Judges shocked by first time seeing video of WTC 7 collapse in Denmark court, March 2015

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
dropped the same way under two different atmospheric temperatures and wind conditions, into basically their own footprints at almost free fall speeds

1/ They did not fall at almostfree fall speed
2/ They did not fall into anything approaching their ownfootprint
3/ How else could they have fallen but straight down, as they could not stop the collapsing building above and cause it to pivot....

From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse.

www.nist.gov...

So as we see not near free fall speed - parts falling off the collapsing building fell at free fall speed, as you would expect, but the building took longer.

The seismic data tells a different story and personally, believing NIST is like believing Greenspan or Obama or any politician for that matter, no credibility and all conflict of interest as far as I am concerned and many many others feel the same way.

Cheers - Dave

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
The seismic data tells a different story

No it does not...
911research.wtc7.net...
www.911myths.com...

and personally, believing NIST is like believing Greenspan or Obama or any politician for that matter, no credibility

So it is much better to believe a conspiracy site, set up to make money, who make money from pushing conspiracy theories!

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
The seismic data tells a different story

No it does not...
911research.wtc7.net...
www.911myths.com...

and personally, believing NIST is like believing Greenspan or Obama or any politician for that matter, no credibility

So it is much better to believe a conspiracy site, set up to make money, who make money from pushing conspiracy theories!

You're quoting the same PAL EHE data. I see WTC2 (1368') collapsing around 10 seconds, WTC1 (1362') collapsing around 12 seconds and WTC7 (571') looks like two specific events, detonations lasting about 3 to 4 seconds separated by about 4 seconds and an collapse period of about 7 seconds.

I don't believe anyone, I look at the data and try to figure out what has been fudged (irrational) and what hasn't been. Listening to politicians or their conflict of interest partners and handlers will get you nowhere fast. I could easily use your line as follows... So it is much better to believe in politicians and their paid helpers, set up to take money using extortion while they destroy freedoms under the auspices of never ending wars created to the benefit of corporate expansionism and control, who make money by the application of the Hegelian Dialectic and Delphi Technique using fear as a motivator for the general population and the government's rationalization for their own actions! The government's OS is a fairy tail, it has more holes in it than a terrorist after they've stepped off a bettie.

If you want to believe the government, go ahead ;-) But I think I have bridge in Brooklin I can sell you and a 1000 acre home in the Indian Ocean complete with most of a plane in the Mauritius Trench... location, location, location!

Cheers - Dave

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
The seismic data tells a different story

No it does not...
911research.wtc7.net...
www.911myths.com...

and personally, believing NIST is like believing Greenspan or Obama or any politician for that matter, no credibility

So it is much better to believe a conspiracy site, set up to make money, who make money from pushing conspiracy theories!

Why would a website like 911 research or 911myths be anymore correct than ae91truth.org?

The fact is, they are not.

They are also not a "conspiracy site" rather a website that debunks the official conspiracy theory. Oh the irony.

They are also not for profit.

Makes me giddy how every truther is somehow an expert on physics and engineering. Because of YouTube, lol...

Makes me giddy everytime I see a post that has absolutely nothing to contribute apart from a quick sentence labelling someone a "truther" and totally dismissing what they have to say.

originally posted by: jaffo

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Just admit you are calling the firefighters liars. They reported multiple floors fully engulfed in the afternoon. They reported the 20 story hole, the pieces of the building falling off all afternoon, the fact that the southwest corner of the building was effectively gone, they set up the transit that showed the building was slowly shifting......FDNY did that. And you, do not believe them. You rely on a few pictures taken before everyone was cleared away from the building.

Different firefighters are telling different stories about WTC7, which stories are true and which are not? Since this is a subjective reality, it is rather difficult to tell. However, the building shows a gash, not a hole, which is about 15 stories high (maybe another 5 stories but cut differently, less intrusive) and around 15 to 20 feet wide and 10 to 15 feet deep in the side of the building. The pictures are quite clear and there is no smoke or fire emitting from the gash. Now, I am not saying that categorically there was no fire. What I said was that it appears from all the video footage, that debris from WTC1/2 did not start a fire. Are we ef'ing clear yet? I am not saying the firefighters are lying, obviously many saw fires "inside" WTC7. Have any NYFD said the fires were caused by failing debris, no, not that I remember seeing or hearing.

Therefore, any fires existing within the building by what information is available, must have been deliberately set as an afterthought (or part of the plan) to insure there was a reason that the building had to be "pulled" (demolished - as stated on TV) right away using standard drop-in-footprint procedures. However, it takes weeks if not months to perform a demolition on a building that size, which would seem to indicate that the entire process, the "attacks" were premeditated and set up way ahead of time. Anything else is simply beyond belief. As far as I am aware, a steel building has never collapsed and fallen due to a fire, so were the WTC towers constructed using the same shoddy workmanship that they would fall due to localized fires burning at less than 1/2 the melting temperature of iron?

Which brings me to WTC 1&2. Seriously, at least 200 trillion to 1 odds that two buildings, with slightly different materials (they were the same but not identical), one with a tower mast and one without (extra weight), each with different occupancy levels and furniture creating weight and pivot point differences, being hit by planes at two different heights in two different locations at two different times, dropped the same way under two different atmospheric temperatures and wind conditions, into basically their own footprints at almost free fall speeds. Please, they were all pulled, as far as I am concerned the government OS is a blatant lie.

BTW, free fall drop speed with no resistance other than air at 1368 feet would be, off the top of my head, about 9.4 seconds. That would be 33'/sec/sec for 3 seconds in the first 198 feet and 6.4 seconds for the balance of 1170 feet at roughly 188 feet per second or ~128mph (free fall maximum from rest). No pancaking of concrete slabs, no beams or posts in the way, just air, which is quite different from the real-life scenario of "everything" in the way on the way down. Think about this rationally for a second, WTC 1 and 2 came down at about 11 to 12 floors per second!

LaMont-Doherty's data show that the two waveforms for the collapses were similar but of different duration. The duration of the seismic signal for the collapse of World Trade Center 2, which fell first, was 8 seconds. The duration for WTC1 was 10 seconds.

One source says that the 9/11 panel used 10 seconds for WTC2 but that NIST later revised the estimate to 12 seconds. The FBI's estimates of the fall times are not generally available.

Now, what's wrong with this picture? Free fall is 9.4 seconds from 1368 feet, but one tower drops faster than free fall and the other less than a second over free fall (using seismic data) and then the NIST revises because they made a 20% error. Boy you can rely on them eh? Similarly, there is a problem with the WTC7 collapse speed. WTC7 free fall speeds would be about 6 seconds, the actual visual collapse timed is about 7 seconds, so about 15% longer than free fall speeds. A tad fast, but possible in a controlled demolition where the columns on each floor are blown to facilitate low resistance pancaking. But the seismic data allegedly shows about 18 seconds, which is more in line with a 571 foot tall building with column resistance.

You know, I may have been born at night, but is wasn't last night. So, hopefully you can stop carrying on about the NYFD now and stop trying to change what I said into something I didn't say.

Cheers - Dave

Makes me giddy how every truther is somehow an expert on physics and engineering. Because of YouTube, lol...

Whatever you say;-) I've just worked for the government, military, universities, Ontario Research, the NRC, private engineering firms, etc., as a project manager, engineer or R&D manager for only about 40 years. Nothing special, lots of people have similar experience. But believe what you want if it helps you sleep at night.

Cheers - Dave

originally posted by: jaffo
Makes me giddy how every truther is somehow an expert on physics and engineering.

Talking about experts in physics and youtube.........



LOL!!

originally posted by: jaffo
Makes me giddy how every truther is somehow an expert on physics and engineering.

Talking about experts in physics and youtube.........



LOL!!

Still wondering why the fact that people in other Countries were lazy about following the entire story even remotely is supposed to "prove" that there was a conspiracy as to 9/11. What is the logic there, exactly? Does my ignorance of a terrorist act in a Country other than the US somehow go to show that there is a conspiracy afoot with regard to said act? Of course not, it just shows that I don't know the whole story. This whole thread is yet another truther fail.

originally posted by: jaffo
"prove" that there was a conspiracy as to 9/11.

Of course the was a conspiracy to 9/11. No one disagrees on that. LOL!

The US government published their official conspiracy theory.

But some of the top physicists in the world believe that the laws of physics were broken on that day. Which naturally means there should be a new investigation.

Your post is yet another falser fail.

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Semicollegiate

You might want to do some more reading on her site. Maybe look for where she thought they would have been based.

"Beam weapons from space" is still a willfully inaccurate or ignorant way to describe Dr. Wood's theory. Space is as good a place as any. No reason to assume that they could not be in space.

The important part of the theory is that something affects steel and concrete like microwaves affect water. The energy effect might be from a unique combination of frequencies of electromagnetic radiation that interferes with the normal electrical molecular bonding states of the target molecules. A complex enough interference pattern could put spikes of energy where energy is always absent. The interference pattern also aims the weapon, in that the effect would only occur where all signals intersected. The emitters could be put in any number of spatial arrangements as long as the intersection of their fields was at the target. And the effect could be more like a catalyst than a knife, requiring very little energy once the proper wave form was established.

From the standpoint of an interference pattern any EMR could be useful, even the ubiquitous background cell tower and media broadcast signals.

That's what has been said on the tin,

not only that the theory would be complete, start to finish as an explanation of the total collapse of the towers. That is not to say that I am convinced that is what happened, but nonetheless, it is a complete hypothesis.
Compare that to what the NIST came up with, it's report only attempts to make a case for 'collapse initiation', with the assumption that a total collapse followed...AKA bad science and even ignore, like here, the story of Kevin Ryan, who worked at Underwriter Laboratories, the company that certified the WTC steel before its construction. Ryan was fired in 2004 for emailing the deputy chief of NIST’s metallurgy division, telling him that the tests UL was commissioned to carry out indicated that “the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel.” NIST’s metallurgical tests at that time suggested that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of about 250°C. Ryan was dispensed with for pointing out that the new NIST report seemed to ignore these findings, as it asserted that temperatures caused the steel to “soften and buckle”....AKA ignore.
There's much more, the molten metal dripping down the South tower is....molten metal, while all NIST required for a collapse initiation was a little softening of the steel, and 'puny' outriggers for the floors, but yet you see molten metal dripping down before a total collapse. Now that metal could well have been something other than steel, but it still means there were high temperatures involved that are not part of the NIST report...aka ignore. That report should have been kicked out of touch from the outset because it made a presumption first off based on ignoring stuff that got in the way, and all the pretty pictures and graphics mean nothing if there was stuff going on that they ignored.
It got a bit stiffer with WTC7, so they did even more sophisticated pretty pictures and graphics for that model and fecked that up too, by having to revise for the partial free-fall speed, then cocked up the whole WTC analysis by saying there was no molten metal flowing at the base of the twin towers site. Having got $10M for the WTC7 report alone, I can say though that the NIST are good businessmen, a London Cabbie has...needs to have, more objectivity that they.

I don't know enough physics to say anything with certainty. Wood's theory is possible at least. All other theories ignore something.

Dr. Wood's presentation is getting better, more understandable. vimeo.com...

originally posted by: Debunkology

originally posted by: jaffo
Makes me giddy how every truther is somehow an expert on physics and engineering.

Talking about experts in physics and youtube.........

LOL!!

By 2:25 they make the claim that the Towers fell due to fire alone that was NEVER CLAIMED and that NEVER HAPPENED DID IT!!!!

They can't even understand what they see never mind physics and they don't have a clue about structures and how loads are supported and resisted !!!!!

originally posted by: Debunkology

originally posted by: jaffo
"prove" that there was a conspiracy as to 9/11.

Of course the was a conspiracy to 9/11. No one disagrees on that. LOL!

The US government published their official conspiracy theory.

But some of the top physicists in the world believe that the laws of physics were broken on that day. Which naturally means there should be a new investigation.

Your post is yet another falser fail.

Actually, lots of people "disagree" about that. And by "disagree" I actually mean that they think truthers are delusional at best and deliberately dishonest at worst. You misquoted me to try and make your point. Gee...what camp does that put you in?

originally posted by: jaffo

Actually, lots of people "disagree" about that. And by "disagree" I actually mean that they think truthers are delusional at best and deliberately dishonest at worst. You misquoted me to try and make your point.

Actually, lot's of people agree about that. And by agree. I actually mean that they think falsers are delusional at best and deliberately dishonest at worse. I quoted you directly and made my point.

LOL, see what I did there? It's easy to make blanket statements that have no real meaning. A constant theme throughout this thread by the "falsers" like yourself.

Endless worthless statements that are just pure crap.

The only weapon falsers have.

That is apart from character assassination, discredting legitimate people, whether they be ex US servicemen, army generals, marines, firefighters, police, architects, pilots, engineers, demolition experts, top physicist etc etc Who genuinely question the official conspiracy theory. (Another constant theme throughout this thread by the "falsers" like yourself.

Yes. It's also very easy to pigeonhole people with labels like "truther" or "falser". But when we pigeonhole both, then the information becomes key. No matter what drivel you come up with. You cannot change the fact that Building 7 collapsed in such a way, that only controlled demolition can be the explanation for it's collapse, and that is why NOT ONE top physicist in the world was willing to debate Dr L. Griscom to defend the official conspiracy theory.

originally posted by: Debunkology

originally posted by: jaffo

Actually, lots of people "disagree" about that. And by "disagree" I actually mean that they think truthers are delusional at best and deliberately dishonest at worst. You misquoted me to try and make your point.

Actually, lot's of people agree about that. And by agree. I actually mean that they think falsers are delusional at best and deliberately dishonest at worse. I quoted you directly and made my point.

LOL, see what I did there? It's easy to make blanket statements that have no real meaning. A constant theme throughout this thread by the "falsers" like yourself.

Endless worthless statements that are just pure crap.

The only weapon falsers have.

That is apart from character assassination, discredting legitimate people, whether they be ex US servicemen, army generals, marines, firefighters, police, architects, pilots, engineers, demolition experts, top physicist etc etc Who genuinely question the official conspiracy theory. (Another constant theme throughout this thread by the "falsers" like yourself.

Yes. It's also very easy to pigeonhole people with labels like "truther" or "falser". But when we pigeonhole both, then the information becomes key. No matter what drivel you come up with. You cannot change the fact that Building 7 collapsed in such a way, that only controlled demolition can be the explanation for it's collapse, and that is why NOT ONE top physicist in the world was willing to debate Dr L. Griscom to defend the official conspiracy theory.

No one is willing to debate him because there is no debate. You have had it explained to you over and over as to why Building 7 came down. You simply choose to ignore the reality of why the event occurred. And yes, you absolutely misquoted me. And now you have refused to admit that you did so. Hmmm...there's a term for that, isn't there?

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Semicollegiate

You might want to do some more reading on her site. Maybe look for where she thought they would have been based.

"Beam weapons from space" is still a willfully inaccurate or ignorant way to describe Dr. Wood's theory. Space is as good a place as any. No reason to assume that they could not be in space.

The important part of the theory is that something affects steel and concrete like microwaves affect water. The energy effect might be from a unique combination of frequencies of electromagnetic radiation that interferes with the normal electrical molecular bonding states of the target molecules. A complex enough interference pattern could put spikes of energy where energy is always absent. The interference pattern also aims the weapon, in that the effect would only occur where all signals intersected. The emitters could be put in any number of spatial arrangements as long as the intersection of their fields was at the target. And the effect could be more like a catalyst than a knife, requiring very little energy once the proper wave form was established.

From the standpoint of an interference pattern any EMR could be useful, even the ubiquitous background cell tower and media broadcast signals.

That's what has been said on the tin,

not only that the theory would be complete, start to finish as an explanation of the total collapse of the towers. That is not to say that I am convinced that is what happened, but nonetheless, it is a complete hypothesis.
Compare that to what the NIST came up with, it's report only attempts to make a case for 'collapse initiation', with the assumption that a total collapse followed...AKA bad science and even ignore, like here, the story of Kevin Ryan, who worked at Underwriter Laboratories, the company that certified the WTC steel before its construction. Ryan was fired in 2004 for emailing the deputy chief of NIST’s metallurgy division, telling him that the tests UL was commissioned to carry out indicated that “the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel.” NIST’s metallurgical tests at that time suggested that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of about 250°C. Ryan was dispensed with for pointing out that the new NIST report seemed to ignore these findings, as it asserted that temperatures caused the steel to “soften and buckle”....AKA ignore.
There's much more, the molten metal dripping down the South tower is....molten metal, while all NIST required for a collapse initiation was a little softening of the steel, and 'puny' outriggers for the floors, but yet you see molten metal dripping down before a total collapse. Now that metal could well have been something other than steel, but it still means there were high temperatures involved that are not part of the NIST report...aka ignore. That report should have been kicked out of touch from the outset because it made a presumption first off based on ignoring stuff that got in the way, and all the pretty pictures and graphics mean nothing if there was stuff going on that they ignored.
It got a bit stiffer with WTC7, so they did even more sophisticated pretty pictures and graphics for that model and fecked that up too, by having to revise for the partial free-fall speed, then cocked up the whole WTC analysis by saying there was no molten metal flowing at the base of the twin towers site. Having got $10M for the WTC7 report alone, I can say though that the NIST are good businessmen, a London Cabbie has...needs to have, more objectivity that they.

I don't know enough physics to say anything with certainty. Wood's theory is possible at least. All other theories ignore something.

Dr. Wood's presentation is getting better, more understandable. vimeo.com...

And it is very suspicious that most people wont even consider Dr. Wood's theory enough to discuss it. Like everybody knows high energy physics and material science.



Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.

H. L. Mencken

www.brainyquote.com...

originally posted by: jaffo
Still wondering why the fact that people in other Countries were lazy about following the entire story even remotely is supposed to "prove" that there was a conspiracy as to 9/11.

lol. My point was that "of course there was a conspiracy as to 9/11". Whether I quoted you longer is neither here or there.

originally posted by: jaffo
No one is willing to debate him because there is no debate. You have had it explained to you over and over as to why Building 7 came down. You simply choose to ignore the reality of why the event occurred.

Another blanket statement that means absolutely nothing.

Not one top physicist was willing to debate one of the worlds top pysicists to defend the official conspiracy theory. That is what happened. Fact.

You simply choose to ignore the reality of the laws of physics.

a reply to: Debunkology

Thank You.

Rebel 5

originally posted by: Debunkology
Not one top physicist was willing to debate one of the worlds top pysicists to defend the official conspiracy theory.

What experience do "top physicists" have on building construction, fires, building damage and demolition?

None at all.

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: Debunkology
Not one top physicist was willing to debate one of the worlds top pysicists to defend the official conspiracy theory.

What experience do "top physicists" have on building construction, fires, building damage and demolition?

None at all.

Yes and within the first 2:25 of the video the Towers were brought down by fire alone according to the narration,they can't even seem to SEE what happened so how can the even talk about the physics!