Jump to content
The Education Forum

Debunking the Debunkers


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 42
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Well lets us get the FULL Record release of the COMPUTER models NIST used so = every = competent person can address this important issue. Generally you keep a secret becuse you have something bad to hide. THE TRUTH SHALL MAKE YOU FREE.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Debunking Joseph Nobles (and Colby's): Freefall Speed

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2010/06/debunking-joseph-nobles-freefall-speed.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well lets us get the FULL Record release of the COMPUTER models NIST used so = every = competent person can address this important issue. Generally you keep a secret becuse you have something bad to hide. THE TRUTH SHALL MAKE YOU FREE.

Get back to us with evidence that anyone filed an FOIA request for the simulations. Since Jones didn't mention this I doubt it happened

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Debunking Joseph Nobles (and Colby's): Freefall Speed

http://911debunkers....fall-speed.html

Your hapless blogger failed to produce any evidence the collapse times were inconsistent with impact/fire induced collapses. Neither of you seems to understand how CD works.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your hapless blogger // end Colby Lier ,lier pants on fire

THIS IS NOT A HAPLESS BLOGGER <BUT ONE WHO DESTROYS THE DEBUNKERS !!!!!!!!

Mr. Nobles makes quite a remarkable statement in regard to the collapse of the building.

"As shocking as it may be to our inexperience in large buildings falling, this is how quickly buildings of this size fall when they begin to collapse."

Oh really? If that's the case Mr. Nobles, then why did these buildings, all known controlled demolitions, take as long and even longer to fall than Building 7? Considering the fact that all these buildings are shorter than Building 7 and supposedly fire, not explosives, brought Building 7 down.

Finally, Mr. Nobles attempts to explain the period of free fall Building 7 underwent in its collapse. And like all other debunkers, he attributes this to the alleged buckling of eight of the lower floors. I recently demonstrated in two previous posts that these claims are clearly unfounded.

Conclusions

Mr. Nobles has clearly not explained the collapse anomalies of the Twin Towers and Building 7. Nothing will ever accurately explain what happened to those buildings until a new investigation is finally launched. One thing is for sure though: fire cannot cause a steel framed building to fall at the incredible rate at which the WTC fell in. The only example of a top-down progressive collapse initiated by fire is one in which a 13 story building took 10 seconds to partially collapse.

========

The Physics of WTC 7

Sunday, May 23, 2010

========

About a month ago I had a debate with several debunkers at once about the collapse of WTC 7. In particular, we debated about the period of free fall that occured during the collapse. Here are some of the more memorable responses I got from them:

"I'm still gonna say wiping out 30 meters of supports is too xxxxing obvious for a secret op." -Weirdo10o4

(Apparently it wasn't that obvious, as NIST needed a high school teacher to point it out to them.)

"consider that I can roll a bowling ball down a long flight of stairs. As it rolls down the stairs, it spends time in free fall--between each stair" -EdgemanLL2

(The very obvious difference of course is that when a ball rolls down the stairs, nothing is removed and the ball only free falls for a few inches. Building 7 was in free fall for about 100 feet, or 1/6 of its height.)

"It wouldn't need to give up any of its energy to buckle or crush anything." -CaptMandrake360

(I almost didn't even know how to respond to that.)

The main person I was really debating with was the infamous RKOwens4, who apparently thinks that NIST actually predicted the period of free fall.

"The only point I'm trying to make is that NIST DID predict it and DOES have an explanation for the 2.25 seconds of free-fall. So don't go around saying, 'The 2.25 second free-fall came as a total surprise to NIST' or 'NIST can't explain why the building fell at free-fall for 2.25 seconds.'

As I said, the NIST report on WTC7 actually PREDICTED a 2.25 second free-fall of WTC7, due to the buckling of 8 floors near the base of the building." -RKOwens4

I wasn't entirely sure how Mr. Owens came to this conclusion, as there was nothing about the building entering into free fall in NIST's draft report and, as mentioned above, David Chandler was the one who had to point it out to them. But perhaps he believes NIST's calculations did predict the free fall and NIST was just simply unaware of it. This seems unlikely though, when one looks at the differences between the Draft Report and the Final Report:

The Draft Report stated:

"The collapse time of the upper 18 floors of the north face of WTC 7... was 40 percent greater than the computed free fall time. This is consistent with physical principals." -NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Draft for Public Comment, 610

However, the Final Report states:

"The observed descent time of the upper 18 stories of the north face of WTC 7... was 40 percent greater than the computed free fall time. A more detailed analysis of the descent of the north face found three stages: (1) a slow descent with acceleration less than that of gravity that corrosponded to the buckling of the exterior columns at the lower floors, (2) a freefall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 seconds, and (3) a decreasing acceleration as the north face encountered resistance from the structure below." -NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (Final Report): 607

Note that the phrase "consistent with physical principals" is completely absent from NIST's newer passage. In fact, "consistent with physical principals" appears nowhere in NIST's final report. There is a "consistent with" statement in the final report, but it says nothing about physical principals. After giving its three stage analysis, NIST states: "The three stages of collapse progression described above are consistent with the results of the global collapse analyses discussed earlier in this chapter." -NCSTAR 1-9 (Final Report): 603

Basically, what NIST is saying is that its three stage analysis on this page is consistent with its three stage analyses on earlier pages! How nice of NIST to assure everyone that a later part of their report agrees with an earlier part of their report. It's apparently not consistent with physical principals, but it's consistent with their report! In any case, these facts show that there was absolutely no indication prior to publishing their final report that they had predicted free fall at all. It was one thing they said was impossible. However, this too was a detail Mr. Owens disagreed with:

"Can you provide me with a link to where they ever said that any period of free-fall would have been impossible from a fire-induced collapse?" -RKOwens4

I do wonder if Mr. Owens has actually watched NIST's technical briefing.

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/eDvNS9iMjzA?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I also briefly discussed how the fires could not have been hot enough to cause the collapse in the first place. Mr. Owens was (not surprisingly) unconvinced.

"Now, go read the report and explain to me WHY expanding floor beams pushing the core columns out of alignment was not enough to cause the building to collapse. Tell me why, specifically." -RKOwens4

Specifically, because the fires could not possibly have been as hot as NIST stated to do that.

"raising those five floor beams to a temperature of 600°C would require an enormous amount of energy, far more than was available from the burning of the office furnishings underneath the floor beams." -Kevin Ryan

Debunkers can easily hand wave away Kevin Ryan's statement, as he is a "truther" and therefore has no credibility. But unfortunately for them, even Dr. Frank Greening, a long time debunker, agrees that the fires could not have been as hot as NIST says.

"NIST's collapse initiation hypothesis requires that structural steel temperatures on floors 12/13 significantly exceeded 300°C [570°F]--a condition that could never have been realized with NIST's postulated 32 kg/m2 fuel loading." -Dr. Frank Greening

While Dr. Greening does not believe the building was demolished, he does agree that NIST's report is false.

The above three videos are basically my response to these debunkers who feel there was nothing strange about the free fall of WTC 7.

Far from solving the mystery of WTC 7's collapse, NIST has done nothing but created more mysteries. And debunkers have certainly not solved them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since when buildings undergo controlled demo only a few floors are blown and gravity does the rest, why would a damaged induced collapse take significantly longer than a CD induced one? In both cases a localized failure leads to a global collapse.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your hapless blogger // end Colby Lier ,lier pants on fire

Did you fail 1st grade?

lier

   [lahy-er] noun

a person or thing that lies, as in wait or in ambush.

xxxx

   [lahy-er] noun

a person who tells lies.

lyre

   [lahyuhr] noun

a musical instrument of ancient Greece consisting of a soundbox made typically from a turtle shell

Edited by Len Colby
Link to post
Share on other sites

Since when buildings undergo controlled demo only a few floors are blown and gravity does the rest, why would a damaged induced collapse take significantly longer than a CD induced one? In both cases a localized failure leads to a global collapse. // END COLBY

============================================================

DAMAGE INDUCED COLLAPSE OCCURS AT LOCALLIZED AREAS OF A BUILDING ,THUS NOT SEQUENTIALLY PERVASIVE.

THUS ONLY PARTS HERE AND THERE ARE DAMAGE CAUSING DOWNWARD FALL. SOME PARTS OF THE BUILDING NOT DAMAGED GETTING IN THE WAY OF A DOWNWARD FALL.

IN CONTRAST

CD

(controlled demolition ) IS SEQUENTIALLY PERVASIVE DAMAGE LARGER IN EXTENT AND DONE IN A SEQUENTIAL MANER ,THUS PARTS OF THE BUILDING ARE DAMAGED SO THEY DO NOT GET IN THE WAY OF A DOWNWARD FALL.

IS SEQUENTIALLY PERVASIVE // NOT SEQUENTIALLY PERVASIVE

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

COMMON SENSE

Common sense is defined by Merriam-Webster as, "sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts." Thus, "common sense" (in this view) equates to the knowledge and experience which most people already have, or which the person using the term believes that they do or should have.

Edited by Steven Gaal
Link to post
Share on other sites

WTF do you think "SEQUENTIALLY PERVASIVE. " means? It is a made up nonsense phrase. As previously explained even in CD's gravity does most of the work:

The basic idea of explosive demolition is quite simple: If you remove the support structure of a building at a certain point, the section of the building above that point will fall down on the part of the building below that point. If this upper section is heavy enough, it will collide with the lower part with sufficient force to cause significant damage. The explosives are just the trigger for the demolition. It's
that brings the building down.

[...]

Generally speaking, blasters will explode the major support columns on the lower floors first and then a few upper stories. In a 20-story building, for example, the blasters might blow the columns on the first and second floor, as well as the 12th and 15th floors. IN MOST CASES, BLOWING THE SUPPORT STRUCTURES ON THE LOWER FLOORS IS SUFFICIENT FOR COLLAPSING THE BUILDING, but loading columns on upper floors helps break the building material into smaller pieces as it falls. This makes for easier cleanup following the blast.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/engineering/structural/building-implosion.htm

Gravity's Helpers

... Controlled Demolition Inc. employs the forces of gravity and dynamite to quickly and safely demolish this multi-story buildings
...

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1964&dat=19811128&id=MgAtAAAAIBAJ&sjid=p80FAAAAIBAJ&pg=3313,5900164

Even one of the nuttiest truther 'experts' acknowledges this, "In a conventional controlled-demolition, a building's supports are knocked out and the building is broken up as it slams to the ground. In a conventional controlled-demolition, gravity is used to break up the building. "

http://drjudywood.com/articles/BBE/BilliardBalls.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

WTF do you think "SEQUENTIALLY PERVASIVE. " means? It is a made up nonsense phrase. As previously explained even in CD's gravity does most of the work: // end Colby

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Gee we had a very busy day little Colby ,havent we ?? Now come and sit on Daddy Steve's lap and he will make things clear. Now yes little Colby gravity makes things fall down go boom. 'Good' , some science has gotten into your head. But we will have to go to the dictionary to help you learn what certain words mean. Thats it little Colby hand the dictionary to Daddy Steve ,now 'IN MOST CASES' as you write,doesnt mean all and every case. All,every and the word most are different and mean different things. You see little Colby the man who owned the buildings was a business man. Money ,money money ,thats what hes interested in. He (who also said pull the building) didnt want to damage other buildings next to his building. He would have to pay other people money if his building fell into their building. Bringing a building down in inner Manhattan is only done carefully. Careful,careful little Colby. So little Colby there was extra ,more than usual , boom ,boom, stuff , so that gravity fall down did less work than the normal demolition. OK ??

=======

Now little Colby you used ," WTF" .....golly that the bad 'F' word. Daddy Steve dosent appreciate you using the 'F' word. Daddy Steve was tring to educate you with the phrase.

No little Colby Daddy Steve was trying to help you think. Yes thinking is hard little Colby. Most people would rather die than think. No I didnt make those words up little Colby,but latter why dont you go on your computer and find out who said that. Now to the phrase that upset you sooooo much.

+++++++

SEQUENTIALLY . characterized by or having a regular sequence. A planned sequence little Colby. The boom ,boom stuff was done with a particular plan. So when little Colby the building falls down it does so in a little area. Some people little Colby use the term , 'small footprint' , to describe this little area the building was to collaspe into. OK ??

+++++++

PERVASIVE. existing in or spreading through every part of something . Covering every part of somethink,OK, little Colby ?

======

So little Colby "SEQUENTIALLY PERVASIVE ", is something done in a planned sequence over the entire area of something. The boom,boom stuff was placed in a sequence because little Colby that gravity (Im soooo proud you understand) works in one direction, downward.

One floor of the building to make this 'small footprint' didnt fall and get in the way of another floor to make a 'BIG' footprint. It was pervasive ( all over,every part , remember little Colby ? ) for the same

reason. If the boom ,boom stuff wasnt pervasive ,it would be loopsided like a bad cake and some of his cake-building could hit other peoples cake-buildings. He would have to pay money little Colby to the other people. This special controlled demolition was sequentially pervasive.

=====================ooo=======================

Ok little Colby jump off and keep the dictionary, Daddy Steve has 4 others. Have fun and dont forget to look up that quote I used. Some people would rather die than think.

Edited by Steven Gaal
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not going to get into a semantic discussion about a nonsense phrase with an extremely obnoxious person who doesn't know how to spell 'xxxx' and once churned out the phrase "...you my need a few grammer lessons as to punctuation and/or reading comprehension course"; I might as well try explain the difference between blue and purple to someone who was born blind.

'IN MOST CASES' as you write,doesnt mean all and every case. All,every and most are different and mean different things.

Irrelevant the blogger and you compared the collapse times of the WTC towers to videos of controlled demolitions. Get back to us with evidence any of those were exceptions.

You see little Colby the man who owned the buildings was a business man.

Only one of the buildings was privately owned.

Money ,money money ,thats what hes interested in.

Jews are like that of course.

He (who also said pull the building)

Sorry the word 'pull' does not mean 'demolish' and the logical implication of you analysis is that the Fire Department which just lost over 300 men carried out the demolition of WTC7 and thus was was 'in on' 9/11.

didnt want to damage other buildings next to his building.

The he didn't get his wish since there was extensive damage to surrounding buildings

Link to post
Share on other sites

QUOTE THIS QUOTE THAT..........CONTROLLED DEMOLITION

BTW THE SEQUENTIALLY PERVASIVE BOOM BOOM did a very good (but not perfect) job, a very small footprint.

PhD Physicist Grabbe: Peer-reviewed paper in Journal of Engineering Mechanics

911 Blog

My tenacious colleague Dr. Grabbe has succeeded in getting a paper successfully through peer-review with editors of the Journal of Engineering Mechanics. His paper confronts Bazant who previously published a paper supportive of the "official 9/11 narrative" in the same journal.

Sincere congratulations to Crockett for another significant peer-reviewed paper; it was accepted for publication in October 2012 in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

++++++++++++

WHO LET THE CASE CLOSED

WHO WHO WHO !!!

WHO LET THE CASE CLOSED WHO WHO WHO !!!!

Edited by Steven Gaal
Link to post
Share on other sites

QUOTE THIS QUOTE THAT..........CONTROLLED DEMOLITION

BTW THE SEQUENTIALLY PERVASIVE BOOM BOOM did a very good (but not perfect) job, a very small footprint.

PhD Physicist Grabbe: Peer-reviewed paper in Journal of Engineering Mechanics

911 Blog

My tenacious colleague Dr. Grabbe has succeeded in getting a paper successfully through peer-review with editors of the Journal of Engineering Mechanics. His paper confronts Bazant who previously published a paper supportive of the "official 9/11 narrative" in the same journal.

Sincere congratulations to Crockett for another significant peer-reviewed paper; it was accepted for publication in October 2012 in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

++++++++++++

WHO LET THE CASE CLOSED

WHO WHO WHO !!!

WHO LET THE CASE CLOSED WHO WHO WHO !!!!

I wouldn't get too excited about the supposed paper just yet, truthers previously claimed to have published papers in the same journal but the turned out to be two short review of a legitimately peer-reviewed papers which appeared in the opinion section. Truthers have yet to publish a paper outside of their own journals without having paid for the privilege.

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/D25%20WTC%20Discussions%20Replies.pdf pg 915

http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/(ASCE)EM.1943-7889.0000025

And contrary to your infantile babbling a paper passing peer-review does mean the authors' theories are considered proven, only that they have passed the journal's standard for publication. In any case there have already been a few legitimately peer reviewed papers supporting the damage induced collapses theory.

Link to post
Share on other sites

LEN TRY TO BE HONEST, TRY........IF YOU ARE SHOWN YOUR WRONG RE: 911 .....CAN YOU ADMITT IT ????

I DONT THINK SO. YOU COULD NEVER ADMITT IT. IMHO

THATS WHAT MANY OF MY FRIENDS SAY," STOP DEBATING COLBY,ITS NO USE,WASTE OF TIME " ......THEY SAY HE WILL NEVER ADMIT HE IS WRONG REGARDING 911 ....NEVER

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Edited by Steven Gaal
Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...