Need Unequivocal Evidence of WTC7 Demolition

page: 9
3
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 1 2008 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 

Yes I see your point about the calcs of the cause, but first things first. I think we should determine if in fact there was an actual event before NIST's iniation time before we go speculating on what may have caused it.

Yes I agree the collapse of the towers were very chaotic and I did question NIST's interpretation of the graphs in the beginning because of this. But due to a lack of expertise and creative problem solving on my part, I accepted their interpretation that the large spikes were from the pieces hitting the ground. In the NIST faq released in August of 2006 they seem most confident from the time and seismic evidence of the towers that there was an approximate 9 second and a 11 second delay between collapse initiation and the major spikes. In fact in answer 6 of that faq they imply that this interpretation of the time and seismic evidence shows that the buildings offered no resistance, thus the quick collapse time. So to me that says they put a lot of weight and certitude behind the time of iniation and the graphs.

To make things easier, I'll deal only with the major spikes from here on and won't worry about the minor tremors. To re-examine collapse 2 using NIST's confidence: If I plot NIST's time on the graph I find a 27 second gap between it and the start of the major spike. But NIST seems pretty confident the spike didn't begin until 10 seconds (average) after collapse iniation, so from this I assume it took the remaining 17 seconds for the energy to go from the ground next to the tower and reach the measuring device (27 gap - 10 second impact time = 17 second travel time). And since the spikes began when things started hitting the ground we don't have to worry about any time delay for the energy to travel vertically down a building. So it took 17 seconds to actually be recorded (using NIST's certitude).

So if we were to apply this certitude to WTC 7's graph and stated initiation time, that's when I run into trouble. I plot on the graph 5:20:52 when NIST says visual evidence shows the penthouse began to collapse (at the 12 second point on the graph). Then I add the 17 second delay (that we found above, and I really don't see why this time would be any different than the other graphs) which brings me to 5:21:09 (the 29 second mark on the graph). But the first major spike starts 12 seconds prior to this at 5:20:57 (at the 17 second mark on the graph).

So that would mean that there was some large event 12 seconds prior to the penthouse visibily collapsing. That's more than just a few second mistake that can be disregarded as margin of error. But if we could assume this 12 seconds as margin of error, couldn't we apply it also to the two tower graphs? But it seems NIST makes some pretty definitive statements using the evidence of the first four graphs, which they could not make if there were a 12 second margin of error.

To put it more bluntly, in your post you asked "Did the spike occur when the equipment in the penthouse hit the ground? How long did that take, it was hidden inside the building, right?" Applying the NIST certitude of the first four times and graphs to the fifth time and graph, it took approximately negative twelve (-12) seconds (or more if the collapse actually started before it was visible in the penthouse).

(have to continue in another post)




posted on Aug, 1 2008 @ 11:17 AM
link   
(continued)

Only after I determine if this is fact or fiction will I extend into speculation of what was the cause. If it's fiction I really would like to see the error in this line of reasoning. I don't think it's enough to say that there is no degree of accuracy while NIST is making some pretty definitive statements based on their interpretation of the first four times and graphs. If it's fact, then we should ask what it is... an internal collapse hidden in the building, explosives hidden in the building, or Rudolph Guiliani stomping his feet... none of which had any witnesses or recordings. But perhaps the seismic record is the only "witness", the only "recording."

I've looked at this over and over in many different ways, I've read all of LaBTop's pages over and over, and the rebuttals to his theory. I finally just printed out the graphs and plotted the times on each graph, like I described above (something anyone can do). Simple as that is, I assumed that their would be similarities in all of the graphs as there were no changes in method of determining the 5 times or measuring the seismic waves, but WTC 7 stood out like a sore thumb.

So I'm still not finding any problems in this line of reasoning. The only way I see out of this problem is to start questioning NIST's interpretation of the 4 other graphs and times, which, to me, would raise a whole other line of questioning.



posted on Aug, 1 2008 @ 11:29 AM
link   
Topic: Need Unequivocal Evidence of WTC7 Demolition


Originally posted by NIcon
Yes I see your point about the calcs of the cause, but first things first. I think we should determine if in fact there was an actual event before NIST's iniation time before we go speculating on what may have caused it.

Thanks for staying on target.

I strongly recommend that other members do likewise, because further ad hominem attacks, tired old disruption techniques or other topical digressions will not be welcome.

The only way questions surrounding the suspicious circumstances of the collapse of WTC7 can be resolved is if we stay focused on them.

Again, thanks for ignoring the noise and doing just that.



posted on Aug, 1 2008 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by NIcon
 


While I accept that there was a 9 and 11 second fall time, there;s just no way of knowing if the first ones to hit were the ones that CAUSED the largest spikes. Hence why I'm saying that they are just too chaotic to use.

Otherwise, I looked into this a couple of months ago, and also did like you did - printed out charts - and have now thrown them all away, since I satisfied myself back then that it was impossible to prove either way due to the chaotic nature of the collapses. Which of course why I never bothered back then, LOL....As a result, when you start citing specific times, I'm now lost, but I remember my conclusions.

Give me some time, and I'll redo everything this weekend and we'll see if we can figure out the seismic thing. Cool?

Also, do you see a problem with my wanting audio records of the explosions? Because i think that's key.

Maybe I should dig out my notes regarding the explosives needed also, just to satisfy the gnats pestering me about it, since they'll never do it for themselves.

ETA: I just remembered another point. Even though the 9 and 11 second fall time can be agreed upon, we cannot assume that the panels fell at the very second that collapse initiation began. Again, this is a problem trying to prove it either way due to interpretation. Some will say that the panels began their fall at the moment of collapse initiation, but I've never been able to find a video that has this. And then of course I'd get called delusional, stupid, and a "prick" (LOL) and due to all the other uncertainties involved, it was just never worth the effort.



[edit on 1-8-2008 by Seymour Butz]



posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 11:27 AM
link   
Note to administrators :
There are ATS software problems seemingly occurring when I star posts. This made all links and pages so slow loading for me since my post on page 5 on 30.07 that I was unable to read the full next posts up till now. It was not a video-card failure; it has something to do with the use of the Firefox browser and some software glitch in the ATS forum software. My anti-virus software also was absent after every restart, I had to start it manually, before connecting to the Internet. Normally it automatically appears first, then the internet connection is made.
The problem seems to originate in the address line; when it ends with just the page number, no problem.
But when it ends, behind the page number, with the added starred post identification number, like this first one star (and the following ones) I gave to NIcon:
&addstar=1&on=4720292#pid4720292
then all open Firefox windows become unworkable slow. I had this problem already a long time, especially when having multiple windows open.
I lost all my open windows with needed info when I finally decided to restart my box, except one, this one.
Normally Firefox will offer you all open windows again, after a cold start, however not this time.

Now this has become annoying to no end.
I had to restart my box multiple times and tried to restart the former Firefox sessions, and now the only solution I have is to cut off the browser address line to the page number first, after starring a post, and then refresh the page again, to be able to work as fast as I am used to do, with multiple windows opened to directly counter-argument my opponents when info from such pages is needed.


Now, before I have to go into dissecting Butz‘s posts after my last one on 30-07, we seem to have an unfinished job at hand, he first wants a

CALCULATION.


How much explosives would need to be set off in order to get the seismic activity that you claim? Do these calcs. It would be interesting to see what you get and how you will explain away this inconvenient fact.


Let me show you, the skeptic reader of all of this, around in the windmills of your own mind.

If you're a 9/11 conspiracy skeptic, you will- and have to, believe in the official explanation of 9/11 by the mouthpieces of the officials.
One of these mouthpieces is the NIST.
They came to the conclusion, that one single column failure initiated a natural global collapse of WTC 7.

Let's further follow the NIST’s train of thoughts.
One column failed from fire, says NIST. And a natural global collapse followed.

That should result in a small amplitude seismic recording, followed with a massive amplitude seismic recording depicting the following global collapse.
In contradiction to such expected results, we see a massive amplitude seismic recording, followed by a less massive amplitude seismic recording for the following global collapse.

What is, and has to be, your logical conclusion?

Remember, no one seems to understand the immense weight of this statement from a well-known, honest seismologist:
Even the smallest explosive charge going off during the final demolition of the Oklahoma City Murrah building ruins clean-up gave a more distinct seismic reading than the WHOLE following total global collapse of the mass of the remaining ruins of the Murrah building, see my former link in this thread, to my last post on page 11 from my NIST rebuttal thread.

Conclusion : some external energy event was introduced as a form of human intervention.

Thus we arrive at the calculations Butz wants to see so eagerly:

One column failure by HE is not difficult to calculate, since Butz found some info (without a link) for the amount needed to severe one core column with a C-4 cutting charge:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Butz: A member did a calc and figured that it would take 17lbs(?) of LSC to cut each core column at the impact zone.


So, Butz, according to your own “research” and NIST’s conclusion, only an amount of approximately 17 lbs of LSC was needed to severe ONE similar core column in WTC 7, and then a natural global collapse followed.

Anyone falling for that?


Note:
Demolition expert's calculations:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
see his first post.

My calculations and pointing at the flaw in the expert’s calculations:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

In this post, Source the expert, ATS member Damocles, says he calculated the amount of HE (high explosives) to cut ALL 47 core columns in one WTC tower,


Damocles: when I said I stand by my calculations to sever the core. I was referring back to the debate I had on this topic in which I calculated 172lbs/floor for all 47 columns.


so we have to divide this amount of 172 lbs per WTC 1 or 2 floor by 47 columns to arrive at the amount needed to severe just one core column.
That’s a simple weight of 3.66 lbs to cut ONE of the WTC tower columns, which are comparable to ONE of the WTC 7 columns.

Butz, you placed the comma in the wrong place.
It wasn’t 17 lbs for one column, but 172 lbs for 47 columns.
And it wasn’t 3400 mps(fps?) but 2 km/sec during 34 km which is 17 sec for the WTC seismic signals to reach LDEO. I’ll address all your other faulty assumptions HERE and in your other posts later on. You should pay much more attention to important details.


So now we have arrived at a, in an ATS debate defendable, 3.66 lbs of C4 to initiate the WTC 7 collapse, all according to the combined efforts of our local explosives expert; the NIST conclusion from their 5 year long, and multi million dollar value investigation; and another officially endorsed, but seismic institution, the LDEO with a multi million dollar budget.

My budget was < $1,000 to tackle the problem.

THAT amount of C4 WILL NOT IMPRESS AN AUDIENCE in the open- let it be in a confined space in the center core of a top- or bottom floor in WTC 7.

The problem is, nobody seems to see the ridiculousness in this.
Especially not the US “voted-for” representatives, who keep holding up their already dirty hands, to enrich themselves from all the black money paid by the Washington power brokers.


When will it ever dawn on you, the voters?
There’s no need for a bloody revolution.
Just identify the rotten apples, and surgically remove them.
In the end all crucial decision makers in banks, cooperation’s and army brass are just a few individuals.
That will work much more precise and saves millions of casualties.

Edit : two minor typos.

[edit on 3/8/08 by LaBTop]



posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 11:39 AM
link   
Butz:


Butz: The dudes at LDEO say that the waves move at 3400 mps(fps?). Sounds like a round number, right? But LaBTop uses this number as absolutely true in order to fit his agenda.

He's just cherry picking individual parts to fit his agenda.



You obviously missed the strongest part of my thesis.

I used –SOLELY- the NIST and LDEO info and data, and let them trip their own wires.
I have not included anything from external sources to arrive to the inevitable conclusion that NIST and LDEO both missed to explain that huge energy event, preceding for 6 seconds the first visual sign of a WTC 7 collapse, the east penthouse roof collapse.

You are so damn sloppy, that you don’t even take the time to get your facts right.
Of course that number of 2 km/sec. during 34 km through the upper crust of New York State’s bedrock is an absolute, referred to by Dr. Kim as arriving from observing many other seismic events in the past, and tests done by seismologists to get an accepted speed for seismic signals in that specific bedrock crust.
And that’s how they concluded that it took 17 seconds for the seismic signals to arrive at the Palisades seismic station’s registering needles.



posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 03:08 PM
link   
Originally posted by Seymour Butz
reply to post by NIcon

I'll have to address this above last post of Butz first, because of the misconceptions promoted by him in there.

Ever watched at a freshly started construction site, the pile-driving of the steel, re-barred concrete or wooden piles into the soil?
Now that's interesting to observe with a scientific mind.
Butz, you should a.s.a.p. find such a site, and then use your ears, eyes and pressure nerves in the soles of your feet. And then stand 341.5 meters away from it. And feel and hear the difference.

Since you are the promoter of a few ideas, such as
1. The part of the building above the point of failure impacted the part under it as a massive block (like a rammer from a pile driver, NIST doesn't think that is right, to them, there was no pan-caking effect.)
2. The uncertainty what caused the largest spikes on the seismograms.

These two opinions of you contradict each other.
If the top of the building would have hit the rest as a massive block, then that impact energy would have been transported through all of the steel core columns and the perimeter columns at a speed of about 5100 to 6100 m/s (about 16000 to 19000 ft/s), the differences of speed in steel depending on its density, stiffness and temperature.
That's circa 16.4 times faster than the speed of sound in air (340 m/s to 343 m/s).
And circa 600 times faster than the free fall speed of exterior columns in air.

So, which seismic signal do you expect to arrive first at LDEO, the impact of the rubble of the building's top part on the underlaying steel construction, or the impact from the first ejected and then falling exterior column parts.
(Tip: those exterior parts are dwarfed in weight by the mass of the top WTC tower part coming down).


Butz: While I accept that there was a 9 and 11 second fall time, there's just no way of knowing if the first ones to hit were the ones that CAUSED the largest spikes. Hence why I'm saying that they are just too chaotic to use.


Butz, it's time you look again with a sharper eye at my LDEO collapses graphs...


Butz: Also, do you see a problem with my wanting audio records of the explosions? Because i think that's key.


No, I and Nicon and others showed you time and time again, that the energy event 14.2 seconds in front of the start of the global collapse is the KEY.

There will be no easily obtainable audio records from this event, since they ordered everyone away from WTC 7 for as far as it was high, and even further. And that audio event would have been a disappointing one, we know now from my above post.
It will have been dwarfed by the following enormous rumble from a global collapsing 47 stories high building, the WTC 7.
Especially since an initiating C4 explosion would have had a disappointing audio footprint, you would have had enormous trouble to find it back in any audio record.
But it's seismic footprint is HUGE compared to the following global collapse.


Butz: Maybe I should dig out my notes regarding the explosives needed also, just to satisfy the gnats pestering me about it, since they'll never do it for themselves.


I took the liberty to take care of that snare in my post above.
YOU never did.


Butz:
ETA: I just remembered another point. Even though the 9 and 11 second fall time can be agreed upon, we cannot assume that the panels fell at the very second that collapse initiation began. Again, this is a problem trying to prove it either way due to interpretation. Some will say that the panels began their fall at the moment of collapse initiation, but I've never been able to find a video that has this. And then of course I'd get called delusional, stupid, and a "prick" (LOL) and due to all the other uncertainties involved, it was just never worth the effort.


I however made the effort and posted the following in 2007, based upon a video I found 2 years earlier already :


""Yet, the top floor reached the ground at free-fall.""

LaBTop: This is pertinently not true.

Since I have posted 2 years ago, a BBC video from a running camera man who had his camera by chance, pointed back at the collapse front from WTC 2, which nearly landed on top of him, you could easily count the seconds from the moment the first perimeter wall parts broke out (at about the plane impact point), up till they reached the ground behind him.
Twelve seconds.
At that moment at least half of the building still stood firm, while you saw the collapse front smashing through the building.
So at least 12 more seconds were needed for all of the debris to reach the ground and come to rest.
That's 24 seconds or more, counting no resistance from the building itself.

So please do not simply copy the many mistaken assumptions of 911 websites, that the buildings fell in free fall.

They did NOT, by far.


To you the challenge of finding that BBC camera-man post of mine, to prove to us that you are genuinely interested in the truth, and not some disturbing factor in a painstaking process to unveil the real truth of 9/11.

Butz, don't piss me off again with referring to that Protec liar who published that "hit piece" to show his so-called "patriotism".
After I challenged him to publish those so called Protec handhold seismograms recorded on 9/11, he suddenly disappeared in the shadows, to be never seen again.
I still dare him or anybody else to show me these original seismograms, since I would be highly interested in such ones.
But believe me, they will never show up. They of course have the explosions on them, since they were so near Ground Zero recorded.
This guy overstepped his line in trying to be of service to the wealthy few, he didn't realize his mistake until ordered to shut his servile mouth.



posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 


Well, you had your problems, now I've had mine. I can't seem to quote and then trim your posts. When I trim, the whole thing disappears. So I may have to do this in pieces.LOL....

Calculations:

I still don't see anything, other than a response to Dam of 12-15 times less than 12.5 tons. So let's say a ton of explosives were needed, according to you. Are you claiming that could be silenced? How? Water immersion from the flooding? How deep would it take to attenuate, say, 30 Db? How deep WAS the flooding in the basements? A half inch? A half foot? A half meter?

ETA: how do you know that the failed column was the same as the tower columns?



[edit on 3-8-2008 by Seymour Butz]



posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 


You're absolutely right about my bad memory. Your 172 lbs is of course correct. My apologizes for that. Like I said above, I've thrown away all my notes on this and have been working from memory.

But of course, Damocles is absolutely certain that there is NO WAY that much explosives going off could go undetected.



posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop

Since you are the promoter of a few ideas, such as
1. The part of the building above the point of failure impacted the part under it as a massive block (like a rammer from a pile driver, NIST doesn't think that is right, to them, there was no pan-caking effect.)
The uncertainty what caused the largest spikes on the seismograms.

2.These two opinions of you contradict each other.

3.So, which seismic signal do you expect to arrive first at LDEO, the impact of the rubble of the building's top part on the underlaying steel construction, or the impact from the first ejected and then falling exterior column parts.

4.No, I and Nicon and others showed you time and time again, that the energy event 14.2 seconds in front of the start of the global collapse is the KEY.



1-That's a horrible representation of what NIST says, nor does it match video evidence. The upper block tipped and the columns buckled, and unevenly at that, so there would be no massive, singular shock at collapse initiation.

2- no they do not. But when you misinterpret facts, it can appear so.

3- I would expect the collapsing part's energy to reach LDEO first ina top down collapse. And that's what is seen. A slow buildup above "noise" levels until ext columns hit.

4- no, it's key. You can try to hand wave it away all you like, but you need to show this for all 3 events. And the running BBC camera guy is RIGHT THERE, and his audio picks up zero. Strike one.



posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 08:38 PM
link   
Labtop says that about a ton of explosives made the seismic events.

Here's a video of just 160kgs going off, One third of what he says was necessary.



And one of 14 kgs.



[edit on 3-8-2008 by Seymour Butz]



posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
1-That's a horrible representation of what NIST says, nor does it match video evidence. The upper block tipped and the columns buckled, and unevenly at that, so there would be no massive, singular shock at collapse initiation.


So, you agree with me then that Greening's (and others) calculations are off because they use the cap freefalling 12.5 feet onto the intact structure?

Do you understand that this is imperative for global collapse as assummed by Greening et al.?



posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Labtop says that about a ton of explosives made the seismic events.


You have now become the king of misrepresentation.


Originally posted by LabTop

That’s a simple weight of 3.66 lbs to cut ONE of the WTC tower columns, which are comparable to ONE of the WTC 7 columns.


Which is NIST's working thesis. One column brought that building down according to NIST and most all your other beloved engineers who agree with NIST. Agree or disagree?


[edit on 8/3/2008 by Griff]



posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

So, you agree with me then that Greening's (and others) calculations are off because they use the cap freefalling 12.5 feet onto the intact structure?

Do you understand that this is imperative for global collapse as assummed by Greening et al.?


Who cares what Greening says, he's a chem engineer. I prefer Bazant/Zhou. You know REAL engineers.

Do you agree that if you take any 1 point of the floor, say a square meter, that when it fell, it fell 12.5 ft? It's not necessary for this all to happen at once, right? Nor would it be necessary for all the columns to fail at the same time. Them failing in rapid succession works too.



posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

You have now become the king of misrepresentation.



And you're what, the queen? Look again, He's stated before that 12-15 times less than the 12.5 tons would be needed to give the small spikes that came before the 2.1 and 2.3 R readings. That's about a ton, right? The LSC charges were correct as he stated it. 3.3 or 172 is not a 2000.

So you never answered, do you dislike yourself too?



posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Do you agree that if you take any 1 point of the floor, say a square meter, that when it fell, it fell 12.5 ft? It's not necessary for this all to happen at once, right? Nor would it be necessary for all the columns to fail at the same time. Them failing in rapid succession works too.


Since Force equals mass times acceleration, F=ma, then the more mass the more force, hence then, the less mass, the less force. Yes, there has to be some mass for this whole thing to get going.

Plus, even NIST says that the floors could hold 6 times the impact force produced by one floor. In your scenario, how does this impact force of 6 floors happen? Not with partial failures and collapses that's for sure.



posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 10:21 PM
link   
Here's where I show that Labtop is making stuff up as he goes.

He says that the 2+ R spikes are caused by the floors crashing into each other.

He says that the 2000 lbs of explosives goes off BEFORE the collapse, that it caused it.

But he also argues that the collapses could have hidden the explosions. How can that happen when he claims that they went off before?

Can't happen. He's doing all that he can to deny that he's wrong.



posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Since Force equals mass times acceleration, F=ma, then the more mass the more force, hence then, the less mass, the less force. Yes, there has to be some mass for this whole thing to get going.

Plus, even NIST says that the floors could hold 6 times the impact force produced by one floor. In your scenario, how does this impact force of 6 floors happen? Not with partial failures and collapses that's for sure.


And what happens when a buckled column impacts the floors below, carrying their floors with them?

Surely you're not going to claim that a floor could hold up a column that was 2-300 feet high with all the load that they carried with them?

No way that can happen.



posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
And what happens when a buckled column impacts the floors below, carrying their floors with them?


Well, since columns hold the floors up and buckled columns still have some strength left and do not just fail as if they were severed (i.e. freefall), there would be no force equal to what everyone wants to equate.


Surely you're not going to claim that a floor could hold up a column that was 2-300 feet high with all the load that they carried with them?


I never said such a thing.

But, do you know that the surrounding columns also hold loads? If you have four columns in a grid then only 1/4 of the floor load is taken by each column. So, if you take out one column, the rest of the 3/4 would compensate. I'm not saying they would definately hold it up. No one knows without knowing the structure. Gee, I wonder why I keep saying the structural documentation is needed?

For an example. Look at pictures of what was left after the Oklahoma City Bombing. There was one column holding the rest of that structure. As quoted from CDI. About half that building stayed erect just because one column didn't fail. Should tell you how well columns can redistribute loads.


In that building, there was literally one column left in that whole building.


www.pbs.org...

[edit on 8/3/2008 by Griff]

[edit on 8/3/2008 by Griff]



posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 02:10 AM
link   
Am I debating with a stubborn child?
You are really the king of obfuscation, misrepresentation and personal density.
Your arguments are so unbelievable out of synchronization, I start to believe you are only here to keep us busy with trivial debate, forcing us to spent precious time in searching links, while you just write and do no research to speak of.


Butz: Here's where I show that Labtop is making stuff up as he goes.
LT:--You still can't even write my screen-name correct, and YOU are the one making stuff up, very much intentionally; or plainly out of lack of intelligence, in that case you are excused.--

He says that the 2+ R spikes are caused by the floors crashing into each other.
--Where did you find that "2+ R" thingy? What on earth do you mean by it? Can't you write coherently, as to save us time to try to find out what the hell you mean? By the way, where do I "say" that whole stupid sentence?--

He says that the 2000 lbs of explosives goes off BEFORE the collapse, that it caused it.
--Are you crazy? Show us where I said that. You are now clearly INTENTIONALLY lying.--

But he also argues that the collapses could have hidden the explosions. How can that happen when he claims that they went off before?
--Best kind of intentional misrepresentation and upside-down circular logic I have ever seen on this board.
I ever wrote that first sentence. But definitely never the second sentence together with the first.
I wrote about an initiating energy event. Then eventually the global collapse started, eventually aided by further explosions, which sounds would for sure totally drawn in the collapse roar.
--

Can't happen. He's doing all that he can to deny that he's wrong.
--You are pathetic.--



You stubbornly keep coming back with your pathetic, ridiculous 2000 lbs of explosives "calculated" by me.
In my exchange of thoughts with Damocles (see my link) my main argument was that he calculated a mass of explosives needed to cause a certain earthquake strength.

I told him, that that kind of calculus implicated he was calculating the force needed to bring down the WHOLE building, and that he wasn't calculating what was needed for the initiating event.

Demolition firms calculate the MINIMUM force needed to INITIATE a following, natural GRAVITATIONAL global collapse caused by the mass of the building impacting down through a blasted away zone of exploded columns.
The rest of the placed and subsequently exploded charges are mainly aiding in getting the building down in the most economical manner, in its footprint, if possible, or in a place where the remains can't damage other property.

So, I never wrote that 2000 lbs of HE was needed to INITIATE a demolition, I only hinted to Damocles, that my calculations, based on his, were indicating that eventually 2000 lbs were needed to demolition the WHOLE building, during the whole process of global collapsing of that building.
And definitely not was needed to initiate that event.





new topics
top topics
 
3
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum