Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * - - 2 votes

WTC7


  • Please log in to reply
1999 replies to this topic

#1441    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,924 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 08 May 2012 - 03:50 PM

View PostbooNyzarC, on 04 May 2012 - 06:26 PM, said:

There you go again claiming that my disagreeing with you means that I am misunderstanding something.  :rolleyes:

Tell you what.  If you can get Bazant to specifically state what you claim he means, we can have a discussion about it.  Until then all you're doing is misinterpreting a portion of his explanation of a limitation of an equation in his paper and attempting to twist that into some kind of support for your beliefs.

Sorry, I know people don't like being told they don't understand but you are missing my point.

This is what Bazant's paper tells us at face value: -

____________Rigid_______Flexible___
1-6 stories . . . .collapse . . . . . no collapse
7+ stories . . . . collapse . . . . . .N/A

The result of a rigid block is indicated in the calculations.
The result of a flexible block is indicated in the addendum.

Bazant does not specify the result of a 7+ storey flexible block because, through his non-acceptance of continued damage to the upper block, there is no reason to do so, i.e. the upper block never becomes flexible in his theory but performs as an indestructible hammer throughout the 'crush down'.

What his comments on a 1-6 storey block demonstrate (or 3-6 as he put it, matters not), is the clear difference in behaviour between a flexible and a rigid block which, one would have thought, is common sense anyway. Although Bazant does not state it explicitly (because he doesn't have to - see above) the difference in a flexible and rigid block is always inherent no matter the mass/size.

Without being able to agree fundamental points like this it is very difficult to have a sensible discussion. A rigid/intact block is not "essentially" the same as a flexible/deteriorated block, you only look silly standing by that claim.


View PostbooNyzarC, on 04 May 2012 - 06:26 PM, said:

Maybe you missed this part the first time around?  Here, I'll add a little emphasis so that it is a little bit harder to miss...

The ensuing discussion on this front has been nothing more than you attempting to avoid acknowledgement that you were wrong and trying to divert attention away from that fact. It's not going to work, and I'm not going to take on the responsibility of defining the path of the antenna section just because you've decided to foist that imaginary responsibility onto me.

As much as the previous claim makes you look silly, the enlarged red text you followed with only served to further that impression. I'm trying to have a discussion, I explain that the antenna break toward the end of the collapse does not affect anything and why it is necessary to provide a plausible alternative - to refute that the upper block rotation is the only option - but apparently you preferred to ignore all that.

If the best response you have is to attempt shutting down the discussion, because clearly you have nothing constructive to add to the issue, then perhaps it's time to take a break.

To summarise the discussion: -

Q24: here's how the antenna must have got there.
booNy: no it didn't.
Q24: why not?
booNy: because.
Q24: ok, how do you suggest it got there?
booNy: it just did, I don't need to explain.

Yes, I'm content to leave it there.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#1442    Dis Pater

Dis Pater

    Alien Embryo

  • Closed
  • Pip
  • 76 posts
  • Joined:04 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 08 May 2012 - 04:31 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 08 May 2012 - 01:06 PM, said:

Batteries or no batteries, one thing is certain--the government is a source of truth and never deceives.



Babe,i am not saying you are wrong-I'm looking at it from a neutral angle.The only way i could see a controlled demolition is via pre-warning.The US government were warned that a terrorist act could happen.Maybe preparations were put in place to 'facilitate' the collapse?...that is just my thoughts and not fact.It does seem most plausible


#1443    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Closed
  • 8,732 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 08 May 2012 - 06:03 PM

Pater

I did not take it that you were suggesting I was wrong.  Not at all. :-*

Speculation and the advancement of various theories is about all we have because so little is known.  I am always happy to read another's theory.  That's a big reason I come here.

My theory, completely unproveable, is that the buildings were prepared for the demolition MONTHS in advance, if not years.


#1444    The Narcisse

The Narcisse

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 89 posts
  • Joined:22 Mar 2010

Posted 08 May 2012 - 07:48 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 08 May 2012 - 06:03 PM, said:

Pater

I did not take it that you were suggesting I was wrong.  Not at all. :-*

Speculation and the advancement of various theories is about all we have because so little is known.  I am always happy to read another's theory.  That's a big reason I come here.

My theory, completely unproveable, is that the buildings were prepared for the demolition MONTHS in advance, if not years.

So you think that TONS of explosives were planted, and left in the Towers for YEARS in anticipation of 9/11?


#1445    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,560 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 08 May 2012 - 08:06 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 08 May 2012 - 06:03 PM, said:

Pater

I did not take it that you were suggesting I was wrong.  Not at all. :-*

Speculation and the advancement of various theories is about all we have because so little is known.  I am always happy to read another's theory.  That's a big reason I come here.

My theory, completely unproveable, is that the buildings were prepared for the demolition MONTHS in advance, if not years.

You don't seem to understand that any explosives placed at the exact locations where the aircraft struck would have been detonated.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1446    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,560 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 08 May 2012 - 08:08 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 08 May 2012 - 01:06 PM, said:

Batteries or no batteries, one thing is certain--the government is a source of truth and never deceives.

Take at look at those 9/11 Truth sites. How many of their claims have now be proven false?

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1447    sickpuppy

sickpuppy

    tinfoil

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,353 posts
  • Joined:12 Sep 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:down under

Posted 08 May 2012 - 10:26 PM

97 pages now..?

..i'm selling a golden gate bridge if anyone's interested?

My contribution is deciding how giant mutant space goats travel in space.
Newton's Second Law: For every action there is a equal and opposite reaction. They fart themselves around.

#1448    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,924 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 08 May 2012 - 11:41 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 08 May 2012 - 08:06 PM, said:

You don't seem to understand that any explosives placed at the exact locations where the aircraft struck would have been detonated.

You definitely don't understand...

that the aircraft didn't have to impact the exact level of the charges.
that the aircraft didn't impact every column across that location.
that any columns impacted were already destroyed, not requiring the associated charge.
that thermite will not be ignited by a jet fuel fireball.
that thermite will not be ignited by the relatively low core temperatures.

And further that...

thermite would be ignited by remote detonation.
that the first ignition occured approximately 7 minutes prior collapse.
that this coincided with the bowing exterior as the core columns were cut.
and the visible thermite charge flow from WTC2 which had been displaced during the impact.
that each tower tilted in direction of elevator shafts which provided access to place the charges.

The towers and WTC7 were deliberately demolished - logic, observation and basic science indicate that in numerous ways.

There is neither logic, observation or evidence for fire induced collapses - it is driven only by a new breed of Lysenkoism.

Edited by Q24, 08 May 2012 - 11:42 PM.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#1449    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,560 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 09 May 2012 - 01:30 AM

View PostQ24, on 08 May 2012 - 11:41 PM, said:

You definitely don't understand...

that the aircraft didn't have to impact the exact level of the charges.

The collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2 began only where  the aircraft struck and nowhere else

Quote

that the aircraft didn't impact every column across that location.

Once again, the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2 began only where they were struck by the airliners. Question is, why would anyone carry tons of explosives up to those locations anyway!.

Quote

...that any columns impacted were already destroyed, not requiring the associated charge

They were destroyed upon impact so it was just a matter of time before the heat from the fires weaken what was left, and in addition,  WTC 2 was the first to collapse even though it was struck last because it was supporting more overhead weight than WTC 1.

Quote

...that thermite will not be ignited by a jet fuel fireball

Thermite is not used by the demolition companies because it is not effective and thermite alone cannot demolish a building anymore than a hacksaw. It takes explosives to knock down a building after pre-weakening has been performed, and thermite is not considered not an explosive. Check it out.

Thermate, Thermite, SuperThermite, etc, are cutting agents Not High Pressure Wave Explosives. An explosive quality is counterproductive to a cutting agent. Cutting agents must be used in conjuction with explosives. The cutting agents cut and the explosives move the cut product away from their support structures. This is standard demolition.

So once again, any explosives planted before the impacts would have been detonated.

Quote

There is neither logic, observation or evidence for fire induced collapses - it is driven only by a new breed of Lysenkoism.

What we have are evidence of fires in the WTC buildings,  but no evidence of explosives.

Edited by skyeagle409, 09 May 2012 - 01:52 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1450    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 09 May 2012 - 03:19 AM

View PostQ24, on 08 May 2012 - 03:50 PM, said:

Sorry, I know people don't like being told they don't understand but you are missing my point.

This is what Bazant's paper tells us at face value: -

____________Rigid_______Flexible___
1-6 stories . . . .collapse . . . . . no collapse
7+ stories . . . . collapse . . . . . .N/A

The result of a rigid block is indicated in the calculations.
The result of a flexible block is indicated in the addendum.

Bazant does not specify the result of a 7+ storey flexible block because, through his non-acceptance of continued damage to the upper block, there is no reason to do so, i.e. the upper block never becomes flexible in his theory but performs as an indestructible hammer throughout the 'crush down'.

What his comments on a 1-6 storey block demonstrate (or 3-6 as he put it, matters not), is the clear difference in behaviour between a flexible and a rigid block which, one would have thought, is common sense anyway. Although Bazant does not state it explicitly (because he doesn't have to - see above) the difference in a flexible and rigid block is always inherent no matter the mass/size.

Without being able to agree fundamental points like this it is very difficult to have a sensible discussion. A rigid/intact block is not "essentially" the same as a flexible/deteriorated block, you only look silly standing by that claim.
You are misrepresenting Bazant and his position yet again.  It really is getting tiring Q24.

Bazant is saying that for a sizable upper block the ratio between the vertical and horizontal dimensions makes it act "essentially as a rigid body."  The exact number he mentions when making this statement is 20 stories, but clearly it applies to fewer stories than that or he would not apply this model to the collapse of WTC 1.  When that number of stories is significantly reduced to, say 3 (or 3 to 6 in the original draft of the paper) the ratio between the vertical and horizontal dimensions allow the upper block "to act essentially as a flexible horizontal plate."

He also points out the importance of the load capacity -vs- actual load in the upper floors to illustrate that they would have more residual resistance capacity to potentially arrest the lower amount of mass in a collapsing 3 to 6 stories as opposed to 12 to 20 stories.

You can try to misinterpret him all you want, it won't change what he has said and what he intended to mean.  Perhaps you should take the issue up directly with him if you are truly convinced that you're interpreting what he intended to convey.



View PostQ24, on 08 May 2012 - 03:50 PM, said:

As much as the previous claim makes you look silly, the enlarged red text you followed with only served to further that impression. I'm trying to have a discussion, I explain that the antenna break toward the end of the collapse does not affect anything and why it is necessary to provide a plausible alternative - to refute that the upper block rotation is the only option - but apparently you preferred to ignore all that.

If the best response you have is to attempt shutting down the discussion, because clearly you have nothing constructive to add to the issue, then perhaps it's time to take a break.
What discussion?  You made some claims and I repeatedly told you that you hadn't substantiated that claim.  Did you forget those claims?

Here, let's look at the many iterations of your claims.


View PostQ24, on 26 April 2012 - 07:27 PM, said:

You will note that it is well off-centre of the starting position.  The antenna cannot have broken free, because it would then be required to perform a hop and a jump out from the tower to reach that end position.

Yet the green line is fit to continuation of the upper block tilt.  The conclusion is, that not only was the antenna still attached to the roof, but the upper block actually continued it's rotation – it was falling sideways and well off-centre of the core.  In fact, at the midpoint of collapse, the upper block was nearly outside of the tower footprint!


And then here:

View PostQ24, on 27 April 2012 - 10:03 AM, said:

And not forgetting debris that falls outside of the building footprint.  This takes on even more significance since I demonstrated in post #1246 that the WTC1 upper block fell almost entirely outside of the building footprint.


And then here:

View PostQ24, on 27 April 2012 - 07:41 PM, said:

The antena had to be connected to the roof with the continued rotation of the upper block carrying it to the horizontal position.  It is the only way it could get there.  The circle and blue vertical line inserted below show where contined rotation of the upper block would place the roofline: -

Posted Image

The roofline is right where the antena base is.

The above circle and blue line are not precise depictions of where I think the roofline rotated because obviously the upper block was in downward motion at the same time as the rotation, i.e. it would be an elongated oval rather than the perfect circle (now I'm wondering why I didn't just draw that - doh, never mind).  It is only meant to show where the continued rotation through the drop would place the antena - right where it was observed in the video footage.

How else can the base of the antena move outside the building footprint, so far from its starting centre-line?

The upper block tilted right off - it was no longer driving the collapse!


Need I go on?


The whole time I just kept reiterating that you hadn't established this claim.  And then what did I share with you?

View PostbooNyzarC, on 29 April 2012 - 04:56 AM, said:

By the way...  is this the fully intact antenna that you are proposing is still attached to the roof?

Posted Image

Source

Edit to add animated GIF comparison from page 2 of the above link...

Posted Image

I dunno...  I can't be sure...  but it does look like a pretty good match to me...

Are you still of the opinion that the only possible explanation is that the entire upper block fell outside of the building's footprint?


Original image...

Posted Image

It wasn't the whole antenna at all.  It wasn't even the tip of the antenna.  It was just a chunk of the antenna and it wasn't attached to the roof or anything else...  Golly...



View PostQ24, on 08 May 2012 - 03:50 PM, said:

To summarise the discussion: -

Q24: here's how the antenna must have got there.
booNy: no it didn't.
Q24: why not?
booNy: because.
Q24: ok, how do you suggest it got there?
booNy: it just did, I don't need to explain.

Yes, I'm content to leave it there.
Are you sure you don't want to revise your summary?

Edited by booNyzarC, 09 May 2012 - 03:21 AM.


#1451    Dis Pater

Dis Pater

    Alien Embryo

  • Closed
  • Pip
  • 76 posts
  • Joined:04 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 09 May 2012 - 08:02 AM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 08 May 2012 - 06:03 PM, said:

Pater

I did not take it that you were suggesting I was wrong.  Not at all. :-*

Speculation and the advancement of various theories is about all we have because so little is known.  I am always happy to read another's theory.  That's a big reason I come here.

My theory, completely unprovable, is that the buildings were prepared for the demolition MONTHS in advance, if not years.

Yes,i agree thats a possibility.Sky has pointed out numerous times the number of warnings the US had received so maybe they acted in preparation.Nobody could say how the towers would react from an impact from a modern day plane,so would it not be better to make sure how they would react and induce a straight down collapse via strategic demolition charges if an impact occured?
Again thats just a theory that could quite easily be way off the mark but it does seem plausible,more so after reading Q's information on Thermite.


#1452    Wandering

Wandering

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 960 posts
  • Joined:19 Jun 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 09 May 2012 - 08:56 AM

View PostDis Pater, on 09 May 2012 - 08:02 AM, said:

Sky has pointed out numerous times the number of warnings the US had received


Yet they did nothing.

Another argument giving more credence, not less to the CT side.


#1453    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,924 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 09 May 2012 - 09:59 AM

View PostbooNyzarC, on 09 May 2012 - 03:19 AM, said:

You are misrepresenting Bazant and his position yet again. It really is getting tiring Q24.

Bazant is saying that for a sizable upper block the ratio between the vertical and horizontal dimensions makes it act "essentially as a rigid body." The exact number he mentions when making this statement is 20 stories, but clearly it applies to fewer stories than that or he would not apply this model to the collapse of WTC 1. When that number of stories is significantly reduced to, say 3 (or 3 to 6 in the original draft of the paper) the ratio between the vertical and horizontal dimensions allow the upper block "to act essentially as a flexible horizontal plate."

He also points out the importance of the load capacity -vs- actual load in the upper floors to illustrate that they would have more residual resistance capacity to potentially arrest the lower amount of mass in a collapsing 3 to 6 stories as opposed to 12 to 20 stories.

You can try to misinterpret him all you want, it won't change what he has said and what he intended to mean. Perhaps you should take the issue up directly with him if you are truly convinced that you're interpreting what he intended to convey.


You are still not grasping the point I'm making - honestly it's like I'm pointing to something, "look here booNy, this way, over here" and then you look in the opposite direction to where I'm indicating and say, "No, you are misrepresenting that."

Your two middle paragraphs repeating the paper above, I fully realise all of that, but you seem unable to follow it through to understand the core/top level issue - that a rigid mass does not behave in the same way as a flexible mass.

How could it possibly be simpler?

For a 6 storey upper block, if that were rigid, it would continue the collapse.
For a 6 storey upper block, if that were flexible, it would not continue the collapse.

Do you agree this?
Do you understand there is difference in behaviour between a rigid and flexible block?

If we scale the above two statements up to a 20 storey block, I would not say one will continue collapse and the other will not, because the calculations have not been carried out to determine that either way. However, it is apparent that there is still difference in behaviours and treatment between a rigid and flexible block - one delivers a single powerful jolt, the other meets different resistance at different times resulting in numerous lesser impacts.

Bazant only assumes the first - an indestructible hammer delivering a single powerful jolt at each level of the collapse. That is completely against the observation and logic that the upper block at the collapse front deteriorated/broke up throughout the collapse becoming a more flexible/fluid mass.

It is this type of error in Bazant's paper that has been pointed out ad nauseum through online outlets - the only route for free information flow - and also would be, as attempted, in mainstream journals if that were permitted. Read up on Lysenkoism - a real case in the USSR where a false and damaging science was pushed for 20 years for political reason, also spreading to other countries, with dissenters outlawed and genuine scientists fired from their jobs for opposing it (we have seen all the same in the U.S. in recent years).


View PostbooNyzarC, on 09 May 2012 - 03:19 AM, said:

It wasn't the whole antenna at all. It wasn't even the tip of the antenna. It was just a chunk of the antenna and it wasn't attached to the roof or anything else... Golly...

It was not the whole antenna in the image at a later stage of collapse after the wide pivot movement I depicted. This neither disputes that the upper block rotated for it to eventually reach that position nor does it offer explanation of how else the antenna piece could have reached that location.

If the antenna had broken at any point along its length (which it could not without continued tilt in the first place) and then been found within tilting/falling distance of its starting position, it would not be so interesting. The fact that the antenna is sighted actually in a pivot motion at the midpoint of collapse and far outside the radius (by near 100m) of its starting line, requires addressing.

I have suggested that the antenna was carried by the continued upper block tilt/rotation - the only plausible explanation I see - and indicating the upper block was removed from the building footprint. You have neither disputed this explanation or provided an alternative except for the brief suggestion that it "bounced" (which, when depicted and thought through, is so incomprehensible that even you would not commit to it as a plausible theory).

How is it, that such a simple question as, "how did the antenna get there?" have official theory adherents completely stumped for an answer?

Edited by Q24, 09 May 2012 - 10:40 AM.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#1454    Dis Pater

Dis Pater

    Alien Embryo

  • Closed
  • Pip
  • 76 posts
  • Joined:04 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 09 May 2012 - 10:01 AM

View PostWandering, on 09 May 2012 - 08:56 AM, said:

Yet they did nothing.

Another argument giving more credence, not less to the CT side.

Yes-this was either down to pure arrogance or stupidity.Of course another option is that they did prepare for such an attack,that would help them in the event of the attack occuring-that would not surprise me.


#1455    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,924 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 09 May 2012 - 10:22 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 09 May 2012 - 01:30 AM, said:

The collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2 began only where the aircraft struck and nowhere else

Once again, the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2 began only where they were struck by the airliners. Question is, why would anyone carry tons of explosives up to those locations anyway!.
As we cannot see the core of the building we cannot say exactly where the collapses began internally - it could have been at, just above or just below the impact point. Even had the aircraft impact the exact level of the charges, it did not impact every column across that level where the charges would be placed.

And please don't ask stupid/pointless questions - you know the theory well enough by now.



View Postskyeagle409, on 09 May 2012 - 01:30 AM, said:

They were destroyed upon impact so it was just a matter of time before the heat from the fires weaken what was left, and in addition, WTC 2 was the first to collapse even though it was struck last because it was supporting more overhead weight than WTC 1.
That is nothing to do with what I said.


View Postskyeagle409, on 09 May 2012 - 01:30 AM, said:

Thermite is not used by the demolition companies because it is not effective and thermite alone cannot demolish a building anymore than a hacksaw. It takes explosives to knock down a building after pre-weakening has been performed, and thermite is not considered not an explosive. Check it out.

Thermate, Thermite, SuperThermite, etc, are cutting agents Not High Pressure Wave Explosives. An explosive quality is counterproductive to a cutting agent. Cutting agents must be used in conjuction with explosives. The cutting agents cut and the explosives move the cut product away from their support structures. This is standard demolition.

So once again, any explosives planted before the impacts would have been detonated.

A 2,500oC thermite reaction, acting directly against a column, is far more effective than an office fire created diffuse flame which raised relatively low temperatures in the core structure according to NIST's fire simulations.

And I know what thermite is. Due to the molten steel and melted beams discovered in the debris pile, the WTC2 molten flow and further evidence, many believe the collapses were initiated by thermite, rather than conventional explosives, at the impact zones. If you must insist on explosives at the impact zone then look at tertiary explosives which are difficult to detonate.



View Postskyeagle409, on 09 May 2012 - 01:30 AM, said:

What we have are evidence of fires in the WTC buildings, but no evidence of explosives.

There is not one single piece of physical evidence, comparable precedent or unbiased science which indicates those fires caused the collapses, not a single piece. There is a huge volume of circumstantial evidence (forming a corroborating case), comparable precedent and science which indicates the WTC buildings were demolished, all three.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users