• 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.

"Freefall"

I don't think we're going to see that from einsteen, Hans. We've been calling him on this behavior since he started posting here.
 
Hans, last days what I think differs from hour to hour, sometimes I believe in the official wtc7 story and sometimes I don't, you understand that the posts here are only the moments that I don't. But I will stop annoying you with that building until there are other views by the experts. Let's wait for the final report.

later
 
einsteen said:
Hans, last days what I think differs from hour to hour, sometimes I believe in the official wtc7 story and sometimes I don't, you understand that the posts here are only the moments that I don't. But I will stop annoying you with that building until there are other views by the experts. Let's wait for the final report.

later
Click to expand...
It's good that you want to read the final NIST report. However, not once did you state your objections to the interim report on WTC 7, or state why you believe all the accounts from the experts who were on the scene are questionable. Nor were you able to provide a rational explanation of why anyone would have wanted the building to collapse.

Thanks for wasting our time.
 
einsteen said:
Hans, last days what I think differs from hour to hour, sometimes I believe in the official wtc7 story and sometimes I don't, you understand that the posts here are only the moments that I don't. But I will stop annoying you with that building until there are other views by the experts. Let's wait for the final report.

later
Click to expand...
Mmmm, OK. If your fuzzy posts really reflect confusion, I apologize. However, let's try to clear that confusion, then:

There is already an official report out, and though some parts are apparantly still pending, they are not likely to change the general conclusion on any important points.

So, what points in the official conclusion (the so-called OCT) give you cause for doubt?

Hans
 
Hello Hans,

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC Part IIC - WTC 7 Collapse Final.pdf

This is indeed a very detailed overview of the damage etc. I've also seen some of the TT reports, that contain hundreds of pages, full with temperature diagrams and damage of all trusses but it is only Greening who under some assumptions shows a calculation with math. I know that the exact calculations cannot be done, even numerical methods are very sensitive to small changes in assumptions etc. and one admits that some initial values will remain unknown forever. The wtc7 report does (maybe someone can point me to it or an other report) not yet talk about the global collapse and the 6.5 seconds. The report of Kenneth Kutler is a similar report as Greening although I'm sure he will be sweeped to the CT corner, he is probably already there because he seems to be on the BYU website, but math is math and is reproducible by any scientist, the same of course for the 10 feet of NIST reports but I don’t believe that the actual collapses are treated in detail, only the causes of failure, it looks like one is not interested in what happens then, because it is just the consequence of failure.
 
einsteen said:
The wtc7 report does (maybe someone can point me to it or an other report) not yet talk about the global collapse and the 6.5 seconds.
Click to expand...
That's because the building didn't collapse in 6.5 seconds, as you know. And the report does talk about the global collapse. That's the purpose of the report.

Why do you lie, einsteen?

And why are you unable to take these questions seriously?
 
Last edited:
einsteen said:
Hello Hans,

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC Part IIC - WTC 7 Collapse Final.pdf

This is indeed a very detailed overview of the damage etc. I've also seen some of the TT reports, that contain hundreds of pages, full with temperature diagrams and damage of all trusses but it is only Greening who under some assumptions shows a calculation with math. I know that the exact calculations cannot be done, even numerical methods are very sensitive to small changes in assumptions etc. and one admits that some initial values will remain unknown forever. The wtc7 report does (maybe someone can point me to it or an other report) not yet talk about the global collapse and the 6.5 seconds. The report of Kenneth Kutler is a similar report as Greening although I'm sure he will be sweeped to the CT corner, he is probably already there because he seems to be on the BYU website, but math is math and is reproducible by any scientist, the same of course for the 10 feet of NIST reports but I don’t believe that the actual collapses are treated in detail, only the causes of failure, it looks like one is not interested in what happens then, because it is just the consequence of failure.
Click to expand...

Two buildings were hit by jet-liners, were set on fire, and subsequently collapsed.....

- We know they were hit by planes. We know there were extensive fires (most of the world watched in real-time).

- We know they collapsed.

- Nobody has been able to come up with a remotely plausible alternative explanation for why they should collapse, nor have they uncovered any evidence for an alternative cause.

What keeps you from concluding that they collapsed because og the planes hitting them, and the subsequent fires?

One building was severely damaged by falling parts from buildings collapsing nearby. Fires burned inside the building for hours. The building subsequently collapsed.

- Testimony from firefighters and construction specialists show that, after seeing the extent of damage, they expected the building to collapse.

- As a result, fighting the fires was abandoned, and the building was evacuated, and everybody stood back waiting for the collapse.

- Nobody has been able to come up with a remotely plausible alternative explanation for why it should collapse, nor have they uncovered any evidence for an alternative cause.

What keeps you from concluding that it collapsed due to the damages it had suffered?

Hans
 
Gravy, I never lie and please don’t intimidate me. I was talking about the coming down of the damned building.
I guess you also disagree with 14.7 seconds for the total collapse because you mention 18 seconds in that Alex Jones movie. The total period of the seismic data I assume. It’s a matter of definition Gravy, it’s a matter of definition. Think about your blood pressure.

@Hans, they expected wtc7 to collapse and it collapsed. The expected indeed happened in contrast to the TTs where no-one expected
it. Allright then (Arkan would call that after-911 knowledge). As I already said it is time to stop with this here, I don't want
to get the Chris-effect. And I admit that if 98% of the experts agree with that and 2% don't there is a high chance the first is
right it doesn't make my position strong, logically it is still no proof but i now really stop, thanks for the time.
 
Gravy said:
Nor were you able to provide a rational explanation of why anyone would have wanted the building to collapse.
Click to expand...

Gravy, there is a simple rational explanation for why "anyone" would have wanted the building to collapse. After immense damage from the fall of the towers and hours of fire, WTC7 was a weakened and unsafe building. Standing, it was a danger to the life of every person within a one block radius. I think you will remember that WTC5, which did not collapse, was later demolished because it could not be salvaged. Under those conditions, hoping for a quick collapse that day would be prudent and sensible compared to trying to isolate the building and still have an increasing number of people return to the area over the next several days.

Get your facts straight before issuing challenges.

[/sarcasm mode]
 
Last edited:
einsteen said:
R.Mackey, no offense of course, I know the people here are in general skilled people who I respect, this was just a slip of the tongue. It could indeed be a figure of speech. But there is also a correlation between that figure of speech and the explosion sound, which is not a kind of crunch sound as a result of structural failure and it happened before the global collapse. But I stop with this now here.
Click to expand...
I'm thicker skinned than that, no worries, but you didn't answer my question.

Was the "blow up the building" thing a figure of speech, or "Evidence" that WTC 7 was demolished? Pick one.

The more you evade, the harder it gets to take you seriously.
 
It doesn't stop of course...

No R.Mackey it is no evidence. People can say everything. I've enough mathematical background to know what a real proof is.
But I still cannot place the sound of the explosion (with echo's 0.332 sec later) into context, too bad it is a CNN compilation, but it looks as a genuine CNN show. I cannot explain this sound also not within the context
of the official story. We can ignore it or try to find a simple explanation. I'm sure there wil be found one, that's the whole purpose of the debunking sites, isn't it ?

My biggest mistake ever was that movie of the two towers that looked like one. That was a typical example of misleading people by giving false
information (I'm still angry about that, it was also a little bit my fault that it was a CT'ers point of view, I even did not know about debunking sites at that time), but then you see what it really is and say... ooh stoopid.
There is still a lot of work to do for the debunkers, I think it will not stop easily.
 
einsteen said:
@Hans, they expected wtc7 to collapse and it collapsed. The expected indeed happened in contrast to the TTs where no-one expected
it. Allright then (Arkan would call that after-911 knowledge).
Click to expand...
The collapse of one building on 9/11 was unexpected: the south tower. When that collapsed, the order was given to evacuate the north tower. Later, NYPD helicpoter pilots reported the danger of imminent collapse because the exterior columns were bowed.
 
einsteen said:
No R.Mackey it is no evidence. People can say everything. I've enough mathematical background to know what a real proof is.
Click to expand...
I agree. The person in the video saying that WTC 7 was "going to blow up" is not proof or even evidence of anything. Let's move on now.

But I still cannot place the sound of the explosion (with echo's 0.332 sec later) into context, too bad it is a CNN compilation, but it looks as a genuine CNN show. I cannot explain this sound also not within the context
of the official story. We can ignore it or try to find a simple explanation. I'm sure there wil be found one, that's the whole purpose of the debunking sites, isn't it ?
Click to expand...
I'll let you take a crack at this:

Describe the sound you hear. Describe when it occurs, if that correlates to any other behavior, etc.

Now describe what it possibly might be. There are many possibilities.

Now take each of those possibilities and see what each of them, if it were true, would imply.

Finally, take those lists and see which are impossible or improbable based on the other facts on the scene.

If you do this correctly, you'll be left with several very mundane possibilities, and few to no sinister ones.
 
einsteen is playing dumb. I don't get the game. The subject of "context" of the loud noise heard on the video came up just yesterday.
A bang and two echos? And when did the building fall down again?

Einsteen, you do realize that things were blowing up, especially cars, all over the place after the towers came down, don't you? In addition, lots of debris was falling from WTC 7, which must have made noise.
Click to expand...
 
Gravy said:
einsteen is playing dumb. I don't get the game. The subject of "context" of the loud noise heard on the video came up just yesterday.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I know.

Some people are playing, and some aren't. I'm still trying to be optimistic. einsteen was good enough to understand that the "blow up" comments on the video don't mean a thing, so perhaps we'll be able to build on that little victory.

Hang in there, Gravy, we're making progress, you most of all.
 
Sort of off topic, but why is it that CTists insist upon saying that WTC7 fell in 6.5 seconds on the basis of their own viewing of videos that don't progress further than approximately the bottom 20 floors of the building?

They all seem to base their "timing" on the same video which doesn't show anything below 20 stories and they stop their "timer" at that point.
 
LashL said:
Sort of off topic, but why is it that CTists insist upon saying that WTC7 fell in 6.5 seconds on the basis of their own viewing of videos that don't progress further than approximately the bottom 20 floors of the building?

They all seem to base their "timing" on the same video which doesn't show anything below 20 stories and they stop their "timer" at that point.
Click to expand...
I think they're extrapolating from there, figuring what the time would be, based on the accelaration of the top. Supposedly Steve Jones did this with his class and they came up with 6.6 seconds. To me, the big question is why they start the clock when they do, ignoring the fall of the east mechanical penthouse, which is a structure that covers an area the size of four apartment buildings on my block.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom