Tower Collapse Questions for Critical Thinkers

[Cogman]

Cogman.

Feel free to just copy and paste for good ole ata... he couldn't answer anything here, and got PWNED repeatedly (several times by me). So just copy and paste them.

He didnt' post ANY math here to back up his claims.

Again, point out the unbroken windows in the buildings around ground zero and compare it with OKC bombing. Once that was done here, he ran like a little girl.

All right, I'll try and grab a few highlights for you all. Here is one of my favorites.

Originally posted by: Cogman

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: Cogman

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: Cogman
The Backhoes are neither pulling during the descent, nor are they significantly adding any vertical work before the decent. The vertical work done by the backhoes is completely negligible.

Nor did I claim otherwise.

:disgust;

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: Cogman
*edit*Youtube video of a falling building*/edit*

That video does a good job of exemplifying the point of the OP; a force beyond that of gravity is needed to achieve a period of near free fall acceleration, the force being provided by the backhoes in that case.

Gee, are you really that retarded?

I'm not being retared here, and neither is LunarRay, which is why he understood what I was referring to:

Originally posted by: LunarRay
They removed the vertical support...

Any chance you could muster the intellect to do the same?

LOL, How am I supposed to know that you really mean that the backhoes didn't provide any force to the falling of the building when you SAID that the backhoes provided the additional force needed for the falling building?

If anything the video is a clear example of why you are full of crap. A building, that when upper column support is removed, is able to completely collapse, at free fall speed none the less. Isn't that what you said was completely impossible?

Can't you just admit to being wrong? Just once? The contradiction is so clear here that I just can't fathom that someone could be so blind as to not be able to see it.

 

[Leviath]

Welcome Cogman.

A building, that when upper column support is removed, is able to completely collapse, at free fall speed none the less. Isn't that what you said was completely impossible?

There are a few threads on this forum dedicated to a certian french demolition company that don't use explosives for their demos. So if the claim of these nutbags is that global collapse is impossible by gravity alone, show them a few of the videos in this thread:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=152382

Happy debunking!

 

[Cogman]

Welcome Cogman.



There are a few threads on this forum dedicated to a certian french demolition company that don't use explosives for their demos. So if the claim of these nutbags is that global collapse is impossible by gravity alone, show them a few of the videos in this thread:
*link removed, anti spam ect*

Happy debunking!

that is where I got the youtube video for him. It was the one of the half building completely collapsing with the upper 2-3 floors falling.

We had one guy who tried to use Andrew Borjaak (or however you spell his name) as a reference to why the building collapses were impossible. That was my introduction to JREF where I found out just who he was and how laughable it is that anyone would refer to him as a reliable source.

The topic is kind of starting to peter out. The anandtech PH.d. (Dr. Pizza) has repeatedly told kyle to back up his claims. To which kyle proceeded to call him an imbecile and incapable of understanding his math.

 

[alienentity]

that is where I got the youtube video for him. It was the one of the half building completely collapsing with the upper 2-3 floors falling.

We had one guy who tried to use Andrew Borjaak (or however you spell his name) as a reference to why the building collapses were impossible. That was my introduction to JREF where I found out just who he was and how laughable it is that anyone would refer to him as a reliable source.

The topic is kind of starting to peter out. The anandtech PH.d. (Dr. Pizza) has repeatedly told kyle to back up his claims. To which kyle proceeded to call him an imbecile and incapable of understanding his math.

Maybe you're referring to Anders Bjorkman, also known as Heiwa on these threads.

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for civility.

He had his ass handed to him with the verinage videos, because they prove his assertions are bunk.

The best defense I've heard so far to rebut verinage is that they involve reinforced concrete, not steel, so don't apply to the towers.

If you go to my videos, I've also provided references to the verinage patents, which explain that the structure below the collapse is not pre-weakened. Many truthers assume, wrongly, that they are.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EY3nj728WPY

I have a series on my channel. Enjoy.

 

[jaydeehess]

So all you require is to be shown that there was a period of time, 2.5 seconds IIRC, during which there was a coincident destruction of up to 8 lower floors?

OK, the core area of the structure failed first. This is patently evident in the video as we see the top floor center of the structure begin to fall several seconds before the north facade begins its descent.

If you look at the construction of WTC 7 you will see that the 60-70% of width of the north facade above the 7th floor is being held up by 7 or 8 cantilever trusses that extend to the centeral core of the building. Take out the core columns that are supporting those cantilever trusses and the entire north facade has no support whatsoever. This is what can be expected to occur before the north facade comes down completely since it begins it descent well after the core.

Mystery solved?

It can also be noted that perhaps not coincidentally, much of the portion of the structure to the east of those cantilever trusses fell not to the south, but instead, to the northeast. It impacted 30 West Broadway so severly that it also had to be torn down.
the 'kink' in the building occurs just east of the eastern most cantilever truss and the roof structure descent progresses westward from that kink (ie. towards the support of those trusses)

Bump for Kyle?

Did I and others solve the supposed mystery of the 2.5 sec of near free fall acceleration of the north facade/wind frame of WTC 7 for you?

Your silence would suggest so but on an internet forum one never knows unless confirmed by the person who originated the inquiry.

He's out getting money orders. I doubt we will hear from him until then.

Actually, if you all are interested. When kyle couldn't prove his point here, he took his argument to another forum in hopes that nobody there could understand physics. .................



........He did learn one lesson, since he doesn't understand math or physics, he would never say anything other then "It is physically impossible" when someone would ask him for the physics to prove it.

I supplied a no-math answer as to how a lower section of the northern columns could be taken out during the collapse and result in the north facade falling at an acelleration of 'g'.

Let me guess, he ignores that?

 

[Cogman]

Completely, He feels that we are all just too stupid to understand his physics (That may be true... I don't think anyone could understand how his physics work).

right now he is talking about this post 656 in this thread. He believes that nobody has refuted it.

 

[twinstead]

I have enough trouble understanding REAL physics. Kook physics completely eludes me

 

[Dave Rogers]

right now he is talking about this post 656 in this thread. He believes that nobody has refuted it.

Since post 656 is no more than a statement of personal incredulity (apart from the lengthy mathematical derivation of the arcane formula 0=0, a truth hitherto witheld from humanity), then it's a little difficult to refute.

Dave

 

[ElMondoHummus]

... arcane formula 0=0

Zero equals zero? I don't believe it! Prove it, buster!

 

[Dave Rogers]

Okay, let's illustrate it with an example. Suppose a movement is formed to force a new investigation into 9/11 on the grounds that it may have been an inside job by the US Government, but they provide zero credible evidence of this. Quantitatively speaking, how much would you expect them to achieve?

Dave

 

[carlitos]

It depends on how many Ameros they have for a budget?

 

[GlennB]

Okay, let's illustrate it with an example. Suppose a movement is formed to force a new investigation into 9/11 on the grounds that it may have been an inside job by the US Government, but they provide zero credible evidence of this. Quantitatively speaking, how much would you expect them to achieve?

Dave

Well, Avery got a few nice plasma TVs out of it. And Bjorkman sold several copies of his Estonia CT book. But then they've zapped any future employment prospects. The jury is out.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Okay, let's illustrate it with an example. Suppose a movement is formed to force a new investigation into 9/11 on the grounds that it may have been an inside job by the US Government, but they provide zero credible evidence of this. Quantitatively speaking, how much would you expect them to achieve?

Dave

So, what you're saying here is that a bunch of zeros beget zero?

 

[jaydeehess]

Completely, He feels that we are all just too stupid to understand his physics (That may be true... I don't think anyone could understand how his physics work).

right now he is talking about this post 656 in this thread. He believes that nobody has refuted it.

Oh my,, well 656 is quite funny considering he simply used NIST's statement that for the 2.25 seconds it was in free fall and thus a=g

yes he illustrated that if A=B and B=C then A=C
IIRC it was Pythagoras(or was it Euclid?) concluded as much a millenia or so ago.

That has really never been disputed here as far as I can see. No one is disputing that, as closely as can be measured, for that amount of time the acelleration of the collapse of the north facade was equal to 'g'.


What is in dispute is HOW this occured, not THAT it occured.

I provided a senario by which there could be 7 floors of the north face offering no support to the north face whatsoever.
The north face, above the 7th floor(or 6th or 8th,,, one can look it up if one is so inclined), extends beyond the front of the lower floor wall. There were 40 storeys being held up by cantilevered trusses!! Those trusses extended back over the con-ed building to the WTC 7 core where they were anchored. Destroy the core and rain heavy debris on the Con-ed substation and those cantilever trusses become useless as far as providing support to the north facade. Certainly a damaged Con-ed structure is not going to offer much,(IIRC it was only a 3 storey structure itself) and that's all that's left to hold those trusses. Thus a 7 storey free fall(as close as can be measured).


THAT IS what he asked for, thus his query was answered, adressed, satisfied, provided for,,,, and he has simply chosen to pretend it was not.


Does anyone have a picture of the north side , ground level of WTC 7?

 

[tfk]

Completely, He feels that we are all just too stupid to understand his physics (That may be true... I don't think anyone could understand how his physics work).

right now he is talking about this post 656 in this thread. He believes that nobody has refuted it.

BTW, the fact that the building came down close to (not at) "g" does not mean that the resisting force was zero.

It means that, during that short interval, the resisting force was small compared to the weight of the building.

And that was one heavy building...

Tom

 

[tfk]

Cogman,

Let me rephrase my comment above a little more accurately.

The fact that the building came down close to (not at) "g" does not mean that the resisting force was zero.

It means that, during that short interval, the resisting force of already-buckled supports holding up that portion of the building was small compared to the weight that portion of the building.

And this is surprising, why ...?

Better.

Tom