NIST's Fraudulent Report on the Collapse of WTC7 on 9/11 [W:2152,2510]

[Mark F]

Appeal to authority, or an appeal to majority. And no, I am not an 'expert' but I can see with my own eyes a building reduced to rubble near free fall symmetrically destroying itself top to bottom in the exact manner of nearly every controlled demolition.
I am willing to bet the majority of OCT supporting engineers do so out of reputation sake. 911 is a touchy subject and the potential to be fired or ridiculed for making statements is too high. The others who genuinely support the OCT are likely in the 'oh govt couldnt have lied etc' frame of mind; their opinions and conclusions are biased from their world view; they have emotions which can override true objective research.



Well you have to hear what they say before labeling it as fraudulent. Their conclusions are simply based on well accepted aerodynamic principles, as well as, the OCT version in no way matching what Air Traffic records show, among many other false statements and publicly available data which conflicts entirely with the OCT.

That is quite a load of assumptions and false generalizations there. Again, if you would care to make a specific, evidence-based claim - something not based on personal incredulity I would love to hear it.

 

[chutney]

Sure. What should I appeal to? My own untrained eyes?

Well, you can see it right? Does it not fit every trait of a controlled demolition? Does it resemble any gravitational collapse?

So? Have you ever seen a building that big collapse from any other means? Didn't we just talk about this?

Have you ever seen ANY building collapse gravitationally with the same profile? ie, near free fall, near symmetrical, destroying itself top to bottom? If we are comparing the means in which a building can collapse, the only reference is structural failure gravitational or controlled demolition...which does it resemble the most?.....controlled demolition!

Here's video of gravitationally collapsed building
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKeENdyIluI

Heres a video of what happens if all the support columns are not destroyed in a precise manner
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fms8r2dRu_8

And another, this is similar to what towers 1&2 shouldve collapse had gravity and structural failure been the only cause *asymmetrical* *meets path of most resistance then topples over* This was apparent to me the moment it happened.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xf243Pj0S-Y

And another failed demolition, I love the posters comment "for those of you that think demolishing a building is easy"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsePUn5-88c
Notice how its asymmetric, and leaves large sections of building remaining? Thats what one would expect in a structural failure gravitational collapse since not all columns were removed precisely and synchronized.

and dont use 'any buildings that big' argument, wtc7 is 47 stories tall, same as the Singer building in NYC, a voluntary demolition, was brought down symmetrically near free fall destroying itself top to bottom. (remind you of anything?)

The 'evidence' is comparing know building collapses, whats possible given the physics involved, and how it relates to wtc. The complete total destruction symmetrically near free fall is only seen in controlled demolition.

Have you asked?

Absolutely, many friends of mine are involved in engineering, sadly their disposition is there is nothing we can do about it, or that for them to make statements regarding 911 is dangerous for their career.

Well thanks for that random supposition. Are conspiracy theorists supposed to be unemotional?

Absolutely not, my point is the authority you appeal to can be WRONG, is that a possibility? Sure many truthers have wild ideas and subject to emotions, sure we can be wrong. Its about comparing whats likely to unlikely. The OCT requires some of the most extraordinary events in history, many being impossible, whereas truthers merely state the OCT is full of lies. Is that too far a notion to consider? Has govt ever lied before? (Iran-contra, Iraq incubator)

I've heard them make fraudulent statements.

Lets hear it, which statements are false. Since someone has complained we are 'going off topic' I will leave you with this paper showing the NTSB record data vs the OCT. AA77 Technical Outline

No, OCT version does match. Who told you otherwise? pilotsfor911truth?

Have you compared the OCT vs the data presented? NTSB? Structural capabilites of aircraft over max operating capabilities? I have and its clear the discrepancies/false claims are abundant.

Now that's just a wee bit silly don't you think? Fire is a highly destructive and unpredictable thing. That buildings are vulnerable to fire should not be news to you or anyone

Whats silly? The idea fire can produce the traits of the WTC collapse? I agree, and you are correct buildings are vulnerable to fires, I never argued against that. My point is that a fire cannot produce what we saw on 911. (enter 'experts' and 'wheres the evidence' rhetoric)

If the OCT is true, then we can forgoe demo companies and just light buildings on fire to bring them down. Nevermind all those other examples of buildings on fire some over 24 hours, those were just anomalies right? The OCT proved we can take buildings down top to bottom near symmetric near freefall with nothing but fires/few damaged floors, demo companies are screwed.

BTW - the speed at which something falls tells you nothing about why it fell, nor does "near free-fall" or any alleged "symmetry" have any bearing on anything

Ok, I'll give you the 'why' it began to fall argument, how about 'why did it present uniform acceleration, only capable if the floors below offered no resistance?' Or 'Why would asymmetric damage result in symmetric collapse going down the path of most resistance?' If you'd like I can link papers exploring the mathematical and physical requirements of the observed collapse profile.

But none of this really answers my question, which is do you have a point?

My point? The OCT has numerous flaws, discrepancies, contradictions and misinformation. Many of which counter the arguments of OCT supporters. Gravitational collapse profiles in no way resemble controlled demolitions, heres a good illustration of that
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiHeCjZlkr8
This indicates the OCT is a lie, as argued in the OP, thats my point.

since you seem to want to discuss things that have nothing to do with the OP of this thread.

Accept for the quotations I provided from NIST, the implications of those statements, and how these conclusions are beyond the reliability of the NIST model (as admitted by NIST)
"NCSTAR 1A, page 44
The simulations do show the formation of the kink, but any subsequent movement of the building is beyond the reliability of the physics in the model."

This 205 page long discussion has been a nitpickin back-and-forth focus on ONE aspect of 911, how dare I bring up all the other OCT flaws huh? Just stick to the one discussion (wtc7) which ultimately cannot be PROVED, but discern whats more likely from less likely. As I said, whats more likely? The most extraorindary events many of which are impossible, or the contrary, govt is lying? To me its obvious the latter is far more likely, definitive imo.

Its like you're all focused on individual grains of sand and trying to argue whether its a beach or a sand dune, maybe step back look at the WHOLE picture? OCT absuridites vs the govt is lying.

 

[chutney]

That is quite a load of assumptions and false generalizations there. Again, if you would care to make a specific, evidence-based claim - something not based on personal incredulity I would love to hear it.

Ok, what is your evidence based claim? Dont use NIST either, simply present to me the 'evidence' that a structural failure gravitational collapse can produce the collapse profiles seen on 911. Remember, dont appeal to authority, simply provide definitive PROOF the OCT is absolute truth.

 

[Mark F]

Ok, what is your evidence based claim? Dont use NIST either, simply present to me the 'evidence' that a structural failure gravitational collapse can produce the collapse profiles seen on 911. Remember, dont appeal to authority, simply provide definitive PROOF the OCT is absolute truth.

Why would I use NIST? While the NIST are fundamentally correct about prolonged exposure to un-fought fires as the proximate cause of the collapse of 7 World Trade Center I happen to think they got the details of the mechanism wrong. I have already made a number of detailed posts on this topic in the thread I linked to earlier. If you are truly interested in my views on this particular subject I suggest you review my posts there, then if you require any further clarification ask.

Here is something for you to ponder though;

7 World Trade Center fell the way buildings fall - in the direction of gravity. There is in fact little to differentiate a collapse due to what we will call natural causes such as fire, corrosion, metal fatigue, overloading, etc, etc, etc,... and Malicious Human Intervention (MHI). All the mechanism does is initiate the collapse - get the building in motion. Once in motion gravity does all the work. The building doesn't know what caused it to start falling. It's not going to fall differently if explosives took out column X vs. fire induced failure.

So why is there any expectation that MHI and natural collapse should appear fundamentally different at the level of casual observation? If you think there should be fundamental differences then it isn't reality that is the problem but rather your perceptions.

The real issue with 7 World Trade Center is that tall buildings don't collapse in front of a crowd and on film every day. It really takes extraordinary circumstances for that to happen and such circumstances are (thankfully) exceedingly rare. People are used to seeing tall buildings fall only when someone made them fall on purpose. For most people that is the only frame of reference they have, so it is easy for them to say "7 looks just like a CD" and on a superficial level they are correct. There is a lot that is the same or very similar as there should be.

It is the differences however, that are the most interesting.

 

[ozeco41]

Here is something for you to ponder though;

7 World Trade Center fell the way buildings fall - in the direction of gravity. There is in fact little to differentiate a collapse due to what we will call natural causes such as fire, corrosion, metal fatigue, overloading, etc, etc, etc,... and Malicious Human Intervention (MHI). All the mechanism does is initiate the collapse - get the building in motion. Once in motion gravity does all the work. The building doesn't know what caused it to start falling. It's not going to fall differently if explosives took out column X vs. fire induced failure.

Well said Mark. That is the central issue - the fatal error in all these truther false "memes". Free fall, symmetrical, own footprint, throwing beams --whatever.

Whether they are true or false matters not. They do not distinguish "natural" from "MHI" (AKA "CD").

If chutney is ever serious and wants to understand the engineering I can either link him to previous posts or post simple explanations for most aspects. (As simple as the topic will allow - cascade initiation for the Twins is quite complicated esp for those who want details. :doh )

 

[Mark F]

My point? The OCT has numerous flaws, discrepancies, contradictions and misinformation. Many of which counter the arguments of OCT supporters. Gravitational collapse profiles in no way resemble controlled demolitions, heres a good illustration of that
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiHeCjZlkr8
This indicates the OCT is a lie, as argued in the OP, thats my point.

Tell me you didn't just link to a video about Chandler/Szamboti's "Missing Jolt" theory, a hypothesis that requires delayed action gravity if it is to be validated. Surely your many engineer friends would have pointed this very obvious and fatal flaw out to you.

 

[ozeco41]

Tell me you didn't just link to a video about Chandler/Szamboti's "Missing Jolt" theory, a hypothesis that requires delayed action gravity if it is to be validated. Surely your many engineer friends would have pointed this very obvious and fatal flaw out to you.

The "Missing Jolt" class of errors are the consequences of false starting assumptions. In fact "Missing Jolt" is not the class - it is simply a specific example of the "Axial contact of falling Column Ends" class of errors. Which far to many debunkers fall for - not just truthers.

They blindly follow the sort of "reasoning" which Bazant used in his papers. BUT forget the limitations. B&Z was a "limit case" - and valid despite all the confusion it has caused for many truthers, and debunkers especially the "narrow focus" technician level engineers. Later Bazant papers and Szamboti's material on Twin Towers and ditto Chandler's and multiple attempted rebuttals all make the same mistakes. Again explanations if ever chutney decides to get serious. But it is probably better to clear the deck of the more obvious nonsense before we try to tackle that one.

Recall my previous comment:

(As simple as the topic will allow - cascade initiation for the Twins is quite complicated esp for those who want details. :doh )

The base issue is treating the collapse initiation as if the mechanism was "one-dimensional". It wasn't. It was three-dimensional" and CANNOT be understood or explained in 1D.

 

[psikeyhackr]

The "Missing Jolt" class of errors are the consequences of false starting assumptions. In fact "Missing Jolt" is not the class - it is simply a specific example of the "Axial contact of falling Column Ends" class of errors. Which far to many debunkers fall for - not just truthers.

So you are saying there would not be a jolt when horizontal beams in the core impacted each other?

Care to explain how they could possible miss?

psik

 

[Mark F]

So you are saying there would not be a jolt when horizontal beams in the core impacted each other?

Care to explain how they could possible miss?

psik

What do horizontal beams have to do with axial contact of falling column ends?

 

[ozeco41]

What do horizontal beams have to do with axial contact of falling column ends?

 

[ozeco41]

So you are saying there would not be a jolt when horizontal beams in the core impacted each other?

No - I am not. My statement was explicit and clear.

Care to explain how they could possible miss?

Why should I chase your strawman?
- it is obvious that the horizontal beams in the core:
a) Could not miss;
b) Did not miss;
c) Those that impacted would shear off because the applied dynamic load was overwhelming - at least one order of magnitude greater than the beams to column joints could withstand; AND
d) The "spires" are visual evidence of that shearing off.

PLUS - back on my original statement:
It is bleeding obvious that - once the Top Block is falling because all the columns have failed - the space previously occupied by the affected columns is LESS so the original length column could not be still occupying the space except in a buckled condition.

THEREFORE the ends had already missed and cannot impact axially with the full load transfer strength needed to cause the "Big Jolt" that Szamboti and his sycophant followers were looking for.

AND quite a significant proportion of the engineering and physics "competent" debunkers miss that bleedingly obvious fact.

AND - back on the topic of WTC7 - that generic error - false premises - is also one of the several fatal errors in Szamboti's false claims for WTC7. Which is the false technical basis for the Pepper letter.

 

[chutney]

7 World Trade Center fell the way buildings fall - in the direction of gravity. There is in fact little to differentiate a collapse due to what we will call natural causes such as fire, corrosion, metal fatigue, overloading, etc, etc, etc,... and Malicious Human Intervention (MHI).

Except you have to ignore the undamaged structure to get a vertical free fall 'collapse' profile. It would offer resistance (newtons 3rd law?). Since wtc7 began its 'collapse' starting with column 79, the gravitational domino effect would pull the building 'in the direction of gravity', as it meets resistance, the kinetic energy would transfer its load across the path of least resistance, aka, asymmetrical, not into its own footprint. Its odd how the lengths ppl go to denying this. They assume the other columns not experiencing thermal expansion had no ability to transfer the kinetic energy to a asymmetric 'collapse' profile. Not only that, they assume the failure of one leads inevitably to the failure of the rest.

"So why is there any expectation that MHI and natural collapse should appear fundamentally different at the level of casual observation?"

Uhh, maybe because a successful elimination of key components to facilitate a near free fall, near symmetric collapse cannot occur in a gravitational structural failure. If you can find an example of a structural failure gravitational collapse that fits the profile of wtc7, Id be very interested. If the removal of these columns is not precise, the demolition or 'collapse' will progress in a completely different manner, ie asymmetric, meets resistance from undamaged structure affecting the acceleration curve. Applying the laws of physics, that means that all of the building’s potential energy was converted to kinetic energy, which means that there was no energy available to do the work of buckling the columns as required by the fire-induced collapse hypothesis. In other words, some other force had to act on the columns to make them all suddenly, in an instant, offer no measurable resistance to the collapse of the building

The real issue with 7 World Trade Center is that tall buildings don't collapse in front of a crowd and on film every day. It really takes extraordinary circumstances for that to happen and such circumstances are (thankfully) exceedingly rare

Extraordinary, exceedingly rare? Or approaching impossible? Has any building 'collapsed' from gravitional structural failure that fits the profile of wtc7? If ppl are reporting bombs, and it fits every trait of nearly every successful CD, the likeliness is overwhelmingly in favor of CD. Again, show me a gravitational structural failure that fits that profile.

If chutney is ever serious and wants to understand the engineering I can either link him to previous posts or post simple explanations for most aspects

Lets hear it, and serious? Im not sure ppl watching wtc7 fall the way it did and think fire could possibly accomplish that are serious by any measure. Its likely an ego based insecurity producing extreme denial; you can produce as many epicycles as possible to fit your conclusion, it still doesnt negate the evidence for the contrary.

Plus we are only focused on wtc7, the remaining OCT screams fraud which again requires serious denial to negate those facts.

"For wtc 1,when one floor impacts another, the kinetic energy from the falling floor is consumed (a) by pulverizing the floor and (b) by breaking free the next floor. The resisting force increases by a factor >6 at the end of the sequence compared to the crushing of the first floor, this will inevitably mean an amplification of the resisting force (relative to the applied force) through the 'collapse', and if the structure is performing anywhere above 85% on every floor a terminal velocity is reached i.e. the acceleration will tend towards zero. In order for there to be constant acceleration every floor must lose an equal amount of structural integrity (>25%) that is, both 'damaged' and undamaged columns all have to have an equal amount of remaining structural integrity, otherwise there will be no constant acceleration."

"This implies that the effective downward force is even less than the initial floor count, as the debris not only gets laterally ejected but the crushing action absorbs momentum. The crushing pressure goes both ways and reduces the mass of the upper block due to lateral ejection and absorbs energy, the same does not go for the lower block as the structural resistance of the lower block will remain the same(actually increase) while reduction of the mass and energy of the upper block slows it down"

As shown here WTC 1 COLLAPSE - THE FIRST MOMENTS there isnt enough kinetic energy to do so. I forgot to mention the fact that steel doesnt go from from immeasurable fatigue to catastrophic failure; the 'collapse' wouldnt be a sudden onset, but gradual as the steel goes from normal strength to gradual weakening from fire. Not to mention 45 minutes of exposure to office furniture fires does little to the integrity of the columns, and the fires were oxygen deprived, thus cooler.

A look at energy requirements to produce the observe dust cloud; they were 10 fold of the gravitational potential
The North Tower's Dust Cloud

Melted steel was also documented in App C of the FEMA report, where does this fit in the gravity structural failure theory?

Ironically, the most ferocious challenges will come from those who consider themselves logical thinkers, employers of the scientific method. They simply cannot reconcile something this outrageous with their 'scientific' and 'logical' belief system, not realizing their belief system is actually ideological, not scientific

So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts.

Sorry but this gave me a chuckle, Here's the kicker; facts can be interpreted, thus may not be facts at all. It once was a 'fact' that the Sun is smaller than the Earth, the Earth doesnt appear to move, and the stars rotate around our planet. This was logical common sense to an observer in those times, Ptolemy mathematically proved the geocentric universe. You're 'proving' a scenario that was predetermined. Take time to consider the WHOLE picture, if lies exist throughout the OCT, is it too ridiculous to think the gravity driven collapse theory is fraudulent as well? Is it really that hard?

 

[Mark F]

Except you have to ignore the undamaged structure to get a vertical free fall 'collapse' profile. It would offer resistance (newtons 3rd law?). Since wtc7 began its 'collapse' starting with column 79, the gravitational domino effect would pull the building 'in the direction of gravity', as it meets resistance, the kinetic energy would transfer its load across the path of least resistance, aka, asymmetrical, not into its own footprint. Its odd how the lengths ppl go to denying this. They assume the other columns not experiencing thermal expansion had no ability to transfer the kinetic energy to a asymmetric 'collapse' profile. Not only that, they assume the failure of one leads inevitably to the failure of the rest.

Uhh, maybe because a successful elimination of key components to facilitate a near free fall, near symmetric collapse cannot occur in a gravitational structural failure. If you can find an example of a structural failure gravitational collapse that fits the profile of wtc7, Id be very interested. If the removal of these columns is not precise, the demolition or 'collapse' will progress in a completely different manner, ie asymmetric, meets resistance from undamaged structure affecting the acceleration curve. Applying the laws of physics, that means that all of the building’s potential energy was converted to kinetic energy, which means that there was no energy available to do the work of buckling the columns as required by the fire-induced collapse hypothesis. In other words, some other force had to act on the columns to make them all suddenly, in an instant, offer no measurable resistance to the collapse of the building



Extraordinary, exceedingly rare? Or approaching impossible? Has any building 'collapsed' from gravitional structural failure that fits the profile of wtc7? If ppl are reporting bombs, and it fits every trait of nearly every successful CD, the likeliness is overwhelmingly in favor of CD. Again, show me a gravitational structural failure that fits that profile.



Lets hear it, and serious? Im not sure ppl watching wtc7 fall the way it did and think fire could possibly accomplish that are serious by any measure. Its likely an ego based insecurity producing extreme denial; you can produce as many epicycles as possible to fit your conclusion, it still doesnt negate the evidence for the contrary.

Plus we are only focused on wtc7, the remaining OCT screams fraud which again requires serious denial to negate those facts.

"For wtc 1,when one floor impacts another, the kinetic energy from the falling floor is consumed (a) by pulverizing the floor and (b) by breaking free the next floor. The resisting force increases by a factor >6 at the end of the sequence compared to the crushing of the first floor, this will inevitably mean an amplification of the resisting force (relative to the applied force) through the 'collapse', and if the structure is performing anywhere above 85% on every floor a terminal velocity is reached i.e. the acceleration will tend towards zero. In order for there to be constant acceleration every floor must lose an equal amount of structural integrity (>25%) that is, both 'damaged' and undamaged columns all have to have an equal amount of remaining structural integrity, otherwise there will be no constant acceleration."

"This implies that the effective downward force is even less than the initial floor count, as the debris not only gets laterally ejected but the crushing action absorbs momentum. The crushing pressure goes both ways and reduces the mass of the upper block due to lateral ejection and absorbs energy, the same does not go for the lower block as the structural resistance of the lower block will remain the same(actually increase) while reduction of the mass and energy of the upper block slows it down"

As shown here WTC 1 COLLAPSE - THE FIRST MOMENTS there isnt enough kinetic energy to do so. I forgot to mention the fact that steel doesnt go from from immeasurable fatigue to catastrophic failure; the 'collapse' wouldnt be a sudden onset, but gradual as the steel goes from normal strength to gradual weakening from fire. Not to mention 45 minutes of exposure to office furniture fires does little to the integrity of the columns, and the fires were oxygen deprived, thus cooler.

A look at energy requirements to produce the observe dust cloud; they were 10 fold of the gravitational potential
The North Tower's Dust Cloud

Melted steel was also documented in App C of the FEMA report, where does this fit in the gravity structural failure theory?

Ironically, the most ferocious challenges will come from those who consider themselves logical thinkers, employers of the scientific method. They simply cannot reconcile something this outrageous with their 'scientific' and 'logical' belief system, not realizing their belief system is actually ideological, not scientific



Sorry but this gave me a chuckle, Here's the kicker; facts can be interpreted, thus may not be facts at all. It once was a 'fact' that the Sun is smaller than the Earth, the Earth doesnt appear to move, and the stars rotate around our planet. This was logical common sense to an observer in those times, Ptolemy mathematically proved the geocentric universe. You're 'proving' a scenario that was predetermined. Take time to consider the WHOLE picture, if lies exist throughout the OCT, is it too ridiculous to think the gravity driven collapse theory is fraudulent as well? Is it really that hard?

Ugh.

The collapse of 7 World Trade Center was neither symmetrical or "near symmetrical" (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean) nor did it occur at free-fall or "near free-fall" (again, whatever the hell that is supposed to mean).

But since you know so much, why don't you enlighten us as to exactly how the demolition of 7 WTC was carried out, who did it, when they did it, and most importantly why did they take the enormous risk of blowing up this totally insignificant and unknown building whose destruction in no way aided the plot in full view of everyone.

 

[Bob0627]

This is directed at Chutney.

The collapse of 7 World Trade Center was neither symmetrical or "near symmetrical" (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean) nor did it occur at free-fall or "near free-fall" (again, whatever the hell that is supposed to mean).

Here Mark contradicts the irrefutable FACTS. Irrefutable because the first (symmetry) is visually observable and the second is supported by the video evidence and is measurable (i.e. the free fall can be measured and verified by anyone) and uncontroversial (i.e. it is agreed to by NIST and is part of the official narrative).

But since you know so much, why don't you enlighten us as to exactly how the demolition of 7 WTC was carried out, who did it, when they did it, and most importantly why did they take the enormous risk of blowing up this totally insignificant and unknown building whose destruction in no way aided the plot in full view of everyone.

Here Mark tries to distract all your points by trying get you to speculate on issues no one could possibly know (except those who were actually involved in the destruction of WTC7). And he wants you to be EXACT about it. And in his world, if you can't do that, nothing you say is meaningful and it can all be discarded because you don't really "know so much".

Very amateur at best.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Quote Originally Posted by Mark F View Post
What do horizontal beams have to do with axial contact of falling column ends?

View attachment 67170812

ROFLMAO

In that much need of approval econ?

But then you said this:

No - I am not. My statement was explicit and clear.

So why did you give it a thumbs up?

I'll have to think about whether I want to answer a question that dumb. :lamo

psik

 

[Mark F]

I'll have to think about whether I want to answer a question that dumb. :lamo

psik

How about answering the question about what do horizontal beams have to do with axial contact of falling column ends?

 

[ozeco41]

ooops - deleted.

Crossed in posting - thanks Mark.

The discussion was about jolts from axial contact of columns. And the posts psik is quote mining provided explicit and clear explanations.

 

[psikeyhackr]

ooops - deleted.

Crossed in posting - thanks Mark.

The discussion was about jolts from axial contact of columns. And the posts psik is quote mining provided explicit and clear explanations.

OH no, the quote mining complaint again.

Horizontal beams hitting each other would cause jolts also, though they might not be as intense as the axial impacts of columns because the impacts would be perpendicular to the beams and they would bend. But the force would be transferred to the columns anyway.

psik

 

[ozeco41]

OH no, the quote mining complaint again.

Every time you do it in order to misrepresent what I say I will call you for the trick. Answer is simple - don't do it. Either respond to what I say - in which case I don't object to being quoted OR make your own claim but don't misquote me. Simple stuff psik.

Now as for this:

beams hitting each other would cause jolts also[SUP]1[/SUP], though they might not be as intense[SUP]2[/SUP] as the axial impacts of columns[SUP]3[/SUP] because the impacts would be perpendicular to the beams[SUP]4[/SUP] and they would bend[SUP]5[/SUP]. But the force would be transferred to the columns anyway[SUP]6[/SUP].

psik

1 Yes - but that is not what was being discussed.
2 Yes - but that is not what was being discussed.
3 Yes. And that IS sort of what was being discussed - within a specific context. There would never be any axial impact (singular) of the type Tony Sz was looking for in "Missing Jolt". There was no impact of the type he envisaged to cause the jolt. It was not a "Missing Jolt" - rather "The Jolt that Could Never Occur". Same comment applies to all those "tilt v axial impact discussions". both sides making the same error of false starting premises.
4 Yes - but that is not what was being discussed.
5 Yes - but the failure would be in shear at the joints. As was seen with the "spires".
6 Yes and no. You need to get the sequence clear. The axial contacts I questioned were during the initiation stage. Before "progression" started.

So you have most of the qualitative framing of the basic physics right. Point "3" and "6" need a bit more work.

And I'll forgive your patronising telling me the basic engineering which, as you know, I am competent at. Others may benefit. AND I have many times made the same points including in the OP of a thread on this forum.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Every time you do it in order to misrepresent what I say I will call you for the trick. Answer is simple - don't do it. Either respond to what I say - in which case I don't object to being quoted OR make your own claim but don't misquote me. Simple stuff psik.

Now as for this:
1 Yes - but that is not what was being discussed.
2 Yes - but that is not what was being discussed.
3 Yes. And that IS sort of what was being discussed - within a specific context. There would never be any axial impact (singular) of the type Tony Sz was looking for in "Missing Jolt". There was no impact of the type he envisaged to cause the jolt. It was not a "Missing Jolt" - rather "The Jolt that Could Never Occur". Same comment applies to all those "tilt v axial impact discussions". both sides making the same error of false starting premises.
4 Yes - but that is not what was being discussed.
5 Yes - but the failure would be in shear at the joints. As was seen with the "spires".
6 Yes and no. You need to get the sequence clear. The axial contacts I questioned were during the initiation stage. Before "progression" started.

So you have most of the qualitative framing of the basic physics right. Point "3" and "6" need a bit more work.

And I'll forgive your patronising telling me the basic engineering which, as you know, I am competent at. Others may benefit. AND I have many times made the same points including in the OP of a thread on this forum.

What's the title of that thread?

 

[Mark F]

What's the title of that thread?

He's only OP'd one and you can easily find it on his Profile page.

 

[BmanMcfly]

He's only OP'd one and you can easily find it on his Profile page.

Ok, most people have started more than a singular thread... So, thanks for reminding me to check that page.

 

[chutney]

This is directed at Chutney.
Here Mark contradicts the irrefutable FACTS. Irrefutable because the first (symmetry) is visually observable and the second is supported by the video evidence and is measurable (i.e. the free fall can be measured and verified by anyone) and uncontroversial (i.e. it is agreed to by NIST and is part of the official narrative).
Here Mark tries to distract all your points by trying get you to speculate on issues no one could possibly know (except those who were actually involved in the destruction of WTC7). And he wants you to be EXACT about it. And in his world, if you can't do that, nothing you say is meaningful and it can all be discarded because you don't really "know so much".
Very amateur at best.

Appeal to ignorance is often used, thats essentially why a new investigation is warranted; to find out more about who, how and why. I can speculate all I want but until an independent investigation with non-govt affiliated institutions is done, all we can do is look at the flaws of the OCT. Sadly, as time goes on it gets harder to do, especially when so much evidence has been destroyed.

This leads me to the question of incentive; 'truthers' want a new investigation. 'Deniers' Im not sure; if I had to guess it revolves around being threatened by the idea the govt could lie about such a sinister act. If not this, why? It might be fun to learn about 911, but overall there seems to be a hostility towards anyone questioning the OCT. If truthers are such looney stupid fools, why bother arguing with them? I think people who deny the existence of dinosaurs are looney, but in no way am I going to spend hours trying to convince them otherwise.

"If you tell a lie big enough, and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." -Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Propaganda Minister

 

[Fledermaus]

Appeal to ignorance is often used, thats essentially why a new investigation is warranted; to find out more about who, how and why. I can speculate all I want but until an independent investigation with non-govt affiliated institutions is done, all we can do is look at the flaws of the OCT. Sadly, as time goes on it gets harder to do, especially when so much evidence has been destroyed.

This leads me to the question of incentive; 'truthers' want a new investigation. 'Deniers' Im not sure; if I had to guess it revolves around being threatened by the idea the govt could lie about such a sinister act. If not this, why? It might be fun to learn about 911, but overall there seems to be a hostility towards anyone questioning the OCT. If truthers are such looney stupid fools, why bother arguing with them? I think people who deny the existence of dinosaurs are looney, but in no way am I going to spend hours trying to convince them otherwise.

"If you tell a lie big enough, and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." -Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Propaganda Minister

Here is an idea.. Present compelling EVIDENCE to support your COUNTER THEORY as to what happened.

 

[Mark F]

Appeal to ignorance is often used, thats essentially why a new investigation is warranted; to find out more about who, how and why. I can speculate all I want but until an independent investigation with non-govt affiliated institutions is done, all we can do is look at the flaws of the OCT. Sadly, as time goes on it gets harder to do, especially when so much evidence has been destroyed.

This leads me to the question of incentive; 'truthers' want a new investigation. 'Deniers' Im not sure; if I had to guess it revolves around being threatened by the idea the govt could lie about such a sinister act. If not this, why? It might be fun to learn about 911, but overall there seems to be a hostility towards anyone questioning the OCT. If truthers are such looney stupid fools, why bother arguing with them? I think people who deny the existence of dinosaurs are looney, but in no way am I going to spend hours trying to convince them otherwise.

"If you tell a lie big enough, and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." -Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Propaganda Minister

Appeal to ignorance is the basis of most CT claims demanding a new investigation, which is why a new investigation is not warranted. Never mind the practical problems of what this new investigation is supposed to investigate and who is going to do the investigating - that doesn't involve government yet somehow has legal authority?!?!?!? The whole new investigation Truther fantasy is impossible.

There is not now and never has been probable cause, sufficient doubt to warrant a new investigation. Even if there was, CT's would never agree on what should be investigated, who should do it, how they should do it or why. The whole new investigation thing is set up to never happen, so CT's can maintain the fiction. The last thing CT's actually want is a new investigation that could end the whole fantasy. Look at Tricky Dick Gage - everything he does is geared to get no closer to the new investigation he keeps demanding. If it ever happened the donations would stop rolling in and he would be out of a job.