I found the missing Jolt.

[Axxman300]

Proof?

You've inadvertently posted it twice already, but whatever.

 

[GlennB]

Are you claiming that they were not?

Are you sure about this?

He is, and they were not. He's sure.

You could have looked up the definition of acceleration before making a fool of yourself.

 

[Ape of Good Hope]

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.

Paranoia and egocentrism are both observable traits of truthers.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

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.

What is interesting here is you provide no basis for your claims. Lateral strength of columns goes down with unsupported length. The more slender the column the less force is required to pull it inward. If the entire east side interior fell per the NIST story how much lateral force would it have taken to pull those now laterally unsupported 40 story columns inward? Let's not forget that they say the collapse started at the 13th floor and first went down to remove support of column 79 and then up after it buckled.

You need to show that an inward pull on the east side columns by the falling beams would be less than the lateral strength of an unsupported column at all times. People here should know that the connections of the beams to the columns were welded seats inside the flanges and top clips welded to the web of the column. There were two 7/8" diameter bolts at the seat and two at the top clip. These bolts were ASTM A325 with a proof strength of 105 ksi and thus a shear strength of 57.7% of that or about 60.6 ksi. A 7/8" diameter bolt has a shear area of .601 in^2 so each would require about 36,000 lbs. to shear. This means the bolts would apply 144,000 lbs. at the connection before breaking. tfk needs to show that the columns could take this without deforming in a permanent way at each beam connection to the east wall after columns 79, 80, and 81 buckled. The drawings show there were 17 interior beam connections to the east wall at each floor. After those three columns allegedly buckled per NIST the entire east side interior would have been pulling on that wall with 144,000 lbs. x 17 at each floor. That is about 2.5 million lbs. per floor and if 30 stories were pulling on it there would have been about 75 million lbs. pulling it inward. In spite of that, NIST and tfk just want to tell you the connections broke before the wall deformed because it was stronger and because it was strong it could wait for the rest of the interior to come down before it decided to give it up and come down itself.

Even if it somehow magically didn't deform while the interior was allegedly coming down, the east side exterior should have buckled under its own weight once the interior beams supporting it fell per the NIST story, but in that fantasy it waits for the alleged progressive interior collapse to take the west side interior down and only then do exterior columns buckle under their own weight with the entire exterior coming down as a unit. What an absolute crock the NIST story you are trying to defend is.

The daylight visible after the east penthouse comes down is only in the top story windows. That does not provide any proof that the entire east side interior came down, after initiating at the 13th floor, to cause the east penthouse to fall. It only proves the east penthouse fell below the roofline.

I won't even get into your denial that WTC 7 was in free fall during its descent. False Flag already asked you to show your work there.

 

[Spanx]

What is interesting here is you provide no basis for your claims.

The east side exterior should have buckled under its own weight once the east side interior fell per the NIST story, but in that fantasy it waits until the west side interior comes down and only then do exterior columns buckle under their own weight with the entire exterior coming down as a unit.

The daylight visible after the east penthouse comes down is only in the top story windows. That does not provide any proof that the entire east side interior came down, after initiating at the 13th floor, to cause the east penthouse to fall.

Which part was the Symmetrical part ?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Which part was the Symetrical part ?

If you could spell the word correctly I might have reason to answer you.

 

[Spanx]

If you could spell the word correctly I might have reason to answer you.

But you can't answer the question. It's nothing to do with spelling holding you back.

 

[Ape of Good Hope]

Dodging the question is an observable trait of truthers.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

But you can't answer the question. It's nothing to do with spelling holding you back.

It actually isn't even a question. It is a false dilemma created by those who somehow still want to believe WTC 7 was not taken down by controlled demolition.

WTC 7 came down even with the horizon and at free fall acceleration for over 100 feet within half a second after it started to fall. The only possible reason for that is that all of its core columns were removed over at least eight stories starting at the center and moving outward over a fraction of a second. The rubble pile is conical with the exterior laying on top. Fire and progressive collapse could not possibly do that so quickly, even if a fire induced failure started at the center and worked outward, as some here have tried to speculate.

 

[Spanx]

It actually isn't even a question. It is a false dilemma created by those who somehow still want to believe WTC 7 was not taken down by controlled demolition.

WTC 7 came down even with the horizon and at free fall acceleration for over 100 feet within half a second after it started to fall. The only possible reason for that is that all of its core columns were removed over at least eight stories.

And who was it claiming symmetry up thread ?

Was it someone creating a false dilemma

 

[Tony Szamboti]

And who was it claiming symmetry up thread ?

Was it someone creating a false dilemma

The fact that the fall was even with the horizon is vertically symmetrical.

Just because you and some others here don't seem to like the use of the word symmetric doesn't change the reality that the entire building came down evenly. That is the point and any argument over whether the word symmetric applies is inconsequential, and anyone trying to make an argument out of it is showing themselves to be less than genuine.

 

[Ape of Good Hope]

Someone call AE911Truth.

Tell 'em we've found their missing dolt.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Someone call AE911Truth.

Tell 'em we've found their missing dolt.

Yes, don't forget to tell them the missing dolts at the JREF Forum are the ones claiming to have found it for the umpteenth time with no real basis to support their contention.

 

[GlennB]

Just because you and some others here don't seem to like the use of the word symmetric doesn't change the reality that the entire building came down evenly.

 

[Spanx]

The fact that the fall was even with the horizon is vertically symmetrical.

Just because you and some others here don't seem to like the use of the word symmetric doesn't change the reality that the entire building came down evenly. That is the point and any argument over whether the word symmetric applies is inconsequential, and anyone trying to make an argument out of it is showing themselves to be less than genuine.

But it is you using the word symmetrical to claim CD. Many CDs are not symmetrical.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

But it is you using the word symmetrical to claim CD. Many CDs are not symmetrical.

Only CD could cause an even with the horizon collapse. A fire induced failure scenario cannot possibly cause it. This is really simple and it is amazing that you are having a hard time with it.

 

[Spanx]

Only CD could cause an even with the horizon collapse. A fire induced failure scenario cannot possibly cause it. This is really simple and it is amazing that you are having a hard time with it.

Ok, lets go back to the question you ignored up thread.

How should the building have collapsed ?

What should we have expected to see?

These should be easy questions for you to answer, I hope my spelling is ok for you.

 

[Ape of Good Hope]

Yes, don't forget to tell them the missing dolts at the JREF Forum...

...might need a time machine for that one, Tony.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Only CD could cause an even with the horizon collapse. A fire induced failure scenario cannot possibly cause it. This is really simple and it is amazing that you are having a hard time with it.

Rubbish the structure determined how the collapse progressed and the progression of the collapses is hidden behind the hollowed out facade.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Ok, lets go back to the question you ignored up thread.

How should the building have collapsed ?

What should we have expected to see?

These should be easy questions for you to answer, I hope my spelling is ok for you.

If the east side interior collapse was actually started by column 79 buckling, the east side exterior would have been extremely deformed when the east side interior went down. It is not deformed in video. The exterior collapse would have somewhat followed the alleged interior collapse with an east to west exterior progressive collapse.

It is not even remotely plausible that the east side interior came down with the east side exterior withstanding it without serious deformation only to fail later with the west side exterior after the west side interior came down.