Breaking news! Truther Ignored by Senator!

[tempesta29]

I said: "Or you could spend ten minutes and learn that the entire building did not collapse at free fall."

No question there are reading comprehension issues that are evident.

I never claimed the entire building was in free fall. What are you talking about?

Welcome to the site, you are going to be a real treasure: arrogant, uneducated, lazy and surly. What a Peach!

That sounds like you in a nutshell. You've been nothing but rude since I entered this thread.

 

[Thunder]

That sounds like you in a nutshell. You've been nothing but rude since I entered this thread.

and you called us all "dupes".

 

[twinstead]

That sounds like you in a nutshell. You've been nothing but rude since I entered this thread.

See, this is where the problem lies. You came on to this forum implying that none of us knew what we were talking about, and that the contributers to the NIST report and others--who in many ways are the cream of the engineering crop in the world-- are either incompetent or 'in on it'. There are plenty of engineering professionals on this forum, and I can imagine they don't take that lightly.

I'm sure you think your position is a slam dunk, that the collapses were impossible, and that's your prerogative, but you must be aware that there's a reason why the world's engineering communities don't support you; to the vast majority of people with the proper scientific and engineering background, the event is not as "mysterious" as you make it out to be.

So, YOU sir struck the first rude chord in this thread.

 

[tempesta29]

Almost provably certain there was no increase in resistance. Certainly not a large one.

The expectation of an increase seems to come from a concept that somehow the 'top block' started to fall and fell through a space before coming into contact with an undamaged tower below. Let's call that concept "it fell through a gap THEN gained contact with a jolt".

The concept is false and there are two main problems with it.

I'll take the chronological second one first. The start of the fall of the 'top block' led into the 'global collapse' of the lower tower - plus the disintegration of the top block at some stage in the process naturally.

All the visual evidence of that global collapse is dominated by the pancaking collapse of the open office space floors. We can see the key factors. The core is hidden so let's deal with the bit we can see first. The open office space of the top block fell onto the floor space below. Not onto the columns but floor onto floor. Contrary to what is often claimed that falling mass took the line of least resistance. Below the falling 10 or 20 floors of top block was only one floor at a time and the falling weight was simply overwhelming - it sheared off the connections between the impacted lower floor and the columns - both ends - core and outer tube. And meeting very little resistance from those floor to column connectors there was very little to cause any slow down or significantly reduced acceleration.

Now Tony Szamboti for one went looking for a 'big jolt' of when the columns of the top block landed on the columns of the lower tower. There was no 'big jolt' and Tony concluded, wrongly, that the columns had been removed by 'unnatural causes'. Not so. The real reason was that the top block columns were already out of end for end contact with their lower tower halves. Proof extremely simple but leave that for now.

Do you have evidence for the above? I mean, you're talking about what is happening to the core of the structure, which isn't visible. I assume you're talking about end for end contact with the core structure, not the perimeter netting. And no, the upper section doesn't take the path of least resistance. That would be toppling off through the air. It just sounds like you're describing that which there is no evidence for: what is happening internally in this structure as the upper section collapses.

Now the chronological first problem with the "it fell through a gap THEN gained contact with a jolt" concept is that through the start of the fall of the top block there never was a gap to fall through. Start with a preconception of 'demolition' as Tony Szamboti did and the logic quickly circles to prove its own premise. i.e. "demolition removed a bit of column leaving a gap and there was no jolt because there was a gap in the columns." Not so. To be pedantic not necessarily so - another point for later elaboration if discussion continues.

I'm not claiming there was any space, or gap. I'm simply claiming that if that section of the tower(s) was weak enough to initiate collapse, which was something engineers said would never happen, as they had anticipated such a disaster, then that section should have provided much less resistance to the upper section's descent than areas undamaged by fire or crash. That damaged section would have provided a measurable discrepancy in the amount of resistance it provided the upper section when compared to lower, undamaged floors.

So the 'initial collapse' mechanism which allowed the top block to start to fall never created gaps in the columns - whether they plastic buckled OR sheared OR fractured at bolted joints - however the columns failed and let the top block fall - they did so with the ends already bypassing and no re-alignment possible BUT no gap and no impact of column on column to cause a 'jolt' or, in your terminology, no "...signs of an increase in resistance". The shearing off of the floors involved much smaller forces. There were 'jolts' but many of them and far smaller that those expecting column on column contact were looking for.

I made no mention of a gap, first of all. Second of all, your "end to end" theory presupposes relevance in this matter. I don't see it. We have been told that the crash zone was immensely weakened due to fire, and that this was the primary cause of collapse. These fires were isolated to a certain number of floors near the crash zones, leaving the rest of the floors below them undamaged by fire. This should have produced a measurable decrease in the rate of acceleration of the upper sections as they passed through these allegedly very hot, weakened zones.

 

[funk de fino]

All those words to just tell a few lies.

 

[funk de fino]

And no, the upper section doesn't take the path of least resistance. That would be toppling off through the air.

Round here they have an award for pearls like that.

 

[TJM]

I never claimed the entire building was in free fall. What are you talking about?

Also, WTC 7 was in free fall for 2.25 seconds even though steel offers a minimum amount of resistance to collapse.

That.

 

[Thunder]

I never claimed the entire building was in free fall.

err....yes you did.

 

[tempesta29]

See, this is where the problem lies. You came on to this forum implying that none of us knew what we were talking about, and that the contributers to the NIST report and others--who in many ways are the cream of the engineering crop in the world-- are either incompetent or 'in on it'. There are plenty of engineering professionals on this forum, and I can imagine they don't take that lightly.

I certainly didn't imply none of you knew what you were talking about. I just wanted to discuss it. I don't have a background in engineering or physics. I know what I know, and from what I know, the collapses don't make sense.

I'm sure you think your position is a slam dunk, that the collapses were impossible, and that's your prerogative, but you must be aware that there's a reason why the world's engineering communities don't support you; to the vast majority of people with the proper scientific and engineering background, the event is not as "mysterious" as you make it out to be.

NIST never explained how gravitational acceleration was possible, only that it was reached. I'm just looking for explanations, because at this point, it looks like controlled demolition.

So, YOU sir struck the first rude chord in this thread.

I don't really see how you drew the above conclusion. I did have a post edited for civility, though I don't recall what I said. I think I've been pretty rational so far, considering this thread is essentially predicated on derision.

 

[tempesta29]

err....yes you did.

Let me clarify: WTC 7 was not in free fall for the entirety of its descent. The entire building was, however, in free fall for roughly 2.25 seconds as was measured by the north face roofline.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Boldings mine:

I certainly didn't imply none of you knew what you were talking about. I just wanted to discuss it. I don't have a background in engineering or physics. I know what I know, and from what I know, the collapses don't make sense.

My Truther Translator says this: "I, Tempesta, thinks he/she knows what happened, the collapses make sense."

NIST never explained how gravitational acceleration was possible, only that it was reached. I'm just looking for explanations, because at this point, it looks like controlled demolition.

It might look like a CD, but in reality it wasn't. So you're **** outta luck pal! Also you might want to look up the word "similie" in the dictionary.

I don't really see how you drew the above conclusion. I did have a post edited for civility, though I don't recall what I said. I think I've been pretty rational so far, considering this thread is essentially predicated on derision.

Rational? I recall that you think that the Towers were a CD, when the evidence that was provided, suggest that it couldn't have been a CD.

Let me clarify: WTC 7 was not in free fall for the entirety of its descent. The entire building was, however, in free fall for roughly 2.25 seconds as was measured by the north face roofline.

And what does the 2.25 seconds indicate?

A collapsing building

or

A Controlled Demoltion

Tick tock, tick tock!

 

[dc1971]

I never claimed the entire building was in free fall. What are you talking about?



That sounds like you in a nutshell. You've been nothing but rude since I entered this thread.

Look in the mirror, pal!

 

[twinstead]

I certainly didn't imply none of you knew what you were talking about. I just wanted to discuss it. I don't have a background in engineering or physics. I know what I know, and from what I know, the collapses don't make sense.

Somebody with no background in engineering or physics telling me the collapses don't make sense doesn't make sense.

NIST never explained how gravitational acceleration was possible, only that it was reached. I'm just looking for explanations, because at this point, it looks like controlled demolition.

How do you think the buildings could have been prepped for controlled demolition?

I don't really see how you drew the above conclusion. I did have a post edited for civility, though I don't recall what I said. I think I've been pretty rational so far, considering this thread is essentially predicated on derision.

I'm just explaining why some of the professional engineers on the forum may draw the conclusion, and may respond with less than friendly posts. It's the nature of the beast on this sub forum I guess.

 

[A W Smith]

Let me clarify: WTC 7 was not in free fall for the entirety of its descent. The entire building was, however, in free fall for roughly 2.25 seconds as was measured by the north face roofline.

no it wasn't. the parapet north western most corner was measured at freefall acceleration. the parapet at the kink or more to the center of the building preceded the north western most corner as demonstrated by the video you ignored that I posted a page back. Also the core starting at column 79 failed many seconds before the drop of that north western most corner, this was observed as the collapse of the eastern penthouse and then daylight showing through windows below the kink.

 

[tsig]

But not nearly as bad as listening to someone with dementia tell you a boring anecdote for the 50th time as if it's the first time.

Boring anecdotes rock! not.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Well actually, "their crap" is worth looking into. Both Twin Towers collapsed at a constant rate of acceleration, meaning crash zones, which we have been told caused the collapses, offered no less resistance than undamaged sections of those buildings, which isn't possible.

Also, WTC 7 was in free fall for 2.25 seconds even though steel offers a minimum amount of resistance to collapse. This is also not possible if only the only dead load is WTC 7's own components.

Two physical impossibilities are most definitely worth looking into.

I absolutely agree. We need to investigate the collapse of these structures to make sure the building codes for large skyscrapers prevent catastrophic cascade failure of this kind.

That's the REAL conspiracy here -- the architects and engineers for the WTC got off scot-free.

 

[Andy_Ross]

tempesta29
WHat do you think happened to the buildings if they didn't collapse as described in the NIST report?

You must have some ideas of your own but you don't seem to have let us know what they are?


WHat is your timeline of events?

 

[triforcharity]

Let me clarify: WTC 7 was not in free fall for the entirety of its descent. The entire building was, however, in free fall for roughly 2.25 seconds as was measured by the north face roofline.

Reading for comprehension bites you in the ass. Bad.

Neither NIST nor even your idol Chandler claim that at all either. A PORTION of 7WTC's North face fell at FFA.

Hey, maybe out new ball of string can show us another CD that has a period of FFA. How 'bout it sport?

 

[DC]

I absolutely agree. We need to investigate the collapse of these structures to make sure the building codes for large skyscrapers prevent catastrophic cascade failure of this kind.

That's the REAL conspiracy here -- the architects and engineers for the WTC got off scot-free.

the Building Code was revised.....
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/08/washington/08codes.html

 

[djlunacee]

Oh, come on. Surely "Ka Chunk...Ka Chunk ... Ka Chunk" counts as math???

What would that make "clunkity clunk"?