Path to Persia

[جوري]

And just for funsies .. this takes things from where you left off!

best,

 

[Independent]

What does this mean?

Chandler is in effect calling the engineers mass murderers (ie complicit in a cover up). I think if they choose to give him a slightly hard time verbally in return, it's fair enough.

The new video you have posted does not change anything. That's because it was the publication of this same video, and the final version of the NIST report, that initiated the whole thread which I quote from. In other words, they are already incorporating all this information in their discussion. Although the engineers agree with the main thrust of the NIST report they do have some quibbles, as they tell us. One of them relates to the loose use of the word 'freefall'. Please read the whole thread, I have only given a few excerpts to cover some of the main points. (By the way, they also think the NIST spokesman didn't exactly cover himself in glory on the podium, although they don't see anything sinister in it.)

As the quotes I have already given tell you, both NIST and Chandler are too glib with the term 'freefall'. Far from bending over to cover their tracks, NIST seem amazingly unaware of the political sensitivity of this word. In any case, Chandler's own figures don't show absolute freefall, as he tells us at the start of the other video (although from this point onwards he treats it as if it does). 'Close' to freefall is not the same as absolute freefall.

More importantly, Chandler fails altogether to deal with the prior interior collapse of the building. The first we can see of this in the video is the collapse of the penthouse, but the process began earlier (as the seismic record shows).

This means that by the time walls began to come down, there was already very little left to slow them down in the upper storeys. Once it began to hit the more intact lower structures the collapse slowed. The engineers don't see this as surprising or strange, because they don't have a political theory to justify on top of it.

The idea that WTC 7 collapsed in 'freefall' is one of the central claims of the whole story. It's the prime justification for the notion that explosives were used, as Chandler says. If the worldwide profession of structural engineers do not support Chandler's interpretation, it is not accurate or reasonable to say 'there is no other explanation.'

 

[جوري]

Chandler is in effect calling the engineers mass murderers (ie complicit in a cover up). I think if they choose to give him a slightly hard time verbally in return, it's fair enough.

The point is you were proclaiming to take the 'high road' of ignoring the personal aspects of the posts directed against you, yet your entire post was riddled with nothing but!

I am yet to see the 'other explanation' for the free fall!

best,

 

[Independent]

I am yet to see the 'other explanation' for the free fall!

For the third time, there was:

a) no absolute freefall, so it doesn't require explaining
b) part of the interior structure had already collapsed, thus providing minimal resistance, so whether or not the external walls fell at near freefall speeds for 2.5 seconds still doesn't prove controlled demolition.

Mustafa (and Chandler) have said that there is 'no other possible explanation'. But there is, and it's the one most structural engineers share. What technical knowledge do you have to contradict them?

Once you realise that the freefall story isn't the irreducible fact it's supposed to be, then the rest of the theory also unravels. In particular there is the impossibility of all the explosives and miles of interconnecting wiring surviving the fires and the damage by the South Tower. WTC7 was penetrated to a depth of about 25% in places. It is beyond credulity that this somehow missed all the wiring and explosives.

Then you have the problem of how to get the explosives in place. This is an operation that normally takes months of preparation in an empty building where no one is around to object when you cut away to the girders.

All this is so difficult that Richard Gage, found of A&E for 9/11, has suggested on tv that the explosives were laid in place when WTC was built. That was in 1989! He is seriously suggesting that the guys who are supposed to have planned 9/11 sat on what was literally a death trap for 12 years! All for the sake of justifying an invasion of Afghanistan, which at the time was still under Soviet control!

You couldn't make this stuff up. Except that they do, of course.

 

[جوري]

What technical knowledge do you have to contradict them?

What technical knowledge have you to contradict a free fall? and even if by some complete lapse of judgement I am to accept this mysterious other theory which you're yet to share, why didn't it impact any other buildings in the vicinity in a similar style especially those who were closer to the other two towers than WTC7.

 

[Independent]

What technical knowledge have you to contradict a free fall? and even if by some complete lapse of judgement I am to accept this mysterious other theory which you're yet to share, why didn't it impact any other buildings in the vicinity in a similar style especially those who were closer to the other two towers than WTC7.

You really have no idea what you're talking about do you? It's just meaningless to talk about a 'freefall theory that doesn't impact other buildings in the area'. Utterly meaningless.

The idea that WTC 7 collapsed in freefall is meant to prove that that it collapsed as a result of explosives. No one is suggesting that the other buildings surrounding WTC 7 were wired with explosives.

What youprobably meant to ask, although it's hard to be sure what you're on about, is how come the other buildings around WTC 7 didn't collapse. This issue has nothing to do with the freefall issue. We can talk about that too if you want, but it's got nothing directly to do with anything in the videos posted.

 

[جوري]

You really have no idea what you're talking about do you?

That's more an adequate assessment of what you're doing here!

It's just meaningless to talk about a 'freefall theory that doesn't impact other buildings in the area'. Utterly meaningless.

Why meaningless- because you haven't a logical piece of information to justify the event?
Go ahead and explain to us what caused WTC 7 to collapse the way it did and go ahead as well and explain why buildings closer to the other towers weren't impacted in a similar fashion. We'll be waiting.. try to cut the crap though, the padding and the adhoms and get to the facts!

best,

 

[Independent]

Go ahead and explain to us what caused WTC 7 to collapse the way it did

Do you understand why the freefall issue is the single most important issue to the whole argument?

explain why buildings closer to the other towers weren't impacted in a similar fashion

Every building is unique. The 1000 page NIST report goes into enormous detail about the structure of WTC 7 and its weaknesses. In particular, these relate to the problems of constructing over a subway station (unique to WTC 7). This meant that a large area within the total perimeter of the building had to be supported from the sides - a kind of bridge or platform if you like. The NIST computer modelling showed that this resulted in disproportionate dependence being placed on certain structural pillars, and also a propensity to progressive collapse. The individual Structural Engineer responsible for the original WTC 7 design accepted the analysis. The damage from the impact of the South Tower was so great that the senior fireman on the scene immediately predicted it would ultimately collapse. In addition, the inability of the firefighters to obtain water pressure (because of the collapse of the Towers) meant that, in effect, the fire raged largely unchecked for more than 5 hours. No other high rise building in the world has ever experienced the same conditions. Other buildings around WTC 7 were also damaged and set on fire, but none had the other weaknesses. Also, in any major catastrophe of this scale (an earthquake, tsunami etc) there is a certain random factor about which buildings survive and which collapse.

 

[جوري]

Do you understand why the freefall issue is the single most important issue to the whole argument?

Do you understand that proving one thing inaccurate (which you're yet to do in actuality and without resorting to some logical fallacy) isn't in and of itself a substitute for you providing a logical and cohesive piece to what actually occurred?

Every building is unique. The 1000 page NIST report goes into enormous detail about the structure of WTC 7 and its weaknesses. In particular, these relate to the problems of constructing over a subway station (unique to WTC 7). This meant that a large area within the total perimeter of the building had to be supported from the sides - a kind of bridge or platform if you like. The NIST computer modelling showed that this resulted in disproportionate dependence being placed on certain structural pillars, and also a propensity to progressive collapse. The individual Structural Engineer responsible for the original WTC 7 design accepted the analysis. The damage from the impact of the South Tower was so great that the senior fireman on the scene immediately predicted it would ultimately collapse. In addition, the inability of the firefighters to obtain water pressure (because of the collapse of the Towers) meant that, in effect, the fire raged largely unchecked for more than 5 hours. No other high rise building in the world has ever experienced the same conditions. Other buildings around WTC 7 were also damaged and set on fire, but none had the other weaknesses. Also, in any major catastrophe of this scale (an earthquake, tsunami etc) there is a certain random factor about which buildings survive and which collapse.

This is a non-reply and I told you to cut the crap. Most of the buildings there are built of the same material, stand on the same grounds and follow the same guidelines. I don't have to be a 'technical expert' but I do have two uncles who are civil, and architectural engineers and one of them is responsible for the building of the cairo airport and I have seen his compendiums of what goes into designing a building. From the ground, to the material to aesthetics even to the landscapes of it and how in a articular area most of the buildings follow the exact same design, same ground mathematics -- so again hows about your cut the crap and not get into the 1000 page jargon if you yourself desire to be in keeping with Occam's razor and not just to drop heavy words around as if no one will have a clue what you're referring to?

best,

 

[Independent]

Do you understand that proving one thing inaccurate (which you're yet to do in actuality and without resorting to some logical fallacy) isn't in and of itself a substitute for you providing a logical and cohesive piece to what actually occurred?

This issue isn't significant for me or the NIST version, but for it is for Chandler. There are any number of reasons to reject his theory otherwise (such as the ridiculous planting of the explosives 12 years beforehand, which you have not answered). However, if he can demonstrate freefall, he believes he has one irreducible fact that cannot be explained except by explosives.

Most of the buildings there are built of the same material, stand on the same grounds and follow the same guidelines.

Breathtakingly ignorant. Please join the JREF forum so you can be ridiculed appropriately.

 

[جوري]

Breathtakingly ignorant.

I take it as usual you've nothing of substance to contribute to either questions raised save your adhoms? Ok, just so I too wouldn't bother wasting my time like br. Mc.

best,

 

[Independent]

I take it as usual you've nothing of substance to contribute to either questions raised save your adhoms? Ok, just so I too wouldn't bother wasting my time like br. Mc.

Throughout the whole course of this thread you have offered not one single explanation for any of the issues around the WTC 7 collapse. Instead, you have changed the subject repeatedly by asking new questions.

Not one single answer.

 

[جوري]

Throughout the whole course of this thread you have offered not one single explanation for any of the issues around the WTC 7 collapse. Instead, you have changed the subject repeatedly by asking new questions.

Not one single answer.

That was the job that you decided to take upon yourself? You're struggling and expect us to do your homework for you? We don't accept the official account. You've no reason to deny it yet failed to substantiate it, I rather think it is plain to the naked eye that the onus is on you, especially that you're getting paid to sit on forums such as these and do your bit. You're failure to do your bit falls completely on your shoulders not anyone else'

best,

 

[Independent]

We don't accept the official account.

That's it! That's the entire extent of your analysis!

Please explain to me how your grand theory holds up if the explosives were planted in 1989?

 

[جوري]

That's it! That's the entire extent of your analysis!

Please explain to me how your grand theory holds up if the explosives were planted in 1989?

Again, you set out to do a job and you failed. My job isn't to work with your changing variables as a result of your failure. Rather I joined to discuss br. Mustafa's point of views and have done so in the first couple of pages. If you don't like the evolution of the thread then concede your surrender and remove yourself from the discussion.

best,

 

[Independent]

You're much keener on asking questions than you are on answering them.
\
This directly affects Mustafa's post and your insane grand theory.

How does planting the explosives in 1989, when the Soviets were still in control of Afghanistan, how does that makes sense if Afghanistan was the target?

 

[جوري]

You're much keener on asking questions than you are on answering them.

That's how intelligent people learn, unfortunately you've elected yourself to complete a job and failed! That reflects only on you not my ability or inability to answer Q's.
Why don't you answer the two questions posed to you before introducing new ones?

best,

 

[Independent]

This is funny!

Now you can't even make up stuff for your own crazy theory!

You can say anything at all - no need for reality to intervene!

 

[جوري]

Now you can't even make up stuff for your own crazy theory!

I take it as we've already concluded pages ago that you've nothing of substance to contribute aside from your incessant need to take up web space trolling?

best,

 

[MustafaMc]

For the third time, there was:
a) no absolute freefall, so it doesn't require explaining

Earlier you wrote: "My best estimates of the numbers are:
1. the average acceleration between 1.75 seconds & 4.00 seconds is .94G.
2. the peak acceleration between those two times is .99 G." I assume that by 'G' you mean 'free fall acceleration'. A better term than free fall would be 'gravitational acceleration' which is 9.80665 m/s[SUP]2[/SUP]. Do you know what .94 G stands for? If the building fell with 0.94 G acceleration (not speed, but rather change in the rate of speed until terminal velocity is achieved) then it fell at 9.218 m/s[SUP]2[/SUP]. This is an average across time before and after the 2.5 seconds of 'peak acceleration' of 0.99 G. This is an illustration that you are incapable of critical thinking because 0.99 is awfully close to 1.00. Yes, there was an internal collapse prior to the exterior of the building falling as evidenced by the penthouse; however, the internal structure was connected to the external walls through the floor and the fall of the exterior wall at gravitational acceleration is evidence of no significant resistance as would be encountered in a 'pancake' collapse. Now if the internal structural columns had all been cut at the same time then there would be no resistance to the upper floors falling. Imagine a stack of 47 boxes and then giving the bottom 5 boxes a swift kick. The top box would fall at an acceleration rate of 9.8 m/s[SUP]2[/SUP] until it encountered other boxes below.