Care to Comment

[WildCat]

In addition to a coherent theory I'd like to see the evidence supporting the theory and the logic that connects the facts to the theory. Without these, a coherent theory, though interesting, is little more than a work of art.

No need for any evidence when a coherent theory can't even be articulated. Without a theory, you can make no test for evidence.

And there's no worry about Tony or Profanz actually coming up with a coherent theory, because like all truthers they constantly make conflicting claims.

Like when Tony says none of the steel got very hot, and then claims it was all melted by the s00per-nAno-tHeRmiTe.

 

[leftysergeant]

The only thing that is causing a HUSH is your hands over your ears. When debunkers say no explosions were claimed to be heard by anyone it is the debunker who is lying.

Delusional. There were no reports of or recordings of explosions consistant with demolition charges. Noe. You got that? None. There was no damage to other buildings consistant with being next to a building dropped by explosive charges. Zero. Zip. Nada. Opsuminda. Do you grasp this?

Lose the attitude.

 

[Bell]

People heard explosions. And yes most of them were firefighters because they were the closest. That's what I said. There was no HUSH.

Since I'm such a nice guy, I'll provide you with some Wiki stuff:

An explosion is a rapid increase in volume and release of energy in an extreme manner, usually with the generation of high temperatures and the release of gases. An explosion creates a shock wave. If the shock wave is a supersonic detonation, then the source of the blast is called a "high explosive". Subsonic shock waves are created by low explosives through the slower burning process known as deflagration.

Kinds of explosions:

1 Natural
2 Chemical
3 Nuclear
4 Electrical
5 Vapour
6 Astronomical
7 Mechanical

And a link for your convenience.

Note how explosion != explosive

No really, you're welcome...

 

[carlitos]

People heard explosions

Yes. People also heard freight trains. Your point?

 

[Profanz]

Yes. People also heard freight trains. Your point?

My point is there was no HUSH. If you claim as much you are a liar.

 

[BigAl]

My point is there was no HUSH. If you claim as much you are a liar.

And nothing heard at WTC on 9/11 sounded like man-made demolition.

 

[leftysergeant]

My point is there was no HUSH. If you claim as much you are a liar.

Which is why your idea that there may have been demolition charges is BS. What could be heard in no way resembled what would have to have been heard were it CD.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Which is why your idea that there may have been demolition charges is BS. What could be heard in no way resembled what would have to have been heard were it CD.

And just because I don't believe Profanz is intelligent enough to figure this out for himself: This means that, if there were demolition-style explosives used in the towers, they must have been silent, while the typical office fire explosions were not.

 

[Thunder]

My point is there was no HUSH. If you claim as much you are a liar.

there was no sound of explosives going off as the towers came down.

this is one of the most important telltail signs of a controlled demolition.

 

[TJM]

My point is there was no HUSH. If you claim as much you are a liar.

While I was talking with a fellow reporter and several NYPD officers, Building 7 suddenly collapsed, and before it hit the ground, not a single sound emanated from the tower area. There were no explosives; I would have heard them. In fact, I remember that in those few seconds, as the building sank to the ground that I was stunned by how quiet it was.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5860163&postcount=2

So is Shapiro a liar too?

Or is he a liar in the other thread?

Which is it?

Do you know?

I can't stop double spacing.

I won't hold my breath for an answer.

 

[Dave Rogers]

There was no more than about 1 degree of tilt in WTC 1 before descent. Much of the 8 degree tilt occurred after the descent began. This has been proven in the last six months.

I must have missed this proof. Could you repost it here? It seems to disagree with my own observation that the upper block tilted about 2º before the top edge had descended more than a quarter of a storey height. It's easy to make unsupported assertions that something has been proven; nobody round here will take them seriously.

If there were separate impacts, as you posit, then why doesn't the north face of the upper section decelerate when it comes down and meets the lower section?

Because there were multiple impacts. At no point does the force on the upper block exceed the downward force of gravity, so at no point is there any deceleration.

Your attempt to now expand the multiple staggered initial impact postulation to individual walls, shows the need for ever more tortured explanations by those who are intent on maintaining the fantasy that these collapses were natural and caused by fire. It is simply incredible that you would even think this could explain the lack of deceleration.

I, on the other hand, find it incredible that you're incapable of visulaising complexity. There is no reason why any individual impact must be simultaneous with any other individual impact. You're demanding that the upper block fell precisely vertically, and that every column buckled in precisely the same manner over precisely the same length, in order to maintain your fantasy that there should have been a single impact. Real life isn't that convenient.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

Apparently the phrases that described nano-thermite as tailorable and allowing for impulse management didn't mean much to you.

Apparently it meant a lot more to you than it did to the people who wrote it. Your fantasy that impulse management allows unlimited control over the sound level from an explosion is nothing more than an appeal to magic. In real life there are limits to optimisation, and without any statement - or, indeed, the vaguest clue of what those limits are - you're just handwaving away any physical law you find inconvenient. Find an estimate of how much the noise level can be reduced for an explosive capable of severing a WTC column, and someone might take you seriously. Until then, you're making up fairy tales.

Dave

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I must have missed this proof. Could you repost it here? It seems to disagree with my own observation that the upper block tilted about 2º before the top edge had descended more than a quarter of a storey height. It's easy to make unsupported assertions that something has been proven; nobody round here will take them seriously.



Because there were multiple impacts. At no point does the force on the upper block exceed the downward force of gravity, so at no point is there any deceleration.



I, on the other hand, find it incredible that you're incapable of visulaising complexity. There is no reason why any individual impact must be simultaneous with any other individual impact. You're demanding that the upper block fell precisely vertically, and that every column buckled in precisely the same manner over precisely the same length, in order to maintain your fantasy that there should have been a single impact. Real life isn't that convenient.

Dave

The tilt when the north face starts to drop is near zero and it cannot be any more than a couple of degrees when the 97th and 99th story columns should have impacted. This has been shown publicly by Achimspok on the 911 forum. The offset of the columns at the opposite side of the building is no more than a couple of inches at two degrees and much less in the central core and none at the north face, so the columns would not miss.

In real life all of the Verinage demolitions show a deceleration when the upper section meets the lower section.

You will never be able to provide a model to show, or a real world example for, your postulation that staggered separate impacts would have removed the need for a deceleration and allowed the upper section to accelerate at 70% of the rate of gravity. It could not possibly have happened that way in reality in a structure built like the towers.

You didn't answer my question concerning why a separate north face impact, in your postulation, wouldn't show a visible deceleration. I am not surprised.

 

[Dave Rogers]

The tilt when the north face starts to drop is near zero and it cannot be any more than a couple of degrees when the 97th and 99th story columns should have impacted. This has been shown publicly by Achimspok on the 911 forum.

Then could you re-state this proof here? I'm sick of wading through the obsessive nitpicking analysis on that forum; show me a concise explanation backed up by evidence that contradicts the evidence of my own measurements, and I'll take it seriously.

And I'm not arguing that the columns have to miss.

You will never be able to provide a model to show or a real world example for your postulation that staggered separate impacts would have removed the need for a deceleration and allowed the upper section to accelerate at 70% of the rate of gravity. It could not possibly have happened that way in reality in a structure built like the towers.

I've told you what the model was, and posted the results. It's of no particular interest to me that you choose to pretend that model doesn't exist. Every competent engineer understands it. You don't.

You didn't answer my question concerning why a separate north face impact, in your postulation, wouldn't show a visible deceleration. I am not surprised.

The requirement for any visible deceleration is an appeal to perfection. Again, competent engineers understand this, and you don't.

Dave

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Then could you re-state this proof here? I'm sick of wading through the obsessive nitpicking analysis on that forum; show me a concise explanation backed up by evidence that contradicts the evidence of my own measurements, and I'll take it seriously.

And I'm not arguing that the columns have to miss.



I've told you what the model was, and posted the results. It's of no particular interest to me that you choose to pretend that model doesn't exist. Every competent engineer understands it. You don't.



The requirement for any visible deceleration is an appeal to perfection. Again, competent engineers understand this, and you don't.

Dave

If you aren't arguing that the columns would have to miss then additional proof showing they wouldn't isn't necessary.

By model I mean a physical model. You will never be able to produce one to support what you say here. You also cannot point to a real world example to support what you say either. That is because it can't happen the way you want to say it did.

Your appeal to "competent engineers" is non-existent other than a few here who have the same problems you have with this. Every engineer I talk to at work about this believes there should have been a deceleration, if the collapse of WTC 1 was due to natural forces.

 

[Toke]

What is the point in missing or not.
If a column is buckling there will more or less by definition not be ends meeting.

 

[leftysergeant]

Your appeal to "competent engineers" is non-existent other than a few here who have the same problems you have with this. Every engineer I talk to at work about this believes there should have been a deceleration, if the collapse of WTC 1 was due to natural forces.

Thart is a stupid assumption. I see no signs that there is significant deceleration in verinage. After the event which set the upper blockk in motion in the towers, the continuing process was, for all practical purpose, identical to verinage.

Quite simply, when you pile more crap on top of an already-collapsing structure, there is no way that it will slow the process down, because the energy acting on the next floor down will be greater. Add to that the fact that the standing sections of perimeter column panels were, on the average, taller, thus gaining more leverage, there would be greater stress on the fl;oor brackets before the collapsing front arrived.

Maybe the dim bulkbs were thinking of a more conventional structure with evenly-spaced columns throughout the floor plan to entangle debris.

 

[Dave Rogers]

If you aren't arguing that the columns would have to miss then additional proof showing they wouldn't isn't necessary.

Stop dodging. I'm asking you to prove that there was insufficient tilt for the impacts to be distributed over time. If all achimspok has proven is that the columns needn't have missed one another, then that's irrelevant.

By model I mean a physical model.

Then you're making another appeal to perfection. Physical models don't scale correctly.

Your appeal to "competent engineers" is non-existent other than a few here who have the same problems you have with this. Every engineer I talk to at work about this believes there should have been a deceleration, if the collapse of WTC 1 was due to natural forces.

Either you're lying, they're humouring the nutter they have to work with whether they like it or not, or you don't work with any competent engineers.

Dave

 

[Oystein]

...there should have been a deceleration, if the collapse of WTC 1 was due to natural forces.

At all times there is an acceleration of 9,81 m/s² -it is called gravity.
In the case of non-collapsing buildings, there is therefore at all times deceleration of the same 9,81m/s², acting against gravity. You don't see it at work, because the net acceleration 0, and nothing moves. But the deceleration IS there. Always.

When you have a building collapsing acceleratedly at 70% of g, you still have the full 9.81m/s2 acceleration of gravity acting down, so why is the fall only at 70% of that? because there is an average deceleration at work of 30% g, or something like 3m/s². Right? Right.
Please tell your fellow "engineers" that there is no missing deceleration.

That deceleration is more or less by definition largely taking place in the crush-zone, where collisions are most likely to be inelastic, and which is incidently the same part of the building that is most obscured by dust and debris and can therefor not be measured in any reasonable way.
The idea that the upper, unobscured block of the building should show the same deceleration is naive. Talking about elasticity of columns and all.

 

[R.Mackey]

Either you're lying, they're humouring the nutter they have to work with whether they like it or not, or you don't work with any competent engineers.

I'm going to go with option "B." Seen it many times.

He's also been asked repeatedly to name these believing individuals so we can see if it's anyone who might have a clue, but he always declines. Which strikes me as odd, given his insistence to avoid anonymity. The only supporters we can positively identify are the AE911T morons.