Hi amoeba,

First post huh? How did you find this discussion? Its an amazing coincidence that seeing as Dagget has been pushed into a corner, you suddenly pop up out of the blue.

We have had this unfortunate bloke, mentioned above, using sock puppets when he exhausts the credibility of his existing login.

I'd suggest that if you are in any way, shape or form related to Dagget, Cacofonix or James you own up to this immediately as if you don't I will be pushing for your banning from the forum.

If on the other hand I'm way off, I apologize sincerely and welcome you to the forum. On the chance that the latter is the case here is my summation of your claims.

BULLSH!T

The evidence from you tube is completely irrelevant as it considers only those parts of the collapse which fit its case. The collapse began low down in the building and the interior columns of the building had already begun collapsing well before the exterior began to move. Here is video of the penthouse disappearing well before the exterior columns collapsed. http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=CLHwvwJCmgk&eurl=http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=t2oAsgzXXdw&feature=related

Initially, many of the interior columns collapsed, beginning under the penthouse. When the exterior collapse began nearly 6 seconds later the building then fell far more fluidly than it otherwise would have.

The NIST analysis shows that the building took 5.3 seconds to fall 18 stories. At freefall speeds this would have only taken 3.9seconds.

The “trufers” are well known for manipulating video images to fit their preordained theories. I just watched a “trufer” video claiming that no twin towers debris hit WTC7.

Why does the moron in the “you tube” video only refer to the two seconds immediately after the exterior corner of the building began collapsing? Because it is possible that one part of the building was in freefall for a short period of time.

TBC

CONT

The reason for this is simple. The building collapse began well before the exterior corner of the building began to fall. The exterior collapse began low down in the building, and the upper exterior fell at near freefall for two seconds until it met resistance. If you look at the video you supplied you will see that the building slows up dramatically at the three second mark.

You say >> 4. Similarly the fact that the building started falling with almost perfect verticality implies that the support columns were all severed simultaneously.

Absolute BULLSH!T. Fireman were telling their colleagues to evacuate the building because it was leaning and bulging badly for at least a half hour prior to the collapse. Furthermore, the collapse of the penthouse at least 6 seconds before the exterior collapsed demonstrates conclusively that the columns were not all severed at once.

You say >> 5. Fire, even if severe, cannot be expected to produce loss of strength in every steel column which is both total and simultaneous.

True and irrelevant. WTC7 was clearly NOT a simultaneous collapse. The redistribution of loads by structures like the twin towers meant that column and joist losses were not immediately fatal, thus preventing a progressive failure (as in the WTC7). It is only when the columns which carried the redistributed loads failed that global collapse began.

Summary from http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

1) Fireman saying there was "a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors." "I would say it was probably about a third of it".

2) A laymen officer the fireman was standing next to said, "that building doesn’t look straight." He then says "It didn’t look right".

3) They put a transit on it and afterward were "pretty sure she was going to collapse."

4) They "saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13".

5) Photographic evidence of a fire directly under the penthouse which collapsed first.

6) The penthouse fell first, followed by the rest of the building 6 seconds later.

7) The collapse happened from the bottom.

It's interesting to see that Paul.L has chosen to start out the first of his previous two posts by stooping to the depths of another contributor who attempted to sideline the discussion into a witch hunt over my alleged improper use of a second account (which, in any case was hardly a secret, even at the very outset of this forum).

To that contributor, Paul.L (correctly in my view) wrote:

"I can think of NO reason whatsoever why you should be allowed to continue to post. It is clear from your posting history that your NUMBER ONE goal on OLO is to abuse and denigrate, without any discussion of the topic. You add NOTHING of any value to any discussion. So why don't you go away you sad little man."

"Thats why ... you'd prefer to stand on the sidelines and snipe."

I thought when Paul.L wrote, "I think (daggett) at least has a reason to be here," I thought that that had indicated that he had agreed that it was time to move on from that diversion.

Now, it seems Paul.L has changed his tune.

Paul.L, when you wrote, "I'd suggest that if you are in any way, shape or form related to Dagget, Cacofonix or James you own up to this immediately as if you don't I will be pushing for your banning from the forum."

... are you trying to suggest there is any rule that requires any participant to declare what other forum participants they are related to?

You know perfectly well that there are none and that your threat to amoeba is way out of line.

(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

Paul.L wrote "... Dagget has been pushed into a corner, ..."

I think others are more likely to conclude that the party in this discussion who "has been pushed into a corner" is more likely to be the party who has resorted to the abovementioned bullying and personal denigration:

* "run forrest run" (3 times)
* referring to the producer of http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=gC44L0-2zL8 as "that moron",
* "If you had half a brain ..."
* "500 nutjobs is a VERY small minority ..."
* referring to Aaron Russo as a "nutbag from WAY BACK"
* referring to the http://winterpatriot.blogspot.com/ blogger on http://winterpatriot.blogspot.com/ as an "idiot"
* etc.

In fact, I had quite a lot more to say, but I thought I would, instead, make space for amoeba who (unlike you) appears to be capable of writing about these technical engineering and scientific questions in ways that are comprehensible to others.

Paul.L

Thank you for your welcome to the forum.

You apparently concede that points 1 and 2 of my previous posts are correct, that for a short period the roof of WTC7 fell with free fall acceleration and that this indicates that the columns provided no resistance during this period. You would have to agree that during this period none of the columns were resisting.

You take me up on the question of verticality of collapse and whether this indicates that all the columns must have failed simultaneously. You assert that verticality is not proof that they all failed simultaneously. You are correct – some of the columns may well have failed earlier. I will now reword points 3, 4 and 5 to more correctly express the argument.

3. No upward force implies that all support columns were, during the period of free fall, TOTALLY severed.
4. Similarly the fact that the building started falling with almost perfect verticality implies that, once the moment of collapse arrived, ALL remaining columns must have failed simultaneously.
5. Fire, even if severe, cannot be expected to produce loss of strength in every remaining steel column which is both total and simultaneous.

Let’s deal with point 5 first and get it out of the way. As an engineer you would know that steel, when it starts to give way, increases in strength. This is the property commonly known as “work-hardening”. Once the steel starts to distort its resistance to further distortion increases for some time before it starts to decline and failure occurs. This is true regardless of whether the distortion occurs because the load is increased or because the temperature is increased with a constant load. This is fully explained in this paper:
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200703/Sudden_collapse_initiation_impossible.pdf

TBC

I think that James Sinnamon is truly the Jim Henson of OLO.