View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

9/11 debate on C2C I consulted on for Richard Gage

Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby stundie » 14 Jul 2010, 04:10

Both of the WTC survived the plane impacts.

WTC 1 was hit between floors 93-99
WTC 2 was hit between floors 77-85

Both of them received less than 7% damage to the overall integrity of the structure.

The fires burned for around an hour.

The buildings collapsed.

Lets rule out WTC 1 & 2 for a moment.

Are you going to ask that we rule out WTC 7 as a comparator too because it was hit by debris from WTC 1 & 2 and the others weren't? lol
There is no such things as magic, just magicians and fools.
User avatar
stundie
 
Posts: 127
Joined: 09 Dec 2009, 08:17






Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby ProfWag » 14 Jul 2010, 04:28

stundie wrote:
Lets rule out WTC 1 & 2 for a moment.

Are you going to ask that we rule out WTC 7 as a comparator too because it was hit by debris from WTC 1 & 2 and the others weren't? lol

We have to rule out WTC 1 & 2 forever if you're going to compare them to the buildings you gave as a reference as none of them had airplanes hit them 80-90 stories in the air. (Let's all think logically for a moment, please.) In fact, to compare the collapse of WTCs 1 & 2 to any other building collapses in history can't be done as there has never been anything similar to compare them too. To reiterate, the only two buildings in history that have had airplanes fly 500 mph into them reacted the same way. There are no other buildings that can be compared to them. Period. Done. End of story.
So, let's compare WTC7 with some of the other fires, shall we? What, in your opinion, is similar to your other building references that makes you think that WTC 7 came down any other way than intense fire causing structural damage?
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby stundie » 14 Jul 2010, 04:34

ProfWag wrote:You're going to compare a 100 story skyscraper with a small 3-story apartment that had already had the entire contents burned to a crisp and that fell at an angle rather than straight down?
Well Im sorry that I do not have a 100 story building collapse for us to look at and compare what it sounds like. That's because 100 story buildings don't tend to collapse.

You asked me what I imagine a 100 story building collapsing would sound like, well it would sound like a building collapsing. Like the building I posted, but a lot louder seeing as the WTC are much larger.

And I'm only using it as a comparator to explain what it might sound like and I'm not using it as comparator to the actual collapse, so why you brought up the the point about it falling at an angle is beyond me.
ProfWag wrote:Sorry stundie. As a professor, I give grades for assignments and that would get an "F" regardless of the class you are taking.

Sorry ProfWag, as an OFSTED inspector who is posing as a secret student to evaluate your skills, I must disappoint you and put you on special measures! lol

For a start this is hardly an assignment, you asked a question which I answered as best as I could by showing you what a building sounds like when it collapses. I could point to many other examples of building falling over in earthquakes that aren't burnt to a crisp but I can't find one that causes booms or explosions.

Maybe you can show the class an example of a building collapse that causes booms and explosions and would be a better comparator for the sound of it collapsing??
ProfWag wrote:No comparison at all.
So you are on special measures ProfWatg until you find a better comparison of what a 100 storey building collapse should sound like seeing as you are the professor?? lol
There is no such things as magic, just magicians and fools.
User avatar
stundie
 
Posts: 127
Joined: 09 Dec 2009, 08:17

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby ProfWag » 14 Jul 2010, 04:59

stundie wrote:So you are on special measures ProfWatg until you find a better comparison of what a 100 storey building collapse should sound like seeing as you are the professor?? lol

Oh stundie, I can tell you exactly how it would sound when it fell:
"poch-poch-poch-poch-poch-poch-poch" (think dry wall snapping in two)
and
"boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom ..." (think floor on top of floor on top of floor...)

Sound familiar?
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby ProfWag » 14 Jul 2010, 05:13

The main points from your arguments stundie are this:
1) Comparing the WTCs 1 & 2 with any other building collapse can't be done. Nothing like it has ever happened before.
2) The sound of a building coming down on top of itself is going to sound like a lot of explosions because, essentially, it is. Clap your hands together and you'll see what I mean about air releasing out the side. Just because some firemen said it sounded like explosions doesn't mean the building was pre-wired for an implosion. I think that if I were anywhere near Manhatten that day when the buildings fell, it would have woken me out of a deep sleep if you know what I mean.
3) WTC had a Hell of a lot of fire damage. Firemen removed the people hours before it fell because they could tell the structure was not sound. The front of the building especially had sustained a tremendous amount of structural damage. Think if the WTCs were a foot air pump you use to blow up airbeds, the resulting wind would be quite forceful. That alone makes WTC 7 a bit different than the other buildings which didn't have nearby buildings collapse before they fell.

Adding those 3 points up equals: I just don't see any mystery surounding the collapse of the WTCs 1,2, or 7 from the points that have recently been presented.

P.S. I apologize for the grade remark, stundie. Looking back, it was kind of rude of me and you haven't deserved that treatment from me. Yet... ;-)
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby stundie » 14 Jul 2010, 05:17

ProfWag wrote:We have to rule out WTC 1 & 2 forever if you're going to compare them to the buildings you gave as a reference as none of them had airplanes hit them 80-90 stories in the air. In fact, to compare the collapse of WTCs 1 & 2 to any other building collapses in history can't be done as there has never been anything similar to compare them too. To reiterate, the only two buildings in history that have had airplanes fly 500 mph into them reacted the same way. There are no other buildings that can be compared to them. Period. Done. End of story.
The building survived the impacts. So they were still standing admittedly with damage but it still stood. If we can't compare any other high rise steel building fires to it, then I could easily argue that we can't compare this to a demolition on the grounds that no other demolition has been 110 storeys.

We could argue that each of the individual high rise fires I mention are all different because they were designed different etc etc.

If you want to end the story, just walk away but trying to reduce this down by stating the obvious that the WTC were hit by planes when all and sundry are aware of this, does nothing to enhance the debate. Critical thinkers look for the nearest example as a comparator and look for the differences and then test the ideas of possibility.

So we could ask if the One Plaza during it's fire was hit by a bulldozer damaging less than 7% of it in the upper portions would that collapse?

Now this may sound like complete madness to you, well if so, step out of the asylum.
ProfWag wrote:(Let's all think logically for a moment, please.)
We are aware of the logic.
ProfWag wrote:So, let's compare WTC7 with some of the other fires, shall we?
Yes, lets!!
ProfWag wrote:What, in your opinion, is similar to your other building references that makes you think that WTC 7 came down any other way than intense fire causing structural damage?
Well the only similarities we have established is that they were steel framed buildings which had fires.

The differences are:
WTC 7 was hit by debris from the WTC. The other were not.
WTC 7 collapsed at near free fall speeds and achieved free fall speeds during it's collapse. The other did not.
The other buildings had much more intense fires. WTC 7 did not.
All the other buildings burned from 3-26 hours, the WTC burned for 7 hours. Only one of those buildings burned for less time.

I'm sure there are more but lets roll with these. What do you think cause the collapse of the WTC 7.

Was it the debris from the WTC? Maybe it was but the NIST refute this as reason for the collapse of WTC 7.
Was it the fires? Well other buildings burned for much longer and was more intense, so maybe it was the fires but considering that even the concrete steel building only partially collapsed, then it's look highly unlikey.
There is no such things as magic, just magicians and fools.
User avatar
stundie
 
Posts: 127
Joined: 09 Dec 2009, 08:17

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby ProfWag » 14 Jul 2010, 05:30

stundie wrote:
The differences are:
WTC 7 was hit by debris from the WTC. The other were not.
WTC 7 collapsed at near free fall speeds and achieved free fall speeds during it's collapse. The other did not.
The other buildings had much more intense fires. WTC 7 did not.
All the other buildings burned from 3-26 hours, the WTC burned for 7 hours. Only one of those buildings burned for less time.

I'm sure there are more but lets roll with these. What do you think cause the collapse of the WTC 7.

Was it the debris from the WTC? Maybe it was but the NIST refute this as reason for the collapse of WTC 7.
Was it the fires? Well other buildings burned for much longer and was more intense, so maybe it was the fires but considering that even the concrete steel building only partially collapsed, then it's look highly unlikey.

Very well then. I have 10 minutes before I have to leave so let's see what we can do:
First, your comment that the other buildings burned more intense is, well, I just have to disagree. Here's a picture of WTC7 after 1 & 2 fell but before 7 has: Image
Where there's smoke there's fire so it looks pretty intense to me.
Additionally, WTC 7 and the other buildings are't comparable because WTC 7 was not being treated for a fire. No firemen were trying to contain the fire for the majority of the 7 hours. The other buildings were being fought and fought hard. Makes for a big difference in comparing the time it takes for buildings to collapse and is quite important to remember.
Some comments from firefighters concerning the intense fires:
Chief Nigro directed me to continue monitoring conditions at the site. Specifically to monitor number 7 World Trade Center. We were very concerned with the collapse potential there, and to do whatever I could do to ensure site safety in that no additional people became injured.

–FDNY Deputy Chief Harold Meyers

We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing. So for the next five or six hours we kept firefighters from working anywhere near that building, which included the whole north side of the World Trade Center complex.

–Chief Frank Fellini



We made searches. We attempted to put some of the fire out, but we had a pressure problem. I forget the name of the Deputy. Some Deputy arrived at the scene and thought that the building was too dangerous to continue with operations, so we evacuated number 7 World Trade Center.

–Captain Anthony Varriale

As for your free fall claim, I'd like to see your evidence for that statement. From the videos I've watched, it took WTC7 13 seconds to collapse, more than twice as slow as free fall.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby Edx » 14 Jul 2010, 05:56

stundie wrote:
Edx wrote:Yes, it partically collapsed and why was that? The part that collapsed was steel frame and not concrete reinforced. :roll: Do you get it? The steel collapsed.
It only partially collapsed because there was not enough energy in the upper portions for it too over come the lower portions.


Its because those floors that collapsed were not reinforced with concrete. The steel weakened and collapsed.

The One Meridian Plaza Fire - Steel Framed Building - Burned for 18 hours - didn't collapse.


+Concrete reinforced,
+The fires were fought
+ Fireproofing was not dislodged
+ Structural engineers at the time were still worried it was at risk of a "pancake structural collapse" so the fire department pulled all their firefighters out.

"Consultation with a structural engineer and structural damage observed by units operating in the building led to the belief that there was a possibility of a pancake structural collapse of the fire damaged floors."
- U.S. Fire Administration/Technical Report Series: Highrise Office Building Fire One Meridian Plaza


+++ And btw, none of these had long span floor trusses.

Caracas Tower Fire - Steel Framed Building - Burned for 17 hours - didn't collapse.


+ Concrete reinforced
+ Two steel decks partially collapsed.
+ No fireproofing dislodged

The First Interstate Bank Fire - Steel Framed Building - Burned for 3.5 hours - didn't collapse.


+ Concrete reinforced (such as around the core-parts, steel decks, foundations etc)
+ No fireproofing was dislodged
+ Thick fireproofing
The Madrid Tower - Concrete and Steel Framed Building - Burned for 18 hours - partially collapse.


Sigh!

+ Concrete reinforced
+ Concrete core
+ Unreinforced steel-only floors at the top collapsed.

Notice a pattern here about steel framed buildings yet??


I notice a pattern of misrepresentation, but I knew about all these classic truther anecdotes before and yet they have the cheek to be picky about the Verinage demolition which disprove most about all their claims.

Edx wrote:The Windsor tower didn't collapse completely because it had a concrete core and reinforced floors.
Yeah I know and it wasn't designed to resist a collapse but it did.


Its well known concrete holds up better in fire, steel is well known to perform poorly. btw why does steel require fire protection if its so indestructible?

http://www.sustainableconcrete.org.uk/main.asp?page=196

http://preview.tinyurl.com/2g6ncmh (Steel vs Concrete)


In fact, even wood holds its structural integrity longer in fire did you know that?

http://www.oregontruss.com/truss-info/a ... d-vs-steel
http://www.softwood.org/AITC_eVersion/EN/p3.htm

Edx wrote:The WTC only had 4inch thick concrete floors, it had no other concrete and it wasn't load bearing.
That is partially incorrect as the floors were load bearing, but only a small percentage of the load as the exterior and core columns did the main job bearing the load.


How is that "partially incorrect"? Did it have more concrete than I said it did? No. Was the concrete load bearing? No. Was the floor system built to withstand the weight of the upper block? No of course not.

Edx wrote:You're not even make any sense anymore.
I was joking whether someone like Richard Gage should use the verinage to prove a demolition instead of an explosive demolition theory.


Well it is true it is much easier to make a much logical argument for demolition that what Gage makes, but for some reason he loves his quiet intense explosives that make loud noises when he wants them to and thermite was used somehow somewhere or something...

So it was a single column as I suggest but what I do not understand is that no other building are built this way?? lol


Your "joke" is that demolition companies should set any building on fire or destroy one column and they will collapse in the same way which will make it cheaper which is not true because you ignore the fact of how buildings are built and how uncontrolled and dangerous it would be. Why are being so intentionally annoying?

Care to point out what about the design allowed it fail then fall at free fall speeds for 2.5 seconds and continuing onwards at near free fall speeds??


I already explained this, I'm not going to do it again if you want to ignore it.

Edx wrote:Should they demolish houses by setting them on fire?
Yeah why not, I mean large steel structures collapse after about an hour so why not?? lol


Im confused, do you accept that houses will collapse in fire? If you do accept this, then please tell me why demolition companies don't use this method?


Edx wrote:Lets just talk about explosives and how they work then, so for exmple why no one has blast injuries and how thermite doesn't make it quieter etc. You can find my arguments in that post.
There are many different types of explosives some which detonate with high pressure and some explosions deflagrate.


That's correct. But bombs that deflagrate are not used to destroy heavy infrastructure. High explosives destroy things by their shock waves.

Why no one is injured is simply down to the location of the people in relation to the explosions. If no one has blast injuries, then they probably weren't close enough to the explosion.


And yet you truthers think people can be thrown about by explosives but these explosives didn't rupture their ear drums. As I said before, even a flashbang can tare your ear drums. But these explosives you're talking about are meant to be intense enough to destroy heavy steel.

Thermite doesn't make explosives quieter but if used would make a demolition less like noisy.


It would also make it incapable of flinging steel around. It would also make it incapable of throwing anyone around.


And Thermite is capable of cutting steel beams.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wn-MCCZ3O1M
Although I do not know whether thermite in the WTC was used as an explosive or as a heat weakening agent.


Thermite cannot be used as an explosive since thermite does not explode and as I said before if it could explode and create a shockwave then that would be just as loud.

As for your video, I've seen it before. Tell me, how large is that device connected to the steel and whats the ratio of steel vs device and how much thermite did it require? That's the problem in the real world a device like this is totally impractial. Just imagine a core column with this thing attached to it.
Last edited by Edx on 14 Jul 2010, 08:30, edited 7 times in total.
Edx
 
Posts: 128
Joined: 03 Jul 2010, 03:21

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby Edx » 14 Jul 2010, 06:11

NinjaPuppy wrote:It is most definitely up to the person making the claim to provide evidence or some sort of proof. That is why I asked you to back up your claim but of course you opted to do that with the "can't prove a negative". Since I made NO claims of any sort other than your statement about fire not being used to demolish houses being wrong... I guess it stumped you a bit.


Okay let me clarify since you want to be stubborn.

There is no reason to think that demolition companies set commercial buildings on fire to demolish them because it is too dangerous and uncontrolled. You are apparently claiming they do this, so its your claim, provide evidence. Likewise there is also no reason to think that thermite was ever used in a demolition anywhere ever. If a truther wants to claim it has, its their burden to find the evidence that it has.

Edx wrote:Is that how this SCECOP stuff works, you believe every claim ever straight away and work backwards?

Golly gee...I don't know. How does this SCEPCOP stuff work? I know how an Internet forum works but I'm not too sure about what you call "this SCEPCOP stuff". Since you seem to have answers for everything, perhaps you will enlighten us 'obtuse' members into your world of semantics.


I'll admit I'm pretty new to Winstons amazing new understanding of skepticism, but from what I can see it means believing every claim you like and rejecting claims you dont agree with a priori for no reason other than your predetermined beliefs don't agree with it. Maybe, if that's wrong, you could enlighten me.

Edx wrote:Im confused as to why you dont understand my point.

Again with the "why you don't understand my point"? I'm not asking you to explain your point, I am asking you to define your terminology.


What is there to define? Its truthers that have a static definition of "explosion", Im saying lots of things can "explode" and people can say "explosion" for many reasons but not mean bomb. That's why Im saying you apparently dont understand my point because you have to ask.

Edx wrote:According to people like Stundie's reasoning if someone said "explosion" they mean bomb. I said to him that just because you say explosion does not mean you MEAN bomb and doesn't mean the sound came from an explosive either. What I quoted was them saying that materials in the house could cause "secondary explosions". Now, there are quotes truthers use that also use the word "secondary explosions" but truthers claim that quotes like "secondary explosions" has to refer to bombs.

So you then need to define the difference between a designed explosive (bomb) vs. common items that can do the same damage as a designed explosive (bomb)


No, all I need to do is point out that truthers' quotes of people saying "explosion" do not necessarily equal "bomb" and that truthers do not try and differentiate between any of them to try and tell them apart. If they did they would realise explosives make absolutely no sense. If you paid attention to the discussion between him and me maybe this might make more sense you, he claimed that everyone that said explosion meant bomb.
Last edited by Edx on 14 Jul 2010, 08:32, edited 1 time in total.
Edx
 
Posts: 128
Joined: 03 Jul 2010, 03:21

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby Edx » 14 Jul 2010, 06:40

stundie wrote:
Edx wrote:According to people like Stundie's reasoning if someone said "explosion" they mean bomb.
Ahh, you see this is where you make the mistake.

If someone said "explosion" they could possibly mean bomb.


You didn't say that, you laughed at me for suggesting that they were out of context, misquoted or realised later what it was they heard. So goal post moving noted, not admitting you were wrong noted.

But as to your new position, they could! But how do you know that and how have the truth movement determined which reports of explosions are from bombs and which ones are from something else?

Edx wrote:I said to him that just because you say explosion does not mean you MEAN bomb and doesn't mean the sound came from an explosIVE either.
And until we have a source for these explosive sounds, then we cannot rule out the possibility of a bomb.


We can since if someone says later they were misquoted, that they realised later what it was (like they heard the collapse of the South tower falling on the street/other buildings), that it was an elevator falling, a transformer blowing up etc, that they had no blast injuries, that no explosives or remains of explosives were found anywhere, that no one captured any huge detonations on tape when the towers collapsed, that people have a tendency to use hyperbole and also call any loud sound an explosion ... well then... its pretty unlikely that bombs were used.

Its like if we didnt know that it was the elevator cable that snapped when the B25 hit the Empire State Building, would we be justified in assuming there could have been "gun fire" just because someone said they heard a sound like gun fire? Of course not. People said they heard the sound of TRAINS on 911, does that mean trains were used on 911 to destroy the WTC? There's a whole parody website about it. http://www.loosetrains911.blogspot.com/

Point is you have no reason to say it was explosives, and lots of reasons why it is unlikely to be explosives. The burden of proof is on you.

Edx wrote:Now, there are quotes truthers use that also use the words "secondary explosions" but truthers claim that quotes like "secondary explosions" has to refer to bombs.
Some of them refer to what they think are bombs but as I said, I've not seen any other claim of the explosions other than it could be...this, that and the other, all without supporting evidence.


Since you accept that an explosion could be many things and you're suggesting something specific, the burnden of proof is on you to prove it is more likely to be the something specific your suggesting it was. You are not logically allowed to say its explosives until someone proves it wasn't.


Neil deGrasse Tyson:
I hear a second explosion in WTC 2, then a loud, low-frequency rumble that precipitates the unthinkable -- a collapse of all the floors above the point of explosion. First the top surface, containing the helipad, tips sideways in full view. Then the upper floors fall straight down in a demolition-style implosion, taking all lower floors with it, even those below the point of the explosion.


Wonderfull Stundie! Now, please tell me, have the truth movement contacted this man and asked him if when he said "demolition-style" he meant it was an actual demolition or only that it reminded him of a demolition? See, the only real experience of collapsing buildings most people have is watching controlled demolitions. The verinage collapses look like "demolition-style implosion" in the same way, but the interesting thing is that they do not use any kind of explosives. This is just what collapsing buildings look like.

Also, earlier in deGrasse's email he talks about the plane hitting WTC2 causing an explosion and a rumble. He specifically makes sure to point out it was not a bomb.

"I first thought it was a bomb, but the explosion was not accompanied by the tell-tale acoustic shockwave that rattles windows. This was simply a low frequency rumble. "


So surely then if later on he speaks of an "explosion" he would have specifically said that he felt that this on the other hand definitely sounded like a bomb to him, rather than anything else. Remember there are no recordings of any of these giant explosion sounds at the WTC and neither did any cameras pick up any, but were able to pick up the sound of the aircraft's hitting the towers. Clearly this “explosion” he heard cannot be referring to any explosives. Still, no truther wants to ask him, right? He might say he doesn't believe there was explosives on 911 and that would ruin the illusion they have created for themselves.

fireman2: We made it outside, we made it about a block.
fireman1: We made it at least 2 blocks.
fireman2: 2 blocks.
fireman1: and we started runnin'
fireman2: poch-poch-poch-poch-poch-poch-poch
fireman1: Floor by floor it started poppin' out ..
fireman2: It was as if as if they had detonated, det..
fireman1: yea detonated yea
fireman2: as if they had planned to take down a building,
boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom ...
fireman1: All the way down, I was watchin it, and runnin'
fireman3: Just ran up west street.
fireman1: Then you just sort of ... this cloud of s___


A lot of "as if they" did this and that in there, truthers have a big problem with figures of speech, metaphors, similes and hyperbole. And again... has the truth movement ever tried to contact these people? No because they know they wont support their delusions. Its the same with the WTC7 firefighters, absolutely no firefighters on 911 either at the time or since support a single contention truthers have about the collapse of it. Maybe you can tell me why that is, considering so many were around at the time and since so many have given their views about it.

Also, watch those verinage collapses again. That's what collapsing buildings look like when they pancake, floors "pop out floor by floor". I'm certain Gage would claim, had he not known better, that the verinage demolitions used explosives. I do wish someone had sent him a tape of a verinage collapse with explosions added on like typical demolitions, I'm sure he would have fallen over himself to state this is clear evidence of explosives at the WTC. Now they are left with a strange position of trying to pretend verinage is so completely different.
Last edited by Edx on 14 Jul 2010, 08:41, edited 13 times in total.
Edx
 
Posts: 128
Joined: 03 Jul 2010, 03:21

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby Edx » 14 Jul 2010, 06:54

stundie wrote:
ProfWag wrote:
stundie wrote:
Notice a pattern here about steel framed buildings yet??

No, not at all.
How many of the buildings you mentioned had a 757 fly into the side of the building, 3/4 of the way up doing 500 mph?
two of them.

WTC 7 didn't have a 757 fly into the side of it at 500mph.

Back to the drawing board.


But was hit by tons of collapsing sky scraper.

Are you then claiming that WTC1+2 werent demolitions but WTC7 was? You didn't think of that, I guess. Be consistent.

Well Im sorry that I do not have a 100 story building collapse for us to look at and compare what it sounds like. That's because 100 story buildings don't tend to collapse.

You asked me what I imagine a 100 story building collapsing would sound like, well it would sound like a building collapsing. Like the building I posted, but a lot louder seeing as the WTC are much larger.

And I'm only using it as a comparator to explain what it might sound like and I'm not using it as comparator to the actual collapse, so why you brought up the the point about it falling at an angle is beyond me.


Yet you have no problem posting ridiculous comparisons to the WTC with buildings totally different in construction, no long span floor trusses, that were concrete reinforced and in one examples structural engineers at the time STILL thought it might "pancake" collapse.

But you also do not like the Verinage demolitions as an example of what a building looks like when it collapses without explosives...because? yes, you have to find all kinds of crazy rationalisations for that. Such as truthers like Heiwa claiming they destroy the bottom block but provides no evidence. You saying they preweaken the floors at the initiation point, which they don't, but you provide no evidence for it and even if they did still wouldnt make much different to the point anyway.

For a start this is hardly an assignment, you asked a question which I answered as best as I could by showing you what a building sounds like when it collapses. I could point to many other examples of building falling over in earthquakes that aren't burnt to a crisp but I can't find one that causes booms or explosions.

Maybe you can show the class an example of a building collapse that causes booms and explosions and would be a better comparator for the sound of it collapsing??


There are no explosions or booms in the collapse of the towers, we get a constant progressive roar of a collapsing 110 story skyscraper the size of a city block.

I however did give you a video of a crane that made loud BOOMS when it collapsed and who's witness' described it like two bombs going off, like two explosions. Remember? How do you know the crane didn't collapse because bombs destroyed it? Could it have been an inside job?
Last edited by Edx on 14 Jul 2010, 08:43, edited 5 times in total.
Edx
 
Posts: 128
Joined: 03 Jul 2010, 03:21

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby Edx » 14 Jul 2010, 07:04

stundie wrote:The other buildings had much more intense fires. WTC 7 did not.


So you are calling firefighters liars then. This is what I said before. If you say that there were minor or small or unsevere fires you are calling the firefighters liars. Very simple. Why do you truthers think the FDNY are covering up for mass murder Stundie?

Also, if you look at Building 5 or 6 they wouldnt have collapse like 7 as they were much smaller around 8 stories and not built in the same style. Nevertheless they still suffered extreme collapses such as the massive internal collapse in 6 which is also the building that contained the molten metal everywhere inside running down the walls and so on that I told you about before. We have pictures of buckled steel columns such as in Building 5 for example.

All the other buildings burned from 3-26 hours, the WTC burned for 7 hours. Only one of those buildings burned for less time.


WTC7's fires were also not fought for 7 hours and because of a problem with water pressure allowed to burn out of control. What other building had fires that werent fought, that was a steel frame NOT reinforced with concrete, with long span floor trusses?

Was it the debris from the WTC? Maybe it was but the NIST refute this as reason for the collapse of WTC 7.


True but it wasn't irrelevant like you made out. Also I find this interesting. If NIST wanted to they could have said it did matter, why would they make their case look worse according to you? They just have to be too damn stupid. Thats what it comes down to, these conspirators are complete genius's they can rig the WTC and make a demolition method no one else has ever used before or since, invent physical-law defying quiet intense explosives and somehow are too stupid when it comes to covering it up, such as this example, all so a few conspiracy theorists on the internet years later can point to it and say gotcha. There's a good reason why the truth movement have accomplished nothing in nearly a decade and have zero mainstream scientific support.

Was it the fires? Well other buildings burned for much longer and was more intense, so maybe it was the fires but considering that even the concrete steel building only partially collapsed, then it's look highly unlikey.


Even the concrete steel building?

Concrete performs much better than steel in fire, and as I said before even wood is well known to hold its structural integrity longer in a fire. The reason why they used steel without concrete is to maximise office space. The WTC didnt even have concrete walls but dry wall, which is why there was such a lot of dust, there was a LOT of dry wall in the buildings.

Image

406mm, 60 kg/m steel beam (#W16x40) and 178mm x 533mm glulam beam following fire testing under full load. Steel beam collapsed after only 30 minutes of exposure while the glulam member remained straight and true, charring on 19mm on exposed surfaces.
- Performance of Large Timbers in Fires
Edx
 
Posts: 128
Joined: 03 Jul 2010, 03:21

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby stundie » 14 Jul 2010, 20:35

ProfWag wrote:Very well then. I have 10 minutes before I have to leave so let's see what we can do:
First, your comment that the other buildings burned more intense is, well, I just have to disagree. Here's a picture of WTC7 after 1 & 2 fell but before 7 has: Image
Where there's smoke there's fire so it looks pretty intense to me.
This is pathetic!! lol

The photo shows smoke not fires, if the fires were so intense, then post a photo of these intense fires and not some photo taken from taken a few miles away across the other side of the river and not showing any fires.
ProfWag wrote:Additionally, WTC 7 and the other buildings are't comparable because WTC 7 was not being treated for a fire.
I knew you would come up with an excuse for why WTC 7 can't be compared to any other high rise building fires. lol
ProfWag wrote:No firemen were trying to contain the fire for the majority of the 7 hours.
I know and in the other building they were trying to contain the fires and they burned for much longer!! lol
ProfWag wrote:The other buildings were being fought and fought hard. Makes for a big difference in comparing the time it takes for buildings to collapse and is quite important to remember.
Thanks again for stating the obvious while ignoring that although they were being fought hard, all but one of them burned for longer than WTC 7.
ProfWag wrote:Some comments from firefighters concerning the intense fires:
Chief Nigro directed me to continue monitoring conditions at the site. Specifically to monitor number 7 World Trade Center. We were very concerned with the collapse potential there, and to do whatever I could do to ensure site safety in that no additional people became injured.

–FDNY Deputy Chief Harold Meyers
Concerned about the collapse, no mention of fires here!!
ProfWag wrote:We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing. So for the next five or six hours we kept firefighters from working anywhere near that building, which included the whole north side of the World Trade Center complex.
–Chief Frank Fellini
Fire on several floors?? Still not as intense as the other buildings which in some cases had fires on many of the buildings floors.
ProfWag wrote:We made searches. We attempted to put some of the fire out, but we had a pressure problem. I forget the name of the Deputy. Some Deputy arrived at the scene and thought that the building was too dangerous to continue with operations, so we evacuated number 7 World Trade Center.

–Captain Anthony Varriale
So they were going to fight the fires and there was pressure problems. Not seeing any evidence for the fires being as intense as the ones I've listed.
ProfWag wrote:As for your free fall claim, I'd like to see your evidence for that statement.
Err!! It's not my claim, it from your bible the NIST report.
NIST Faqs]The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:

* Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
* Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
* Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/fact ... #91;/quote]
[quote="ProfWag wrote:
From the videos I've watched, it took WTC7 13 seconds to collapse, more than twice as slow as free fall.
Well you are wrong as it never fell twice as slow as free fall, so professor, it's back to the drawing board again.
Last edited by stundie on 14 Jul 2010, 21:10, edited 1 time in total.
There is no such things as magic, just magicians and fools.
User avatar
stundie
 
Posts: 127
Joined: 09 Dec 2009, 08:17

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby stundie » 14 Jul 2010, 20:44

ProfWag wrote:Oh stundie, I can tell you exactly how it would sound when it fell:
"poch-poch-poch-poch-poch-poch-poch" (think dry wall snapping in two)
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Drywall snapping sounds louder than a building collapsing that firefigthers could hear it....lol

Do you have ANY evidence of this?? lol

Of course not, you are giving me what you think it would sound like rather than proving what it would sound like.

Do you have another building that has drywall collapsing and making a poch-poch-poch sounds??

Hilarious, this ain't debunking, it's more akin to a joke. lol
ProfWag wrote:"boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom ..." (think floor on top of floor on top of floor...)
Oh dear! Sounds like you are promoting a pancake collapse theory.....lol

There was no floor on top of floor on top of floor and you have no evidence that a floor on top of floor causes a boom boom boom sound either??

fireman2: It was as if as if they had detonated, det..
fireman1: yea detonated yea
fireman2: as if they had planned to take down a building,

They certainly are not in the belief that it was the floor on top of floor.
ProfWag wrote:Sound familiar?
Yes, it sounds like debunking but it is nothing of a sort.

The funny thing is you berated my efforts to show you what 100 storey building might sound like, yet all you have done is offer me an hilarious claim that it was dry wall causing the poch poch and floor on top of floor making the boom, boom, boom sound and provided absolutely no evidence or even a comparator to support your argument.

You are still on special measures Prof. lol
There is no such things as magic, just magicians and fools.
User avatar
stundie
 
Posts: 127
Joined: 09 Dec 2009, 08:17

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby stundie » 14 Jul 2010, 21:09

ProfWag wrote:The main points from your arguments stundie are this:
1) Comparing the WTCs 1 & 2 with any other building collapse can't be done. Nothing like it has ever happened before.
So if this is the case, then you must also stop comparing the WTC 1 & 2 with any other building demolition because according to you, comparing other buildings with WTC 1 & 2 can't be done??

Agreed?? lol

ProfWag wrote:2) The sound of a building coming down on top of itself is going to sound like a lot of explosions because, essentially, it is.
Sorry but can you show us any building collapsing that causes explosions??

blank it, I'll even accept a demolition providing all the charges have detonated, so long as we can see the building coming down on top of itself and that it sounds like lots of explosions? lol

And for the record, the WTC didn't come down on top of itself, that is why there was tons of debris ejected and hit the WTC7 (apparently) and the Winter Garden. (Definitely)
ProfWag wrote:Clap your hands together and you'll see what I mean about air releasing out the side.
So we can't use other high rise buildings fires as a comparator, but I can clap my hands together and use that to compare the sounds emanating from the WTC that these fire fighters heard?? lol

Yeah I'm seeing the logic here. lol
ProfWag wrote:Just because some firemen said it sounded like explosions doesn't mean the building was pre-wired for an implosion.
Are you calling these firefighters liars?? HOW VERY DARE YOU?? THESE GUYS ARE HEROS!! Just jesting of course.........lol

Thanks for stating the obvious again but that doesn't mean that it wasn't pre-wired for an implosion either.

So therefore the possibility of it being demolished can't be ruled out.
ProfWag wrote:I think that if I were anywhere near Manhatten that day when the buildings fell, it would have woken me out of a deep sleep if you know what I mean.
Probably.
ProfWag wrote:3) WTC had a Hell of a lot of fire damage. [
WTC7?? Any evidence of this and considering that the NIST do not consider the damage a factor in the collapse, are you sure you don't want to think your debunk? lol
ProfWag wrote:Firemen removed the people hours before it fell because they could tell the structure was not sound.
Ahhh...Lets apply some ProfWag logic.

Just because some firemen thought that the structure was not sound, doesn't mean the structure was not sound.
ProfWag wrote:The front of the building especially had sustained a tremendous amount of structural damage.
Evidence of this??
ProfWag wrote:Think if the WTCs were a foot air pump you use to blow up airbeds, the resulting wind would be quite forceful.
And this would be the same in any other building collapse, yet we see no explosive sounds when they collapse.
ProfWag wrote:That alone makes WTC 7 a bit different than the other buildings which didn't have nearby buildings collapse before they fell.
AH!! Bingo, I knew you would use this argument....

Stundie - "Are you going to ask that we rule out WTC 7 as a comparator too because it was hit by debris from WTC 1 & 2 and the others weren't? lol"
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=1220&start=70#p15596

Either I'm psychic or you are predictable?? lol
ProfWag wrote:Adding those 3 points up equals: I just don't see any mystery surounding the collapse of the WTCs 1,2, or 7 from the points that have recently been presented.
Well if you do not think that a building falling at free fall speeds is no mystery, then maybe you care to explain the mystery to the many people who are thinking how the hell is this possible? lol
ProfWag wrote:P.S. I apologize for the grade remark, stundie. Looking back, it was kind of rude of me and you haven't deserved that treatment from me. Yet... ;-)
It's OK ProfWag, trust me I'm use it. I would rather debate the facts and issues surrounding 9/11 but if someone would rather trade names with me, then it's fine too as both will be dealt with.

Cheers

Stundie :)
There is no such things as magic, just magicians and fools.
User avatar
stundie
 
Posts: 127
Joined: 09 Dec 2009, 08:17

PreviousNext

Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron