Poll

What is the truth about the 911 attack on the World Trade Center?

Hijacked Planes were flown into the two towers.  Resulting fires caused the collapse.
14 (60.9%)
The planes were CGI and it was controlled demolition
2 (8.7%)
Something other than planes were flown into the twin towers,  missiles drones etc.
2 (8.7%)
The planes were holographic projections from a special satellite, and it was a directed energy weapon
1 (4.3%)
Something else.
3 (13%)
Denspressure
1 (4.3%)

Total Members Voted: 23

Voting closed: March 06, 2017, 10:56:40 PM

911 What is the truth?

  • 6866 Replies
  • 463345 Views
*

Heiwa

  • 9314
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1020 on: February 24, 2017, 06:15:02 AM »
Quote from: Master Evar
Disputeone seems to think that the building went from completely intact to suddenly freefalling


In 100% of shots, the penthouse collapses multiple seconds before the rest of the building. Ergo, building does not go from intact to freefalling instantly.
? So the WTC7 penthouse up on the roof collapsed ... and then the whole building below collapsed. I have other ideas - http://heiwaco.com/nist.htm . Please tell me what you think is wrong!

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 19891
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1021 on: February 24, 2017, 06:17:18 AM »
Quote from: Master Evar
Disputeone seems to think that the building went from completely intact to suddenly freefalling


In 100% of shots, the penthouse collapses multiple seconds before the rest of the building. Ergo, building does not go from intact to freefalling instantly.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed page one
Though it is funny, he uses the center collapse of a roof as "proof" when he is really shooting himself in the foot. It is typical of a steel framed skeleton designed building when demolished for the roof to sink briefly. This of course will happen when you hit the first charges, cuts in a 45 degree angle the upper parts of the main I beams first about 20 feet from the roof (depending on total height). They then slide down from gravity equally....causing...Drum roll...The roof to drop about 10 feet, then everything begins to follow.

I mean the roof line was perfectly intact then freefall.

So, central supports cut, building just holding on, remaining supports cut, free-fall.

this is my simplified version of any reasonable buildings collapse due to fire.

So structural resistance and fall acceleration.

G-%S=F

100% = 0m/s2
99  % = .098m/s2
98  % = .196m/s2
97  % = .294m/s2
96  % = .392m/s2
95  % = .49m/s2
94  % = .588m/s2
93  % = .686m/s2
92  % = .784m/s2
91  % = .882m/s2
90  % = .98m/s2

Based on my very simple equation this is my prediction for the onset of collapse for a large building losing structural resistance due to an intense fire.

Please note, that as has been stated before all structural components would have to fail simultaneously for a plumb free-fall collapse to ever occur.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2017, 06:29:55 AM by disputeone »
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1022 on: February 24, 2017, 06:30:24 AM »
Babyhighspeed-I also looked for references to "certification load" and "certified load" and can't find anything except in reference to lifting and hoisting equipment. You must know of an engineering governing body that gives clear Mathematica definitions for these terms. Can you give a link to one of those?

Also, the sheer volume of Ad Homs you and TL toss out are really shameful. Rayzor and ME are not taking the bait guys. I don't really know TL but you are better than this. Even if you are right, you are behaving like a conspiracy theorist. If you don't want to take the time to present your case here maybe you should let it go? 

There is tons of interesting stuff in this thread but what is gained by saying ME is on drugs? It's an ego stroke, nothing else.

Kindly point out where I stated Master Evar is on drugs.

I did not.

That is precisely what is implied when you say "WTH do you smoke prior to posting?". You can childishly try to use semantics to say otherwise, but everyone knows better.  It makes you look defensive, which is something you needn't be if the truth is really on your side. Your facts and reason should be overwhelming. Keep pressing those and you will be fine.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 19891
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1023 on: February 24, 2017, 06:33:31 AM »
I think he was more referring to that he doesn't think weed is a drug.

But I agree we should stick to facts and reason.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2017, 06:36:11 AM by disputeone »
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1024 on: February 24, 2017, 06:37:03 AM »
That is precisely what is implied when you say "WTH do you smoke prior to posting?". You can childishly try to use semantics to say otherwise, but everyone knows better.  It makes you look defensive, which is something you needn't be if the truth is really on your side. Your facts and reason should be overwhelming. Keep pressing those and you will be fine.
And had you written I made an implication, then you would have been correct.

I did engage in conjecture and made an implication.

But you wrote I accused ME of using drugs when I did not.

He has subsequently denied smoking.

Look at this analogy:

ME relies on the NIST for his version of 9/11 events, implying they are indeed correct.

Without the inputs/results data, all of the NIST reports are nothing more than conjecture.

Well written conjecture, but conjecture nonetheless.

I will no longer engage in conjecture, so it is now up to him to provide a reasonable explanation for his clinging to the OS fairy tale.

I will stop with the personal attacks and send them in to AR.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2017, 06:57:58 AM by totallackey »

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11119
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1025 on: February 24, 2017, 06:48:33 AM »

I will no longer engage in conjecture, so it is now up to him to provide a reasonable explanation for his clinging to the OS fairy tale.


I agree.. and will try myself, though I can't promise not having any slip ups with constant presented nonsense.

Master_evar

I presented what you wanted (which is why you said you wouldn't read what link Rama set posted)


"You would have to give me a specific building, the variables are enormous... To call the equations numerous would be like saying the universe is big. Some basics.. the beginning always starts with ASTM rating of the material, which they have their equations for their own ratings. They are there to make designers jobs easier, take one step out at least."

So I responded:
"Maybe you could tell me it for WTC 7? That'd be great."


Core ASTM a36

Trusses and other supports mixture of ASTM a/36/242. Fire e119

If you can make it past the link and provide any sort of rebuttal that has substance I will post up more complex information. Otherwise I am not wasting hours of my time.

It takes time to transcribe hard paper into electronic form.
A link to a link to WTC blueprints:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/blueprints.html

Edited for link
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1026 on: February 24, 2017, 07:00:59 AM »
That is precisely what is implied when you say "WTH do you smoke prior to posting?". You can childishly try to use semantics to say otherwise, but everyone knows better.  It makes you look defensive, which is something you needn't be if the truth is really on your side. Your facts and reason should be overwhelming. Keep pressing those and you will be fine.
And had you written I made an implication, then you would have been correct.

I did engage in conjecture and made an implication.

But you wrote I accused ME of using drugs when I did not.

Semantics.  You know what you did, and it was immature.

Quote
He has subsequently denied smoking.

Irrelevant, he could have been high as a kite.  What matters is substance.

Quote
I will no longer engage in conjecture, so it is now up to him to provide a reasonable explanation for his clinging to the OS fairy tale.

He has been, sorry to say.  The interpretation of collapse time that ME has presented is reasonable, if you can properly debunk his actual argument, you should.

Quote
But I still do not know why people can toss about the OS for 9/11 (all based on conjecture) and I cannot engage in conjecture concerning members' reasoning or behavior.

Well good.  You shouldn't worry about why people believe what they believe, you should concentrate on their arguments.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1027 on: February 24, 2017, 07:11:30 AM »
Semantics.  You know what you did, and it was immature.

Okay.

I think it is more wrong to keep trumpeting the NIST conjecture, but it does not matter.

What matters is substance.

Precisely why the NIST needs to be dropped as a reference when discussing the demolitions of 9/11.

He has been, sorry to say.  The interpretation of collapse time that ME has presented is reasonable, if you can properly debunk his actual argument, you should.

It is based on the reports provided by the NIST and is therefore UNREASONABLE and does not deserve to be addressed.

Well good.  You shouldn't worry about why people believe what they believe, you should concentrate on their arguments.

When they have no argument, I get distracted and my focus tends to shift.

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11119
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1028 on: February 24, 2017, 07:25:52 AM »


Okay.

I think it is more wrong to keep trumpeting the NIST conjecture, but it does not matter.



When they have no argument, I get distracted and my focus tends to shift.

Agreed.

Rama set, we have both said we would try and be better. But if it continues to only be nonsense, I myself make no promises.
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1029 on: February 24, 2017, 08:09:06 AM »
I mean the roof line was perfectly intact then freefall.

So, central supports cut, building just holding on, remaining supports cut, free-fall.
That, or progressive interior collapse -> weakening of whole structure -> rapid failure of exterior columns.

Remember, not saying you are absolutely wrong. But it is wrong to say that it is impossible that it happened due to damage from fire.

this is my simplified version of any reasonable buildings collapse due to fire.

So structural resistance and fall acceleration.

G-%S=F

100% = 0m/s2
99  % = .098m/s2
98  % = .196m/s2
97  % = .294m/s2
96  % = .392m/s2
95  % = .49m/s2
94  % = .588m/s2
93  % = .686m/s2
92  % = .784m/s2
91  % = .882m/s2
90  % = .98m/s2

Based on my very simple equation this is my prediction for the onset of collapse for a large building losing structural resistance due to an intense fire.
So, does your equation take into account the time it takes for a column to go from 100% to 0%? Does your equation take into account how quickly loads are shifted? Does it take into account extra loads from the interior?

Please note, that as has been stated before all structural components would have to fail simultaneously for a plumb free-fall collapse to ever occur.
It is visible that the fail began at the center of the walls, and spread towards the corners.

Core ASTM a36

Trusses and other supports mixture of ASTM a/36/242. Fire e119
What? Why are you answering by giving me some steel? I've looked into it, I can't find any "cert load" specifications for it.


If you can make it past the link and provide any sort of rebuttal that has substance I will post up more complex information. Otherwise I am not wasting hours of my time.

It takes time to transcribe hard paper into electronic form.
A link to a link to WTC blueprints:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/blueprints.html

Edited for link

I've looked at those blueprints long before Rama linked to them. I stand by what I said: They specify NOTHING regarding "cert load".

I think you're trying to make me do all the maths here, I guess that's why you gave me that steel. Well first of all, I'm having a hard time reading those schematics in the original (highest) resolution. Second of all, I'm not used to the US measurement system. Third of all, you claimed the "cert load" of the building, you back it up with calculations. Fourth of all, you STILL haven't adequately specified how "cert load" is calculated. Fifth of all, rebuttal to what exactly? You haven't made any arguments.
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1030 on: February 24, 2017, 09:36:06 AM »
"This evidence strengthens previous evidence uncovered by Pilots For 9/11 Truth that a standard 767 cannot remain in control, stable or hold together at the speeds reported by the NTSB for the South Tower aircraft(6). So, if UA175 was somewhere out in Pennsylvania when an aircraft was observed to strike the south tower, and a standard 767 cannot perform at such excessive speeds as reported, then where did the airplane come from which was observed to strike the South Tower? That is a great question and the reason we are still here after 10 years attempting to get answers for the day that changed our world, and will never go away until those questions are answered."

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/ACARS-CONFIRMED-911-AIRCRAFT-AIRBORNE-LONG-AFTER-CRASH.html
« Last Edit: February 24, 2017, 12:47:45 PM by totallackey »

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11119
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1031 on: February 24, 2017, 10:33:56 AM »

Core ASTM a36

Trusses and other supports mixture of ASTM a/36/242. Fire e119
What? Why are you answering by giving me some steel? I've looked into it, I can't find any "cert load" specifications for it.

Because that is what you asked for. (fyi, it is also the fire rating for the steel as well)


"You would have to give me a specific building, the variables are enormous... To call the equations numerous would be like saying the universe is big. Some basics.. the beginning always starts with ASTM rating of the material, which they have their equations for their own ratings. They are there to make designers jobs easier, take one step out at least."

So I responded:
"Maybe you could tell me it for WTC 7? That'd be great."


So there are your ASTM standards right there as you asked.

Quote
I think you're trying to make me do all the maths here, I guess that's why you gave me that steel. Well first of all, I'm having a hard time reading those schematics in the original (highest) resolution. Second of all, I'm not used to the US measurement system. Third of all, you claimed the "cert load" of the building, you back it up with calculations. Fourth of all, you STILL haven't adequately specified how "cert load" is calculated. Fifth of all, rebuttal to what exactly? You haven't made any arguments.

This is why I show you disrespect, because of shit like this. Of course there is no "cert load" character for character you will find. This is obviously an abbreviation to save time, abbreviations are even worse when talking from engineer to engineer. I already explained to you, that you need to be more specific on exactly what you want. There are 100s upon 100s of different certifications by a 100 different names composed of 1000s of factors. I already explained how some of these factors come into play when determining these certifications. I know you read this, because you replied to it and asked for the metal standards to start off with. I also explained the combination of agencies that issue these certifications. I also never said "cert load of the whole building"...that is just stupid...you know I never said that... ::)

I have met many like you, and will meet many more. Can only argue trivial dumb little things, such as semantics, instead of arguing with substance or addressing the actual content. You also say no one has presented an actual argument which is just bold face stupid...I know I have introduced rebuttals you side step (such as this dumb little stunt) and never address, so have others you have done the same with.

You wont even address a simple website link where the information is designed to appeal to a large group of people, not just engineers or architects...

Nor will you provide any rebuttals besides copying and pasting a report that has already proven to be false as well as completely non scientific and not provable from their own hiding of inputs and other data.

You rely on word twisting and general omission, i wont say lies because I am trying to be nice as promised.

However, with all your actions stated above, you want me to spend an hour or two posting stuff up that you will ignore? Especially when you wont even address a simple website link (also, nothing is easy to read in the original material, I have to use a magnifying glass at times to see certificate numbers and other fine details. It was the 60s, before the cool zoom in and out of electronic data, it was all thrown together page by page...god speed. You should see their wiring diagrams, I am glad i was not an electrical engineer at the time...or even now).

Just in case we ever get to the point of communicating and sharing information (doubtful)...Full disclosure, some records have been lost, as details was spread from the city to the port authority..(including some certification standards and other design aspects) Though I don't find this suspicious because of the age and changing of hands. Though, we have found enough to be able to piece together the random missing pieces of info.

So...again...please form a rebuttal...to something...if not, please do not stink up the thread.

I find your search for the truth disingenuous for a polite term, as I am attempting to be nicer.

and will never go away until those questions are answered


Ditto....These and 1000s more.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2017, 10:36:08 AM by Babyhighspeed »
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1032 on: February 24, 2017, 10:39:56 AM »
Someone should count the number of frames in the videos of planes striking the towers.

I would wager the amount of frames from first appearance to point of impact and total disappearance (i.e. the amount of time a plane takes on film to fly its own length) demonstrate ZERO DECELERATION!!!

How is that physically possible?

*

Heiwa

  • 9314
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1033 on: February 24, 2017, 11:22:27 AM »
Someone should count the number of frames in the videos of planes striking the towers.

I would wager the amount of frames from first appearance to point of impact and total disappearance (i.e. the amount of time a plane takes on film to fly its own length) demonstrate ZERO DECELERATION!!!

How is that physically possible?

CGI

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1034 on: February 24, 2017, 12:05:00 PM »
Someone should count the number of frames in the videos of planes striking the towers.

I nominate you.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1035 on: February 24, 2017, 01:04:15 PM »
Because that is what you asked for. (fyi, it is also the fire rating for the steel as well)
No, I explicitly asked for how the cert load would be calculated on the WTC 7, I did not ask you to give me the steel used.

So there are your ASTM standards right there as you asked.
Quote me on that. I'm am 100% that I asked for calculation of cert load, not ASTM standards (which, as far as I can tell, do NOT include "cert load").

This is why I show you disrespect, because of shit like this. Of course there is no "cert load" character for character you will find. This is obviously an abbreviation to save time, abbreviations are even worse when talking from engineer to engineer. I already explained to you, that you need to be more specific on exactly what you want. There are 100s upon 100s of different certifications by a 100 different names composed of 1000s of factors. I already explained how some of these factors come into play when determining these certifications. I know you read this, because you replied to it and asked for the metal standards to start off with. I also explained the combination of agencies that issue these certifications. I also never said "cert load of the whole building"...that is just stupid...you know I never said that... ::)
Abbreviation for what? What kind of certification? Me and disputeone listed two standards for loads, but apparently you were not speaking of that. So what were you speaking of? You claim that the strength of x structural component has a strength of y cert loads... Since you can specify an actual value, you must be able to know which value you're talking of right? And how it's calculated? Surely you're not just claiming thigns about something you don't know? There is no evidence that it's an actual abbreviation engineers use (at least not on a large scale), in which case it's incredibly dishonest of you to expect anyone else to understand what you're talking about.

And I know you never said "cert load of whole building", but you have claimed the cert load of structural components of the building. You'll have to back that up.

I have met many like you, and will meet many more. Can only argue trivial dumb little things, such as semantics, instead of arguing with substance or addressing the actual content. You also say no one has presented an actual argument which is just bold face stupid...I know I have introduced rebuttals you side step (such as this dumb little stunt) and never address, so have others you have done the same with.
I'm not even sure if cert load is a real thing or some bull you just made up or picked up somewhere. I am arguing substance, such as: Please prove your claims regarding the structural strength of the WTC buildings. You say I have to look it up, but facts that support you are literally non-existent it seems like. I CAN'T find what you're claiming, and I shouldn't have to. Your claim, your responsibility.

Oh, did I say no one has presented an argument? Well, I didn't know that. I certainly can't find me saying that in this thread. Can you quote me, or is this just one more of the many lies you come up with?

You're the one sidestepping, you hypocrite. You're the one who can't give a straight answer to a simple question - what is cert load, and how is it calculated? Your only rebuttals so far are "look it up yourself".

You wont even address a simple website link where the information is designed to appeal to a large group of people, not just engineers or architects...
How am I supposed to "adress a website link"? Do you expect me to cite the whole website and analyse all of it? I'm discussing this with YOU, if YOU have anything you think is supported by the website YOU have to point it out for me. Again, you're making ME do YOUR job.

Nor will you provide any rebuttals besides copying and pasting a report that has already proven to be false as well as completely non scientific and not provable from their own hiding of inputs and other data.
For the N:th time, I'M NOT USING IT AS EVIDENCE. Stop lying.

You rely on word twisting and general omission, i wont say lies because I am trying to be nice as promised.
Word twisting? I've challenged you multiple times to quote me on thigns you claim I say, but you just silently let it pass you hypocrite. You're the one twisting my words.

However, with all your actions stated above, you want me to spend an hour or two posting stuff up that you will ignore? Especially when you wont even address a simple website link (also, nothing is easy to read in the original material, I have to use a magnifying glass at times to see certificate numbers and other fine details. It was the 60s, before the cool zoom in and out of electronic data, it was all thrown together page by page...god speed. You should see their wiring diagrams, I am glad i was not an electrical engineer at the time...or even now).
What should I adress? Again, I'm discussing this with YOU, not the creators of that website. Don't you know how a discussion works?

Just in case we ever get to the point of communicating and sharing information (doubtful)...Full disclosure, some records have been lost, as details was spread from the city to the port authority..(including some certification standards and other design aspects) Though I don't find this suspicious because of the age and changing of hands. Though, we have found enough to be able to piece together the random missing pieces of info.
Yes, it's really doubtful that we'll ever get to the point when you're ready to share your sources with me, despite me sharing my sources with you.

So...again...please form a rebuttal...to something...if not, please do not stink up the thread.
Rebuttal to what? You're responding to twisted versions of my arguments, how am I supposed to adress that?

I find your search for the truth disingenuous for a polite term, as I am attempting to be nicer.
What a world we live in, when lying about what others claim is considered "nice".
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 19891
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1036 on: February 24, 2017, 02:39:59 PM »
I think it's entirely unfair to say we haven't presented an argument.

My equation is simplified please read it, I don't claim it to factor in everything but it's enough to prove that building 7 wouldn't have suddenly underwent 2.25 seconds of free-fall.

As I have said before nearly every structural component would have to fail before providing any structural resistance to allow a free-fall.

Take the blue pill, it's fine... however don't take the blue pill, wake up and start a campaign saying the matrix doesn't exist...

If you don't claim the NIST copy pasta as "evidence" then all you have presented is a desire to believe the official narrative, it's been said before, that's fine, it's your choice. Just don't pretend you have evidence to back it up.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2017, 02:45:29 PM by disputeone »
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

*

Rayzor

  • 11324
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1037 on: February 24, 2017, 03:06:46 PM »
I think it's entirely unfair to say we haven't presented an argument.

My equation is simplified please read it, I don't claim it to factor in everything but it's enough to prove that building 7 wouldn't have suddenly underwent 2.25 seconds of free-fall.

As I have said before nearly every structural component would have to fail before providing any structural resistance to allow a free-fall.

Take the blue pill, it's fine... however don't take the blue pill, wake up and start a campaign saying the matrix doesn't exist...

You assume that free fall is a fool proof indicator of controlled demolition,   it isn't.   It is however  proof of complete loss of structural support.  You need to prove that controlled demolition was the cause of that loss of support.  The NIST report claims it was uncontrolled fires followed by complete internal collapse.   Neither possibility can be proven to the extent required for absolute certainty.

So what evidence is there, that can be agreed on?
There is clear evidence of internal structural failure preceeding the main collapse,  the  left to right collapse of the penthouse suggests a progressive failure of the internal structure.   
The walls bowed inwards rather than the roof line dropping. The droop in the roof line is not there in video taken from further away.
The FDNY measured the walls bulging as early as 2 in the afternoon, and concluded it was going to collapse some 3 hours before it actually came down.

So what caused WTC7 to collapse,   If you want to conclude controlled demolition,  you need more evidence than "Well it looks like controlled demolition"  That's not strong enough to support a conspiracy argument.
Was it uncontrolled fires?  The only way to prove or disprove that is to do a proper independent analysis, and that means a new 911 commission.


Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 19891
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1038 on: February 24, 2017, 03:09:32 PM »
Why not show some better math than mine, if I'm incorrect.
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

*

Rayzor

  • 11324
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1039 on: February 24, 2017, 03:21:37 PM »
Someone should count the number of frames in the videos of planes striking the towers.

I would wager the amount of frames from first appearance to point of impact and total disappearance (i.e. the amount of time a plane takes on film to fly its own length) demonstrate ZERO DECELERATION!!!

How is that physically possible?

To save you going frame by frame,  someone has already done it.   If you don't want to read the analysis,  I'll give you the short version.  Yes it did decelerate during impact.

https://911tap.org/557-news-releases/470-observed-deceleration-of-ua-175-during-the-impact-at-the-south-tower

Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 19891
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1040 on: February 24, 2017, 03:22:55 PM »
Why not show some better math than mine, if I'm incorrect.

????
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

*

Rayzor

  • 11324
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1041 on: February 24, 2017, 03:25:08 PM »
Why not show some better math than mine, if I'm incorrect.

Sigh....   controlled demolition is not the only cause of loss of structural support.   Your free fall calculations apply equally well to a fire initiated total loss of structural support.

Re-read what I posted. 
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 19891
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1042 on: February 24, 2017, 03:28:47 PM »
Why not show some better math than mine, if I'm incorrect.

You can't?
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

*

Rayzor

  • 11324
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1043 on: February 24, 2017, 03:49:30 PM »
Why not show some better math than mine, if I'm incorrect.

You can't?

Do you think your maths is wrong?    I got the impression it was simply saying that unsupported things fall at free fall rates.  While it's correct, it's hardly a revolutionary idea.

Maybe you need to do some reading on the mathematics of structural collapse.

Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 19891
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1044 on: February 24, 2017, 03:53:24 PM »
Why not show some better math than mine, if I'm incorrect.

Sigh....   controlled demolition is not the only cause of loss of structural support.   Your free fall calculations apply equally well to a fire initiated total loss of structural support.

Re-read what I posted.

Note I show all my working and the logic I use, this is already more than NIST has done.

This hasn't been debunked except to copy and post NIST's scientific forgery.

If anyone wants to use their own words and math then please, I'd really like to see it.

Rayzor this equation is for fire induced progressive collapse, not a CD... thats why my fall acceleration prediction doesn't nearly match reality...

Instead of expressing structural resistance in units we can use a percentage.

Say 100% structural resistance will hold the building up exactly, any more weight and it will start to collapse. Most working loads are two to four times (corrected, 30 to 100 times) the fail point.
So we can safely assume building 7 had over 100% structural resistance before it fell.

So we have gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall acceleration.

9.8m/s275%=7.35m/s2

9.8 m/s2 - 7.35m/s2 = 2.45 m/s2

At 75% structural resistance I would predict a 2.45m/s2 fall acceleration.

Obviously this doesnt calculate change and inertia, however it doesn't need to.

We can clearly see building 7 go from over 100% structural resistance to 0% pretty much instantly.

To go from totally upright and intact to free fall (gravitational acceleration) for 2.25 seconds violates the laws of physics.

The only way building 7 could do this is to have nearly all of its structural resistance removed nearly instantly.

The only way this is possible is a controlled demolition.

So, G- %S = F
Gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall acceleration.

Video for reference.



Here's some more math, this is my simplified version of any reasonable buildings collapse due to fire.

So structural resistance and collapse acceleration.

100% = 0m/s2
99  % = .098m/s2
98  % = .196m/s2
97  % = .294m/s2
96  % = .392m/s2
95  % = .49m/s2
94  % = .588m/s2
93  % = .686m/s2
92  % = .784m/s2
91  % = .882m/s2
90  % = .98m/s2

Based on my very simple equation this is my prediction for the onset of collapse for a large building losing structural resistance due to an intense fire.

Please note, that as has been stated before all structural components would have to fail simultaneously for a free-fall to ever occur.

In reality usually one structural component breaks which leads to the initial compromise of structural integrity, which then leads in to more and more structural components failing faster and faster as the collapse gains energy.

This is clearly not what we saw that day, I have shown multiple times that WTC7 stayed perfectly upright until its collapse at gravitational acceleration.

NIST's three stage collapse model is scientific fraud and clearly dry labbing.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2017, 03:58:54 PM by disputeone »
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 19891
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1045 on: February 24, 2017, 04:05:25 PM »
Lol.

No evidence.

Lol.
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

*

Rayzor

  • 11324
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1046 on: February 24, 2017, 04:12:20 PM »
Note I show all my working and the logic I use, this is already more than NIST has done.

Except your logic contains a fatal flaw.  Which I've been at pains to politely point out.

We can clearly see building 7 go from over 100% structural resistance to 0% pretty much instantly.
Preceeded by internal collapse.

To go from totally upright and intact to free fall (gravitational acceleration) for 2.25 seconds violates the laws of physics.

No it doesn't, unless you have your own laws of physics.   

The only way building 7 could do this is to have nearly all of its structural resistance removed nearly instantly.
You are ignoring the fact that it was evident 3 hours before hand that it was going to collapse.

The only way this is possible is a controlled demolition.

You can't conclude that with any degree of certainty,  you need more supporting evidence if you want to leap to that conclusion.

NIST's three stage collapse model is scientific fraud and clearly dry labbing.
I can quote Chandler as well if you like. 

Here's a more detailed chronology of the collapse of WTC7


Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 19891
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1047 on: February 24, 2017, 04:14:56 PM »
So, still absolutely no math from Rayzor.

Got it.

Lol.

There is no "fatal flaw" in my logic.

I know, thanks. ;D

It's more to make people think than a working equation.

Theres a much better thread if you want to join in.

You have to admit my logic is sound.

Edit, I think I addressed it in the tech and alt thread. Thanks for pulling me up.

Here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1872602#msg1872602

26 pages... ugh. I might join in if I can work up the motivation to skim through it all.

Yes, your logic is sound, but a bit over simplified. Stresses can be transmitted through the structure at roughly the speed of sound (depends on elastic/shear modulus), which would complicate things.

It's very simplified I have been clear on this from the start.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2017, 04:18:04 PM by disputeone »
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

*

Rayzor

  • 11324
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1048 on: February 24, 2017, 04:21:29 PM »
So, still absolutely no math from Rayzor.

Got it.

Lol.

There is no "fatal flaw" in my logic.

I know, thanks. ;D

It's more to make people think than a working equation.

Theres a much better thread if you want to join in.

You have to admit my logic is sound.

Edit, I think I addressed it in the tech and alt thread. Thanks for pulling me up.

Here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1872602#msg1872602

26 pages... ugh. I might join in if I can work up the motivation to skim through it all.

Yes, your logic is sound, but a bit over simplified. Stresses can be transmitted through the structure at roughly the speed of sound (depends on elastic/shear modulus), which would complicate things.

It's very simplified I have been clear on this from the start.

You surprise me,  I was expecting that you would defend your argument,  since you seem so certain that free fall is a necessary and sufficient condition for proving controlled demolition.

Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11119
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1049 on: February 24, 2017, 04:22:53 PM »
Master evar
I am not going to say much to your post... as I asked you to present a actual rebuttal and again, once more, you did not. Just focused on trivial nonsense. Though this is typical of those without an argument

My only comments.. all you have presented is NIST copy and paste, so again, it is obvious you are using this as evidence.  Otherwise all you have presented is..

If you don't claim the NIST copy pasta as "evidence" then all you have presented is a desire to believe the official narrative, it's been said before, that's fine, it's your choice. Just don't pretend you have evidence to back it up.

As for your "cert load" that you have such a large boner for..I already explained I was attempting to shorten this for a conversation. I have already explained there are a 100 different exact terms for determining the working load of an specific item (it could be a completed component or individual...they all have different approved certifications, it depends on if its the city, state, regulatory agency, where it is...actually I am not repeating any of this shit to you, go read what I already told you. I also told you some basic formulas on how these are determined. Something that is certified for Texas more than likely will not for California just as a brief example ) it is not my fault you cannot or will not understand the very basic words I am using.

This is all the time I am wasting with you until you actually provide an argument...I am certainly not going to spend hours writing specs for your amusement. There are people actually searching for the truth I want to help.

You provide an actual argument and try...then I will change my tune.


I will actually provide a down payment in good faith.

Bolts used for the box flooring were a490 connection bolts, the box supports were a325. The a490 was certified in that design of the box floor support to have a working load of no more than 80 ksi, the a325 52ksi. At that time, the a490 would fail at 170 ksi, the a325 about 120 ksi. The actual estimated load of each bolt was 30-45 ksi for the 490s, 20-28 for the a325 with the floor at weight comp (depending on wind conditions and other variables).

If you actually care, PATH records before 1980 is a good place to start for information. It isn't fun though.

Ball is in your court, present an argument and show me you actually care about finding truth and I will speak to you in a mature manor, keep how you have been and GTFO.
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir