ProBonoShill
Master Poster
- Joined
- May 17, 2010
- Messages
- 2,329
If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. Part II
- Thread starter Seymour Butz
- Start date
ProBonoShill
Master Poster
- Joined
- May 17, 2010
- Messages
- 2,329
Redwood
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 9, 2012
- Messages
- 1,557
Are you seriously suggesting that there is some sort of mystery as to why Flights 175, 11, 77, and 93 crashed?
Do you understand how insane that is? Can you suggest any way that reassembling the crash debris, with its attendant locations, could accomplish ANYTHING?
Are you beginning to understand why Truthers are universal objects of ridicule?
Redwood
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 9, 2012
- Messages
- 1,557
Technically, it's not. But I absolutely encourage FF to empty his bank account, sell off or pawn every possession he can spare, and donate it to "WTC 7 Evaluation". While he's at it, he can toss a few more shekels to Mark Basile.
Oftentimes, we learn only from hard and bitter experience. It might do wonders for FF.
ProBonoShill
Master Poster
- Joined
- May 17, 2010
- Messages
- 2,329
Technically, it's not. But I absolutely encourage FF to empty his bank account, sell off or pawn every possession he can spare, and donate it to "WTC 7 Evaluation". While he's at it, he can toss a few more shekels to Mark Basile.
Oftentimes, we learn only from hard and bitter experience. It might do wonders for FF.
I wonder....if he truly believes the US government murdered close to 3000 people, why is he not working multiple jobs to help fund this new investigation he so desperately seeks?
Lurkers want to know!
Lucky for the scumbag Gage, willing dummies still exist, to help fund his shenanigans and vacations. Pathetic
Last edited:
And what good id it to sign that petition? AE911 isn't going to do the new investigation. They only ask for cash so Gage can travel the world and show his nonsense, or use it to spread their lies on billboards worth $25000, and brochures. They collect at least half a million dollars each year, and they spend zero dollars on a new investigation. Which isn't very surprising, because maybe only a handful of the people that signed the petition know anything about structural engineering, and none of them know anything about high rise construction. And they also pretty biased of course, since they started to ask for a new investigation into WTC7, when NIST wasn't even ready with their investigation.
I already told you that just from this forum alone, at least 14 engineers and 5 architects explicitly support the "fire brought the buildings down" narrative, while 1 engineer and 0 architects support the controlled demolition conspiracy theory.
Extrapolating the statistics, it's proven.
But not to worry, I know no proof that doesn't support your conclusions would convince you.
In fact, it's already going for 10+ years. When will the petition be sent, and to whom?
That delay should be proof enough that Gage is not interested in a new investigation, only in numbers that give him a false sense of credibility so that people keep chipping in.
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2010
- Messages
- 69,113
Here you go.
Didcot Power Station old Boiler House, collapsed straight down in to it's own footprint while being prepared for demolition.
Workers were killed when it came down, ll the supporting columns failed at the same timel It fell in to it's own footprint. No explosives were used as the building was still being prepped for them, they had been working on it getting ready to bring it down for weeks.
If WTC7 was demopished with explosives a similar ammount of work would need to be done, weakening and removing support within the building. It would have been very obvious to those working in and around the building that a cemolition was being prepared.
It was even reported by those that heard it as an explosion because of the volume of the sound the collapse created, one witness says it looked like a 'controlled demolition' another that it was a huge explosion.
Nothing exploded and it wasn't controlled.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-35641766
Didcot Power Station old Boiler House, collapsed straight down in to it's own footprint while being prepared for demolition.
Workers were killed when it came down, ll the supporting columns failed at the same timel It fell in to it's own footprint. No explosives were used as the building was still being prepped for them, they had been working on it getting ready to bring it down for weeks.
If WTC7 was demopished with explosives a similar ammount of work would need to be done, weakening and removing support within the building. It would have been very obvious to those working in and around the building that a cemolition was being prepared.
It was even reported by those that heard it as an explosion because of the volume of the sound the collapse created, one witness says it looked like a 'controlled demolition' another that it was a huge explosion.
Nothing exploded and it wasn't controlled.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-35641766
Last edited:
Bump for FalseFlag, who focused on a wrong interpretation of the least important line of this post and ignored the substance that proves him wrong:
I say "a collapse of this nature" because that façade is sturdy. If a single column fails, and the rest can hold the weight, you don't see the roofline at the failed column sinking. You don't expect that. You only see the whole façade fall at once when the load overwhelms the capacity of the remaining columns. And when the roofline moves, it means that ALL columns have failed. And it moves a few instants before it reaches free fall, therefore all columns have failed before reaching free fall. In other words, free fall is reached (and exceeded) only after the columns have failed.
NIST had no need toexplain dumb down this for people who don't understand how structures behave.
---
Their model explains how the columns failed. The discussion in the paragraph I copied explains why they think it ended up as free fall. In other words, NIST did explain free fall.
Once again, you can't expect the columns to fail one by one in a collapse of this nature. You can't expect any spacing between failures of columns. If the remaining columns all together can't hold the weight, they fail, and fail quickly. Instantly, for most practical effects.
I say "a collapse of this nature" because that façade is sturdy. If a single column fails, and the rest can hold the weight, you don't see the roofline at the failed column sinking. You don't expect that. You only see the whole façade fall at once when the load overwhelms the capacity of the remaining columns. And when the roofline moves, it means that ALL columns have failed. And it moves a few instants before it reaches free fall, therefore all columns have failed before reaching free fall. In other words, free fall is reached (and exceeded) only after the columns have failed.
NIST had no need to
---
Their model explains how the columns failed. The discussion in the paragraph I copied explains why they think it ended up as free fall. In other words, NIST did explain free fall.
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2010
- Messages
- 69,113
I think it has to do with the movies. When anything is going to collapse it does it a bit at a time to give the hero chance to make a dramatic escape or rescue, leaping clear as the colums or supports creak and groan and fail one at a time. He makes a leap to safety as the last support gives way sending the bridge/tower/building crashing away to destruction.
Yes, that was recently discussed. I think it was Myriad who brought it up and gave several movie examples.
Yep, found it: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11176864#post11176864
Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 8,339
The official explanation is connection failures, nothing else need be said.
Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 8,339
Absolutely, anyone who has seen a real collapse, or understands sheer, knows it is instantaneous. Do to an over whelming energy build up.
That said, I have had a twoofer, recently claiming to be a mechanical engineer, threaten to
Hang me from a New York, lamp post once the new investigation is over.
I offered to provide the rope and Tie the knot with sixteen steps.
Wouldn't want them to hurt themselves, the only thing I ask is they heat the lamp post first at the base to 1400C, since most lamp posts are aluminum it would be melted and flowed across the ground.
Porkpie Hat
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 414
Should I be surprised you chose a cop out rather than present a credible source with experimental data to support your childishly silly meme?
No. That's just how you (t)roll.
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
NIST said that exterior column buckling rapidly progressed.
In fact the first north face exterior column to buckle is quite obvious, it along the line of the so called 'kink', which 8s also where we see the roofline moving before any other part of the roofline. Perimeter column buckling progresses from there. Moreover the core progressive destruction token out the south end support for the cantilever girders over the older substation. That left the north end of those girders under much increased load, pretty much 2/3rd shift of thenergy north face..
Really? Post NIST's task. Then tell us how explaining this minutia, that part of the structure reached free fall in the last few seconds of a 20 second collapse sequence, would translate into new code recommendations.
ozeco41
Philosopher
Whether NIST got it right or not is - as usual - a red herring. Reality is that the sort of failures under discussion cannot be "instantaneous" - they are all variants of a cascading sequential process. Just some of them move faster and for pragmatic purposes may look near instantaneous. Easiest way to see why is to reverse the thinking - ask "How could multiple bits fail instantaneously/concurrently?" "What mechanism?"
Or possibly even more significant - how can motion near free fall coming so late in the process support explosive cutting CD. (The point that femr2 used to have so much fun with.
)
Have you figured out whay the 9/11 Commission did not explain 7 WTC collapse yet; it is sad to see you seeking authority and using Balsamo by way of miragememories, that is the antithesis of authority; failing to realize what the 9/11 Commission was about is reflective of your logic, like picking Balsamo; it appears you repeat BS you find from 9/11 truth, and blindly believe. Evidence is required.
What does a few second of free fall for one tracked point of the roof of 7 WTC mean in an over 18 second collapse which started with an internal failure in a building with fires not fought.
You can't explain it.
You have no damage to WTC steel from explosives, or thermite.
Thus you have nothing but opinions based on zero evidence.
Like going to Balsamo for aviation advice, you were fooled by idiots who signed Gage's petition, and they have the same evidence you do; big talk, woo, BS, lies, and fantasy dumbed down for followers.
You come to an evidence fight, with nothing but talk - you got the claims, you failed to prove them. Cole failed, you have failed to make a valid point.
9/11 truth makes the big claim of overwhelming evidence, and it is only talk. It might fool the gullible, but you can't present evidence to support your claims you can't explain in detail in the first place. Like FalseFlag, you don't understand physics, and don't seem to understand Cole's experiments failed to model anything of value for the WTC.
Do you have a reason a building can't fall at g when the interior failed over 10 seconds before? IS there a reason the facade of 7 WTC can't fall at g when the interior brings it down after failing for over 10 seconds. Effects of fire caused 7 WTC to fail, a fact. The FBI found no one but 19 terrorists responsible for 9/11 damage... if you have evidence to the contrary, you need to take it to the FBI. Stop Exposing your lack of knowledge in fire, engineering, steel, physics, math, and structural engineering - does not good, the knowledge, the evidence you have 9/11 was an inside job, 7 WTC was CD is a crime, go to the FBI. What is stopping you and all of 9/11 truth from taking action? Why can't you act?
Last edited:
NoahFence
Banned
That's what I was saying. No spacing is possible. You can't expect the columns to fail slowly one after the other in a slow sequence (I used 3 seconds as an example of a slow sequence). Once the load is greater than the capacity of the columns, they must all fail virtually at the same time. If the columns don't all fail, the façade just doesn't descend.
On the other hand, try to picture a situation in which all columns but one of WTC7 fail, and that one holds the entire façade. Ridiculous, isn't it? That's just impossible. Same with 2 columns. Or 3. Extrapolating, that's why when the load exceeds the remaining capacity, all columns fail at virtually the same time. It can't be any other way.
What? No, it's a consequence of column overload as explained above. Free fall has nothing to do with that. All columns failed before acceleration reached g.
Free fall is a consequence of the already failed columns ceasing to oppose resistance as the connections break or the buckling angle increases.
Acceleration greater than gravity, as was the case, further implies that there was another force in action, probably the collapsing core pulling the façade down through the girders.
Pretty much like in this crane (whose tip experiences an acceleration much greater than gravity):
Note how after it gives way, it falls virtually unimpeded, unable to even hold its own weight. That's what happened with the columns of WTC7, except the weight was much bigger when the columns failed, making the resistance of the columns even more negligible than in the case of the crane.
Last edited: