• 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.

Continuation: 'What about building 7?'

myself said:
I think it has been pointed out several times that this is the basis and substance of your argument: Your personal incredulity. Thanks for confirming what everybody tries to tell you.
Given the facts and reality of the situation, the notion that the North Tower collapse caused the fires in WTC 7 would strain credulity for anyone who thinks about it. You and some of your brethren here of an opposing view don't seem to want to think about it and you clearly can't muster legitimate points to support your claim.

In the very post you quoted I mustered a legitimate reason to reject your claim that the HUGE fires could not have dumped some hot stuff through the HUGE gash down the south face of WTC7: The basis and substance of your argument is your personal incredulity. Thanks for confirming what everybody tries to tell you.

Perhaps you are unaware that the Argument from Incredulity is commonly accepted a logical fallacy?
 
I think it's worth also pointing out that Tony is arguing that no debris hit WTC7anyway. So he's effectively claiming that the inside of the building was filled with gypsum dust which entered through gaps in the wall that weren't there because nothing hit the building to cause them.

Dave

Also claiming the dust cloud was filled with burning thermite igniting cars covered in an inch of gypsum dust :confused:
 
There were fires on floors 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 19, 22, 29, and 30 in WTC 7.

Charges could easily have been on the core columns of floors without fire such as 14 through 18, 20, 21, and 23 and it would have produced the symmetric free fall collapse seen on video.
Non-adjacent floors - interesting.

Why eight floors?

This is another point in support of arson being the cause for the fires in WTC 7. Arsonists trying to create a cover for blowing the building would have known which floors had charges. This is an entirely plausible scenario and much more so than fires not showing up for nearly two hours after an alleged natural cause.
You are assuming the conclusion, that it was CD. Logical Fallacy.

Danny Jowenko was not aware that the Twin Tower collapses initiated above the aircraft impact damage and most of the fire as that came out later.

So you are saying that Jowenko's lack of detailed knowledge of circumstances is reason to reject his expert opinion?
 
Tony, for now I'd like to post a second picture of the debris hitting Building 7 from another angle. I think it's realistic to believe that the debris hit Building 7 in many places. I also think that a small ember could have started the unfought fire in Building 7.
I hope you understand that I wasn't saying that a cigarette butt flew 350 feet and started the fire. A big hunk of wood could do the same, as long as any ember (even one the size of a cigarette butt) was still hot. I also believe that fires can spread vertically as well as horizontally. I think four or five new floors per Tower caught fire in the time the Towers were burning. Why couldn't the fires in Building 7 have spread vertically?

Chris, this second picture does not support your contention of fires being caused by the North Tower collapse either.

I think your contention that fires spread vertically in WTC 7 has problems also. The building was designed to prevent vertical spread and it seems to have worked. There were fires on floors 7,8, 9, 11, 12, and 13 but none on floor 10.
 
So you are saying that Jowenko's lack of detailed knowledge of circumstances is reason to reject his expert opinion?

That's standard truther dogma. Jowenko was Europe's, or possibly the entire Solar System's, leading expert on controlled demolitions, so anything he says about WTC7 must be true, but he didn't know anything about unconventional military controlled demolitions so he was easily fooled about WTC1 and WTC2. Just because he was wrong more often than he was right, it doesn't mean he wasn't always right.

Dave
 
Last edited:
Chris, this second picture does not support your contention of fires being caused by the North Tower collapse either.

I think your contention that fires spread vertically in WTC 7 has problems also. The building was designed to prevent vertical spread and it seems to have worked. There were fires on floors 7,8, 9, 11, 12, and 13 but none on floor 10.

According to your engineering assessment, would you agree that ripping a HUGE GASH down the face of a building and damaging floors doing so might frustrate designs to prevent vertical spread of fire?
 
Non-adjacent floors - interesting.

Why eight floors?


You are assuming the conclusion, that it was CD. Logical Fallacy.



So you are saying that Jowenko's lack of detailed knowledge of circumstances is reason to reject his expert opinion?

Eight floors of relative free fall would have been needed to generate the momentum required in the demolition of WTC 7.

CD is the only logical explanation for a symmetric 105 foot free fall.

Neither Danny Jowenko or most of us knew at the time he was interviewed on the subject that the collapse initiations in the Twin Towers occurred above the aircraft impacts and most of the fires. Danny's opinion would have changed had this information been available to him because it removed the basis for his earlier opinion.
 
Last edited:
According to your engineering assessment, would you agree that ripping a HUGE GASH down the face of a building and damaging floors doing so might frustrate designs to prevent vertical spread of fire?

Explain why floor 10 had no fire when the three floors on either side of it did.
 
I think it's time for you to supply some evidence of your claims.

The investigation said there was no fire on floor 10 and all of the photographic evidence supports that. Are you saying you think there was fire on floor 10 of WTC 7?
 
The funny thing is, the error bars on his data were so massive that he had to smooth it in order not to see a jolt of exactly the size he was looking for. I remember when he first produced his "paper"; I noticed that he'd taken the formula a=v/t^2 to calculate the acceleration, which gives not the instantaneous but the average acceleration at a given time, which effectively smooths out any short-lived changes in acceleration - in effect, discarding exactly the sort of result he was looking for. When I pointed this out to him here, he quickly changed the paper, with no acknowledgement, and I'm sure will now deny any of it ever happened. But when he re-calculated the data, there was a point almost exactly where he'd highlighted the absence of a jolt, which showed almost exactly the effect he'd claimed wasn't there. (I'm sure it was just a noise artefact, but in the circumstances the irony was rather delicious.) He then started claiming that he wasn't looking for a 2G deceleration (the resistance of the lower structure) but a 31G deceleration (Bazant's rather excessive figure for the dynamic loading), and that the absence of this physically impossible effect was therefore the real smoking gun.

I haven't really taken him seriously since then.

Dave
As with his explanations opposing WTC7 Girder walk off there have been multiple counter arguments in rebuttal BUT which accept his frame of reference.

My opposition is more fundamental. I reject the frame of reference - it NEVER existed.

And I'm still very much out on my lonesome in that. C'est la vie
 
The investigation said there was no fire on floor 10 and all of the photographic evidence supports that. Are you saying you think there was fire on floor 10 of WTC 7?

Ok, provide your evidence then.

You saying something is not evidence.
 
As with his explanations opposing WTC7 Girder walk off there have been multiple counter arguments in rebuttal BUT which accept his frame of reference.

My opposition is more fundamental. I reject the frame of reference - it NEVER existed.

And I'm still very much out on my lonesome in that. C'est la vie

Not at all, I agree with you entirely. Even if there had been column-on-column impacts - which there almost certainly couldn't have been if one gives even an instant's thought to what condition the broken column ends would have been in prior to any such hypothetical impact - then the tilt of the upper block in each case makes it absolutely certain that they couldn't have been simultaneous, so there's no realistic physical possibility of a jolt for multiple different reasons. I just found it ironic that Tony's original data had a noise artefact that produced exactly the effect he claimed should have been there, but he eliminated it by accidentally smoothing his data, then commented on its absence. It's kind of a perfect storm of wrongness.

And it's also indicative of Tony's methods. He formed an erroneous hypothesis based on an incorrect interpretation of poorly manipulated data, then, when his errors were pointed out to him, quickly fabricated a new and physically impossible argument to claim that data showing precisely the opposite features still supported his original hypothesis. He's been doing the same ever since, just applying it to new areas.

Dave
 
...And it's also indicative of Tony's methods. He formed an erroneous hypothesis based on an incorrect interpretation of poorly manipulated data, then, when his errors were pointed out to him, quickly fabricated a new and physically impossible argument to claim that data showing precisely the opposite features still supported his original hypothesis. He's been doing the same ever since, just applying it to new areas.

Dave
The old motto:

"If you have dug yourself into a hole - stop digging!"
 
I think it's worth also pointing out that Tony is arguing that no debris hit WTC7anyway. So he's effectively claiming that the inside of the building was filled with gypsum dust which entered through gaps in the wall that weren't there because nothing hit the building to cause them.

Dave

In fairness, he has clarified that by saying that the gypsum flame-stifling only relates to fires in WTC1.

But that does leave his mysterious claim that WTC7 wasn't hit by serious debris, a claim which was even supported by his "calculations".

That part is truly weird as there are many photos and videos of debris strikes and the resulting damage.
 
Chris, this second picture does not support your contention of fires being caused by the North Tower collapse either.

I think your contention that fires spread vertically in WTC 7 has problems also. The building was designed to prevent vertical spread and it seems to have worked. There were fires on floors 7,8, 9, 11, 12, and 13 but none on floor 10.

Except for the fact of exterior damage, and damage to the elevator shafts and electrical,
No way you can know how much damage or what conditons existed post collapse of the towers, you are making Fallacious unfounded assumptions, that are irrelevant, to the discussion.

You have no evidence of claim, no empirical data to back your assumptions.

From the Dr. Greening, Dr. Benson paper, Collapse of the twin towers what did and did not cause it.
"Velocity of Air Ejected from the Tower
An upper bound on area through which the air initially contained within every story gets
expelled (Fig. 3a) is Aw = 4ψahc, where 4ahc = area of one perimeter wall, a = 64 m = width
of the side of square cross section of tower, hc = 3.69 m = clear height of one story = distance
from the bottom of a story slab to the top of the underlying slab, and ψ = vent ratio = ratio
of unobstructed (open) area of the perimeter walls to their total area (ψ ≤ 1). The initial
mass of air within one story is ma = ρaa
2hc, where ρa = 1.225 kg/m3 = mass density of air at
atmospheric pressure and room temperature. Just outside the tower perimeter, the air jetting
out (Fig. 3a) must regain the atmospheric pressure as soon as it exits (White 1999, p.149), and
its temperature must be roughly equal to the initial temperature (this is a well-known general
feature of exhausts, e.g., from jet engines (White 1999, p.149) or pipes (Munson et al. 2006)).
So, the mass density of exiting air ρ ≈ ρa.
The time during which the top slab collapses onto the lower slab ≈ ∆t = hc/z˙ = time
during which the air is expelled out (which is only about 0.07 s for stories near the ground).
Conservation of the mass of air during the collapse of one story requires that ρAw(va∆t) = ρVa.
Solving this equation gives the average velocity of escaping air just outside the tower perimeter:
va =
Va
ψAw∆t
=
az˙
4ψhc
(7)
Since the velocity of the crushing front near the end of North Tower crush-down is, according
to the solution of Eq. (2), ˙z = 47.34 m/s (106 mph), the velocity of escaping air near the end
of crush-down is
va =
64m × 47.34m/s
4ψ × 3.69m
=
(
205m/s (459 mph or 0.60 Mach) for ψ = 1
340m/s (761 mph or 1.00 Mach) for ψ = 0.604 (8)
The vent ratio ψ (which is < 1) is hard to estimate. It surely varies from story to story, and
also during the crushing of one story. Its effective, or average, value could be much less than
1 (because some of the perimeter area is doubtless still obstructed early in the crushing of one
story, and because much of the air escapes only after the story height has been reduced greatly).
In spite of these uncertainties, it is clear that the exit air speed is of the order of 500 mph and
that its fluctuations must reach the speed of sound. This must, of course, create sonic booms,
which are easily mistaken for explosions (supersonic speeds are virtually impossible since the
venting would require an orifice shaped similarly to a convergent-divergent nozzle).
There are other phenomena that can cause va to differ from the estimate in Eq. (8). The
air pressure surely exhausts the load capacity of the floor slab for a few microseconds before
it is impacted by the layer of compacted debris. So, the floor slab must crack before the story
height is reduced to λh, and the air must begin to leak through the cracked floor slab into the
underlying story, thus increasing the air mass in that story. Obviously some air must also leak
into the ceiling which behaves as a porous layer of compacted gravel (it is impossible for the
ceiling and the floor to remain flat and leak no air since otherwise the air pressure would tend
to infinity as the ceiling impacts the floor).
All these complex inter-story interactions must cause rapid and large random fluctuations
of internal air pressure and exiting air velocity. On the average, however, what matters is the
simple fact that the air must, in one way or another, get expelled from each story of the tower
within a very short time interval, which is only 0.07 s near the end of crush-down of North"

The air compression effect, would prevent gypsum buildup,
In building 7 while allowing hot metal shards to enter.

I would like for you to put your own theories to experimental testing.
 
Eight floors of relative free fall would have been needed to generate the momentum required in the demolition of WTC 7.
What if the wall broke 8 floors above ground, and then the upper part fell on inside of the lower part wall? The 8 stories worth of standing columns would then not support anything.

CD is the only logical explanation for a symmetric 105 foot free fall.
If "logical" = "what Tony Szamboti is so far prepared to believe", then I accept this bare-assed assertion.

Neither Danny Jowenko or most of us knew at the time he was interviewed on the subject that the collapse initiations in the Twin Towers occurred above the aircraft impacts and most of the fires. Danny's opinion would have changed had this information been available to him because it removed the basis for his earlier opinion.
So you are saying that Jowenko's lack of detailed knowledge of circumstances is reason to reject his expert opinion?
(Hint: This is a Yes/No question. No need to write another full paragraph that avoids answering the actual question.)
 
Explain why floor 10 had no fire when the three floors on either side of it did.

Coincidence.

You dodged my question:
According to your engineering assessment, would you agree that ripping a HUGE GASH down the face of a building and damaging floors doing so might frustrate designs to prevent vertical spread of fire?

Perhaps I should ask you first: Do you accept my implied claim is true that the WTC7 south face had a HUGE GASH down many floors, as reported by fire fighters on the scene?
 
...
And it's also indicative of Tony's methods. He formed an erroneous hypothesis based on an incorrect interpretation of poorly manipulated data, then, when his errors were pointed out to him, quickly fabricated a new and physically impossible argument to claim that data showing precisely the opposite features still supported his original hypothesis. He's been doing the same ever since, just applying it to new areas.

Dave

Did you notice how Tony, in his reply to my satirical post #366, took issue with #3 and #4 of my four mock claims, but not with #1 and #2:
myself said:
See, you need to get your premises right FIRST, and then everything else follows:
1. 9/11 was an inside job. I mean, come on, that is obvious, EVERYONE knows it
2. Steel skyscrapers cannot a do not collapse from fires
It almost appears as if those truly are his base premises! ;)
 

Back
Top Bottom