"Building What": Geraldo At Large

[Patriot911]

No one wants to put effort into looking into the other side they are disrespecting. research, put some effort and time, and actually use an open mind when creating a rebuttal. It is beyond naive not to.

This is your problem; you think nobody is listening to you or looking into the other side and instead are just hurling around insults. You're wrong.

I can only speak for myself. I've researched it. I don't deny the 2.25 seconds of free fall. I do, however, find your conclusions based on this fact are seriously flawed.

It has to do with deductive reasoning. If this then that. If it can't pass some tests that it HAS to pass in order to be true, you have to either figure out why or move on to a different theory.

For instance. We know 7 had a period of free fall. Fact.

You make the claim the ONLY way this can happen is with explosives simultaniously cutting all the columns.

So if explosives were used, then we would hear them. Did we hear them? No.

We know for a fact how loud explosives are. We know what kind of sound it is. We know how far it can travel and how loud it would be when it got there.

This has to be addressed or else there were no explosives.

So if explosives were used, then they would set off seismic waves through the bedrock that seismographs would pick up. Did that happen? No.

This has to be addressed or else there were no explosives.

Controlled demolitions sites have all the windows removed from the building because the pressure wave from the explosion would blow out the window.

If there were explosives in 7, and because there were all those windows, then they would have been blown out by the explosives, much to the dismay of the people around WTC 7 who testified they were caught in the debris. Did this happen? Not according to the people who were there.

Until you can resolve these GLARING discrepancies, nobody can believe your theory because it doesn't fit the FACTS of the matter. If a theory doesn't fit the facts, it is a failed theory and you need to go back to the drawing board until you come up with a theory that fits ALL the facts, not just the facts you want to address.

 

[georgephillip]

OK, so now we're making progress. We agree there are no silent explosives. Would you also agree there was no large explosion that could clearly be heard half a mile away in an urban area milliseconds before the collapse started?

Nope.

'Not ready to concede there weren't explosions heard by first responders and others on 911.

Woah! Nobody is saying people didn't hear explosions on 9/11. It is highly debateable as to whether those explosions were caused by explosives or not, but that is a different issue.

What we are talking about is the explosions YOU claim would have happened a split second before WTC 7 started to collapse. To my knowledge, there isn't a single witness that claims explosives happened just before or right at the start of the collapse of WTC 7. The only witness I've seen talking about WTC 7 explosions during the collapse was talking about explosions going off DURING the collapse, but you claim they would happen BEFORE the collapse.

There even seems to be some physical evidence of highly advanced pyrotechnic material.

I thought you wanted all columns cut at the same time or within milliseconds of each other. You can't do that with "pyrotechnic" material. That is why things like thermate or thermite are not used in controlled demolitions. You can't time it for shit. You need something that cuts quick and can be controlled down to the millisecond which is exactly what you claimed was needed. Also, they are talking about the towers, not WTC 7.

What points in this timeline of WTC7's collapse do you agree or disagree with?

"Sequence of WTC 7 Collapse

Approximately 7 hours after fires initiated in WTC 7, the building collapsed.

"The start of a timed collapse sequence was based on 1733, the time registered by seismic recordings described in Table 1.1 (in Chapter 1).

"The time difference between each of the figures was approximated from time given on the videotape.

"Figures 5-20 to 5-25 illustrate the observed sequence of events related to the collapse.

~533 p.m. WTC 7 begins to collapse. Note the two mechanical penthouses at the roof on the east and west sides in Figure 5-20.

~503 p.m. Approximately 30 seconds later, Figure 5-21 shows the east mechanical penthouse disappearing into the building. It takes a few seconds for the east penthouse to 'disappear' completely.

~508 p.m. Approximately 5 seconds later, the west mechanical penthouse disappears (Figure 5-22) or sinks into WTC 7.

~509 p.m. Approximately 1 or 2 seconds after the west penthouse sinks into WTC 7, the whole building starts to collapse. A north-south 'kink' or fault line develops along the eastern side as the building begins to come down at what appears to be the location of the collapse initiation (see Figures 5-23 and 5-24).

~510 p.m. WTC 7 collapses completely after burning for approximately 7 hours (Figure 5-25).

"The collapse appeared to initiate at the lower floors, allowing the upper portion of the structure to fall."

 

[Patriot911]

Nope.

'Not ready to concede there weren't explosions heard by first responders and others on 911.

Woah! Nobody is saying people didn't hear explosions on 9/11. It is highly debateable as to whether those explosions were caused by explosives or not, but that is a different issue.

What we are talking about is the explosions YOU claim would have happened a split second before WTC 7 started to collapse. To my knowledge, there isn't a single witness that claims explosives happened just before or right at the start of the collapse of WTC 7. The only witness I've seen talking about WTC 7 explosions during the collapse was talking about explosions going off DURING the collapse, but you claim they would happen BEFORE the collapse.

There even seems to be some physical evidence of highly advanced pyrotechnic material.

I thought you wanted all columns cut at the same time or within milliseconds of each other. You can't do that with "pyrotechnic" material. That is why things like thermate or thermite are not used in controlled demolitions. You can't time it for shit. You need something that cuts quick and can be controlled down to the millisecond which is exactly what you claimed was needed. Also, they are talking about the towers, not WTC 7.

What points in this timeline of WTC7's collapse do you agree or disagree with?

"Sequence of WTC 7 Collapse

Approximately 7 hours after fires initiated in WTC 7, the building collapsed.

"The start of a timed collapse sequence was based on 1733, the time registered by seismic recordings described in Table 1.1 (in Chapter 1).

"The time difference between each of the figures was approximated from time given on the videotape.

"Figures 5-20 to 5-25 illustrate the observed sequence of events related to the collapse.

~533 p.m. WTC 7 begins to collapse. Note the two mechanical penthouses at the roof on the east and west sides in Figure 5-20.

~503 p.m. Approximately 30 seconds later, Figure 5-21 shows the east mechanical penthouse disappearing into the building. It takes a few seconds for the east penthouse to 'disappear' completely.

~508 p.m. Approximately 5 seconds later, the west mechanical penthouse disappears (Figure 5-22) or sinks into WTC 7.

~509 p.m. Approximately 1 or 2 seconds after the west penthouse sinks into WTC 7, the whole building starts to collapse. A north-south 'kink' or fault line develops along the eastern side as the building begins to come down at what appears to be the location of the collapse initiation (see Figures 5-23 and 5-24).

~510 p.m. WTC 7 collapses completely after burning for approximately 7 hours (Figure 5-25).

"The collapse appeared to initiate at the lower floors, allowing the upper portion of the structure to fall."

I have not verified the exact times, but it seems like the right timeline. We know the collapse started on the lower floors because it was a bottom up collapse, not a top down collapse ala the towers. This would be true with either the NIST explanation or the CD explanation.

Proceed.

 

[tempesta29]

Prewfy911 has got this thing wrapped up with his "them darn bomb thangs are loud" argument. He has yet to demonstrate what kind of audio equipment was used in recording 7's collapse and from what distances--significant factors in making a conclusion on the subject. We don't even know if what cameras used would have picked up some explosions. I think that he thinks that since the youtube videos he sees provide clear audio of explosions, then all WTC 7 collapse videos must also.

Kevin McPadden and Craig Bartmer did hear explosions coming from WTC 7 during its collapse however. Plus, as has been demonstrated to ol' Prewfy9112001 a million times: free fall is proof of controlled explosives.

 

[Patriot911]

Prewfy911 has got this thing wrapped up with his "them darn bomb thangs are loud" argument. He has yet to demonstrate what kind of audio equipment was used in recording 7's collapse and from what distances--significant factors in making a conclusion on the subject. We don't even know if what cameras used would have picked up some explosions. I think that he thinks that since the youtube videos he sees provide clear audio of explosions, then all WTC 7 collapse videos must also.

Kevin McPadden and Craig Bartmer did hear explosions coming from WTC 7 during its collapse however. Plus, as has been demonstrated to ol' Prewfy9112001 a million times: free fall is proof of controlled explosives.

Jumping to conclusions as always, eh, tempussy?

We know how loud explosives are. We know how loud they are at given distances. We know there was recording equipment that would have EASILY picked up the sound of explosions from WTC 7.

We know the people in the video did not react like they had heard an explosion, but reacted as though they were hearing something unusual.

We know they were close enough they had to move to get away from the debris.

We know the audio was working because the reporter was talking before, during and after the collapse.

Yet somehow tempussy believes these explosions were silent. 80+ columns all blowing at once and nobody heard a thing other than a cop who heard something loud AFTER the collapse started and not before. His first clue as to the collapse was someone yelling at him, not an explosion. McPhadden was smoking dope. They have recordings of everything that was going on that day, yet nobody has a countdown on tape.

 

[candycorn]

Prewfy911 has got this thing wrapped up with his "them darn bomb thangs are loud" argument. He has yet to demonstrate what kind of audio equipment was used in recording 7's collapse and from what distances--significant factors in making a conclusion on the subject. We don't even know if what cameras used would have picked up some explosions. I think that he thinks that since the youtube videos he sees provide clear audio of explosions, then all WTC 7 collapse videos must also.

Kevin McPadden and Craig Bartmer did hear explosions coming from WTC 7 during its collapse however. Plus, as has been demonstrated to ol' Prewfy9112001 a million times: free fall is proof of controlled explosives.

Jumping to conclusions as always, eh, tempussy?

We know how loud explosives are. We know how loud they are at given distances. We know there was recording equipment that would have EASILY picked up the sound of explosions from WTC 7.

We know the people in the video did not react like they had heard an explosion, but reacted as though they were hearing something unusual.

We know they were close enough they had to move to get away from the debris.

We know the audio was working because the reporter was talking before, during and after the collapse.

Yet somehow tempussy believes these explosions were silent. 80+ columns all blowing at once and nobody heard a thing other than a cop who heard something loud AFTER the collapse started and not before. His first clue as to the collapse was someone yelling at him, not an explosion. McPhadden was smoking dope. They have recordings of everything that was going on that day, yet nobody has a countdown on tape.

Tempussy! Nice.

Did he prove there was a method of wiring a 47 story building for demolition without anybody noticing?

 

[eots]

Prewfy911 has got this thing wrapped up with his "them darn bomb thangs are loud" argument. He has yet to demonstrate what kind of audio equipment was used in recording 7's collapse and from what distances--significant factors in making a conclusion on the subject. We don't even know if what cameras used would have picked up some explosions. I think that he thinks that since the youtube videos he sees provide clear audio of explosions, then all WTC 7 collapse videos must also.

Kevin McPadden and Craig Bartmer did hear explosions coming from WTC 7 during its collapse however. Plus, as has been demonstrated to ol' Prewfy9112001 a million times: free fall is proof of controlled explosives.

Jumping to conclusions as always, eh, tempussy?

We know how loud explosives are. We know how loud they are at given distances. We know there was recording equipment that would have EASILY picked up the sound of explosions from WTC 7.

We know the people in the video did not react like they had heard an explosion, but reacted as though they were hearing something unusual.

We know they were close enough they had to move to get away from the debris.

We know the audio was working because the reporter was talking before, during and after the collapse.

Yet somehow tempussy believes these explosions were silent. 80+ columns all blowing at once and nobody heard a thing other than a cop who heard something loud AFTER the collapse started and not before. His first clue as to the collapse was someone yelling at him, not an explosion. McPhadden was smoking dope. They have recordings of everything that was going on that day, yet nobody has a countdown on tape.

Tempussy! Nice.

Did he prove there was a method of wiring a 47 story building for demolition without anybody noticing?

if fire alone brought the building down then why would ever floor need to be wired with explosives to bring it down ? could there not of been a bomb planted as in the first wtc bombing and the building happened to catch fire ?

 

[tempesta29]

Tempussy! Nice.

You come to internet forums, and this is what you type. It's truly astounding. I suggest re-enrollment in junior high; make it a New Year's resolution. It'll do you wonders.

 

[eots]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdr0bHCklRw&feature=recentlik[/ame]

 

[Gamolon]

5) 1,340+ architects and engineers have signed a petition calling for a new investigation that would include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives for the collapse of Building 7.

How many of those 1,340 architects and engineers went through the NIST report about WTC7 and showed what calculations and what parts of the collapse sequence NIST came up with in their study as being wrong and how it was wrong?

Are you serious? Take 30 minutes out of your life, and this will answer your question.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA[/ame]

No one wants to put effort into looking into the other side they are disrespecting. research, put some effort and time, and actually use an open mind when creating a rebuttal. It is beyond naive not to.

Look.

You folks keep asking for an explanation and for us to explain how fires affected WTC7 and caused a collapse right? Well there's a step by step analysis in the NIST report about how this occurred and how the fires initiated the collapse, and then how global collapse happened.

Are you ready to go step by step through their analysis (or steps) with me and show me where they are wrong and why? We can start with the floors around column 79 giving way and how that happened.

Are you willing to debate each of those steps and causes and supply your evidence and facts to dispute them and tell me why it's not a good explanation?

 

[eots]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xca6o38ZNY&feature=related[/ame]

 

[eots]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvay28lZiHU&feature=related[/ame]

 

[Gamolon]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvay28lZiHU&feature=related

Eots,

Do you agree with Dr. Quintiere's following hypothesis as to what he thinks happened? Here is the quote from his paper.

An alternative hypothesis with the insulated trusses at the root cause
appears to have more support. Heat transfer analyses, a scale model, and
the UL furnace tests all indicate that the steel trusses can attain temperatures
corresponding to failure based on structural analyses. This hypothesis puts
the blame on the insufficiency of the truss insulation. Something NIST says
was not an issue.

 

[georgephillip]

Woah! Nobody is saying people didn't hear explosions on 9/11. It is highly debateable as to whether those explosions were caused by explosives or not, but that is a different issue.

What we are talking about is the explosions YOU claim would have happened a split second before WTC 7 started to collapse. To my knowledge, there isn't a single witness that claims explosives happened just before or right at the start of the collapse of WTC 7. The only witness I've seen talking about WTC 7 explosions during the collapse was talking about explosions going off DURING the collapse, but you claim they would happen BEFORE the collapse.


I thought you wanted all columns cut at the same time or within milliseconds of each other. You can't do that with "pyrotechnic" material. That is why things like thermate or thermite are not used in controlled demolitions. You can't time it for shit. You need something that cuts quick and can be controlled down to the millisecond which is exactly what you claimed was needed. Also, they are talking about the towers, not WTC 7.

What points in this timeline of WTC7's collapse do you agree or disagree with?

"Sequence of WTC 7 Collapse

Approximately 7 hours after fires initiated in WTC 7, the building collapsed.

"The start of a timed collapse sequence was based on 1733, the time registered by seismic recordings described in Table 1.1 (in Chapter 1).

"The time difference between each of the figures was approximated from time given on the videotape.

"Figures 5-20 to 5-25 illustrate the observed sequence of events related to the collapse.

~533 p.m. WTC 7 begins to collapse. Note the two mechanical penthouses at the roof on the east and west sides in Figure 5-20.

~503 p.m. Approximately 30 seconds later, Figure 5-21 shows the east mechanical penthouse disappearing into the building. It takes a few seconds for the east penthouse to 'disappear' completely.

~508 p.m. Approximately 5 seconds later, the west mechanical penthouse disappears (Figure 5-22) or sinks into WTC 7.

~509 p.m. Approximately 1 or 2 seconds after the west penthouse sinks into WTC 7, the whole building starts to collapse. A north-south 'kink' or fault line develops along the eastern side as the building begins to come down at what appears to be the location of the collapse initiation (see Figures 5-23 and 5-24).

~510 p.m. WTC 7 collapses completely after burning for approximately 7 hours (Figure 5-25).

"The collapse appeared to initiate at the lower floors, allowing the upper portion of the structure to fall."

I have not verified the exact times, but it seems like the right timeline. We know the collapse started on the lower floors because it was a bottom up collapse, not a top down collapse ala the towers. This would be true with either the NIST explanation or the CD explanation.

Proceed.

Let me start with David Chandler's claim (P.13 #186) that "(f)ree fall is an embarrassment to the official story, because freefall is impossible for a naturally collapsing building."

I'm guessing you disagree with all or part of this statement?

Freefall

 

[eots]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvay28lZiHU&feature=related

Eots,

Do you agree with Dr. Quintiere's following hypothesis as to what he thinks happened? Here is the quote from his paper.

An alternative hypothesis with the insulated trusses at the root cause
appears to have more support. Heat transfer analyses, a scale model, and
the UL furnace tests all indicate that the steel trusses can attain temperatures
corresponding to failure based on structural analyses. This hypothesis puts
the blame on the insufficiency of the truss insulation. Something NIST says
was not an issue.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...ceives-nation-about-twin-towers-core-586.html

 

[Gamolon]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvay28lZiHU&feature=related

Eots,

Do you agree with Dr. Quintiere's following hypothesis as to what he thinks happened? Here is the quote from his paper.

An alternative hypothesis with the insulated trusses at the root cause
appears to have more support. Heat transfer analyses, a scale model, and
the UL furnace tests all indicate that the steel trusses can attain temperatures
corresponding to failure based on structural analyses. This hypothesis puts
the blame on the insufficiency of the truss insulation. Something NIST says
was not an issue.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...ceives-nation-about-twin-towers-core-586.html

Do you agree with his hypothesis or do you think he is wrong?

An alternative hypothesis with the insulated trusses at the root cause
appears to have more support. Heat transfer analyses, a scale model, and
the UL furnace tests all indicate that the steel trusses can attain temperatures
corresponding to failure based on structural analyses. This hypothesis puts
the blame on the insufficiency of the truss insulation. Something NIST says
was not an issue.

[/QUOTE]

 

[tempesta29]

Look.

You folks keep asking for an explanation and for us to explain how fires affected WTC7 and caused a collapse right? Well there's a step by step analysis in the NIST report about how this occurred and how the fires initiated the collapse, and then how global collapse happened.

Are you ready to go step by step through their analysis (or steps) with me and show me where they are wrong and why? We can start with the floors around column 79 giving way and how that happened.

Are you willing to debate each of those steps and causes and supply your evidence and facts to dispute them and tell me why it's not a good explanation?

One mustn't debate each step. The entire premise that a building can reach free fall under those conditions is false. That's all that needs to be addressed. The entire report is predicated upon this claim. You know damn well that steel will always provide more resistance than air unless that steel is cut. Since NIST isn't claiming the steel was cut, they're wrong. It's that simple. Bowing steel offers a minimum resistance.

 

[Gamolon]

Look.

You folks keep asking for an explanation and for us to explain how fires affected WTC7 and caused a collapse right? Well there's a step by step analysis in the NIST report about how this occurred and how the fires initiated the collapse, and then how global collapse happened.

Are you ready to go step by step through their analysis (or steps) with me and show me where they are wrong and why? We can start with the floors around column 79 giving way and how that happened.

Are you willing to debate each of those steps and causes and supply your evidence and facts to dispute them and tell me why it's not a good explanation?

One mustn't debate each step. The entire premise that a building can reach free fall under those conditions is false. That's all that needs to be addressed. The entire report is predicated upon this claim. You know damn well that steel will always provide more resistance than air unless that steel is cut. Since NIST isn't claiming the steel was cut, they're wrong. It's that simple. Bowing steel offers a minimum resistance.

I'll ask this again.

So no matter how much dead weight I put onto the top of one column standing in it's end, that dead weight will NEVER fall at freefall if the column fails?

 

[Gamolon]

Look.

You folks keep asking for an explanation and for us to explain how fires affected WTC7 and caused a collapse right? Well there's a step by step analysis in the NIST report about how this occurred and how the fires initiated the collapse, and then how global collapse happened.

Are you ready to go step by step through their analysis (or steps) with me and show me where they are wrong and why? We can start with the floors around column 79 giving way and how that happened.

Are you willing to debate each of those steps and causes and supply your evidence and facts to dispute them and tell me why it's not a good explanation?

One mustn't debate each step. The entire premise that a building can reach free fall under those conditions is false. That's all that needs to be addressed. The entire report is predicated upon this claim. You know damn well that steel will always provide more resistance than air unless that steel is cut. Since NIST isn't claiming the steel was cut, they're wrong. It's that simple. Bowing steel offers a minimum resistance.

Another thing. How come when the beams were "cut" was there a .8 second period of time that the building WASN'T in freefall?

 

[Patriot911]

Look.

You folks keep asking for an explanation and for us to explain how fires affected WTC7 and caused a collapse right? Well there's a step by step analysis in the NIST report about how this occurred and how the fires initiated the collapse, and then how global collapse happened.

Are you ready to go step by step through their analysis (or steps) with me and show me where they are wrong and why? We can start with the floors around column 79 giving way and how that happened.

Are you willing to debate each of those steps and causes and supply your evidence and facts to dispute them and tell me why it's not a good explanation?

One mustn't debate each step. The entire premise that a building can reach free fall under those conditions is false. That's all that needs to be addressed. The entire report is predicated upon this claim. You know damn well that steel will always provide more resistance than air unless that steel is cut. Since NIST isn't claiming the steel was cut, they're wrong. It's that simple. Bowing steel offers a minimum resistance.

Oh this is priceless! Ignore the details and look at the big picture of how tempussy tells you it is! Don't bother him with facts and minor things like impossibilities, because it is his way or the highway! Nothing in between! No discussion allowed!