9/11 EXPOSED
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 4.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-07-2015, 12:38 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(08-07-2015 04:12 PM)Chas Wrote:  Your objections are all meaningless. The top tilted due to differential collapsing of supports - they were not identically weakened. There is no issue with the 'center of gravity' of that top section - it stayed within the footprint of the building.

Your lack of understanding of physics combined with bizarre gullibility has you questioning the obvious. You are being tedious.

Yeah right!

Here is information from Chapter 8:

Quote: Imagery shows that an eighth person began to climb down the outside of the building from window 94-433 around 9:38 a.m. Just prior to 9:58 a.m., this person was still climbing down the tower face near the 84th floor.

Quote:Shortly after the collapse of WTC 2, the flow of smoke from the north face of WTC 1 stopped momentarily. The period of decreased smoke flow lasted for approximately 40 s.

Videos shot from the east show that debris from WTC 2 did indeed pass in an arc across the east face of WTC 1. The damage created by this debris to the façade of WTC 1 can be seen in Figure 8–80 near the bottom of the photograph. This damage was only visible for a short period before dust rose upward from below and hid the area. The highest marks on the building are just below the mechanical equipment room on the 75th and 76th floors. The damage appears relatively superficial, and it is considered unlikely that it affected the subsequent fire behavior.

I searched on numbers down to the 21st. I found no mention of damage below the 75th floor.

So you are just making claims about what ain't there. I have seen that many times from so called "debunkers". So provide a quote and tell us where it is from so it can be checked rather than "it's in this chapter".

psik
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-07-2015, 08:51 PM (This post was last modified: 09-07-2015 09:30 PM by WOPR.)
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
Hello Thumpalumpacus....

(09-07-2015 09:53 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  I don't have the in-depth knowledge of 7 that others do here....

Acknowledged.

(09-07-2015 09:53 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  ....but as a former Air Force firefighter, I can tell you that any building involved in flames for hours is a collapse hazard.

I'm sorry, Thumpalumpacus, perhaps I missed something when I scanned the thread but.... Can you tell me again how your vague unsubstantiated anecdotal experience as a former Air Force firefighter explains how any period of gravitational acceleration of the upper part of WTC7 as a single unit symmetrically for 105 feet in 2.25 seconds could occur during the course of a heat induced natural gravity driven progressive structural failure of a ductile steel frame building?

(09-07-2015 09:53 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  Debris struck the building, starting fires that burnt all day. Collapse was to be expected in the absence of successful firefighting.

No. According to the NIST report debris striking the building had nothing to do with it. The NIST announced the discovery of a new mode of rapid progressive structural failure never seen before called "Thermal Expansion".... Thermal Expansion is the officially cited cause of the collapse.

On a lighter note....

Hah! So your stint as an Air Force firefighter tells you that WTC7 was definitely bound to
collapse.... Just how many fires did you fight aboard steel frame USAF high rise aircraft?


[Image: Captureppp.jpg]
USAF PHOTO ARCHIVE - 1966 - UNSUCCESSFUL TEST FLIGHT OF A SUPERSONIC HIGH RISE BUILDING

How about a nice game of checkers?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-07-2015, 09:24 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(09-07-2015 12:38 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  
(08-07-2015 04:12 PM)Chas Wrote:  Your objections are all meaningless. The top tilted due to differential collapsing of supports - they were not identically weakened. There is no issue with the 'center of gravity' of that top section - it stayed within the footprint of the building.

Your lack of understanding of physics combined with bizarre gullibility has you questioning the obvious. You are being tedious.

Yeah right!

Here is information from Chapter 8:

Quote: Imagery shows that an eighth person began to climb down the outside of the building from window 94-433 around 9:38 a.m. Just prior to 9:58 a.m., this person was still climbing down the tower face near the 84th floor.

Quote:Shortly after the collapse of WTC 2, the flow of smoke from the north face of WTC 1 stopped momentarily. The period of decreased smoke flow lasted for approximately 40 s.

Videos shot from the east show that debris from WTC 2 did indeed pass in an arc across the east face of WTC 1. The damage created by this debris to the façade of WTC 1 can be seen in Figure 8–80 near the bottom of the photograph. This damage was only visible for a short period before dust rose upward from below and hid the area. The highest marks on the building are just below the mechanical equipment room on the 75th and 76th floors. The damage appears relatively superficial, and it is considered unlikely that it affected the subsequent fire behavior.

I searched on numbers down to the 21st. I found no mention of damage below the 75th floor.

So you are just making claims about what ain't there. I have seen that many times from so called "debunkers". So provide a quote and tell us where it is from so it can be checked rather than "it's in this chapter".

psik

What has any of that to do with my post?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-07-2015, 09:45 PM (This post was last modified: 09-07-2015 10:19 PM by WOPR.)
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
Error....
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-07-2015, 09:46 PM (This post was last modified: 09-07-2015 09:59 PM by Thumpalumpacus.)
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(09-07-2015 08:51 PM)WOPR Wrote:  
(09-07-2015 09:53 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  ....but as a former Air Force firefighter, I can tell you that any building involved in flames for hours is a collapse hazard.

I'm sorry, Thumpalumpacus, perhaps I missed something when I scanned the thread but.... Can you tell me again how your vague unsubstantiated anecdotal experience as a former Air Force firefighter explains how any period of gravitational acceleration of the upper part of WTC7 as a single unit symmetrically for 105 feet in 2.25 seconds could occur during the course of a heat induced natural gravity driven progressive structural failure of a ductile steel frame building?

Well, I didn't tell you that the first time, so I'm not sure why you're using the word "again" unless you're appealing to rhetoric.

What I will say is the fire has this odd property of, you know, actually damaging the stuff that is near or in it: organic products get destroyed, metals lose tensile strength, and so on. And when you have a fire going on for hours in a building, it gets weak, and is more likely to collapse.

Now, take one of those sentence clauses, and explain exactly what problem you have with it.

I'll wait.

(09-07-2015 08:51 PM)WOPR Wrote:  
(09-07-2015 09:53 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  Debris struck the building, starting fires that burnt all day. Collapse was to be expected in the absence of successful firefighting.

No. According to the NIST report debris striking the building had nothing to do with it.

You need to support this claim, not just make it.

(09-07-2015 08:51 PM)WOPR Wrote:  The NIST announced the discovery of a new mode of rapid progressive structural failure never seen before called "Thermal Expansion".... Thermal Expansion is the officially cited cause of the collapse.

That isn't new. Thermal expansion is what causes steel to fail after long exposure to high temperatures. This is stuff we learnt in fire school.

(09-07-2015 08:51 PM)WOPR Wrote:  On a lighter note....

Hah! So your stint as an Air Force firefighter tells you that WTC7 was definitely bound to
collapse.... Just how many fires did you fight aboard steel frame USAF high rise aircraft?

You do realize that Air Force firefighters also fight structural and wildland fires, and receive training in the same -- that we don't just respond to a/c crashes, right? That seems to be news to you. Especially considering that you're ignoring the fact that this particular incident was a result of ... wait for it ... an airplane crash. Kind of what we studied, y'know?

My training as an Air Force firefighter included study in the behavior of steel under heat stress. What sort of education do you possess regarding the behavior of buildings that have been burning? Do tell.

And by the by, please stop smacking strawmen if you want a good conversation with me. I don't like the rudeness that comes with imputing views onto someone when they haven't advocated them, and I'd appreciate it if you stop doing that. Failing that, don't start whining when I repay in kind.

(09-07-2015 08:51 PM)WOPR Wrote:  How about a nice game of checkers?

Better yet, how about a nice discussion, devoid of Internet cockwaving ... if you can manage that sort of thing. Let's see how smart you really are ... or how grown-up you can act online.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post
09-07-2015, 11:57 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
Rolleyes

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
10-07-2015, 09:54 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(07-07-2015 05:41 AM)diddo97 Wrote:  Zeus isn't a perfect being.
So, assuming you mean Yahweh/Jehovah/Allah.... list all the qualities that make him a "perfect being", and I can guarantee there will some you don't list, which in turn would make Yahweh/Jehovah/Allah not a perfect being.

[Image: fdyq20.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-07-2015, 12:36 PM (This post was last modified: 10-07-2015 01:12 PM by WOPR.)
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED


WOPR Wrote:Can you tell me again how your vague unsubstantiated anecdotal experience as a former Air Force firefighter explains how any period of gravitational acceleration of the upper part of WTC7 as a single unit symmetrically for 105 feet in 2.25 seconds could occur during the course of a heat induced natural gravity driven progressive structural failure of a ductile steel frame building?

Thumpalumpacus Wrote:Well, I didn't tell you that the first time, so I'm not sure why you're using the word "again" unless you're appealing to rhetoric.

I used the word "again" in case I missed some earlier post that actually supports anything of your ridiculous assessment as a former Air Force firefighter that fire brought down a steel frame at gravitational acceleration.... so you didn't tell me a first time and now you're not telling me a second time. And there are no appeals to rhetoric only rhetorical appeals.

Thumpalumpacus Wrote:What I will say is the fire has this odd property of, you know, actually damaging the stuff that is near or in it: organic products get destroyed, metals lose tensile strength, and so on. And when you have a fire going on for hours in a building, it gets weak, and is more likely to collapse.

Common knowledge.

Thumpalumpacus Wrote:Now, take one of those sentence clauses, and explain exactly what problem you have with it.

How any period of gravitational acceleration of the upper part of WTC7 as a single unit symmetrically for 105 feet in 2.25 seconds could occur during the course of any heat induced natural gravity driven progressive structural failure of a steel frame building.

WOPR Wrote:According to the NIST report debris striking the building had nothing to do with it.

Thumpalumpacus Wrote:You need to support this claim, not just make it.

Common knowledge....
[Image: Capturefaq.jpg]

WOPR Wrote:The NIST announced the discovery of a new mode of rapid progressive structural failure never seen before called "Thermal Expansion".... Thermal Expansion is the officially cited cause of the collapse.

Thumpalumpacus Wrote:That isn't new. Thermal expansion is what causes steel to fail after long exposure to high temperatures.

Not at gravitational acceleration.

Thumpalumpacus Wrote:This is stuff we learnt in fire school.

I learned it in school too.... in the eighth grade.

WOPR Wrote:On a lighter note....

Hah! So your stint as an Air Force firefighter tells you that WTC7 was definitely bound to collapse.... Just how many fires did you fight aboard steel frame USAF high rise aircraft?

Thumpalumpacus Wrote:You do realize that Air Force firefighters also fight structural and wildland fires, and receive training in the same -- that we don't just respond to a/c crashes, right? That seems to be news to you.

It does say "On a lighter note...."

Thumpalumpacus Wrote:Especially considering that you're ignoring the fact that this particular incident was a result of ... wait for it ... an airplane crash. Kind of what we studied, y'know?

No plane hit the building so your thinking that a plane or planes crashing elsewhere in the vicinity is somehow significant when it comes to explaining the buildings behaviour using aircraft crash dynamics is.... wait for it.... not supportive of your explanation of how or why the building came down.

Thumpalumpacus Wrote:My training as an Air Force firefighter included study in the behavior of steel under heat stress. What sort of education do you possess regarding the behavior of buildings that have been burning? Do tell.


Why would my credibility be a contributing factor in your hopelessly flawed assessment? The fact that steel weakens when heated and can fail as a result is commnon knowledge.... the notion that it can weaken and fail at gravitational acceleration is fantasy.

Thumpalumpacus Wrote:And by the by, please stop smacking strawmen if you want a good conversation with me. I don't like the rudeness that comes with imputing views onto someone when they haven't advocated them, and I'd appreciate it if you stop doing that. Failing that, don't start whining when I repay in kind.

Whatever you're going on about there I didn't seek you out so if you don't like what I have to say or how I say it just stop talking to me.... you started, you can stop. There's nothing further for us to talk about for now anyway. I'm not interested in discussing my conclusion yet and you can't provide any empirical support for your preposterous "It got hot and fell down." explanation of the buidings behaviour including a well defined period of gravitational acceleration.

So that's it for now.... How about a nice game of solitaire?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-07-2015, 12:49 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(09-07-2015 09:24 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(09-07-2015 12:38 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  Yeah right!

Here is information from Chapter 8:

I searched on numbers down to the 21st. I found no mention of damage below the 75th floor.

So you are just making claims about what ain't there. I have seen that many times from so called "debunkers". So provide a quote and tell us where it is from so it can be checked rather than "it's in this chapter".

psik

What has any of that to do with my post?

============================================

I said:

(05-07-2015 08:05 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  
(05-07-2015 03:43 PM)Chas Wrote:  Asked and answered - repeatedly. The lower 85% was heavily damaged.

Tell us where the NIST report says the lower 85% of the north tower was heavily damaged by airliner impact and fire.

psik

You said:

(07-07-2015 05:03 AM)Chas Wrote:  Read Chapter 9 of the report - it is discussed in detail.

85% of 110 would be 93 stories. The plane hit the south tower at the 81st floor. I specified the north tower.

Chaper 9 is about the south tower not the north. Chapter 8 is about the north tower and it does not mention anything lower than the 75th floor and just says some debris from the south tower hit the north there.

So what what are you saying about damage in the lower 85% of the north tower that you can provide documentation for?

psik
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-07-2015, 12:53 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
Gosh, I wonder what really happened that day?
I wish some snarky fuck would come along and enlighten me.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like pablo's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: