144 replies to this topic

[flyingswan]

Stundie, on 15 March 2011 - 11:17 AM, said:

No thanks, for someone who doesn't have the mental capacity to accept the possibility that Dick Cheney arrived at the PEOC before the commission claims is always going suggest it's a kipper, not a gun. lol

You haven't got a smoking gun.  If you had, you would produce it.

Quote

So which collapse theory does these 2 details failure reports support?

Pancake Collapse?
Truss Failure Collapse?
Pile Driver Collapse?

Why should a complex sequence of events be summed up in two or three words of your choosing?  The simplest summaries I can think of are:

Towers: Impacts damage structure, fires further weaken structural elements, truss sagging causes walls to bow and thus weaken.  Combination of these factors exceeds building safety margin, structural failure at impact level, top of building drops, dynamic loads too great for lower part to withstand leading to progressive collapse.

WTC7: Fires cause differential thermal expansion which breaks joints between beams and columns, one column becomes so unsupported by beams that it fails a few floors above ground level leading to progressive failure of remaining columns.  Most of internal structure is gone by time failure progresses to outer walls, which being now unsupported over several floors give way rapidly causing upper walls to drop without significant resistance.

Quote

And why would people in the clean up be looking for wires and detonators? lol

You assume that in all the tons of rubble that these things would be found and that those in the clean up would know exactly what to look for.

Forgetting that those involved in the clean up were doing just that, cleaning up and not examining everything they picked up in the quick clean up operation.

You forget that the local engineering bodies had teams on site early in the clean-up looking for evidence of the collapse mechanism, and these people would know evidence of a demolition when they saw it.

Quote

And there were missing bodies that were never recovered or found either making your entire point moot.

So not finding some bodies means you wont find any demolition evidence?  That's logic?

Quote

I see the difference, the problem is you do not see the logical fallacy of your theory.
No, it doesn't necessarily need a big demolition setup, it needs a setup that would do the job.

That could be big, that could be small, that could be done in multiple ways as well.

Big buildings need big set-ups.

Quote

And you prove my point in that you believe planes and fires or in the case of WTC7 fire alone can do the job, but somehow it needs a big demolition.

No, you believe it needs a big demolition, unless you believe that the impacts and fires were just not enough.

Quote

I'm sure I have claimed time and time again that this is not my position, infact I'm sure I posted that this is not my theory but somehow you want to conclude it is when all it serves is to point out the hypocrisy of your argumemt.

Perhaps it would help if you explained exactly what your theory is.

Quote

I don't think it would only require 1 man, 1 explosive or 1 hour to cause the building to collapse. Do you understand this??  

So do you believe it would need a bigger effort?

Quote

The point is you believe that no explosives were needed, therefore any rejection that a demolition is not possible because of x amount of men, x amount of explosive and x amount of time is not a vliad argument because by your own theory, none is needed.

Therefore a logical fallacy.

I don't believe explosives were needed, but the question is: "Do you believe they were?"

Quote

I think it would take more than one man, one explosive and more than an hour to demolish the buildings because I do not believe that the planes and fire alone could do it, especially in the case of WTC7.

So you admit that in your theory it would take a big effort?  But at the same time you claim it would be no bigger than 19 hijackers?

Quote

Well how is it my theory when I've stated many times this is not what I believe or what I am proposing, but to serve a purpose and highlight the logical fallacy of official story worshippers such as yourself...lol

It defies belief that you can tie yourself up in knots like that and still think you have logic on your side.

[Little Fish]

flyingswan, on 15 March 2011 - 11:54 AM, said:

Most of internal structure is gone by time failure progresses to outer walls

so what was supporting the roof then, during this time when "most of internal structure is gone".

...and how can the external walls fall down for 100 feet without any energy?

it fell at freefall speed, at freefall ALL the available energy (potential energy) is converted to kinetic energy (freefall motion). there's no energy left for crush damage or buckling.

Edited by Little Fish, 15 March 2011 - 01:13 PM.

[flyingswan]

Little Fish, on 15 March 2011 - 12:59 PM, said:

so what was supporting the roof then, during this time when "most of internal structure is gone".

Nothing, that's why the penthouses disappear into the building a few seconds before the walls move.

Quote

...and how can the external walls fall down for 100 feet without any energy?

it fell at freefall speed, at freefall ALL the available energy (potential energy) is converted to kinetic energy (freefall motion). there's no energy left for crush damage or buckling.

The energy lost in that way is too small to measure.  If you recall, I recently provided the numbers for you on another thread:
http://www.unexplain...7

[Little Fish]

flyingswan, on 15 March 2011 - 01:44 PM, said:

Nothing, that's why the penthouses disappear into the building a few seconds before the walls move.

the small east penthouse fell, the much larger west penthouse and the rest of the roof didn't fall, so what supported that when "most of internal structure is gone", the answer is obvious - most of the internal structure is not gone prior to global collapse of the building.

Quote

The energy lost in that way is too small to measure.  If you recall, I recently provided the numbers for you on another thread:
http://www.unexplain...7

firstly you have used erroneous NIST analysis which times the collapse 2 seconds before actual collapse as pointed out and measured by David Chandler.
you mention scatter of individual data measurements giving an average of 32.196 ft/s/s (freefall) as if that somehow means it did not fall at freefall. you are comparing error in a single individual measurement to a supposed (and false) accumulated error in final velocity after 2.25 seconds.
things cannot fall faster than freefall, with summation of measurements+scatter over 2.25 seconds it comes to exactly freefall of 32 feet per second, so there is no resistance to buckling within the average of measurements.

[flyingswan]

Little Fish, on 15 March 2011 - 03:33 PM, said:

the small east penthouse fell, the much larger west penthouse and the rest of the roof didn't fall, so what supported that when "most of internal structure is gone", the answer is obvious - most of the internal structure is not gone prior to global collapse of the building.

Look at the videos again.  The west penthouse definitely collapses before the main walls, the east end has gone before any significant movement of the walls and only the far west corner is visible by the time the fall is really in progress.

Quote

firstly you have used erroneous NIST analysis which times the collapse 2 seconds before actual collapse as pointed out and measured by David Chandler.

Which alters my argument how?  What difference does the selection of the origin time make to the measured acceleration?  Does Chandler claim the scatter in measured velocity is smaller?

Quote

you mention scatter of individual data measurements giving an average of 32.196 ft/s/s (freefall) as if that somehow means it did not fall at freefall. you are comparing error in a single individual measurement to a supposed (and false) accumulated error in final velocity after 2.25 seconds.
things cannot fall faster than freefall, with summation of measurements+scatter over 2.25 seconds it comes to exactly freefall of 32 feet per second, so there is no resistance to buckling within the average of measurements.

I didn't say it could go faster than free-fall, I said the residual resistance would not make a measurable difference to the acceleration.  It would only change the final velocity by less than 1 ft/s, which is a lot smaller than the velocity scatter in either the NIST or the Chandler analysis.

[Little Fish]

flyingswan, on 15 March 2011 - 04:31 PM, said:

Look at the videos again.  The west penthouse definitely collapses before the main walls, the east end has gone before any significant movement of the walls and only the far west corner is visible by the time the fall is really in progress.

a fraction of a second before, you were claiming that the internal structure was gone before the external walls fell, are you now saying that the internal structure was collapsing a fraction of a second before the external walls buckled? that would mean that the external walls and the internal structure were collapsing at the same time. your argument has been that the internal structure collapsed to the ground before the external walls buckled.

Quote

I said the residual resistance would not make a measurable difference to the acceleration.  It would only change the final velocity by less than 1 ft/s, which is a lot smaller than the velocity scatter in either the NIST or the Chandler analysis.

you did not show how acceleration would be reduced by 2.6%, you just stated it with circular reasoning. when averaging measurements with measurement error the final result will converge to its true value, errors will not compound the final result. The more data you have, the more precise the result. the average of measurements comes out at precisely freefall. if buckling reduced the acceleration by 2.6%, then the averaged measurement would have come out 2.6% below freefall. you cannot compare a single snapshot measurement with an averaged measurement.

its like throwing a six sided D6 dice for the measurement error, summation and average of 28.5 + D6 will converge to 32 the more measurements are taken. its a fallacy to say you rolled a one, therefore the true value will be between 29.5 and 32, and therefore a fallacy to say buckling is contained within the range (29.5 - 32.0)

if there was buckling or deformation of steel, then the final averaged measurement would be less than freefall, but the averaged measurement came out at precisely freefall.

Edited by Little Fish, 15 March 2011 - 05:31 PM.

[Stundie]

flyingswan, on 15 March 2011 - 11:54 AM, said:

You haven't got a smoking gun.  If you had, you would produce it.

Why produce a smoking gun to someone who will claim it's a smoking kipper!! lol

You are not exactly honest are you?? lol

flyingswan, on 15 March 2011 - 11:54 AM, said:

Why should a complex sequence of events be summed up in two or three words of your choosing?

They are not words of my choosing, they are well known building failures models.

So take your pick.

flyingswan, on 15 March 2011 - 11:54 AM, said:

The simplest summaries I can think of are:

Towers: Impacts damage structure, fires further weaken structural elements, truss sagging causes walls to bow and thus weaken.  Combination of these factors exceeds building safety margin, structural failure at impact level, top of building drops, dynamic loads too great for lower part to withstand leading to progressive collapse.

So what is that? A pancake or truss failure? lol

flyingswan, on 15 March 2011 - 11:54 AM, said:

WTC7: Fires cause differential thermal expansion which breaks joints between beams and columns, one column becomes so unsupported by beams that it fails a few floors above ground level leading to progressive failure of remaining columns.  Most of internal structure is gone by time failure progresses to outer walls, which being now unsupported over several floors give way rapidly causing upper walls to drop without significant resistance.

And what kind of collapse is that, the single column fire induced collapse theory?? lol

flyingswan, on 15 March 2011 - 11:54 AM, said:

You forget that the local engineering bodies had teams on site early in the clean-up looking for evidence of the collapse mechanism, and these people would know evidence of a demolition when they saw it.

How would they know evidence of a demolition if they never tested for it.

And if it's that obvious, why do tests for explosives?? lol

flyingswan, on 15 March 2011 - 11:54 AM, said:

So not finding some bodies means you wont find any demolition evidence?  That's logic?

No, finding anything within the rubble when you are not searching but clearing up doesn't mean you will find much of anything, either detonators, wires or bodies.

flyingswan, on 15 March 2011 - 11:54 AM, said:

Big buildings need big set-ups.

Not any more they don't, they just need to cut the same columns the plane damaged caused and start a fire.

Or in the case of WTC7, just start a fire.

No explosives needed for your theory, yet my theory requires a big setup? lol

Nice to see you employing the logical fallacy even after I pointed it out to you!! lol

flyingswan, on 15 March 2011 - 11:54 AM, said:

No, you believe it needs a big demolition, unless you believe that the impacts and fires were just not enough.

Where have I said it needs a big demolition?? lol

Are you going off to fantasy land and creating arguments I've never made again?? lol Sure looks like it too me.

And yes I believe impacts and fires were not enough or in the case of WTC7, the fires were not enough, but that doesn't automatically mean it must be a big demolition.

Funny that you think it needs a big demolition, yet in the same breath are arguing the logical fallacy that it's only requires a plane hitting a small percentage of the building and subsequent fires to do the same trick. Or just fires alone in the case of WTC7.

Pathetic!! lol

flyingswan, on 15 March 2011 - 11:54 AM, said:

Perhaps it would help if you explained exactly what your theory is.

My theory is that it was a demolition, how it was done, how much explosives were needed, god knows!

flyingswan, on 15 March 2011 - 11:54 AM, said:

So do you believe it would need a bigger effort?

Of course!! lol

flyingswan, on 15 March 2011 - 11:54 AM, said:

I don't believe explosives were needed, but the question is: "Do you believe they were?"

Yes.

flyingswan, on 15 March 2011 - 11:54 AM, said:

So you admit that in your theory it would take a big effort?

No, not really.

flyingswan, on 15 March 2011 - 11:54 AM, said:

But at the same time you claim it would be no bigger than 19 hijackers?

What the ****?? lol Where did I claim it would be no bigger than 19 hijackers?? lol

Talk about misinterpreting an argument, but it's something you appear to do to make it look like you are debunking. lol

flyingswan, on 15 March 2011 - 11:54 AM, said:

It defies belief that you can tie yourself up in knots like that and still think you have logic on your side.

I'm not the one tied up in knots. lol

And logic is on my side as you are pointing out, in your theory no explosives are needed, yet in a demolition under the same conditions, lots of explosives are needed.

So unless by planting lots and lots of explosives as in a big set up in a demolition theory would be required to make the towers collapse, I find it highly amusing that you think none are needed for the towers to collapse.

The only conclusion I can draw from that is that you think that by adding explosives would make the building more stable unless of course it was a big set up?? lol

Edited by Stundie, 15 March 2011 - 06:05 PM.

[flyingswan]

Little Fish, on 15 March 2011 - 05:08 PM, said:

a fraction of a second before, you were claiming that the internal structure was gone before the external walls fell, are you now saying that the internal structure was collapsing a fraction of a second before the external walls buckled? that would mean that the external walls and the internal structure were collapsing at the same time. your argument has been that the internal structure collapsed to the ground before the external walls buckled.

You seem to misunderstand my arguments, possibly my use of the word "gone" to indicate failed didn't help.  I didn't say that the internal structure collapsed to the ground before the walls moved.  I said that the internal structure failed first, with a progressive failure that eventually reached the walls.  The minimum condition for the walls to be effectively unsupported is that the beams linking the walls to the interior columns must no longer be attached at one or other end.  Note that the east penthouse goes before the west one, just as the walls start to go first towards the east end of the building, indicating the direction that the failures progress.

Quote

you did not show how acceleration would be reduced by 2.6%, you just stated it with circular reasoning. when averaging measurements with measurement error the final result will converge to its true value, errors will not compound the final result. The more data you have, the more precise the result. the average of measurements comes out at precisely freefall. if buckling reduced the acceleration by 2.6%, then the averaged measurement would have come out 2.6% below freefall. you cannot compare a single snapshot measurement with an averaged measurement.

You claimed that nothing could weaken the structure enough for it to collapse with no apparent resistance.  I showed using a standard engineering calculation for buckling failure that if the wall was unsupported over eight floors, it would only have 2.6% of the strength required to support itself.  I showed that this much resistance, even ignoring the further loss of strength once buckling starts, was too small to be measured.  

You seem to expect that the average value of something will come out correct even if the individual values are in error.  This is not the case, there is always a margin of error in the average that depends on the errors in the individual values.

[aquatus1]

**Stundie, cut the term "lol" out of your posts.  Using it 15 times at one go can easily be construed as baiting.  See if you can argue your position without using such a childish tactic every other sentence**

[Stundie]

aquatus1, on 20 March 2011 - 12:56 PM, said:

**Stundie, cut the term "lol" out of your posts. Using it 15 times at one go can easily be construed as baiting. See if you can argue your position without using such a childish tactic every other sentence**

I'm sorry if you think I am using a childish tactic by using the term "lol" but it's only a response to the childish and very comical fantasised arguments, blatant misrepresentation, deceit and wilful ignorance that comes from the other side of the debate.

I think it's tragic that you think the term "lol" could be construed as baiting, when all I am doing by using it is to express my feelings as I write. Typed words on an internet screen don't always convey the authors thoughts, tone, or the context of what they are writing which can lose meaning or be lost in translation. My use of the term is just expressing the laughter I am expressing as I respond.

Now I agree you and others might find it annoying that I am constantly laughing or "lol"ing but put the shoe on the other foot for a moment and take a look at what I am dealing with here.

Here is just an example....

Flyingswan said to me.
"In your theory, the impacts and fires cannot bring down the buildings, so you need a big demolition set-up."
Then in the next post I responded with.
"No, it doesn't necessarily need a big demolition setup, it needs a setup that would do the job. That could be big, that could be small, that could be done in multiple ways as well."
Flyingswan then responds with this.
"No, you believe it needs a big demolition, unless you believe that the impacts and fires were just not enough."
And I respond with.
"Where have I said it needs a big demolition?? lol"
How else am I to respond? Keep repeating myself in the hope he eventually gets what I am saying? Please don't tell me to take his argument seriously?? Unless of course, I am missing something here....

Flyingswan is blatantly and evidently misrepresenting my position which is not classed or even construed as baiting, but my response to him is? Because I dare to laugh at him while asking him to show me "Where have I said it needs a big demolition??" which he claims that I believe in.  

As I said, I understand that you might find my "lol" annoying or childish or whatever, but I find that my opponents debate is all of these things too.

Rather than get angry or annoyed, I laugh.....Someone once said "Life's a comedy to those who think and a tragedy to those who feel!"

So rather than feel angry or annoyed, I think about it and laugh about it.

Now of course, you are a mod on the forum, so I will respect the rules of the forum and your request.

But please don't try and attribute what you think my "lol"ing is about by construing it childish or baiting when they are nothing more than a reaction to the childish baiting that I am on the receiving end of.

Cheers

Stundie

p.s. Is there a quota or is it an outright ban on my use of "lol"??

Edited by Stundie, 20 March 2011 - 03:18 PM.