1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

The Horror Continues

Discussion in 'Issues Around the World' started by Jon Gold, Apr 10, 2006.

  1. Copzilla

    Copzilla dangerous animal Staff Member

    No, you didn't, and neither did Jon or CB. You came over here because Jon found a "right wing forum" and wanted you all to join in some of his "fun". You all came here looking for a fight.
  2. Seve B

    Seve B Registered User

    And I have an equally scientific explanation as to why the collapse would not have been at free fall speed - the undamaged steel structure would have resisted the free-fall collapse for some period of time, even if just for 10 or 20 seconds.

    What else could "pull it" have meant? In the documentary, if I remember correctly, it was right after he made this statement that they showed WTC-7 collapse. I wish I knew of a link to the documentary, but I'm sure copies are available from PBS and various places online. Watch it. The words and context all point to "pull it" being used as a term of art in the controlled demolition industry. You can't persuasively counter my argument by saying "it could have meant anything". I have given compelling, documented reasons why I think "pull it" means what I say it means. Please give me a concrete statement as to exactly what you believe it meant and your reasons for such belief.

    Finally, with regards to your comments about the Arizona and aliens, I think we are all better served if we stay on topic.
  3. Greg

    Greg Full Member

    And that would be... ???

    Speaking as a degreed engineer who did take classes in the strength of materials, in designing structures and analyzing their loads, and in static and dynamic physics, I see it as entirely believable that structures can collapse catastrophically when their breaking point is reached. I've built concrete test samples (cylinders approx. 6" x 18") and put them under stress and watched them fail. It's always random--and random can often look like order--if you have an agenda.

    So what is your scientific evidence that proves that structures cannot catastrophically fail--at "free fall" as you keep repeating.
  4. Seve B

    Seve B Registered User

    Have you ever seriously studied materials sciences, physics, etc.? The idea that if you weaken a few support structures of a building the entire thing comes down like a house of cards is preposterous. Why do controlled demolition specialists spend months planting many many explosives around virtually all of a building's support structures in order to bring it down? They could save a hell of a lot of money and time by taking out a few support structures on one side of a building and let gravity do the rest. If you have never seen one of those specials on the Discovery Channel, etc., on controlled demolition, let me tell you that they do, in fact, destroy every support structure of the building in order to bring it down completely. In fact, I remember one case where some of the explosives didn't fire, which left one side of the building standing, which I think took a few more days to fall on its own. It was some months ago when I saw this documentary so I apologize that I can't recall the exact details, but I specifically recall that instance.

    I think the video of the collapse speaks for itself.

    Finally, with insurance fraud, I never said I believed that, or even claim to know the motive. I WAS REPORTING WHAT OTHER PEOPLE HAVE THEORIZED. But, let me say this, if he did, indeed sign a 99-year lease on the WTC only a few months before the attacks with a multi-billion dollar insurance policy, I would say he made out like a bandit. Talk about return on investment.
  5. tke711

    tke711 Oink Oink Staff Member

    Seve, I appreciate your explanation as to motive. However, I see a big hole in it. If someone, for financial or otherwise, would have installed explosives without anyone noticing, to blow up the building, how did they know when to have those explosives installed? Did they also have advanced notice that the planes were going to fly into the other buildings that day? Or, are you saying that the building was wired with explosives when it was built for use "some day"?
  6. Seve B

    Seve B Registered User

    Your attempt to scale up tests on a 6'' by 18'' cylinder to a large building with many thousands of interconnected beams, members, etc. is not credible.

    My scientific evidence is that the undamaged support structure would offer some resistance to the collapse. Steel would not just snap like a twig all over the undamaged portion of the support structure based on a random load. I would submit to you that portions of it would bend, portions of it would stretch, portions of it would twist, portions of it would compress, portions of it would break, all dependent on the forces exherted on it. What follows is that the bending, stretching, twisting and compressing would all resist the collapse for some period of time and make the building NOT fall at free fall speed.
  7. Elspeth

    Elspeth Beware the Fire Dragon

    ok I have to ask some of our more knowledge members, Lovehound etc

    What in the heck is "Free Fall Speed"
  8. tke711

    tke711 Oink Oink Staff Member

    Seve, just so I understand, your "evidence" is one man's hypothesis and research correct? The one that PM and multiple peers have criticized?
  9. Seve B

    Seve B Registered User

    I really don't want to get into motive. I knew once I did the discussion would turn away from the scientific part of it. Obviously whoever planted the explosives in WTC7, if that's what happened, had to know in advance 9/11 was going to happen. Again, I have admitted several times that motive is unclear and probably unknowable without subpoenaing documents and witnesses under oath.

    That's why this issue is so critical. If it is ever shown by an independent investigation that WTC-7 was in fact wired with explosives, the implication is that someone knew ahead of time that 9/11 would happen.

    I find it completely unbelievable that the 9/11 Commission Report did not even deal at all with the issue of the collapse of WTC-7, as if the collapse of a 42 story building in the middle of manhattan had nothing to do with 9/11. If I remember correctly, the preface to the 9/11 Commission Report said that the stated goal of the report was to give the fullest possible account of the events of 9/11. Is completely leaving out any mention of WTC-7 the fullest account of events?
  10. benthere

    benthere Registered User

    I clicked on almost all of the links that people provided in the comments of that blog that day.

    The first reply was:
    So it piqued my interest, and I wanted to see how it was received.

    It didn't seem very right-wing from the first few responses, but I had no prior knowledge of this board. I don't care what anyone's political affiliation is.

    I don't think there's any way for me to participate in a civil discussion here, for whatever reason, but I am interested in reading others' responses. I'm sorry if I'm not good with words, came across the wrong way, etc. Or if you just treated me a certain way because I showed up at the same time as someone else. Whatever it was, was a misunderstanding.

    Seve writes more eloquently than I can, and doesn't seem to elicit the same response, so I'm going to go back to just reading now.
  11. cmhbob

    cmhbob Did...did I do that? Staff Member

    They do it to control where the building lands, due to surrounding structures, etc. What's your point?
  12. Greg

    Greg Full Member

    I already stated my background in other posts today.
  13. Seve B

    Seve B Registered User

    I have already addressed the PM article. It is basically a summary of the NIST report without looking at the underlying evidence considered by NIST in making its report. All of my criticisms and requests for independent verification of the conclusions in the NIST report apply to the PM article.

    Peer criticism I am currently dealing with, and am enjoying debating this topic with those that keep it civil.

    My evidence is (1) the video footage of the collapse which shows all of the telltale signs of controlled demolition, (2) my understanding of materials sciences and strength of materials obtained through numerous college courses in Physical Chemistry, Thermodynamics, Physics, Strength of Materials, etc., and (3) Larry Silverstein's words in the PBS documentary. My hypothesis is a result of my brain connecting the above.

    Also, I can't conclusively prove anything because I do not have access to all of the evidence.
  14. Greg

    Greg Full Member

    It is what the troll in this thread uses to refer to the natural falling speed of any unsupported object due to the acceleration of gravity.

    If you put a watermellon on the top of a ladder then kick the ladder out from under it, it will fall at an acceleration of 32 feet per second per second due to gravity. (64 feet the next second, 128 feet the second after that...)
  15. tke711

    tke711 Oink Oink Staff Member

    There's the rub Seve. You can't separate a claim that WTC-7 was brought down intentionally and covertly, without looking at or for the motive for doing so. They are intermixed.
  16. Greg

    Greg Full Member

    So how about it? Let's get into motive. Your scientific part is bullshit--"it looks like blah, blah, blah." Things often look like what they are not. The entertainment medium of 'magic' would not be interesting if things always look like what they are.

    Absence of proof proves nothing.

    Why do you think somebody would blow up WTC-7? If the hijackers, don't you think the twin towers would be enough?
  17. tke711

    tke711 Oink Oink Staff Member

    The peer criticism, especially from peers at the same institution is a big deal and one that should cause you some concern.

    I also want to be clear first, that you have every right to your opinion and I'm not trying to belittle that. I'm simply debating it with you, no hard feeling intended.

    (1) Video footage. It appears as a controlled demolition to you, but that doesn't equal evidence. It equals opinion.

    (2) Your understanding of engineering. Again, this opinion, not evidence.

    (3) Silversteins words. Again, this is your opinion of the meaning behind what he said. Again, not evidence.

    So, at the end of the day, you have no evidence, just opinion, which is fine. However, since words do mean something, we need to be careful on what we claim. In a court of law, this would all be speculation not hard evidence.
  18. Seve B

    Seve B Registered User

    Actually, in a court of law, each of the above would surely be admitted as evidence. The video footage is a piece of evidence that could be admitted into evidence in a court of law, so is the PBS documentary. My scientific knowledge and understanding could be presented to a jury in the form of expert witness testimony (no, I'm not claiming to be an expert, but a real expert duly qualified by the court) on the materials sciences aspects of it. Any other lawyers here can back me up on the foregoing.

    You are correct, however, in that I have drawn my own conclusions which I feel fit the above referrenced evidence. If you draw a different conclusion based on the evidence, that is certainly your right. It happens on juries every single day. Two jurors see the exact same evidence and differ on whether the guys is guilty or innocent.
  19. Greg

    Greg Full Member


    Let me see. You've joined our political-social forum and posed technical questions, then refuse to accept any of our replies as knowledgable. A troll, in my opinion.

    No matter what any forum members reply you are unwilling to accept our opinions. By definition: a troll.

    We've asked your opinion on what would motivate a WTC-7 attack over and above the twin towers attack. No answer. Obviously, a troll.

    How about you define what answer you would accept by real people currently members of this forum, or why don't you just leave? You ask a question that is impossible to answer within your terms, then reject every answer. Again, a troll.

    Maybe we should be discussing golf...
  20. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!


Share This Page