WTC7 Demolition on mainstream news site

[Riverwind]

re: wind,lateral load: because you cannot accept the fact, which is your problem, wind is always an issue, on a building over 1,000 feet tall, on the ocean front.

Wind exists - that does not mean it is a SIGNIFICANT factor. You have no evidence that wind was a significant factor on that day.

in this post, you are claiming they did not act exactly the same, in your previous post, you are claiming they did and they should , because it would be strange if they didn't.

It depends on what level you are talking about. Both buildings collapsed so at that level they behaved the same. However, when you look at the details of how the collapse progress you will see that the collapses were different.

Frankly, I can't figure out what point you are trying to make. One minute you are arguing that all the towers should have collapsed and the next minute you are arguing that none of them should have collapsed. This all or nothing attitude is aburd. Different buildings will behave differently - some might collapse and some might not. Damage to a structure may trigger a collapse or it might not. Whether it does depends on many factors.

[kuzadd]

re: wind,lateral load: because you cannot accept the fact, which is your problem, wind is always an issue, on a building over 1,000 feet tall, on the ocean front.

Wind exists - that does not mean it is a SIGNIFICANT factor. You have no evidence that wind was a significant factor on that day.

in this post, you are claiming they did not act exactly the same, in your previous post, you are claiming they did and they should , because it would be strange if they didn't.

It depends on what level you are talking about. Both buildings collapsed so at that level they behaved the same. However, when you look at the details of how the collapse progress you will see that the collapses were different.

Frankly, I can't figure out what point you are trying to make. One minute you are arguing that all the towers should have collapsed and the next minute you are arguing that none of them should have collapsed. This all or nothing attitude is aburd. Different buildings will behave differently - some might collapse and some might not. Damage to a structure may trigger a collapse or it might not. Whether it does depends on many factors.

Riverwind: you have contradicted yoruself so many times, your head must be spinning.

You are the one claiming the all or nothing.

You claim wtc 1,2 and 7 all had global collapses and that is credible.

It's simply NOT credible, for the very reasons you state

"Different buildings will behave differently - some might collapse and some might not. Damage to a structure may trigger a collapse or it might not. Whether it does depends on many factors."

That's right, so there is absolutely NO reason to expect 3 buildings, affected by vastly divergent factors , to respond in the same way, ending in global collapse.

and all 3 buildings responded by globally collapsing.

NONE, ZIP. ZERO ZILCH!!!

Yet that is the meat and potatoes of the official conspiracy re: the collapse.

AND: you have also contradicted yourself on that, by saying it would be expected, or it would be strange if 1 and 2 would not react in the same way.

I am still waiting for info on the damage to 3,4,5 and 6.

that you claim demonstrates 7 was more severely damaged.

also enlighten me on why it is eager doesn't address wtc 7, nor does the official report.

[PolyNewbie]

ScottsA If I were Polly or Kuzzad, I'd be shamed into withdrawal. I think Riverwind ought to be renamed with the title "Hammer of the TrVthies". What a slaughter...

Fortunately for us you have no idea about science or what any of us are talking about. Riverwinds statements on science are completely wrong and can be seen as ridiculous by anyone with an elementary understanding of basic principles. Its not that the statements made are stateed incorrectly and that I am being picky - they are just about as wrong as you can be.

Not knowing anything about science doesn't stop you from commenting which you are as big as a fool as Riverwind.

Riverwind Pure fiction. Nobody knows how much of the original mass was 'lying outside of its footprint'.

There are maps published by NIST that clearly illustrate the material distribution around the site. If I post a link to these will you stop polluting this thread with your nonsense ?

Riverwind The energy required to eject a 200 tonne beam from a building that weighs 500,000 tonnes is insignificant. There is no way to quantify the amount of matter ejected or its speed.

Not true. This can be determined from the NIST report material distribution around the area after the collapses.

[Riverwind]

That's right, so there is absolutely NO reason to expect 3 buildings, affected by vastly divergent factors , to respond in the same way, ending in global collapse.

There is also absolutely no reason to claim that they should not have collapsed. Your arguments are circular and incoherent.

[Riverwind]

Not true. This can be determined from the NIST report material distribution around the area after the collapses.

The data in the NIST report may tell you what piles of rubble are were but they would never give you information about where the rubble came from and when it was ejected from the building. Your are still forced to make up a lot of data. The bottom line is any analysis based on energy conservation is inconclusive and cannot be used to support thruthie theories.

[kuzadd]

That's right, so there is absolutely NO reason to expect 3 buildings, affected by vastly divergent factors , to respond in the same way, ending in global collapse.

There is also absolutely no reason to claim that they should not have collapsed. Your arguments are circular and incoherent.

rofl!!

your arguments are circular and incoherent, and contradictory.

that statement better describes your own statements.You've been allover the place.

You are resorting to bashing, rather then rationally discussing YOUR own views.

where do I begin????

You, yourself, made the claim different buildings react differently to different stressors. Yet all 3 come down in global collapse, something you yourself say is not possible, but then you say 1 and 2 should react in the same way, because they are constructed the same, BUT, then you say they should not react the same????

Riverwind"There is also absolutely no reason to claim that they should not have collapsed."

partially or completely, or should they have tipped???

we are talking all along about global collapse, complete or global collapse.

why should we assume all 3 different buildings affected by divergent factors, would have global collapse as a result. We shouldn't, because there is no reason to believe that is possible given the divergent factors.

so why do you?

as I have stated, don't dig yourself any deeper then you already have.

I promise I won't help you do it anymore lol!

I am still waiting for your info wrt buildings 3,4,5 and 6 being less damaged, then wtc 7 ,to support YOUR reasoning for why wtc7 globally collapsed ( despite no plane) and the other's didn't.3.4.5.6. (no plane, either)

please provide that. thanks.

[Riverwind]

You, yourself, made the claim different buildings react differently to different stressors. Yet all 3 come down in global collapse, something you yourself say is not possible

I did not say it is not possible. I am trying to find a coherent argument in your posts but have so far found none.

What happened on 9/11 is straight forward:

1) Two planes crashed into WTC1 and WTC2.

2) These planes started fires in the buildings which weakened the structures.

3) The structures collasped and spewed debris on the surrounding buildings.

4) All of the surrounding buildings were damaged by the debris and had fires.

5) The combination of damage from debris and fires triggered a collasped of WTC7

6) The combination of damage from debris and fires triggered did not trigger a collapse in the other buildings.

None of this is surprising or unusual.

You are the one who is insisting that there is something strange about this sequence of events.

[Charles Anthony]

One more thing:

Both WTC1 and WTC2 started to collapse at the point of the impacts.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind The data in the NIST report may tell you what piles of rubble are were but they would never give you information about where the rubble came from and when it was ejected from the building.

I suppose that is true. All that dust and rubble could be a bunch of people cleaning their apartments and offices all at one time or maybe the garbage men had a strike and dumped everything in a symmetrical arrangement around the wtc buildings just before Osama attacked. I guess you are not wrong about everything after all.

[ScottSA]

ScottsA If I were Polly or Kuzzad, I'd be shamed into withdrawal. I think Riverwind ought to be renamed with the title "Hammer of the TrVthies". What a slaughter...

Fortunately for us you have no idea about science or what any of us are talking about. Riverwinds statements on science are completely wrong and can be seen as ridiculous by anyone with an elementary understanding of basic principles. Its not that the statements made are stateed incorrectly and that I am being picky - they are just about as wrong as you can be.

Well Polly, you keep saying that his conclusions are wrong, but you don't actually back it up with anything other than a repetition that anyone with a high school understanding of "science" will know he's wrong. That's not evidence. I'm certainly not a scientist or physicist or structural engineer any more than you are, but even I know, for instance, that the "Laws" you're citing hold true only in a closed system. So that would make you completely as wrong as can be, wouldn't it? And riverwind's statements ARE backed up with evidence by doctorates in the specific field...one of them from MIT. Your only rebuttal? That he's a "gatekeeper" and completely wrong. That's not quite highschool level debate...that's just silliness.

[ScottSA]

What happened on 9/11 is straight forward:

1) Two planes crashed into WTC1 and WTC2.

2) These planes started fires in the buildings which weakened the structures.

3) The structures collasped and spewed debris on the surrounding buildings.

4) All of the surrounding buildings were damaged by the debris and had fires.

5) The combination of damage from debris and fires triggered a collasped of WTC7

6) The combination of damage from debris and fires triggered did not trigger a collapse in the other buildings.

None of this is surprising or unusual.

You are the one who is insisting that there is something strange about this sequence of events.

Furthermore, if someone wants to claim that something else happened, the burden of proof lies with the positive claimant. That means that there is no need for Riverwind to prove precisely how everything happened, because the vast bulk of probability lies with the events that 6 billion people saw in real time and numerous people filmed. But there is a requirement that the truthies show exactly how everything happened, and furthermore to produce at least ONE confession from the hundreds of people who must have been involved in this great big plot. Neither of those conditions has been met, and instead we've been treated to stories of nuclear weapons and ray guns and a whack of earnestly defended nonsense.

[PolyNewbie]

Furthermore, if someone wants to claim that something else happened, the burden of proof lies with the positive claimant.

Nope. No one is saying what caused the collapse of wtc7 except a few presstitutes and a few annonymous posters on the internet. That hardly adds up to credibility.

That means that there is no need for Riverwind to prove precisely how everything happened, because the vast bulk of probability lies with the events that 6 billion people saw in real time and numerous people filmed.

No one is doubting what was seen on video. Its a question of what caused it.

But there is a requirement that the truthies show exactly how everything happened

Wrong. If the official version is shown to be impossible and that its physically impossible to have happened without bombs in the building then we don't have to show exactly what happened. Thats a silly arguement. I bet you are not a lawyer.

[PolyNewbie]

ScottsA Well Polly, you keep saying that his conclusions are wrong, but you don't actually back it up with anything other than a repetition that anyone with a high school understanding of "science" will know he's wrong. That's not evidence. I'm certainly not a scientist or physicist or structural engineer any more than you are, but even I know, for instance, that the "Laws" you're citing hold true only in a closed system.

I am quite bit more competent than you are at structural engineering and physics ScottsA, having taken university level courses in both. With this background I can say with certainty that almost all of Riverwinds scientific statements are dead wrong.

Systems behave according to the laws of thermodynamics always but in order to get to specific numbers you must establish a boundary of the system.

One can easily say that the only source of energy according to the official version was the potential energy of the standing building. The fact that the buildings collapsed at freefall speed leaves no energy available to eject the masses upward and outward or break the concrete into dust. Draw your boundaries as you wish, but stick to topics you understand.

[Riverwind]

Wrong. If the official version is shown to be impossible and that its physically impossible to have happened without bombs in the building then we don't have to show exactly what happened.

But no one has done that. Inconclusive speculation based on fabricated data is not a proof. That means the onus on truthies to provide conclusive evidence that their theory is true. The only way to do that is to find collaborators that can explain how the plot was carried out. Without that the thruthie theories are worthless.

The fact that the buildings collapsed at freefall speed leaves no energy available to eject the masses upward and outward or break the concrete into dust. Draw your boundaries as you wish, but stick to topics you understand.

The buildings did NOT fall at freefall speed - they fell slower than freefall. It is impossible to know exactly how much slower because of the sources of error inherent in measuring time from grainly videos. This means that any calculations of energy lost from impact are mostly fiction. Furthermore, we also know that all of the potential energy from the building went into pulverizing concrete once the floors hit the ground and this would not have affected the fall speed at all. You have no way to quantify the amount of debris that was ejected as each floor collapsed vs. the amount of debris ejected when a floor hit the ground. That why the distribution of debris on the ground means nothing.

[ScottSA]

ScottsA Well Polly, you keep saying that his conclusions are wrong, but you don't actually back it up with anything other than a repetition that anyone with a high school understanding of "science" will know he's wrong. That's not evidence. I'm certainly not a scientist or physicist or structural engineer any more than you are, but even I know, for instance, that the "Laws" you're citing hold true only in a closed system.

I am quite bit more competent than you are at structural engineering and physics ScottsA, having taken university level courses in both. With this background I can say with certainty that almost all of Riverwinds scientific statements are dead wrong.

Systems behave according to the laws of thermodynamics always but in order to get to specific numbers you must establish a boundary of the system.

One can easily say that the only source of energy according to the official version was the potential energy of the standing building. The fact that the buildings collapsed at freefall speed leaves no energy available to eject the masses upward and outward or break the concrete into dust. Draw your boundaries as you wish, but stick to topics you understand.

See, here you go again. I don't care if you've taken university level courses in physics...I took first year biology during my arts undergrad, but I certainly don't hold myself as an expert in the mating habits of the snowy owl, which is what in effect you're doing vis a vis building collapse. Sorry, but your level of education in this just doesn't cut it, s don't bother appealing to your expertise.

You're simply saying Riverwind is wrong and then trying to snow everyone with bafflegab. There is no possible way to draw reasonable boundaries around the event of the collapse given the variables...you're trying to appeal to a law that cannot be invoked precisely because you can't draw said boundaries. You can't close the system.

Furthermore, the burdon of proof DOES lie with you. Every one of your alleged arguments that the collapse was "impossible" has been refuted, not only by riverwind but by the experts he has cited, and all you have offered is the repetition that he is wrong.

[M.Dancer]

See, here you go again. I don't care if you've taken university level courses in physics...I took first year biology during my arts undergrad, but I certainly don't hold myself as an expert in the mating habits of the snowy owl, which is what in effect you're doing vis a vis building collapse.

Snowy owls are generally monogamous, though polygyny has been reported in a few instances when prey was excessively abundant. Breeding pairs may form on the wintering ground or after the owls reach the breeding ground in late April or early May. There is no evidence that pair bonds last beyond one breeding season.

Elaborate courtship displays are associated with breeding pair formation and early breeding activities. The male performs an “aerial display” followed by a “ground display’. The “aerial display” consists of an exaggerated undulating flight, frequently while carrying a lemming in the bill or claws, followed by a gradual climb and finally a gentle vertical descent to the ground. Once on the ground, the male performs the “ground display”. With his back toward the female, the male stands erect and then leans forward with his head lowered and tail partly fanned until he is nearly lying on the ground. Another infrequently observed display is the passing of a lemming from male to female while in flight. (Parmelee, 1992)

This of course is conclusive evidence that the gov't planned 9.11

[PolyNewbie]

See, here you go again. I don't care if you've taken university level courses in physics...I took first year biology during my arts undergrad, but I certainly don't hold myself as an expert in the mating habits of the snowy owl, which is what in effect you're doing vis a vis building collapse.

No ScottsA that not what I am doing. Having taken this biology and having someone tell you that a tree is a snowy owl you may be able to correct them. Thats more closely analogeous to what I am doing.

You should stick to what you know because its getting too easy to make a fool out of you in your feeble attempts to discredit me when you can't win arguements.

Rioverwind makes such obvious and basic scientific errors its clear that he has not the slightest idea of what he is talking about. His force analysis on the table with the missing leg should make that clear to even a biology or history student given that I have never taken history in school but I can still tell you when the war of 1812 occured.

ScottsA You're simply saying Riverwind is wrong and then trying to snow everyone with bafflegab.

I've mnade it quite clear exactly why he is wrong in every example except his explanation about a flame making an object hotter than the flame that is applied to heat it. Again, any history or biology student should be able to see how rediculous his scientific reasoning is. We all know that heat travels from a hot substance to a cold substance and not the reverse making the following statement the ramblings of a fool:

Riverwind: "Heat is nothing more than energy. When something burns it releases energy. The amount of heat generated by something burning depends on the substance being burned, however, once the heat is created it has to go somewhere. If this heat is trapped for some reason then this energy can accumulate in a location and theoretically cause the temperature to rise higher than the temperature of the flame."

Now thats all of Riverwinds scientific statements reduced to nonsense.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind: The buildings did NOT fall at freefall speed - they fell slower than freefall.

Only by a second.

Riverwind: It is impossible to know exactly how much slower because of the sources of error inherent in measuring time from grainly videos.

Wrong again. The NIST report admits 8 & 10 seconds.

Riverwind: Furthermore, we also know that all of the potential energy from the building went into pulverizing concrete once the floors hit the ground and this would not have affected the fall speed at all.

You can watch the video and see the building being converted to dust as the explosion rolls down the height of the building. Its as plain as the nose on your face. If thats not enough the lack of concrete and dust at the building footprint after the coollapse should be convincing enough.

Half of that concrete being ejected from the building and being converted to dust would be more than enough to slow the building collapse down by about half since more than half of the mass was being ejected - we know this from the patterns of debris in the NIST report. This is obvious - like a mountain weighs more than a mouse kind of obvious even if you can't weigh the mountain.

I will link those patterns if you stop posting this nonsense.

ScottsA: you're trying to appeal to a law that cannot be invoked precisely because you can't draw said boundaries. You can't close the system.

So I can't say for sure that a mountain weighs more than a mouse because I can't weigh the mountain ? Thats your logic.

[PolyNewbie]

Debunkers hide from debate

ScottsA and Riverwind should share their courage with these folks and help them show everyone how ridiculous 911 conspiracy theories are.

[stignasty]

Okay, I'll admit that I'm not a science major. My degrees are in Business Management and Education.

Here's what I do know from high school. A scientist makes a theory to explain an observed event, and then conducts tests to see whether or not that theory is (or is not) valid. If the evidence supports the theory, it is accepted. If the evidence doesn't support the theory, it is rejected.

9/11 conspiracy theorists like Poly have created a theory (the government used explosives to bring down the three towers). They have then looked for evidence to support that theory. The problem is that they disregard any counter-evidence because it does not hold to their theory.

Scientists will change their theories depending on the results of their research. Pseudo-scientists like the 9/11 "truth" people will ignore anything that doesn't support their theories.

For example, the "truth" movement has alleged that the blasts observed out of the building during the collapse are evidence of a controlled demolition. Others have argued that these are easily explained as compressed air blowing out of the building from the compression of the building collapsing above it.

What does the evidence say? Why not compare a real squib with the observations on 9/11? A squib explodes quickly and the force tails off quickly. What was observed on 9/11 were plumes of dust and debris shooting out of a window that progressively became stronger as the collapsing building came closer. Rather than changing their theories to adapt for the new evidence, the "truthies" will hold to their set theories.

So, while the allegations of a lack scientific credibility are being thrown around it is wise to remember that fundamental scientific method has been discarded early on.

[PolyNewbie]

stignasty: For example, the "truth" movement has alleged that the blasts observed out of the building during the collapse are evidence of a controlled demolition. Others have argued that these are easily explained as compressed air blowing out of the building from the compression of the building collapsing above it.

The videos indicate that that isn't the case, but even if it was the same logic would apply. The dust blown outward had to have energy. That energy would come from the kinetic energy of the collapsing building and therefore slow it down. Judging from the videos and the debris patterns reported by NIST (and that there are many photos of) the energy required would slow the collapse down greatly.

Stignasty: A squib explodes quickly and the force tails off quickly. What was observed on 9/11 were plumes of dust and debris shooting out of a window that progressively became stronger as the collapsing building came closer. Rather than changing their theories to adapt for the new evidence, the "truthies" will hold to their set theories.

again, irrelevant.

stignasty: So, while the allegations of a lack scientific credibility are being thrown around it is wise to remember that fundamental scientific method has been discarded early on.

Obviously that isn't the case. You should stay out of scientific arguements when you too have no idea of what you are talking about.

"Tuthies" have well respected scientists on their side. You should remember that and the fact that the "official" investigators were in no way qualified forensic scientists and the qualified folks were kept away from this investigation and much of the evidence was destroyed when criticising "Truthies".

Plus the official investigation does not attempt to explain the orderly and expedient nature of the collapse - the primary evidence of controlled devices being used.

[Riverwind]

Only by a second.

A second is a lot of energy in a 500,000 structure.

Riverwind: It is impossible to know exactly how much slower because of the sources of error inherent in measuring time from grainly videos.

Wrong again. The NIST report admits 8 & 10 seconds.

BS. Truthies themselves can't agree on the collapse time. Estimates range from 8 seconds to 17 seconds. That is huge range which renders any calculations based on the collapse time irrelevant.

You can watch the video and see the building being converted to dust as the explosion rolls down the height of the building. Its as plain as the nose on your face. If thats not enough the lack of concrete and dust at the building footprint after the coollapse should be convincing enough.

Video evidence does not allow you to make any quantative calculations. You are deluding yourself if you think otherwise.

[stignasty]

The energy required to eject a 200 tonne beam from a building that weighs 500,000 tonnes is insignificant. There is no way to quantify the amount of matter ejected or its speed. Hoffman's analysis is just a bunch of wild guesses made by someone looking to promote himself as some sort of cult hero.

I think you're on to something. The whole "9/11 truth" movement comes off as rather cult like.

[GostHacked]

Why does this thread exist? I thought we had a couple 9/11 threads already.

This is not Canadian news at all. This is still US news, so belongs there. Last time you will hear me here in THIS thread on this topic.

[Riverwind]

The energy required to eject a 200 tonne beam from a building that weighs 500,000 tonnes is insignificant. There is no way to quantify the amount of matter ejected or its speed. Hoffman's analysis is just a bunch of wild guesses made by someone looking to promote himself as some sort of cult hero.

I think you're on to something. The whole "9/11 truth" movement comes off as rather cult like.

That is why I laugh every time Polly tries to suggest the truthies are altruistic scientists - they are attention seekers who are out to glorify themselves.