"Building What": Geraldo At Large

[Patriot911]

Yawn............

All assholes like tempussy have left is to be internet trolls. Pathetic, but predictable.

 

[tempesta29]

Yawn............

All assholes like tempussy have left is to be internet trolls. Pathetic, but predictable.

Quoted for irony.

 

[Gamolon]

How can steel provide 0 resistance? Even air provides resistance. It doesn't matter how much load is applied. A single steel column will obviously provide more resistance to a trillion ton load than nothing will. A trillion ton mass will fall faster in a vacuum than that mass will atop a single steel column.

Please refute this.

Now we're getting somewhere.

At some point, the resistance from a component (be it air, steel, whatever) will become unnoticeable due to the weight/shape of the object coming down.

Tell you what. Let's use a thousand ton block of cement dropped from 40 stories. How much resistance would air apply? How much slower than free fall speed would that block fall? Since you are debating this and used it as an example in your argument, show us the numbers. You obviously understand this concept enough to give numbers right?

Moving forward, let's use two 20' high I beams, standing on their ends. Let's put a "trillion ton load" on top of one and 500 lb. load on top the other. Let's apply a continuous heat source at the bottom third of each column. Which load will will reach the ground first based on how much resistance each column provides to each given weight and at what point the column fails due to the heat applied AND the stress applied by each load?

 

[Gamolon]

But the beams were cut the moment the building started down. According to you, the floors were cut all at the same time?

Move goalposts much?

A disingenuous post. If you have a point make it. If you have a real question, ask it.

Ok, I'll ask it. You are using the free fall speed of the 2.25 sec portion of the collapse to prove that all the columns were cut at the same time as that's the ONLY way it could have fallen at that speed.

NO RESISTANCE is your claim because the beams were all cut.

Well, if the columns were all cut simultaneously (removed and no resistance as you claim), then why didn't the free fall start at the moment all the columns were cut? Why the .8 of no free fall in the beginning? Free fall should have started instantly when the beam's were cut right?

Another question. Can you show me a column from WTC7 that has thermite residue on it from a cut?

 

[tempesta29]

Now we're getting somewhere.

At some point, the resistance from a component (be it air, steel, whatever) will become unnoticeable due to the weight/shape of the object coming down.

Tell you what. Let's use a thousand ton block of cement dropped from 40 stories. How much resistance would air apply? How much slower than free fall speed would that block fall? Since you are debating this and used it as an example in your argument, show us the numbers. You obviously understand this concept enough to give numbers right?

Moving forward, let's use two 20' high I beams, standing on their ends. Let's put a "trillion ton load" on top of one and 500 lb. load on top the other. Let's apply a continuous heat source at the bottom third of each column. Which load will will reach the ground first based on how much resistance each column provides to each given weight and at what point the column fails due to the heat applied AND the stress applied by each load?

You'll of course need to show the relevance for these before I begin to entertain them. Neither hypothetical is comparable to any event that took place on 9/11. The dead loads allegedly responsible for bringing down WTC 7 were the building's components themselves. Of course, at some point, with enough load, it is hard to distinguish between free fall and very near fre efall. That simply isn't the case with WTC 7. Are you implying that WTC 7's dead load was responsible for overcoming resistance to the point of free fall?

 

[tempesta29]

Ok, I'll ask it. You are using the free fall speed of the 2.25 sec portion of the collapse to prove that all the columns were cut at the same time as that's the ONLY way it could have fallen at that speed.

NO RESISTANCE is your claim because the beams were all cut.

Well, if the columns were all cut simultaneously (removed and no resistance as you claim), then why didn't the free fall start at the moment all the columns were cut? Why the .8 of no free fall in the beginning? Free fall should have started instantly when the beam's were cut right?

I never claimed that all buildings brought down in controlled demolitions reach free fall, let alone remain in that state for the entirety of collapse. My only claim was that free fall isn't possible unless explosives are used to sever columns. Logical fallacy at its finest.

There are too many unseen influences that could offer minimal resistance during collapse. The WTC 7 collapsed at near free fall when it wasn't actually in free fall. I don't think anyone claimed that a building brought down in a controlled manner will always be in free fall.

Another question. Can you show me a column from WTC7 that has thermite residue on it from a cut?

No.

 

[Gamolon]

Ok, I'll ask it. You are using the free fall speed of the 2.25 sec portion of the collapse to prove that all the columns were cut at the same time as that's the ONLY way it could have fallen at that speed.

NO RESISTANCE is your claim because the beams were all cut.

Well, if the columns were all cut simultaneously (removed and no resistance as you claim), then why didn't the free fall start at the moment all the columns were cut? Why the .8 of no free fall in the beginning? Free fall should have started instantly when the beam's were cut right?

I never claimed that all buildings brought down in controlled demolitions reach free fall, let alone remain in that state for the entirety of collapse. My only claim was that free fall isn't possible unless explosives are used to sever columns. Logical fallacy at its finest.

There are too many unseen influences that could offer minimal resistance during collapse. The WTC 7 collapsed at near free fall when it wasn't actually in free fall. I don't think anyone claimed that a building brought down in a controlled manner will always be in free fall.

Another question. Can you show me a column from WTC7 that has thermite residue on it from a cut?

No.

You're missing my point. You are claiming that WTC7 fell at free fall because the columns were all simultaneously cut, which is the ONLY reason a building could fall at free fall.

The point I am trying to make is that if this were true, that all columns were cut at the same time, why didn't free fall occur immediately? Why the .8 seconds of no free fall?

Isn't this defying your version of Newtonian physics? If all the columns were cut at the same time and according to you this initiates free fall, what resistance was being provided for the first .8 seconds?

 

[Gamolon]

Of course, at some point, with enough load, it is hard to distinguish between free fall and very near fre efall. That simply isn't the case with WTC 7. Are you implying that WTC 7's dead load was responsible for overcoming resistance to the point of free fall?

And here is the crux of the argument. At which point was the load to much for the perimeter columns of WTC7 to handle and cause a catastrophic failure to bring it down?

You are claiming it's not possible for the load that was left be carried by the perimeter column and the rest of what was standing of WTC7 to cause a failure and then free fall.

That means you have proof that it should have. The NIST report on WTC7 explains all this and how it was possible, but you don;t want to discuss the step by step analysis. You just want to sit on your laurels and say that free fall isn't possible. Based on what? You just admitted above that free fall or near free fall is possible with the right load, did you not?

So, at what point would the load from what was left of WTC7 after the initial collapse of the internal columns (79, etc.) overcome what was left of the supporting structure's support ability?

Let's see some of your calculations to support this?

Do you even understand how buildings are designed and how engineers calculate what loads the internal structure can support? Do you understand that all the internal steel structural components (columns, girders, floors, beams, connections, etc.) work together as a whole to support that calculated load? That is pieces of that structural network start to fail that other pieces need to pick that up?

How can you expect a damaged structure with missing components to support a load it was designed to support when it was whole and undamaged?

 

[tempesta29]

Of course, at some point, with enough load, it is hard to distinguish between free fall and very near fre efall. That simply isn't the case with WTC 7. Are you implying that WTC 7's dead load was responsible for overcoming resistance to the point of free fall?

And here is the crux of the argument. At which point was the load to much for the perimeter columns of WTC7 to handle and cause a catastrophic failure to bring it down?

You are claiming it's not possible for the load that was left be carried by the perimeter column and the rest of what was standing of WTC7 to cause a failure and then free fall.

That means you have proof that it should have. The NIST report on WTC7 explains all this and how it was possible, but you don;t want to discuss the step by step analysis. You just want to sit on your laurels and say that free fall isn't possible. Based on what? You just admitted above that free fall or near free fall is possible with the right load, did you not?

Nonsense. NIST does not explain how free fall was possible, only what they believe happened AND that free fall occurred. In fact, free fall is mentioned very near the end of the report itself, and only a few times.

And why are you referring only to the perimeter columns? Are you claiming all two dozen core columns were bearing no load?

So, at what point would the load from what was left of WTC7 after the initial collapse of the internal columns (79, etc.) overcome what was left of the supporting structure's support ability?

Let's see some of your calculations to support this?

Do you even understand how buildings are designed and how engineers calculate what loads the internal structure can support? Do you understand that all the internal steel structural components (columns, girders, floors, beams, connections, etc.) work together as a whole to support that calculated load? That is pieces of that structural network start to fail that other pieces need to pick that up?

How can you expect a damaged structure with missing components to support a load it was designed to support when it was whole and undamaged?

It's funny to see a man so desperately grasping at straws as you are. We are discussing a steel framed high rise here. This isn't some extreme case or some experiment where massive loads are placed atop a single steel beam. This building held itself up for decades. WTC 7, like any steel framed skyscraper, is over engineered so that if a couple support columns were to fail, it would still stand with ease, not topple to the ground and most definitely not be so overcome with its own load that it reaches free fall.

You aren't under the impression buildings are designed to carry just their own dead loads (plus the weight of office supplies and humans) are you?

 

[tempesta29]

You're missing my point. You are claiming that WTC7 fell at free fall because the columns were all simultaneously cut, which is the ONLY reason a building could fall at free fall.

The point I am trying to make is that if this were true, that all columns were cut at the same time, why didn't free fall occur immediately? Why the .8 seconds of no free fall?

Isn't this defying your version of Newtonian physics? If all the columns were cut at the same time and according to you this initiates free fall, what resistance was being provided for the first .8 seconds?

No, I'm not missing your point. The absence of free fall is not proof that controlled explosives weren't used. This is a logical fallacy. Stop repeating it. It's embarrassing. Plenty of controlled demolitions fall at slower than free fall. There is your proof.

 

[Gamolon]

You're missing my point. You are claiming that WTC7 fell at free fall because the columns were all simultaneously cut, which is the ONLY reason a building could fall at free fall.

The point I am trying to make is that if this were true, that all columns were cut at the same time, why didn't free fall occur immediately? Why the .8 seconds of no free fall?

Isn't this defying your version of Newtonian physics? If all the columns were cut at the same time and according to you this initiates free fall, what resistance was being provided for the first .8 seconds?

No, I'm not missing your point. The absence of free fall is not proof that controlled explosives weren't used. This is a logical fallacy. Stop repeating it. It's embarrassing. Plenty of controlled demolitions fall at slower than free fall. There is your proof.

Most definitely you are. According to you and others, you are claiming two things.

1. Cut columns equals zero resistance
2. Zero resistance equals free fall.

Isn't that right?

If so, that means that the instant the columns were all cut, free fall should occur. Yet there is a .8 second time-frame that it does not. If the columns were all cut, what was providing that .8 seconds of resistance BEFORE free fall occurred?

 

[PhysicsExist]

You're missing my point. You are claiming that WTC7 fell at free fall because the columns were all simultaneously cut, which is the ONLY reason a building could fall at free fall.

The point I am trying to make is that if this were true, that all columns were cut at the same time, why didn't free fall occur immediately? Why the .8 seconds of no free fall?

Isn't this defying your version of Newtonian physics? If all the columns were cut at the same time and according to you this initiates free fall, what resistance was being provided for the first .8 seconds?

No, I'm not missing your point. The absence of free fall is not proof that controlled explosives weren't used. This is a logical fallacy. Stop repeating it. It's embarrassing. Plenty of controlled demolitions fall at slower than free fall. There is your proof.

Most definitely you are. According to you and others, you are claiming two things.

1. Cut columns equals zero resistance
2. Zero resistance equals free fall.

Isn't that right?

If so, that means that the instant the columns were all cut, free fall should occur. Yet there is a .8 second time-frame that it does not. If the columns were all cut, what was providing that .8 seconds of resistance BEFORE free fall occurred?

What does these .8 seconds have to do with the 2.25 seconds of freefall that occured? 2.25 seconds of freefall is impossible unless each floor was simultaneously removed/destructed. Fire cannot cause this, and the only way for this to be performed logically is with some type of explosives. Fire did not melt/bend 8 floors of structural steel from REGULAR office fires. Take off the blinders, and think about it. Believe your eyes, not the words of NIST. Do buildings fall like that from regular fires? Does freefall happen when a steel building collapses? Do steel buildings collapse into their own footprint? Have they? No. Demolitions are the only examples of this, and they look identical to WTC7 collapse. Stop playing games with yourself. RESPECT YOURSELF, use your INTELLECT. These building investigations are a sham.

 

[tempesta29]

Most definitely you are. According to you and others, you are claiming two things.

1. Cut columns equals zero resistance

Isn't that right?

No, it isn't right, and I've explained several times now why it isn't right. Straw men are typical of your ilk. Re-read my claim. A square is a rectangle but a rectangle isn't a square. This should be simple for anyone with even mediocre intelligence to comprehend.

If so, that means that the instant the columns were all cut, free fall should occur. Yet there is a .8 second time-frame that it does not. If the columns were all cut, what was providing that .8 seconds of resistance BEFORE free fall occurred?

<paragraph rendered null and void>

 

[georgephillip]

Two decades in the future how will Americans view 911?

Judge Andrew Napolitano suggests we may well view it the way many of us view JFK's assassination today: "..it couldn't possibly have been done the way the government told us."

BuildingWhat

What about two generations into our future?

Will the grandchildren of today's 9E generation be satisfied with the current official explanations for how two planes collapsed three steel-framed skyscrapers?