• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

I'm not saying that 9/11 was an inside job, but...[W:459]

Re: I'm not saying that 9/11 was an inside job, but...

BmanMcfly said:
So, you brought it up to get a reaction and then claim you don't care... that's definition of troll behavior.
Click to expand...

Baiting ignored. Here is my original quote, notice it is actually an aside, the main focus of my point is the question!

"The topic is about building 7 looking like a controlled demolition therefore it was - even though it didn't sound like one. May I ask you a straightforward question?

For argument's sake, assume the column gave way and that is why the building was unable to stay upright. My question is this -

What should the fall have looked like and specifically why should it differ from what a controlled demolition looks like?"

The sound is not relevant to the question and there was no evidence of explosive sounds. Seismic recordings showed no explosives either.

Yes, opinion based on inescapable physical fact.
Click to expand...

It isn't inescapable and your observation is bollocks. The collapse wasn't symmetrical, we clearly see the left side give way first, the stresses show quite clearly all the way up the building.

You are using the right words, but what you are saying is meaningless.
Click to expand...

Reading and comprehension fail? Something with that much mass above, requires a considerable resistance to force that mass in any other direction than downwards.

Gravity is a downward vector.
Click to expand...

Well done.

Let's use a simplistic example; you are sitting on a chair, one of the legs breaks. You will still fall downward with gravity, but unless your mass is beyond the ability of the remaining legs to sustain, you would fall in the direction of the broken leg. That's because of the center of mass falling outside the center of gravity of you and the chair.
Click to expand...

That is as idiotic and ignorant an analogy as you could get. The chair has an unbroken very strong lever/fulcrum in place that bears no resemblance to thousands and thousands of tons above vertical supports. Not only are you not qualified to make such a call, you don't know the mechanics of how the building collapsed and appear to believe simplistic bollocks. No wonder you think what you do.

Going based off the common camera view: you are referring to back to front, I'm talking about left to right.
Click to expand...

Not relevant at all. The left side of the building gave way first as evidenced in numerous different views -



You asked the question and the answer is "patronising", another sign that you are betraying your moniker.
Click to expand...

Is English your first language? You proclaimed how you have "an understanding of physics" then patronisingly added "... not sure you can claim the same". Would you like me to explain this for you?

Anyway, you are right to the extent that if we are looking at calculating a specific sequence of collapse, or otherwise in depth analysis... then yes, you would need to be quite familiar with the structural engineering as well as an in depth knowledge of the structure itself.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know I'm right.

However, the physics principles remain the same, and it does not require high level physics to apply those principles.
Click to expand...

Bollocks. It requires knowledge of the structural integrity, the damage caused to each support by the fires, the level of weight per support. It requires you to know how the weight is redistributed after losing one column, whether the remaining columns are subsequently able to stay upright given the (unknown to you) level of damage and increased weight and stress. It requires the dimensions between supports, calculation of what if any fulcrum/lever activity would be present after weight redistribution and then subsequent initiation of collapse.

You know none of that. You know about chairs and chair legs:roll:

i assume you mean the gash on the one side? Then yes... I'm familiar.
Click to expand...

Are you aware how this would have affected the middle support?

Those "raging fires" only covered a small number of floors, and on most of those floors on fire, was just pockets of flames.
Click to expand...

Six hours, from numerous fire fighters it was out of control and the building was in imminent danger of collapse. Your comment is ludicrously inaccurate.

Because that does not lead to symmetrical collapse... back to the simple chair analogy, the only way to drop straight down is to lose all four legs simultaneously (or damn near simultaneously)
Click to expand...

Hmmm, you should stick to chairs because you know jack about structural integrity. The central column pulls all weight down the centre and both outer columns are forced inwards. It would almost guarantee the building falling into its own footprint!

Read this, unless you have fixed your opinion, that should give you some hints as to why you are so wrong -

Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - World Trade Center 7, Building 7
 
Re: I'm not saying that 9/11 was an inside job, but...

BmanMcfly said:
You are being deliberately obtuse.

It's not pillars flew out therefore explosive. You are skipping the middle step.

All energy projected outward is energy that is slowing down the collapse... If there's both, a fast collapse, and lots of debris projected outward, there's an energy imbalance issue that must be addressed.
Click to expand...

I am not being deliberately obtuse or indeed at all obtuse. I am directly addressing the claim by Henry David (and many others) that explosives projected that column section to its final resting place. If you have an alternative hypothesis that better explains how it got there I await with eager anticipation. I have one of my own but won't be posting it until later.
 
Re: I'm not saying that 9/11 was an inside job, but...

BmanMcfly said:
You are being deliberately obtuse.

It's not pillars flew out therefore explosive. You are skipping the middle step.

All energy projected outward is energy that is slowing down the collapse... If there's both, a fast collapse, and lots of debris projected outward, there's an energy imbalance issue that must be addressed.
Click to expand...

What else would you expect? You know he's going to stack the deck in favor of the OCT while making it sound technical as a (pretentious) display of credibility, that's his M.O. All the while he sprinkles in the names of all the posters who don't buy the OCT or his pile of **** in an effort to ridicule.
 
Re: I'm not saying that 9/11 was an inside job, but...

Bob0627 said:
What else would you expect? You know he's going to stack the deck in favor of the OCT while making it sound technical as a (pretentious) display of credibility, that's his M.O. All the while he sprinkles in the names of all the posters who don't buy the OCT or his pile of **** in an effort to ridicule.
Click to expand...

Quack quack OCT quack quack OCT quack quack.

ODS at work,

OCT Delusion Syndrome...

It is evidenced by the substitution of the acronym OCT into otherwise mundane word salad....

CLUE: Bob. the facts are stacking the deck in favor of the so-called "OCT" (that you can't put into words)
 
Re: I'm not saying that 9/11 was an inside job, but...

Mark F said:
I am not being deliberately obtuse or indeed at all obtuse. I am directly addressing the claim by Henry David (and many others) that explosives projected that column section to its final resting place. If you have an alternative hypothesis that better explains how it got there I await with eager anticipation. I have one of my own but won't be posting it until later.
Click to expand...

Yet you are unable to explain the source of the energy(force) required to move that piece. You would have me believe, "oh, it just fell 400 feet away. :roll: Like the other poster, you would rather just eschew "the physics".
 
Re: I'm not saying that 9/11 was an inside job, but...

Henry David said:
Yet you are unable to explain the source of the energy(force) required to move that piece. You would have me believe, "oh, it just fell 400 feet away. :roll: Like the other poster, you would rather just eschew "the physics".
Click to expand...

Not true. You are jumping ahead.

Because there is nothing new to discuss in 9/11 technical claims and has not been for years I have in fact addressed this point in detail before, almost exactly a year ago and I will address it again in this thread - but not yet.

The question up for consideration now is the solution you proposed - that some sort of explosive force projected that artifact into the Amex Building. I find that explanation implausible for reasons alluded to in my posts from last night. It does as they say, raise more questions than answers. Now, if you could answer those questions that would be great. If you can't are you open to considering other alternatives?
 
Re: I'm not saying that 9/11 was an inside job, but...

Antitroll said:
Baiting ignored. Here is my original quote, notice it is actually an aside, the main focus of my point is the question!

"The topic is about building 7 looking like a controlled demolition therefore it was - even though it didn't sound like one. May I ask you a straightforward question?

For argument's sake, assume the column gave way and that is why the building was unable to stay upright. My question is this -

What should the fall have looked like and specifically why should it differ from what a controlled demolition looks like?"

The sound is not relevant to the question and there was no evidence of explosive sounds. Seismic recordings showed no explosives either.



It isn't inescapable and your observation is bollocks. The collapse wasn't symmetrical, we clearly see the left side give way first, the stresses show quite clearly all the way up the building.



Reading and comprehension fail? Something with that much mass above, requires a considerable resistance to force that mass in any other direction than downwards.



Well done.



That is as idiotic and ignorant an analogy as you could get. The chair has an unbroken very strong lever/fulcrum in place that bears no resemblance to thousands and thousands of tons above vertical supports. Not only are you not qualified to make such a call, you don't know the mechanics of how the building collapsed and appear to believe simplistic bollocks. No wonder you think what you do.



Not relevant at all. The left side of the building gave way first as evidenced in numerous different views -





Is English your first language? You proclaimed how you have "an understanding of physics" then patronisingly added "... not sure you can claim the same". Would you like me to explain this for you?



Yes, I know I'm right.



Bollocks. It requires knowledge of the structural integrity, the damage caused to each support by the fires, the level of weight per support. It requires you to know how the weight is redistributed after losing one column, whether the remaining columns are subsequently able to stay upright given the (unknown to you) level of damage and increased weight and stress. It requires the dimensions between supports, calculation of what if any fulcrum/lever activity would be present after weight redistribution and then subsequent initiation of collapse.

You know none of that. You know about chairs and chair legs:roll:



Are you aware how this would have affected the middle support?



Six hours, from numerous fire fighters it was out of control and the building was in imminent danger of collapse. Your comment is ludicrously inaccurate.



Hmmm, you should stick to chairs because you know jack about structural integrity. The central column pulls all weight down the centre and both outer columns are forced inwards. It would almost guarantee the building falling into its own footprint!

Read this, unless you have fixed your opinion, that should give you some hints as to why you are so wrong -

Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - World Trade Center 7, Building 7
Click to expand...


The fact you cite that source as credible is laughable but also typical because there is not much for you guys to rely on outside of hard facts. It took NIST seven years and a brand new theory to explain why WTC 7 failed but you want to claim it is obvious why it fell. Do you see the contradictory facts?
 
Re: I'm not saying that 9/11 was an inside job, but...

Reassessing the Question of Demolition: WTC7 - World Trade Center Evidence-Based Research


"The collective visual record of the WTC7 collapse is examined directly and independently of all other sources, groups or individuals. The movement of the structure during the initial column failure sequence is mapped and traced back to the earliest point of detectable movement from multiple angles. Features of the initial failure sequence can be understood as a rapid succession of 7 identifiable events occurring in the following order:


1) Movement Detected from 2 Minutes before Collapse
2) Increase of rocking 6 seconds before visible collapse
3) Ejections and overpressurizations
4) Collapse of the East Penthouse
5) Collective core failure
6) Perimeter response
7) Acceleration downward"
"
 
Re: I'm not saying that 9/11 was an inside job, but...

Brischera said:
The fact you cite that source as credible is laughable but also typical because there is not much for you guys to rely on outside of hard facts. It took NIST seven years and a brand new theory to explain why WTC 7 failed but you want to claim it is obvious why it fell. Do you see the contradictory facts?
Click to expand...

What problem have you with the site? Other than it debunks many of your claims.

Is it factually inaccurate?
 
Re: I'm not saying that 9/11 was an inside job, but...

Brischera said:
The fact you cite that source as credible is laughable but also typical because there is not much for you guys to rely on outside of hard facts. It took NIST seven years and a brand new theory to explain why WTC 7 failed but you want to claim it is obvious why it fell. Do you see the contradictory facts?
Click to expand...

You are lying. I claim the opposite! It is the people like you who claim it is obvious when you have no clue whatsoever about any of the variables. I see no contradictory "facts", only a poster who couldn't be bothered to address a highly detailed response and came out with flippant inaccurate bollocks. From what I see, the inside-jobbers are just spouting the same crap from over 10 years ago.
 
Re: I'm not saying that 9/11 was an inside job, but...

Antitroll said:
Seismic recordings showed no explosives either.
Click to expand...

Others disagree.


It isn't inescapable and your observation is bollocks. The collapse wasn't symmetrical, we clearly see the left side give way first, the stresses show quite clearly all the way up the building.
Click to expand...

Yes. Yes it was. The video shows the symmetry of 3 of the 4 walls collapsing.


Reading and comprehension fail? Something with that much mass above, requires a considerable resistance to force that mass in any other direction than downwards.
Click to expand...

No. This is wrong.

This is a center of mass / center of gravity, and moment of inertia problem.

The exception being that the mass of the structure being far beyond the capacity of the supports to carry the load.


Well done.
Click to expand...

Thank you.


That is as idiotic and ignorant an analogy as you could get. The chair has an unbroken very strong lever/fulcrum in place that bears no resemblance to thousands and thousands of tons above vertical supports. Not only are you not qualified to make such a call, you don't know the mechanics of how the building collapsed and appear to believe simplistic bollocks. No wonder you think what you do.
Click to expand...

Cute, now who is patronizing.

The point was, if you don't get the forces at play if a simple structure failed, The shifting forces of a lattice structure will be lost.

Not relevant at all. The left side of the building gave way first as evidenced in numerous different views -

Click to expand...


You mean the penthouse dropped first... the rest, 3 of 4 walls dropped simultaneously moments after, as evidenced by your video.


Is English your first language? You proclaimed how you have "an understanding of physics" then patronisingly added "... not sure you can claim the same". Would you like me to explain this for you?
Click to expand...

That's not patronizing, that's honest. I don't know what you know or not... it's safer to assume not.

Yes, I know I'm right.



Bollocks. It requires knowledge of the structural integrity, the damage caused to each support by the fires, the level of weight per support. It requires you to know how the weight is redistributed after losing one column, whether the remaining columns are subsequently able to stay upright given the (unknown to you) level of damage and increased weight and stress. It requires the dimensions between supports, calculation of what if any fulcrum/lever activity would be present after weight redistribution and then subsequent initiation of collapse.

You know none of that. You know about chairs and chair legs:roll:
Click to expand...

More patronizing comments...

Here's the distinction; am I creating a simulation of the collapse, or am I just analyzing the collapse in terms of the explanation.

If it's the former, you are right. Since its the latter, general concepts are sufficient.


Are you aware how this would have affected the middle support?
Click to expand...

More or less, doesn't change much. Especially hours later when the loads had rebalanced.


Six hours, from numerous fire fighters it was out of control and the building was in imminent danger of collapse. Your comment is ludicrously inaccurate.
Click to expand...

No, both are accurate.


Hmmm, you should stick to chairs because you know jack about structural integrity. The central column pulls all weight down the centre and both outer columns are forced inwards. It would almost guarantee the building falling into its own footprint!

Read this, unless you have fixed your opinion, that should give you some hints as to why you are so wrong -

Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - World Trade Center 7, Building 7
Click to expand...

The building had something like 47 columns... not 3 as you are trying to imply.

That's where you went wrong, you took "debunking 911" as a legitimate source. Weekly world news is probably more trustworthy of a source.
 
Re: I'm not saying that 9/11 was an inside job, but...

Fledermaus said:
What problem have you with the site? Other than it debunks many of your claims.

Is it factually inaccurate?
Click to expand...

Did you say something? Arent you the same guy who couldnt tell us how many exterior walls exist on the Pentagon?
 
Re: I'm not saying that 9/11 was an inside job, but...

Antitroll said:
You are lying. I claim the opposite! It is the people like you who claim it is obvious when you have no clue whatsoever about any of the variables. I see no contradictory "facts", only a poster who couldn't be bothered to address a highly detailed response and came out with flippant inaccurate bollocks. From what I see, the inside-jobbers are just spouting the same crap from over 10 years ago.
Click to expand...

The most obvious contradictory fact is if it was so obvious why WTC7 collapsed it should NOT have taken NIST 7 years and a brand new theory to explain how it fell.
 
Re: I'm not saying that 9/11 was an inside job, but...

BmanMcfly said:
Yes. Yes it was. The video shows the symmetry of 3 of the 4 walls collapsing.
Click to expand...

So what?

You mean the penthouse dropped first... the rest, 3 of 4 walls dropped simultaneously moments after, as evidenced by your video.
Click to expand...

That leaves out an awful lot of stuff that happened in the middle. Can't believe we still have to go over this.


The building had something like 47 columns... not 3 as you are trying to imply.
Click to expand...

81 not 47. Failure at Col. 79 followed by 80 and 81 is what triggered the progression of column failures through the core from east to west which then left the curtain wall unsupported, allowing it to drop well after the building interior had failed. Only 4 columns as I recall supported the curtain wall. Once the core was gone and the lateral bracing from the floors to the perimeter columns with it the curtain wall could not stand on its own and would have collapsed quickly. But the curtain wall is the curtain wall, it is not "the building".

All of the above BTW is agnostic to CD or not CD. It is just how 7 was built and how it fell. What initiated the collapse is a separate issue.
 
Re: I'm not saying that 9/11 was an inside job, but...

Brischera said:
The most obvious contradictory fact is if it was so obvious why WTC7 collapsed it should NOT have taken NIST 7 years and a brand new theory to explain how it fell.
Click to expand...

The amount of time taken is irrelevant as to the cause of collapse.
 
Re: I'm not saying that 9/11 was an inside job, but...

Mark F said:
So what?



That leaves out an awful lot of stuff that happened in the middle. Can't believe we still have to go over this.




81 not 47. Failure at Col. 79 followed by 80 and 81 is what triggered the progression of column failures through the core from east to west which then left the curtain wall unsupported, allowing it to drop well after the building interior had failed. Only 4 columns as I recall supported the curtain wall. Once the core was gone and the lateral bracing from the floors to the perimeter columns with it the curtain wall could not stand on its own and would have collapsed quickly. But the curtain wall is the curtain wall, it is not "the building".

All of the above BTW is agnostic to CD or not CD. It is just how 7 was built and how it fell. What initiated the collapse is a separate issue.
Click to expand...

I am wondering how a single video shows three sides...
 
Re: I'm not saying that 9/11 was an inside job, but...

Brischera said:
The most obvious contradictory fact is if it was so obvious why WTC7 collapsed it should NOT have taken NIST 7 years and a brand new theory to explain how it fell.
Click to expand...

But the "truthers" are the ones who claim it was obvious why it collapsed and I refer to the mechanism. Your strawman is a self destruct comment.
 
Re: I'm not saying that 9/11 was an inside job, but...

Antitroll said:
But the "truthers" are the ones who claim it was obvious why it collapsed and I refer to the mechanism. Your strawman is a self destruct comment.
Click to expand...

It is not a strawman by any definition and you just revealed a habit of parroting terms you do not comprehend when responding to disagreeable facts.
 
Re: I'm not saying that 9/11 was an inside job, but...

I don't think I'll make any more direct responses unless he says anything tangible. Apparently, symmetrical only involves 3 of the 4 walls:shock:

Apparently, he still thinks a chair is the same as a building. Apparently the base of WTC building 7 formed a rigid lever and couldn't possibly have disintegrated from collapse. Apparently he knows about physics so he thinks nobody else does. Apparently he thinks that knowledge suffices for structural failure where he knows none of the variables involved.

You can't argue with that, it will never go anywhere.
 
Re: I'm not saying that 9/11 was an inside job, but...

Brischera said:
It is not a strawman by any definition and you just revealed a habit of parroting terms you do not comprehend when responding to disagreeable facts.
Click to expand...

Sure it is. You made a claim that I think it was easy to explain, then you use a report that shows it wasn't. I never made the original claim. It was a strawman. You fail.
 
Re: I'm not saying that 9/11 was an inside job, but...

Antitroll said:
Sure it is. You made a claim that I think it was easy to explain, then you use a report that shows it wasn't. I never made the original claim. It was a strawman. You fail.
Click to expand...

You have clearly stated the reason for the collapse is not complicated which means....what I already said about the contradiction.
 
Re: I'm not saying that 9/11 was an inside job, but...

Mark F said:
So what?



That leaves out an awful lot of stuff that happened in the middle. Can't believe we still have to go over this.




81 not 47. Failure at Col. 79 followed by 80 and 81 is what triggered the progression of column failures through the core from east to west which then left the curtain wall unsupported, allowing it to drop well after the building interior had failed. Only 4 columns as I recall supported the curtain wall. Once the core was gone and the lateral bracing from the floors to the perimeter columns with it the curtain wall could not stand on its own and would have collapsed quickly. But the curtain wall is the curtain wall, it is not "the building".

All of the above BTW is agnostic to CD or not CD. It is just how 7 was built and how it fell. What initiated the collapse is a separate issue.
Click to expand...

Oh ya... 81 columns.
 
Re: I'm not saying that 9/11 was an inside job, but...

Fledermaus said:
I am wondering how a single video shows three sides...
Click to expand...
Proof someone did not watch the videoS before commenting
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom