WTC7, the smoking gun that just will not go away until the traitors are rounded up

Originally posted by plube
as the structure uses energy in the destruction of the lower and upper blocks simultaneously the collapse would fail to progress.....

I snipped most of your post to focus on this issue. This is not what physics dictates. Energy does not get 'used up'. It can be converted in terms of destruction, but there seems to be a critical misunderstanding here.

Where do you think Bazant introduces additional energy? Nothing in his paper is added other than the gravitational potential of the floors. Whether they're broken into rubble or fully intact, their momentum remains the same.

reply to post by exponent

This is not what physics dictates. Energy does not get 'used up'. It can be converted in terms of destruction, but there seems to be a critical misunderstanding here.

It is clear what plube is saying and he is not inaccurate in using physics terminology. You are exploiting semantics to rubbish a structured and reasoned argument.

The laws of conservation does state that energy cannot be created or destroyed and you are correct in your insinuation, however, plube used the expression "used up" in the Newtonian sense that kinetic energy (First Law) is used up by friction (ie in generating heat). Also according to the Newtonian Third Law; whenever one object exerts a force on a second object the second object exerts an equal and opposite force on the first.

According to plube's argument and excellent drawing, the top portions above the areas of collapse should have continued to drop until the kinetic energy was used up through transference to friction and resistance and until an equilibrium was reached from a build up of an opposing force (resistance); therefore, a portion of the WTC should have remained intact.

Where do you think Bazant introduces additional energy? Nothing in his paper is added other than the gravitational potential of the floors. Whether they're broken into rubble or fully intact, their momentum remains the same.

In continuation of plube argument, the additional destruction of the top portions of the WTC towers would require additional potential energy greater than gravity or the inherent momentum stored within the building. The top portion of the WTC towers should have decelerated as the resistance of the lower floors accumulated an increasing opposing force. This did not happen, therefore, there was a additional energy present.

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath
It is clear what plube is saying and he is not inaccurate in using physics terminology. You are exploiting semantics to rubbish a structured and reasoned argument.

I'm not exploiting anything. There's a definite problem with the argument, and I wanted to initiate a discussion on it. Accusing me of exploiting something when it wasn't even your argument seems excessively harsh.

According to plube's argument and excellent drawing, the top portions above the areas of collapse should have continued to drop until the kinetic energy was used up through transference to friction and resistance and until an equilibrium was reached from a build up of an opposing force (resistance); therefore, a portion of the WTC should have remained intact.

I appreciate the argument being made, but an argument alone cannot prove an error. The issue is that the floors do not destroy each other in a sequence of crush down / crush up phases. This is not the original argument being advanced. The floors destroy each other as they meet, then the remains of the collision will be further destroyed by the next floor down, assuming sufficient energy remains.

In the model we're discussing here, the question is whether the floors would fail, and that is the conclusion that Bazant and a number of others have come to.

I don't know exactly what Plube will say though, so I will wait for his reply. I don't want to misunderstand and accuse him of things without reason.

reply to post by exponent


The additional energy is inherent in the Bazant report as he states there is sufficient energy to successfully complete the crush down phase...and as was shown in the vid that was introduced in this thread...even with a building where 90% of the structure falls one to two floors there is not enough energy due to gravity alone to complete even the crush up phase in a concrete structure.
now the towers only had 10% of the floors to initiate crush down SO where did all this magical energy come from in order complete not only crush down...but also have a upper block that did not stay in tact complete crush down .....and also have enough to complete crush up phase......keeping in mind the ONLY force acting on these structures would be ....guess.....Gravity.
now for you to come back with not understanding the previous shows you do not have the slightest idea what is being said here......that is my personal opinion.....I have written so much on Bazants failings.....and this vid shows the failure in all it's glory.....so...please tell me my friend...where this energy came from to successfully bring down the towers...which by the way travel through the path of greatest resistance.
Right you too believe physics played no part on 911.

Bazants model fails....completely....totally....undeniably....and the vid previous proves it without a doubt.....and if his model did work.....guess what...demolition companies would be all over it...as they could save a fortune in explosives.,..and placing said explosive charges......I mean come on....it you could only blast out one or two floors and have just the top 10% of the structure completely take out rest then why wouldn't they....you know why?.....

Because the Bazant model fails.

reply to post by GenRadek

Actually what it shows is the slow demise of the building from the damage and fires. You really ought to read up on what firefighters look for in a building who's structural integrity is failing. You laughed when I said it was like a slow collapse, but that just shows me how little you know with regards to anything. Look up what "creep" means in terms of structural failure in a building like WTC1,2 and 7. You may just learn something. The building was slowly falling apart, as the fires worked on the damaged structure, along with gravity and overloading. Its got nothing to do with explosive demolition. But I guess you magically know better than those that were there too eh? Better than the firefighters that were there and engineers which saw what was happening. Funny how this firefighter commander doesnt mention anything about explosives doing any of the damage.

I've been arguing with you for weeks that you are the one who thinks that you know better than the firemen on scene.

Show everybody how the buildings were slowly falling apart from fire... but try to do it without adding your personal feelings about what the firemen was saying while they were at ground zero Okay?

Originally posted by plube
The additional energy is inherent in the Bazant report as he states there is sufficient energy to successfully complete the crush down phase...and as was shown in the vid that was introduced in this thread...even with a building where 90% of the structure falls one to two floors there is not enough energy due to gravity alone to complete even the crush up phase in a concrete structure.

They're different buildings. They're built of entirely different materials. Why would you expect them to behave the same way? I was confused for a moment until I read this:

now for you to come back with not understanding the previous shows you do not have the slightest idea what is being said here......that is my personal opinion.....I have written so much on Bazants failings.....and this vid shows the failure in all it's glory.....so...please tell me my friend...where this energy came from to successfully bring down the towers...which by the way travel through the path of greatest resistance.

It's clear that despite calling the mathematics in his paper "ridiculous and convoluted equations to baffle with BS" you haven't actually looked at them. You can't just claim that extra energy is introduced somewhere but that you don't know where! For someone who has "written so much" surely you can just point out the extra term he added that adds energy where it was not before?

Bazants model fails....completely....totally....undeniably....and the vid previous proves it without a doubt.....and if his model did work.....guess what...demolition companies would be all over it...as they could save a fortune in explosives.,..and placing said explosive charges......

That video cannot prove Bazant's method fails, as you have not corrected the values used for that building. You've taken two completely different structures, assumed they are identical, and claimed to disprove a theory without ever understanding it.

You can't expect anyone to honestly believe that, you have to actually substitute the values for the appropriate building!

reply to post by Varemia

Mind adding a citation? That would really help with making you sound more credible than being a guy who says, "I don't like their conclusion, so they're not just wrong, they're liars." I believe the firefighters. They documented the fire and the damage, and they considered it enough to be too dangerous to keep firefighters within two or so blocks of the building.

Nobody is more credible than you my friend.. LOL I’m just playing of course you discredited yourself a long time a go.

What are these firemen describing?



www.abovetopsecret.com...

You believe them too right?

reply to post by MI5edtoDeath


Thank you.....you stated it perfectly well and i am glad it was understood.....it is all about the conservation of energy and momentum.....the only force apparently acting on the towers was gravity.....and the potential energy stored in the towers themselves......every bolt breaking.....every truss snapping...every bit of steel bending....requires work,,,,,was there enough energy to complete the work....NOPE....but this has been stated over and over to people......the Only way to complete this work with the energy available.....would be to remove all resistance....but i tried not to go to deep into this concept as it seems to baffle people from the OS side of the picture.

I have proven...as have many others....Bazants paper is rubbish......and if the model worked...then that building in the vid would have no other option but to continue to collapse upon itself in a crush up phase.

you see the problem then becomes explaining how the resistance was removed...and well...to tell you the truth i have a really good idea....just as others also have stated...but that becomes an investigative matter...well guess what....there was no investigation into the possible use of explosives.....but we all know this....and this is what a large part of the truth movement states....Why was the possible use of explosives never investigated....no matter what these few people who come in these forums to derail threads.....can never explain...they just blindly believe.....Now i have been working on simulations...and not a single bit of software seems to have a physics engine capable of reproducing what the Os trys to show.....NOT ONE.

now is it because of poor physics engines in the software....I tend to think not....I think the physics engines work fine....but the fact of the matter....the physics disappeared on 911.....but if one consecutively removes resistance as the upper block moves downward.....the physics all works very well.....so as always......how was the resistance removed.

Originally posted by Flatcoat
reply to post by Varemia

 

It's quite convenient how firefighters are an impeccable source of info/evidence....until they start reporting explosions/molten steel.......then they're confused/mistaken.

I know right... If they say it was "definitely secondary explosions" inside the lobby, than it means spray cans or firecrackers. LOL

Originally posted by maxella1
I know right... If they say it was "definitely secondary explosions" inside the lobby, than it means spray cans or firecrackers. LOL

I guess I'm confused as well! What do you think they meant?

Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by GenRadek

 

Actually what it shows is the slow demise of the building from the damage and fires. You really ought to read up on what firefighters look for in a building who's structural integrity is failing. You laughed when I said it was like a slow collapse, but that just shows me how little you know with regards to anything. Look up what "creep" means in terms of structural failure in a building like WTC1,2 and 7. You may just learn something. The building was slowly falling apart, as the fires worked on the damaged structure, along with gravity and overloading. Its got nothing to do with explosive demolition. But I guess you magically know better than those that were there too eh? Better than the firefighters that were there and engineers which saw what was happening. Funny how this firefighter commander doesnt mention anything about explosives doing any of the damage.

I've been arguing with you for weeks that you are the one who thinks that you know better than the firemen on scene.

Show everybody how the buildings were slowly falling apart from fire... but try to do it without adding your personal feelings about what the firemen was saying while they were at ground zero Okay?

Wow ok, so you are asking for me to show you evidence of the building falling apart from fire, I give you a whole host of responses from people that were observing them and you ignore them claiming that I just am adding personal feeling into what they are saying. wow. What a great way to stick you head in the sand when confronted with facts you dont want to hear. So I take it, when a firefighter said, the building is tilting, leaning, bulging, creaking, heavy fires throughout, large chunks missing, none of that matters to you or does not show serious damage done? Also you have been shown photos of a gash that ran down the face of the WTC7, and you pretend as if it is so hard to see through smoke. Since when can smoke create a perfect straight line shadow down the face? You have been shown countless pieces of evidence, and you ignore every single one. But if a firefighter mentions hearing an explosion when the whole damn building crashed down on top of him, then its, OMG Proof!!!! Proof of explosives bringing it down, there is no way that could mean anything else!! Geat real. I know what you are doing and you are practically screaming and kicking and doing everything you can to ignore the facts. You are not interested in the truth, you never were. Only when it agrees with your predetermined beliefs, and even when it doesnt, you stretch it as far as you can in order to fit.

Originally posted by maxella1

What are these firemen describing?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You believe them too right?

They Also mention about a black plane in this video, I saw another recently where a group of people on a rooftop say they saw something about the size of a private jet, it was windowless and black, have the link somewhere, will post later when I find it. So whatever was seen was not a commercial airliner, maybe some kind of drone/missile.

Why is it none of the people that argue the original story is true, will respond to the Barry Jennings information?
They skip right past it and don't say a thing about it. Maybe because if they did, it would make all their previous poor theories fall apart.

OS upholders, why don't you address the Barry Jennings situation? Is it because it will shatter everything you have ever written?

Where is all the physics data from the OS upholders? The people that don't believe the OS are a clever bunch, not to be underestimated, and can very easily provide accurate physics data.

reply to post by exponent


Sorry M8 wrong i have read all three of his papers...read all the addendum....read papers disputing his....emailed the man....have tried to phone and discuss them.... but to no avail...

he refuses to talk about the work with fellow engineers.....and will no longer speak publicly about his work....he got his money...washed his hands...and moved on.

now if you repeat me wrong one more time....then you can go talk in the wind....you tell me where this extra energy came from where 10% of the structure can crush down 90% of the lower structure.....It requires energy...simple as that....so please how about you yourself go read the papers....all three....plus go to 911 journals and read a bit.

Now this is my field of work.....If you delight in making yourself look foolish please do so....because...did i say extra energy....no i said the energy available....so if there was not enough energy available to do the work it had to come from somewhere....simple thing.....remove the resistance.....now to do this one needs to weaken the lower structure,,,,so the energy available would be sufficient to progressively collapse all the way to the ground.

Now i was nice enough to reply even though you try to misrepresent what was being said...TYPICAL....but i will ignore it once.....also you might want to check up the laws of physics.....and also...if you are even close to being able to assess what is being stated then you could easily go through my postings and you will see how many times i have read his work...quoted from it....presented it....and destroyed it.....and yet again it is destroyed...if you for one single second believe what he says...then you will know that it does not just apply in one instance for one particular building....it applies to buildings in general....it cannot just apply in one circumstance.

If it fails in one scenario......It fails across the board.....especially in less substantially constructed buildings.

reply to post by kidtwist


Try searching the archives. Mr Jennings has been discussed here many times.

Signed,
The Official Story

Originally posted by plube
you tell me where this extra energy came from where 10% of the structure can crush down 90% of the lower structure.....It requires energy...simple as that....so please how about you yourself go read the papers....all three....plus go to 911 journals and read a bit.

The only energy in the whole paper comes from gravity, there's a heat assumed for columns but this isn't added in to momentum anywhere. I've read the papers and some of the criticisms but I don't see anyone claiming that Bazant added in any extra energy anywhere.

Now this is my field of work.....If you delight in making yourself look foolish please do so....because...did i say extra energy....no i said the energy available

Do you mean you're a physicist for a living? Cause I don't have any real credentials that would matter, even if I wanted to present them. Also I dunno what you mean when you say you didn't say "extra energy" because you say it even in the quote from you above.

Now i was nice enough to reply even though you try to misrepresent what was being said...TYPICAL

I didn't mean to, so if you tell me what I misrepresented I'll edit or remove it.

if you for one single second believe what he says...then you will know that it does not just apply in one instance for one particular building....it applies to buildings in general....it cannot just apply in one circumstance.

This is definitely wrong though, Bazant's calculations might apply to all buildings, but they use specific properties of the WTC towers that mean you can't just assume the same answers hold for every other building. The strength of the columns for example is one of the parameters, and differs in every building constructed.

reply to post by exponent

You don't think there's a pretty significant difference between the two? There are no racial or ethnic motivators here, there's not even any possible pretense of ethical behaviour.

This is a matter of opinion, I will agree to disagree with you on this one. But lets ask the readers... What do you think?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

below is my reply;

www.abovetopsecret.com...

is that story relevant?

It's not that engineers are held to higher standards, it's that I expect people to have learned from history. The last people I would try and convince to murder in cold blood would be those who have willingly signed an ethical agreement to protect life.

lol. Be honest now.... we are not talking about convincing engineers about murdering in cold blood, are we? I'm really trying to be nice but you're pushing it a little.

They lied! We know they lied because it took almost no time at all for their lies to become public and be made clear. Can you name a single whistleblower that presented evidence that say CTBUH is part of a cover up?

It would be the most foolish plan in the world, having to convince a bunch of engineering companies not to criticise the NIST report. Far better to ensure that the report is plausible and that its conclusions are acceptable, than to make it as poor as some truthers would have you believe.

All you got to do is read NIST and check what was happening that day to know that anybody approving NIST is part of a cover up. You can't change reality even if you are an engineer.

Oh sure, I have no problem with this whatsoever. My feelings are that the evidence for controlled demolition is flimsy at best, and you can't even get a group of 10 conspiracy theorists to agree even on the most generic details. If it comes to a LIHOP or an incompetence scenario then of course I'd be fully willing to believe this. The US government is hilariously incompetent. That's why a malicious super efficient conspiracy seems so laughable to me.

Once again reality will always be reality.. even though I don’t know that it was a controlled demolition, but I can easily see with my own eyes that the buildings had some kind of explosives in them. There's eyewitness testimony, video of the building exploding. And of course the government incompetence exists and we can easily see it in the cover up they have been doing since the day of 9/11. You still don’t understand that no matter how many times you say “conspiracy theorists” in your replies it won't change reality.

The only way to prove it would be to find some evidence. I haven't seen it yet, but I don't think it is impossible

For that we would need an investigation. Keep doing what you're doing. You don't understand it but you are waking up a lot of people with your nonsense.

Dang.. I was planning on being nice, oh well.

Originally posted by kidtwist
OS upholders, why don't you address the Barry Jennings situation? Is it because it will shatter everything you have ever written?

Hey man, not quite sure I am an 'OS upholder' whatever that means, but I don't know what exactly you're referring to here. Can you be more specific?

Where is all the physics data from the OS upholders? The people that don't believe the OS are a clever bunch, not to be underestimated, and can very easily provide accurate physics data.

Funnily enough I've always found it was the other way around. I tried for ages to get someone to explain why Bazant was wrong and I didn't get much in the way of an answer. What sort of physics data are you looking for? Maybe I can help.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by kidtwist

 

Try searching the archives. Mr Jennings has been discussed here many times.

Signed,
The Official Story

Yes That is true, but nobody ever clarified what he was stepping over. Maybe you know?

Originally posted by maxella1
lol. Be honest now.... we are not talking about convincing engineers about murdering in cold blood, are we? I'm really trying to be nice but you're pushing it a little.

Well I'm not suggesting that they would be personally killing people lol, but covering up a murder is considered complicity. If we found out that some people were genuinely covering up facts that they knew proved something was wrong, you'd want them to face a charge of conspiracy to commit murder wouldn't you? I know I would!

All you got to do is read NIST and check what was happening that day to know that anybody approving NIST is part of a cover up. You can't change reality even if you are an engineer.

Can you give me an example? I have read an awful lot over the past 5 years and I've not seen many good examples.

You still don’t understand that no matter how many times you say “conspiracy theorists” in your replies it won't change reality.

What is it with people and terms on this forum?! I'll use another phrase if you like, but people are incredibly touchy over anything, including 'Truth Movement'!

For that we would need an investigation. Keep doing what you're doing. You don't understand it but you are waking up a lot of people with your nonsense.

Dang.. I was planning on being nice, oh well.

I'll be similarly harsh. Even on this forum the proportion who believe in this theory is low, and there's so far not been a single coherent theory advanced that explains even a tiny fraction of the events of the day. It's been over a decade and people still can't even agree on what hit the towers.

That to me is not a sign of a massive worldwide awakening. I don't wanna make it a personal insult though so please don't take it as that.

Originally posted by kidtwist

Where is all the physics data from the OS upholders? The people that don't believe the OS are a clever bunch, not to be underestimated, and can very easily provide accurate physics data.

I like them... their nonsense made me start researching 9/11.