I found the missing Jolt.

[Tony Szamboti]

Sorry, I must have missed the list of characteristics I asked for. Where did you post it?

Dave

It is quite clear that the core of WTC 7 was removed artificially as it is the only way to cause the symmetric free fall.

Your smarmy comments don't contribute to the conversation.

 

[Dave Rogers]

It is quite clear that the core of WTC 7 was removed artificially as it is the only way to cause the symmetric free fall.

As usual, you decline to support this claim with plausible evidence.

Your smarmy comments are garbage and don't contribute to the conversation.

And, also as usual, resort to insults when challenged.

Dave

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

First, you are throwing out the column 79 initiation if you start your progressive collapse from center and you need it to happen extraordinarily fast which you probably can't explain. You can't explain the rapidity of the symmetric fall with your theory.

Your argument about not seeing flashes is somewhat arbitrary. Any charge flash in the core would be hard to see and hear and they could have been tamped and covered making it even harder. On top of that they were probably between the 14th and 22nd stories and that is 182 to 286 feet above ground and would not be visible from ground level in the core. There was only one camera taking high shots and it was from a long distance.

How then do you rule out a natural thermite or hydrogen reaction if a flash can not be detected?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

As usual, you decline to support this claim with plausible evidence.

The symmetric free fall proves it and it is more than plausible. It is reality.

And, also as usual, resort to insults when challenged.

Dave

There is no pleasing you Dave. Your comments are not challenging, they are smarmy and you need to be told that.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

As usual, you decline to support this claim with plausible evidence.



And, also as usual, resort to insults when challenged.

Dave

Actually Dave, he gives us ample evidence against CD.

Would you like some fudge?

∏ = Pav h = 325.4 × 106 N × 3.7 m = 1,204 × 106 N-m.
The potential energy for a one-story drop is:
U = Wh = 325.4 × 106 N × 3.7 m = 1,204 × 106 N-m.

That is from Tony's 2012 paper, and it is a mathematical impossibility that the structure
Has the same energy value as the Force of the falling upper mass.

 

[Spanx]

There is no pleasing you Dave. Your comments are not challenging, they are smarmy and you need to be told that.

This looks like a smarmy comment to me. But what would I know ?

 

[Dave Rogers]

The symmetric free fall proves it and it is more than plausible. It is reality.

As usual, this is not proof, just an assertion that proof exists, which as usual you won't back up by quantifying your terms. "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.

There is no pleasing you Dave. Your comments are not challenging, they are smarmy and you need to be told that.

And more insults. As usual, all you have is assertions, insults, and accusations, which I'm sure you'll get round to soon. In the meantime, here are two more questions for you to evade:

What was the observed rate of propagation of failure across the face of WTC7?
What is the maximum possible rate of lateral propagation due to sequential failure?

A few posts upthread you've made a positive claim that the first of these is greater than the second. Please justify that claim with values.

Dave

 

[Criteria]

The symmetric free fall proves it and it is more than plausible. It is reality.

As usual, this is not proof, just an assertion that proof exists, which as usual you won't back up by quantifying your terms.

"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.

Mostly your usual ‘gobbledygook’ Dave.

Indications of evenness, regularity, balance, conformity etc. in the symmetry of a huge collapsing office tower like WTC7 legitimately supports the argument for intentional collapse.

An uneven, irregular, unbalanced, symmetry of a huge collapsing office tower like WTC7 legitimately supports the argument for an unintentional collapse.

A building like WTC7, having a footprint roughly the size of a football field faces improbable impossible odds of encountering sufficient heat to induce failure simultaneously throughout the building’s perimeter.

Even though such a fire-induced collapse would require extremely conspicuous over-engineering to perform without using explosive technology, you are content to believe that random, unchecked fires accidentally managed to achieve this.

It is truly amazing what you willingly accept as believable in order to adamantly resist the truth.

 

[rwguinn]

Explosives do not make a building fall down.
Fire does not make a building fall down.
Damage to the structure makes a building fall down--specifically, damage to the structural components that carry and distribute the loads.
That damage may be caused by fire, explosives, airplanes crashing into it, pygmy gypsies, or death rays from motherships.

Once the damage occurs, the building has absolutely no way to fall other than straight down, primarily (Ignoring the incidental scatter from parts that have acquired angular momentum via collisions). Period

CD, fire, or terrorism. The building will come Down. Not sideways, not up. Gravity applies the force that does the work.

 

[Oystein]

Somehow I knew you would evade the question. Thanks for confirming, yet again, that you won't ever give a straight answer.

Dave

+1

 

[Tony Szamboti]

​

Mostly your usual ‘gobbledygook’ Dave.

Indications of evenness, regularity, balance, conformity etc. in the symmetry of a huge collapsing office tower like WTC7 legitimately supports the argument for intentional collapse.

An uneven, irregular, unbalanced, symmetry of a huge collapsing office tower like WTC7 legitimately supports the argument for an unintentional collapse.

A building like WTC7, having a footprint roughly the size of a football field faces improbable impossible odds of encountering sufficient heat to induce failure simultaneously throughout the building’s perimeter.

Even though such a fire-induced collapse would require extremely conspicuous over-engineering to perform without using explosive technology, you are content to believe that random, unchecked fires accidentally managed to achieve this.

It is truly amazing what you willingly accept as believable in order to adamantly resist the truth.

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

Of course, the reason is that the symmetry along with the free fall refutes any possible counter he would have, and he.....doesn't like that. He is going to have to get used to it, because it is the reality.

Did you notice Dave actually tried to say the building's core could have started collapsing from its center outward due to fire, essentially throwing NIST's column 79 and east to west progression under the bus? Unfortunately for him, that doesn't work as you can't get free fall with a connected exterior without removing the core much faster than his fire can.

The above really isn't surprising as Dave seems to be all over the place here, he actually showed support for the NIST report here or on another thread in just the last 24 hours.

 

[Spanx]

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

Of course, the reason is that the symmetry along with the free fall refutes any possible counter he, or anyone trying to make a natural collapse argument, would have, and they.....don't like that. They are going to have to get used to it, because it is the reality.

Tony,

How should the building have come down?

What should we be expecting to see?

 

[DGM]

Tony,

How should the building have come down?

What should we be expecting to see?

I think he claims it couldn't have come down due to fire.

 

[Spanx]

I think he claims it couldn't have come down due to fire.

The arsonists weren't needed then

 

[DGM]

The arsonists weren't needed then

They were part of the diversion. The part that makes me really wonder is why "they" needed to demo the penthouses and roof line as a separate event.

 

[beachnut]

The symmetric free fall proves ...

The darn symmetric claim prove you don't know what symmetry is. The CD claim proves you don't understand simile.

... Indications of evenness, regularity, balance, conformity etc. in the symmetry of a huge collapsing office tower like WTC7 legitimately supports the argument for intentional collapse. ...

Then Criteria says symmetry is proof of CD too. Yet there was no symmetry.

At least you and tony have the silent explosives from the fantasy silent explosive NWO MIB explosives RUs store of woo.

Is it silent explosives, or are you forced to use the fantasy of thermite?

CD evidence amounts to witnesses who said it sounded "like". Simile, evidence for explosives in the world of delusions known as 9/11 truth. 14 years of lies and no evidence.

 

[Spanx]

They were part of the diversion. The part that makes me really wonder is why "they" needed to demo the penthouses and roof line as a separate event.

Perhaps it was to show that the arsonists had carried their work out correctly?

 

[Axxman300]

Your argument about not seeing flashes is somewhat arbitrary. Any charge flash in the core would be hard to see and hear and they could have been tamped and covered making it even harder. On top of that they were probably between the 14th and 22nd stories and that is 182 to 286 feet above ground and would not be visible from ground level in the core. There was only one camera taking high shots and it was from a long distance.

The firefighters at the pile would have seen and heard the charges go off as much of the face of the building was gone. The sure as hell would have heard them.

You still haven't explained how hiding the existence of explosives, pointing to additional AQ operators, benefited conspirators or anybody else.

And while you have all kinds of nifty calculations the fact is that WTC7 began failing 20 minutes (at least) before its death plunge. It's hard to say what the interior of 7 looked like 20 seconds before it went down.

 

[Dave Rogers]

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

Youi claimed that the collapse was too symmetric to be caused by anything but explosives. Please quantify how symmetric the collapse was, and how symmetric it could possibly have been without explosives.

You won't, of course, do either. We all know why not. It's the same reason why you won't answer my previous question: you actually have no idea, you just throw out declarations and for some reason expect everyone to believe you.

Did you notice Dave actually tried to say the building's core could have started collapsing from its center outward due to fire, essentially throwing NIST's column 79 and east to west progression under the bus?

That is an outright lie. Please quote the post where I said the core collapsed from the centre outward. You can't, because it's a lie.

The above really isn't surprising as Dave seems to be all over the place here, he actually showed support for the NIST report here or on another thread in just the last 24 hours.

It's not really surprising that Tony won't answer any questions honestly, and that he lies about what other people have said.

Dave

ETA: By the way, Tony, nice job sidestepping the question about collapse propagation. One more area where you have no actual argument, but like to pretend you have one.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Indications of evenness, regularity, balance, conformity etc. in the symmetry of a huge collapsing office tower like WTC7 legitimately supports the argument for intentional collapse.

An uneven, irregular, unbalanced, symmetry of a huge collapsing office tower like WTC7 legitimately supports the argument for an unintentional collapse.

Since we know that you are completely uninformed on the subject, what authority on building collapses is the source for these assertions of yours?

Oh, and look up the word "quantify" some time.

Dave