I found the missing Jolt.

[Tony Szamboti]

The "gash" in the south face of 7 WTC is a void where Column #20 should be.

[qimg]https://www.metabunk.org/data/MetaMirrorCache/e85a775bef42578084f03a96a022ac93.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://i.imgur.com/1E4Wrej.png[/qimg]

This gash could not have caused the simultaneous free fall by all four corners of the roof of the building, so your point is moot and essentially non-explanatory with respect to the collapse.

 

[JSanderO]

The plane took out no more than 15% of the columns and the fires were not sufficient to do much more as NIST found no evidence of high temperatures on the steel.

Again, your comments are based on poppycock, just like your thinking the core of WTC 7 had just 15 columns.

Heat weakens and it expands... expansion can shear bolts and welds. Once the plane parets destroyed a few columns... there lateral restraint was removed and heat probably caused unrestrained beams push the columns and destroy the bearing and alignment at the splices.

The elevator "core" of 7wtc had 15 columns... there were additional 9 columns which were outside the elevator core but in the area between the elevator core and the perimeter... such as col 78,79,80

 

[Dave Rogers]

While I said I wasn't going to respond directly to Tony until he explained why he was lying, I see he's continuing to tell outright, blatant, provable lies. Post #379 alone would be enough to destroy his credibility if he had any.

Dave

 

[Axxman300]

While I said I wasn't going to respond directly to Tony until he explained why he was lying, I see he's continuing to tell outright, blatant, provable lies. Post #379 alone would be enough to destroy his credibility if he had any.

Dave

I sank his battleship.

 

[beachnut]

The plane took out no more than 15% of the columns and the fires were not sufficient to do much more as NIST found no evidence of high temperatures on the steel.

Again, your comments are based on poppycock, just like your thinking the core of WTC 7 had just 15 columns.

Poppycock is the claim of CD without evidence. Case closed.

The fires were more than sufficient, providing the heat of 2,700 tons of thermite before collapse. Did your MIB fantasy version of CD use 2,700 tons of thermite for heat? Or was it silent explosives?

Wait, you added it could be secret invisible hydraulic CD. What next?

You deny the fires were hot enough, to do damage, yet fires cause damage in ordinary office fires not started with 10,000 gallons of accelerant.

Gee, a fire fought caused this, and WTC towers fire and 7 WTC fires not fought.

Reality
[IMGw=500]http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/onemeridiansag.jpg[/IMGw]
vs your cold fire can't damage steel fantasy CD, inside job, aircraft ruse, just wow

The way you imagine fire, the picture you project is for One Meridian Plaza, they could have moved back in to the offices... yet fire totaled the building. Fire totaled the WTC, it collapsed. And you have no evidence, no suspects, no nothing for CD.

How are core columns standing part of the constant acceleration nonsense? The constant acceleration is an average of the collapse, and the speed, is due to the failure in turn of each floor destroyed by the falling debris, which means physics supports a gravity collapse.

What is missing from the CD fantasy, reality based supersonic shock waves from explosives; damage to steel from explosives; visual blasts not seen on 9/11.

We have a movement ignore the energy of collapse of the towers which is more energy than 100 2,000 pound bombs. Over 100 times more energy than the 93 WTC bombing; this is completely ignored so 911 truth can lie about CD with some far fetch fantasy of people planting silent explosives, or thermite which leaves no product. Or invisible hydraulic stuff... really

... You are right that Verinage type techniques could have been used. We don't know for sure and that is why I usually say "some form of demolition devices were used". ...

Got no evidence, but I noes it was CD, I noes "some form of demolition devices were used". lol - no evidence, just noes its true.

 

[jaydeehess]

I don't think any of the telltale signs of coherent discussion are observed in what you and many others write on this forum trying to deny the three obvious high-rise controlled demolitions that occurred in NYC on Sept. 11, 2001.
We are living in a La La Land with this farce and people like you are unwittingly trying to keep it from being fully exposed for what it was. Your comments on the collapses are nothing short of ridiculous.

This is really odd. For years now we have been seeing from various truthers how so very obvious it is that the WTC structures (well only those three that were completely flattened on 9/11/01) were controlled demolitions involving the use of high explosives to bring about said destruction.
YET, no truly professional structural engineering group or community, no engineering school, and no forensic fire engineering group, has ever agreed with this characterization of the events in question.

Why, Tony, why is it so very difficult for you or AE911T to convince the professional engineering community of "three obvious high-rise controlled demolitions"? While it may well be that the majority of professional structural engineers have not been exposed to the claims of AE911T, it is far from reasonable top expect that this applies to having seen videos of the collapses of at least WTC 1 & 2. One would have to have been living under a rock this past 15 years not to have seen those.
You would have us believe that all one need do is look at it and notice the "three obvious high-rise controlled demolitions", but only a small cadre of true believers seem to see that.

 

[jaydeehess]

The plane took out no more than 15% of the columns and the fires were not sufficient to do much more as NIST found no evidence of high temperatures on the steel.
.

WOW, that's a parsing of what NIST found that crosses the line into lie of omission.

NIST tested steel that it could identify precisely where it was in the original towers. For the steel in the heart of the fire areas, that identification was not possible due to damage to the ID markings. For steel that had had mechanical damage in the collapse that obliterated the markings used for that identification, it was again not possible.

Why did NIST test steel not directly within the highest temp areas? Because they could not positively identify steel that came from those areas AND because this testing was being used to check against the data from the fire spread/intensity predicted by the computer programs.

NIST did test steel, steel they knew exactly where it was during the fire, and compared the temp reached by that steel against the temp of steel, in those areas, predicted in the models
AND
found the computer model to sufficiently match the physical evidence generated by the steel testing.
THUS: the computer program is validated for its predictions in those areas.
THUS: the computer program can be expected to be valid for other, higher temp areas.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

While I said I wasn't going to respond directly to Tony until he explained why he was lying, I see he's continuing to tell outright, blatant, provable lies. Post #379 alone would be enough to destroy his credibility if he had any.

Dave

Dave, you continue to cast aspersions with no basis. You would be the liar by continuing to say the buildings came down due to natural causes especially after having been exposed to the significant evidence that it couldn't possibly be the case.

Facetiously being called a liar by a serious liar like yourself really doesn't hurt anyone you do it to.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

WOW, that's a parsing of what NIST found that crosses the line into lie of omission.

NIST tested steel that it could identify precisely where it was in the original towers. For the steel in the heart of the fire areas, that identification was not possible due to damage to the ID markings. For steel that had had mechanical damage in the collapse that obliterated the markings used for that identification, it was again not possible.

Why did NIST test steel not directly within the highest temp areas? Because they could not positively identify steel that came from those areas AND because this testing was being used to check against the data from the fire spread/intensity predicted by the computer programs.

NIST did test steel, steel they knew exactly where it was during the fire, and compared the temp reached by that steel against the temp of steel, in those areas, predicted in the models
AND
found the computer model to sufficiently match the physical evidence generated by the steel testing.
THUS: the computer program is validated for its predictions in those areas.
THUS: the computer program can be expected to be valid for other, higher temp areas.

Hey, Mr. WTC 7 has 15 core columns, instead of wasting everyone's time with half-baked thoughts based on insufficient knowledge, why don't you go download and study the drawings and read the reports for a while and come back in a few months when you might have something intelligent to say.

 

[jaydeehess]

Heat weakens and it expands... expansion can shear bolts and welds. Once the plane parets destroyed a few columns... there lateral restraint was removed and heat probably caused unrestrained beams push the columns and destroy the bearing and alignment at the splices.

The elevator "core" of 7wtc had 15 columns... there were additional 9 columns which were outside the elevator core but in the area between the elevator core and the perimeter... such as col 78,79,80

Let TSz have the extra columns JSO. It simply adds to the explosives he requires to go off. Explosives that are simply not recorded on any media, explosives that did not eject dust out already broken windows or manage to break more windows.

(though lordy lordy, one should have expected the later two items to have occurred in great number upon the infalling and crash trough to lower floors, of the EPH)

 

[jaydeehess]

WOW, that's a parsing of what NIST found that crosses the line into lie of omission.

NIST tested steel that it could identify precisely where it was in the original towers. For the steel in the heart of the fire areas, that identification was not possible due to damage to the ID markings. For steel that had had mechanical damage in the collapse that obliterated the markings used for that identification, it was again not possible.

Why did NIST test steel not directly within the highest temp areas? Because they could not positively identify steel that came from those areas AND because this testing was being used to check against the data from the fire spread/intensity predicted by the computer programs.

NIST did test steel, steel they knew exactly where it was during the fire, and compared the temp reached by that steel against the temp of steel, in those areas, predicted in the models
AND
found the computer model to sufficiently match the physical evidence generated by the steel testing.
THUS: the computer program is validated for its predictions in those areas.
THUS: the computer program can be expected to be valid for other, higher temp areas.

Hey, Mr. WTC 7 has 15 core columns, instead of wasting everyone's time with half-baked thoughts based on insufficient knowledge, why don't you go download and study the drawings and read the reports for a while and come back in a few months when you might have something intelligent to say.

Once again Tony, you quote a post of mine and then have absolutely nothing whatsoever to say about it.

That post concerned the towers, not WTC 7.
The post in which I took JSO at face value on the number of columns had, as its subject, the number of explosives YOUR scenario must include. Since then you have tried to pooh pooh this on the basis that I had the number of columns too low. The irony seems to escape you that all this does is INCREASE the number of explosives going off within milliseconds of each other. A point that you continue to evade in your typical bombastic style.
You're fooling no one.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Let TSz have the extra columns JSO. It simply adds to the explosives he requires to go off. Explosives that are simply not recorded on any media, explosives that did not eject dust out already broken windows or manage to break more windows.

(though lordy lordy, one should have expected the later two items to have occurred in great number upon the infalling and crash trough to lower floors, of the EPH)

There was plenty of dust ejected out of broken windows in WTC 7 once the exterior came down, meaning it came down just a split second after the core and not after some fictitious east to west progressive collapse that would have taken many seconds to happen beforehand.

If the EPH collapse was caused by a complete interior collapse on the east side there should have been a lot of dust coming out of the windows on the east side. There wasn't and that is because there was no complete interior collapse on the east side or anywhere else until the core was brought down as a whole for a large number of stories a fraction of a second before the exterior came down.

 

[jaydeehess]

WTC 7 had 15 core columns IIRC... 3 rows of 5....there were several to the east of the core..and to the west... total 9... the remaining were the moment frame at the perimeter.

15 X 8 = 120 TSz explosives charges set simultaneously or close t o each other.
No one's going to hear that right?

No, it was 24 core columns with three rows of eight columns each. If you had the NIST WTC 7 report or a set of drawings you could look it up. Don't you have the report and/or a set of the released drawings?

There were 58 perimeter columns.

So in round numbers, being somewhat parsimonious, thats 's upwards of 500 explosives charges that just were not all that loud.

It sounds like you have no argument against the point that the dynamics of the collapse of WTC 7 show it had to be controlled demolition.

I find it interesting that you didn't even know how many core columns were in WTC 7 when you first said it would be 15 columns x 8 stories above (after JsanderO showed he didn't know either). It is somewhat telling.

Actually My post came AFTER JSO's (as seen above), and after which I upped the number upon your correction, but before/after, cause/effect, might be difficult for you.

Actually that has been addressed several times by different posters, including me. just not in the post you quoted.
Your quoting my post above, and then simply ignoring it demonstrates that you have no explanation as to why well upwards of 500 near simultaneous explosive detonations did not get recorded on any media, blow windows out of WTC 7 or eject dust.


I took JSO's numbers at face value and note the correction by multiple posters, including you. I also note that although the corrected numbers simply INCREASE the number of supposed explosive detonations, you have decided to continue to ignore the niggling detail of "hush-a-booms".

So, now after posting on the topic several times, and having been corrected by Mr.Szamboti about the higher number of explosives required, will we see it addressed? Tune in soon to find out.

 

[jaydeehess]

There was plenty of dust ejected out of broken windows in WTC 7 once the exterior came down, meaning it came down just a split second after the core and not after some fictitious east to west progressive collapse that would have taken many seconds to happen beforehand.

No, no, no, no, Tony. High explosives produce supersonic pressure waves. The extra broken windows and dust ejections should, in your scenario, occur quite obviously BEFORE the exterior begins moving. ETA: Not to mention (and you still don't) the sounds of 200 (24X8=192) explosives going off within milliseconds.

Its that before/after thing you have trouble with again and again, isn't it.

If the EPH collapse was caused by a complete interior collapse on the east side there should have been a lot of dust coming out of the windows on the east side. There wasn't ....

,,, and yet there were windows breaking when the EPH came down. Just not enough to satisfy you.

 

[Dave Rogers]

NIST did test steel, steel they knew exactly where it was during the fire, and compared the temp reached by that steel against the temp of steel, in those areas, predicted in the models
AND
found the computer model to sufficiently match the physical evidence generated by the steel testing.
THUS: the computer program is validated for its predictions in those areas.
THUS: the computer program can be expected to be valid for other, higher temp areas.

Which means, of course, that NIST found evidence of high temperature in the steel, albeit inferential evidence; now where did somebody say something about ignoring inferential evidence?

And of course Tony either knew this, in which case he's lying as usual, or didn't know or understand this despite his extensive study of the collapses and the literature surrounding them, in which case he's incompetent. But I'm quite certain he knows it perfectly well and is lying.

Dave

ETA: See below. He knows perfectly well what NIST found, and is quite capable of understanding the reasoning by which validation of a model which predicts high temperatures is evidence of high temperatures. So, again, he's a proven liar.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Which means, of course, that NIST found evidence of high temperature in the steel, albeit inferential evidence; now where did somebody say something about ignoring inferential evidence?

And of course Tony either knew this, in which case he's lying as usual, or didn't know or understand this despite his extensive study of the collapses and the literature surrounding them, in which case he's incompetent. But I'm quite certain he knows it perfectly well and is lying.

Dave

Dave, NIST did mud cracking of the paint and spheroidization tests to check the steel for temperatures experienced and the report says only three pieces were above 250 degrees C, and they weren't beyond 600 degrees C.

I think one can rightfully say they found no evidence of high temperatures on the steel with that information.

The inference in the fire simulation basis you are going on is extremely tenuous. The guy you are agreeing with here (Jaydeehess) also says they couldn't identify the steel, so how can you do inference?

I am sure you know they couldn't pull the south face of WTC 1 in with the floor trusses no matter how much they sagged in their model. There they had to add an artificial 5,000 lb. lateral load to the columns to get them to buckle.

On top of this we are told NIST only got 236 pieces of steel from the towers and none from WTC 7. That is nothing short of amazing. NIST report author John Gross admits he was in the yards not long after the collapses to pick what to save. Why was so little saved?

There is speculation that much of the steel actually had experienced temperatures that were much too high to have come from fires. This would match with the molten metal in the rubble of the three collapsed buildings. This also sounds like a reason the steel wouldn't be saved if you were going to use a pre-ordained conclusion that fire caused the collapses.

You need to provide a basis for your comments, especially when you want to say someone is not being honest, and you certainly are not doing that here.

Other than the aircraft impacts the NIST simulations are not trustworthy and were highly manipulated. They also do not explain the free fall of WTC 7 or the lack of deceleration in the descent of WTC 1. Although that was brought up well after their report it is pertinent to their conclusions and since it would change them they should be revising the report. I would understand not revising if it made no difference to the conclusions, but that is not the case here.

 

[JSanderO]

Come on Tony.... do you really think that unfought fires for 7 hrs would do nothing to a steel frame?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Come on Tony.... do you really think that unfought fires for 7 hrs would do nothing to a steel frame?

There is good reason to believe that fire could not possibly have caused the symmetric free fall of WTC 7 or the lack of deceleration in the descent of WTC 1.

You are giving fire far too much credit and your attempts to explain it that way are an enormous stretch, especially considering that the history of fires in high-rises never produced anything remotely similar.

Couple that with all of the distortions, omissions, and ignoring of pertinent structural features and situations in the reports and it isn't hard to guess what you are looking at........a cover up with a fictional explanation for the collapses.

 

[beachnut]

What did the FBI say? NIST does not do crime investigation.

Dave, NIST did mud cracking of the paint and spheroidization tests to check the steel for temperatures experienced and the report says only three pieces were above 250 degrees C, and they weren't beyond 600 degrees C.

I think one can rightfully say they found no evidence of high temperatures on the steel with that information.

The inference in the fire simulation basis you are going on is extremely tenuous. The guy you are agreeing with here (Jaydeehess) also says they couldn't identify the steel, so how can you do inference?

I am sure you know they couldn't pull the south face of WTC 1 in with the floor trusses no matter how much they sagged in their model. There they had to add an artificial 5,000 lb. lateral load to the columns to get them to buckle.

On top of this we are told NIST only got 236 pieces of steel from the towers and none from WTC 7. That is nothing short of amazing. NIST report author John Gross admits he was in the yards not long after the collapses to pick what to save. Why was so little saved?

There is speculation that much of the steel actually had experienced temperatures that were much too high to have come from fires. This would match with the molten metal in the rubble of the three collapsed buildings. This also sounds like a reason the steel wouldn't be saved if you were going to use a pre-ordained conclusion that fire caused the collapses.

You need to provide a basis for your comments, especially when you want to say someone is not being honest, and you certainly are not doing that here.

Other than the aircraft impacts the NIST simulations are not trustworthy and were highly manipulated. They also do not explain the free fall of WTC 7 or the lack of deceleration in the descent of WTC 1. Although that was brought up well after their report it is pertinent to their conclusions and since it would change them they should be revising the report. I would understand not revising if it made no difference to the conclusions, but that is not the case here.

LOL, the FBI found no CD. Thus your CD is BS. The steel was used to verify the WTC towers were built as specified - and they were.
Darn, Tony, you are using a NIST study with specific goals, and quote-mining and spreading BS about fire so you can try to sell a delusional claim of CD based on no evidence.

You spread false claims, and make up BS; example - NIST simulations are not trustworthy - lol, compared to Cole's idiot simulations, they are gold.

Got evidence yet? No

FBI requires evidence, and you can't go to the FBI with a fantasy. What did the FBI say? You are stuck making up lies about NIST, when you need to go to the FBI with your inside job CD crime.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

LOL, the FBI found no CD. Thus your CD is BS. The steel was used to verify the WTC towers were built as specified - and they were.
Darn, Tony, you are using a NIST study with specific goals, and quote-mining and spreading BS about fire so you can try to sell a delusional claim of CD based on no evidence.

You spread false claims, and make up BS; example - NIST simulations are not trustworthy - lol, compared to Cole's idiot simulations, they are gold.

Got evidence yet? No

FBI requires evidence, and you can't go to the FBI with a fantasy. What did the FBI say? You are stuck making up lies about NIST, when you need to go to the FBI with your inside job CD crime.

It is the NIST WTC reports that spread false claims. They had to distort, omit, and ignore many pertinent structural features and situations to even make what they were saying have even a hint of plausibility. When the distorted items are corrected, and the omitted and ignored items and situations are included in their analysis they change the conclusions to the opposite of what the report says. Get it right.

The FBI should have investigated people who had access to the interiors of the buildings. They have never done that and it is a glaring hole in their investigation.