dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
You weren't in the school debating society,were you?
Gage's next debate
- Thread starter grandmastershek
- Start date
You weren't in the school debating society,were you?
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
Truthers, and the point. Like two ships in the night.
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
Truthers and the truth. Never the twain shall meet. Is is funny to see them flailing around. Maybe they can never sit still for long enough to present a full alternative theory. They've had ten years.
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
There's no TIME for theories! The NWO must be stopped NOW! Time is of the ESSENCE!
...at least, that's essentially what the Loose Change Forum admins said five years ago as an excuse for systematically silencing all dissenting viewpoints.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Unless you have a 47-storey building to hand, in which case there's a slower and less convenient way to destroy them.
Dave
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
The LCF cannot expose their members to the truth,the shock could be fatal.
http://www.youtube.com/user/ae911truth#p/c/9D0AD4128345447F
Gage has to ban opposing views so his moron cult members will not thing about thinking for themselves. He spreads lies and makes enough money to tour Europe on money from people too stupid to think for themselves.
Who has been banned by Gage's AE911Truth.org? He is essentially a traitor, apologizing for terrorists by acting dumb on 911. Okay, I am jealous he is going to Europe on fool's money. I am going to mow my lawn and design some speakers, and my next computer, i7 8TB video station... I never could tell a lie; maybe Gage is as stupid as his lies.
Gage has to ban opposing views so his moron cult members will not thing about thinking for themselves. He spreads lies and makes enough money to tour Europe on money from people too stupid to think for themselves.
Who has been banned by Gage's AE911Truth.org? He is essentially a traitor, apologizing for terrorists by acting dumb on 911. Okay, I am jealous he is going to Europe on fool's money. I am going to mow my lawn and design some speakers, and my next computer, i7 8TB video station... I never could tell a lie; maybe Gage is as stupid as his lies.
chrismohr
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2011
- Messages
- 2,080
The Highly Controversial Part 14 of my rebuttal
C WTC7 fire: number and size of fires? Part 14
Then symmetrical destruction/least resistance
Gaining access
Hi gang,
Here we go with Part 14. This will be a lot more interesting than who gives who permission to have opinions, I promise! I am writing in a style to force me to look at the camera more, so don't worry about incomplete sentences... just check my ideas.
Slide Intro
Face: We are now on part 14 of my respectful rebuttal of Richard Gage’s 911 video, Blueprint for Truth. In this section we’ll talk about the number and size of the fires, the symmetrical destruction of Building 7, and gaining secret access to all three buildings to prepare them for a controlled demolition.
Gage asserts that the Building 7 fires were not severe enough to cause a fast global collapse. He reminds us that no plane hit Building 7, that no major structural damage was caused by the debris from the Twin Towers collapses, and that no tall steel framed structure had ever collapsed due to fire before. That last claim lost a lot of its force in 2008, when a tall concrete reinforced steel-framed building at Delft University in the Netherlands collapsed at a very high rate of speed mostly straight down into its own footprint due to fire alone, as I have shown in an earlier installment here.
Richard and his fellow controlled demolition advocates tend to minimize the fire damage by quoting the NIST Report itself, which reports fires they can actually observe as open flames in photos and videos, even though the fires inside the structure may not have been visible. Richard also contrasts videos and photos of huge fires in steel-framed buildings with the NYPD picture of the north face of Building 7, on the side where the fires were least severe.
2 SLIDES: Which side gets shown? NIST showed all sides, 911 Truth videos show north face.
1) WTC 7 likely had points of origin on (10) floors; 3) water supply to fight fires in WTC 7 was impaired; and 4) in WTC 7, no efforts were made to fight the fires.
Eyewitness: Chris Boyle... it was a huge hole right in the middle of it.
Here’s a SLIDE of first responders walking over cool debris while the Building 7 fire rages behind them.
2 VIDEOS, let’s watch how much debris hit Building 7 and the damage it caused, While BBC was mistakenly reporting the predicted collapse of Building 7 as a fait acompli, I was watching ABC correctly reporting a prediction of imminent possible collapse. They had this live video which I saw that day when I was glued to the television.
FINAL BURNING VIDEO
As you can see from this video, fires raged on many but not all floors. The very top floors don’t show much fire, which is consistent with NIST’s claim that collapsing columns on the lower floors caused the collapse of the East Penthouse on top.
Pictures and videos from the north face don’t show much damage to Building 7, yet those are the images I usually see on the 911 videos and lectures. I am concerned that these other images aren’t shown because the 911 presenters want to minimize the damage that actually happened. In our March 6 debate, Richard also said these pix show smoke but no fire. When the fires first started on the south face of Building 7, people were running for their lives and the dust was blocking the view anyway. Then the fires started moving to the interior of the building. Is he suggesting that all that smoke wasn’t evidence of fire?
1453.) R Symmetrical destruction / path of least resistance
Richard Gage also asserts that Building 7 had a nearly symmetrical collapse, which is true. But he also asserts that a natural fire collapse would topple like buildings in an earthquake, which is not true. The Delft University tower collapse of 2008 was natural and it went straight down, because gravity is a natural force that tends to pull things straight down unless a lateral force pushes it sideways.
SLIDE ROYAL GORGE: There are other factors besides following the path of least resistance. An object can’t just move itself into the path of least resistance. Here is a river in Colorado that carved itself through a gradually uplifting mountainous area, plowing itself through a path of most resistance, when just a few miles away the river could have followed a path of much less resistance over a flat surface.
Rebuts: REASON # EARTHQUAKE in the absence of any lateral forces acting on the falling mass, gravity will cause the mass to collapse straight down.
Face:
REASON # an object can’t just float to the side and into midair and drop that way just because it would be the path of least resistance. Box example, now separated.
REASON # ...Thomas Eagar: “The building is 95 percent air and can implode onto itself. A 200,000 ton structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.”
Slides:
REASON # as Michael Brown states: “The buildings did not fall down perfectly straight. Their collapses were tilted toward the weakened collapse points.” SLIDE OF BUILDING TILTING TOWARDS EAST PENTHOUSE If it were ctl demo it wouldn’t tilt like that.
SLIDE OF THESE REASONS
The east and west faces collapsed more asymmetrically than the north face. There was no visible or auditory sign of explosion directly triggering collapse. Squat building, wider than it was high, even less likely that asymmetyrical destruction would happen cuz even greater lateral forces required. One of the peerimweter walls very inconveniently folded whole on top of everything else.
WTC 7 didn’t fall in its own footprint, there was extensive damage to Fiterman Hall and $1.4 billion in damage to the Verizon building.
Richard talks about the convenient sizes of the broken column pieces, which by the way were similar to the size of original pieces prior to assembly, but has he ever talked to a first responder who said there was anything convenient about the removal of the WTC rubble? I have, and 911 firefighter Vincent Palmieri personally told me that “Richard Gage has claimed in his presentations that the steel columns were conveniently broken into 30-foot pieces by the thermitic destruction for easy and quick removal. As a first responder, I can assure you that there was nothing convenient about the debris pile we encountered in the fall of 2001. Such a claim is absolutely inaccurate.”
If classic controlled demo, then would fall more neatly in own footprint. debris flew 16 acres around; the Verizon Building had $1.4 billion in damage. Does Richard have any other examples of successful “controlled demolitions” that were this sloppy?
The Controlled Demolition folks have told me that the nanothermitic explosions would not have gone off until triggered by a radio signal, even at very high temperatures. I would need to do some serious research to see if these new nanothermites can really remain UNREACTIVE DURING A 1400 DEGREE FIRE??? Even former controlled demolition employee and 911 activist Tom Sulliavan says this would be impossible. And what kind of RADIO RECEIVER would survive the raging fires at the crash points and receive the signal to trigger the collapse at precisely the right time? Firefighters reported that after the crashes there were lots of problems with their radio reception. Would that problem have also existed for the secret nanothermitic radio receivers?
Also, there are at least some differences among the collapses of the three buildings. They didn’t really collapse straight into their own footprint. In Tower Two, the jet hit the building at much more of an angle. That angular collision caused this building to fall in a somewhat asymmetrical way, where the top tilted a bit and then followed the rest of the building’s path to complete collapse. These differences are not insignificant. In all three buildings, the fires got hot enough (at 1400 degrees) to cause the steel to lose its structural strength. There are many websites that talk about this; type in “fracture and deformation of materials” in your favorite search engine. The horizontal steel beams bowed downward because massive gravitational forces were pulling them downward in the middle. Imagine the steel beams bowing downward as the 1200-14000 heat softens the steel and causes it to lose structural integrity. That would have pulled the buildings inward as they collapsed. In Building Seven, smoke was pouring out of most of the side of the building facing the now-destroyed WTC Towers. (see picture). There was resistance to vertical fire spread, but the fireproofing of the building was eventually no match for the flames that raged out of control for several hours after the firefighters were unable to pour any more water on it, and near the end of the seven hours of burning, the fires probably jumped from floor to floor.
Finally, let’s talk about gaining Access for Secret Preparations for this Controlled Demolition.
If your gut tells you it would be impossible to secretly prepare for a controlled demolition in a building where over 40,000 workers are coming and going day and night working the New York, London and Tokyo stock exchanges, you are right. NIST says 1/4 of all 1993 WTC attack survivors were still working at WTC in Sept of 2001, and told stories. These were highly secure buildings with a massively worried workforce.
The tallest building ever demolished was 26 stories. 12 people worked 24 days doing loading explosives. The World Trade Center would require 24 times more work per building-- in secret, with tens of thousands of nervous workers around.
SHAPED CHARGES SLIDE Former Controlled demolition employee and advocate Tom Sullivan says shape charges would be used (necessary for lateral ejection). That would have required welding torches etc. Smell and noise of setup.
The outer structural supports were right by most desirable offices on outside perimeter (most concrete pulverized, squibs, etc).
Explosives would be too loud. Less loud devices wouldn’t eject steel. That big stuff that was ejected should have been pulverized by global nanothermites. You Can’t have both ways. Remote controls in the core would have had a hard time receiving the trigger signals amidst the aftermath of the plane crashes and inside of an acre of structural steel per floor
.
If nanothermites were painted on, then what about receivers and detonators? Those still have to be installed everywhere. They’d be Knocking out walls, poking holes everywhere, placing demolition materials in precise places as Tom Sullivan said. Ctl demo prep requires complete control of the building for prep of destruction to get it just right..
Sometimes I hear it would take only a tiny handful of people to set this demolition up, and other times I hear people speculating that a huge operation like this would have required the coordination of hundreds of people. How many people in how many departments do you think might have been involved to pull this off? If you believe in the controlled demolition theory, I ask that you take out a sheet of paper and start counting all the people you suspect are part of this coverup. Don’t forget to include the Mayor and several of his assistants, Fire and Police Chiefs and their assistants, the building owner, the BBC, the governor and staff, the phony man-on-the-street interviewees, the elevator repair people, the security guards, the guys who trained the bomb-sniffing digs, Popular Mechanics, Structured, the History Channel, and National Geographic Magazines, United and American Airlines people, at least one major controlled demolition firm, the guy who runs WikiLeaks, NIST, FEMA, NPR, PBS, Fox News, the CIA, the FBI, the military, and several other layers of the Federal, State and Local Governments, if you suspect they may have been in on it. Add the people I may have forgotten to mention.
Some controlled demolition advocates even believe owner Larry Silverstein admitted to being in on the decision to pull Building 7, supposedly a term used by controlled demolition experts. But it’s also a term used by firefighters to mean retreat, to pull firefighters out of the collapse zone, and Silverstein was talking to first responders, not controlled demolition people. If Larry Silverstein admitted to demolition, would insurance companies have given him billions? They were looking for excuses not to pay him, and at first threatened to deny his claims because Bush declared the 911 attacks an act of war--- and acts of war are not covered on his policy!
It’s worth remembering too that many of the “suspects” listed as possible conspirators are military people and first responders who have already agreed to die for their country. At least some of those tough souls could not be as easily terrorized due to their military discipline and patriotism. And among the hundreds of cowardly civilians on that list, one person getting a diagnosis of terminal cancer and deciding to reveal the truth because they’re going to die anyway and didn’t want to go to hell with this unatoned sin on the consciences would blow the whole cover.
I’m not telling you how big the conspiracy would have to be, I’m asking you to answer this question yourself and come up with a concrete numerical estimate. For most 911 activists I’ve talked to, the number of people they suspect is anywhere from several hundred to tens of thousands. Now look at that number and ask yourself, can 100% of these people be trusted to keep this horrific act of treason against the American people a secret? Take a breath and look at that list again. Now do a reality check. Is it even possible to hide this in the era of WikiLeaks, blogs, and a worldwide media net?
9/11 Controlled Demolition theorists tell us that large percentages of people believe their theory, but the most recent Zogby poll I brought up from 2008 showed that 4.2% of Americans believe the government made 9/11 happen and 26.5% believe the government let it happen. That 26.5% is probably caused by the many articles about Bush ignoring his National Security briefings. Very few people believe in the controlled demolition theory, even among groups of people with strong anti-government sentiments. Is this because people are afraid of the truth, or could it be that the controlled demolition theory flies in the face of common sense, especially when it comes to the first question everyone seems to ask: how could they have put the bombs in there in the first place? I believe the common sense answer and the correct answer are the same: THEY CAN’T.
In Part 15, we will finally look at the freefall collapse of Building Seven. This is one of Richard Gage’s most important debating points, so we’re going to take our time and explain it very carefully. NIST didn’t have an answer for me on why Building 7 went into freefall for 2.25 seconds, but several physicists and structural engineers finally explained it to me in a way that I can explain it to you. Thanks for watching.
C WTC7 fire: number and size of fires? Part 14
Then symmetrical destruction/least resistance
Gaining access
Hi gang,
Here we go with Part 14. This will be a lot more interesting than who gives who permission to have opinions, I promise! I am writing in a style to force me to look at the camera more, so don't worry about incomplete sentences... just check my ideas.
Slide Intro
Face: We are now on part 14 of my respectful rebuttal of Richard Gage’s 911 video, Blueprint for Truth. In this section we’ll talk about the number and size of the fires, the symmetrical destruction of Building 7, and gaining secret access to all three buildings to prepare them for a controlled demolition.
Gage asserts that the Building 7 fires were not severe enough to cause a fast global collapse. He reminds us that no plane hit Building 7, that no major structural damage was caused by the debris from the Twin Towers collapses, and that no tall steel framed structure had ever collapsed due to fire before. That last claim lost a lot of its force in 2008, when a tall concrete reinforced steel-framed building at Delft University in the Netherlands collapsed at a very high rate of speed mostly straight down into its own footprint due to fire alone, as I have shown in an earlier installment here.
Richard and his fellow controlled demolition advocates tend to minimize the fire damage by quoting the NIST Report itself, which reports fires they can actually observe as open flames in photos and videos, even though the fires inside the structure may not have been visible. Richard also contrasts videos and photos of huge fires in steel-framed buildings with the NYPD picture of the north face of Building 7, on the side where the fires were least severe.
2 SLIDES: Which side gets shown? NIST showed all sides, 911 Truth videos show north face.
1) WTC 7 likely had points of origin on (10) floors; 3) water supply to fight fires in WTC 7 was impaired; and 4) in WTC 7, no efforts were made to fight the fires.
Eyewitness: Chris Boyle... it was a huge hole right in the middle of it.
Here’s a SLIDE of first responders walking over cool debris while the Building 7 fire rages behind them.
2 VIDEOS, let’s watch how much debris hit Building 7 and the damage it caused, While BBC was mistakenly reporting the predicted collapse of Building 7 as a fait acompli, I was watching ABC correctly reporting a prediction of imminent possible collapse. They had this live video which I saw that day when I was glued to the television.
FINAL BURNING VIDEO
As you can see from this video, fires raged on many but not all floors. The very top floors don’t show much fire, which is consistent with NIST’s claim that collapsing columns on the lower floors caused the collapse of the East Penthouse on top.
Pictures and videos from the north face don’t show much damage to Building 7, yet those are the images I usually see on the 911 videos and lectures. I am concerned that these other images aren’t shown because the 911 presenters want to minimize the damage that actually happened. In our March 6 debate, Richard also said these pix show smoke but no fire. When the fires first started on the south face of Building 7, people were running for their lives and the dust was blocking the view anyway. Then the fires started moving to the interior of the building. Is he suggesting that all that smoke wasn’t evidence of fire?
1453.) R Symmetrical destruction / path of least resistance
Richard Gage also asserts that Building 7 had a nearly symmetrical collapse, which is true. But he also asserts that a natural fire collapse would topple like buildings in an earthquake, which is not true. The Delft University tower collapse of 2008 was natural and it went straight down, because gravity is a natural force that tends to pull things straight down unless a lateral force pushes it sideways.
SLIDE ROYAL GORGE: There are other factors besides following the path of least resistance. An object can’t just move itself into the path of least resistance. Here is a river in Colorado that carved itself through a gradually uplifting mountainous area, plowing itself through a path of most resistance, when just a few miles away the river could have followed a path of much less resistance over a flat surface.
Rebuts: REASON # EARTHQUAKE in the absence of any lateral forces acting on the falling mass, gravity will cause the mass to collapse straight down.
Face:
REASON # an object can’t just float to the side and into midair and drop that way just because it would be the path of least resistance. Box example, now separated.
REASON # ...Thomas Eagar: “The building is 95 percent air and can implode onto itself. A 200,000 ton structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.”
Slides:
REASON # as Michael Brown states: “The buildings did not fall down perfectly straight. Their collapses were tilted toward the weakened collapse points.” SLIDE OF BUILDING TILTING TOWARDS EAST PENTHOUSE If it were ctl demo it wouldn’t tilt like that.
SLIDE OF THESE REASONS
The east and west faces collapsed more asymmetrically than the north face. There was no visible or auditory sign of explosion directly triggering collapse. Squat building, wider than it was high, even less likely that asymmetyrical destruction would happen cuz even greater lateral forces required. One of the peerimweter walls very inconveniently folded whole on top of everything else.
WTC 7 didn’t fall in its own footprint, there was extensive damage to Fiterman Hall and $1.4 billion in damage to the Verizon building.
Richard talks about the convenient sizes of the broken column pieces, which by the way were similar to the size of original pieces prior to assembly, but has he ever talked to a first responder who said there was anything convenient about the removal of the WTC rubble? I have, and 911 firefighter Vincent Palmieri personally told me that “Richard Gage has claimed in his presentations that the steel columns were conveniently broken into 30-foot pieces by the thermitic destruction for easy and quick removal. As a first responder, I can assure you that there was nothing convenient about the debris pile we encountered in the fall of 2001. Such a claim is absolutely inaccurate.”
If classic controlled demo, then would fall more neatly in own footprint. debris flew 16 acres around; the Verizon Building had $1.4 billion in damage. Does Richard have any other examples of successful “controlled demolitions” that were this sloppy?
The Controlled Demolition folks have told me that the nanothermitic explosions would not have gone off until triggered by a radio signal, even at very high temperatures. I would need to do some serious research to see if these new nanothermites can really remain UNREACTIVE DURING A 1400 DEGREE FIRE??? Even former controlled demolition employee and 911 activist Tom Sulliavan says this would be impossible. And what kind of RADIO RECEIVER would survive the raging fires at the crash points and receive the signal to trigger the collapse at precisely the right time? Firefighters reported that after the crashes there were lots of problems with their radio reception. Would that problem have also existed for the secret nanothermitic radio receivers?
Also, there are at least some differences among the collapses of the three buildings. They didn’t really collapse straight into their own footprint. In Tower Two, the jet hit the building at much more of an angle. That angular collision caused this building to fall in a somewhat asymmetrical way, where the top tilted a bit and then followed the rest of the building’s path to complete collapse. These differences are not insignificant. In all three buildings, the fires got hot enough (at 1400 degrees) to cause the steel to lose its structural strength. There are many websites that talk about this; type in “fracture and deformation of materials” in your favorite search engine. The horizontal steel beams bowed downward because massive gravitational forces were pulling them downward in the middle. Imagine the steel beams bowing downward as the 1200-14000 heat softens the steel and causes it to lose structural integrity. That would have pulled the buildings inward as they collapsed. In Building Seven, smoke was pouring out of most of the side of the building facing the now-destroyed WTC Towers. (see picture). There was resistance to vertical fire spread, but the fireproofing of the building was eventually no match for the flames that raged out of control for several hours after the firefighters were unable to pour any more water on it, and near the end of the seven hours of burning, the fires probably jumped from floor to floor.
Finally, let’s talk about gaining Access for Secret Preparations for this Controlled Demolition.
If your gut tells you it would be impossible to secretly prepare for a controlled demolition in a building where over 40,000 workers are coming and going day and night working the New York, London and Tokyo stock exchanges, you are right. NIST says 1/4 of all 1993 WTC attack survivors were still working at WTC in Sept of 2001, and told stories. These were highly secure buildings with a massively worried workforce.
The tallest building ever demolished was 26 stories. 12 people worked 24 days doing loading explosives. The World Trade Center would require 24 times more work per building-- in secret, with tens of thousands of nervous workers around.
SHAPED CHARGES SLIDE Former Controlled demolition employee and advocate Tom Sullivan says shape charges would be used (necessary for lateral ejection). That would have required welding torches etc. Smell and noise of setup.
The outer structural supports were right by most desirable offices on outside perimeter (most concrete pulverized, squibs, etc).
Explosives would be too loud. Less loud devices wouldn’t eject steel. That big stuff that was ejected should have been pulverized by global nanothermites. You Can’t have both ways. Remote controls in the core would have had a hard time receiving the trigger signals amidst the aftermath of the plane crashes and inside of an acre of structural steel per floor
.
If nanothermites were painted on, then what about receivers and detonators? Those still have to be installed everywhere. They’d be Knocking out walls, poking holes everywhere, placing demolition materials in precise places as Tom Sullivan said. Ctl demo prep requires complete control of the building for prep of destruction to get it just right..
Sometimes I hear it would take only a tiny handful of people to set this demolition up, and other times I hear people speculating that a huge operation like this would have required the coordination of hundreds of people. How many people in how many departments do you think might have been involved to pull this off? If you believe in the controlled demolition theory, I ask that you take out a sheet of paper and start counting all the people you suspect are part of this coverup. Don’t forget to include the Mayor and several of his assistants, Fire and Police Chiefs and their assistants, the building owner, the BBC, the governor and staff, the phony man-on-the-street interviewees, the elevator repair people, the security guards, the guys who trained the bomb-sniffing digs, Popular Mechanics, Structured, the History Channel, and National Geographic Magazines, United and American Airlines people, at least one major controlled demolition firm, the guy who runs WikiLeaks, NIST, FEMA, NPR, PBS, Fox News, the CIA, the FBI, the military, and several other layers of the Federal, State and Local Governments, if you suspect they may have been in on it. Add the people I may have forgotten to mention.
Some controlled demolition advocates even believe owner Larry Silverstein admitted to being in on the decision to pull Building 7, supposedly a term used by controlled demolition experts. But it’s also a term used by firefighters to mean retreat, to pull firefighters out of the collapse zone, and Silverstein was talking to first responders, not controlled demolition people. If Larry Silverstein admitted to demolition, would insurance companies have given him billions? They were looking for excuses not to pay him, and at first threatened to deny his claims because Bush declared the 911 attacks an act of war--- and acts of war are not covered on his policy!
It’s worth remembering too that many of the “suspects” listed as possible conspirators are military people and first responders who have already agreed to die for their country. At least some of those tough souls could not be as easily terrorized due to their military discipline and patriotism. And among the hundreds of cowardly civilians on that list, one person getting a diagnosis of terminal cancer and deciding to reveal the truth because they’re going to die anyway and didn’t want to go to hell with this unatoned sin on the consciences would blow the whole cover.
I’m not telling you how big the conspiracy would have to be, I’m asking you to answer this question yourself and come up with a concrete numerical estimate. For most 911 activists I’ve talked to, the number of people they suspect is anywhere from several hundred to tens of thousands. Now look at that number and ask yourself, can 100% of these people be trusted to keep this horrific act of treason against the American people a secret? Take a breath and look at that list again. Now do a reality check. Is it even possible to hide this in the era of WikiLeaks, blogs, and a worldwide media net?
9/11 Controlled Demolition theorists tell us that large percentages of people believe their theory, but the most recent Zogby poll I brought up from 2008 showed that 4.2% of Americans believe the government made 9/11 happen and 26.5% believe the government let it happen. That 26.5% is probably caused by the many articles about Bush ignoring his National Security briefings. Very few people believe in the controlled demolition theory, even among groups of people with strong anti-government sentiments. Is this because people are afraid of the truth, or could it be that the controlled demolition theory flies in the face of common sense, especially when it comes to the first question everyone seems to ask: how could they have put the bombs in there in the first place? I believe the common sense answer and the correct answer are the same: THEY CAN’T.
In Part 15, we will finally look at the freefall collapse of Building Seven. This is one of Richard Gage’s most important debating points, so we’re going to take our time and explain it very carefully. NIST didn’t have an answer for me on why Building 7 went into freefall for 2.25 seconds, but several physicists and structural engineers finally explained it to me in a way that I can explain it to you. Thanks for watching.
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
You can't just declare this "true". What kind of symmetry are we talking about - reflexional, rotational, translational? To what degree was it symmetric? Symmetry in complex real world events can never be perfect. It is really more a matter of opinion than fact that WTC7 collapsed symmetrically. Seen from above, it twisted, with the east part falling across the street to the north, and the west part falling across the street to the south, making the eastern south face and western north face fall into the footprint. Or vice versa - I don't remember at this moment which way the building twisted. So if there was symmetrical collapse, it was rotational symmetry. I bet you that is NOT what Gage has in mind.
Please define what Gage means by symmetrical collapse, or don't label it as "true".
My guess is that Gage means "the collapse of the upper half of north face looks pretty clean". But even some available video shows how that face twisted towards the end.
Harrit's paper has answers to this: They quote Tillotson who studied real nanothermite; that stuff ignited at 530°C/985°F; Harrit's own sample (which of course isn't nanothermite at all, but Gage believes it is, so you can quote the figure for him as a problem of his theory) ignited even earlier, around 440°C/825°F. So there's your answer, right from AE911's own dear science sources: Nanothermite could never survive even moderate office fires.
I don't know what the NIST report says on this, but I suggest that the structural damage caused by the WTC1 collapse compromised the resistance to vertical fire spread on the south side.
I'd love to know how much explosives (total mass in kg or lb) they used there... Or the Landmark Tower in Fort Worth. You don't happen to have a fact sheet, eh?
This paragraph seems a little ... less than thought out...
The idea of painted-on thermite fails much more severly on the simple fact that ordinary layer thickness of paint would represent so little thermite compared to column strength that the steel would only get slightly warm, not hot enough to significantly lose strength or even melt.
Careful with the wording: It is mot true that "the building" "went into freefall for 2.25 seconds"! Only a part of the north face did, with everything else hidden from view, but known to have been collapsing earlier than the north face!
chrismohr
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2011
- Messages
- 2,080
Post 1108: Chris7 has photos showing the fires on the east side of the north face of Building 7. I offered an alternative thermal compression hypothesis, and others explained it with other hypotheses like fires INSIDE the building and the fact that the fires could have put that part of the building at a near-tilt point where very little movement could have finished it off. All good possibilities, but I want to know, Chris7 and others, if the fire simulation C7 shows of NIST's is actually of Floor 12 at 4 pm and if it comes from the final 2008 report? If so, the honest thing to do is to show that NIST's simulations were not always in alignment with the photographic evidence, because that specific simulation shows fires where the photos do not. "Fraudulent?" I don't think so. But if I am reading this right, you have caught a clear inaccuracy. As long as I am talking about the burning in this section... Comments anyone?
DaveThomasNMSR
Muse
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2010
- Messages
- 877
Chris Mohr, even if the fires were actually extinguished around the critical 12th-floor area at around 5 PM or later, by no means does that prove "controlled demolition." The flip side of thermal expansion (upon heating up) is thermal contraction (upon cooling down). Both can be dangerous if we're talking about the seating of columns and beams and such.
I'm no expert, but David Scott, past Chairman of the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH), certainly is. Here's what he had to say back in October, 2008:
That whole page is worth reading. C7 shows up at the end of the thread, and ends up killing it.
Good luck, Dave
Last edited:
chrismohr
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2011
- Messages
- 2,080
Hi Dave,
I did read this whole page. And yes, I will be very clear that catching a possible inaccuracy in the NIST Report, or the kind of disagreements CTBUH talks about, does not in any way prove controlled demolition. At most it shows room for improvement in the NIST Report, which would be of interest mostly to people interested in safer building designs in the future.
With that in mind, did Chris7 catch an error in the NIST Report?
I did read this whole page. And yes, I will be very clear that catching a possible inaccuracy in the NIST Report, or the kind of disagreements CTBUH talks about, does not in any way prove controlled demolition. At most it shows room for improvement in the NIST Report, which would be of interest mostly to people interested in safer building designs in the future.
With that in mind, did Chris7 catch an error in the NIST Report?
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
I think you'd be better off saying "which is meaningless." There's no such thing as "nearly symmetrical", any more than there's any such thing as "nearly pregnant"; it is or it isn't. We know that WTC7 collapsed downwards, so there's no symmetry in the vertical direction. We know that it rotated southwards as it fell, and that the north face developed a visible kink off-centre as the column failures progressed outwards from the initial point of failure, so there's no symmetry in any horizontal direction. And, more absurdly, we know that controlled demolitions don't necessarily produce symmetrical collapses; if there are structures close to one side of the building, the collapse will be controlled so that the building falls the other way. The whole "symmetrical collapse" argument is meaningless nonsense, both in terms of the incorrect statement it makes about the actual collapse, and in the unfounded inferences drawn from that misinformation.
I presume you mean the J. L. Hudson department store in Detroit. I believe this actually had 33 storeys, of which 29 were above grade. I assume you've seen the Controlled Demolition Inc. website's page on this demolition, but I'd like to recommend it to anyone else reading the thread as a fascinating source of information on how real demolitions work.
Dave
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
I think the J.L. Hudson is not a good point of reference. It was a pretty complicated structure, ("built in 12 separate stages") and hailed from quite a different age ("the first in 1911 and the last in 1946"). "(T)here were 33 levels in the structure" does not necessarily imply it was a 33-story building - sometimes you have levels that are semi-floors. Like two sections of the building shifted by half a floor.
We may well speculate that this complex and old structure required more effort and maybe some more overkill than a clean, more modern highrise design. I think the 30-story Landmark Tower in Fort Worth would provide a better reference.
Here is a good article with plenty of technical data on the implosion:
http://www.dhgt.com/PDF/A talented team of demolition experts.pdf
For example:
So we learn here that a 30-story, 115m tall, roughly 30x30m wide building required 364 pounds of high explosives. These came in charges of up to 12 ounces. These (12 ounce or smaller) charges sounded like this:
Freakingly, awesomely loud!
The twin towers each had four times the floor area and more than 3 times the height of the Landmark. At a bare minimum, they would have required 4 times as much explosives, coming in considerably larger charges (with the columns being much stronger for the much heavier building).
Here is more technical data on the Landmark Tower:
http://www.emporis.com/application/?nav=building&lng=3&id=122391
(Although I slightly doubt this particular information)
Disbelief
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2007
- Messages
- 3,606
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
Chris Mohr, even if the fires were actually extinguished around the critical 12th-floor area at around 5 PM or later, by no means does that prove "controlled demolition." The flip side of thermal expansion (upon heating up) is thermal contraction (upon cooling down). Both can be dangerous if we're talking about the seating of columns and beams and such.
I'm no expert, but David Scott, past Chairman of the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH), certainly is. Here's what he had to say back in October, 2008:
That whole page is worth reading. C7 shows up at the end of the thread, and ends up killing it.
Good luck, Dave
Not to beat things into the ground, but Mr. Scott also had this to say:
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
Oh, here's the complete quote, plus a link to the original source for what I posted above:
http://wtc.nist.gov/comments08/CTBUHwtc7comments.pdf
http://wtc.nist.gov/comments08/CTBUHwtc7comments.pdf
DaveThomasNMSR
Muse
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2010
- Messages
- 877
All that Chris 7 has actually found are scientists considering multiple working hypotheses while trying to solve a difficult, complex problem.
The fire simulations appear on Chapter 9, Volume 2, page 384 (46 of 392 in the PDF report) and the following page. This includes the diagram C7 mentioned in his posts such as this one. If you look at the photos C7 presented, along with the fire simulations, you'll see they're not that far apart after all. While I don't see a lot of flames coming out of the 12th floor windows at ~4:00 PM (Figure 5-141, page 227 of Vol 1, = page 271 of 404 in the PDF Report), I do see smoke coming out of some of them, and think that shows the fires were pretty close to the north wall at the time, in agreement with the NIST simulations.
These comments in Volume 1, page 4 (48 of 404 in the PDF Report) are important:
(I tried to copy into text, but the PDF didn't allow that...)
Cheers, Dave