Ahmadinejad at Columbia - where's the love for the non-moonbat speakers?

[DrEvil]

Hey if you don't do physics then ask yourself why Silverstein admitted the controlled demolition of building 7 in an interview. Also, why did John Kerry then corroborate this and agree in an interview that building 7 was brought down for reasons of safety:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5JVYTxjmdc

You might even ask why admit to it? Well it's quite clever on their part, they know that they can't straight out deny a demolition of building 7 so they admit that FDNY brought it down for safety reasons. Quite clever indeed, because the average american has no idea how long it takes to demolish such a building and it seems reasonable that FDYN stepped in their that afternoon and pulled it. The problem is, it days of planning an careful placing of thermite ...

 

[Haroki]

Quote from DrEvil:

Many independent physists and engineers have looked at the building 7 collapse. Here are a few:


Heikki Kurttila, (a Finnish Doctor of Engineering) has made detailed calculations about the collapse speed of WTC-7 and so has Kenneth L. Kuttler (Professor of Mathemetics) in his WTC 7: A Short Computation paper in the Journal of 9/11 Studies.

http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/WTC7_collapse_examination.pdf
http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/W7Kuttler.pdf

The findings were : "The great speed of the collapse and low value of resistance strongly suggest controlled demolition"


Stephen jones professor of physics and Leslie roberts, a structural engineer on the original world trade centre project analyse the building 7 collapse:

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/Roberts_AnnotatedJones-RobertsonTranscript.pdf

Again their findings are controlled demolition of building 7


Steven E. Jones (professor of physics at Brigham Young University) discusses the collapse of building 7.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/...ollapse_Jones_Thermite_World_Trade_Center.pdf

Findings are that NIST report is flawed and don't explain the collapse.

Structural Engineers please. preferably ones with current experience in the design of hi rise buildings.


http://solarclarity.blogspot.com/2007/02/911-questions-still-smoldering.html

Safety Engineer and accident Analyst, National Safety Technology Authority, Finland, Heikki Kurttila, PhD


http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/Roberts_AnnotatedJones-RobertsonTranscript.pdf

page 4 - Roberts says he agrees with NIST. So that doesn't support you.....


Jones - Physics doctorate....

Again, Structural Engineers please.

Also, have you been able to find someone that says they heard demolition charges going off during the collapses? As one can hear during ANY controlled demolition?

 

[DrEvil]

Quote from Haroki:

Structural Engineers please. preferably ones with current experience in the design of hi rise buildings.


http://solarclarity.blogspot.com/2007/02/911-questions-still-smoldering.html

Safety Engineer and accident Analyst, National Safety Technology Authority, Finland, Heikki Kurttila, PhD


http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/Roberts_AnnotatedJones-RobertsonTranscript.pdf

page 4 - Roberts says he agrees with NIST. So that doesn't support you.....


Jones - Physics doctorate....

Again, Structural Engineers please.

Also, have you been able to find someone that says they heard demolition charges going off during the collapses? As one can hear during ANY controlled demolition?

You seem to be misunderstanding the point here. Building 7 collapsed in 6.5 seconds. For this to happen the fire would have to completely take out the supporting steel frame on each floor (starting from the bottom) completely symetrically around the floor and sychronised to a fraction of a second. Then this would have to happen from the ground up to the top floor in that exact order with a fraction of a second between each floor. This is the only way to make sure that each floor will not meet any resistance from the one below. That is the only way to achieve a total vertical collapse in 6.5 seconds. For a fire to be able to act on every steel column at each floor in such a sychronous fashion defies all laws of probability. That is why we have domolition experts. Demolition is an exact science. As an illustation many floors were not even on fire but failed in an extremely precise manner. Also, engineering is the application of physics to specific areas, it is not something different as you suggest.

 

[Haroki]

Quote from DrEvil:

You seem to be misunderstanding the point here. Building 7 collapsed in 6.5 seconds. For this to happen the fire would have to completely take out the supporting steel frame on each floor (starting from the bottom) completely symetrically around the floor and sychronised to a fraction of a second. Then this would have to happen from the ground up to the top floor in that exact order with a fraction of a second between each floor. This is the only way to make sure that each floor will not meet any resistance from the one below. That is the only way to achieve a total vertical collapse in 6.5 seconds. For a fire to be able to act on every steel column at each floor in such a sychronous fashion defies all laws of probability.

Very nice explanation of your viewpoints. Thank you.

So, do you have any structural engineers that agree with you?

And do you have any sources that claim to have heard demolition charges going off during the collapse?

These aren't hard questions....

 

[DrEvil]

Quote from Haroki:

Structural Engineers please. preferably ones with current experience in the design of hi rise buildings.


http://solarclarity.blogspot.com/2007/02/911-questions-still-smoldering.html

Safety Engineer and accident Analyst, National Safety Technology Authority, Finland, Heikki Kurttila, PhD


http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/Roberts_AnnotatedJones-RobertsonTranscript.pdf

page 4 - Roberts says he agrees with NIST. So that doesn't support you.....


Jones - Physics doctorate....

Again, Structural Engineers please.

Also, have you been able to find someone that says they heard demolition charges going off during the collapses? As one can hear during ANY controlled demolition?

Another thing Haroki. Can you explain to me how large chunks of burning debris were able to travel from wtc1&2 directly over buildings 6&7 to building 7 which was 340 yards away. If you understand the laws of conservation of momentum you will know that a sufficient horizontal force would have to have been applied to these chunks of concrete and steel debris. Now if gravity is the only force working on the wtc1 &2 as they burn and collapse, then what could have provided this horizontal momentum? This is indisputable, this is a basic law of physics. The answer is the use of explosives in wtc1 &2 that provided sufficient horizontal force to concrete and steel debris that it was able to make such a journey.

 

[DrEvil]

Quote from Haroki:

Very nice explanation of your viewpoints. Thank you.

So, do you have any structural engineers that agree with you?

And do you have any sources that claim to have heard demolition charges going off during the collapse?

These aren't hard questions....

You are basically asking me if there are any structural engineers that agree that the laws of physics applied to building 7.

 

[DrEvil]

Quote from Haroki:

Very nice explanation of your viewpoints. Thank you.

So, do you have any structural engineers that agree with you?

And do you have any sources that claim to have heard demolition charges going off during the collapse?

These aren't hard questions....

Ok you wanted a quote:


Hugo Bachmann, a Swiss professor emeritus for structural design and construction, said in Tages-Anzeiger : "In my opinion WTC 7 was with great probability brought down by controlled demolition done by experts". In addition, Jörg Schneider, another Swiss Professor emeritus for structural design and construction, interprets the existing videos as indices that "WTC 7 was with great probability brought down by explosives".

http://tagesanzeiger.ch/dyn/news/ausland/663864.html

If you don't understand german, you can use the altavista babelfish online translator.

 

[Haroki]

Quote from DrEvil:

Another thing Haroki. Can you explain to me how large chunks of burning debris were able to travel from wtc1&2 directly over buildings 6&7 to building 7 which was 340 yards away. If you understand the laws of conservation of momentum you will know that a sufficient horizontal force would have to have been applied to these chunks of concrete and steel debris. Now if gravity is the only force working on the wtc1 &2 as they burn and collapse, then what could have provided this horizontal momentum? This is indisputable, this is a basic law of physics. The answer is the use of explosives in wtc1 &2 that provided sufficient horizontal force to concrete and steel debris that it was able to make such a journey.

Yes, I can explain. The towers were a quarter mile tall. But 7 was 400 ft away, not 340 yards. Therefore, your physics expert is working with erroneous info. I'll attach a diagram of the whole complex to prove my point. Keep in mind that the towers' footprint is appx 200' x 200'. 340 yds is 1020'. Therefore, to equal 340 yds, as your expert uses, 7 would need to be 5x the distance of any side for this to be true. It appears to be only 2x, which supports me.

So, do you have any sources that heard the huge demolition charges necessary to "throw" these chunks of concrete (which I believe was pulverized into dust by these so-called explosives, according to Cters) and steel into 7?

Again, a simple question...

 

[Haroki]

Quote from DrEvil:

Ok you wanted a quote:


Jörg Schneider, another Swiss Professor emeritus for structural design and construction, interprets the existing videos as indices that "WTC 7 was with great probability brought down by explosives".

He did his analysis by watching videos?

Huh?

 

[DrEvil]

Quote from Haroki:

Yes, I can explain. The towers were a quarter mile tall. But 7 was 400 ft away, not 340 yards. Therefore, your physics expert is working with erroneous info. I'll attach a diagram of the whole complex to prove my point. Keep in mind that the towers' footprint is appx 200' x 200'. 340 yds is 1020'. Therefore, to equal 340 yds, as your expert uses, 7 would need to be 5x the distance of any side for this to be true. It appears to be only 2x, which supports me.

So, do you have any sources that heard the huge demolition charges necessary to "throw" these chunks of concrete (which I believe was pulverized into dust by these so-called explosives, according to Cters) and steel into 7?

Again, a simple question...

Ok you use the nearest distance from wtc1 to building 7 then yes I agree, it is 400 feet. The chunks of concrete and steel debris stil have to travel 400 feet from wtc1, clearing building 6 to reach building 7. Again if gravity was the only force applied to the burning debris as wtc1 burned and collapsed, what provided the horizontal momentum necessary for the chunks of concrete and steel to make the 400 feet horizontal journey?