- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Do people still believe that WTC 7 was NOT a planned demolition?
Posted on 9/13/24 at 8:33 am to GumboPot
Posted on 9/13/24 at 8:33 am to GumboPot
quote:Good grief. You're right. The only thing that could possibly make a lound *bang* during a building collapse are shape charges.
You seem so certain. Should be really easy to prove. Link?
quote:It doesn't have to sound *exactly* like it to make people believe they heard "explosions". It just has to be loud. And failing structure clearly is loud to anyone with a brain.
Just as silly as saying that is the sound of a W24X104 fracturing sounds like a shape charge. You don't know.
1
Posted on 9/13/24 at 8:35 am to GumboPot
quote:That's bending not fracture. Nor is it in-situ to a buliding. But being an engineer, I'm sure you know the difference.
This is what happens to a steel W beam loaded past its yield strength:
This post was edited on 9/13/24 at 8:35 am
Posted on 9/13/24 at 8:37 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
It just has to be loud. And failing structure clearly is loud to anyone with a brain.
I know a falling building is loud. Also a standing building is quiet. The successive explosion noises occurred while the building was standing a few seconds before building collapsed exactly like planned demolitions.
Posted on 9/13/24 at 8:37 am to GumboPot
quote:Silly. No one asserted it needs to be identical. Just loud. Poeple in the middle of that chaos are discerning between *bangs*.
I did not make the tensile strength lab testing sound assertion. The purpose of me posting that was to debunk the theory that tensile strength lab testing sounds like a shape charge.
Posted on 9/13/24 at 8:40 am to GumboPot
quote:Failure of a building doesn't happen instantly. Members are progressively overloaded. One after another. I fact, if they all failed simultaneously--that would be suspicious.
I know a falling building is loud. Also a standing building is quiet.
quote:Progressive overload and failure would sound no different. *BANG* one after the other until collapse.
The successive explosion noises occurred while the building was standing a few seconds before building collapsed exactly like planned demolitions.
Posted on 9/13/24 at 8:45 am to Taxing Authority
quote:quote:Nor is it in-situ to a buliding. But being an engineer, I'm sure you know the difference.
This is what happens to a steel W beam loaded past its yield strength:
That's bending not fracture.
Sure.
But remember or look back where this entire discussion point started when you or David (I forget) claimed that tensile testing of steel specimens made loud noises and extrapolated that reasoning to large W beams as if you know that the fracturing dB levels would linearly increase with beam size and be the same dBs as shape charges.
If that is the case can you tell me what size W beam under fracturing conditions matches the sound signature of a shape charge? Because clearly a regular steel specimen for lab testing is not very loud. Sure a small pop, but not loud at all. And I've conducted these test and Charpy V Notch test with no ear protection. It is just not that loud.
Posted on 9/13/24 at 8:51 am to GumboPot
quote:Hell no. Never argued that. It'll grow WAY more than linear. The fracture energy >> than bending yeild energy, AND the energy grows with the inertial cross section (at least the square of the size).
But remember or look back where this entire discussion point started when you or David (I forget) claimed that tensile testing of steel specimens made loud noises and extrapolated that reasoning to large W beams as if you know that the fracturing dB levels would linearly increase with beam size and be the same dBs as shape charges.
quote:Again, you're strawmanning. It doesn't have to match the sound signature for people to hear "explosions".
If that is the case can you tell me what size W beam under fracturing conditions matches the sound signature of a shape charge?
quote:Yea, that's comparable to splitting a W24. You ever move a Charpy machine?
And I've conducted these test and Charpy V Notch test with no ear protection. It is just not that loud.
Anyway, nice job on the troll. Hope you got the attention you sought.
This post was edited on 9/13/24 at 8:52 am
Posted on 9/13/24 at 8:57 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
Hell no. Never argued that. It'll grow WAY more than linear. The fracture energy >> than bending yeild energy, AND the energy grows with the inertial cross section (at least the square of the size).
You are just making that assumption. The energy required to fracture will increase parabolically but energy dissipation occurs in many forms besides noise: heat, lifting, bending, internal stress, etc.
quote:quote:It doesn't have to match the sound signature for people to hear "explosions".
If that is the case can you tell me what size W beam under fracturing conditions matches the sound signature of a shape charge?
Again, you're strawmanning.
Of course it does, because you are asserting that W beam fractures sound like shape charges.
I'm claiming that W beam fractures and shape charge sounds are not the same.
Posted on 9/13/24 at 10:46 am to GumboPot
quote:
.quote:
My assertion it that Building 7 was a planned demolition. The basis for that was the nature of Building 7 collapse, Larry Silverstein's own words, witnesses on the ground that heard explosions and explosions recorded just before the collapse that sound just like the cadence of shape charges of high rise demolitions.
To be clear then, you're not arguing that the twin towers were a planned demolition. You're suggesting that WTC 7 was rigged to be demolished in case terrorists ever flew planes into the twin towers.
Hey Gumbo, am curious about your response to this. I know the thread/title is about WTC 7 but I assumed by implication, you were arguing that the twin towers were also a planned/staged terrorist attack and were in fact brought down by a planned demolition.
Posted on 9/13/24 at 11:18 am to David_DJS
Has this video been posted in this thread?
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.
Posted on 9/13/24 at 11:22 am to CAD703X
Posted on 9/13/24 at 11:24 am to Whodat4300
quote:
Maximum carnage to get the Patriot Act ushered in.
This makes no sense. Two 1300 foot tall skyscrapers just collapsed. Why take down a small office building hours later?
Posted on 9/13/24 at 11:27 am to David_DJS
quote:
Hey Gumbo, am curious about your response to this. I know the thread/title is about WTC 7 but I assumed by implication, you were arguing that the twin towers were also a planned/staged terrorist attack and were in fact brought down by a planned demolition.
In terms of WTC 1 & 2 the evidence that I can provide in terms of a planned demolition off the top of my head are as follows:
1. Thermite found ubiquitously around the WTC site.
2. Visual evidence of thermite burning in some locations in towers 1 & 2.
3. Witness testimony of "huge" explosions before their collapse.
4. Witness testimony of molten steel in the WTC rubble (burning jet fuel cannot do that, thermite can easily).
5. Initial inward behavior of the outer structure upon initial collapse. of towers 1 and 2 as if the center columns lost their foundation.
6. Center columns practically disappeared in the rubble.
I cannot provide evidence for progressive collapse per the official narrative without undermining the center columns.
Not making claims about WTC 1 and 2, just allowing the evidence to lead me to where it goes. There is a tremendous amount of information and disinformation about WTC 1 and 2 that does not make sense and if making sense of it hurts sensibilities, I'm sorry. That is not my intention.
Posted on 9/13/24 at 11:29 am to jcaz
quote:see my video above
Why take down a small office building hours later?
Posted on 9/13/24 at 11:50 am to GumboPot
quote:
The successive explosion noises occurred while the building was standing a few seconds before building collapsed exactly like planned demolitions.
Link to a video with such noises. The NIST found that the smallest charge capable of causing a structural failure on wtc 7 would have been 140-150 dbs up to a half mile away.
People in the bronx would have been able to hear the building blow if your assertion is correct.
Posted on 9/13/24 at 11:53 am to JohnnyKilroy
quote:2 posts up baw
Link to a video with such noises.
Posted on 9/13/24 at 12:06 pm to JohnnyKilroy
quote:
Link to a video with such noises. The NIST found that the smallest charge capable of causing a structural failure on wtc 7 would have been 140-150 dbs up to a half mile away.
Posted on 9/13/24 at 12:13 pm to CAD703X
quote:
2 posts up baw
Did you notice that two of your videos contradict each other?
Posted on 9/13/24 at 12:18 pm to GumboPot
quote:
Thermite found ubiquitously around the WTC site.
Link?
Is this about the red/gray flecks composed of the exact materials you would expect to be found in a collapsed office building...that also happen to be similar to thermite?
And why thermite for a planned demolition when even demolition experts do not use it?
Posted on 9/13/24 at 12:21 pm to CAD703X
quote:
2 posts up baw
I love how all these videos showing purported shape charge explosions all look and sound incredibly different.
Sometimes it’s one or two big thuds. Some videos its 7 low frequency thuds. The video you posted had very high frequency blast sounds
One video has a bunch of flashing lights as the purported explosions but none of the other videos do.
Page 14 of 17
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News