Split Thread 7WTC - controlled demolition or fire and damage induced collapse?

So, MM, WT7 started falling right after the "charges" exploded in that video?
 
I guess what I'm asking above is this.

If we looked at the NIST's calculations and drawings explaining what happened to WTC7 BEFORE any of this happened on 9/11, would it be considered a plausible scenario?

Has anyone ever looked at the NIST's calculations and drawings and supplied any specific feedback as to why the proposed scenario by them would not be possible at all?

Christopher7,
Is the NIST scenario possible? If not, what specific parts of their explanation did you find to be incorrect and making their scenario NOT possible at all?
 
tfk said:
Since it's easy to calculate (now that I've got the accel. function), here is a table of the "Average Accelerations over 2.25 second intervals", for start times running from 4.6 sec to 5.6 seconds.

{Interval Start time, Average Acceleration over 2.25 sec interval }

{4.6, -28.6556},
{4.7, -29.5611},
{4.8, -30.2888},
{4.9, -30.8012},
{5.0, -31.0492}, *** max value
{5.1, -30.9424},
{5.2, -30.3447},
{5.3, -29.3036},
{5.4, -28.0272},
{5.5, -26.8454},
{5.6, -26.0467}

So, Chris, you can see that the "average accel over 2.25 sec interval" peaks out for the interval starting at 5.0 seconds (5.0 -> 7.25 second interval) at 31.05 ft/sec^2.

Or about 100 * 31.05/32.18 = 96.5% G.

Sorry, you don't get your 0.08% or "indistinguishable from free fall accel" either.


tom
Click to expand...
You are an anomyous poster blowing smoke. WTC 7 fell at FFA. If you get different results then you are doing something wrong. Perhaps your start time is different.

BTW: It's not "my" 0.08%, that is the NIST calculation result.
 
Gamolon said:
Question.

If a section of a steel structure weakens due to fire to a point that the said steel cannot support it's potion of the load anymore, does it fail slowly to let the structure above down slowly or is the failure instant and can cause a FFA collapse?
Click to expand...
New people join the debate without reading what has been presented because of all the irrelevant babbling that buries the information.

The severe reading disability of many here prevent them from understanding what Dr. Sunder is saying. Perhaps you are intelligent enough to understand this clear statement:

[FONT=&quot]At a Tech briefing on 8-26-08, lead investigator for NIST, Shyam Sunder, stated:[/FONT]
 [FONT=&quot]"a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it . . . there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous.

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]In other words, the NIST progressive collapse hypothesis does not include a period of free fall acceleration because there is always structural resistance. [/FONT]
 
There was no explosive residue found at GZ. They wouldn't find anything that barely resembles explosive residue. They wouldn't need to look into the matter any further because there was no explosive residue found.

What don't you retarded Truthers get? Hmmm! Don't you get it? There's not a shred of evidence to prove explosives were ever used on 9/11.

Truthers need to get lives & stop being paranoid idiots!
 
Christopher7 said:
New people join the debate without reading what has been presented because of all the irrelevant babbling that buries the information.
Click to expand...

Which is the exact purpose of all the pointless babbling.

If this forum was moderated with some discipline, all the garbage, say-nothing posts would be removed.

It can only be hoped that visitors seeking the truth, or at the very least, an honest discussion, will ignore all the children making nothing but wisecracks.

Post #1625 above is a classic example.

MM
 
Last edited:
Miragememories said:
Which is the exact purpose of all the pointless babbling.

If this forum was moderated with some discipline, all the garbage, say-nothing posts would be removed.

It can only be hoped that visitors seeking the truth, or at the very least, an honest discussion, will ignore all the children making nothing but wisecracks.

Post #1625 above is a classic example.

MM
Click to expand...
Post 1627 is an example of denial of evidence presented. It offers nothing of substance, just denial.
 
uke2se said:
Chris, how is FFA evidence for man-made demolition when you yourself claim that no other man-made demolitions induce FFA? Please answer this. Note, the Sunder quote you like to spam doesn't answer this.
Click to expand...
I have already responded to this. It does not matter that this is the only known example of FFA. The fact that it did proves that all the supporting structure on 7 to 8 floors was removed. All your tap dancing and double talk denial of this fact will not change this fact.
 
Gamolon said:
Question.

If a section of a steel structure weakens due to fire to a point that the said steel cannot support it's potion of the load anymore, does it fail slowly to let the structure above down slowly or is the failure instant and can cause a FFA collapse?
Click to expand...

Chris,

I think you might want to pay attention to this question....
 
Christopher7 said:
I have already responded to this. It does not matter that this is the only known example of FFA. The fact that it did proves that all the supporting structure on 7 to 8 floors was removed. All your tap dancing and double talk denial of this fact will not change this fact.
Click to expand...

But how does it prove it? If the only way FFA can be attained in a building collapse is through CD, why don't we see it in other CDs? You must explain this, Chris, and despite what you claim to have done, you have failed to do so.

Again, why is FFA evidence of CD if no other CDs show FFA?
 
Christopher7 said:
I have already responded to this. It does not matter that this is the only known example of FFA. The fact that it did proves that all the supporting structure on 7 to 8 floors was removed. All your tap dancing and double talk denial of this fact will not change this fact.
Click to expand...

No, it shows the supporting structure failed. Still doesn't necessitate CD.
 
All I can say is that cameraman was one cool customer. Unexpected "Demolition blasts" going off nearby and he didn't flinch at all. Not a twitch. Nerves of steel on that guy...
 
Miragememories said:
Then quit dodging and ignoring and explain this;
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6240429&postcount=1618

Denial is not an argument.

It is rather pathetic actually.

MM
Click to expand...

Excuse me, are you asserting that this is the explosion that brought down WTC 7? There are a few problems with that.

1. It's a single explosion - even if not faked. Demolition charges aren't single explosions.

2. There is a lot of dust in the air. This indicates that the footage was taken shortly after a collapse. If it's the dust from WTC 1 or 2, the collapse of WTC 7 is many hours away. If it's the dust from WTC 7, it has already collapsed.

I'm sure someone else can think of more problems.

So, my question to you: Do you honestly assert that this is what you call a "demolition explosion"? If so, how do you explain the two points above?
 
Sam.I.Am said:
All I can say is that cameraman was one cool customer. Unexpected "Demolition blasts" going off nearby and he didn't flinch at all. Not a twitch. Nerves of steel on that guy...
Click to expand...
So I guess you've never seen some of the many terrific news videos shot throughout history?

I've worked behind the camera.

The excitement of getting some amazing footage can often overwhelm fear.

Also, there can be a detachment from reality when watching events unfold through a lens.

Unfortunately many great photographers and cameramen have been killed
because of this false sense of security.

MM
 
Sam.I.Am said:
All I can say is that cameraman was one cool customer. Unexpected "Demolition blasts" going off nearby and he didn't flinch at all. Not a twitch. Nerves of steel on that guy...
Click to expand...

Some pretty close lightning strikes have caused me to flinch. Back in '05 when we had all the hurricanes, i decided it was a bright idea to be outside to record hurricane Katrina and had one of those nearby lightning strikes scare the living crap out of me with when the thunder clap went off. Indeed... it is quite strange to see the lack of any reflexes from the camera man to such a loud bang.
 
Christopher7 said:
The severe reading disability of many here prevent them from understanding what Dr. Sunder is saying. Perhaps you are intelligent enough to understand this clear statement:

[FONT=&quot]At a Tech briefing on 8-26-08, lead investigator for NIST, Shyam Sunder, stated:[/FONT]
 [FONT=&quot]"a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it
Click to expand...


Ok. Let me ask you this. Here is the definition of a "structural component" from this site: http://www.ashi.org/glossary_terms.htm

ASHI said:
STRUCTURAL COMPONENT:
A component that supports non-variable forces or weights (dead loads) and variable forces or weights (live loads)
Click to expand...

So if the COMPONENT becomes unable to SUPPORT FORCES OR WEIGHT as designed to do, does it then cease to be a structural component?

If I pounded a single I beam in the ground, would that be considered a structural component? If I pounded a single gusset plate into the ground, would that be a structural component? Is gypsum wallboard a structural component?
 
Miragememories said:
"Then quit dodging and ignoring and explain this;
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...postcount=1618

Denial is not an argument."
Click to expand...
uke2se said:
"Excuse me, are you asserting that this is the explosion that brought down WTC 7? There are a few problems with that.

1. It's a single explosion - even if not faked. Demolition charges aren't single explosions.

2. There is a lot of dust in the air. This indicates that the footage was taken shortly after a collapse. If it's the dust from WTC 1 or 2, the collapse of WTC 7 is many hours away. If it's the dust from WTC 7, it has already collapsed.

I'm sure someone else can think of more problems.

So, my question to you: Do you honestly assert that this is what you call a "demolition explosion"? If so, how do you explain the two points above?"
Click to expand...

No, I'm not asserting that this explosion brought down WTC7.

Yes, there would obviously be many problems with that.

Your quite correct in that; "Demolition charges aren't single explosions."

There are a few important points here; controlled demolitions are comprised of a series of single explosions, and, there should not have been any controlled demolition-type explosions occurring at any time on 9/11 at the WTC site.

I also agree that based on the visual evidence contained in that video, it would appear that the footage was shot after at least one of the Twin Towers had collapsed.

To explain that, requires speculation since I was not responsible for the event and have no direct knowledge about how it came to be.

My theory is that it was a second explosion. The first one was the one that Barry Jennings experienced. Both of these explosions were part of the planned demolition of WTC7. A controlled demolition timed to coincide with the collapse of WTC1, so that the WTC1 collapse would mask the obvious controlled demolition nature of the collapsing WTC7. Something went wrong and WTC7 survived. In the following 7 hours, corrections were made and a successful controlled demolition occurred at 5:20 p.m. Unfortunately for those responsible, it was not masked by the collapse of WTC1 and its controlled demolition profile was revealed to those cameras recording the event.

Now I expect you to dismiss this theory because it doesn't fit with your chosen belief.

But I ask you, what reason explains why there was any controlled demolition-type blast in that area?

And if your going to re-argue that it wasn't that type of blast, I suggest you listen to it carefully!

MM
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom