WT7: Silverstein vs the Official Gov't Report

[SFC Ollie]

2.25 seconds of what could be seen which was nothing but the facade. the stuff behind it had already fallen.

Did you have to go switch accounts?

 

[Capstone]

2.25 seconds of what could be seen which was nothing but the facade. the stuff behind it had already fallen.

The simultaneous failure of the "stuff behind" 8 floors (every last beam of structural steel across the breadth and height of that entire area) is every bit as impossible, minus a mechanism for the simultaneity of the removal of all resistance (on which NIST apparently knew better than to even try to postulate), as any amount of free-fall. Without that mechanism, the 8-floor concession is an admission of a physical impossibility by default.

...Did you have to go switch accounts?

I only have the one account, but I do like to change up my avatar and signature on a fairly regular basis.

 

[SFC Ollie]

gee you sound just like the last guy....

So I'll ask again.

Why do almost all truther videos omit those first 8 seconds?

 

[KokomoJojo]

And you have sidestepped for the last time. Go play your stupidity elsewhere.

You cannot tell us what happened during the first 8 minutes of that colapse because it destroys the freefall of the whole building BS.

Anyone with common sense can see it...

But then that is obviously the problem...

BTW, are you an expert? Do tell us about your own qualifications since you wish to question everyone else.

so you want everyone to believe some crazy assed dablunder theory. Even NIST said it freefell.
common sense aint good enough, it takes knowledge of fizix.

All you have shown us that you can copy and paste some lunatic bunky dablunder theory and that you have no clue what actually happened.

Why dont you do what other blunderers do and run to the jref site for material and bring them back with you if you want to experience first hand my expertise since I dont see anyone here even qualified to shine my shoes.

 

[SFC Ollie]

And you aren't qualified to lick my boots.

Always avoiding questions.

Give it up. I don't need anything other than common sense to tell you that your conspiracy falls apart when you take those 8 seconds into account.

Now go avoid more questions and brag about your expertise some more.

Some of us can admit we are not experts. But still point out the flaws in your dreams.

How many architects and engineers you got signed up now? About 0.01% of them?

You got nothing.

But since you want some copy and paste i can do that too.......

WTC 7's collapse, viewed from the exterior (most videos were taken from the north), did appear to fall almost uniformly as a single unit. This occurred because the interior failures that took place did not cause the exterior framing to fail until the final stages of the building collapse. The interior floor framing and columns collapsed downward and pulled away from the exterior frame. There were clues that internal damage was taking place, prior to the downward movement of the exterior frame, such as when the east penthouse fell downward into the building and windows broke out on the north face at the ends of the building core. The symmetric appearance of the downward fall of the WTC 7 was primarily due to the greater stiffness and strength of its exterior frame relative to the interior framing.

Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation

 

[Capstone]

gee you sound just like the last guy....

So I'll ask again.

Why do almost all truther videos omit those first 8 seconds?

Not to concede your point, but it's totally irrelevant to the impossibility of any amount of free-fall (including the amount admitted by NIST) without the sort of mechanism mentioned in my previous post. My argument isn't based on the veracity of truther videos; it's based on the veracity of NIST's own admission.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Whatever, I don't give a rats ass if the building fell at freefall or as i have shown just the facade did. Or none at all...

What I do care about is that there was not any controlled demolition of the building.

There is zero proof of any such claim.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Whatever, I don't give a rats ass if the building fell at freefall or as i have shown just the facade did. Or none at all...

What I do care about is that there was not any controlled demolition of the building.

There is zero proof of any such claim.

sure there was, its proven, the only thing you can do is stand on your soap box cry and scream no it aint wah wah wah! and standing on your soap box denying what is blatantly obvious is not "showing" anything. Its the same bellaring that debunkers and deniers always do.

 

[KokomoJojo]

gee you sound just like the last guy....

So I'll ask again.

Why do almost all truther videos omit those first 8 seconds?

Not to concede your point, but it's totally irrelevant to the impossibility of any amount of free-fall (including the amount admitted by NIST) without the sort of mechanism mentioned in my previous post. My argument isn't based on the veracity of truther videos; it's based on the veracity of NIST's own admission.

Its out of their league man!

 

[Rockland]

Hmm, KaKaTroll is back. That's interesting, in a boring kind of way.

Oh, hey, my tea is ready.

 

[SFC Ollie]

What's been proven other than you are nuts?

Prove to us there is a conspiracy here and lets get it taken to court. Someone must be guilty.....

 

[KokomoJojo]

What's been proven other than you are nuts?

Prove to us there is a conspiracy here and lets get it taken to court. Someone must be guilty.....

I never said anything about a conspiracy, everything I talked about was purely physics and proved to everyone that despite the fact you level claims you are clueless and cannot defend any of them even on the most elementary level. I'm telling ya go over to jref and round up some buddies and bring em over, Im in the mood for kickin dummy debunker ass this weekend.

 

[SAYIT]

2.25 seconds of what could be seen which was nothing but the facade. the stuff behind it had already fallen.

The simultaneous failure of the "stuff behind" 8 floors (every last beam of structural steel across the breadth and height of that entire area) is every bit as impossible, minus a mechanism for the simultaneity of the removal of all resistance (on which NIST apparently knew better than to even try to postulate), as any amount of free-fall. Without that mechanism, the 8-floor concession is an admission of a physical impossibility by default.

And that mechanism was what? An alien hyperbeam?

 

[Capstone]

2.25 seconds of what could be seen which was nothing but the facade. the stuff behind it had already fallen.

The simultaneous failure of the "stuff behind" 8 floors (every last beam of structural steel across the breadth and height of that entire area) is every bit as impossible, minus a mechanism for the simultaneity of the removal of all resistance (on which NIST apparently knew better than to even try to postulate), as any amount of free-fall. Without that mechanism, the 8-floor concession is an admission of a physical impossibility by default.

And that mechanism was what? An alien hyperbeam?

Well, whatever you do, don't ask the NIST guys. Evidently their job was to conjure up an explanatory model that included a period of free-fall ...for which they provided no explanation whatsoever!

What might have been the mechanism (see definition 3.) for the simultaneous removal of all resistance across the entire 8-floor region of free-fall admitted but in no way explained by NIST?

To frame that question with some added perspective, what could have simultaneously incinerated all of that structural steel at the very points that made the path of least resistance straight downward and inward?

Sporadic office fires and asymmetrical damage from fallen debris couldn't possibly account for any period of free-fall, much less the overall uniformity of the "collapse" we've all seen on video time and again.

Understanding what *couldn't possibly* have been the mechanism of free-fall is just as vital as the question as to what *could* have been that mechanism.

 

[SFC Ollie]

So now you are telling us that you know more than NIST but you don't want to commit yourself.

Nice dodge. NIST explained it very well actually. And you can use common sense to see that the inside of the building collapsed and left the facade on the north side standing for a few seconds. You can talk all day about impossible but we all saw the building fall, and the conspiracy nuts are the ones who insist that it was at free fall. And no doubt part of it probably was. but it was a small part for 2.25 seconds. Now if that measures up to 8 stories i wouldn't know.

 

[Capstone]

Steel-framed buildings can't "collapse" into and through themselves at free-fall speed for ANY period of time, Ollie. That's because even a weakened structure would require energy to break up the steel framework, crush the concrete, and pulverize or push things around. If a building were falling straight downward, the "fall" couldn't possibly be "free", because the reaction forces between interacting building materials would necessarily slow the descent. Accordingly, an admission of any amount of free-fall is either a denial of the third law of motion or an affirmation of the complete removal of all resistance to the downward motion during the free-fall period.

NIST initially denied the mere possibility of free-fall and was only later forced to concede two and a quarter seconds worth, claiming without explanation that the concession was consistent with their previous global collapse analysis; which means we now have an officially acknowledged period of free-fall with no plausible mechanism for it.

 

[Capstone]

And FYI, I'm totally committed to the discovery of truth. My unwillingness to accept the official account from a government agency as somehow authoritative over the laws of physics themselves(!) is indicative of that commitment.

 

[SFC Ollie]

In other words you are blind, have no common sense, deny that you are a CTer, and distrust anything the only agencies who have done, or are even in a position to do a complete investigation.

Got it, you can leave now you've trashed everything to include physics which you claim are impossible....

What was your degree in again?

 

[LA RAM FAN]

there you guys go again feeding the government paid troll.

 

[Capstone]

...Got it, you can leave now you've trashed everything to include physics which you claim are impossible....

I think I'll stay all the same, thanks.

It's not that the physics are impossible; it's that the absence of a physical mechanism would render free-fall impossible (this is noncontroversial, BTW).

Alongside the classification of the data used for their computer simulations, NIST's grudging acknowledgement of two and a quarter seconds worth of free-fall without so much as a vague blurb as to its physical mechanism is ample cause for any reasonable person to call into question the legitimacy of their findings.

What was your degree in again?

I respect you, Ollie, so I'll go ahead and share a little something with you regarding my personal qualifications. I wear my lack of formal education/indoctrination as a badge of honor. Every tidbit of knowledge I've gleaned over the years through rigorous debate against far more knowledgeable and better-educated people ...is a gem that I treasure in the gilded chest that is my mind. Put me down and dismiss me as a High School dropout, as you like, but you best not take me lightly in a debate. Natural intelligence, a logical mind, and access to the internet are a powerful threesome.