I found the missing Jolt.

[Oystein]

The building comes down even with the horizon and Dave somehow thinks the word symmetric is inappropriate. It is quite unbelievable.

Correct. It's quite unbelievable, because you just invented this lie. You erected a strawman right there.

For Dave didn't say "the word symmetric is inappropriate".
He said the the word symmetrical "is a classic truther weasel word, which you think means what you want it to mean at the time; you'll never actually quantify what you mean by it".

"Unquantified" =/= "inappropriate"

Please do not invent lies.
Instead, give straight and honest answers to questions.

Or, as a certain someone likes to ask:

"Where is your math?"

The straight and honest answer of course would be: "I [Tony] have no math here. I claimed an inequality without quantifying either side of the inequality sign. I simply made that stuff up. Argument from imagination, to be honest".
Of course we will never, ever get a straight and honest answer out of you. Why, you are Truther. Truthers don't do that.

 

[Oystein]

Yet there was no symmetry.

This is not even false.

The word symmetry actually IS inappropriate, for there is no useful definition in engineering or physics.

"Symmetry" is a class of concepts in pure mathematics.
Or it is an aesthetic concept.

Truthers don't even use (employ) any math concept.
They start and end with the aesthetic opinion that something about the collapse looks like something they would call "symmetrical". From this they spin pop engineering tales. Just-so stories.

But "where is their math"?



You cannot say that an opinion of whether something looks swell or dandy or tidy or messy or symmetrical is true or false.
It simply has no place in the argument. Unless and until someone defines what it means in engineering or physics terms, and checks out what it actually means in terms of quantities.

Truthers have not even begun this work.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

This is not even false.

The word symmetry actually IS inappropriate, for there is no useful definition in engineering or physics.

"Symmetry" is a class of concepts in pure mathematics.
Or it is an aesthetic concept.

Truthers don't even use (employ) any math concept.
They start and end with the aesthetic opinion that something about the collapse looks like something they would call "symmetrical". From this they spin pop engineering tales. Just-so stories.

But "where is their math"?



You cannot say that an opinion of whether something looks swell or dandy or tidy or messy or symmetrical is true or false.
It simply has no place in the argument. Unless and until someone defines what it means in engineering or physics terms, and checks out what it actually means in terms of quantities.

Truthers have not even begun this work.

Engineering is the application of math and science.

In rotating machinery we design in rotational symmetry to maintain balance. The same is true with aircraft, ships, trains, cars and other items where balance is important. The word symmetry is used all throughout math, science, and engineering.

Your comments here, with regard to the use of the word symmetry, are silly on their face.

You have lost the argument as to whether or not the collapse of WTC 7 was a controlled demolition. The evidence proves it most certainly was and now you are ridiculously trying to redefine well used and long accepted terms, instead of being a man and just admitting you were wrong. I have to say you look pretty bad stooping to this inane level and I feel sorry for you.

 

[DGM]

You have lost the argument as to whether or not the collapse of WTC 7 was a controlled demolition. The evidence proves it most certainly was ..................

In your opinion, why is it you can't convince more then a fraction of a percentage of relevant engineers? It's not like you haven't had time.

 

[GlennB]

You have lost the argument as to whether or not the collapse of WTC 7 was a controlled demolition. The evidence proves it most certainly was and now you are ridiculously trying to redefine well used and long accepted terms, instead of being a man and just admitting you were wrong. I have to say you look pretty bad stooping to this inane level and I feel sorry for you.

Oh look! A semi-rabid rant consisting of nothing but bald assertions and personal attacks.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

It seems there is more than one here who doesn't want to man up and admit they were wrong in not realizing WTC 7 was a controlled demolition and then not wanting to admit it when they were proven wrong.

It is either a sad group or a bunch of paid hacks who can't afford to admit to it. I would bet on the latter as it is the only thing that really makes sense and is why I said I feel sorry for you. Most people would have to be in a bad situation before they would deny reality and would only be doing it to survive. With that said I won't keep shoving it in your faces.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Questions answered: 0.
Lies admitted: 0.
Insults: Lost count.

Dave

ETA: Oops, I missed the third and final part of the Szamboti trifecta - he's just accused us all of being paid shills. And now it's back to the bare assertions and start again, because he's used all three of his approaches and he's got nothing else to try.

 

[DGM]

It seems there is more than one here who doesn't want to man up and admit they were wrong in not realizing WTC 7 was a controlled demolition and then not wanting to admit it when they were proven wrong.

It is either a sad group or a bunch of paid hacks who can't afford to admit to it. I would bet on the latter as it is the only thing that really makes sense and is why I said I feel sorry for you. Most people would have to be in a bad situation before they would deny reality and would only be doing it to survive. With that said I won't keep shoving it in your faces.

Do you include over 99% of the worlds engineers in this message? You know that's how many you fail to convince.

 

[Spanx]

I have just googled Symetrical controlled demolition. Guess what I found apart from verinage.

It looks like a Truther thing to me.

 

[Axxman300]

It seems there is more than one here who doesn't want to man up and admit they were wrong in not realizing WTC 7 was a controlled demolition and then not wanting to admit it when they were proven wrong.

It is either a sad group or a bunch of paid hacks who can't afford to admit to it. I would bet on the latter as it is the only thing that really makes sense and is why I said I feel sorry for you. Most people would have to be in a bad situation before they would deny reality and would only be doing it to survive. With that said I won't keep shoving it in your faces.

So Dodge City for you too?

I've ask twice for you to explain the logic of suppressing evidence of MORE AL QAEDA operators at the WTC, and you've ignored the question. This can be for only one of two reasons:

1. You don't actually believe there was CD, and you're trolling for $$.

2. You haven't thought your theory far enough through to include the real world.

 

[Oystein]

Engineering is the application of math and science.

So where is that math that analyzes the alleged "symmetry"?
Where indeed is the definition that separates "symmetrical" collapses from "asymmetrical" ones?
You have neither, right? <- Straight and honest answer, please!

In rotating machinery we define, quantify and design in rotational symmetry to maintain balance. The same is true with aircraft, ships, trains, cars and other items where balance is important. The word symmetry is used all throughout math, science, and engineering.

I added a little something in blue and italics.

Surely, when you design for rotational balance, you define and quantify precisely the limits of acceptable imbalance.
A similar chore has not been undertaken by you nor by any other Truther wrt the alleged "symmetry" of any of the WTC collapses. You know this is true. Do not lie in your next reply (a feeble wish, I admit - I have little doubt that you will either evade the question I asked above, or lie to me, or both, in your very next post)!

 

[ProBonoShill]

It seems there is more than one here who doesn't want to man up and admit they were wrong in not realizing WTC 7 was a controlled demolition and then not wanting to admit it when they were proven wrong.

It is either a sad group or a bunch of paid hacks who can't afford to admit to it. I would bet on the latter as it is the only thing that really makes sense and is why I said I feel sorry for you. Most people would have to be in a bad situation before they would deny reality and would only be doing it to survive. With that said I won't keep shoving it in your faces.

15 years and no evidence, how does it feel to be this much of a failure?

Just because you're paranoid and delusional doesn't mean the rest of the human population is.

Have you ever thought about getting some mental help? If you do, make sure to bring that clown Gage with you too.

 

[beachnut]

What did the FBI say to Tony's no evidence CD fantasy?

It seems there is more than one here who doesn't want to man up and admit they were wrong in not realizing WTC 7 was a controlled demolition and then not wanting to admit it when they were proven wrong.

It is either a sad group or a bunch of paid hacks who can't afford to admit to it. I would bet on the latter as it is the only thing that really makes sense and is why I said I feel sorry for you. Most people would have to be in a bad situation before they would deny reality and would only be doing it to survive. With that said I won't keep shoving it in your faces.

7 WTC collapsed due to the effects of fires not fought. You have failed to produce evidence for CD. Big fail, no evidence.

Then you project the traits of the sad group called AE911T on to others, and let your paranoia show.

You have the fantasy of CD, and don't have a clue as you project.

Where do you get those silent explosives? Did you tell the FBI you know 100 percent 7 WTC was CD?

What did the FBI say? FBI does crime, you think 7 WTC was CD, that is a crime; what did they say?

 

[tfk]

WTC 7 was certainly falling at full gravitational acceleration (9.81 m/sec^2) for over two seconds at the beginning of its descent

No, as a matter of fact, it was not.

The one & only reason that people claim it was "at full gravitational acceleration" is because the idiot, Chandler, applied a "linear interpolation" to approximate velocity data, crudely calculated from "central difference approximation".

The fact of the matter is that CONSTANT acceleration is an artifact of performing a linear interpolation. If you dump the linear assumption, then the acceleration is not constant.

If the acceleration is not constant, then it can NOT equal G, because G is a constant.

and then a little less, but it was continuously picking up speed until it finally had a negative acceleration about 16 stories into the fall (a deceleration where velocity loss occurred).

Wrong. Completely wrong.

Look at NIST's Fig. 12-77. This covers 19.5 stories of descent (Stage 1: 0.5 stories. Stage 2: 8 stories. Stage 3: 11 stories).

At no time in this graph is the velocity of any data point less than the velocity of the previous data point. Ergo, the velocity never decreases over this interval.

You seem to have some issues with terminology and don't realize how embarrassing your comment here is in that regard, or you probably wouldn't have said it.

Would that be "embarrassing", as in someone who insisted that "the foundations of the WTC were accelerating at G for 31 years"??

Would that be "embarrassing", as in someone who, for years (and even now), couldn't keep straight the difference between "reduced acceleration" and "deceleration"?

Pot ... kettle.

 

[tfk]

When the core was cut the exterior columns were being pulled inward by the dropping core and a vertical height loss would result, which is proportional to the pull in but lower dimensionally. This would not happen at g.

Provably wrong.

The eastern core collapsed. The EPH fell into the eastern core.
There is zero doubt about this. One could see the sky thru the windows of the top floor on the eastern side of the building.

The collapse of the eastern core did NOT pull in the eastern external walls.
Because the lateral strength of those walls was stronger than the connections that joined them to the beams & girders of the core. The connections at the external columns failed, without pulling in the external walls.

The connections used throughout the eastern portion of the building (the eastern portion of the north wall, the east wall & the eastern portion of the south wall), and the external wall construction were exactly the same as those used everywhere else on the external portion of the structure.

Ergo, the relative strength of the connections & external walls was the same: the connections were weaker than the lateral strength of the external walls.

This PROVES that your assertion is wrong.

 

[FalseFlag]

It is either a sad group or a bunch of paid hacks who can't afford to admit to it.

It's actually both, and it's pretty easy to tell which poster belongs to which group.

I wish I had the morals to turn down money to spread the lie, but I know I don't. I know if someone dumped a truck full of cash in front of me I would become a paid shill, just like the ones here. The difference is that I would do a better job.

At least I'm honest about it. Yes, I realize the irony in saying I'm honest, but would make a great liar. Oh, well. A fact is a fact.

I'm bringing this up because it just needs to be said. I know the deal. Some of the posters here believe this nonsense because they don't have the capacity to understand or deal with the truth. The others are paid to spread the nonsense. I know no "skeptic" is going to admit this, but privately at least admit to yourself that I know what is going on.

 

[FalseFlag]

No, as a matter of fact, it was not.

OK. You tell us what happened.

Pick a start time, and then tell us what the acceleration was at .25 second intervals until the collapse could no longer be measured.

Show us what really happened.

Post your data so the results can be duplicated and verified.

You claim you are an engineer who understands physics and who knows what actually happened, so you should already have this data available. All you should need to do is copy and paste it so we can see it. Right? Show us how NIST is wrong.

Thanks in advance.

 

[FalseFlag]

One could see the sky thru the windows of the top floor on the eastern side of the building.

Proof?

 

[fuelair]

Found it!!!!!: http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/10/05/03/100503a9871d588ff6c494a01774e03f.jpg

 

[FalseFlag]

Would that be "embarrassing", as in someone who insisted that "the foundations of the WTC were accelerating at G for 31 years"??

Are you claiming that they were not?

Are you sure about this?

What is at least one of the action-reaction pairs if the foundation is the first part?