Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Christopher7 said:
You fail to grasp the fact that NIST says the fire caused thermal expansion after it had gone out.

Read this again.
"According to NIST, the collapse began when the thermal expansion pushed the girder between columns 79 and 44 on the 13th floor off its seat."

The collapse began at 5:20 PM but the fire on floor 12 had gone out over one half hour earlier. Therefore, it did not cause the beams to expand to the point where they pushed the girder off its seat at 5:20 PM.
Click to expand...

I figued out your problem. You think that the damage that started the collapse was ON floor 12. This is INCORRECT. Even the quote you keep posting says that the failure occured on the 13th floor. I've hilited the part you keep missing.

Now, does it say on the 12th floor? No, it doesn't. It says ON the 13th floor. ON the 13th floor, meaning the ceiling of the 13th floor.
 
femr2 said:
And yet, despite presentation of such details as early motion multiple times the (frankly witless) minions cannot seem to understand the importance of such data and respond with utterly nonsensical accusations about my motives, personal viewpoint of the events and suggestion that I'm *backing in CD*, *suggesting hush-a-booms*, all manner of useless banter.

It's ridiculous. Laughable.
Click to expand...

How about moving away from the tiniest details and give us a broad explanation, not for WTC 7, but 9/11 as a whole.

WTC 7 was irrelevant.
 
I'm loving that "WTC 7 Shockwave" video....

Anyone with 1/2 a brain can see that the opposite side of the building is collapsing, and the 'shockwave' is nothing more than the sun shining through the North face.
 
NoahFence said:
How about moving away from the tiniest details and give us a broad explanation, not for WTC 7, but 9/11 as a whole.

WTC 7 was irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Truthers never give a broad explanation because it would bring home to them just how insane their theories are,so they avoid giving full theories like they would avoid a rabid dog.
 
NoahFence said:
I'm loving that "WTC 7 Shockwave" video....

Anyone with 1/2 a brain can see that the opposite side of the building is collapsing, and the 'shockwave' is nothing more than the sun shining through the North face.
Click to expand...

How apt.

No, the video shows external disturbance of the facade due to propogation of failures upwards beneath the East penthouse, followed by similar downwards as the East penthouse and structure descends internally.

Your interpretation is indeed one expected from an individual with only half a brain ;)

The detail is subtle, sure, and is only visible due to distortion of the facade, which does affect reflections. But to say *nothing more than the sun shining through the North face*...oh dear. LOL.

Here's some of that detail in another processed version ...
920361115.gif


Has to be watched a number of times.

By the way, in your haste to whine and complain (and make a fool of yourself at the same time) did you stop to think about what that detail implies ? Well, consider whether you think it supports the notion of upward propogating failure from a low floor around a small group of columns, or not :rolleyes:
 
A shockwave moves faster than in that video.

The South face is collapsing, as evidenced by the fact you can see through the building.

Period.

That .gif doesn't even show anything. Try again.

Lets move away from WTC 7 just for a second, and why don't you give me your cliff's notes version of the entire days events.
 
Last edited:
Tell you what - I got job interview today (wheee!)

When I get back I'll have your version of the entire day's events?

Bombs/No Bombs
Planes / No Planes

blah blah blah....
 
NoahFence said:
as evidenced by the fact you can see through the building.
Click to expand...
LOL. Nonsense. You cannot see through the building. A feeble misinterpretation on your part. I note also you have avoided answering my question, and also remind you I have no intention of pandering to your other pointless request.

Good luck with your interview. Perhaps it will give you something more useful to do with your time.
 
Last edited:
femr2 said:
LOL. Nonsense. You cannot see through the building. A feeble misinterpretation on your part. I note also you have avoided answering my question, and also remind you I have no intention of pandering to your other pointless request.

Good luck with your interview. Perhaps it will give you something more useful to do with your time.
Click to expand...

I have just been deafened by the sound of irony meters exploding.
 
Truthers never give a broad explanation because it would bring home to them just how insane their theories are,so they avoid giving full theories like they would avoid a rabid dog.
Click to expand...
NoahFence said:
Tell you what - I got job interview today (wheee!)

When I get back I'll have your version of the entire day's events?
Click to expand...
femr2 said:
... I have no intention of pandering to your other pointless request.
Click to expand...

I stand by my hypothesis until femr2 chooses to prove me wrong.

femr2, if you'd like to correct the record, feel free to state the purpose of your research - the "goal" as beachnut asks. What is the goal?
 
chrismohr said:
I've watched the back and forth over this argument and see you and others (both sides with more technical background than me) denying and asserting there were fires on floor 12 right to the end, that damage from fire can't be undone, my own suggestion (borrowed from Ryan Mackey) that thermal expansion/sagging on floor 12 could have been followed by thermal contraction from the cooling while keeping the sagged shape thus causing still more damage and stress, etc etc etc. I doubt we'll ever know exactly what happened inside the building as it collapsed. If you're asking me to accept that floor 12 cooled down making NIST wrong therefore controlled demolition, no, I'm not biting.
Click to expand...
That's not what I'm asking. NIST applied 4 hours of heat in 1 ½ seconds giving a very unrealistic result. In the real world the floor beams on floor 13 would have sagged but that is not what happened in the NIST ANSYS model. There was no sagging. Thermal expansion caused the floor beams on floor 13 to expand lengthwise and push the girder between columns 79 and 44 off its seat to the west at column 79 while at the same time buckling sideways and rocking it off its seat to the east. The girder failed when the 4 hours of heat was applied in 1 ½ seconds and they had programmed the model to remove the girder and the beams it supported when that happened. This triggered a cascade of floor collapses that left column 79 unsupported laterally and it buckled causing the total collapse of WTC 7. All this took place WHEN the heat was applied, there was no delayed reaction.

Analysis of the fire progression shows that the fire on floor 12 had burned out in the east end before 4 PM and was working its way to the west end.
http://truthphalanx.com/chris_sarns/
NIST has a photograph showing it had burned out completely by about 4:45 PM so I quote that to avoid arguments about exactly what time the fire had burned out.

If the fire on floor 12 were to cause floor 13 to collapse, it would have done so before 4 PM.

This does not prove WTC 7 was a CD, it only proves that the NIST analysis is fraudulent.
 
femr2 said:
LOL. Nonsense. You cannot see through the building. A feeble misinterpretation on your part. I note also you have avoided answering my question, and also remind you I have no intention of pandering to your other pointless request.

Good luck with your interview. Perhaps it will give you something more useful to do with your time.
Click to expand...

Dude, the south face is clearly collapsing prior to the 'global' collapse.

Having said that, is it really too much to imagine being able to see through the TRANSPARENT GLASS on the north face through to the outside?

Really?

And you suggest a 'blast wave' is that slow?

Very little makes me giggle as much as when a truther uses a link that actually proves they're wrong.
:jaw-dropp

Do you have another view of this 'blast wave' or just that one?
 
Last edited:
I guess you don't have a theory about the entire day's events, huh?

OK, lets stick to WTC 7 for a moment, femr. How do you explain the precisely identical "shockwave" seen at 1:24 of the video you provided? This one takes up virtually the entire building.

Was it a secondary explosive? A third? What was it that created the shockwave that doesn't actually travel, that encompasses the entire building?
 
Christopher7 said:
This does not prove WTC 7 was a CD, it only proves that the NIST analysis is fraudulent.
Click to expand...

Fraudulent? Wouldn't that imply that they did it on purpose?

Maybe they made a mistake? Even if they did, it wouldn't seem to change the final outcome. I think this is another in a long line of cases where truthers make a mountain out of a molehill.

....and ignore the mountains of evidence contrary to their preconceived beliefs.


WHO CARES when the fire on the 12th floor went out. The damage was done.
Proof?

The thing collapsed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom