As do you, seeing as this one detail has nothing to do with the initiation of collapse, yet the only one you seem to be able to retain any sort of focus on. Lets discuss the initiation.
WTC7 and the girder walk-off between column 79 and 44
- Thread starter Gamolon
- Start date
- Status
As do you, seeing as this one detail has nothing to do with the initiation of collapse, yet the only one you seem to be able to retain any sort of focus on. Lets discuss the initiation.
slowsmile
Critical Thinker
You asked what is wrong with your videos.
I pointed out that by using the figure of 6.6 seconds you had totally misrepresented the time it took the building to collapse - and the opening sequence minus the east penthouse collapse was misleading.(I would be well within my rights to use much stronger language).
Naturally - having taken it on board - you will include now remove said videos with incorrect claims from the internet or revise your narrative to the effect that it took WTC7 over twice as long to collapse.
Or maybe you'll just keep on playing to your preferred audience on DIF.
Your choice.
Not a chance, i will change the final version so that people cannot move the focus away from the initiating event, which is the main point of the videos though. Which should prevent the derailling of discussions by people who would rather shift the focus away from the initiating event, which NIST got wrong, and you fail to address.
triforcharity
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 13,961
Wanna take bets on what doesn't happen?
Wanna take bets on what doesn't happen?
Yeah, I'll put a few bucks on none of you guys discussing this with us real time lol.
triforcharity
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 13,961
Ok, (Not that I believe the first damn word that comes out of your mouth) let's play a little game, shall we?
Let's say that NIST was in fact wrong. 7WTC didn't collapse because of a loss of support around column 79 caused by the thermal expansion of the beams and girders suffering from thermal expansion and contraction. (Which, BTW, is not a new idea, and has been happening since the beginning of time)
What if it was caused by say, excessive weight loading around column 79, which caused the failure of one of the girder support brackets, which caused the failure of the ones below it, which cause the load on column 79 to be in excess of it's capacity.
What does that prove?
What if the fuel loads and temperature calculations that NIST used were off by 10%? Can you do the math for that? What about 20%? Meaning, their temperatures and fuel loads were low by 10-20%.
What does that prove?
In my professional opinion, nothing. It still means that fire caused the collapse. If it wasn't column 79, maybe it was a combination of 79 and the one next door, column 78, does that mean it was some nefarious plan to cause the demise of 7WTC?
Not one ******* bit.
What is your theory? Which theory do you subscribe to?
Thermite/thermate?
Arson?
Space rays?
Something else?
Surely if you're going to say that NIST is wrong, you must have a better theory, right?
The WRONG answer is "That's what we need a new investigation for". It will ALWAYS be the wrong answer.
triforcharity
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 13,961
Link it champ. Hell, i'm not even an engineer, and I'll take you up on that.
Primary energy source in a CD is E=mgh. When you release this potential energy, it is the primary source of energy required to destroy the building. Not explosives, but the building falling. Primary source of destruction. You don't do physics so you don't understand primary? lol
This is your claim, yet you are not using physics, or Newtons Laws. You claim every Structural Engineer will see WTC 7 is CD. With eyes, instead of physics and math. Typical 911 truth nonsense. All your videos are nonsense, no physics.
You have nothing to offer, and we are "talking" in real time; you lost the bet. The collapse of WTC 7 took over 18 seconds. Your lack of education in engineering and inability to learn or seek help makes you want a new investigation which you will fail to understand anyway. What a waste.
Publish your work in an engineering journal; show us all how you figured out WTC 7, not even a terrorists target on 911. Can't wait for you to get to 77 and 93, here you are stuck on a non-911 target. Is that big failure or what?
Last edited:
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
The collapse initiated somewhere under the penthouse, where you can't see. What you are timing at 6.6s is the building exterior. It did not even fall at a constant acceleration, at a point it was falling even faster than free fall acceleration.
Now tell me again, why do you want a new investigation? Because of the exterior falling at a varying acceleration? Because you found an apparent 1" discrepancy that you didn't ask NIST about?
If you think NIST is way wrong, where's your systemic model showing it wrong? Does it prove without doubt that a steel frame building cannot collapse due to a fire?
My bolding.
Are you serious? This is the Chris7 theory - that the freefall period is explained by deliberate removal of 8 storeys of support, and it's batcrap crazy. It doesn't even take calculations to demonstrate that it's mad; just the one word "Why?" will do.
And why are you obsessed with video and live debate? Serious science isn't performed that way. We can only conclude you're more interested in a little fame-lite among your peer group than you are in achieving anything of substance.
newton3376
The Truth Movement.....still not at 1%
- Joined
- May 16, 2009
- Messages
- 1,320
He is obsessed with video and live debate because...
1. He is not an Engineer.
2. He does not have the education, knowledge, or experience to debate the technical/engineering/mathematical points that have been brought up in this thread alone.
3. He believes he has "discovered" something of value that is worthy of debate.
Science/engineering is not done on youtube, internet debate forums, or internet chat rooms.
The attention you are getting here on JREF is about all you are going to get......a handful of people (some of them real Engineers) actually willing to speak to truthers.
Most people (especially Engineers, Scientists, etc) either ignore truthers or just make fun of them although the vast majority choose the ignore option.
If you can't debate the issues here then why should we bother with you elsewhere?
ozeco41
Philosopher
Add me to the list of engineers who are willing to discuss with those who seem to be or admit to being truthers.
BUT I will not discuss until they put their claim up for discussion. That is their claim not criticism of somebody else claim.
AND I will not accept reversal of burden of truth OR the demand to prove a negative.
And those constraints take 90% of the ground from under normal truther trickery.
"We need a new investigation to show how the old investigation was wrong."
OK, would be great to actually discuss this real time. Sorry I never replied 'til now, but im a few hours ahead of you. http://express.paltalk.com/index.html?gid=996480180
Gerry,
You're coming to this party so late that everyone who was here from the outset are exhausted from having done this same thing again,
And again,
And again,
And again,
And again.
And to be brutally honest, you're not demonstrating an openness to correct simple errors, which makes any sane person think you'd be no more open to doing so on more complex things.
So, for reasons other than your own ego stroking, what reason should anyone have to engage you, at 2:30am, when everyone is passed out drunk in the corner?
We really just want an open discussion of this topic and to explore further the views of people who believe the official story so that the end product here can fairly address both sides.
Its the middle of the day here just now in Scotland, and eh.... well yeah, everyone is passed out drunk in the corner lol
What's your view of what happened at WTC7? (as opposed to repeating that NIST was wrong about what it says happened).
If possible, please include some why, how, where, when and who stuff.
ozeco41
Philosopher
"Both sides"? What "topic?"
Your constraint, limiting your offer for discussion to "people who believe the official story", is problematic. I am surprised that you don't recognise the problems.
If you ask me do I believe the "official Story" I would respond "I don't know". First I don't know what you mean by official story. Second there are lots of bits of "official explanations" which I am not even aware of so I cannot state one way or the other whether I "believe" those bits.
The bits of accepted explanation I am sure of and interested in are the "big three" technical questions. "Was there CD at WTC?" - no there wasn't - so if you want to claim that there was go for it - you will be the first in 10 years if you can. "Was it that plane which hit the Pentagon?" - yes it was - not my interest area though. "Was the plane at Shanksville shot down?" No it wasn't.
BUT don't even bother asking me about NIST's recommendations for future emergency exit arrangements in new buildings. I haven't even read that volume(s??) of the reports. That is one example of why I cannot say "I believe the official reports" - I don't whether I believe them or not for the simple reason I have not and never could have read them all. That is why your statement is ridiculous.
My offer remains the same. I'm sure many other members here would make the same offer.
You put forward your claim on any of the"big three" - and not a pseudo claim that "xyz is wrong". PLUS no reversal of burden of proof or demands that I/we prove a negative.
Simple really.
And there are not "two sides". There are many different slants or sides from those of us who are in general agreement with the accepted explanations. And no one has ever put forward a reasoned supportable claim from what you regard as "your side". So break the drought. Be the first.
It's almost worth putting up a poll on gerry's response ....
1. *crickets*
2. I'm only here to discuss the NIST report's failings
3. We need a new investigation
4. Join us in live debate on the subject
5. (a 100-1 shot) Well, what I believe is ......
6. I live on Planet X
- Status