Is Hulsey a signatory? A member?
Merged Freefall is not evidence for Controlled Demolition
- Thread starter LSSBB
- Start date
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
No.
I doubt that he would be involved in working on the "how" of the imaginary demolition methods.
After all this time, after all the explanations, do you seriously not understand how baseless, how WRONG, this statement is??
Do you not understand that it is impossible to get a building, constructed like the Towers or WTC7 with a widely dispersed array of support columns, to topple.
You could not even get it to topple to the side if you used explosives to "blow out" a triangular cut-out on one side of the building (like woodsmen do to get a tree to fall in a particular direction).
Have you not learned anything from the things that the engineers here have told you? Or from the reference that engineers have written, and others have linked you to?
Why are you unable to learn?
Do you not understand that it is impossible to get a building, constructed like the Towers or WTC7 with a widely dispersed array of support columns, to topple.
You could not even get it to topple to the side if you used explosives to "blow out" a triangular cut-out on one side of the building (like woodsmen do to get a tree to fall in a particular direction).
Have you not learned anything from the things that the engineers here have told you? Or from the reference that engineers have written, and others have linked you to?
Why are you unable to learn?
heymatto70
Thinker
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2016
- Messages
- 182
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
Its a moot point. Getting a building to topple along its long axis is impossible. That leaves only the short, N-S axis. In one direction is WTC6. Falling that way is not an issue. Falling north is the Fitterman, a building that was damaged beyond repair. Thus it is apparent that either reducing damage was an issue for which measures designed specifically to protect the Fitterman failed, or it never was an issue at all.
An interesting admission, Oz.
Those of us who participated in that clusterfork know quite well that femr's favorite past time was "intentionally obscuring his points".
This resulted in enormous amounts of wasted time & effort over every tortured issue ("fields vs. frames" comes to mind) as he danced around, refusing to state his assertions clearly or consistently.
Contrary to what you are asserting here, he did NOT do it because "it was fun". Even tho he may have claimed this to you & the boys.
He did this precisely because, nearly every single time that he was clear & explicit about some point, he ended up getting his ears boxed for his rampant mistakes.
Could you explain to me the "fun" in dragging others into intentionally misleading, obscure conversations?
Especially ones that go on "for months"??
Both.
Truther motto (full version):
"Just asking questions.
Haven't the slightest interest in the answers."
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
I don't even think this is possible. In order to do it you need a pivot point strong enough to allow the center of gravity to move outside of the foot print. Not going to happen. Cribbing (adding more structure) is used in demolition when this is a requirement. Sure it could favor one side but never topple like a tree.
When your only goal is to yank people's chains, it doesn't matter. Criteria can't be serious, and neither can other 'busy' Truthers like FalseFlag and Yankee.
Last edited:
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
Criteria, MM, Tony Sz, Chris Sarns, etc.
Still nothing to show free fall is evidence for controlled demolition.
Another one bites the dust
Another one bites the dust
And another one gone, and another one gone
Another one bites the dust
Hey, I'm gonna get you too
Another one bites the dust
-Queen
Still nothing to show free fall is evidence for controlled demolition.
Another one bites the dust
Another one bites the dust
And another one gone, and another one gone
Another one bites the dust
Hey, I'm gonna get you too
Another one bites the dust
-Queen
Last edited:
Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 8,339
Nice to see you back, was wondering if you had left us to debate the idiots alone, Cole practically admitted his experiments were dishonest, in his Webinar series, and Tony well he will be Tony.
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
I been busy. And arguing true believers out of their beliefs is an impossible task.
Bump for Criteria.
Also, have you already accepted the inescapable conclusion that free fall does not mean demolition, because it happened after all the columns had failed? You never replied to my post.
Criteria
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2015
- Messages
- 470
I did write a reply.
But then it occurred to me that it was a waste of my time addressing someone who resorts to the 'poor English card' when they are accused of posting engineering gibberish.
That, and your inane belief that WTC7's collapse was comparable to a snapping construction crane convinced me that you are merely gaming the thread.
Sounds like your evidence for CD is the null set - not surprising it goes along with your aviation authority being Balsamo. Who is your engineering authority, common sense? Balsamo as an aviation authority; just wow. Who did Miragememory hook you up with as your engineering expert?
Last edited:
That makes no sense. You didn't accuse me of posting engineering gibberish, to start with, or at least I didn't perceive your words as such an accusation. You seemed confused by my words when I said that the core "pulled from the façade". I may have misused the word "pull" when I wrote that sentence, and I'm still not sure if I've misused it or not. I merely tried to clarify. So were you actually accusing me of posting engineering gibberish?
An inane comparison is comparing a ring of paper with a set of columns and claiming that it demonstrates explosive demolition. That's what Jonathan Cole does. The term inane comparison fits it like a glove.
I didn't do that. I compared a bar of steel that is able to support a big load (the arm of the crane) to another bar of steel that is able to support a big load (a column). That comparison is very pertinent, because steel doesn't change its properties no matter whether it's part of a crane or of a column.
Granted, there are several considerations (geometrical, mainly) that may make a difference, but it's still good for illustrating how once buckled, a steel column can only hold a tiny fraction of the load it can hold while intact.
But I mentioned a possible second mechanism that is not illustrated in the crane example, namely the breakage of connections. That is one you have just ignored completely, despite not involving the crane example that you seem to have issue with.
Furthermore, the crane example served a second purpose besides showing the dropping in resistance of steel when it buckles.
Acceleration greater than gravity was observed, and the mechanism by which that happened is most likely two connected masses (like the WTC7 core and façade, and like the tower the crane was holding) of which one falls in advance (like the WTC7 core, or the tower, did), and the connector (the girders in the case of WTC7, the cable in the case of the crane) pulls down from the other mass (the façade in the case of WTC7, or the tip of the crane) overloading it and causing it to accelerate faster than gravity (as both the façade and the tip of the girder did).
I repeat, it's an illustration of the mechanism by which over-g was most likely reached. Because it was reached. One only needs two connected masses to explain the basic physical principle. I've explained that mechanism with two balls tied together with an elastic rope, but the crane is a live example where you can actually see, and not just imagine, the obvious over-g acceleration.
Frankly, the way you've replied, you've made it sound like I cut too close to the bone and you chose to evade addressing the core of my claim.
Or can you perhaps explain how to achieve over-G in a demolition with explosives, and why to break all the columns to cause free fall after they have already buckled and therefore the building is doomed?
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
Where the gibberish effect comes in is the "Over-g" statements.
In any g field, you cannot achieve acceleration greater than g without an additional force input.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Wouldn't the collapse of the interior serve this purpose on exterior elements, a lever if you will? I see no gibberish..........
Last edited:
The force input comes from the core falling in advance. I made these diagrams for clarification of how over-G is reached. It would help me to know how I may be wrong.
Assuming you're willing to help me understand, that is.
(initial state)
Also, don't you see the tip of the crane suffering a huge jolt in this video, basically going from 0 to a significant vertical speed in tenths if not hundredths of second? That's far over g, and the source of that acceleration is gravity.
Why it is gibberish to assert that the tip of the crane experiences an acceleration far above g?
Why it is gibberish to assert that a similar mechanism happened in WTC7 per the above illustrations? [ETA: except for the difference in elastic behaviour between the cable and the girders - the cable transmits it much faster and causes everything to happen in an instant.]
Last edited: