Some new footage....

[wildbilln864]

of the collapse of #7. Enjoy! :hi:

[Bolo Boffin]

1. Thank you for this proof that WTC 7 slumped to the south as it fell.

As I have said all along.

:hi:

[RC]

2. Yeah, and?

All that means is some of the charges were timed wrong or maybe put in the wrong place.

[Bolo Boffin]

3. We have been told many times by 9/11 CT advocates that the building

would have fallen toward the damaged south face if it had not been controlled demolition.

Evidence now appears conclusively showing the building falling toward the damaged south face...

...and you move the goalposts.

Please produce any video tape of 7 falling that has ANY charges recorded on it whatsoever. You can't. They weren't there.

[RC]

4. I did not move anything. Not all demolitions go as planned.

No charges? Then how did a asymmetrically built building come down evenly?
A slumping wall does not prove WTC-7 or any other building had not been brought down by fire alone.

That must have been some wonderful Magic Fire to bring three buildings down in such a fashion as to make all three look like they were demolished.

[Bolo Boffin]

7. Yes, you did.

"No charges? Then how did a asymmetrically built building come down evenly?"

But it didn't, as this video shows once again. There are no charges. I asked you to provide the sound of any charges in WTC 7. The charges would have been recorded in both videos of the building falling and seismographs sensitive enough to have recorded the actual fall of the building. The sound has been removed from this video, but there are plenty where this is not true, and there is no sound of charges going off.

There were no charges. None.

The BUILDING is slumping, not just the wall.

[petgoat]

18. Thermite doesn't make noise, bolo.

Cutting through the girders was the easiest thing in the world.

Dig down through the concrete. Your hole is your crucible. Set the
thermate on the steel girder.

[petgoat]

5. So what's to stop controlled demolitionists from setting charges

to make the building fall to the south at the end?

And what's to stop them from setting charges at the 46th floor to make the
penthouse collapse and support the whole "internal collapse" story?

[LARED]

6. There is nothing to stop them, if "they" existed

Except that after 7 years "they" have not been found by anyone. And there is zero evidence that "they" exist.

[RC]

8. "They" do not exists because pay loaders scoped up the evidence up and dropped it into dump trucks

and they hauled it away BEFORE any forensics examination could be done. So your statement while misleading it true. The evidence no longer exists.

[petgoat]

9. The evidence that they exist is the baffling behaviour of the building. nt

[William Seger]

12. Solid EVIDENCE at last!

Petgoat is baffled!

[petgoat]

13. Seger believes that the entire interior of a 47 story building can collapse,

giving no sign on the external walls, leaving the shell standing on
600-foot long columns with no lateral bracing, and then the shell
descends straight into the ground instead of falling like a handful
of pickup sticks.

What a dupe!

[William Seger]

14. Actully, Hawkeye, "no sign on the external walls"

... appears to be another case of you lying to yourself to sustain your delusions. The NIST report "de-baffled" the collapse, and there ARE signs at the penthouse, the roof line, and the exterior wall that their FEA model got it right. You're beating yet another dead horse.

[petgoat]

15. There's no sign on the walls.

The roofline doesn't crimp until the collapse begins.

If NIST's FEA model got it right, why didn't the building look
more like this view when it collapsed?




Note they don't show us the top part of the building--presumably because
it's even more distorted than the lower part!

And yet, this is what we saw:


Now, are you going to bring out your magic silly putty and make those two pictures
consistent?

I would recommend that you take some time and actually look at the pictures in the
report you claim answers all the questions.

Jeeez! Give it up, Seger. You guys are done. Sorry you had such a lousy Saturday
night. Hubby out bowling with the boys?

[William Seger]

16. Oh bullshit. The FEA model didn't even INCLUDE the wall

... because it was a non-load-bearing curtain wall, so there was no reason to include it an FEA model that was done to study the collapse of the structural elements. But the exterior wall had rigidity, even if it wasn't carrying load, so there's no reason to think the FEA model should look exactly like the videos. You must not understand the difference between an FEA model and a CGI special effect. (You're also showing a section of the FEA collapse that was below the level shown in any video. That's very disingenuous, but I've come to expect that from you.)

Now, you go back and look at the video in the OP and watch what's really happening with that wall. This time, try opening your eyes: There WAS an internal progressive structural failure, and you can see that it progressed the same way as the FEA model.

The best conspiracy nuts can do now is to try to claim that the perps must have caused the progressive collapse the same way that NIST says it happened -- floors collapsing and column 79 buckling, followed by global collapse -- but they did it with thermite. But of course, there's no reason for that hypothesis, since the FEA shows that the fires could have done it. And how could the perps have known that a global collapse would ensue? Did they do their own FEA? And, nobody has yet explained to me how the perps could have even known that debris from the tower would hit WTC 7 and start those fires in the first place. That was some really complicated plot, huh.

Sorry, PG, but WTC 7 is a dead end for "truthers," no matter how much you flog the deceased horses.

[petgoat]

17. The FEA model left out the exterior wall? You have a source for that?

It's interesting that NIST leaves out everything that could cause
problems for them--the symmetrical, essentially freefall speed collapse,
the thermite, the explosives, the destruction of the core, the
pulverization of the concrete, the molten iron, the first responders'
reports of explosions.


How could they leave the perimeter wall out? That was a bearing wall--are
you going to claim the floors were cantilevered out there?

How can I open my eyes and see a progressive internal failure that
shows no sign on the exterior wall that it's happening? The only sign
I've seen is the collapse of the penthouse, which can most simply
(Occam's razor strikes!) be explained by supposing that somebody cut
the 46th floor girders under it to simulate a total 47 story collapse
at the east end.

Then you raise a straw man argument as to thermite and column 79. The
"16th floor" argument is not a realistic collapse mechanism, but an
indication of NIST's lack of rigour, that they did not consider it. The
"11th floor/12th floor" argument is better. Those floors had tiny little
offices. Dig through the concrete floors, set your thermite cutting
charges, lock the office door behind you. No one will ever break down
that door and discover those charges.

If the FEA shows the fire could have done it, it's because it's based on
exaggeration of the fires, as I'm sure you know has been discussed on the
jref forum.

Your assumption that the perps had to know that debris would strike WTC7
is a completely irrational straw man. "They" could certainly light fires
in the building and count on the assumption that the fires would be blamed
on the WTC1 collapse.

You only bluff and bluster. Your desperation is showing. NIST's horseshit
will not stand.

[William Seger]

19. Look at it again

The FEA models includes all the exterior columns and beams -- they carried the load -- but it does not include the non-load-bearing curtain walls, i.e. the facade and window frames. But, as I said, they would still have rigidity -- they had to withstand hurricane-level winds, braced only at the columns and floors -- which didn't allow the columns to just fall in different directions after the interior beams had been disconnected, as they did in the FEA model.

Here's a hint of what to look for in the videos: Even in these low resolution videos, the damage happening inside the buildings is indicated by the window damage. It shows that the collapse proceeded upward along the column line below the penthouse, before the penthouse fell, and then across and upward before the whole building began to fall. Your hypothesis about cutting away columns right under the penthouse doesn't account for all the evidence. (And it would be a pointlessly silly thing for the perps to do, anyway, but I know your preference for those kinds of hypotheses.)

It seems you haven't read the NIST report carefully. They did fire simulations on the six floors (7,8,9,11,12, and 13) that they knew had the heaviest uncontrolled fires, using the standard Fire Dynamics Simulator program. They did that because there wasn't any evidence of significant fire on other floors. Then they created the FEA model and fed that fire data into it. What they describe as the "most probable cause" is what happened in the FEA. How, exactly, would they "consider" the collapse beginning at the 16th floor? Add imaginary thermite bombs to the FEA? If they were just going to just use the Petgoat Method of unsubstantiated speculation, then there would be no point in doing the FEA.

No, I do NOT "know" that the FEA was "based on exaggeration of the fires," because no one has proved that they have a better idea about that than NIST's FDS simulation. What I do know is that NIST ran three different fire scenarios, and the only difference in the effect on the structure was the time it took.

And no, it isn't an "assumption" that falling debris from WTC 1 hit 7 and started the fires; the videos document that. Your suggestion that the perps planned to start fires and just hoped everyone would "assume" that's what happened is pretty silly. I know that there's no plot that's too complicated and foolishly risky for you to consider it implausible, but I'm just trying to explain to you how rational people look at it. Highly implausible hypotheses require strong proof, and all you've got is "it looks like a CD" to you.

> "You only bluff and bluster."

Pointing out the flaws in both your knowledge and your logic is "only bluff and bluster?". I think not.

[petgoat]

20. Are you series? The structural perimeter columns pulled away leaving the curtain wall standing?

And then 47 stories of nonstructural curtain wall was left hanging in the breeze,
and then fell down straight and true to the ground?

Do you honestly believe that?

Is that honestly what NIST says? Do you have a cite?

[William Seger]

22. No, that's not what I said. The curtain walls were ATTACHED to the columns

When the interior beams broke away from the exterior columns, those columns could not fall in different directions as they did in the FEA model, because the curtain walls were still attached. The curtain walls apparently were rigid enough to hold themselves and the exterior columns in the general box shape as they all fell together. For example, in the model, you can see the columns fall inward at their tops -- the shorter end "walls" in particular -- deforming the "wall" of columns at the corners first, and then the deformation propagates down the walls. In the real building, it appears that the curtain walls were stiff enough to prevent that -- each wall bracing the adjacent wall from falling inward -- so the box shape was largely maintained (at least in the upper half of the building that the videos show). In the model, the rigidity of the beam and column connections was the only thing preventing the box shape from deforming.

No, NIST doesn't say anything at all about the curtain walls, neither in any of the detailed descriptions of the model elements nor in any description of the collapse. And as I already pointed out, they're not shown in any of the model renderings. Presumably that was because the curtain walls played no part in causing or avoiding the collapse, and the model had already required some simplification to get down to being 3 million elements. The curtain walls (and possibly some other simplifications) would, however, affect how the collapse looked when compared to the videos, but the model was intended only to study the overall structural response of the steel framing and the concrete floors. There is no reason to expect the FEA model to look exactly like the collapse videos if it didn't include those curtain walls.

[petgoat]

23. So your story is that the floors and girders pulled loose from the load bearing columns

leaving them attached to the curtain walls? Am I reading you right?

Does NIST actually assert that? Where?

[William Seger]

24. The model animations show the floor beams falling away from the exterior columns

... (even without the curtain walls), leaving the exterior columns and beams looking like a hollow cage just before they also fall.

[petgoat]

30. Do you have any idea how crazy that sounds? You say the floors pulled loose from the perimeter

columns and they didn't bend any columns, didn't bulge any outward, didn't
pull them inward, didn't break any sections loose to show any distortion
whatsoever in the non-structural curtain wall.

Now did these floors all pull loose simultaneously? Or was the last floor
to collapse pulling on a 600 foot long perimeter column with no lateral
bracing whatsoever?

Do you have a cite for this? I want to see what kind of lunatic language
NIST uses to state this.

[William Seger]

49. "Crazy"?

Who to believe: a 3-million-element physics-based FEA produced by a team of engineers using the building's structural drawings; or the imagination of the guy who dreamed up the "cracker model" and the "rake model."

[petgoat]

57. The cracker model and the rake model are perfectly apt demonstrations of physics.

The cracker model demonstrates the inability of an exhausted pump stroke
to eject concrete pulverized after it's exhausted.

The rake model illustrates certain concepts in friction and momentum
transfer.

I suppose you'll adopt the fundy technique of ridiculing other
physics demonstrations because they involve balloons, or feathers,
or concrete blocks.

Given the lack of transparency of the FEA analysis and NIST's record
of dishonest behavior in ignoring evidence and tweaking input parameters,
there is no reason to trust it.

And why do you think their graphic stops at the 27th floor? Why don't
they want us to see what's above it? Could it be that, as it appears,
it shows the east wall peeling off the building?

[AZCat]

59. No they aren't.

Although I know the opinion of pretty much anybody else is of no concern to you, these "models" you have produced are useless and only display your inability to understand the spatial and mechanical relationships at work. You can attach all the language you want ("exhausted pump stroke" - that's hilarious) but your models still suck.

[petgoat]

60. What's hilarious about "exhausted pump stroke"? It's exactly what happens. nt

[petgoat]

62. Since you changed the subject to me, I'll suppose you can't show us where NIST says

the floors pulled loose from the perimeter columns, leaving them
standing.

And I'll suppose you have no explanation how the floors can
pull loose from a 600-foot long column and it doesn't buckle.

[AZCat]

69. The subject isn't you - it's your shitty-ass models.

I understand you have difficulty with reading comprehension - that has been made very clear to us over the years. Perhaps reading slowly out loud would help?

What exactly are you claiming here? That the perimeter columns never buckled? I hope you recognize how stupid a claim that is. I realize that the person who put forth those laughably inept "models" (I hesitate to use that word) probably doesn't grasp physics at anything above grade school level (claims of "science" degrees to the contrary) but maybe you should try learning something before making up shit next time.

[petgoat]

71. The subject isn't me, and it isn't my models. It's the claim that the floors pulled loose

from the perimeter columns, leaving 600-foot tall columns with no lateral bracing.
And yet we see in the videos no buckling manifesting itself on the exterior wall.

I want to see where NIST explains how this can happen, and how a collapsing floor
can pull loose from a 600 foot unbraced column and not buckle it.

NIST claims that column 79, something like 24" square, an H beam with 5" webs, and
a 3" cover plate welded on (IIRC) buckled when it was left without lateral restraint
for 8 stories.

But we're supposed to believe that relatively flimsy perimeter columns were stripped
of lateral bracing for 600 feet and did not buckle?

As to my models, I'd suggest that if you think my models are flawed that instead of
just labeling them stupid, you propose a better one.

[AZCat]

74. Why would I need to make a better one?

NIST already exceeded any possible effort on my part. Their models may have flaws, but it's still far better than anything ever produced from the "truth movement". For fuck's sake - Gage tried to use cardboard boxes. What an idiot.

[Fainter]

77. Who's Talking About Gage? n/t

[petgoat]

86. Making a better model informs your criticisms through specifity.

It shows that you understand what my model is trying to portray and
it identifies the specific shortcomings in them and proposes
improvements to better reflect reality.

It's like criticizing anything--a painting, a play, a song, architecture.
If the New York Times Book Review just said "This is crappy. This is dumb.
This is great!" it wouldn't teach us much.

What's wrong with using cardboard boxes? The concept is to show resistance
of the lower structure v. no resistance. It shows it very well. You think
a computer generated animation would be better?

[AZCat]

88. Hmmm. No.

A great professor I had the privilege of studying under was fond of repeating that some claims are so stupid they don't deserve a substantive analysis and response because the maker of the claim is unlikely to understand or respect one. The cardboard box model fails in so many ways it's almost epic. I think a photo of a cat doing something cute is worth more than Gage's pathetic attempt at engineering.

[Bolo Boffin]

89. A-fucking-men. n/t

[petgoat]

90. It's not an attempt at engineering, and your inability to perceive that goes a long way to explain

why your opinions are so peculiar.

[AZCat]

91. Then Gage should stay the fuck out of areas where he has no expertise. n/t

[petgoat]

94. We were talking about the box, which is well within Gage's expertise, and which is a distraction

from the true issue, which is the impossibility of NIST's notion that you could
have a 47 story internal collapse with floors pulling loose from the perimeter
columns, and have no sign on the external wall that this had taken place.

Remember the zipper pancake theory? Take out three floors and those 2000% overbuilt
perimeter columns buckle and the building comes down.

Now they want us to believe perimeter columns 40 stories tall, 600 feet long, didn't
buckle.

[AZCat]

96. Still pushing your 2000% number, I see.

This is why there is no point making substantive arguments with you - willful ignorance.

[petgoat]

97. Engineering News Record, 4/2/1964 nt

[petgoat]

98. IOW you refuse to make a better model, but only say "that's dumb" and change the subject. nt

[AZCat]

103. A better model than what? NIST?

I don't have the resources. If you don't understand why, then you're less capable than I thought (which isn't very).

[Fainter]

76. Pure Fucking Ad-Hom, Try Again n/t

[William Seger]

70. Uh, no, I didn't change the subject

Watch the model animation again: The floors only fall away from the exterior columns on the east end, where the collapse started under the penthouse, and it appears those exterior columns did buckle. In the middle and on the other end, the progressive horizontal failure has the whole building falling before that can happen

As for an explanation, I should think that you would need to look at the specific design of those connections, rather than to try to generalize about all connections or to make claims about a particular connection without knowing the design details.

[petgoat]

85. What evidence have you that the exterior columns buckled in the east end? nt

[William Seger]

92. They got shorter, as evidenced by the kink at the roof line (n/t)

[petgoat]

95. That didn't happen until the collapse started. It didn't happen when the penthouse fell in, nt

[William Seger]

101. In other words, it didn't happen until it happened?

Great argument. Almost as good as the one about the tilting of the towers not being part of the collapse.

Another great argument: You keep saying that there was "no sign" of this collapse on the exterior wall. Except, of course, for the signs:

[Fainter]

75. Where Logic Fails Cite Authority n/t

[William Seger]

93. Just saying "I don't believe it" doesn't refute the logic

Here's some logic for you: As far as the top half of the building is concerned, it doesn't matter if the columns failed the way NIST says they did or if they failed because of thermite as petgoat insists. All the top half "knows" is that the columns below are not holding it up any more. So when you get right down to it, petgoat's argument that it somehow looks more like a CD than a progressive failure has no logical basis; it's just a naked assertion. On the other hand, the NIST hypothesis is not a naked assertion; it's backed up by the FEA, and "I don't believe it" doesn't refute that, either.

[Fainter]

99. Question, By "Curtain Walls" Do You Mean Cladding...

and if not what was the cladding attached to?

[William Seger]

100. By "curtain wall" I mean curtain wall

Google is your friend.

[david_watts]

109. Wtc7 still fell into its own footprint.

Wtc7 still fell into its own footprint.

[SDuderstadt]

110. Where did you expect it to fall? n/t

[david_watts]

111. You are correct. I did expect it to fall into its own footprint given that it was a controlled demo

You are correct. I did expect it to fall into its own footprint given that it was a controlled demolition.

[Bolo Boffin]

112. So it was built over Fiterman Hall? n/t

[SDuderstadt]

113. So, if a building "falls into its own footprint"....

that proves it was a controlled demolition? I'd love to see the math on that.

[penttbom]

10. new WTC impact footage

just to piggy back on the WT7 news, here's new video of the second plane impacting the tower: www.penttbom.com

[wildbilln864]

11. thank you, and...

welcome to the DUngeon. :hi:

[MNReformer]

21. I showed my husband this and we both said the same thing.

How much more obvious could it be? You can see the charges moving up the building.

[Bolo Boffin]

25. Well, then youi deserve each other

There were no charges. If there had been, you could hear them on videotapes recording the collapse. You would see their distinctive signature on seismographs recording the collapse. They weren't there.

[go west young man]

26. Can you please explain for us then the grey bursts climbing up

the right hand side of the building at the 20 second and 56 second marks in the video? Just curious what you believe that to be? We're they silent bursts? What kind of noise did they make?

[LARED]

27. Air

As the building collapses the air inside has to go somewhere. It goes out the windows or the path of least resistance.

[wildbilln864]

37. Nope!

Because first the windows break going up one side. Then the other side shows them breaking up the wall also. :eyes: The "air" wouldn't break the windows up the other side when there was a place for the air to escape already on the other side.

[LARED]

40. Have you consider that the

collapse broke the windows and the nice big holes as a result were the path of least resistance for all the debris to exit?

[wildbilln864]

51. sophistry much?

[LARED]

58. Non sequitur much nt

[wildbilln864]

63. while it is plausible.....

that the air escaped through holes(broken windows) created during the collapse, that is not the case.
A plausible but misleading or fallacious argument.=sophistry

[LARED]

64. Just saying "that is not the case" hardly qualifies as establishing

that this is a sophistic argument?

"Have you considered that the collapse broke the windows and the nice big holes as a result were the path of least resistance for all the debris to exit?"

Also it's not even an argument. It's a question.

[wildbilln864]

67. Okay then...

I've considered it and found it less likely than an expulsion from compressed air caused by floors collapsing.

[LARED]

73. I believe the debris existing the windows are exactly caused by

floors collapsing

[Fainter]

78. Tres Bien Wildbilln!

[William Seger]

102. Except for the part...

... about assuming that the air broke the windows, rather than simply being blown out windows that were already broken.

Fuzzy thinking.

[wildbilln864]

104. Fuzzy posting! WTF are you assuming now? nt

[William Seger]

107. I'm not assuming anything. I'm reading what you wrote

> "The 'air' wouldn't break the windows up the other side when there was a place for the air to escape already on the other side."

The air wouldn't need to break any windows at all: It could -- in fact, it would necessarily -- be blown out windows that were already broken. Fuzzy thinking.

[Fainter]

79. Inadvertent Dupe--Deleted. n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

28. They certainly were silent. Therefore they weren't explosive charges.

Are you talking about when windows broke and smoke streamed out behind the falling building?

You do understand that the lack of seismograph and audio evidence proves conclusively that there were no explosive charges, right? That is POSITIVE evidence that the building wasn't dropped in a controlled demolition. No charges = no controlled demolition.

[MNReformer]

32. I don't know how these buildings were brought down.

But the fact is that three of them fell on the same day in a very small period of time and in a manner that certainly resembles controlled demolition.

[Bolo Boffin]

33. The knowledge of how they fell down is available.

http://wtc.nist.gov

They certainly did not resemble controlled demolition. Controlled demolitions don't send debris flying out the way the towers and WTC 7 did. Controlled demolitions make huge, loud sounds of explosions that can be detected in seismographs and more. That didn't happen here.

When you look into it, they don't look like controlled demolitions at all. They look like buildings falling down.

[MNReformer]

34. I am not a newcomer to this issue. I have read NIST. n/t

There are nonexplosive demolition devices--primarily for concrete, but still, they do exist. How do you or any of us know what types of explosives may have been engineered that are not commercially available but nonetheless exist and could have been used by the government or anyone working for them?

[Bolo Boffin]

45. Then you have no excuse.

Instead of babbling about mythical hushaboom explosives that can cut structural steel, let's stick to reality while discussing this event.

What problems do you have with the NIST study?

[wildbilln864]

38. the propaganda is available, you mean! nt

[Fainter]

80. OK, Show Us Footage Of Natural Collapses Expelling Ejecta In...

the manner of the Twins and WTC 7.

[SDuderstadt]

81. And what makes you think this would be available?

If a building collapsed "naturally", do you think someone would just happen to be filming it at the time? Why do you find this explanation to be so puzzling? Where is the air SUPPOSED to go??

[Fainter]

82. Bolo Seems To Think Such Footage Is Available, Else How ...

would he know the 9/11 collapses resemble the ordinary fall of buildings?

[SDuderstadt]

83. It's called physics, Fainter....

maybe you should look into it.

[Bolo Boffin]

84. The "ejecta" seen in other buildings actually got there when the sides fell out from the buildings

No being flung for 600' or whatever.



Individual pieces you see falling out are aluminum cladding being shed from the building.

Explosives needed to hurl anything that far would have been far in excess of what was needed to cut the columns, and all of it would have been present on the seismographs sensitive enough to pick up the collapses.

[greyl]

29. Can you explain why no "charges" are seen before the collapse began?

That should be a big hint to how stupid demo theories are.

[petgoat]

35. Explosions were witnessed in the towers by dozens of first responders. nt

[greyl]

41. Doesn't answer the question. There are no "grey bursts" seen before the collapse began. nt

[petgoat]

42. Maybe Grey bursts were premature. They were meant to be

covered by dust. Pre-collapse blasts, having no cover, were formulated not to
eject concrete.

[greyl]

43. They happened after the collapse began.

That screams "caused by collapse", not "cause of collapse".

[petgoat]

44. Ex post hoc ergo propter hoc, eh?

The jets of "air" leaving central windows at a claimed 170 feet per second
make no sense as air. Air pressure would be exerted on all windows on a floor
equally. Most of the squibs are localized to just one or two windows.

[William Seger]

48. Gotta love it...

... when someone inappropriately uses the names of logical fallacies. It always reminds me of some of Monty Python's more subtle humor.

No, I do believe that greyl is just saying that if A happened before B, then B did not cause A. In every controlled demolition video I've see, the "jets of air" happen first, and then the building falls. In the WTC collapses, it's the exact opposite. Whatever cause you postulate for the "jets of air" in either case, you can't possibly get cause and effect straight if you get the time order backwards.

"The jets of 'air' leaving central windows at a claimed 170 feet per second" were claimed by whom?

"Air pressure would be exerted on all windows on a floor equally" does not imply that all windows should react equally, especially given that the structure was collapsing. Once again, your logic has failed you.

[petgoat]

65. There's nothing inappropriate about by invoking of the fallacy.

You're just spraying more liquid fertilizer around.

Grayl was claiming the squibs were caused by the collapse.

Then you mischaracterize the sequence of events by linking squibs
at the 50th floor level (which occured before the 50th floor
collapsed) to the time frame of collapse initiation at the 100 foot
level. 170 fps burst: Ryan (p. 2) http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/Ryan_HVBD.pdf

I would certainly not maintain that all windows should react equally.
It does seem peculiar that those in the central part of the wall should
have weaker mountings than the other ones. That most of the squibs were
isolated at the center of the wall suggests to me explosive pressures
coming from the core area.

[William Seger]

72. LOL, Kevin Ryan is an idiot

I didn't realize you were talking about THAT "squib" since it's been debunked about a million times. Here's a video of the "squib" he used for his "170 fps" guess, but from a different angle: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooKs01j6jCM

So first, his estimate is at least twice too large.

Second, even 170 fps would be way too slow to be a cloud from an explosion.

And finally, he doesn't seem to appreciate the fact that it starts slowly and then speeds up as the collapse front approaches. That sinks the explosives argument right there, so I'm not impressed with your "it was an explosion at the core" supposition.

Why are you allow idiots to shape your thinking?

[petgoat]

87. I learned the 170 fps figure from 911research but can no longer find it there.

It seems like a pretty simple calculation, given known video frame rates.
I don't see how the angle can exaggerate the distance traveled, so I don't
see how that makes any difference.

You didn't address any of my points except to dispute a trivial point with
an unconvincing argument and an ad hominem attack on Kevin Ryan, whose
endorsement of the congressional campaign of the psychopath Kevin Barrett
was truly idiotic.

[wildbilln864]

53. yes....

because the first flashes happened below camera view. Everyone was focused on the impact areas and no one videoed the bottom. Also the bottoms were blocked from view by other buildings.

[wildbilln864]

108. those alledged charges could....

have been inside the building on the core columns where they wouldn't be visible from the outside.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wildbilln864]

36. Wrong! Thermit charges wouldn't be loud at all. nt

:eyes:

[Bolo Boffin]

46. No viable scenario with thermit/thermite/thermate charges has ever been demonstrated whatsoever. n/t

[wildbilln864]

52. As far as you know.

And there's a first time for everything bolob.

"Thermite is not an explosive but instead operates by exposing a very small area of metal to extremely high temperatures. Intense heat focused on a small spot can be used to cut through metal or weld metal components together by melting a very thin film where the components meet."

and...
"Thermite hand grenades are used as incendiary devices to destroy enemy equipment quickly. Additionally, thermite grenades are used by friendly forces to destroy their own items and equipment when there is imminent danger of capture. Because standard iron-thermite is difficult to ignite, burns with practically no flame and has a small radius of action, standard thermite is rarely used on its own as an incendiary composition. It is more usually employed with other ingredients added to enhance its incendiary effects. Thermate-TH3 is a mixture of thermite and pyrotechnic additives which have been found to be superior to standard thermite for incendiary purposes. Its composition by weight is generally 68.7% thermite, 29.0% barium nitrate, 2.0% sulfur and 0.3% binder (such as PBAN). The addition of barium nitrate to thermite increases its thermal effect, creates flame in burning and significantly reduces the ignition temperature. Although the primary purpose of Thermate-TH3 is as an incendiary, it will also weld metal surfaces together.

A classic military use for thermite is disabling artillery pieces and it has been used for this purpose since the Second World War. Thermite can permanently disable artillery pieces without the use of explosive charges and therefore can be used with a reasonable amount of stealth. "
wiki link

[Bolo Boffin]

54. As far as you know, either, wildbill.

When you say "first time for everything," wildbill, doesn't your head snap around from the cognitive dissonance?

Your wiki quote doesn't give a scenario for thermite charges that could demolish a building. Please get real.

[wildbilln864]

55. no bolob it doesn't snap around.

What ever that would mean. There's no cognitive dissonance on my part. Nice try.

[Bolo Boffin]

56. That's the second time you've mangled my name, wildbill. Stop it immediately.

bolo or boloboffin to you. Nothing else. You've been warned.

And I'm sad to hear that you experience no cognitive dissonance whatsoever when saying that there's a "first time for everything" after your seven years or so continually telling us that you think it impossible that 3 buildings fell down because of fire for the first time ever on 9/11.

Take some responsibility for your positions long stated and well documented, wildbill.

[wildbilln864]

61. Oooo! You're skeering me.....

NOT! :eyes: Sorry for the typos over you name though. Straighten your panties back out.

While it is possible for someone to use thermit to take a building down when used simultaneously with other compounds, it's not possible to bring three steel framed skyscrapers completely to the ground using kerosene fires that only burn for short periods. The cognitive dissonance you imagine is just more evidence of your limited insight. Stuben Glass comes to mind.

[petgoat]

66. Simple. Cut a hole in the concrete floor down to the girder underneath.

Install thermite charge and radio control igniter. If you want, you can even
contain the stuff by making a dovetail hole and pinning a plug on the top.

All you "can't do" naysayers! You never heard of Yankee Ingenuity?
(Well, bolo didn't, I guess.)

[William Seger]

50. Explain to me how you would get the precise timing necessary...

... using thermite charges?

This is Richard Gage's primary cognitive dissonance: On the one hand he claims that only a "controlled demolition" could cause all the lower columns to fail as rapidly as we see in WTC 7; but simultaneously, when faced with explaining why there's no evidence of explosions, he supposes thermite was used.

[petgoat]

68. I'll suppose a finely milled compound would react in a predictable way,

and radio control igniters could be precisely controlled in time.

What is all this "can't do" nonsense?

Concrete and standard steel girders are not exactly impractical
materials for experimenting with.

[wildbilln864]

39. Here is a slow motion version where flashes can be seen.

linky :hi:

[Bolo Boffin]

47. Flashes != explosive devices. n/t

[wildbilln864]

105. kick! nt

[Bolo Boffin]

106. Careful there, wildbill.

You're liable to get people to realize just how damaged that building was by kicking this new footage!

You don't want to get a debunking reputation, do you?

[wildbilln864]

114. yes!

I like debunking the OCT! Debunking your bunkum! :hi:

ETA: so you didn't watch the video! Hint: there's no severe damage shown to #7 in that video.

[wildbilln864]

115. kick! nt