and you are proud Guinness knowledge is all you need.

You failed to point out what you got right. You can't do engineering so you do youtube videos. After you finish engineering school you will understand why you offer nothing of value on 911, and why your youtube videos have not picked up Pulitzer Prize winning attention. You never took physics. Did you really put "free-fall speed" in your video? lol

As usual 911 truth followers think they have something, but fail to prove it. The burden is on you! Publish your work in an engineering journal and rub it it! Good luck. Wait, all you want is a new investigation, because you can't do the engineering to figure out the many other investigations. lol, I decided to save my tax dollars, you do the investigation, use Gage's 1600 great nuts to help you. lol only on the Internet, want to be engineers spew nonsense and demand an explanation of their fantasy work.
Click to expand...

Firstly freefall is acceleration, where did i say speed?
As for working out how much of a building would need to be removed in order to have the top section attain enough energy to do the work of crushing the bottom (which i presume you are trying to get at with your equation) i think you should go look at some verinage examples. For WTC7 maybe about 8 floors were removed, but again, we should really be debating the initiating event here, after all thats what the video is about.
 
Last edited:
gerrycan said:
Not at all. The penthouse collapse is crucial. It is an indication of the structural integrity below it. I will say that regardless of when we start to measure the collapse, and regardless of what we believe was the cause, the one thing that we can agree on is that the building fell at a rate indistinguishable from freefall acceleration for at least 2.25s.
What does DIF stand for?
Click to expand...

DIF = David Icke Forum - where you also post on a the same subject to an audience who will believe virtually anything (no planes, mini nukes, DEW, numerology) about 9/11 as long as it says "inside job" - preferably with added Jews. I think you missed an earlier post I made about the company you keep over there;

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8131637&postcount=577

As for the rest - just try to be honest about the total time it took WTC7 to collapse.
 
gerrycan said:
Firstly freefall is acceleration, where did i say speed?
As for working out how much of a building would need to be removed in order to have the top section attain enough energy to do the work of crushing the bottom (which i presume you are trying to get at with your equation) i think you should go look at some verinage examples. For WTC7 maybe about 8 floors were removed, but again, we should really be debating the initiating event here, after all thats what the video is about.
Click to expand...

It you were an engineer, or understood physics you would know the primary energy used to destroy buildings (CD) is E=mgh. End of story. You have no clue fire and gravity did WTC 7 in, and you don't care. You are anti-engineering, anti-physics, and you have no clue your video proves it.

Publish your work in an engineering journal, have the last laugh, or make us laugh more. Be like Heiwa, send a letter at least. Do you take action, or just make silly youtube videos inspired by a big night at the pub talking big talk. Why can't you explain what caused WTC 7 to collapse? Cat got it? Where is your inside job evidence? I suspect there will be no engineering to back up your claims. The talk will fool the paranoid conspiracy theorists.

Fire and gravity; NIST not needed.

The collapse of WTC 7 took over 18 seconds, you need to work on your math skills.
 
Last edited:
slowsmile said:
DIF = David Icke Forum - where you also post on a the same subject to an audience who will believe virtually anything (no planes, mini nukes, DEW, numerology) about 9/11 as long as it says "inside job" - preferably with added Jews. I think you missed an earlier post I made about the company you keep over there;

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8131637&postcount=577

As for the rest - just try to be honest about the total time it took WTC7 to collapse.
Click to expand...

Yes, I joined that forum when they began a thread about the videos. I did a similar 'risk assesment' when i began posting here but didnt bother to check what else gets talked about, because it has nothing to do with the subject matter at hand, and is of no consequence. I do belong to a small group of independant researchers though, but we operate in our own forum, to which i once again invite you to discuss the contents of the video in. Now let me see what else gets discussed at jref...........
 
gerrycan said:
Yes, I joined that forum when they began a thread about the videos. I did a similar 'risk assesment' when i began posting here but didnt bother to check what else gets talked about, because it has nothing to do with the subject matter at hand, and is of no consequence.
Click to expand...

I think you'll find most "9/11 truthers" on DIF tend to believe in a combination of (among other things) HAARP, Chemtrails, Freemen on the Land, NWO / Illuminati, Protocols............ie. they have no critical thought process.
 
beachnut said:
It you were an engineer, or understood physics you would know the primary energy used to destroy buildings (CD) is E=mgh. End of story. You have no clue fire and gravity did WTC 7 in, and you don't care. You are anti-engineering, anti-physics, and you have no clue your video proves it.

Publish your work in an engineering journal, have the last laugh, or make us laugh more. Be like Heiwa, send a letter at least. Do you take action, or just make silly youtube videos inspired by a big night at the pub talking big talk. Why can't you explain what caused WTC 7 to collapse? Cat got it? Where is your inside job evidence? I suspect there will be no engineering to back up your claims. The talk will fool the paranoid conspiracy theorists.

Fire and gravity; NIST not needed.

The collapse of WTC 7 took over 18 seconds, you need to work on your math skills.
Click to expand...

Did you even read or understand what i said???
Potential energy is used in CD i agree, is that what you mean when you say primary? I think you mean potential. And to get your 18s, when exactly do you start the stopwatch, is it when 79 fails or when the penthouse collapses?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom