'What about building 7'?

[AZCat]

What do you think causes weight? The reality is all objects on the face of the earth are all being accelerated towards the center of the earth, but when an equal force reaction is applied it keeps it from having any movement.

In the equation for weight

Weight = mass x gravity

the term "gravity" stands for gravitational acceleration. When the reaction is removed the acceleration generates velocity. If you walk over a hidden hole covered with light hay on it you will fall downward and gain velocity, while beforehand you would have been on solid ground with a reaction force equal to your weight and thus no velocity was generated. However, an acceleration was being applied to your mass both before and after you stepped into the hole.

Tony, Tony, Tony. We've gone over this before. You don't get to redefine common physics terms or relationships to suit your poor logic.

 

[DGM]

Dwain Deets was a NASA director for 30 years or so for example.

It's actually funny you mention Dwain Deets as an example of how things are "changing now". He started this thread over 4 years ago.

Nice job "researcher".

 

[pgimeno]

Do you think that the column 38 connection with K3004 would fail?

I don't. The connection on the other end didn't, even under that much stress (augmented by the fact that the end you refer to was in a pristine state). Why should that one fail?

 

[JayUtah]

We would not bother with internet forums such as this one if the media and academia were doing their jobs.

So we add media and academia to the list of groups who ignore Truthers. As I said, from a different perspective maybe it's not everyone else's fault that those ideas don't get a toehold.

Things are changing now.

If you say so. I've watched the Truth movement bounce from one emphasis to another, struggling for relevance. As someone else said, WTC 7 seems to be its Alamo. We suffered through missiles at the Pentagon, mini-nukes under the Twin Towers, and switched planes in Pennsylvania, and all that has fallen by the wayside in favor of a new obsession over the collapse of an empty, inconsequential building. But if you truly believe in what Richard Gage does, then I guess more power to you. I just don't think you're going to get the kind of attention you say you want by the means you've chosen.

You tell us that we're a "disgraced forum," whatever that's supposed to mean. You tell us we're out in the intellectual wilderness, so to speak, because no mainstream scientists will agree to debate you on your terms.

Yet at the same time you tell us you need this forum in order to spread your word. Why? Because the people you think should be championing your cause are allegedly failing at their jobs. So which is it? Is this forum relevant or irrelevant? Necessary to you or unnecessary? You guys have your own web forums and sites, right? Why can't you drive traffic to them? Why do you need to piggy-back on someone else's circulation?

Personally I still favor my previous hypothesis. In my experience, conspiracism is mostly about seeking attention. You can't seem to get any from the mainstream functionaries of the relevant disciplines, or from the mainstream media. So you seek it wherever you can.

But you got Reverend Chris Mohr speaking out for you, so everything is OK

He doesn't speak for me, nor I for him. As desperate as Truthers might be to find a proxy for NIST in your rage against them, we're individual private citizens simply acting as such. NIST is a formal organization. AE911T is a formal organization, which you've insinuated you represent. Trying to style this forum as some evil organization in the same vein is pretty wishful thinking.

 

[Ape of Good Hope]

Ziggy, Tony, mm, all you people.
Don't you understand that the only way to get anyone that matters to listen to you is to account for the whole day?

Unless you do that, you'll be viewed as insignificant crackpots. You've had all this time!
What the hell?

It's the tragedy of their lives.

Doomed to joust and prattle on obscure internet forums about stuff that doesn't matter.

One day they'll be dead, and their legacy will be a snail trail of stupidity on the internet.

 

[beachnut]

Dwain Deets was a NASA director for 30 years or so for example. There are several AIA Fellows, etc.

As for politics, William Binney former NSA director recently signed the AE petition. Dr. Paul Craig Roberts is a highest level GOP member and a veteran White House insider, yet he made public last year the following statement:

If only you had the same propensity to ask NIST for evidence

Wow, he makes up lies and you posted his statement; is he an engineer like you are? yes

Watching the twin towers and WTC 7 come down, it was obvious to me that the buildings were not falling down as a result of structural damage. When it became clear that the White House had blocked an independent investigation of the only three steel skyscrapers in world history to collapse as a result of low temperature office fires, it was apparent that there was a coverup. http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/09/10/911-13-years-paul-craig-roberts/

Low temperature office fires? lol, where do you get those delusions from? Is he an engineer? No, he is a nut for 911 truth. Your evidence is BS from a failed old man. Why are office fires low temperature in 911 truth world of woo.

 

[GlennB]

What do you think causes weight? The reality is all objects on the face of the earth are all being accelerated towards the center of the earth, but when an equal force reaction is applied it keeps it from having any movement.

We had a big laugh when you first made your claim, so anybody interested can follow the original (which earned you a stundie nomination). Force and acceleration are merely related.

The evidence is there for the east penthouse being a distinct and separate event.

To "stop it flying off the side" was your claimed reason. Hilarious.

You can't show any basis for how hot material would have been on the north side of the WTC 1 and the photograph of Edna Citron standing in the hole gives you real problems.

On the contrary, the photos of Cintron actually prove you wrong. There are flames visible in a number of places close to Cintron, right there in the centre of the N side. Smoke is still issuing from the hole and other places on the N side, despite the breeze.

Cintron images

There are also serious problems for your point of view due to WTC 7 being 350 feet away. I have shown photographs here in the past which showed the debris falling no more than 80 feet from the building from up high.

WTC7 was hit at its parapet and a gouge created from there extending downwards for at least 30 floors. It was hit in many places, in fact. Major debris did strike WTC7 and you have no idea of its origin or temperature.

 

[Spanx]

We would not bother with internet forums such as this one if the media and academia were doing their jobs. This has been necessary to spread the word. A dirty job but some had to do it.

It sounds tuff work being a Truther, having to degrade yourself on "disgraced forums" because the media aren't doing their Job.

I wonder what type of clientele they are expecting to find on "disgraced forums" such as this and what position does that put the resident truthers of this forum in.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

We had a big laugh when you first made your claim, so anybody interested can follow the original (which earned you a stundie nomination). Force and acceleration are merely related.



To "stop it flying off the side" was your claimed reason. Hilarious.



On the contrary, the photos of Cintron actually prove you wrong. There are flames visible in a number of places close to Cintron, right there in the centre of the N side. Smoke is still issuing from the hole and other places on the N side, despite the breeze.

Cintron images



WTC7 was hit at its parapet and a gouge created from there extending downwards for at least 30 floors. It was hit in many places, in fact. Major debris did strike WTC7 and you have no idea of its origin or temperature.

[qimg]http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg274/sap-guy/wtc7gettinghitcropped-1.jpg[/qimg]

What is laughable is watching you fail at trying to make a case for the fires in WTC 7 being caused by the collapse of WTC 1.

- The small fires behind Edna Cintron were even further away than the minimum 350 foot distance WTC 1 was from WTC 7.

- We also know those fires would have been quickly extinguished by the gypsum dust generated during the collapse.

You are groping hard and it is obvious.

The notion that the fires in WTC 7 were caused by the collapse of WTC 1 is a false construct and an additional proof of that is that they weren't noticed until nearly two hours after the collapse of WTC 1.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

The nearly two hour gap between the collapse of WTC 1 (at 10:28 AM) and the fires being noticed in WTC 7 (at 12:15 PM) is an important clue in determining the cause of the fires.

Those who want to say that nobody was around for a while after the collapse of WTC 1 have a problem in that there were helicopters in the air the whole time. The dust from the collapse of WTC 1 would have settled in about 15 minutes, yet the helicopters did not report fires in WTC 7 shortly after the collapse when they had a good view of the building.

A more logical explanation for the fires is arson, and the reality that those setting them couldn't do it until after the collapse of WTC 1, as it would not look right if done beforehand and they also had to wait for their own safety. The fire setting operation itself would take some time and they also would have to start at the top and work their way down to be safe. This is a much more sound explanation and provides real reasons for the nearly two hours that elapsed after the collapse of the second Twin Tower before anyone noticed fires in WTC 7.

 

[Ape of Good Hope]

What is laughable is...

What is laughable, Tony, is you chaps doing this on forums:

instead of making any real-world impact outside the internet.

 

[GlennB]

- We also know those fires would have been quickly extinguished by the gypsum dust generated during the collapse.

Even if your gypsum dust had doused flames it would barely reduce the temperature of hot debris. Charcoal making relies on this - while the flames are stifled the wood stays very hot. Try it Tony - get a good blaze going, smother it with dust or dirt, then shove your hand in the heap 30 seconds later

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Even if your gypsum dust had doused flames it would barely reduce the temperature of hot debris. Charcoal making relies on this - while the flames are stifled the wood stays very hot. Try it Tony - get a good blaze going, smother it with dust or dirt, then shove your hand in the heap 30 seconds later

Your charcoal analogy does not account for conduction at the bottom of the hot item. When something is on the ground and covered by dirt it is insulated on both sides. That would not be the case here.

I think your notion of extinguished items staying hot enough is a big stretch and then you have to get it to fly 350 feet or more, get into the small number of openings in WTC 7, and start fires on ten floors, all from only about 3% of the floor area of WTC 1 which had fires at the time of the collapse.

 

[Ape of Good Hope]

It sounds tuff work being a Truther, having to degrade yourself on "disgraced forums" because the media aren't doing their Job.

I wonder what type of clientele they are expecting to find on "disgraced forums" such as this and what position does that put the resident truthers of this forum in.

Visiting and revisiting places where they are mocked is a kind of ritualistic self-flagellation. It reinforces their faith.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

[qimg]http://i1049.photobucket.com/albums/s394/jrefpicciesinnit/the-evidence-v2_zps834af7e0.gif[/qimg]

I think your charts more appropriately apply to those here who are still desperately trying to support the notion that the fires in WTC 7 were caused by the collapse of WTC 1 and that the NIST report retains any credibility in its claim that WTC 7 collapsed due to those fires after it becoming clear that they fudged things and omitted pertinent structural features in their analysis.

The evidence is clear that the fires in WTC 7, first noticed nearly two hours after the collapse of WTC 1, could not have been caused by the collapse of WTC 1 and that the NIST report cannot explain the collapse of WTC 7 as being due to fire.

 

[GlennB]

What debris set the fires? Anything substantial from the obvious fire zones in this Cintron photograph, for example.

Something did this, and there's no reason whatsoever to suppose it wasn't hot enough to start fires (unless you believe, as you appear to, that only flames can be hot) :

(Oh, and the second photo suggests your arsonists climbed way up the building and set fires in the far SW corner, giving rise to that soot around several windows. Why would they do that? Sheer cunning?)

 

[Ape of Good Hope]

I think...

I think these are the kind of posts you should be paying attention to, Tony, as they cut to the quick of the matter:

All of this is so pointless.

Unfortunately for the CT's one of their favorite slogans; "Did you know a 3rd building fell on 9/11" is also one of the most compelling arguments against CD. The average Joe on the street doesn't know about Building 7. They know about the Twin Towers, they know about the Pentagon and they know about Shanksville but most folks don't know about or don't remember Building 7.

Why?

Because it doesn't really matter.

Or to put it into the context of this discussion - there was no reason to take the enormous risk and complexity of blowing up an unimportant, not-iconic, boring office building few people had heard of, cared about or would remember. Blowing up 7 achieves nothing. The loss of Building 7 is incidental to the greater events of 9/11/2001 and really only of academic interest to folks in the building industry. You can learn no more about the who/what/when/where/why/how of 9/11 studying 7 than you can studying the loss of St. Nicholas Church.

I prefer working from the start with what we know rather than the bass ackwards CT way of starting at the end with what we don't know (then implying what we don't know is suspicious).
Investigating the case properly we can say 7 WTC caught fire when the North Tower fell.
We can say that due to the lack of water pressure and the loss of firefighters and equipment there was no effective effort to suppress or extinguish those fires.
We can say those fires were allowed to spread unabated for 7 hours - well in excess of the buildings fire rating - across many floors simultaneously.
We can say by early afternoon there were multiple reports of instability within the structure and that it had started to lean.
We can say by mid-afternoon the precarious state of the building had become so obvious the area around it was evacuated, even though that meant terminating some rescue and recovery efforts.
Then we can say that starting around 5:20 pm the structure began to collapse in stages progressing from the east to the west, a collapse so sudden and quiet it caught many people off guard.

Prima facie, 7 hours of un-suppressed and un-fought fires doomed 7 WTC.

Remember, 7 WTC is the CT's Alamo. They failed with CD at the Twin Towers, shoot-downs in Shanksville and missiles at the Pentagon because the evidence for those attacks was to obvious and available. Because 7 WTC was not iconic, and no one was killed or injured there, and there was no mystery from people close to the situation as to what caused its collapse (indeed, it being expected hours before it collapsed that it would) not a lot of attention was paid to this incident. That created the perfect vacuum for CT's to fill with their own narrative and sell to a public unfamiliar with that part of the story.

But really all the attention given to 7 WTC by CT's is just more evidence of epic CT failure.

Two points relevant there:
1) Tony is wrong on the engineering and has been shown exactly where his errors are. Many times. Multiple times on THIS forum.
2) Whether or not he disagrees with NIST is a red herring. The NIST findings did not define what happened on 9/11 2001. 9/11 happened on 9/11 and was written in history on that date. What NIST wrote years later cannot rewrite history. Whether right or wrong.
As most members here know I am an experienced engineer and experienced manager of engineers who go off the rails with false reasoning. I have shown Tony where he is wrong on all of his main published theses EXCEPT one. That is not dissing Tony. It is definitely dissing his false engineering claims where they are WRONG.

He was wrong back in 2007 when I identified his error in my first ever post on an internet forum:

He was also wrong with the base premises for "Missing Jolt", and, yet again, he has not got the base premises right for WTC7 girder walk-off. (Despite the reality that a lot of debunkers have ignored the false premises and have argued within the false context set by Tony.)

AFAIK the only published paper he got partly right was in the more recent "Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis" where he was a co-author with Gregory Szuladzinski and Richard Johns. The irony there being that the Sz, Sz and J paper rebuts the false premises T Sz relied on for "Missing Jolt". Think of shooting and foot...

So we are - or at least I am - "dissing" the nonsense of his engineering. Have done many times over several recent years. Where it is wrong.

Exactly. The implicit truther position that what NIST claims changes history is stupid. Just think - if the truther logic was valid all we need do is get NIST to write a report "9/11 Never Happened" and Hey presto!...all is restored.

BUT that error of false premises is not the only big error in all this detailed NIT (NIST??) picking.

The full claims - Szamboti, AE911, Pepper letter and the et als currently tag teaming with Tony - says "If the NIST detail of girder walk-off is wrong the whole NIST explanation is falsified.

Hogwash and one of the standard truther false generalisations - false global claims. IF NIST is wrong on the girder the reality of EPH falling still means Col79 must have failed and there is still no pro CD hypothesis.

So what - 90% - of the NIST explanation still stands even IF the girder bit is wrong. The detail is not significant. <<And that is another failure of the T Sz, AE911 et al claim. They have not shown the detail to be significant NOR to have significant effect if it is wrong.

I'm sure somebody will correct me if I'm wrong but AFAICS there are only three plausible ways for Col 79 to fail:
1) Removal of multiple braces allowing the column to buckle under existing loads;
2) Addition of more weight on top to grossly overload with the braces still in place. (I haven't seen any evidence of the importation of masses of concrete blocks or pig iron ingots onto the roof) OR
3) CD for which there is no prima facie claim.

AGREED.

It is a tactical red herring to keep the discussion circling in details and a mix of personal snide comments. Thereby avoiding any of the "bigger picture" errors that the follows of T Sz persist in maintaining.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Add to the fact that most of this stuff with Gerry is repetition as well as TS. And TS has been on this arson shtick since last year

Looper would be proud...?

 

[chrismohr]

Who says Chris is the leader of this forum

News to me and suspect news to Chris.

Any comments on that Chris ?

It's old news Spanx. He's called me our leader and our frontman for months on his other blogs. I should take on the title of Cat Herder!

 

[NoahFence]

The nearly two hour gap between the collapse of WTC 1 (at 10:28 AM) and the fires being noticed in WTC 7 (at 12:15 PM) is an important clue in determining the cause of the fires.

It's almost as if they were more concerned with the collapse of the two towers, and the deaths of thousands of people, including 343 of their brothers and sisters.

Have you ZERO compassion?

Those who want to say that nobody was around for a while after the collapse of WTC 1 have a problem in that there were helicopters in the air the whole time. The dust from the collapse of WTC 1 would have settled in about 15 minutes, yet the helicopters did not report fires in WTC 7 shortly after the collapse when they had a good view of the building.

Maybe they weren't looking, they were probably more concerned with the rubble from the towers than they were making sure some crackpot 13 years later would have an asinine problem they can't figure out.

A more logical explanation for the fires is arson, and the reality that those setting them couldn't do it until after the collapse of WTC 1, as it would not look right if done beforehand and they also had to wait for their own safety.

And what did these arsonists have against the Pentagon? How did these arsonists clean up the 4th target, after they realized it wouldn't be hit?


Best and brightest....