84 of 91
84
Any scientific evidence to support official WTC 7 fall theory?
Posted: 21 January 2014 04:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1246 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2388
Joined  2007-07-05
Fuzzy Logic - 21 January 2014 01:47 PM

How is that even relevant.

The issue isn’t how much the planes deflected the towers, it’s how significantly they compromised the structural integrity. There was enough force directed in a limited area to fatally compromise the strength of the building allowing the eventual collapse.

You said this:

200 ton airliners moving at 510 knots and 430 knots respectively carry a huge amount of kinetic energy that was transferred to the towers in a very short period of time severing critical support members.

If the building only moved 15 inches then how could the kinetic energy be so great compared to the mass of the building and the damage supposedly be so great?

When people try to win arguments they often try to overwhelm the ignorant with BIG numbers as though that proves their point.  You haven’t even computed the kinetic energy actually.  You just make emotional references to it.

FIFTEEN INCHES is not a big number.

The NIST report says the south tower move 12 inches at the 70th floor which is where the digital camera was pointed.  But the plane impacted at the 81st floor.  So that means 11 floor assemblies, each weighing 750 tons had to move one foot or more.  Of course that many floor assemblies above the impact had to move also.  So energy from that airliner moved more than 15,000 tons.  So that energy was spread out and not just concentrated in that one area.  But where has the analysis been done of that in 12 years?

We never even hear about the 15 inches the building moved at the level of impact.

If the south tower was so strong and HEAVY that it only moved 15 inches at the time when the most mass was moving the fastest, how could it completely crumble one hour later because of fire?  And yet 12 years later we can’t even get data on the tons of steel on each and every level of the tower.  In fact after this long the “experts” would look ridiculous if they provided it.  We should have had it in 2002, so now everyone must be stampeded into believing unscientific drivel.

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 January 2014 06:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1247 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  464
Joined  2013-12-20
psikeyhackr - 21 January 2014 04:13 PM

You said this:

200 ton airliners moving at 510 knots and 430 knots respectively carry a huge amount of kinetic energy that was transferred to the towers in a very short period of time severing critical support members.

If the building only moved 15 inches then how could the kinetic energy be so great compared to the mass of the building and the damage supposedly be so great?

When people try to win arguments they often try to overwhelm the ignorant with BIG numbers as though that proves their point.  You haven’t even computed the kinetic energy actually.  You just make emotional references to it.

FIFTEEN INCHES is not a big number.

The NIST report says the south tower move 12 inches at the 70th floor which is where the digital camera was pointed.  But the plane impacted at the 81st floor.  So that means 11 floor assemblies, each weighing 750 tons had to move one foot or more.  Of course that many floor assemblies above the impact had to move also.  So energy from that airliner moved more than 15,000 tons.  So that energy was spread out and not just concentrated in that one area.  But where has the analysis been done of that in 12 years?

We never even hear about the 15 inches the building moved at the level of impact.

If the south tower was so strong and HEAVY that it only moved 15 inches at the time when the most mass was moving the fastest, how could it completely crumble one hour later because of fire?  And yet 12 years later we can’t even get data on the tons of steel on each and every level of the tower.  In fact after this long the “experts” would look ridiculous if they provided it.  We should have had it in 2002, so now everyone must be stampeded into believing unscientific drivel.

psik

I’ve already answered that.

The issue isn’t how much the planes deflected the towers, it’s how significantly they compromised the structural integrity. There was enough force directed in a limited area to fatally compromise the strength of the building allowing the eventual collapse.

The airliners didn’t push the WTC towers over, the direct force of the aircraft hitting the side of the building physically cut the outer support columns on the side of the impact and the fire accelerated by the jet fuel softened the steel support structure that held the floors together. This caused the building to fail in a limited area, but due to the immense weight of the floors above, a cascading effect was initiated which destroyed the entire building.

I can see why this thread has gone on so long when a few posters constantly misinterpret explanations.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 January 2014 02:08 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1248 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  427
Joined  2013-02-16

The thread has gone on this long partly because one of the people contributing to it spent six months pretending to have scientific evidence relevant the subject—which eventually turned out to be a lie, apparently fabricated only for their own amusement.

Several pages were also wasted in attempting to get VYAZMA to answer a simple question similar to the question I’ve recently directed at citizenschallenge.pm—to no avail, of course.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 January 2014 06:23 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1249 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4066
Joined  2010-08-15
jomper - 20 January 2014 08:16 AM
citizenschallenge.pm - 20 January 2014 07:44 AM

The point is, the steel structure was weakened and grossly destabilized

And yet it did not collapse in a “destabilized” way—which is to say, towards the most damaged area. Instead it came straight down with only a very slight deviation from the vertical at the point of initiation.

So you say.

I’ve heard otherwise.

What evidence do you have to support your claim?

You claim “only a very slight deviation from the vertical at the point of initiation” -
can you quantify the amount of deviation of each upright in that grid of I-beams?

 Signature 

How many times do lies need to be exposed
before we have permission to trash them?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 January 2014 06:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1250 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4066
Joined  2010-08-15

jumper,

please try to consider a steel structure, an I-beam grid, getting baked by fire for hours…

Think this thing through -

That entire I-beam grid was ‘heat fatigued’ and pushed to it’s structural limits !

There was no tensile strength left in those I-beams and connections to drag the rest of the structure towards the origin of collapse.  So it slumped down on itself.

It’s elementary my dear.

 Signature 

How many times do lies need to be exposed
before we have permission to trash them?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 January 2014 07:39 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1251 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2388
Joined  2007-07-05
citizenschallenge.pm - 22 January 2014 06:33 PM

jumper,

please try to consider a steel structure, an I-beam grid, getting baked by fire for hours…

What HOURS are you talking about?

The north tower came down in less than 2 hours.  The south tower in less than 1 hour.

How many skyscraper fires can you find that lasted longer than the WTC7 fire but still did not collapse?  Unless of course you choose not to look for them.  But the bottom line is that the ONLY skyscraper collapses you can find were all on the same day and in the same place.

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 January 2014 09:45 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1252 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4066
Joined  2010-08-15

yea psik, we’ve with WTC 7 for a few posts now.

So, you’re still confused about 1 and 2 ?

What a shame, it’s literally like you believe that unless an absolutely perfect sequence of failures can be laid out for you - that you can assume it didn’t happen, or something like that.

Never mind that those I-beam components (all buildings) were never made to handle anything even close to what they were exposed to.

 Signature 

How many times do lies need to be exposed
before we have permission to trash them?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 January 2014 12:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1253 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  427
Joined  2013-02-16
citizenschallenge.pm - 23 January 2014 09:45 AM

yea psik, we’ve with WTC 7 for a few posts now.

So, you’re still confused about 1 and 2 ?

What a shame, it’s literally like you believe that unless an absolutely perfect sequence of failures can be laid out for you - that you can assume it didn’t happen, or something like that.

Never mind that those I-beam components (all buildings) were never made to handle anything even close to what they were exposed to.

Then it should be easy for you to give examples of other steel framed high rise buildings that suffered global collapse due to fire. Apparently you also know the temperatures involved.

I shall return to your other comments presently.

In the meantime please cite just one example from the many occasions when high rise buildings have caught fire where the building collapsed completely in a manner at all comparable to WTC7.

[ Edited: 23 January 2014 12:59 PM by jomper ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 January 2014 01:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1254 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2388
Joined  2007-07-05
citizenschallenge.pm - 23 January 2014 09:45 AM

yea psik, we’ve with WTC 7 for a few posts now.

So, you’re still confused about 1 and 2 ?

What a shame, it’s literally like you believe that unless an absolutely perfect sequence of failures can be laid out for you - that you can assume it didn’t happen, or something like that.

Never mind that those I-beam components (all buildings) were never made to handle anything even close to what they were exposed to.

Yeah, never mind that you don’t mention any other skyscraper with I-beams that came down after HOURS of fire.

It’s not like there haven’t been any other fires:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3B1OnhSucP8

But curiously that building did not come down.

psik

[ Edited: 23 January 2014 07:24 PM by psikeyhackr ]
 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 January 2014 02:18 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1255 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  427
Joined  2013-02-16
citizenschallenge.pm - 22 January 2014 06:23 PM
jomper - 20 January 2014 08:16 AM
citizenschallenge.pm - 20 January 2014 07:44 AM

The point is, the steel structure was weakened and grossly destabilized

And yet it did not collapse in a “destabilized” way—which is to say, towards the most damaged area. Instead it came straight down with only a very slight deviation from the vertical at the point of initiation.

So you say.

I’ve heard otherwise.

Oh, you’ve heard otherwise? You’re not the sort of person who would make a vague and unsubstantiated claim and emphatically demand evidence in response, are you?

I mean, that would be grossly hypocritical, wouldn’t it?

citizenschallenge.pm - 22 January 2014 06:23 PM

What evidence do you have to support your claim?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxl06jxfgRk

I consider the video evidence at 1m30s particularly clear.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 January 2014 02:23 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1256 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  427
Joined  2013-02-16

This is a question from a previous post I am curious to know your response to.

jomper - 20 January 2014 08:16 AM
citizenschallenge.pm - 20 January 2014 07:44 AM

Seems to me the official report did the best it could given the situation

Perhaps you would join me in deploring the fact that not a single piece of the available physical evidence from the building was analysed in the production of the report. Is this really what you consider “the best” that could be done?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 January 2014 04:35 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1257 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4066
Joined  2010-08-15
jomper - 23 January 2014 02:23 PM

This is a question from a previous post I am curious to know your response to.

jomper - 20 January 2014 08:16 AM
citizenschallenge.pm - 20 January 2014 07:44 AM

Seems to me the official report did the best it could given the situation

Perhaps you would join me in deploring the fact that not a single piece of the available physical evidence from the building was analysed in the production of the report. Is this really what you consider “the best” that could be done?

For starters, I don’t trust your claim.
For seconds, it’s vague as hell - What physical evidence was supposed be to analyzed with what tests, looking for what?

 Signature 

How many times do lies need to be exposed
before we have permission to trash them?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 February 2014 03:24 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1258 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  427
Joined  2013-02-16
citizenschallenge.pm - 23 January 2014 04:35 PM
jomper - 20 January 2014 08:16 AM
citizenschallenge.pm - 20 January 2014 07:44 AM

Seems to me the official report did the best it could given the situation

Perhaps you would join me in deploring the fact that not a single piece of the available physical evidence from the building was analysed in the production of the report. Is this really what you consider “the best” that could be done?

For starters, I don’t trust your claim.

In other words, you can’t be bothered to research the subject so you’re attempting to hand-wave it away by saying you don’t trust the uncontested facts.

If you had bothered to look as far as the NIST FAQ on the WTC 7 collapse you would have found the (extremely weak) official response to this issue:

28. NIST’s entire investigation included no physical evidence.

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm

citizenschallenge.pm - 23 January 2014 04:35 PM

For seconds, it’s vague as hell - What physical evidence was supposed be to analyzed with what tests, looking for what?

If you had bothered to read any of the earlier reports you would know that

Appendix C of FEMA’s 2002 Building Performance Study documented the existence of several beams from World Trade Center Building 7 that had experienced a “severe high temperature corrosion attack.”1 The New York Times called this “perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation.”2

...

Unfortunately, the National Institute of Standards and Technology did not follow up on the FEMA Building Performance Study’s call for further analysis of this steel in its subsequent multi-year investigation into the destruction of Building 7

http://rethink911.org/evidence/building-7/melted-steel/

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 February 2014 07:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1259 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  464
Joined  2013-12-20

The chain of evidence behind the attack being carried out by Islamic extremists backed by Al Qaeda is extensive and a continuation for a campaign that was constantly ramping up. There’s no need except an emotional one to extend the conspiracy to bombs planted inside the buildings themselves.

If the intent was to trigger the kind of event that would allow a political agenda to be forced on an unwilling nation, engaging in the kind of extensive plot that would require the participation of not just hundreds but likely thousands of people to pull off at the level the attack occurred would make it almost certain that there would be a substantive leak of information…think of what’s going on now with one of America’s most security conscious organizations the NSA and its inability to prevent the leaking of very damaging information on it’s activities.

The preping of all the WTC buildings for complete demolition would have required the movement of massive amounts of explosives and extensive work to place and prepare the charges…in secure buildings. And it’s not credible to claim WTC 7 was the main target and it alone was rigged for demolition if you’re advocating the demolition hypothesis.

So we have good evidence for the most likely causes of the buildings failures, the impact of fuel ladden aircraft on the two towers leading to eventual failure. The collapse of WTC 1 sent debris that impacted and damaged WTC 7 and started fires that could potentially have involved several thousand gallons of diesel fuel.

The chaos caused by the terrorist attack makes finding definitive answers difficult, so speculation becomes much more possible.

My take on this issue is that some people continue to push it in the beliefs that at some point there will be someone on the “inside” finally speaking out…which I find is a fairly forlorn hope as anyone inclined to do so probably would have a long time ago.

It would have required too many people to pull this off without leaving a detectable trail from other sources than questionable results from a collapse model that relies on incomplete data by its very nature.

Personally I find this endless, “prove my conspiracy theories wrong to my satisfaction or I’m right” approach dishonest from a scientific standpoint.

The onus is on the parties making the claim, if you have the evidence then publish it in credible scientific journals where it can be verified by other professionals.

And even then the story won’t be over…which is the whole point of science.

So what’s really driving this topic is likely politics.

[ Edited: 03 February 2014 07:30 PM by Fuzzy Logic ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 February 2014 08:21 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1260 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4066
Joined  2010-08-15

Well said - it would make a fitting closing to this never-ending thread.

Fuzzy Logic - 03 February 2014 07:12 PM

Personally I find this endless, “prove my conspiracy theories wrong to my satisfaction or I’m right” approach dishonest from a scientific standpoint.

The onus is on the parties making the claim, if you have the evidence then publish it in credible scientific journals where it can be verified by other professionals.

And even then the story won’t be over…which is the whole point of science.

So what’s really driving this topic is likely politics.

 Signature 

How many times do lies need to be exposed
before we have permission to trash them?

Profile
 
 
   
84 of 91
84