Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Both theories rely on experts, and calculations that if they thought were BS, I don't think they would put them out there to get ripped to shreds. What I want to see or hear is a debate pitting the experts and their calculations against each other. A new independent investigation would hopefully produce this.I don't pretend to know everything. I know my knowledge is limited. That is why I rely on true experts like Leslie Robertson.look asswipe, unlike you I dont pretend to know everything and pass myself off as an expert. Calling someone a dumbshit for admitting to not being an expert at something is classless but typical of you.
You assume everyone who doesn't agree with you isn't learning and is a dumbshit, that's hilarious.And I called you a dumbshit because you refuse to learn. I thought I made that clear, but apparently dumbshits can't read too gud.
I hardly expected Chandler to be here and respond.David Chandler is hardly an expert.Mr. Jones said:In my post I deferred to the "experts", and you responded.
Funny people like Dr. Frank Legge, Tony Szamboti, and Gordon Ross, are basically saying the same things, and take into consideration other characteristics of the steel and what the top block had to overcome.It is straight up physics. Check the math. Check the science. The laws of physics can't be broken.
It was another attempt on your part to generalize and deceive. Why would I whine about any real numbers, I already admitted I'm not too hip on the calculations. If you happen to know them and can make sense of them post it, don't throw BS in the discussion and pretend you didn't. Mountains weigh more then marbles.Apparently your dumbshit skills are working overtime. I used numbers that were three fifths the normal quoted numbers just so dumbfucks like you wouldn't whine about the numbers being too big. BTW, velocity is a constant that has nothing to do with mass. A marble and a mountain will fall at the same velocity.
No you referenced me-This is what you wrote-I didn't say you did. Chandler did, however.
The top had to overcome more then just the floors, and the estimates the experts give is about 1 second per floor, given the top half had a lot of localized resistance to overcome, at every floor.Oh goodie! Now you ARE pretending the entire lower block is one unit! What a fucktard!
Strange you mention "all that debris" when supporters of the fire collapse mention the buildings were "mostly air" and try to minimize mass, except when it comes to "all the debris" being a force on the lower half.Yes they did. And they're ONLY strong when perfectly vertical. What do you think happens when all that debris being forced down the mostly hollow core starts pushing those columns out of vertical?
These guys are experts and too good to over look something a lowly high school physics teacher noticed in such an important investigation that's why.And? The NIST final report didn't come out before they admitted free fall. The experts and signatories signed off on the final report. I don't know why you truthtards have such a hissy fit when a reputable agency admits fault and includes the relevant data in the report.
Depends on how many floors used the lighter columns. But you know damn well you would jump someones shit for doing the same.Except for the fact you ignored the weights used were 3/5ths normal and the height of the initial collapse was half or less of what it should be.
As I have been trying to explain, it doesn't appear to be that simple, there are other factors that engineers have sited in their refutations.I just showed you what the dynamic loads would be for 3/5ths weight and half height. Even at that amount the dynamic load was more than the core alone could take at that height, and the floors themselves would offer up almost no resistance at all.
So are you saying that opening up a 50lb bag of flour and dumping it on your head would hurt just as bad as if it hit your noodle unopened?Mass is mass. Physics doesn't differentiate between the size of the object or if you're talking about numerous small objects. Dropping a ton of ball bearings on something from a given height is going to release the EXACT same energy as a solid one ton block of steel.
You 're saying mass is mass? What would cause more damage in the above scenario?I've never made the claim, nor would I, that the top structure either had to remain one mass to destroy the lower part or that it did remain one mass.
How so when the force of gravity is crucial to the kinetic energy? No gravity no energy right?Exactly. Except the "gravity loads" or static loads go right out the window as soon as the upper mass starts moving.
This brings me right back to the part where the top has to overcome the steels rigidity characteristics, and the time it takes to do that while being met with opposing forces.Suddenly those static loads become many times what they were as the potential energy stored in the mass is converted back into kinetic energy. This weight can be expressed in foot pounds of pressure and it was many times what the core, much less the floors, were designed to withstand AND the core would be deformed as debris pushed the columns out of vertical.
See the bag of flour example above. Still the collapse should have taken much longer, as you say as the collapse progresses. Still IF this is possible, it should not happen almost instantaneously.Again, pulverized mass is still mass. Also, as the collapse progressed, the mass of the floors below it were added to the mass of the upper floors, thus greatly increasing the mass even accounting for the debris that fell over the sides due to the resistance of the lower floors.
Actually what I quoted was not from Chandler, but another engineer, regardless it appears from the different theories that there is more going on and forces against forces that must overcome to produce the witnessed results, that the average person doesn't look at. And what about the localized parts of the top block?? It is not one solid piece, it too experiences damage meeting the bottom head on...and again how can this happen..all these intricacies, and opposing forces trying to overcome each other..in just 10 to 15 seconds!? It is complicated.And here Chandler is pretending the upper and lower pieces are solid blocks and NOT individual structures that make up the whole. You can't look at the lower section as one piece because loads cannot be redistributed anywhere near quickly enough to resist the collapse. Thus the collapse is localized as individual structures fail instead of the entire lower block as a whole.
Even the power structure resisting the collapse bit by bit floor by floor, this would not happen almost instantaneously and I would agree that the collapse would take more the 10-15 seconds.Again, you cannot pretend the lower "block" is one object that can use every structure at once to resist the collapse. This is a MAJOR flaw in Chandler's work.
The problem with this analogy is that the lower half being more robust and undamaged would be more akin to the sledgehammer, and the top to a regular carpenters hammer.Use a sledgehammer on the nail and it doesn't matter what you're nailing it into, you can do it in one blow and the sledgehammer won't even slow down. Again, Chandler is pretending the upper block is smaller than the lower block and pretending the entire block is one object. This is a logical falacy.
But you still aren't taking any of the things into account that the top to has to overcome, so it's a series of smaller and stouter obstacles being provided by the lower half...?The upper mass only has to overcome the resistance of the structures directly below it, not the entire resistance of the lower block. Thus the upper block is much larger than the structures it must immediately overcome.
What chunk of the buildings are you talking about? Every video I have seen show a mostly pulverized mess with twisted metal every where. The top and falling part was destroyed in its descent. .From hitting and meeting the opposing lower blocks resisting force.Lather, rinse, repeat until you hit the bottom, except by the time you hit the bottom you still have a good chunk of the entire building moving VERY fast (thus more energy) which obliterates everything. The total energy released by the collapse is a mindbogglingly large number.
Nope 90 storys in 10 -15 seconds?And it did take time. But as the collapse increased in mass and velocity, the more energy was released to destroy the lower floors and the faster those floors would be destroyed.
I think the fallacy is in thinking the smaller top part biting away at the larger bottom half in 10 to 15 seconds. I am also thinking from the refutations I have read and slowly trying to understand, make sense when the steels strength is taken into consideration.This is also a logical falacy. As the top part is destroyed, some of it's mass does fall away, but more mass takes it's place all the while the whole mess is accelerating, thus generating far MORE dynamic energy/forces.Mr. Jones said:And I am also taking into account the destruction of the top block as it hits the lower parts, pulverizes and falls away. Less mass, less dynamic energy/forces.
It would increase if it is constant, it had met resistance from every single floor on the way down, and actually encountered more mass to have to crush, because of the larger columns and structures the lower half was constructed with, thereby negating, at least somewhat, of the mass you are saying it picked up as it destroyed each floor.Given your assumptions, I would agree with you. The problem is your assumptions are flawed. The dynamic energy does not decrease as the collapse progresses, but rapidly increases to the point where the resistance of the lower floors becomes insignificant. It is a vicious cycle of more mass and more velocity equaling more energy to destroy faster and add more mass and more velocity etc.Mr. Jones said:We should expect to have a massive collapse but take much longer to complete.
So the entire inner structure fell.. silently.. and completely, all behind the facade.. causing no apparent damage or distortion to the facade...and you can prove these theories how ??
By the simple fact that none of you owners of "THE TRUTH"TM (patent pending) can produce a single tape or video with any controlled demolition sounds on them.
do you have a tape of the inner structure falling within the facade or of the sound of the inner structure collapsing before the facade ? or is this wacky theory all you have ?
No, you can clearly hear the rumble of the internal collapse before the external collapse happens. You know this. It's been discussed on numerous occasions. Yet you insist on lying your retarded ass off. Why?This is a fact that the experts at NIST dismissed, and should be embarrassed about. Did they just make a mistake or purposefully disregard this in the years they were supposed to be analyzing the WTC 7 collapses?
If it was a mistake, it goes to show you that even the most renowned experts fuck up at times, or the most trusted of sources can use their authority to deceive.
The acceleration at freefall rates of the collapse for 2.25 seconds of the entire collapse did not change any of their findings and theories as to the collapse itself. It still started the same way. It still progressed the same way. By the time the outer walls fell, there was no way for the collapse to arrest itself as many of the internal structures were already either compromised or already collapsed.
So the entire inner structure fell.. silently
Another lie by you. Nobody said completely. I've stated time and time again that it was a vertical collapse (as seen by the penthouse collapsing into the building) followed by a horizontal progression until there wasn't enough support left to support the facade. Then the global collapse started.eots said:.. and completely, all behind the facade
Wrong. During the vertical collapse you can see numerous windows in that area being broken out. You also see the penthouse completely disappear into the building. How does that happen without an internal collapse?eots said:.. causing no apparent damage or distortion to the facade...
Through the physical, audio and visual evidence. See, unlike you dishonest fucks, we don't have to make shit up that doesn't fit the evidence.eots said:and you can prove these theories how ??
This is a fact that the experts at NIST dismissed, and should be embarrassed about. Did they just make a mistake or purposefully disregard this in the years they were supposed to be analyzing the WTC 7 collapses?Yeah and it took a lowly high school teacher to correct a huge flaw about the freefall times of WTC 7 in which the still have no plausible explanation for.
Oh horse shit. the facade hit free fall for 2.25 seconds. After the inside of the building had already collapsed. Whup de fucking do. Do yourself a favor, get a life.
If it was a mistake, it goes to show you that even the most renowned experts fuck up at times, or the most trusted of sources can use their authority to deceive.
First off, neither David Chandler nor Richard Gage is an expert in engineering. Chandler is a high school physics teacher. This does NOT qualify him to write a paper on engineering.Both theories rely on experts, and calculations that if they thought were BS, I don't think they would put them out there to get ripped to shreds. What I want to see or hear is a debate pitting the experts and their calculations against each other. A new independent investigation would hopefully produce this.
No, the people who have had things explained to them that can be verified, yet they choose to blissfully ignore them are dumbshits who aren't learning. Nice try though.Mr. Jones said:You assume everyone who doesn't agree with you isn't learning and is a dumbshit, that's hilarious.
Look around. Chandler has gotten into online debates and got his ass handed to him.Mr. Jones said:I hardly expected Chandler to be here and respond.
Frank Legge is a big time fraud and is more than willing to lie and try to strongarm other groups of the truthtard bowel movement. The infighting between truthtard groups always cracks me up. Here is a good read on that.Mr. Jones said:Funny people like Dr. Frank Legge, Tony Szamboti, and Gordon Ross, are basically saying the same things, and take into consideration other characteristics of the steel and what the top block had to overcome.
When someone goes to great lengths to explain to you that the numbers are WELL below normal explicitly to prevent a claim the numbers are too high, yet you ignore that and pretend the numbers are too high, I'm going to call you on it.Mr. Jones said:It was another attempt on your part to generalize and deceive. Why would I whine about any real numbers, I already admitted I'm not too hip on the calculations. If you happen to know them and can make sense of them post it, don't throw BS in the discussion and pretend you didn't. Mountains weigh more then marbles.
So who posted Chandler's paper as evidence of what they believe? Regardless, despite your claims to the contrary, you went ahead and pretended the lower section was one piece as well.Mr. Jones said:No you referenced me-This is what you wrote-
"You point to the "smaller" top half and pretend like it has to destroy the entire lower section at once. That isn't how a collapse happens because loads aren't shifted instantaniously. Local structures fail as the collapse progresses, so pretending the upper section had to overcome this massive lower section all at once is just retarded."
Chandler isn't mentioned
I never said the top had to JUST overcome the floors. I see you're back to lying.Mr. Jones said:The top had to overcome more then just the floors, and the estimates the experts give is about 1 second per floor, given the top half had a lot of localized resistance to overcome, at every floor.
Here is another example of the extremely dishonest tactic used by truthtards called the binary method. Either the building is nearly solid or it is mostly air.Mr. Jones said:Strange you mention "all that debris" when supporters of the fire collapse mention the buildings were "mostly air" and try to minimize mass, except when it comes to "all the debris" being a force on the lower half.
Nothing in between! Look, you silly fuck, BY VOLUME, the towers are mostly air. Are you now going to pretend each floor didn't compromise thousands of tons of material? Come on. Seriously? Of course there would be. If there wasn't, you wouldn't see any debris going over the sides and the towers would have fallen at free fall acceleration.Mr. Jones said:Regardless have you taken into account the elastic loading and plastic shortening phases of the columns, its effect on momentum transfer? There would be some losses of energy due to residual strength within the failing columns.
Nobody is saying energy wasn't lost. Was it as much as was generated? Not even a little bit close.Mr. Jones said:In short this engineers calculations show that when these other factors are taken into account, you have what amounts to energy losses.
OK, here is a good example of the tactics used by the various truthtard sites. Let's say the calculations are right and you lost 66% of the kinetic energy destroying the first floor and your speed has been reduced to 4.8 m/s. Now you have 17 floors where the mass is going to continue to accelerate through the next floors before impacting the floors blelow them and you're going to generate all the energy of the initial part of the collapse with the added mass of the 17th floor - any debris that went over the side. Lather, rinse, repeat. You're still going to end up with more and more energy as the building falls. Remember, the kinetic energy is still there no matter what velocity the top is falling at. One only uses freefall acceleration to determine the total amount. It doesn't matter if the mass actually comes down at 1 or 100 miles an hour, the same amount of energy HAS to be released.Mr. Jones said:The kinetic energy of the falling section would be similarly affected, but because of the velocity squared relationship, the reduction in kinetic energy would be more pronounced. K. E. of falling section before impact = 16 floors moving at (8.5 m/sec) K. E. of falling section after impact = 17 floors moving at (4.8 m/sec)
Percentage loss of K.E. = 1-(17 * 4.8/ (16 *8.5) * 100% = 66%
So here we have a calculation that takes into account elastic deflection, and a slowing down of the collapse. Feel free to look it over-
http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf
Really? So now you're an expert on experts, but you have no clue what they're saying. Hmmm. I'm thinking you may not be the best judge in the world.Mr. Jones said:These guys are experts and too good to over look something a lowly high school physics teacher noticed in such an important investigation that's why.
Says a guy who ADMITS he has no clue what the NIST documentation actually means. Don't you ever stop and question if AE911 et. al. are lying their asses off to you, someone who wouldn't be able to tell?Mr. Jones said:The NIST investigation was comprised of eight separate projects, which all together produced 43 volumes of supporting documentation. The projects included metallurgical studies, an impact analysis, an attempt to reconstruct the fires, and a computer model of the probable sequence of events leading to the collapse of each tower. Some of the agency's research was of excellent quality some was not. But the main problem is that none of it lends credence to NIST's official conclusions.
No, I wouldn't, and if I did, I would hope someone pointed out the extreme logical flaws, especially about the core columns losing structural integrity once they are no longer perfectly vertical.Mr. Jones said:Depends on how many floors used the lighter columns. But you know damn well you would jump someones shit for doing the same.
The point is that from an engineering point of view, the energies released are so far beyond what the building was designed for that there is no other outcome than collapse. Given the FACT there is no evidence whatsoever of controlled demolition, what other conclusion is one to come to?Mr. Jones said:As I have been trying to explain, it doesn't appear to be that simple, here are other factors that engineers have sited in their refutations.
The exact same amount of energy would be released, yes. This is scientific fact. Pretending your head and a bag of flour vs. loose flour is somehow relevant to the towers is hysterical, but meaningless. Try this: Put a board over your head and dump the flour either in or out of the bag and you're still going to go down hard as you will be absorbing all the energy released at the same time.Mr. Jones said:So are you saying that opening up a 50lb bag of flour and dumping it on your head would hurt just as bad as if it hit your noodle unopened?
Yes, mass is mass. You're going to get the same result whether the top section is a solid block or made up of hundreds to thousands of individual structures tied together. They still contain the exact same amount of potential energy that will convert to kinetic when the mass moves.Mr. Jones said:You 're saying mass is mass? What would cause more damage in the above scenario?
Gravity is used to calculate the energy contained in a structure above ground. Gravity loads are loads that are not moving and the only weight is that supplied by gravity. Once that load starts moving, it is no longer a gravity or static load but a dynamic load = static load + energy converted from potential to kinetic energy.Mr. Jones said:How so when the force of gravity is crucial to the kinetic energy? No gravity no energy right?
Who says overcoming steel's rigidity takes time? Ever see a car wreck? Happens in a blink of the eye and can completely decimate the car including the very rigid steel frame.Mr. Jones said:This brings me right back to the part where the top has to overcome the steels rigidity characteristics, and the time it takes to do that while being met with opposing forces.
And we saw debris coming over the side. We also saw that the vast majority of the debris was piled up very close to the footprint of the building which means most of the debris was still part of the collapse.Mr. Jones said:See the bag of flour example above. Still the collapse should have taken much longer, as you say as the collapse progresses. Still IF this is possible, it should not happen almost instantaneously.
Complicated doesn't mean takes a long time. Again, go back to a car wreck involving two cars. Happens in literally a blink of an eye, yet you have the same issues going on. Cars are not one mass, but numerous parts that all interact differently and produce different results. Yet the end results are usually the same; cars destroyed in a flash. Remember, no matter WHAT happens, you have the constant pressure from gravity insuring everything is being pulled inexhoribly down.Mr. Jones said:Actually what I quoted was not from Chandler, but another engineer, regardless it appears from the different theories that there is more going on and forces against forces that must overcome to produce the witnessed results, that the average person doesn't look at. And what about the localized parts of the top block?? It is not one solid piece, it too experiences damage meeting the bottom head on...and again how can this happen..all these intricacies, and opposing forces trying to overcome each other..in just 10 to 15 seconds!? It is complicated.
Remember, for every floor that collapses, the remaining energy of the upper section is still stored in the form of movement. That movement is constantly accelerated by gravity which means the entire collapse event is going to continue to accelerate on the way down. What started fairly slowly ended very quickly. Gravity is a bitch!Mr. Jones said:Even the power structure resisting the collapse bit by bit floor by floor, this would not happen almost instantaneously and I would agree that the collapse would take more the 10-15 seconds.
No, there you go pretending the lower half is a solid structure. It isn't. It is a structure made up of numerous smaller structures that are holding up the load. Those structures are all designed to share the load and distribute the load. They are NOT designed to support the kinds of weights the dynamic load presented them and there is no way they can redistribute the weight fast enough, especially since the ultimate mechanism for redistributing weight is the spandrels at the top of the tower which are no longer there. We know this happened because all one has to do is watch the collapse. The lower half doesn't disintegrate as one object, but is destroyed floor by floor as the structures fail. You have to look at it from the perspective of the structures in play at the time, not the sum total of all structures that are not yet affected.Mr. Jones said:The problem with this analogy is that the lower half being more robust and undamaged would be more akin to the sledgehammer, and the top to a regular carpenters hammer.
Not stouter. Weaker. The beauty of modern skyscrapers, especially ones like the towers, is that they are engineering marvels that use far less steel and concrete than those before it. They work because of how the internal structures interact with one another to create something far stronger than the material alone is capable of supporting. The inherent problem with this is that when that structural integrity is compromised, the structure fails spectacularly.Mr. Jones said:But you still aren't taking any of the things into account that the top to has to overcome, so it's a series of smaller and stouter obstacles being provided by the lower half...?
The chunk of the building I am talking about is the debris that is moving downward. That mass of debris continues to grow as it collapses down, despite the loss of some mass over the sides due to resistance.Mr. Jones said:What chunk of the buildings are you talking about? Every video I have seen show a mostly pulverized mess with twisted metal every where. The top and falling part was destroyed in its descent. .From hitting and meeting the opposing lower blocks resisting force.
Why not? The collapse event was under constant acceleration due to gravity. You can't just deny something for no reason.Mr. Jones said:Nope 90 storys in 10 -15 seconds?
OK, let me ask you this honest question. If the collapse of the towers was just flat out impossible in the time frames involved, don't you think there would be more than just a mere handful of engineers going "wait a minute..... that ain't right!"Mr. Jones said:I think the fallacy is in thinking the smaller top part biting away at the larger bottom half in 10 to 15 seconds. I am also thinking from the refutations I have read and slowly trying to understand, make sense when the steels strength is taken into consideration.
You're also forgetting the other part of the equation: velocity. Remember, as the collapse progresses, any energy NOT used up by the destruction of the most recent floor is maintained via movement. This movement is constantly accelerated by gravity. Remember... it's not just a good idea, it's the LAW! Is there some momentum lost due to resistance? Absolutely. Is it greater than the total acceleration gravity is pulling at? No or the collapse would stop completely.Mr. Jones said:It would increase if it is constant, it had met resistance from every single floor on the way down, and actually encountered more mass to have to crush, because of the larger columns and structures the lower half was constructed with, thereby negating, at least somewhat, of the mass you are saying it picked up as it destroyed each floor.Given your assumptions, I would agree with you. The problem is your assumptions are flawed. The dynamic energy does not decrease as the collapse progresses, but rapidly increases to the point where the resistance of the lower floors becomes insignificant. It is a vicious cycle of more mass and more velocity equaling more energy to destroy faster and add more mass and more velocity etc.Mr. Jones said:We should expect to have a massive collapse but take much longer to complete.
Fuck it. Peace. ;-)Mr. Jones said:I'm still trying to process both squabbles. it is obsessively interesting, time consuming and exhausting,,,fuck it, I'm out ...for now.
So the entire inner structure fell.. silently.. and completely, all behind the facade.. causing no apparent damage or distortion to the facade...and you can prove these theories how ??
So the entire inner structure fell.. silently.. and completely, all behind the facade.. causing no apparent damage or distortion to the facade...and you can prove these theories how ??
10 years and you never saw this? Amazing...
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkOGkdNq13k&feature=related]YouTube - ‪WTC7 NIST Clip with east penthouse‬‏[/ame]
I don't see ANY windows breaking when the penthouse fell into the building. Nope. Nothing to see here right eots?
Truthtards are only going to see / believe what they want and fuck the truth.do not see the entire inner structure collapsing...according to you and NIST
I see a facade falling...and all I hear is a narrative saying building 7 was the first know instance of a steel frame building collapsing primarily due to fire
Truthtards are only going to see / believe what they want and fuck the truth.do not see the entire inner structure collapsing...according to you and NIST
I see a facade falling...and all I hear is a narrative saying building 7 was the first know instance of a steel frame building collapsing primarily due to fire
Truthtards are only going to see / believe what they want and fuck the truth.do not see the entire inner structure collapsing...according to you and NIST
I see a facade falling...and all I hear is a narrative saying building 7 was the first know instance of a steel frame building collapsing primarily due to fire
Twoofers have to fuck the truth.
They can't get women!
