9/11 Poll

Then why didn't the building exhibit some level of asymmetry in it's collapse?

I guess I also don't fully appreciate where you are coming from with this if you buy the present government explanation of internal collapse from east to west first without any external indications below the roof and then the entire exterior collapses as a unit in full freefall for 100 feet.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

building 7, it's like a hole opened up and it fell in.
the only thing i can say about 7 is it was part cantilever and built on ground not suited for the weight.
a video posted by tony has an investigator stating it wouldn't take much removal of the thermal insulation to cause the building to fail.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

This thread needs a good kittening.

 

We have been through this before and you were shown that WTC 7 did not even have a basement. The building was also not cantilevered. It was built over top a two story substation on it's north side but this was done with deep beams, which were supported by large columns at both ends. The building was very well constructed and exceeded code in many instances, which you will see if you read about it. You keep making these simplistic and erroneous statements about WTC 7 with no facts to back them up. Why?

 

The roof kink was due to core columns failing first and the east and west sides being drawn inward somewhat. This is a classic feature of a controlled demolition, do you realize that?

If the south side exterior was in the amount of distress you describe then it should have failed first and a north to south asymmetry should have been observed. It wasn't.

If demolition teams had entered WTC 7 on Sept. 11, 2001 we wouldn't be having this conversation. The issue is that it was a controlled demolition and since it could not have been rigged that day it had to be done in advance. Why would the building have been rigged for demolition in advance?

I agree that thermite does not need air to burn and it would be an interesting test to try to ignite the red/gray chips in an inert atmosphere.

 

Why don't YOU...or Greening...or NIST...or USGS repeat the ignition test in air, or otherwise.

 

The reason I ask about numbers is because that is what I do. These claims were unattributed claims. Now you give the source.

The 2.25 is likely the square root of 5. It should be written as 2.2. Doubtful that 3 digits of precision are available. A camera shooting around 20 frames a second sets a limit on the precision of the measurements.

 

I think your line of reasoning is poor. The connections you draw are vague at best. This is the whole problem for me in this thread. This is all grasping at straws.

 

So far Tony all I see is misrepresentation by the conspiracy claims.

The pyroclastic flow claim is absurd. It is being done to mislead.
The white smoke claim is white dust, not smoke. To label it smoke is ludicrous. It falls! The heat of *thermite would make the smoke rise. Even neater is that it falls fast. It falls so fast that the dust clouds appear as a connected flow on the outside of the building. No heat in that stuff.

You postings of freefall speeds or near freefall speeds tell us that the white material coming out of the building is cold, not hot.

 

20 frames a second = 0.05 seconds per frame.
0.05 is 3 digit precision.

on a commonly used standard of 24 frames per second, 2.25 seconds equals exactly 54 frames, so the building fell at freefall for 54 frames.

 

pretending that molten iron spheres are produced by burning "primer paint" at 430 Celcius is grasping at straws.

didn't the anti-truthers for years claim that the iron spheres were fly ash produced in an incinerator at 1400 Celcius and then added to concrete aggregate, never did they claim the molten iron came from burnt paint.

we now know the red chips produce molten iron spheres.
burning "primer paint" does not produce molten iron spheres.

 

Headspin you are taking my statement way, way, way out of context.

My statement had nothing whatsoever to do with anything you are stating here. Nothing --- nada.

I know you've been busy arguing about Harrit's paper. Fine. You missed what I was saying. That's okay.

To address one issue with your post here, despite its lack of relevance to my post, using the term anti-truthers is not the sort of irrational labeling that you want to use to win acceptance of your ideas. It sounds to me like the term someone uses when throwing in the towel in defeat.

 

anyone who incessantly refers to 911 research(ers) as conspiracy theory(ists) deserves the title anti-truther, as it seeks to delegitimise through pejorative in order to avoid examining the evidence.

i don't see you complaining about the term "twoofer", "kook", "quacks", "conspiracy theorists", "lizardmen believers", "conspiracy crowd" (yours), "religious belief" which are constantly tolerated here.

it seems some people will only discuss the issues if the other guy is standing under a neon sign that reads "nutjob".

when was the last time you looked at the tags at the bottom of the thread.

 

I didn't look at the tags at the bottom. Wasn't part of my interest. Tells me nothing about the content of the postings.

I have not used any of these terms you list with the possible exception of conspiracy theorist.

If you want to discuss the evidence fine. Leave the anti-truther label out of posts to me. I'd appreciate it. It does nothing but ridicule your own position when used.

 

yes, we've been through this before.
yes, WTC 7 didn't have a basement that you could put stuff in but it WAS gravel backfill, something i hardly call a stable foundation.

you'll notice that i chose my words carefully, i said "part cantilever"
the upper part was cantilevered over the lower part. (overhang would probably describe it better).

the same thing has been said of WTC 1 and 2 but the presence of butt joints contradicts that statement.
you are most likely correct though in saying WTC 7 was a good design.

what erroneous "fact" have i stated tony?
it's not my intention to mislead.

 

if the shoe fits and that is your position then you cant expect people to not be a little short on patience when responding to someone who makes the same false claims over and over. also from what i have seen the toofers are deliberately deceptive and that annoys people as well when trying to discuss something seriously. and it is not due to the subject because it can be about anything.