Richard Gage Debates a Member of International Association of Bomb Technicians and Investigators

reply to post by dionysius9


Neat drawing... the towers did NOT collapse at free fall speed. This has been determined by both sides for years now.

If I'm mistaken about the time of collapse, then what has it been determined to be?

I don't see how anything less than 30-90 seconds is possible without explosives.

reply to post by dionysius9





Puuuure Strawman......So I gues you believe in the clunkity clunk, clunkity clunk, clunkity clunk broad's explanation? ......drjudywood.com... is so flawed it stinks. Her cute little example of transfer of momentum sucks. A better way to explain it would be to drop those balls down a tube, since the floors FELL, not swung back and forth........ But since CTerz like youtube videos so much, here's a video of the actual time it took both towers to collapse. You can do this at home too, with all the various videos you might have. 15 and 22 seconds is the true time it took. www.youtube.com... As a side note, does anyone hear the pop pop pop pop pop pop pop of demolition explosions that one ALWAYS hears during a controlled demolition?

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
reply to post by dionysius9

 

Neat drawing... the towers did NOT collapse at free fall speed. This has been determined by both sides for years now.

Really.! You mean you like to keep telling people fasle information and saying its fact. both video and seismic data shows they came down in near freefall speeds of aprox 10seconds.

i already know your going to say there came down in near double that....

[edit on 15-11-2007 by Matthew5012]

reply to post by bsbray11


So it's impossible for the entire "top" of the tower to collapse together?........ Go here : drjudywood.com... there's a GIF she uses about 20% down the page that shows the top block moving down as a unit. There's also tons of complete videos that show this, so you can take your pick of those also. Review these and get back to me about whether or not that statement is still true......... And regarding Greenings paper, you keep moving the goalposts there. First you asked for something with some enrgy calcs, etc. Now you say it doesn't include "geometry" in it's calcs AND insinuate that he's working backwards from the collapse time, when no such evidence is in sight. In fact, he gives 3 sources for his calcs, explains their possible shortcomings, and explains why he has confidence in his numbers cuz they agree when he uses the differing sources. I don't know how you feel about it, but it shows good scientific methodology to admit weaknesses in your theory, so go ahead and rip it apart all you want. Cuz when you start talking about "geometry" and "the impossibility of the top section of floors falling as a unit". and then be shown wrong about the whole "top section" thing with clear video evidence, it's very telling.....

reply to post by Matthew5012

Ok, figured out how to insert a you tube for my prior post. I hope

Originally posted by Haroki
So it's impossible for the entire "top" of the tower to collapse together?

Instantaneously from the start, with "pancake theory," yes.

Only one floor can begin to fall at a time, and even that is an assumption, because each floor consisted of many complicated parts.

There's also tons of complete videos that show this, so you can take your pick of those also.

You're watching a building being demolished. The columns are cut simultaneously, everything falls at once. That's not a pancake collapse, where only one floor comes lose and falls onto the next, etc.

Review these and get back to me

Here you go!

And regarding Greenings paper, you keep moving the goalposts there. First you asked for something with some enrgy calcs, etc. Now you say it doesn't include "geometry" in it's calcs AND insinuate that he's working backwards from the collapse time

I'm not moving the goal post, you just never gave me what I asked for. If I ask for figures, and you give me wrong figures (or in this case, figures that are not supported by any kind of math or science), I'm not going to shut up.

I went through the figures he put in his paper, none of them were calculated or derived in any way, they were all just baldly asserted with nothing to justify them. Working backwards from watching the collapse only gives you figures for a demolition, not a theoretical working model for how the collapse happened. I explained this in the last post.

In fact, he gives 3 sources for his calcs

I'm beginning to suspect you didn't read/think about my last post at all.

explains their possible shortcomings

"Possible shortcoming" = the numbers were completely made up and irrelevant.

Calculations for what I was asking for? (And NOT working from collapse observations, the system you are trying to INDEPENDENTLY EXPLAIN!)

Cuz when you start talking about "geometry" and "the impossibility of the top section of floors falling as a unit". and then be shown wrong about the whole "top section" thing with clear video evidence, it's very telling.....

I know what the collapses look like. The model you have in your head doesn't fit it. That's my point.

So basically we agree, don't we?

Originally posted by bsbray11
(And NOT working from collapse observations, the system you are trying to INDEPENDENTLY EXPLAIN!)

I want to show the problem I'm pointing out here with an analogy:

Say you take a bird in your hand (to mimic an old story), and tell someone you have a stone. Then you "throw" it, and it goes, and goes, and goes....

Your friend says, "That's impossible, that wasn't a rock, or else you couldn't have done that."

You say, "No, it's possible, and I'll prove it."

You then whip out a video recording of you "throwing" the bird, and take a measurement of the speed the bird comes away with.

The speed of the bird is consistent with how far it ended up going, therefore you assert that what you have done is completely possible. Mostly because you measured something illogical. You should have measured the force your arm was actually applying to the bird. That would have been the relevant figure, because it would then be showed that additional energy came from the bird itself.


When you reference the actual collapses to show that there wasn't any resistance to the falling mass, imagine you're doing this for an actual demolition. It doesn't work. Explosives are providing extra energy that you haven't considered in your model. You have to assume that what you're saying (the building was falling on its own) is already shown to be correct for the problem to work out logically, but that's what you were trying to do in the first place! So it's like a kind of logical feedback that negates the point of the whole thing. You want independent verification, not verification dependent upon what you think you saw.

reply to post by Haroki



and yet, the 911 comission and FEMA said 8 and 10 seconds for the collapse times.
why? seismic traces are 8 and 10 seconds is why.
so why does a building that ids crashing to the ground for 15 seconds leave an 8 sec siesmic trace, and one that takes 22 seconds leave a ten second trace?
because BOMBS are causing the siesmic waves, NOT building debris.
time the landmark demolition. it's a much smaller building, but takes over 10 seconds to fall.
controlled demolitions do not necessarily happen at freefall accelerations, either.
although, the curtain walls(and beams) of wtc7 DID fall at very near freefall(in a vacuum) acceleration.

although i love rosie for standing up, no ONE PERSON "represents" the "truth movement". my "best friends" like bsbray, griff, and others DO NOT AGREE on HARDLY ANYTHING, except that there is something rotten in denmark, because steel frame buildings do not collapse like that. to see how they DO collapse from fire, watch the windsor tower burn in madrid.

or perhaps, burning man.

reply to post by billybob


www.911myths.com...

please watch that video. I'm not sure if it's on Youtube, but please tell me how long the video is. It is the collapse Of WTC2

Please look at the seismic data:

www.ldeo.columbia.edu...

The collapse was more than the 8 seconds.

Billybob, can you please describe how the Windsor tower was constructed? And please explain the upgrades that were done on the building, and please continue to explain the effects these upgrades had on the fire and the collapse. If you can't, I can help.

The building totalled 32 storeys, with 29 floors above ground and three below. A concrete core and concrete frame supported the first 16 floors. Above that was a central support system of concrete columns, supporting concrete floors with steel perimeter columns. An additional feature was the presence of two 'technical floors' - concrete floors designed to give the building more strength. One was just above the ground level and the other at the 17th floor.

www.concretecentre.com...

The steel columns above the 17th floor suffered complete collapse, partially coming to rest on the upper technical floor.

www.concretecentre.com...

An investigation is underway between Spanish technical agency Intemac and UK authorities including Arup Fire, the University of Edinburgh and the concrete industry including Cembureau, BCA and The Concrete Centre. Preliminary findings suggest that a combination of the upper technical floor and the excellent passive fire resistance of the tower's concrete columns and core prevented total building collapse

The fire is significant in terms of its potential similarities between the collapse of the building's steel frame above the 17th floor and the experience seen at the World Trade Center. Notably, one of the recommendations of NIST's interim report on the World Trade Center disaster is for tall building design to incorporate 'strong points' within the frame.

www.concretecentre.com...

Dr. Pal Chana of the British Cement Association demonstrated the relative likelihood of floor collapse in a steel versus concrete framed building, using the vivid example of the Madrid Windsor Tower fire which raged over 26 hours on 14-15 February 2005. This former landmark office block of 30 storeys featured a concrete core throughout, but with concrete columns up to the 21st floor and steel columns between the 22nd and 30th floors. Remarkably, despite the intensity and duration of the fire, the concrete floors and columns remained intact however, the steel supported floors above the 21st floor collapsed, leaving the concrete core in-situ and exposed.

www.concretefireforum.org.uk...




The video I posted is the one above... sorry

[edit on 15-11-2007 by CaptainObvious]

reply to post by billybob


Hey, lookie here, we've got a CTer admitting that the towers didn't actually fall in 8 or 10 seconds. Is it clear now that you've been misled about that?.......

........ Just think - how much more have you been misled about? Your seismic argument is inconclusive at best, and in reality.... garbage.

Originally posted by Haroki


Hey, lookie here, we've got a CTer admitting that the towers didn't actually fall in 8 or 10 seconds. Is it clear now that you've been misled about that?.......

........ Just think - how much more have you been misled about? Your seismic argument is inconclusive at best, and in reality.... garbage.

says you.
na, na, na nana.

okay, maybe we can grow up, now. i'll do the misleading around here, if you don't mind.

the 911 commission's official report states 8 and 10 seconds falltimes, so don't tell me it's "CT's" that are misleading the public.

in truth, the seismic traces REALLY ARE 8 and 10 seconds, so, not only is the 911 (c)ommission's report garbage, BUT, there is a discrepancy between actual fall times, and ground shake times which has NEVER been explained physically.

oki doki, haroki? daijobu? wakata?

you might want to peruse my "faster than freefall" thread, if you would like to be further "mislead" by me. link to thread

reply to post by billybob


BB ~

I am not saying you are lying...but can you link me to those reports?

Thanks dude ~

CO

reply to post by bsbray11


You're the one starting with a theory - controlled demolition - and the proof for you is the 15 and 22 second fall time, which you say is too fast. And the proof it is too fast - is because there's controlled demolition. That's circular logic. 2 theories can't prove each other. But what I can tell, you're getting your ideas about how fast they should fall from Dr Woods. .... There's a problem with her calcs too, ya know. And if you really are as smart as you seem to be, you'd have figured that out. But since you haven't seen it yet (?), here's the problem: As the floors fall - in her model, she uses a pendulum or billiard balls to demonstrate visually - when they impact, the floors come to a complete halt - like in the pendulum - and the energy is transferred to the other balls. If you believe this, then you would have to believe that when the weight of the top, say, 80 floors impact the 30th floor, everything comes to a stop momentarily, and re-accelerates from zero fps to impact the 29th floor. Surely you don't believe that the strength of ONE floor assembly (think of the strength of the floor/column connections designed to hold up ONE floor's weight ) would be able to slow up the fall, do you? Think about momentum and its' effect before you do........... Your arguments about how "pancaking" is only valid if the collapse begins on the first floor, which we can all agree it didn't. Go here: wtc.nist.gov... ....... and scroll down to page 27. It gives a very detailed explanation about load transfer through the hat truss, thermal lengthening/shortening of various pieces of that complicated building. That expains WHY, and how, once the limits of the buildings ability to transfer load - the secret why it was initially able to stand the plane impacts - global collapse initiated, resulting in 25-odd floors impacting the floor below. Cuz with that amount of monentum - remember that one - I think the load bearing ability of a single floor, which is what I believe you have been asking for, -apparently, even though those calcs are available - you'll see why Dr Green's calcs are now valid. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts.....





[edit on 15-11-2007 by Haroki]

Originally posted by Haroki
So it's impossible for the entire "top" of the tower to collapse together?........ Go here : drjudywood.com...

Cuz when you start talking about "geometry" and "the impossibility of the top section of floors falling as a unit". and then be shown wrong about the whole "top section" thing with clear video evidence, it's very telling.....

I don't know where to begin.

First, the "block" would not be an entire block of building. BsBray is correct in all he is saying.

Second, you obviously don't know what moment of inertia is. It is calculated by the "geometry" of the member you're calculating it for. So, your sarcastic remarks to BsBray only show your own ignorance of the subject.

BTW, BsBray is an engineering student.

I broke up your quote so I didn't get warned for an excessive quote.

reply to post by Griff


Griff! About time you chimed in here. Did you get a chance to listen to the debate? I'm interested in your thoughts on it.

CO

Originally posted by Haroki
Hey, lookie here, we've got a CTer admitting that the towers didn't actually fall in 8 or 10 seconds. Is it clear now that you've been misled about that?.......

Yes, mislead. But by whom? Since the official story was the first to quote the 8 and 10 seconds (and still haven't retracted those statements) that would be your beloved conspiracy theory (the official theory).

........ Just think - how much more have you been misled about? Your seismic argument is inconclusive at best, and in reality.... garbage.

Yes, how much more HAVE we been mislead about? That's what we are trying to figure out. Not blindly following some convoluted theory no matter what evidence (while circumstancial) there is to refute it

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Griff! About time you chimed in here. Did you get a chance to listen to the debate? I'm interested in your thoughts on it.

I actually don't know when I can get a chance to listen to it. I'm very busy at work (which I can't listen to it anyway there). I may tonight if I get a chance.

reply to post by billybob

HAHAHA...... Well, I'd agree with you and say that FEMA/911C are misleading. And so are you !!!!!

Ok, ok, I'll tell you why the seismic trace is shorter than the actual fall. You've only seen a compressed trace of the event. When you use that, it indeed appears that the biggest jolts were at the initiation of the event, and that's where you've been misled. Now, look the uncompressed traces. Let's use just the first collapse (WTC2) only for clarity here, ok? www.ldeo.columbia.edu... .......There are a few small squiggles at about 7-8 seconds on the time line, gradually getting bigger over the next few seconds. Before that, it's pretty much flat - no seismic activity, agree? The small squiggles are caused by the collapsing tower tranferring the sound energy/vibrations into the ground, but BEFORE any pieces started hitting the ground. We hear this on the various videos around as the rumbling sounds. The "small squiggle" part lasts about 7-8 seconds before the bigger traces start at around 15 second on the time line. Does 8-9 seconds sound familiar? Wow, it's the rate of - ready for this - free fall rate of speed!!!! That's how long it took for the stripped off exterior columns to hit the ground....... So now, we see the REALLY big hits beginning at around 15 second on the timeline, and these last for another what, 9-11 seconds, and then taper off as the remaining pieces - presumably the core structures we can see as pointed out in my debunking Rosie video, ha ha - crumble to the ground. This "crumble" period lasts for another 15 seconds or so. Anyways, that's as far as the trace runs. SO look at the uncompressed trace again. The big traces definitely DO NOT come at the beginning, but rather are dispersed throughout the middle period. So that says that demolition charges didn't preceed the initiation of the collapse. ok?

[edit on 15-11-2007 by Haroki]

No link,let me figure this out...

[edit on 15-11-2007 by Haroki]