Continuation: 'What about building 7?'

[NoahFence]

You have to be joking here, because your contention that hot debris from the fire affected areas of the North Tower could have caused the fires on ten floors of WTC 7 is laughable.

The fire affected areas in the North Tower comprised only about 3% of the building. The chances of enough hot debris from that limited area flying 350 feet to WTC 7 and starting fires on ten floors in it, and not in the Verizon or Post Office buildings, is extremely remote.

Why is it that it takes 1/2 a second of a google image search to debunk virtually everything you say? 3% is so far off that it's laughable.

The use of thermite in the buildings, and some level of dispersion of it or its products (molten iron and steel) during the building collapse, would explain the vehicle fires and possibly the fires on ten floors in WTC 7.

How about the vehicle fires before the collapse? You going to be a good truther and ignore those because they don't fit into your asinine views?

Arson is still the more likely cause of the fires in WTC 7 with the nearly two hour gap between the North Tower collapse and the first photographic evidence of fires in WTC 7, no fires in either the Verizon or Post Office buildings, and the fact that the buildings were largely sealed with very few entrance points and nothing flammable on the exterior like vehicles have with external plastic parts.

Arson. With what - a cigarette lighter? Almost every person in or near that building was a firefighter. At least the ones still alive. Your arson theory needs to include a reason why the arsonists attacked the Pentagon and Shanksville. You NEED to include those in order to have any sane person give you more than a pat on the head and an "ok kid".

So have at it. It was arson.

Explain the how's, the why's, the who's - and don't forget to include everything.

 

[Animal]

A correction to my terminology: instead of hydrocarbon I should be saying Class Alpha and Class Bravo fires, the burning material was probably more Class Alpha (leaves an ash) than Bravo (hydrocarbon).

I believe thermite is a Class Delta (burning metals) fire - if it counts as a fire.

In any case, I am not a fireman, so all the above may be inaccurate.

Your mistake means only one thing......it must have been a CD
Any singular mistake, typo, mispronunciation, erroneous news report, etc. etc. ALWAYS equates to a controlled demolition - inside jobby jobby.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Tony Szamboti, Please read, 2707-33968-1-PB.pdf, you might like to study fracture modes in structural steels.

 

[LSSBB]

It is also very easy for most people to take the official "truths" for granted and simply repeat claims by NIST, without any real analysis.

Who here is simply repeating claims by NIST without real analysis? Would you like to compare how Chandler's simple acceleration profile matches up to the one done by pgimeno in the femr video thread?

 

[jaydeehess]

3% is still over 3 acres of burning office floors creating smoke enough to be visible from space. To try to convince us that this fire, one of the worst in the history of inner city fires, was somehow small and insignificant and not a danger to buildings in the vicinity is laughable, and possibly dishonest.

It could be worse. Tony might have calculated the percentage of office space in Manhattan that was burning.

 

[jaydeehess]

The extreme heat in the rubble pile was largely only under the three collapsed buildings and there are witnesses to molten steel in the rubble.

Molten steel that has absolutely no evidence of ever having been present. In addition, when the topic has been discussed at length in other threads its been pointed out many instances of witnesses reporting molten metal and/or steel in non-911 fires.
If one is to go by the witness statements in the many instances of 911 and non-911 fires then there are two choices; either the witnesses are correct, in which case they are likely correct in the many other instances of fires having been reported to melt steel, or they are incorrect and thus all instances in which it is mentioned in other fires also likely incorrect.
If it existed in other fires it not unusual in the WTC fires. If it did not exist in other fires then the incorrect reports in those other fires indicate that such witness reports are unreliable.WHAT IS required then is some physical evidence of the existence of molten steel. The 911TM claims large amounts of molten steel and yet no large solidified blobs of steel have ever been shown to have been recovered. We have the so-called meteorite but it has paper and other flammable bits poking out of it and is therefore obviously not previously molten steel.

It could only have been a product of the use of thermite, because it couldn't have been formed any other way. Don't forget the ubiquitous iron microspheres are another sign of the potential use of thermite.

,,, and indicative of metal cutting and grinding , the former of which was used, a lot, in the clean up operation, and the later would be indicative of the effect of running thousands of tons of steel through a high speed , 100 storey high, rock crusher.

The use of thermite in the buildings, and some level of dispersion of it or its products (molten iron and steel) during the building collapse, would explain is a fiction that we at AE911T like to promote because 'pixie dust' and DEW sound crazy.

FTFY

Arson is still the more likely cause of the fires in WTC 7 with the nearly two hour gap between the North Tower collapse and the first photographic evidence of fires in WTC 7, no fires in either the Verizon or Post Office buildings, and the fact that the buildings were largely sealed with very few entrance points and nothing flammable on the exterior like vehicles have with external plastic parts.

Arson spooks running around is still a particularly subjective fiction brought about simply because you require something other than mundane causes for the fires to satisfy your paranoid world view.

As for the lack of fires in the adjacent buildings, so you expect that if a tornado rips two houses off their foundations and leaves the one in between with only light damage, the likely explanation is demolition teams.

 

[Oystein]

...
As you pointed out yourself earlier, the Verizon (probably) did not sustain huge gashes from the collapse of WTC1.
...

I checked the FEMA report (Chapter 7 "Peripheral Buildings"). Not only was the facade damage to the Verizon from the WTC1 collapse limited, it also didn't break many windows: "Window damage was moderate, and it is notable that the windows contained wire mesh". More reason why the Verizon would be safer from fiery debris.

 

[Belz...]

The fire affected areas in the North Tower comprised only about 3% of the building. The chances of enough hot debris from that limited area flying 350 feet to WTC 7 and starting fires on ten floors in it, and not in the Verizon or Post Office buildings, is extremely remote.

Do you not realise that all of your arguments are based on uneducated guesses and incredulity ? You provide no reason for anyone to accept your claims.

 

[jaydeehess]

Who here is simply repeating claims by NIST without real analysis? Would you like to compare how Chandler's simple acceleration profile matches up to the one done by pgimeno in the femr video thread?

Well to be honest, what Ziggi means is an analysis that begins with the conclusions that a) NIST is wrong, and probably deliberately so. , and b) That the events of 9/11 are all part of a covert, extra-governmental, vast and complex, conspiracy by a shadowy evil entity bent on world domination

 

[jaydeehess]

I checked the FEMA report (Chapter 7 "Peripheral Buildings"). Not only was the facade damage to the Verizon from the WTC1 collapse limited, it also didn't break many windows: "Window damage was moderate, and it is notable that the windows contained wire mesh". More reason why the Verizon would be safer from fiery debris.

I asked earlier what the differences in the windows of WTC 7 and the Verizon and Post Office were. Thanks for finding one very pertinent difference.

 

[chrismohr]

Tony, here is a post from 2011 on the old JREF with all of NIST's answers to my questions, and my comments. It shows my level of understanding around the time I had my debate with Richard Gage. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6982490&postcount=84
The 14 physicists I talked with over the years were among a minority of experts who would talk with me at all. Most asked for anonymity because they didn't want to waste their time with a theory they held in contempt. I had the same problem last year when I talked with several fire chemists about the iron-rich microspheres. I did finally find two fire chemists, who would speak only on condition of anonymity. I had to do a sales job on many of them (physicists, fire chemists, experts of all kinds) to get a few minutes of their time. When I just go to a university or whatever, I never ever meet a physicist who agrees with you . The response I get is not fearful or that they are trying to hide anything, they just have a dismal view of 9/11 Truth.
The questions I asked had nothing to do with Bazant, and none of them had read all the papers around 9/11. My questions were purely theoretical, such as, "If one floor of a building that is 12-14 feet high per floor collapses, does the pull of gravity plus mass create enough energy to cause progressive collapse of lower floors, or will a steel-framed building be able to arrest the collapse?" EVERYONE said yes it can collapse. "If a building is collapsing, does it tip over to follow the path of least resistance?" EVERYONE said no, unless there is a lateral force pushing it over, gravity pulls it downward. Several denied that there is any principle in phyiscs about following the path of least resistance. I'm going by memory here, but these are the answers I got, just based on their understanding of energy and momentum.
With tons and tons of thermite going off in your theory, you bet I have a problem with there being no visible light in the collapse. Those buildings would glow like the sun! Thermite burns for 30+ seconds (not months, as some claim about the hot debris pile), so there would be plenty of time for the fully-exposed core (which was collapsing more slowly due to greater resistance) to look like a massive firestick.

 

[Hellbound]

Just an FYI: in a building collapse, sideways wouldn't be the path of least resistence, because it has to overcome inertia and does NOT get the boost that gravitational acceleration provides.

In other words, it takes more energy to go sideways than to fall down. So sideways isn't even the path of least resistance.*


*-Unless, as is typical in the truth movement, you isolate one individual part of the whole, take it out of context, and don't consider all the forces in play.

 

[jaydeehess]

Just an FYI: in a building collapse, sideways wouldn't be the path of least resistence, because it has to overcome inertia and does NOT get the boost that gravitational acceleration provides.

In other words, it takes more energy to go sideways than to fall down. So sideways isn't even the path of least resistance.*


*-Unless, as is typical in the truth movement, you isolate one individual part of the whole, take it out of context, and don't consider all the forces in play.

The whole path of least resistance was very odd for truthers to claim. It has no basis in any physics principles. In order to topple it has to encounter differential reaction forces. That is to say that one area at the bottom of the falling section has to encounter less reaction force from the top of the lower section than another area does.

The extreme example of this difference would be a tree with a notch cut in it. One area at the bottom of the upper section of tree encounters NO reaction force from the stump portion, while another area of the bottom of the upper section of tree encounters the same reaction force supplied by that area of the stump portion that had always been there.

In the towers though, when the upper portion begins moving its quite obvious that the entire lower line of the upper section is moving. Therefore the tree analogy is gone since no area of the lower section is still supplying the same reaction force it was capable of before collapse initiation, AND all of the lower section is still capable of some reaction force(as opposed to the zero capability of the notch part of he tree). So where is the topple force coming from other than the fervent imagination of truthers?

In the tree analogy the upper tree section then pivots on the still intact lower stump. In the towers there is no such pivot possible because the lower section is incapable of being a pivot, its not a solid block like the tree stump. Since its no able to pivot about a lower edge, the upper block's angular momentum, (as relatively small as it since it wasn't changing its tilt angle very fast at the time of collapse initiation) now causes it to rotate about its center of mass. The direction the center of mass is moving is straight down, thus all but a tiny portion of the upper mass is falling on the lower section.

 

[Hellbound]

The whole path of least resistance was very odd for truthers to claim. It has no basis in any physics principles. In order to topple it has to encounter differential reaction forces. That is to say that one area at the bottom of the falling section has to encounter less reaction force from the top of the lower section than another area does.

The extreme example of this difference would be a tree with a notch cut in it. One area at the bottom of the upper section of tree encounters NO reaction force from the stump portion, while another area of the bottom of the upper section of tree encounters the same reaction force supplied by that area of the stump portion that had always been there.

In the towers though, when the upper portion begins moving its quite obvious that the entire lower line of the upper section is moving. Therefore the tree analogy is gone since no area of the lower section is still supplying the same reaction force it was capable of before collapse initiation, AND all of the lower section is still capable of some reaction force(as opposed to the zero capability of the notch part of he tree). So where is the topple force coming from other than the fervent imagination of truthers?

In the tree analogy the upper tree section then pivots on the still intact lower stump. In the towers there is no such pivot possible because the lower section is incapable of being a pivot, its not a solid block like the tree stump. Since its no able to pivot about a lower edge, the upper block's angular momentum, (as relatively small as it since it wasn't changing its tilt angle very fast at the time of collapse initiation) now causes it to rotate about its center of mass. The direction the center of mass is moving is straight down, thus all but a tiny portion of the upper mass is falling on the lower section.

Exactly right.

I can sort of correlate "path of least resistance" to concepts like fluid flow, or basic principles of entropy (physical processes seek low energy states and increase entropy)...that's what I had in mind earlier.

But even giving the benefit of the doubt, they still aren't properly calculating the forces involved. As you stated, the tree falls sideways because of a greater force acting asymetrically. That's not there in the towers, nor are the towers as rigid (to scale) as a tree. Only by isolated details, and refusing to look at things in context, and adding in a bit of ignorance on material strengths and scaling, does the idea even begin to look plausible.

But that's the TM in a nutshell: Congruence of ignorance guarded by arrogance.

 

[chrismohr]

Tony, to say more about your acknowledgement of >g, I do want to reiterate that I have indeed been unfairly mocked by several people who just like to mock their opponents. The David Chandler "Pearls Before Swine" video which has been constantly thrown at me for four years now, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8N6V68jotg, is a rebuttal of a video I long since corrected. I told David Chandler that I had made corrections and reissued the video he was rebutting, but he left the dead link on---for four years now! He correctly pointed out several errors, and they were bad enough to merit my redoing the entire video. I am grateful for his corrections, but not grateful for his "Pearls Before Swine" insult among others. I am aware of three studies of the collapse rate of Building 7's perimeter wall: David Chandler's (which I believe helped prod NIST into making a correction in the Building 7 Report), the NIST measurements, and the femr2 measurements (see the link in post 146 above). There may be one or more other measurements in that thread. The NIST Report had an average freefall for 2.25 seconds, but the graph shows slightly greater than freefall acceleration for very brief periods of time. femr2 measurements are the gold standard, and they establish with a higher degree of probability that there was about 0.75 seconds of >g. I stuck my neck out and made a claim for possible >g based on the NIST graph, for which I was roundly jeered at. The femr2 data did nothing to stop the howling against the possibility of >g. Glad to hear you are not on that bandwagon.

 

[Oystein]

Exactly right.
...
But even giving the benefit of the doubt, they still aren't properly calculating the forces involved. ...

Before starting any calculations, you need to get the model right. They fail at that point already.

They picture (or dishonestly try to evoke the picture in the minds of their subscription-paying disciples) that columns are crashing on columns all the way down. They fail to realize that an offset of a good foot will ensure that columns from above the fire zone fall mainly through air, and some occasionally meet thin, light-weight concret slabs that are no match at all for them. Columns from below the fire zone - many peel outward and topple over like trees, others break loose and fall outside through air.
Mostly, the fall is resisted by the floor slabs inertia, and a bit by overwhelmed floor-to-column connections, not by columns as such.

 

[WilliamSeger]

In the tree analogy the upper tree section then pivots on the still intact lower stump. In the towers there is no such pivot possible because the lower section is incapable of being a pivot, its not a solid block like the tree stump. Since its no able to pivot about a lower edge, the upper block's angular momentum, (as relatively small as it since it wasn't changing its tilt angle very fast at the time of collapse initiation) now causes it to rotate about its center of mass. The direction the center of mass is moving is straight down, thus all but a tiny portion of the upper mass is falling on the lower section.

I remember as a kid stacking blocks, noticing that when the tower started to topple, it would break into two distinct sections: the top section starting to topple to one side but the section below being "kicked" in the opposite direction. I didn't know anything about angular momentum, but it was fairly obvious even then that, for the top section to move sideways, it was pushing against the bottom section.

 

[Hellbound]

Before starting any calculations, you need to get the model right. They fail at that point already.

They picture (or dishonestly try to evoke the picture in the minds of their subscription-paying disciples) that columns are crashing on columns all the way down. They fail to realize that an offset of a good foot will ensure that columns from above the fire zone fall mainly through air, and some occasionally meet thin, light-weight concret slabs that are no match at all for them. Columns from below the fire zone - many peel outward and topple over like trees, others break loose and fall outside through air.
Mostly, the fall is resisted by the floor slabs inertia, and a bit by overwhelmed floor-to-column connections, not by columns as such.

QFT. Even more to show how things are considered completely in isolation, as if nothing else was happeneing except whatever picayune detail they've fixated on.

 

[jaydeehess]

I remember as a kid stacking blocks, noticing that when the tower started to topple, it would break into two distinct sections: the top section starting to topple to one side but the section below being "kicked" in the opposite direction. I didn't know anything about angular momentum, but it was fairly obvious even then that, for the top section to move sideways, it was pushing against the bottom section.

You would also have noted that no matter how carefully you create that column of blocks, eventually it does buckle. That's slender column instability, which is what doomed the core columns and is abundantly illustrated in the so-called "spire".

 

[Ziggi]

... The David Chandler "Pearls Before Swine" video which has been constantly thrown at me for four years now, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8N6V68jotg, is a rebuttal of a video I long since corrected. I told David Chandler that I had made corrections and reissued the video he was rebutting, but he left the dead link on---for four years now! He correctly pointed out several errors, and they were bad enough to merit my redoing the entire video...

Chris, you never understood Chandler´s criticism. He was explaining why professional arhcitects and scientists on behalf of AE911 should not waste time trying to debate this highly technical subject (demolition evidence) with someone like you, who is not only a layperson but also one that simply does not know at all what he is talking about.

Chandler´s presention of your handling of NIST´s free-fall data was just meant as one good demonstration of the fact that you dont know what you are talking about in general, when it comes to this stuff.

But you never understood this, or were not humble enough to admit it and accept it. As always, you use your propensity to get easily offended as an excuse to avoid the problem.

If Chandler had the time and patience to go through all of your YouTube videos, he would end up demonstrating that you make the same kind of errors in every single one of them, and you would have to redo all of them, and all of your "238 points".