What brought down WTC7

[jonks]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: jonks
I somehow don't think the report "Bin laden determined to attack within the US" contained a section detailing possible response options one of which was "Well, we could let him."

That is what I was leaning towards up until 2005, since the benign incompetence argument is so far-fetched. Then I saw a video of WTC7 coming down with a period of free fall acceleration, and I highly doubt bin Laden could have been the mastermind behind that. So of course I went back an looked at the towers, which I'd been baffled by when I saw, but figured those who knew them better than me would figure it out. Yet, just like WTC7, the official story only makes a lame attempt at pretending to explain the towers, while doing nothing of the sort.

what's the 'why' again?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: ElFenix
the building had already been collapsing for several seconds by the time this near free fall acceleration happened. once enough support was removed by the action of several seconds worth of failures the building really starting going.

Rather, the building started sagging in towers the middle because the interior columns were taken out first, and when the perimeter columns were taken out the building dropped at free free fall for 105 feet because all off the support was removed.

other than using the words 'taken out,' i think we're agreeing on the facts. but for some reason you've chosen to view the short free fall period as an event separate from the rest of the collapse. it's not.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: jonks
what's the 'why' again?

The "why" of "what", specifically?

Originally posted by: ElFenix
other than using the words 'taken out,' i think we're agreeing on the facts. but for some reason you've chosen to view the short free fall period as an event separate from the rest of the collapse. it's not.

Rather, I understand the 105 feet of free fall to be a part of the collapse which can only be explained by 105 feet of structure being taken out, while you've chosen to put your faith in the NIST's obfuscating this fact by claiming it is consistent with the official conspiracy theory in the larger context of the collapse. Your argument here is akin to those who claim the Theory of Evolution is wrong because it doesn't explain the origins of the universe, and is at odds with Bible which provides explanations for all of that and more.

 

[alchemize]

This is what it's like to be bukkake'd by stupid.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: jonks
what's the 'why' again?

The "why" of "what", specifically?

Originally posted by: ElFenix
other than using the words 'taken out,' i think we're agreeing on the facts. but for some reason you've chosen to view the short free fall period as an event separate from the rest of the collapse. it's not.

Rather, I understand the 105 feet of free fall to be a part of the collapse which can only be explained by 105 feet of structure being taken out, while you've chosen to put your faith in the NIST's obfuscating this fact by claiming it is consistent with the official conspiracy theory in the larger context of the collapse. Your argument here is akin to those who claim the Theory of Evolution is wrong because it doesn't explain the origins of the universe, and is at odds with Bible which provides explanations for all of that and more.

What sort of qualifications do you have to be making such a statement?

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles


What sort of qualifications do you have to be making such a statement?

He has seen loose change and loose change 2 over a 50 times each.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
First of all, all the handwaving about "molten steel" proves nothing and makes no case for demolition, except maybe to absolute simpletons...

Sure, NIST couldn't provide an explanation for the molten steel and had to deny it because they are simpletons. On the other hand, you Mr. Learned Science Guy, obviously have a perfectly reasonable explanation for it right in your pocket, eh? Oh wait, that is clearly just you waiving your hand around in your pocket pretending like you've got something there.

NIST's job was to explain the building collapse, not the after-effects. But the dumbass truthers want to pretend that NIST is hiding something instead. It's their typical MO of being misleading and creating men out of pure straw, a practice you engage in frequently.

The NIST report notes the free fall, but the only pretend to explain it, as I've already pointed out.

More likely you think they "pretend" to explain it because you can't understand the explanation and don't have the first clue about structural engineering. NIST explains it very well. You, otoh, don't explain shit.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: kylebisme
Rather, I understand the 105 feet of free fall to be a part of the collapse which can only be explained by 105 feet of structure being taken out, while you've chosen to put your faith in the NIST's obfuscating this fact by claiming it is consistent with the official conspiracy theory in the larger context of the collapse. Your argument here is akin to those who claim the Theory of Evolution is wrong because it doesn't explain the origins of the universe, and is at odds with Bible which provides explanations for all of that and more.

the 105 feet of structure was 'taken out' by the several seconds of internal collapse and warping that happened before the free fall after being weakened for hours and hours by fire following impact damage. when you take it out of context like you're doing it may appear to be something more sinister.


funny that the person who is trying desperately to poke holes in an argument and claiming those holes mean some outside force must have been acting is claiming that other people are like creationists.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: kylebisme
I understand the 105 feet of free fall to be a part of the collapse which can only be explained by 105 feet of structure being taken out

What sort of qualifications do you have to be making such a statement?

A competent understanding of Newtonian physics is all the qualifications it takes for anyone to confidently make that statement. If you are asking me for credentials to substantiate my competence in understanding of Newtonian physics, I never bothered to acquire any. That said, you won't find anyone to demonstrate my statement as anything less than factual, regardless of what credentials they might have.

Originally posted by: OCguy
He has seen loose change and loose change 2 over a 50 times each.

Not even close, but I'm not surprised to see you have deluded yourself into believing as much.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
the 105 feet of structure was 'taken out' by the several seconds of internal collapse and warping that happened before the free fall after being weakened for hours and hours by fire following impact damage.

You are choosing to view the removal of 105 feet of structure as an event separate from the rest of the collapse, rather than accepting the fact that as a part of the collapse it required a force beyond that of gravity to accomplish. Even if the fires had been hot enough to weaken the steel to the point of total collapse, that weakening would have been progressive and asymmetrical rather than the near instantaneous and compete removal of structural resistance which was required to allow for the observable period of free fall.

 

[darkhorror]

What calculations did you do? Where did you get the numbers on the different aspects of the structure that would go into calculating how this this collapse happened?

 

[alchemize]

ZOMG Look at this conspiracy they are covering up too! No practice facility has ever been brought down by wind, ever. EVAR!

The Bush weather machine strikes again, and he even attacks his own home state :| :thumbsdown:

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: ElFenix
the 105 feet of structure was 'taken out' by the several seconds of internal collapse and warping that happened before the free fall after being weakened for hours and hours by fire following impact damage.

You are choosing to view the removal of 105 feet of structure as an event separate from the rest of the collapse, rather than accepting the fact that as a part of the collapse it required a force beyond that of gravity to accomplish. Even if the fires had been hot enough to weaken the steel to the point of total collapse, that weakening would have been progressive and asymmetrical rather than the near instantaneous and compete removal of structural resistance which was required to allow for the observable period of free fall.

No, he's not saying that. He's saying that the collapse was progessive in nature. The problem is that you are assuming that what you see from the exterior is the beginning of the collapse event. That is not how it happened. The internal structure begin collapsing first once column 79 gave way, then the external part of the structure began a collapse some seconds later, which is why there was nothing to support that upper structure for 105 feet. The collapse was NOT instantaneous and the collapse WAS assymetrical as it began from one side of the building and progressed to the other. Copious amounts of photos of the debris testify to the fact that the collapse was not symtetrical and videos of the collapse itself show that as well. Stop misrepresenting the truth.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: jonks
what's the 'why' again?

The "why" of "what", specifically?

why perform a secret controlled demolition of WT7 on live TV despite what you claim are obvious give aways that it was a demolition and then blame it on fire and hope the various private and govt agencies going over the wreckage would conceal all of it and why no one of the many who must have been involved has so much as let out a peep as to the real cause of the collapse nor have any documents inadvertantly been discovered.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
The problem is that you are assuming that what you see from the exterior is the beginning of the collapse event. That is not how it happened. The internal structure begin collapsing first ...

The problem is you are assuming things on me which directly contradict my statements here, as you consistently do whenever you attempt to argue with me.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: ElFenix
the 105 feet of structure was 'taken out' by the several seconds of internal collapse and warping that happened before the free fall after being weakened for hours and hours by fire following impact damage.

You are choosing to view the removal of 105 feet of structure as an event separate from the rest of the collapse, rather than accepting the fact that as a part of the collapse it required a force beyond that of gravity to accomplish. Even if the fires had been hot enough to weaken the steel to the point of total collapse, that weakling would have been progressive and asymmetrical rather than the near instantaneous and compete removal of structural resistance which was required to allow for the period of free fall.

wow, doublespeak. how is acknowledging the several hours of weakening and several seconds of collapsing that happened prior to the free fall at all able to be interpreted as viewing the free fall as a separate event?

this wasn't like one part of a bridge being able to remain standing even when other parts have collapsed, this was more like a house of cards due to the interconnection of all the girders and supports. take out one part of it and the whole thing starts to wobble. wobble far enough and the rest isn't loaded properly and it all falls.

falling faster than gravity would require a force beyond gravity.

further, the collapse was progressive and asymmetric. the interior of the building started collapsing first, and from one side to another. that's clearly evident in the way the penthouse fell.



here's a simple experiment. build a tower out of sticks, each carefully balanced and supporting the others. build it a few feet high. now, take a blowtorch to a central support in the lower part and see what happens.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: jonks
what's the 'why' again?

The "why" of "what", specifically?

Originally posted by: ElFenix
other than using the words 'taken out,' i think we're agreeing on the facts. but for some reason you've chosen to view the short free fall period as an event separate from the rest of the collapse. it's not.

Rather, I understand the 105 feet of free fall to be a part of the collapse which can only be explained by 105 feet of structure being taken out, while you've chosen to put your faith in the NIST's obfuscating this fact by claiming it is consistent with the official conspiracy theory in the larger context of the collapse. Your argument here is akin to those who claim the Theory of Evolution is wrong because it doesn't explain the origins of the universe, and is at odds with Bible which provides explanations for all of that and more.

What sort of qualifications do you have to be making such a statement?

He has claimed in another post to have a 6th grade understanding of physics...lol

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
The problem is that you are assuming that what you see from the exterior is the beginning of the collapse event. That is not how it happened. The internal structure begin collapsing first ...

The problem is you are assuming things on me which directly contradict my statements here, as you consistently do whenever you attempt to argue with me.

Then explain it. You haven't explained a damn thing except to make statements that clearly have no foundation in structural engineering and exhibit would could only very kindly be described as a rudimentary knowledge of Newtonian physics.

We have explained how that 105 was removed. You have not. Claims that "more than gravity was required" is nothing but horseshit and shows your complete lack of knowledge in structural design, structural loading, and materials engineering; all of which and more must be taken into account to understand how this happened.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: jonks
why perform a secret controlled demolition of WT7 on live TV despite what you claim are obvious give aways that it was a demolition....

I'm sure the conspirators would have rather done that off camera if they could have, but sometimes you've got to make due with what you've got.

Originally posted by: jonks
...and then blame it on fire...

Because admitting it was rigged for demolition wouldn't go over well.

Originally posted by: jonks
...and hope the various private and govt agencies going over the wreckage would conceal all of it...

I doubt that was left to hope.

Originally posted by: jonks
...and why no one of the many who must have been involved has so much as let out a peep as to the real cause of the collapse nor have any documents inadvertantly been discovered.

Some combination of blackmail, bribery, and confusion is the most likely answer for that.

By the way, while I know you are familiar with Opperation Northwoods as you mentioned it before; I'm wondering if you have ever heard of the Business Plot?

 

[alchemize]

He's also an expert in how fires progressively burn in skyscrapers and weaken steel...

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Then explain it.

I did that in the OP.

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
We have explained how that 105 was removed.

Rather, you just repeated NIST's pretend explanation.

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
You have not.

Nor did I ever claim to be in a position to do so. Again, I'm only in the position to point out the fact that the official explanation is physically impossible, as I did in the OP.

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Claims that "more than gravity was required" is...

It is a statement of fact, and all your belligerent handwaving does nothing to change that.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: jonks
why perform a secret controlled demolition of WT7 on live TV despite what you claim are obvious give aways that it was a demolition....

I'm sure the conspirators would have rather done that off camera if they could have, but sometimes you've got to make due with what you've got.

Originally posted by: jonks
...and then blame it on fire...

Because admitting it was rigged for demolition wouldn't go over well.

Originally posted by: jonks
...and hope the various private and govt agencies going over the wreckage would conceal all of it...

I doubt that was left to hope.

Originally posted by: jonks
...and why no one of the many who must have been involved has so much as let out a peep as to the real cause of the collapse nor have any documents inadvertantly been discovered.

Some combination of blackmail, bribery, and confusion is the most likely answer for that.

ok, elvis has left the building. Folks, you knew this already, but you aint convincing this guy of anything. abandon ship.

 

[alchemize]

Jonks = sheep.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: jonks
Folks, you knew this already, but you aint convincing this guy of anything.

If you thought you were going to convince me to believe a story which contradicts long understood and consistently demonstrable laws of physics, you were only deluding yourself.

By the way, since you truncated my question about the Business Plot out of what you quoted, am I to take it you are also deluding yourself into believing no one would ever think to do anything like that?

Originally posted by: alchemize
Jonks = sheep.

Go back to sleep.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: jonks
Folks, you knew this already, but you aint convincing this guy of anything.

If you thought you were going to convince me to believe a story which contradicts long understood and consistently demonstrable laws of physics, you were only deluding yourself.

So lets get this right,,,those of us who knew you had no clue and tried to convince the powers that be to NOT let you start this thread...we have all been vidicated.
Nothing is going to convince you!
All this has turned out to be is a he said she said.....
you produce what you claim yo be truth from an engineer who for sake of argument agrees with you...then the other side produces somebody who back up there side of the story and this goes back and forthg over and over again.....
til you become the joke....
I am still trying to figure out why a transwarp portal was located under wtc7...hmmmm


By the way, since you truncated my question about the Business Plot out of what you quoted, am I to take it you are also deluding yourself into believing no one would ever think to do anything like that?

Originally posted by: alchemize
Jonks = sheep.

Go back to sleep.