New 9/11 footage shows visible explosions in building 7

Di0genes wrote: »

So the claim that the NIST think just 4kg of explosives could destroy the WTC7 by itself is simply dishonest and disingenuous.

No one made this claim in the entire thread. Saying so is deliberate misrepresentation.

King Mob wrote: »

So how come they get the time of the collapse of building 7 wrong?
How come they don't show the entirety of the collapse?

If you're still here, please reply to my post. I spent a lot of time/energy writing it.

davoxx wrote: »

is in response to

so just so we are 100% clear

and

you've read the report and you've read all posts, and you assume you are not lying.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74505036&postcount=329

super simples!!

Lol you are scraping the barrel now.

Nowhere does it state that simulation of 4kg of explosives on column 79 brings down the WTC7 in the NIST report.

That is all.:D

Ramocc wrote: »

From page 26 in the report.

So they simulated scenarios which would cause the column to buckle.

So 4kg (9lb) of RDX was enough to cause the column to buckle.

Can you just quote where they say that these simulations caused the failure of the coulmn

Ramocc wrote: »

If you're still here, please reply to my post. I spent a lot of time/energy writing it.

No thanks, I've tried my best to explain what I'm actually arguing.
You've no interest in understanding it or accurately representing it.

Trying again would be a waste of time and energy.

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

Lol you are scraping the barrel now.

Nowhere does it state that simulation of 4kg of explosives on column 79 brings down the WTC7 in the NIST report.

That is all.:D

i sure am, we start at the bottom of the barrel, and the fill it slowly ...

but back on topic.

so you think it does not state that 4kg of explosive can buckle column 79?

4kg can (Hypothectically) buckle column 79

is this the part you can't comprehend?

... to determine whether intentionally set
explosives might have caused the collapse of WTC 7 (NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Appendix D) ... This scenario involved preliminary cutting of
Column 79 and the use of 4 kg (9 lb) of RDX explosives in linear shaped charges. ...

i'm sorry they did not phrase it in simpler terms for you, but that looks pretty clear to me.

i'd ask what you think it means but, i probably won't get an answer.

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

Can you just quote where they say that these simulations caused the failure of the coulmn

Nope. I used deduction.

It was deduced from what was written. They talk about the minimum amount of explosives required, namely enough to cause sufficient damage to a critical column or truss that it became unable to carry its service load or that a lateral deflection would cause it to buckle.

They then say that they considered a scenario involving 4kg, because other scenarios would have required more explosives, or were considered infeasible to accomplish without detection.

It seems pretty clear that the simulation they ran did in fact cause the column to buckle.

In fact, it is also stated Calculations were also performed for a lesser charge size of 1 kg (2 lb) to evaluate threshold explosive
requirements for window fragility.

And then later, regarding this 1kg simulation state ... was not at all like that expected from a blast that was even 20 percent of that needed to damage a critical column in WTC 7

To be honest, I'm not sure how they worked out that 1kg was 20% of 4kg (instead of 25%), but then again that could be how those explosives work, or it could be an artefact of the original calculations being carried out in pounds, as they state 4kg = 9lb but 1kg = 2lb.

ed2hands

King Mob wrote: »

No thanks, I've tried my best to explain what I'm actually arguing.
You've no interest in understanding it or accurately representing it.

Trying again would be a waste of time and energy.

No.

All you've done your best to do is wasted everyones time trying to argue that your awfully ridiculously silly hypothesis that space lasers and nuclear explosions are somehow to be considered in the same thread as terrorists planting explosives is some sort of ridiculous position.

You mentioned it again and again like a child would taunt another child. You seem to have no interest in anything other than mentioning space lasers and nuclear bombs to derail the thread. Yes or No?

King Mob wrote: »

So how come they get the time of the collapse of building 7 wrong?
How come they don't show the entirety of the collapse?

what is the correct time?
are you referring to a trailer not showing the entire collapse?

King Mob wrote: »

No thanks, I've tried my best to explain what I'm actually arguing.
You've no interest in understanding it or accurately representing it.

Trying again would be a waste of time and energy.

well you've tried your best to avoid and confuse and misquote people.
i can't understand what you are saying, and a doubt anyone other than NCTs can, i'm not too up to date with space lasers and unicorns destroying WTC7 or indeed any other building.

how much energy was wasted by this, i'd say several tons of nukes.

Davoxx, young but misquoted ...

Ramocc wrote: »

Nope. I used deduction.

It was deduced from what was written. They talk about the minimum amount of explosives required, namely enough to cause sufficient damage to a critical column or truss that it became unable to carry its service load or that a lateral deflection would cause it to buckle.

They then say that they considered a scenario involving 4kg, because other scenarios would have required more explosives, or were considered infeasible to accomplish without detection.

It seems pretty clear that the simulation they ran did in fact cause the column to buckle.

In fact, it is also stated Calculations were also performed for a lesser charge size of 1 kg (2 lb) to evaluate threshold explosive
requirements for window fragility.

And then later, regarding this 1kg simulation state ... was not at all like that expected from a blast that was even 20 percent of that needed to damage a critical column in WTC 7

To be honest, I'm not sure how they worked out that 1kg was 20% of 4kg (instead of 25%), but then again that could be how those explosives work, or it could be an artefact of the original calculations being carried out in pounds, as they state 4kg = 9lb but 1kg = 2lb.

Deduction doesnt even cut it, It doesnt say it full stop

ed2hands wrote: »

No.

All you've done your best to do is wasted everyones time trying to argue that your awfully ridiculously silly hypothesis that space lasers and nuclear explosions are somehow to be considered in the same thread as terrorists planting explosives is some sort of non-ridiculous position.

You mentioned it again and again like a child would taunt another child. You seem to have no interest in anything other than mentioning space lasers and nuclear bombs to derail the thread. Yes or No?

So it's clear that you too didn't get the point I was making either.
But good to know you're all for taking the thread even more off the rails to take a swipe.

King Mob wrote: »

No thanks, I've tried my best to explain what I'm actually arguing.
You've no interest in understanding it or accurately representing it.

Trying again would be a waste of time and energy.

I guess your best just isn't good enough, it's ok everyone has something they're not good at. Run away then, but don't falsely accuse me of misrepresentation ever again when you can't back up your claim.

And just to end our final conversation with a recurring thought:

You haven't explained how I misrepresented you, but whatever.

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

Can you just quote where they say that these simulations caused the failure of the coulmn

i was going to break it down but Ramocc seems to have done a top notch job, better than i could have.

davoxx wrote: »

i sure am, we start at the bottom of the barrel, and the fill it slowly ...

but back on topic.

so you think it does not state that 4kg of explosive can buckle column 79?

is this the part you can't comprehend?

i'm sorry they did not phrase it in simpler terms for you, but that looks pretty clear to me.

i'd ask what you think it means but, i probably won't get an answer.

Ok I will say that 4kg of explosives takes column 79 out ejects it out of the window hitting you smack in the forehead. Do you see what i did there? I deducted(copyright ramocc 2011) that because the windows smashed that column came flying out through it causing you a serious injury. Wow this is fun:rolleyes:

Ramocc wrote: »

I guess your best just isn't good enough, it's ok everyone has something they're not good at. Run away then, but don't falsely accuse me of misrepresentation ever again when you can't back up your claim.

And just to end our final conversation with a recurring thought:

You haven't explained how I misrepresented you, but whatever.

Its ok when you misrepresent though because its deducting wink wink;)

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

Deduction doesnt even cut it, It doesnt say it full stop

Dunno, proof by deduction is considered valid by everyone, except it seems you.

If you don't believe in proof by deduction, then how can you argue anything?

davoxx wrote: »

what is the correct time?
are you referring to a trailer not showing the entire collapse?

14 seconds at least. Richard Gage et al claim 6-7 seconds which is clearly false when you watch the full unedited collapse.

And yes, I am referring to both their trailer and their entire literature, which omit sections of the footage so they can continue to make a false claim.

ed2hands

King Mob wrote: »

So it's clear that you too didn't get the point I was making either.
But good to know you're all for taking the thread even more off the rails to take a swipe.

Oh i never miss an opportunity to take a swipe at you KM

(i'm actually going easy on you and could pin you down with loads of poinless stoopid questions if i wanted to)

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

Ok I will say that 4kg of explosives takes column 79 out ejects it out of the window hitting you smack in the forehead. Do you see what i did there? I deducted(copyright ramocc 2011) that because the windows smashed that column came flying out through it causing you a serious injury. Wow this is fun:rolleyes:

Deduction is based on logic. If you can find a flaw in my deduction then state it.

Ramocc wrote: »

Dunno, proof by deduction is considered valid by everyone, except it seems you.

If you don't believe in proof by deduction, then how can you argue anything?

Deduction is the deriving of a conclusion by reasoning. You however start at the conclusion (my statement) and work backwards handpicking info that is vague to come to it, but hey anything is possible then isnt it.

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

Its ok when you misrepresent though because its deducting wink wink;)

i don't follow you there? are you referencing your first post in this thread and it's contribution?

are you here to help King Mob, replying for him, because you have the same ideas wink wink laser laser??

King Mob wrote: »

14 seconds at least. Richard Gage et al claim 6-7 seconds which is clearly false when you watch the full unedited collapse.

And yes, I am referring to both their trailer and their entire literature, which omit sections of the footage so they can continue to make a false claim.

you're replying to me? seriously? after calling me a liar and ignoring me, but you have your buddies back now, so you reply to me?

wow .. i never expected this ...

what to say?

oh yeah ... can you reply to Ramocc's posts?
and ... can you now admit that it would not take thousands of tons of explosives to take down WTC7?

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

Deduction is the deriving of a conclusion by reasoning. You however start at the conclusion (my statement) and work backwards handpicking info that is vague to come to it, but hey anything is possible then isnt it.

WTF?

Seriously, wtf are you talking about? This has got to be the stupidest post in this entire thread. I quoted the report and extracted statements. Then I combined the statements and arrived at the conclusion. And this is your response?

Did I extract the statements incorrectly? Did I combine them incorrectly? Either state the flaw in my deduction, or shut up.

davoxx wrote: »

you're replying to me? seriously? after calling me a liar and ignoring me, but you have your buddies back now, so you reply to me?

wow .. i never expected this ...

what to say?

oh yeah ... can you reply to Ramocc's posts?
and ... can you now admit that it would not take thousands of tons of explosives to take down WTC7?

I thought for a second you might be interesting in making a mature point.

My mistake.

Ramocc wrote: »

Nope. I used deduction.

It was deduced from what was written. They talk about the minimum amount of explosives required, namely enough to cause sufficient damage to a critical column or truss that it became unable to carry its service load or that a lateral deflection would cause it to buckle.

They then say that they considered a scenario involving 4kg, because other scenarios would have required more explosives, or were considered infeasible to accomplish without detection.It seems pretty clear that the simulation they ran did in fact cause the column to buckle.

In fact, it is also stated Calculations were also performed for a lesser charge size of 1 kg (2 lb) to evaluate threshold explosive
requirements for window fragility.

And then later, regarding this 1kg simulation state ... was not at all like that expected from a blast that was even 20 percent of that needed to damage a critical column in WTC 7
To be honest, I'm not sure how they worked out that 1kg was 20% of 4kg (instead of 25%), but then again that could be how those explosives work, or it could be an artefact of the original calculations being carried out in pounds, as they state 4kg = 9lb but 1kg = 2lb.

Ramocc wrote: »

Deduction is based on logic. If you can find a flaw in my deduction then state it.

Your flaw is in bold there. It doesnt state its the 1kg test that they are talking about when they say it was not at all like that expected from a blast that was even 20 percent of that needed to damage a critical column in WTC 7. As you say the maths dont add up. So I would say the the 9lb(4kg) test is what they are talking about. We can only assume. My statement still stands.

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

Its ok when you misrepresent though because its deducting wink wink;)

What did I misrepresent?

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

Deduction is the deriving of a conclusion by reasoning. You however start at the conclusion (my statement) and work backwards handpicking info that is vague to come to it, but hey anything is possible then isnt it.

that is exactly what i did ...
before i read the report, i thought "4kg would take down a column, lets pick 79, and then take down the building"
imagine, my surprise when they mention 4kg, immediately wanted to post, but i thought, "calm down davoxx, you need more hand picking" .. so i read on ... then i saw column 79, not 78 or 80, but 79, wow this is just too good, and again i was tempted, but then i found the part that said snape killed ... sorry wrong book ..... i forget the rest of the story, so i posted my conclusion anyway ...

that explains it for you?

i'm sure Ramocc did the same, it's the only logical conclusion ....

(sorry for sarcasm, but this might kick start your understanding of how one deduces something)

Ramocc wrote: »

WTF?

Seriously, wtf are you talking about? This has got to be the stupidest post in this entire thread. I quoted the report and extracted statements. Then I combined the statements and arrived at the conclusion. And this is your response?

Did I extract the statements incorrectly? Did I combine them incorrectly? Either state the flaw in my deduction, or shut up.

Seriously you need to take a chill pill.

King Mob wrote: »

I thought for a second you might be interesting in making a mature point.

My mistake.

if you apologise for calling me a liar, i will forgive you and we can start again. and if you want, we'll ignore comments and posts prior to now.