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

[Gamolon]

Dont forget the missing jolt

Explosives would create many jolts........in all directions. Did I miss one?

Apparently we missed ALL of them...

 

[Gamolon]

How can you design redundancy into a building to be 100% positive that every single possible permutation of RANDOM interactions between weakened and/or failed structural components will NOT result in a total collapse?

Any explanation Tony?

 

[Jackanory]

Apparently we missed ALL of them...

Ironic conumdrummery at play me thinks

 

[NoahFence]

No response Tony?

Like all truthers, Tony doesn't respond to inconvenient things like accuracy and honesty.

 

[jaydeehess]

... that anyone with eyeballs and half a brain can see that a building the size of a footblall field in plan coming down uniformly at freefall acceleration for 8 stories across its full length and width, can only be collapsing due to unnatural means.

That sounds a lot like the invocation of 'common sense' to me.

its also plain to anyone with an iota of common sense that a machine weighing tens or hundreds of tons cannot rise up into the air. that rockets cannot propel anything in the vaccum of space since there is nothing to push against, and that light cannot be both a particle and a wave. Good thing that more than 'common sense' is in play

Jay, the reaction you garnered is yet another example of how there appears to be opportunities to learn critical thinking skills in the engineering community.

Indeed it does LSSBB, indeed it does.

Of course my post was directed at ergo and Clayton who utterly fail to consider technical arguements, in favour of personal incredulity which they characterize as 'common sense'. However above we see that TS also invokes 'common sense' as the starting point for his arguement, and does little else to support his claim of CD. It is all well and good to try to poke holes in the NIST engineers studies and reports. It is yet another thing to make the leap of intuition required to then peg it as a controlled demolition.
Where is the evidence of explosive use? Certainly its not thermite since for the sudden failure of CD which they say is seen in the collapses thermite would be wildy unweildy as it is impossible to time the cutting of structural members.

How does FFA and in fact the measured exceeding of 'g' factor into CD, EXACTLY?

 

[Jackanory]

Why was there .8 seconds worth of no free fall right before the actual free fall period of 2.25 seconds?

If all the columns were removed at the same time like you claim, free fall should have ensued IMMEDIATELY, not .8 seconds later.

Must have been those wiley stiffeners or those pesky studs. Sure is a good job those boys where added...........weren’t they? Levitating fairy dust from the ACME boys was my second option but that would take tooooooo long to rig.

 

[000063]

Gravity didn't build it either. That's how searing your logic is here.

It looks right to me. It looks exactly like a controlled demolition, as it does to millions of others, including those in the building and demolition professions.

"Looks like" is not the same as "is". Just ask Madam Tussaud. Or people who make fake food. Or photo retouchers. Or Industrial Light and Magic. Or Luke, Ben, Han and Chewie.



Of course, this is coming from the man who once said that parts of the core hung in the air like Wile E. Coyote running off a cliff, along with a host of other incorrect things.

Glad to see the thread's so popular.

The core dropped first. Its remnants hung in the air for a bit, then they dropped.

Also of course, we are discussing how to determine how it collapsed, not what made it collapse. Gravity, impact, and fire are not how the collapse was investigated. Nice straw man, though.

You say the collapse looked like a CD. Where were the flashes of light? The loud bangs which would be audible across New York? The leftover miles of wiring and casings? Why weren't any of the explosives knocked out of the building into New York when the planes hit? How did the bad guys know to plant explosives in WTC 7? Did they aim WTC 1's collapse at it with an unhead-of amount of precision, in addition to the other impossible things they were up to that day, or did they just randomly happen to have explosives that weren't disrupted by a building falling on it randomly and hours of fire? Why is that every time you try to excuse the lack of barotrauma, even from people who were in the building when the explosives would've been detonated, you end up running away from the thread? Why can't you admit to being wrong even on the most idiotic statements, like the claim that a moon-sized rubble field would not have crushed the towers?

Probably closer to a billion or more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

So one out of every seven people believe 9/11 was a CD? Over twice the population of north America? Two thirds of the amount of people who practice Islam? About half the amount of people who practice Christianity? A little under the amount of people in India or China?

Why do I get the impression that both you and Ergo pulled those numbers out of your posterior?

 

[GlennB]

Why was there .8 seconds worth of no free fall right before the actual free fall period of 2.25 seconds?

If all the columns were removed at the same time like you claim, free fall should have ensued IMMEDIATELY, not .8 seconds later.

C7 did explain this once upon a time. He said the <g phase was caused by the roofline buckling backwards, thus creating the optical illusion of falling, relative to a camera looking upwards.

That this destroys his own delusions about symmetrical collapse, invulnerable moment-frames etc etc doesn't bother him one jot. He just makes up poop on the fly, as he sees fit.

 

[tsig]

TFK can't even cite himself, because anonymous engineers don't count. I am continually amazed that a working mechanical engineer, as he claims to be, has as much time as he seems to have to post here and elsewhere.

Aside from that anyone with eyeballs and half a brain can see that a building the size of a footblall field in plan coming down uniformly at freefall acceleration for 8 stories across its full length and width, can only be collapsing due to unnatural means. It is clear that many of the individuals that post on this forum would argue that man could fly through the sun and survive if it served their interests.

So in the final analysis all you have is your own incredulity because it doesn't look right to you.

 

[NoahFence]

000063 You say the collapse looked like a CD. Where were the flashes of light? The loud bangs which would be audible across New York? The leftover miles of wiring and casings? Why weren't any of the explosives knocked out of the building into New York when the planes hit? How did the bad guys know to plant explosives in WTC 7? Did they aim WTC 1's collapse at it with an unhead-of amount of precision, in addition to the other impossible things they were up to that day, or did they just randomly happen to have explosives that weren't disrupted by a building falling on it randomly and hours of fire? Why is that every time you try to excuse the lack of barotrauma, even from people who were in the building when the explosives would've been detonated, you end up running away from the thread?

...all the while having the massive coincidence that two planes crashed that same day elsewhere.

 

[tsig]

No, I didn't. I just wrote what I did for someone who might not understand.

Most of the people on here would argue that a human could fly through the sun if it served their interests and they thought they could get away with it somehow.

We're all liars then, Tony?

 

[tsig]

There should have been a serious deceleration and the fact that there wasn't shows there was unnatural means of demolition going on. Just like the freefall acceleration of WTC 7. These two things are enormous red flags and to argue against these clues as to what really happened gives one away as either an idiot who can't think for themselves, or someone with an agenda.

You're implying that CDs are supernatural?


So we're all either liars of idiots?

 

[beachnut]

... anyone with eyeballs and half a brain can see that a building the size of a footblall field in plan coming down uniformly at freefall acceleration for 8 stories across its full length and width, can only be collapsing due to unnatural means. ...

This is why engineers use a whole brain, physics, and more to understand how fire destroys a building. In your fantasy world of the big inside job, what exactly was used by the evil doers to bring about the half-brain unnatural means demise of WTC 7?

 

[tsig]

TFK can't even cite himself, because anonymous engineers don't count. I am continually amazed that a working mechanical engineer, as he claims to be, has as much time as he seems to have to post here and elsewhere.

Aside from that anyone with eyeballs and half a brain can see that a building the size of a footblall field in plan coming down uniformly at freefall acceleration for 8 stories across its full length and width, can only be collapsing due to unnatural means.

It is clear that many of the individuals that post on this forum would argue that man could fly through the sun and survive if it served their interests.

You discount his posts because he's anonymous?

Can you say "ad hominem"?

 

[jaydeehess]

C7 did explain this once upon a time. He said the <g phase was caused by the roofline buckling backwards, thus creating the optical illusion of falling, relative to a camera looking upwards.

That this destroys his own delusions about symmetrical collapse, invulnerable moment-frames etc etc doesn't bother him one jot. He just makes up poop on the fly, as he sees fit.

It is quite probable that this is why greater than g is measured in the video. Though in fact its not necessarily solely an optical illusion since a rotating object's outer point can most certainly exceed g even if its center of mass is falling below g. It then also destroys any reference to =g since one cannot know the extent by which that effect (any optical illusion or rotation of the element under study) skews the measurement.

The fact that the measurement exceeds g indicates that some other effect is in play besides gravity. No object falling straight down CAN exceed g therefore we already know for certain that the measurement is not what it is purported to be, the linear acceleration of the facade of WTC 7.

 

[leftysergeant]

Or a 5 year old with a BB gun and a greenhouse

I have reason to suspect that BB guns are illegal where many twoofers reside, as are metal and pointy scissors. Most of the windows are probably plexiglass, so they have never seen a cone of percussion in a transparent material.

 

[jaydeehess]

You discount his posts because he's anonymous?

Can you say "ad hominem"?

This strawman always makes me laugh.
Given that, say, 90+% of all posters on internet forums choose to use usernames other than their given names would make one wonder why they would bother to 'debate' issues on internet forums at all.

Is it simply so that when ever anyone challenges them they can simply drag up 'you're anonymous' as a retort that they consider trumps anything the challenger has to say?

 

[leftysergeant]

It certainly does look like some sort of controlled demolition.

Yeah, it looked like verinage.

It did NOT look like the kind of explosive demolition done by CDI.

Buildings collapsing without explosives more destructive than controlled demolitions? That's just nonsense.

Not a bit of it. The rubble piles did not appear as tall as you expected them because they were spread more widely than are the rubble piles from normal explosive demolitions. Again, this parallels demolition by verinage.

Explosive demolitions remove internal structures so that the weight of flooors pull the walls inward, keeping them more or less inplace as they crumble from the bottom up.

Verinage, by contrast, is purely Bazantian. Each floor of Block A destroys a floor of Block C.

Don't give me any crap about there being a limit on how tall a structure can be destroyed by verinage. It is irrelevant that the company which invented the technique will not do one as tall as the WTC, and it has nothing to do with the energy budget to do the job.

If you look at a verinage project, you will notice that the lower floors emit puffs of dust, just like the "squibs" seen leaving the WTC towers, but utterly unlike the actual squibs seen in explosive demolitions.

Further, you will notice that, in verinage, the massive dust cloud usually associated with explosive demolitions does not form at the bottom of the structure, but on the floors which are collapsing. Rather than roiling up, they cascade downward, along with much solid matter. The taller the building being pulled in this way, the wider the dust plume becomes. Thus, beyond a certain height, it becomes impossible to initiate collapse without the risk that the collapsing structure will fall on some of the equipment being used, or onto surrounding structures.

Having now established that the only form of demolitions which the WTC collapses in any way resemble is verinage, let me point out that verinage requires massive pre-weakening of the structure of at least two floors of the structure being pulled in order to allow the top block to accelerate sufficiently to crush the lower. We know that this had not been done because people were working on the floors where the planes hit. Some of them escaped while others on the same floors were trapped.

We know that the work was not done.

 

[Jackanory]

Is it simply so that when ever anyone challenges them they can simply drag up 'you're anonymous' as a retort that they consider trumps anything the challenger has to say?

The 'smarter' ones use there real names only if they can travel the world and make a buck. The rest indulge in stupid for free. Go figure

 

[Animal]

This strawman always makes me laugh.
Given that, say, 90+% of all posters on internet forums choose to use usernames other than their given names would make one wonder why they would bother to 'debate' issues on internet forums at all.

Is it simply so that when ever anyone challenges them they can simply drag up 'you're anonymous' as a retort that they consider trumps anything the challenger has to say?

I stay anonymous because I once had a kook try to threaten me in real life.
Some bozo was able to figure out who / where I was and threaten to contact my "employer" for posting on a message board during working hours because I had made him look foolish , (too bad for him, I was a owner / partner ) when that failed he threatened to libel the company to leave a "permanent black mark on the internet"