• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Buildings must fall straight down? Nonsense.

I can't help but notice the way that when TS's questions are answered with evidence in another thread he abandons it, without admiting his error, and starts a new thread with equally flimsy evidence.
 
R.Mackey said:
No evidence provided, just a pile of speculation.

That's one story. Another story is the one given in the NIST prelim report. Their story has the advantage that it didn't rely on explosive charges for which you've provided no shred of evidence, that nobody saw or heard, and that would have been totally unnecessary as the structure had been burning and leaning for hours.

Support your argument, or abandon it.


I don't. The "only" peer-reviewed paper? Not even close! Rejected until you get me a cite.


Um... this is the same paper I was talking about. Just reprinted with a CT address. You didn't even check, did you? Minus ten points for you!


I asked you to tell me where you got these, not just repeat them. Please do so or drop it.


Ah, is that so? Well, if it's "more like" a "classic" controlled demolition, then you should understand why the NIST hypothesis makes sense. They propose a major failure of a central column on the 6th floor, which was cantilevered over a ConEd substation. A failure here would literally pull the floor out from under the upper structure... leading to precisely the behavior you describe.

And I put "more like" in quotes, because like I already said, demolition experts say it is not like a controlled demolition.

You haven't even addressed, let alone refuted, the comments I made in my post. Thus it still stands. You need a do-over.
Click to expand...

The insides were collapsing first. When the penthouse collapsed it was because of a progressive internal collapse. Then as the penthouse fell the debris continued to wipe out the interior of the structure. As you watch the penthouse fall in the videos you can start to see light coming through the windows because the area was gutted out.

NIST states possibly a pressurized fuel line feeding a generator on the fifth floor started the collapse.
The damage to the building didn't help either causing the load to be redistributed to other areas. Pictures of the southside show the some of the outer wall detached.

Currently NIST states:

An initial local failure at the floors below floor 13 due to fire and/or debris induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event), which supported a large span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet (190 m²).
Vertical progression of the initial local failure up to the east penthouse, as large floor bays were unable to redistribute the loads, bringing down the interior structure below it.
Collapse of the interior structure first, pulling the outer structure down and inward.
Horizontal progression of the failure across the floors in the region of floors 5 and 7, much thicker than the rest of the floors, triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, resulting in the disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.
 
Last edited:
R.Mackey said:
I don't. The "only" peer-reviewed paper? Not even close! Rejected until you get me a cite.
Click to expand...

Jonathan Barnett's Metallurgical study is not the only study done on the steel.

This was the study done by the Materials Science & Engineering Program, Mechanical Engineering Dept., Worcester Polytechinc Institute
Authors:
R.R. Biederman, George F. Vander Voort, Erin Sullivan, R.D. Sisson, Jr.

http://www.me.wpi.edu/MTE/People/imsm.html
 
Last edited:
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Hans, with due respect, you seem to not consider the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It is symmetry which requires skill and special circumstances. Asymmetrical behavior is always more likely than symmetrical.
Click to expand...


Aside from your total misuse of the 2nd Law of Thermo, I call bullsh*t.

Perhaps you'd like some examples in nature where symmetry is common?

How about this?

Or this?

Or this?

If these don't convince you, I'd be happy to post hundreds more. Asymmetry is not the same as chaos. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics deals with chaos, not symmetry.
 
NobbyNobbs said:
...Or this?
Click to expand...
"... [The] beautiful spiral galaxy M66, a mere 35 million light-years away. About 100 thousand light-years across with striking dust lanes and bright star clusters along sweeping spiral arms..."

Things like that never cease to amaze me. A "mere" 35 million light-years away. We're seeing an image generated that long ago, never mind the measure of its diameter. And it's fairly close to us, comparatively. Man!
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
I'm sorry. How else do you explain the windows blowing out in sequence with smoke billowing out. While the whole building is falling, the upper floors are not falling relative to one another, and the timing in between blasts of smoke coming out is way too fast. How on earth could the floors be pancaking upwards? Unlike the twin towers, this is much more of a classic controlled demolition, with a demolition sequence proceeding upwards, slicing the the vertical columns floor by floor, proceeding upwards.
Click to expand...

How do you explain the eye witnesses and firemen who saw the building bow long before it fell, measured it, and came to the conclusion it was going to fall at any moment?
 
twinstead said:
How do you explain the eye witnesses and firemen who saw the building bow long before it fell, measured it, and came to the conclusion it was going to fall at any moment?
Click to expand...
The WTC7 squibs are also a long debunked myth.
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_squibs.html
http://www.debunking911.com/overp.htm

Jones was also flat out wrong when he said:
"The upper floors have not moved relative to one another yet, as one can verify from the videos."
http://www.911myths.com/html/squib_timing.html
 
Last edited:
TruthSeeker1234 said:
I'm sorry. How else do you explain the windows blowing out in sequence with smoke billowing out.
Click to expand...

Link please. I never saw that.

While the whole building is falling, the upper floors are not falling relative to one another, and the timing in between blasts of smoke coming out is way too fast.
Click to expand...

Of course they fall together, the whole structure failed. Perhaps you didn't notice that 20 floors were missing from the south side.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Mackey, I'm still waiting for you to admit your error about the cross bracing, as I supplied both before and after pictures showing it. But that's a thread you abandoned. Let's fix thermodynamics here

second law of thermodynamics, about entropy The total entropy of any isolated thermodynamic system tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value.As a system asymptotically approaches absolute zero of temperature all processes virtually cease and the entropy of the system asymptotically approaches a minimum value.See Bose–Einstein condensate and negative temperature.

Entropy, of course, is the measure of disorder. There are always more disorderd states that ordered ones, and disorder tends to increase over time.

The second law certainly means that asymmetry is the rule, symmetry must be created at great expense of disorder somewhere else. Asymmetry is always much more likely than symmetry.

To suggest that the third law contradicts this, or whatever you were tyring to bamboozle, is just wrong. See you guys next round
Click to expand...

What in ed's name does this have to do with 9/11 ? WTC7 was not a closed system by any stretch of the imagination!
 
kevin said:
How many buildings have you seen fall by non-explosive means? If the only valid proof is things you've seen before then you need to go watch other buildings fall in the same manner before deciding what is the truth.
Click to expand...

Holy smoke, Kev. Some avatar change!

Also, if you look at my sig, I am now also "irrelevant".
 
Shmendrick1234 said:
Good question. Doubtful that the perps intended to just pull it at 5:20 for no reason. Either a plane was supposed to hit that one too, after the towers were out of the way. Or, it was supposed to drop when the North Tower dust cloud was flowing.
Click to expand...

That's just ... I mean ... wow ... insane ... totally batguano fruitloop crazy.

1. A plane was supposed to hit WTC7.

Unlike the towers, WTC7 was not a particularly well-known building, well recognized or (as it is set amid other tall buildings) easy to hit with a plane. There are at least five other targets in New York that are tall, easily identifiable and clear of obstructions from the air - Empire State building, Citibank building, Statue of Liberty, Brooklyn Bridge, Yankee Stadium, etc. Also, it seems pretty astonishing that the conspirators would believe that they could get a plane over to WTC7 hours after planes hit the towers. I mean, they'd have to know that eventually somebody was going to mount some kind of response or close the airspace or something.

2. WTC7 was supposed to be detonated while the towers were falling.

This presumes that WTC7 was a good idea for a target. It also presumes that someone who was on the switch (which, according to CTists was the FDNY, because they're the ones the owner told to "pull it") messed up. Did this person have an attack of conscience? Did the remote-controlled detonator fail? It's just so ... stupid.

3. It took seven hours to decide to detonate the building.

Why did it take so long to fix the explosives? Why did they only detonate it after the FDNY saw cracking at the foundation? Why, after killing so many firefighters earlier in the day did they wait for the FDNY to evacuate WTC7 before blowing it up? Certainly seven hours was more than enough time for firefighters to discover that the building was wired with explosives, that the columns had been cut or that there was detcord everywhere. Not all of those firefighters could have been part of the conspiracy. I mean, the main conspirators would never be able to know exactly which firefighters would go in to WTC7 ahead of time.

4. The owner of WTC7 is the person who decided to detonate it.

So much for the government false flag operation to incite hatred of Muslims, I guess. Now, a landlord brought down the building for ... um, insurance money I guess. Which was it - government conspiracy or landlord insurance scam? They can't both be true. Can they?

5. The people who detonated WTC7 were the FDNY.

These are the people to whom the owner said, "Pull it." Aren't they? What possible reason could the New York City Fire Department have for agreeing to such a plan. Especially after hundreds of its own had been killed earlier in the day.

6. The owner conspired to destroy his own building with the help of the fire department in the biggest cover-up in history and then messed the whole thing up when he told a reporter that he had said, "Pull it."

Silverstein must be the dumbest Illuminati in history to just admit that to a reporter like that. I mean, his out of context quote combined with Rumsfeld's out of context "missile" statement are really damning evidence of ... well, of something.

You can see, Shmendrick1234, why some people might not hold with your theory.
 
I can't tell if you guys agree or disagree with Eagar, so answer that.

Try this experiment. Try getting a table top to fall straight down by cutting only the legs on one side. Would the experiment be any differnet if the table was 500 feet tall and had 87 legs instead of 4? Please explain.

Try actually responding to the subject of the thread. There linked is a video of a building whose support fails asymmetrically. Just as we would think, indeed the building falls to that side. Why does it fall to the side?

Eagar has essentially accused the CD profession of being frauds. Who is right?

Hold off on questioning me for a moment, you can get back to that. Answer these.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
I can't tell if you guys agree or disagree with Eagar, so answer that.

Try this experiment. Try getting a table top to fall straight down by cutting only the legs on one side. Would the experiment be any differnet if the table was 500 feet tall and had 87 legs instead of 4? Please explain.
Click to expand...

A table is not a skyscraper. That is your explanation

Try actually responding to the subject of the thread. There linked is a video of a building whose support fails asymmetrically. Just as we would think, indeed the building falls to that side. Why does it fall to the side?

Eagar has essentially accused the CD profession of being frauds. Who is right?
Click to expand...

My money is on the guys who do this for a living over the crank.

Hold off on questioning me for a moment, you can get back to that. Answer these.
Click to expand...

If you can't take the heat...
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
I can't tell if you guys agree or disagree with Eagar, so answer that.

Try this experiment. Try getting a table top to fall straight down by cutting only the legs on one side. Would the experiment be any differnet if the table was 500 feet tall and had 87 legs instead of 4? Please explain.

Try actually responding to the subject of the thread. There linked is a video of a building whose support fails asymmetrically. Just as we would think, indeed the building falls to that side. Why does it fall to the side?

Eagar has essentially accused the CD profession of being frauds. Who is right?

Hold off on questioning me for a moment, you can get back to that. Answer these.
Click to expand...

Quit misquoting Prof. Eagar, he said (the buildings) referring to the twin towers only, not buildings, and he did not accuse the CD profession of being Frauds, you simply did not understand what he was saying about gravity and the design of the buildings good grief it is like trying to explain something to a two year old on a sugar high from two much candy.
In other words if you know what you were talking about you would understand what Prof. Eagar was saying.
 
Shmendrick1234 said:
Try this experiment. Try getting a table top to fall straight down by cutting only the legs on one side.
Click to expand...


This is Shmendrick1234's pattern. When confronted with overwhelming evidence, he makes an unwarranted analogy. Then he demands that we defend his whacked-out acid-trip analogy in a massive strawman feint. Next, he'll abandon the thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom