Need Unequivocal Evidence of WTC7 Demolition

page: 7
3
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff


I love how you assume what my beliefs are. This is your (and jthomas's) faulty logic here. You two assume what we believe at all cost to build your strawman tactics.

I don't believe HE was used at the towers. At least not for collapse initiation (which would be the time when this unexplained spike happened). So, why don't YOU "school" us as to what caused a spike greater than the global collapse of the towers before the towers collapsed? What do YOU think it was? Any ideas? Or are you going to parrot NIST, Greening and Mackey for your answers as always?


Here's the strawman thing again. Surprise!! You actually used it correctly this time. I guess you learned what it is now, eh? Funny though, now YOU are using a strawman argument, since I never assumed or said that you believe HE was used.

I know where your ideas run. You believe that thermxte may have been used on a few key braces below the imoact zones and that could have initiated the collapse. Of course this opens the door as to why, if only a few key braces in core being taken out could initiate collapse, then why couldn't fire weakened steel do it, since the reserve cap must be small in order for the thermxte idea to work?

And then, this brings up how the planes could be guided so precisely, when autopilots aren't able to react that fast, etc.... Oh well, forget that, OT.

There wasn't a spike larger than the global collapse spike. It's a lie.




posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Since his collapse paper is about physics, what does his chemistry credentials have to do with it?


And so by that reasoning, since you're a CE, I guess I can discount your opinion too?

Since it deals with physics?



posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff



We will use this law for the non-elastic collision where the colliding masses essentially
merge into a single mass that continues to descend
. For the simplest case of one floor
collapsing onto an identical floor,


And there is strike 3 only into page 3 of his 32 page paper. If you don't understand what is wrong with this assumption, I suggest looking at pictures of ground zero where you can easily identify about 85% of the building falling off to the sides and thus not "essentially merging" into one single mass.



And here's my proof why your opinion shouldn't be given any merit.

While it's acceptable that 85% of the debris ended up outside the footprint..... at collapse initiation, nearly 100% of the mass above the collapse zone is contained WITHIN the footprint.

This is what he's talking about in this paragraph, but you have rather clumsily tried to imply that it should apply to the entire collapse.

Tsk, tsk Griff. Garbage in, garbage out indeed.....



posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
And so by that reasoning, since you're a CE, I guess I can discount your opinion too?

Since it deals with physics?


Well, since my professional education and profession itself is based on physics, I have no idea where you are coming from.

Furthermore, I'm not discounting Greening's paper just because I disagree with it because of my "preconcieved notions" or because he's a chemist. I discount his paper for the very reasons I posted above. His assumptions are wrong.

Now, if I wrote a chemistry paper of the sulfidated steel and you were able to show that my assumptions were whack, then yes, you could discount my paper.

But, would you get around to posting this so-called evidence from Greening already. I mean come on.



posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
While it's acceptable that 85% of the debris ended up outside the footprint..... at collapse initiation, nearly 100% of the mass above the collapse zone is contained WITHIN the footprint.




Are you trying to tell me that there is no mass being expelled at collapse initiation? Try again.



posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

But, would you get around to posting this so-called evidence from Greening already. I mean come on.



Since you're gonna start whining:

Seymour Butz:

The source of sulfur in samples collected from Ground Zero could be determined (in theory at least!) using stable sulfur isotope ratios determined by SIMS (Secondary Ion Mass Spectrometry).



posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Are you trying to tell me that there is no mass being expelled at collapse initiation? Try again.


Now HERE'S an example of a strawman. Notice that I said "nearly" 100%. But of Griff has twisted this to "no mass".

And that pretty much looks like dust and smoke to me, Griff. Not much mass in that, eh? Or what, pray tell, do you see?

Oh, and lookie there!! The tower looks to be pretty much intact above the smoke!!

Tsk, tsk Griff. Garbage in, garbage out....



posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Since you're gonna start whining:

Seymour Butz:

The source of sulfur in samples collected from Ground Zero could be determined (in theory at least!) using stable sulfur isotope ratios determined by SIMS (Secondary Ion Mass Spectrometry).


Does this not contradict what you have been saying all along about the source not being able to be found? So, what is your point again?



posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


So no thanks for the info?

C'mon dude....

Cuz there's more to the story:

Frank-
Sulfur, like most elements, has more than one stable isotope, and so sulfur from different sources may have the different isotopes present in different ratios. Secondary ion mass spectroscopy (SIMS) is a technique that can measure differences in these ratios (that's a sweeping generalisation, but I don't have time to talk about the complexities of calibrating SIMS traces, and you probably don't want to know). Therefore, if we have, for example, (a) a sample of jet fuel from the same batch as the fuel in the planes, (b) a sample of drywall from the WTC towers and (c) a sample of corroded steel, we could in principle compare the isotope ratios and determine where the sulfur came from. Note, though, that (a) is almost certainly impossible to obtain. The work could be done by a suitably equipped university research laboratory for a fairly moderate amount provided the samples were available.

Me-
Wow, so theoretically, it's possible if they had samples of carpet, all the plastics (sounds like a huge inventory right there), generator diesel, etc.

Frank-
All of which were wholly or partially destroyed in the fire, so there may have been nothing left to sample. Also, the isotope ratio might not vary significantly between sources to distinguish one from another; and, the sulfur in the steel might have come from a combination of different sources, and effective deconvolution might be impossible. There's a big difference here between possible in principle and possible in practice.





posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
And that pretty much looks like dust and smoke to me, Griff. Not much mass in that, eh? Or what, pray tell, do you see?


Try looking closer at the mass falling near the ends of that "dust". Those are perimeter elements and not just dust.

Here's a close up of the initiation of WTC 2 collapse. Notice the mass being expelled?

www.youtube.com...



posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff


Try looking closer at the mass falling near the ends of that "dust". Those are perimeter elements and not just dust.

Here's a close up of the initiation of WTC 2 collapse. Notice the mass being expelled?



Yeah, 1-2 seconds AFTER initiation, sure there's some mass being expelled. But not AT initiation.

Are you really looking for the truth here Griff? Because you don't see things with clear eyes, that's for sure....

Tsk, tsk Griff. Garbage in, garbage out.



posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
So no thanks for the info?


You've already burned the bridge of me being nice to you. So, no, no thanks will ever come from me again towards you.


Frank-
All of which were wholly or partially destroyed in the fire, so there may have been nothing left to sample. Also, the isotope ratio might not vary significantly between sources to distinguish one from another; and, the sulfur in the steel might have come from a combination of different sources, and effective deconvolution might be impossible. There's a big difference here between possible in principle and possible in practice.


Lots of "may"s and "might"s there eh? Too bad no one wanted to find out if it was possible or not to determine the source. Unless you can point me to where NIST even tried to? Since even Greening says that it "might" be possible.





posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Yeah, 1-2 seconds AFTER initiation, sure there's some mass being expelled. But not AT initiation.

Are you really looking for the truth here Griff? Because you don't see things with clear eyes, that's for sure....

Tsk, tsk Griff. Garbage in, garbage out.


Yes garbage is all you spew. Because the next paragraph explicitly states that he is not only talking about initiation but the entire collapse.



We now apply this simple model to the WTC collapse. We assume that both
WTC building collapses began with an upper block of n floors collapsing onto a series of
lower floors as in the “domino effect”. We shall refer to this process as the first stage of
collapse. For this stage, (see equation 1), we have an initial mass nmf falling onto the
floor below and becoming mass (n+1)mf. This new, enlarged, block of floors descends
with velocity v2= {n/(n+1)}v1 through a distance hf at which point it strikes the floor
below and becomes mass (n+2)mf moving at velocity {n/(n+2)}v2, and so on. This
implies a first stage collapse sequence for WTC 1: all floors from 110 to 96 (= 14 floors)
collapse onto floor 95; all these floors collapse onto 94 93 92 and so on to 32 
1;
for WTC 2 all floors from 110 to 81 (= 29 floors) follow the same sequential process.


www.911myths.com...

It helps to understand what one reads.



posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


Try some clear thinking for a change Griff.

The sulfided columns were id'ed where? At the landfill.

So how COULD it be matched, after they've been moved? Do you see a problem with that? The steel was stationed by the collapse zone, and as trucking became available, they were carted off. Where they now sat at the landfill until they could be forensically inspected. By then, the cleanup operation had moved on.

And again, you twist the mays and mights to suit your beliefs. All your bluster about how you're neutral minded is a sham, so don't bother denying it. The entirety of your posts and your prior involvement as a "team leader" at StudentsandScholars for9/11troof prove otherwise.

So you use mays and mights as a way to push your CT driven agenda. That tactic only works with trooferz.



posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

It helps to understand what one reads.


Oh, I understand your garbage just fine. Here's another copy of that:

We consider the initiating event of a WTC tower collapse to be the failure of
crucial steel support structures at the appropriate upper floor level of the building,
followed by the free fall of the entire upper block of n floors through a distance hf = one
floor height = 3.7 meters. It is readily determined using the relation v = {2gh) that the
descending upper block impacts the floor below at a velocity of 8.5 m/s. The law of
conservation of momentum states that:
m1  v1= m2  v2
We will use this law for the non-elastic collision where the colliding masses essentially
merge into a single mass that continues to descend. For the simplest case of one floor
collapsing onto an identical floor,



So he's clearly using your first quote as equations for the collapse initiation. Then you dishonestly used the fact that much of the debris ended up outside the footprint as a counterpoint to his paper.

But of course you are unaware that it has also been shown that the towers could shed 85% of its mass during the collapse, as long as it wasn't at initiation, and still have no effect, did you?

Do I have to school you yet again on yet ANOTHER fact that you don't know?



posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 

No, I was stating the delays from the NIST time to the first showing of increased waves larger than background noise. If we plot the NIST time on the 1st collapse graph I see an 18 second delay between the NIST time and the first tremors. But I see about a 24 second gap between the NIST time and the first major spike on the graph (16 second mark on the graph). On the second collapse graph I see a 27 second gap between the NIST time and the first major spike (19 second mark on the graph).

So when I subtract the 11 seconds it took for the stuff to start hitting the ground I still see a 13 or 16 second delay. And if I take this delay and apply it to WTC 7's collapse it still puts the collapse after the major spike (which starts at 17 seconds on the graph).

To be more precise, if we plot the NIST time on the WTC 7 graph (at the 12 second mark) I see only a 5 second gap until the fist major spikes occur. But all the others have a 12 second or more delay. I assume there would be a comparable delay in the final graph as there was in the other four graphs, as there is only a negligible amount of distance between the towers and WTC 7 compared to the measuring station.

I hope this makes sense.

So what I'm seeing is one of three things:

1. NIST's times are wrong. But the first 4 times are pretty much confirmed by the graphs, so what went wrong on the 5th time?

2. The graphs are wrong. But the first 4 graphs are pretty much confirmed by NIST's times, so what went wrong with the 5th graph?

or

3. LaBTop is pretty much right on his timing.



posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
And again, you twist the mays and mights to suit your beliefs. All your bluster about how you're neutral minded is a sham, so don't bother denying it.


I have never denied my own biasness. Unless you can show me where?


The entirety of your posts and your prior involvement as a "team leader" at StudentsandScholars for9/11troof prove otherwise.


Care to explain my prior involvement as a "team leader" at studentsandscholars for 9/11 truth? I haven't a clue as to what your blabing on about. I have NEVER been a part of ANY "truth movement" or otherwise. I think you got your wires crossed somewhere?



posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 


Out of all this posting you have done, you still have yet to post the calcs you said you had that would "school" us. You even managed to switch gears and start debating about some sulfated steel and avoid debating why you know Labtop's thesis is wrong.
Grow up and start debating like a civil person, you have been posting like an 8 year old throwing a hissy fit at Griff because he posts facts and understands physics.



posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Oh, I understand your garbage just fine.


No sir. You don't.


So he's clearly using your first quote as equations for the collapse initiation.


No he's not. As he clearly states:


We now apply this simple model to the WTC collapse.


And goes on to explain that this is what he is talking about throughout the entire collapse.


Then you dishonestly used the fact that much of the debris ended up outside the footprint as a counterpoint to his paper.


You like to accuse me of being dishonest a lot. Am I being dishonest or is it your poor comprehension skills? I'd have to say it's the latter. But, I'm sure I'll be called dishonest. Funny thing is: I dislike liars. Even government heads of state. Go figure. But, I'm the dishonest one right.



But of course you are unaware that it has also been shown that the towers could shed 85% of its mass during the collapse, as long as it wasn't at initiation, and still have no effect, did you?


Shown by who? Using what model? Using what information of the structure? How did they calculate this finite element analysis? You get my drift I'm sure.


Do I have to school you yet again on yet ANOTHER fact that you don't know?


Yes, please show me how these people have "reverse engineered" their papers from what has been told to them the structure consisted of by NIST. Please, I'm sure it will change my mind.



posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 05:54 PM
link   
you guys forgot this: NIST
telling us we are all full of dog doo doo...

video.google.com...





new topics
 
3
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join