Christopher 7
Active Member
no it doesn't.
no it doesn't.
It is not necessary for a structural engineer to be a "tall" building expert.There is not a single tall building expert or fire science expert on the record supporting AE911Truth's nonsense theories,
Not true. The White House under Obama received petitions all the time including unlocking cell phones (144k+) and building a Death Star.Most people don't sign petitions.
It is not necessary for a structural engineer to be a "tall" building expert.
There are several fire protection engineers.
Daniel Brogan, AIA - BS Fire Protection Engineering; MBA
Scott Grainger, P.E. & Forensic Fire Protection Engineer
Brian Thompson, PE - Master of Science, Fire Protection Engineering, Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Brendan Murphy - BS Fire Protection Engineering, University of Maryland
Unanswered questions and doubts! Damning stuff. Still, we'll be generous and count him as an expert for you.External Quote:The lack of the FEMA team's ability to conduct a proper investigation of the original collapse conditions, the explanation developed by the FEMA team, and the subsequent contradictory conclusion by NIST, raised questions. In an effort to answer these questions, I have researched various information and data compiled by others. My research has left these questions unresolved, and reinforced my doubt in the official story regarding the cause of collapse for both WTC towers and Building
Not going to count him as a relevant expert based on that, sorry.External Quote:If a building is designed to withstand a plane impact, then it will. I have too much respect for the engineering field to argue that fact. Fire does not cause structural failure of that magnitude. Maybe a fire will cause a wooden shed to fall, but not a skyscraper at free fall speed. An asymmetrical structural failure (as the NIST report states for WTC 7), cannot cause a symmetrical collapse. The building would have tipped over."
What has been explained? Do you think gravity can eject multi-ton framing sections 300 to 500 feet sideways?Here's the latest one. Basically ignoring years of having this explained to them, and just going with ... what? First impressions? Gut feelings?
It's bemusing.
View attachment 41575
What has been explained? Do you think gravity can eject multi-ton framing sections 300 to 500 feet sideways?
For starters, your suggestion the a piece of framework at rest or falling straight down can be accelerated sideways hundreds of feet by another piece of framework falling straight down is absurd.Can you identify any specific piece of falling debris whose path cannot be explained by the (i) the way in which the portion of the building to which it was previously attached failed as the top portion of the tower dropped into it, (ii) energy generated as the piece fell once dislodged by the top section of the building, and (iii) the collision(s), if any, it had with other pieces of the structure on the way down? If you can actually pinpoint any energy that cannot be so explained, you'd have an argument. Incredulity is not an argument.
(Mick, feel free of course to remove this if I am verging towards being off topic. This is just one of those topics that can spill into all the others.)
Of course gravity can cause some elements of a collapsing structure to be thrown sideways. When the structure is very large, so are the energies. Combine that with sideways toppling effects on larger sections, those energies can be diverted sideways, just as the top of a ladder falling over moves sideways as well as down.What has been explained? Do you think gravity can eject multi-ton framing sections 300 to 500 feet sideways?
For starters, your suggestion the a piece of framework at rest or falling straight down can be accelerated sideways hundreds of feet by another piece of framework falling straight down is absurd.
David Chandler has clocked sections of framework being ejected from the towers from 45 to over 70 mph. Gravity cannot do that. And that's not incredulity, it's understanding the basic laws of physics.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHnLlwqiu0A
Do you think explosive demolition charges can?What has been explained? Do you think gravity can eject multi-ton framing sections 300 to 500 feet sideways?
Of course gravity can cause some elements of a collapsing structure to be thrown sideways.
But how do you believe those sideways motions were caused? Directly propelled by explosive charges?
1:25 "A huge explosion now raining debris on all of us. We gotta get out of the way!"Without the sound of those charges being "obvious" to every witness? Have you ever heard charges detonating in a city environment? It is unmistakable.
The laws of physics are not imaginary. The law of gravity pulls things straight down. Things falling straight down cannot make the objects they may strike accelerate sideways at speeds of 45 to over 70 mph.That is definitely the fallacy of incredulity, combined with an appeal to imaginary "laws" of physics.
Colliding with what parts? The framework below was bolted together. The falling debris outside was ahead of the interior collapses so it could not impact anything. Debris falling inside the building could not tear exterior wall sections loose and hurl them hundreds of feet.When large rigid segments of the building are falling and tilting and toppling and colliding with other parts,
Hogwashthe well known effects of levers and of inelastic collisions can translate downward motion into rapid sideways vectors. That should be obvious.
I did not say the laws of physics were imaginary. I said that you are claiming that there are imaginary and unsubstantiated alleged "laws" that allegedly prevent downward motion under gravity from being translated sideways. And as for inelastic collision, see any billiard table.The laws of physics are not imaginary. The law of gravity pulls things straight down. Things falling straight down cannot make the objects they may strike accelerate sideways at speeds of 45 to over 70 mph.
Colliding with what parts? The framework below was bolted together. The falling debris outside was ahead of the interior collapses so it could not impact anything. Debris falling inside the building could not tear exterior wall sections loose and hurl them hundreds of feet.
Hogwash
Please post a source for that claim.
For starters, your suggestion the a piece of framework at rest or falling straight down can be accelerated sideways hundreds of feet by another piece of framework falling straight down is absurd.
David Chandler has clocked sections of framework being ejected from the towers from 45 to over 70 mph. Gravity cannot do that. And that's not incredulity, it's understanding the basic laws of physics.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHnLlwqiu0A
he's talking about the parts in/on the actual building, not the bits already on the outside.The falling debris outside was ahead of the interior collapses so it could not impact anything.
Here's the latest one. Basically ignoring years of having this explained to them, and just going with ... what? First impressions? Gut feelings?
It's bemusing.
[Picture omitted]
I am saying that framework falling straight down cannot cause another piece of framework to be accelerated to 45 to 70 mph.I did not say the laws of physics were imaginary. I said that you are claiming that there are imaginary and unsubstantiated alleged "laws" that allegedly prevent downward motion under gravity from being translated sideways.
Sections of framework are not billiard balls on a table.And as for inelastic collision, see any billiard table.
Of course not. I'm saying that the debris falling straight down must first break the interlocking external frame apart first. Falling debris has no lateral force."Colliding with which parts"? "..bolted together"? Are you really claiming that the forces involved in a collapse would be incapable of splitting sections of the building's components apart?
NoAnd you are really deny that debris could be can be flipped sideways in a complex collapse?
No, a trebuchet uses centrifugal force.When a trebuchet threw a missile sideways in past warfare, it was translating downward movement powered by gravity into extensive sideways movement.
For a piece of framework to flipped over by another piece of falling debris, it must first be broken loose, in which case both pieces are falling and there is no force exchanged between them.When a larger element of the collapsing building flips over because it is struck by falling debris on one end, what is to prevent it from throwing other elements sideways?
CorrectIn your linked video Chandler is just estimating the speeds of objects and does not provide any analysis as to whether those speeds could result from the fire-induced collapse of the building.
See my response to Inti in post #100.That's not what I asked for and is an insufficient basis to prove your point. If you want to prove that an object was ejected by something other than the forces unleashed by the fire-induced collapse of the building, then you need to calculate the energy of that object based on its size and speed and then show that such energy would not result from the forces we can see acting upon that object as seen in the video (e.g., gravity and the forces imparted by the impact of other objects, both directly and indirectly on systems to which that object is attached). In other words, Chandler's observations that objects were moving at certain speeds tells you nothing about what caused those speeds, let alone implies those speeds had only one possible cause.
There is no other explanation for the sound of explosions that many witnesses heard at the beginning of the collapses. Numerous witnesses said that the explosion occurred before the collapse started.And, putting aside the fact that neither your nor Chandler provide any analysis as to the cause of those speeds, we know that if explosions of chemical explosives had imparted the forces that caused those speeds to obtain, then there would necessarily be certain audible and visual evidence that those explosions actually happened, which is not the case, no matter how much you may try to twist testimonials of the event (which are of course the result of people describing an incredible event as best they can through analogies, as people are wont to do) to substitute for actual video and auditory evidence.
The towers were obviously blown up. I have explained why your "lever" ejection theory is not viable in post #100.This just all brings us back to the same point--there is nothing about the collapses that makes them appear to obviously be controlled demolitions and much about them that makes them appear to obviously not be controlled demolitions. AE911Truth's silly memes and you get it exactly backwards.
The debris being ejected laterally is the point of the meme being discussed in this thread. See post # 86.WTC debris ejected laterally has been discussed in another thread.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-wtc-multi-ton-steel-sections-ejected-laterally.1739/
Don't talk about it here.
That is exactly what you did. AE911Truth does NOT claim that all three buildings collapsed into their own footprint, just WTC 7.It's also bemusing that this particular new meme runs directly counter to AE911Truth's perennial favorite (and always silly) claim that, because the WTC buildings collapsed into their own respective footprints (which obviously did not happen, but that's never stopped AE911Truth from running with it), the collapses must have been a controlled demolition. Did no truther notice that the claim has now apparently completely flipped right before their eyes to be that, because WTC buildings did not collapse into their own respective footprints, the collapses are obviously a controlled demolition? You can't make this stuff up.
I covered that in the next sentence.he's talking about the parts in/on the actual building, not the bits already on the outside.
Debris falling inside the building could not tear exterior wall sections loose and hurl them hundreds of feet.
No. All the memes that Mick posted are about the Trade Towers.(the last one is a horrible meme. isnt that wtc7?
That is exactly what you did. AE911Truth does NOT claim that all three buildings collapsed into their own footprint, just WTC 7.
no wtc7 in the foreground.No. All the memes that Mick posted are about the Trade Towers.(the last one is a horrible meme. isnt that wtc7?)
I'm pretty sure they have done that at some point, but perhaps I am conflating what they've said with what their supporters have said
External Quote:"AE911 proves that a free fall of these steel structures into their own footprint is a story without merit and a challenge to common sense." Osvaldo Valdes, Architect
page 2 of brochure 2008 https://web.archive.org/web/20080920225418/http://www.ae911truth.org/downloads/brochure_080425.pdfExternal Quote:3. 1,400 foot diameter field of equally distributed debris outside of building footprint.
They did say that early on but I corrected that statement over a decade ago with the quote referenced below and had them add "mostly".I see. I'm pretty sure they have done that at some point, but perhaps I am conflating what they've said with what their supporters have said.
AE911Truth says that WTC 7 fell MOSTLY in it's own footprint which is consistent with what NIST said.So let's accept that AE911Truth makes a distinction and considers the fact that WTC7 fell "into its footprint" (it didn't but let's put that aside)
External Quote:The debris of WTC 7 was mostly contained within the original footprint of the building. NIST 2004 progress report on WTC 7 appendix L, page L-33
There is no problem here. WTC 7 was a classic building implosion with most of the debris landing within the original footprint of the building. Whereas WTC 1 & 2 were exploded, ejecting the bulk of the debris outside the original footprint. It's the explosive nature of WTC 1 & 2 with multi-yon framing sections being ejected laterally at speeds up to 70 mph that reveals them to be controlled demolitions. A gravity collapse cannot do that, your denial notwithstanding.... to be evidence that it was destroyed in a controlled demolition, while it considers the fact that the twin towers did not fall into their own footprints (true!) to be evidence that they were destroyed in controlled demolitions. Do you not see the problem here?
I will read the thread but it's clear from what I have read here that your claim of debunking is a fantasy.By the way, you should definitely read the thread on lateral ejections that Landru helpfully linked and discuss that issue further there if you have any questions. Your incredulous claims on that point have already been thoroughly debunked at length in that thread.
The thread I linked to suggests otherwise.They did say that early on but I corrected that statement over a decade ago with the quote referenced below and had them add "mostly".
AE911Truth says that WTC 7 fell MOSTLY in it's own footprint which is consistent with what NIST said.
External Quote:The debris of WTC 7 was mostly contained within the original footprint of the building. NIST 2004 progress report on WTC 7 appendix L, page L-33
There is no problem here. WTC 7 was a classic building implosion with most of the debris landing within the original footprint of the building. Whereas WTC 1 & 2 were exploded, ejecting the bulk of the debris outside the original footprint. It's the explosive nature of WTC 1 & 2 with multi-yon framing sections being ejected laterally at speeds up to 70 mph that reveals them to be controlled demolitions. A gravity collapse cannot do that, your denial notwithstanding.
I will read the thread but it's clear from what I have read here that your claim of debunking is a fantasy.
They did say that early on but I corrected that statement over a decade ago with the quote referenced below and had them add "mostly".
AE911Truth says that WTC 7 fell MOSTLY in it's own footprint which is consistent with what NIST said.
External Quote:The debris of WTC 7 was mostly contained within the original footprint of the building. NIST 2004 progress report on WTC 7 appendix L, page L-33
There is no problem here. WTC 7 was a classic building implosion with most of the debris landing within the original footprint of the building. Whereas WTC 1 & 2 were exploded, ejecting the bulk of the debris outside the original footprint. It's the explosive nature of WTC 1 & 2 with multi-yon framing sections being ejected laterally at speeds up to 70 mph that reveals them to be controlled demolitions. A gravity collapse cannot do that, your denial notwithstanding.
I will read the thread but it's clear from what I have read here that your claim of debunking is a fantasy.
i cant get a google hit on that quote. can you provide the link?The debris of WTC 7 was mostly contained within the original footprint of the building. NIST 2004 progress report on WTC 7 appendix L, page L-33
The NIST report on WTC 7 is a fraud and a farce. I studied it extensively and wrote a 5 part series about it:@ Christopher 7 I am curious about what is informing your ideas about the destruction of the 3 WTC towers. There is a lot of material available on the web... the NIST "official" explanations/study
The NIST report on WTC 1 & 2 stopped at collapse initiation. The have no explanation for the total collapse.External Quote:
External Quote:NIST admits that they cannot explain the collapse
page 3 "NIST carried its analysis to the point where the buildings reached global instability"
page 4 "… we are unable top provide a full explanation- of the total collapse"
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/NISTresponseToRequestForCorrectionGourleyEtal2.pdf
No worries mate. Believe what you will.... AE911T's videos and "theories"... articles like the nano thermite and iron microsphere's of Neils Harrit... the videos like Loose Change... the discussion forum such as MetaBunk or the 911FreeForums.... reports from the lawsuit... Hulsey's reports... and on and on and on. I have read most of these (at least the executive summaries, seen them... and researched some basic physics.
I do not see a compelling case that the buildings were taken down by controlled demolition. I don't even have much doubt. The larger conspiracy theories are not the least bit credible.
NoTruth engineers have been shown to be incorrect.
I suggest that you are the one wearing blinders.Sure if one wears some sort of blinders they will get a limited view of what happened and what explains it.
I have not seen any credible explanations for the demolition of all three buildings except for controlled demolition.If you research you will find the credible non CD explanations which follow from hijacked planes hitting the two towers.... and unfought fire and mechanical damage undoing all three buildings. It's all been pretty much settled.
Falling debris has no lateral force.
No, a trebuchet uses centrifugal force.
For a piece of framework to flipped over by another piece of falling debris, it must first be broken loose, in which case both pieces are falling and there is no force exchanged between them.
This theory also ignores the fact that the interlocking exterior framework is vertical. It can be pushed outward and fall but there would be nothing falling on it from above because all the falling debris would already be past that point.
Most people don't sign petitions.
A large number of architects and engineers still don't know that there is a controversy because the MSM studiously avoids talking about it.
Resolution 17-5: Investigation of the Total Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, sponsored by Daniel Barnum, FAIA, and 50 Members of the Institute, failed with 4113 votes against and 182 votes in favor (with 179 abstentions). The resolution's sponsors questioned the conclusions offered by the National Institute of Standards and Technology in 2008 about the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7. They argued that the Institute should support "a new investigation into the total collapse of WTC7."
There is no other explanation for the sound of explosions that many witnesses heard at the beginning of the collapses.
Can you provide a photo or screen capture showing one of these multi-ton framing sections that is seen being ejected sideways at 45 to 70 mph up to 500' away?What has been explained? Do you think gravity can eject multi-ton framing sections 300 to 500 feet sideways?