Debunk this 9/11 conspiracy fact and I quit ATS - WTC7: perpetual motion scam and the easy physics

reply to post by Alfie1


Yes, I agreed that there is a discrepancy on what they would have actually considered with the fires. And since there is no documentation of the actual calculations we can only rely only on the credibility of what has been said. I pointed out how Robertson has been refuted by a document which was discovered which calls his credibility into question. I suppose my standards of evidence are just more stringent than yours. No big deal, you can believe what you want, just as long as you allow others to believe what they want.

But you seem to believe that the precedence of only the conditions of the Empire State crash would have entered their minds, but I believe these peope were highly creative and intelligent people that would easily have envisioned other scenarios, not just what was most "plausible."

But I looked more into this by looking at what NIST gave as sources for the fire claims in their footnote and I came up with this www.booknoise.net... This is the quote from Robertson I think NIST relied on:

"He also designed the buildings so they would be able to absorb the impact of a jet airliner: "I'm sort of a methodical person, so I listed all the bad things that could happen to a building and tried to design for them. I thought of the B-25 bomber, lost in the fog, that hit the Empire State Building in 1945. The 707 was the state-of-the-art airplane then, and the Port Authority was quite amenable to considering the effect of an airplane as a design criterion. We studied it, and designed for the impact of such an aircraft. The next step would have been to think about the fuel load, and I've been searching my brain, but I don't know what happened there, whether in all our testing we thought about it. Now we know what happens--it explodes. I don't know if we considered the fire damage that would cause. Anyway, the architect, not the engineer, is the one who specifies the fire system."

So they reference a quote made by Robertson that includes "I don't know what happened there" and "I don't know if we considered the fire damage" and "Anyway, the architect, not the engineer, is the one who specifies the fire system."

So Robertson admits he doesn't remember and even absolves himself of the responsibility of even studying the fires, and yet NIST uses this as their basis for their contention there was another view?!?!?!?!!?

MY interpretation from the quote is the old man just does not know. That's not another view. That's an admission that he DOES NOT KNOW. End of story.

I believe my standards of evidence is even more stringent than NIST's as I would never have allowed that into the report.

Edited to get my quotation ducks in a row.
Edited again to fix link.

[edit on 7-3-2010 by NIcon]

[edit on 7-3-2010 by NIcon]

reply to post by weedwhacker

The claim of "free-fall" is one of the most misleading....once the internal structure was compromised, and as we can't see the events inside, once that was nearly gone, of COURSE the rest would fall due to gravity, at the speeds due to gravity.

No it could never happen that way according to the experts. It would at most fall towards the damage not through itself. It could possibly have a partial collapse or it might fall over never straight down through the supports. Their is not 1 example of this ever happening before to a steel -concrete building. No way. Nada.

And it was announced to have fallen before it actually did from several major News Channels? Explosions. With a countdown according to a witness? Ha Ha Ha.

reply to post by Doctor Smith

With a countdown according to a witness?

Source for this? Or else, it's like I said earlier --- salon talk while sitting under the hairdryers.


Here, the old Stardust Hotel in Las Vegas. I did the research for you, you can do the math.

This is a well-known and undeniable CD, am I correct?

The hotel was 109m tall, total of 32 floors (above ground)
en.structurae.net...

Watch, and time the sequence of its CD, please. Compare as best you can to WTC 7.

Please also take note of the timing of the cutting charges, and take the time-lag into consideration.

Just because certain key structural points are destroyed doesn't mean that EVERY point is. Lots of energy is still needed to break other connecting points, using gravity as the force and method, even in a CD. It is much the same in a progressive uncontrolled and unplanned collapse due to severe structural damage.




If Spock were here, he'd say "It's only logical."

reply to post by weedwhacker

Source for this? Or else, it's like I said earlier --- salon talk while sitting under the hairdryers.

Know how to google? I don't see any significance of the Stardust Demolition. Their are different ways of taking a building down. Molten Iron in the basements? Too many unexplainable events.

www.youtube.com...

911research.wtc7.net...

reply to post by Doctor Smith

Molten Iron in the basements?

Not that again (I assume you mean 'steel'?)

Lots of different metals existed inside those buildings, and even in the basements. Know what were in the basements? Cars. It was the parking garage. Many modern cars have aluminum engine blocks, nowadays. Aluminium melts pretty easily, comparatively. So might copper (haven't looked it up). You know, electrical wiring, and stuff. Just to name two metals.

reply to post by Doctor Smith


Yes, no need to be snarky about "how to google"!!!

Poor.

I've read '911research' (site you linked) a lot. Seems those who want to ONLY believe the conspiracies pick and choose the info in there. Or, don't read it critically, not sure which.

Look, took me less than a minute, and this jumped out at me, since your link went directly to this page:

A report by Waste Age describes New York Sanitation Department workers moving "everything from molten steel beams to human remains."

Now....does that, or does that not sound like a bit of dramatic effect?

First, a "molten steel beam"? Ummmm, maybe there're a few things I don't know about steel, and beams, but I do understand the word "molten", and I take that to imply "liquid". I don't think I've ever seen any "liquid beams."

( Unless it's 'sunshine and happiness and rainbows.... )

AND, just what equipment does the NYC Sanitation Department use to move "molten steel beams", anyway???

Inquiring minds want to know.

reply to post by Doctor Smith


Now, I'll 'see' your UTube video, and raise you one:

Yours----

www.youtube.com...


Mine----

reply to post by weedwhacker



This video has names, details etc and can be verified. Your video is a guilt by association technique. Some one else made a similar claim so all must be fraud.

www.livevideo.com...

reply to post by Doctor Smith


You got a pet starrer??

Nevermind....tried watching the liveleak vid, had buffering issues, so I'm letting it sit and stew, will go back to it in a sec.

Meanwhile, as I stuttered thru, got this much --- same story, different interviewer! (Sounds a bilt like Alex Jones??? NOw, that would be no surprise...)

At about 13:30, his story of the 'countdown' just doesn't hold. Listen again. Perhaps you will see my point. Sounds like he's convinced himself of this, well after the fact, and enjoys being the center of attention.

At about 12:54 he laments about "everyone being wasted"> Doesn't he know that no one was killed in the WTC 7 collapse?

I'll try to watch, I'm sure I'll have more notes.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ETA...OK, Doctor, had about as much as I can take, do I have to waste my time to watch that bozo through the rest, and Part 2?!?!

At 11:25 his stunningly stupid sentence "There are no such things as coincidences" almost made me spit up my beverage!

Then, he goes off on this long-winded story about the Stuyvesant Building, and when he started to congratualte himself on his "heroics", that was all I could stomach.

Thanks, but no thanks. Unless he provides something of substance, and other witnesses to support him, he's a nobody seeking his 15 minutes --- and those were up a long time ago.







[edit on 7 March 2010 by weedwhacker]

Has anyone tried to sue Larry S. for anything due to the WTC 7 causing any kind of damage to buildings around its footprint?

Exclude all other areas except that directly around 7 that would have been shielded property from 1&2. If you can prove that damage occurred because of 7 directly falling on or around other properties would there not be a civil case there? And if so, you already have all of the proof you need to convict Larry S. for intentially blowing up his own building. You have him on tape admitting giving the order to pull the building.

Catastrophic colateral damage due to an intentional act of self sabotage and insurance fraud!!!!!

Can this be done?

Eye of Eagle

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Doctor Smith

 

You got a pet starrer??

Care to explain why any of those posts did not deserve my stars? I take a little personal offense.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Doctor Smith

 

Molten Iron in the basements?

Not that again (I assume you mean 'steel'?)

Lots of different metals existed inside those buildings, and even in the basements. Know what were in the basements? Cars. It was the parking garage. Many modern cars have aluminum engine blocks, nowadays. Aluminium melts pretty easily, comparatively. So might copper (haven't looked it up). You know, electrical wiring, and stuff. Just to name two metals.

Weedy, would you agree that evidence of molten concrete would suffice? It takes far more heat to melt concrete than steel so if we had evidence of molten concrete, would you agree that is serious in itself as well as making the case that there would be molten steel as any steel subjected to that kind of heat would have been melted? Please try to answer without getting combative as I am not looking to go round and round in arguments. Simple questions for you.

reply to post by weedwhacker

Doctor, a heck of a lot of stuff was going on INSIDE the building, in the seconds before you begin to see the initial large movement, which would be the penthouse. Consistent with this theory, news footage shows cracking and bowing of the building's east wall immediately before the collapse, which began at the penthouse floors. In video of the collapse, taken from the north by CBS News and other news media, the first visible sign of collapse is movement in the east penthouse 8.2 seconds before the north wall began to collapse, which took at least another 7 seconds. The working hypothesis, released in the June 2004 progress report and reiterated in a June 2007 status update, was that an initial failure in a critical column occurred below the 13th floor, caused by damage from fire and/or debris from the collapse of the two main towers. The collapse progressed vertically up to the east mechanical penthouse. The interior structure was unable to handle the redistributed load, resulting in horizontal progression of the failure across lower floors, particularly the 5th to 7th floors. This resulted in "a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure."

Sorry buddy boy. You don't have any proof that it happened that way. All the available films that I've seen show a classical implosion.

It's simply an improbable theory they were forced to make up. Attempting to explain how that steel frame building could actually collapsed in its own foot print. See. They had to make up a theory to fit what they were told happened. comprehendo?


[edit on 7-3-2010 by Doctor Smith]

reply to post by Doctor Smith

All the available films that I've seen show a classical implosion.

Took me a while to learn how to use BB codes, too...

I say this because what looks like "my" quote, in yourpost, is only partially written by me. Rest is from (and I properly attributed it ) Wikipedia. That was just one source, easiset to find in a hurry. I'm sure there are many others.

BUT, if the only "investigation" someone wishes to engage in is based on UTube videos, well....may I will give you a 'star', too...I'll be your personal 'star fairy'!

But, really --- to say that the 'be all and end all' evidence is from the exterior videos is patently absurd, sorry. There do exist people, like engineers and investigators, who could examine the wreckage, after the fact, and draw conclusions that you aren't directly privvy to, but that contributed to the findings! I'm sure their results and findings are published, but likely in language that you (nor I) would read, easily...since it would be in very technical language. Yet, that's the problem, innit???

How difficult is that to understand?

reply to post by weedwhacker


Weedwhacker, I have noticed a trend on these boards with a few people such as yourself. You seem to completely ignore anything that you do not have your ready made talking point replies for.

The only reason I would even ask you a question is because I have taken you at your word that you are interested in the truth. If that is the case, then you should be willing to look at and address any and all anomolies from that day.

I am sure it is possible you missed my post but I know you have been here every time I have checked the board today since I orginally posted that question 10 hours ago. You are putting in a lot of hours so maybe you are tired.

I would just really like to know what your thoughts are on my question. If you are not interested in discussing things you do not have answers to, just say so and I promise not to ask you anything else ever again.

[edit on 3/8/10 by evil incarnate]

reply to post by evil incarnate


I assume your question was about "molten concrete"? Sorry I missed it, bounced out of the tthread too fast, I guess, looking on the Web for other things to learn about at that time.

SO, I looked up "molten concrete" on the google-machine.

I got this, which is a site I'd never run across before....glad your question spurred the serendipitous quest for me to find it!!

Apparently, the melting of steel signifies the use of explosives or thermite cutting charges. But the purpose of either is to cut steel, not melt it. A controlled demolition simply does not produce large amounts of molten steel. You might as well argue that all the concrete dust shows the buildings were taken down by an army of gnomes armed with grinding wheels.

No, that wasn't the answer to the question, I just included it because it was too precious!!

Here, this is the bit on topic:

If the World Trade Center was hot enough to melt steel, where's all the molten concrete? Iron melts around 1500o C but so do many of the silicate minerals in concrete, and a mixture of silicate minerals would melt at a temperature lower than any of the individual minerals (I'm a geologist - I get paid to know about stuff like that).

....I'm loving this guy!!!!

Continuing....

The fine particle size of the concrete dust would facilitate melting. So why wasn't there a huge puddle of molten concrete at Ground Zero? (There was some, but about what you'd expect from a large fire; certainly not what you'd expect from something hot enough to melt large amounts of steel.)

www.uwgb.edu...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ETA...I'm not a glass-blower ( no jokes, please! ) but I do know that glass is basically silicate (sand) that is melted, shaped, formed and cools into glass. Concrete contains sand (among other things, of course).

Glassmakers use tools to dip into the molten glass, and to shape and form it...what are those tools made out of?


[edit on 8 March 2010 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by weedwhacker

If the World Trade Center was hot enough to melt steel, where's all the molten concrete? ...

....I'm loving this guy!!!!

That was pretty wordy for a yes or no answer and I had a hard time actually finding the yes or the no I was seeking. I guess I have to interpret. You are loving this guy for this statement? So does that mean that you know there could not be temperatures hot enought to melt steel because there was no molten concrete? Yes or no?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by evil incarnate

 

I assume your question was about "molten concrete"? Sorry I missed it, bounced out of the tthread too fast, I guess, looking on the Web for other things to learn about at that time.

This is exactly the type of dishonesty that is really keeping me from even attempting to discuss things with people on this board. Weedwhacker, this is outright dishonest and you know it. Why do you have to be deceptive? What did I do to you to incur lies from you? Just tell me now that you do not intend to have an honest and serious conversation and I will just ignore you. It is really simple.

I am not looking for a fight but I most certainly am not looking to be lied to so blatantly either. Have you not been accused of this before? Is this an issue with you?

Let me know why you need to lie to me so I can figure out whether or not to even bother anymore.

Originally posted by evil incarnate

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by evil incarnate

 

I assume your question was about "molten concrete"? Sorry I missed it, bounced out of the tthread too fast, I guess, looking on the Web for other things to learn about at that time.

This is exactly the type of dishonesty that is really keeping me from even attempting to discuss things with people on this board. Weedwhacker, this is outright dishonest and you know it. Why do you have to be deceptive? What did I do to you to incur lies from you? Just tell me now that you do not intend to have an honest and serious conversation and I will just ignore you. It is really simple.

I am not looking for a fight but I most certainly am not looking to be lied to so blatantly either. Have you not been accused of this before? Is this an issue with you?

Let me know why you need to lie to me so I can figure out whether or not to even bother anymore.

Amazing that weed cannot seem to be honest to save his life. This keeps leading me to wonder why someone would bother defending anything they need to lie about to defend. I am sure you will get ignored or some distracting nonsense in response though.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Doctor Smith

 

I look at it logically, and when you remove all of the hyperbole and exaggeration from theh 'conspiracy' websites (where most of the disinformation comes from) then its collapse seems completely reasonable, with all facts in hand, not just the selected bits the 'conspiracy-minded' folks want you to see.

The claim of "free-fall" is one of the most misleading....once the internal structure was compromised, and as we can't see the events inside, once that was nearly gone, of COURSE the rest would fall due to gravity, at the speeds due to gravity.

[edit on 7 March 2010 by weedwhacker]

How is it logical that a building that was nowhere near wtc 1 or 2 imploded????

or are you suggesting they happened to rig explosives into that building and "Pulled it" in the span of hours or how the tv reports stated it had come down when it clearly had not. as other posters here have suggested why bother with weeks of preparation and planning to have a building implode with explosives when random spot fires can bring it down in the same way not once not twice but 3 times. come on guy i know your a smart cookie from reading your posts these are the observed facts and facts they are. no amount of double speak and misdirection can change what we saw on tv. those 3 buildings all belonging to the same man all insured for a lot of money all imploded perfectly. you can slice it you can dice it but its still the same chicken.

i can only laugh as i watch wtc 7 implode in a perfect crimp fashion. anybody with even half a braincell that has witnessed controlled demolition will be able to spot the similarities. for christs sake open your eyes.