Continuation: 'What about building 7?'

[Ziggi]

Ziggi, here's what I censored myself from saying yesterday. A few months ago, when I was upset by a couple emails you sent me that were dripping with contempt, abuse and putdowns, I sent them off to a friend who is a 9/11 Truth activist. In his email back to me he said, "Ziggi is insane." Then he advised I stop interacting with you. Good advice, as your behavior on this forum proves..

You keep making up stories about people saying things in private to you. That´s your problem Chris, not mine. But I do have those email exchanges of ours on record buddy, and they show you telling stories about you being afraid of dangerous people on this forum, invoking stories about Nazi attacks, and making up false references. Maybe you should show these to your imaginary friend and see if you get approval.

To say that NIST was very conservative in listing which floors were burning in Building 7 is not silly. I believe they counted only as floors which burned the ones where they could see flames coming out, and didn't count floors where smoke blocked the view or where the flames were further inside. That is debatable, but it doesn't merit putdowns and sarcasm and taunting..

All you are saying is that you believe that the evidence was obscured by smoke. As I said before, you have not considered the possibility that both NIST and truthers (much better researchers than you) agree that this was just smoke for very good reasons. What merits put downs is that you are just as oblivious and arrogant as when you made that stupid video that Chandler corrected. You have learned nothing.

The >g argument, which I made from the NIST graph (do you understand that even this less accurate graph shows the possibility of >g collapse?) which was later confirmed by the much more accurate measurements of femr2, is a valid one. It IS >g, because there are more than just two forces (gravity and resistance) at play. A third force not mentioned by Richard Gage is in the equation to push the perimeter wall down at >g. There is nothing stupid or ignorant about my assertion..

You do not understand the subject well enough to make any authoritative claims about the validity of stats and graphs Chris. And as I tried to discuss with you in our emails, you might want to have a little think about your put downs of data that has not been published in reviewed journals, on your 238 points "debunking" page, before you go parading an analysis of an anonymous forum poster.

As for your over-g explanations: Again you make very authoritative statements about something you know very little about, and have obviously not thought through. Firstly, the application of your imagined third force presupposes the disappearance of the core structure below, and secondly you do not realize that NISTs theory says that the interior had already collapsed once the perimeter finally fell down, meaning there would have been no core structure left to "torque" or "leverage" down the perimeter as you imagine in your fantasy.

Thirdly, you have neglected to think about why NISTs computer model of the collapse does not show g or over-g. You are making huge bold assertions even though NISTs own data does not support your claims Chris.

Fourth, as Tony is trying to explain to you: the computer model shows that NISTs contention that a natural collapse would lead to symmetric collapse is false. The model shows the east side collapsing first, and if your torqing down over-g fantasy had any merrit, it would show the east side dropping down first at over-g.

These are the sort of issues you have to think about, address and explain BEFORE you start making big bold claims with your "as a matter of fact" tone. Until you can work out the problems with your theory your story is nothing but pure fantasy. Now try the humble approach when you try to discuss this.

... I am certainly neither a leader nor a frontman here.
Of course you defend David Chandler's "Pearls Before Swine" video attacking me, and denying it is an attack even as it ends with the "Pearls Before Swine" putdown. Even as he claims that no one should take anything I say seriously because of mistakes I made. ...

You are a frontman for the forum with your YouTube videos Chris. One of your buddies just bragged about coaching you. Before you start complaining about Chandler´s debunking of you again, ask yourself why it was you on camera using your own name making that silly video, and not your anonymous buddies using their own real names and faces? Hmm?

 

[JayUtah]

Odd Barry Jennings doesn't report seeing any arsonist running around. He was there the whole time they would have been working.

Plot twist: Jennings was the arsonist.

 

[DGM]

I am certainly neither a leader nor a frontman here.

You are a frontman for the forum with your YouTube videos Chris.

Chris: You really need to change your title to "herding cats". PM my if you need help doing it.

ETA: I find it funny how Ziggi thinks we support videos a great number of us have never watched (no offence Chris).

 

[Spanx]

It looks like Ziggi's recruitment drive is going really well.

Another spectacular success.

Has Chris upset Ziggi by making YouTube videos ?

 

[Animal]

Chris: You really need to change your title to "herding cats".CAT HERDER PM my if you need help doing it.

ETA: I find it funny how Ziggi thinks we support videos a great number of us have never watched (no offence Chris).

FTFY

 

[DGM]

It looks like Ziggi's recruitment drive is going really well.

Another spectacular success.

You forgot the smilie. Someone might actually read this as confirmation of success (something there is no evidence of).

 

[Mark F]

Why are we indugling Tony's arsonist nonsense? It is 100% speculative and completely ridiculous and implausible to boot.

As Tony would have it multiple floors of this building had to be pre-wired on every single column for demolition (to get the sacred 2.25 seconds of free-fall) - an enormous and highly risky task that nobody would undertake because there is no purpose to it. CD of 7 adds nothing to the plot. Then all of this hard work has to be compromised by another highly risky venture with Ninja arsonists running around setting fires that were more likely to destroy all that hard CD prep work than anything else. Again, nobody would do that.

If someone with even just half a brain wanted the building destroyed (even though it serves no purpose) they would have parked a truck bomb outside and set it to go off while the whole place was obscured by the dust of the fallen North Tower. This plan takes what, maybe two guys, no highly invasive, risky and costly prep work and is orders-of-magnitude more likely to succeed while also being easy to blame on terrorists. Nobody, and I mean nobody in the real world would do all the silly shenanigans Tony needs to make his fantasy work. Those are the sorts of explanations one can only come up with by working the problem backwards while trying to rationalize a pre-conceived solution.

If you were to ask anyone how they would have gone about destroying a 47 story office tower while being able to blame it on terrorists I doubt very, very much anyone would come up with anything like the convoluted scheme's Tony has used to rationalize the CD hypothesis.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Why are we indugling Tony's arsonist nonsense? It is 100% speculative and completely ridiculous and implausible to boot.

As Tony would have it multiple floors of this building had to be pre-wired on every single column for demolition (to get the sacred 2.25 seconds of free-fall) - an enormous and highly risky task that nobody would undertake because there is no purpose to it. CD of 7 adds nothing to the plot. Then all of this hard work has to be compromised by another highly risky venture with Ninja arsonists running around setting fires that were more likely to destroy all that hard CD prep work than anything else. Again, nobody would do that.

If someone with even just half a brain wanted the building destroyed (even though it serves no purpose) they would have parked a truck bomb outside and set it to go off while the whole place was obscured by the dust of the fallen North Tower. This plan takes what, maybe two guys, no highly invasive, risky and costly prep work and is orders-of-magnitude more likely to succeed while also being easy to blame on terrorists. Nobody, and I mean nobody in the real world would do all the silly shenanigans Tony needs to make his fantasy work. Those are the sorts of explanations one can only come up with by working the problem backwards while trying to rationalize a pre-conceived solution.

If you were to ask anyone how they would have gone about destroying a 47 story office tower while being able to blame it on terrorists I doubt very, very much anyone would come up with anything like the convoluted scheme's Tony has used to rationalize the CD hypothesis.

Good points, though even better, they have no evidence for CD. It eliminates the need for worrying about "how they did it" since there's no evidence it happened, save for imposed conditions.

 

[DGM]

Why are we indugling Tony's arsonist nonsense?

Have you ever played the game "Whac-A-Mole"?

A couple beers and you can do this for hours.

 

[JayUtah]

...videos a great number of us have never watched (no offence Chris).

Yeah, let me hasten to add that I intend no offense either. I simply don't need to watch them in order to evaluate Truther claims for myself. I'm glad Chris took the time to put them together, but my disputation of the 9/11 conspiracy theories has nothing to do with what Chris might have said in them. Sorry to say we aren't simply being led around by the nose by some "leader" that Truthers foist on us.

 

[LSSBB]

As for your over-g explanations: Again you make very authoritative statements about something you know very little about, and have obviously not thought through. Firstly, the application of your imagined third force presupposes the disappearance of the core structure below, and secondly you do not realize that NISTs theory says that the interior had already collapsed once the perimeter finally fell down, meaning there would have been no core structure left to "torque" or "leverage" down the perimeter as you imagine in your fantasy.

Where does NIST state that?

 

[Spanx]

You forgot the smilie. Someone might actually read this as confirmation of success (something there is no evidence of).

In Truther world everything is a success, I don't think I have ever seen them admit failiure. They just keep going from strength to strength.

Fantasy of leaders, disgraced forums, arsonists. As long as Ziggi has something to write to himself on his blog he will be happy. If he attracts the people he wants to recruit he will be one step closer to exposing the inside job.

And what do the recruits get in return other than being offered the oppertunity to donate money towards things like Neils Harrit's court fees and the Mark Basile study.

 

[DGM]

Yeah, let me hasten to add that I intend no offense either. I simply don't need to watch them in order to evaluate Truther claims for myself. I'm glad Chris took the time to put them together, but my disputation of the 9/11 conspiracy theories has nothing to do with what Chris might have said in them. Sorry to say we aren't simply being led around by the nose by some "leader" that Truthers foist on us.

This also goes with dependence on the NIST reports. I started formulating my opinion on 9/11/01. I've found that although much detail has been added, my general understanding has not changed. Fire is not a good thing for steel framed buildings.

ETA: I have known about WTC 7 since 9/11. It was reported on all day. I was not surprised when it failed.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Good, debatable points Tony.
My belief that more than ten floors were probably on fire is based on videos and photos of smoke actively pum[ping out of some 30 floors later in the afternoon. To initiate a fire, I would hypothesize (and I may be wrong) that one hot ember anywhere that made it through the very big gashes could initiate the fires. My photo of the debris smashing into the whole side of Building 7, top to bottom, left to right, has not been commented on by you. You talk about the 350 foot distance, but my photo clearly demonstrates that a LOT of debris from the Tower hit Building 7. The very large gashes show the physical aftermath of that collision. My hypothesis is that somewhere in that vast pile of debris was an ember that triggered the Building 7 fire, which was then unfought all afternoon. Hypothesis #2 (possibly incorrect): for something like a half hour, all of Building 7 was obscured by dust and one news media outlet actually incorrectly reported (from some firefighters' accounts) that Building 7 had come down because no one could see it at all. Hypothesis #3: the fire started several feet into the building and was not visible for two hours. Then it spread, unfought.

The photo you showed does not support what you are saying as it is taken from the north and does not provide the proximity of the debris to WTC 7. It was likely hundreds of feet back from WTC 7 much closer to the North Tower. You would need a photo taken from the east or west to show solid debris hitting WTC 7. I am not saying none did but that it was far less than many here want to admit. There really is not much chance of it due to the distance.

Saying the fire started several feet into the building is hard to imagine as an excuse for why the fires weren't noticed for nearly two hours. Arson is a much more likely reason.

The sequential column collapseyou talkj abaout... well at first I thought the columns shifted their loads at almost the speed of sound. You said something about how this doesn't happen with ductile steel. Well, this is a question out of ignorance so maybe you can help answer it. If a column fails, how fast DOES it shift its load to other columns? It seems to me that it has to be very, very fast. Otherwise, the support previously provided by the failed column would be... nowhere? It has to go SOMEWHERE, and fast, I would think, regardless of hardness or flexibility or ductility or whatever. Otherwise, my instinct tells me it is like Wiley Coyote running off the edge of a cliff and just hanging there, looking around, gulping three times, and THEN falling. If column failure doesn't lead to extremely fast shifting of loads, what holds the load up in thin air until it is shifted more slowly?

With ductile steel there would be significant deformation of each column before enough load was transferred to adjacent columns. The time for a sequential column failure around the exterior of WTC 7 can conservatively said to take at least many seconds and that is not what we see. The entire exterior comes down as a single unit. The only way it could come down the way we see is for the entire 24 column central core to have been taken out nearly instantaneously which would then pull all of the exterior columns inward at the same time and cause it to uniformly collapse. Now the entire core could not fail nearly instantaneously due to a progressive collapse. This is a serious problem for a natural failure scenario.

Another question: why did the entire core have to be dropping at the same time to get the symmetric exterior collapse that we witnessed? If the entire perimeter wall is tightly interconnected, why can't it hold together more or less as a unit even as the interior collapse asymmetrically? In other words, why does a progressive interior collapse require a progressive perimeter wall collapse that reflects it perfectly?

The exterior was not stiff enough to be pulled on at one corner of the building and then start falling at the other in a symmetric way.

Finally, there is a logical flaw in your NIST argument. You say the NIST fire analysis is flawed. Just for argument, let's say it is flawed. Your next argument: therefore day-of arson, doesn't follow. There may be other explanations even if the NIST Report is flawed. No evidence for arson.

I am not arguing that NIST claim of ten floors being on fire is wrong. I accept what they are saying there. However, I say ten floors being on fire in WTC 7 being caused by WTC 1 is highly unlikely due to there only being fires on a few floors in WTC 1, the 350 foot distance, gypsum dust putting out the WTC 1 fires during the collapse, the fact that no fires are observed in the Verizon and Post Office buildings, and the nearly two hour difference between when WTC 1 collapsed and the first photographic evidence of fires in WTC 7.

It is already extremely unlikely for ten floors to have defeated all those obstacles to being caused by natural fires from WTC 1 and if it was even more, as you are trying to say, then it makes the case for arson even more likely.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

As Tony would have it multiple floors of this building had to be pre-wired on every single column for demolition.

No, I don't say every column in WTC 7 needed to be wired. Just eight stories of the 24 central core columns. Danny Jowenko said the same thing and that it wasn't that hard. He just didn't think it could be done on the same day. Have you seen the interview with him?

 

[DGM]

I am not arguing that NIST claim of ten floors being on fire is wrong. I accept what they are saying there. However, I say ten floors being on fire in WTC 7 being caused by WTC 1 is highly unlikely due to there only being fires on a few floors in WTC 1,

Do fires not spread in your world? Did you see the fires this weekend that took down those buildings in NYC (the buildings did not collapse when the gas explosion happened)? Did they start on all floors all at once?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Do fires not spread in your world? Did you see the fires this weekend that took down those buildings in NYC (the buildings did not collapse when the gas explosion happened)? Did they start on all floors all at once?

The fires in WTC 7 did not spread vertically and NIST acknowledged that.

The gas explosion in NYC this past week was an enormous force and the building collapses and fires were a result.

You want to say there was no explosion in WTC 7.

I seriously doubt the building collapses in NYC were a result of fires only as you want to say they were for WTC 7. I also would like to know if they were steel framed buildings. I don't think they were. Masonary buildings cannot take the shock wave of the blast nearly as well as a steel framed building.

Here again you are talking like an amateur and making assumptions that don't logically fit to help you maintain your bias. Not surprising for you and that is why I rarely answer you. It is generally a waste of time because you are either very dense or being disingenuous.

 

[DGM]

The fires in WTC 7 did not spread vertically and NIST acknowledged that.

They did not say the fires started simultaneous on all floors. They did not say the fires did not spread, they only reported fires and times they could confirm they did not speculate on origin. This comment is your literal application of conditions used in the model to real world.

Why lie?

 

[DGM]

The gas explosion in NYC this past week was an enormous force and the building collapses and fires were a result.

...........and fires? Fires can't hurt buildings.

 

[DGM]

Here again you are talking like an amateur and making assumptions that don't logically fit to help you maintain your bias. Not surprising for you and that is why I rarely answer you. It is generally a waste of time because you are either very dense or being disingenuous.

Wow.............kettle black.

Your degree backs your "arson theory" how?