What brought down WTC7

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Then explain it.

I did that in the OP.

No, you did not. You made a no claims of fact whatsoever except to poorly attempt to throw doubt on NIST's findings. Explain what YOU think happened and provide some technical detail in the process.

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

Rather, you just repeated NIST's pretend explanation.

We have expounded upon it.

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.

Except you don't explain it. You claim it's not possible only since you don't comprehend why it is possible because you don't have the technical background to begin comprehending that.

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.

It is a statement of ignorance, specifically your ignorance. It demonstrates your complete and utter lack of any real understanding of the science behind the WTC7 collapse. But most of us in here knew that already. You can't see it because you're simply too stupid so you'll continue to grasp tightly to that bullshit claim.

 

[alchemize]

Here's what I find astonishing:

In the now 8 years since 9/11, the fucknut troothers haven't been able to find ONE SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE that supports ANY of their assertions.

In the now 8 years since 9/11, the fucknut troothers haven't been able to find ONE SINGLE WITNESS that supports ANY of their assertions.

In the now 8 years since 9/11, the fucknut troothers haven't been able to provide MOTIVE that supports ANY of their assertions.

In the now 8 years since 9/11, the fucknut troothers haven't been able to put forth ONE LAWSUIT or CRIMINAL CASE that supports ANY of their assertions.

Wiki links? Try this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof


Go back to sleep? Fuck you idiot.

 

[darkhorror]

You seem to think you know everything that is needed to make a accurate prediction of how the building should fall. Problem is you fail to realize you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.

 

[JEDIYoda]

We do have to admit one thing...
Kylebisme is consistent with his thoughts...
They are subjective and objective...
"objective" means Kylebisme thinks his thoughts are real.
"Subjective" means Kylebisme feel`s they are real.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: jonks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

Yes, I remember that from the JFK assassination thingi. It was not acted on and as I recall it had one bit where they were going to sink a cuban refuge boat either for real or for show. The folks pushing that were government officials and Bobby was in on it. Jim Garrison also tried to introduce it in his Case in Chief but the objection was sustained... It has been years since I read those transcripts so I may have it wrong.
I'm cooled down now... anyhow. So can be more objective.
Do you, well, I'm sure you do, know the totality of charges that could be brought against the folks who'd perpetrate some kind of insanity like Northwoods or Any one bit of 9/11?

Time does not run on Capital Crimes.

There cannot exist a motive strong enough to put that many people in jeopardy! Someone somewhere would want to get out of the loop. Even if a Presidential Finding gave them a pass.

 

[Moonbeam]

It is impossible for a bumble bee to fly. It's body is too massive for it's tiny wings. This can be demonstrated with physics and I heard it when I was a child. Physics can't be wrong.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I must say, LR, that the vaunted rationality of the official version sure comes apart in a hurry when they deal with you. You must ipso facto be nuts if you vary from their beliefs a single scintilla. It's, um, unbelievable. It must be the mercy of God that another of your crimes isn't that you also believe is self hate. I think that would put you beyond the pail.

I'm learning alot from this thread.

I did grasp the free fall in the elevator thingi finally! When we were doing those Mechanical IQ tests and I had to follow my logic while you saw the big picture is alot like what happened here. I never realized I had the ability to use my leg muscle to create the kenetic energy which upon my release would propell me to the ceiling. And, the elevator was going that fraction faster than G based on the added force I applied... that is right, I hope?

Heheheeheh I'm always beyond the pale!
He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool; avoid him.
He who knows not and knows that he knows not is a student; teach him.
He who knows and knows not that he knows is asleep; wake him.
He who knows and knows he knows is a wise man; follow him.

The most difficult target to hit is one that is not there.

Thanks for the help on the elevator - which I mentioned to L and was told... Not to worry.. you're elevator don't reach the top floor anyhow... ahhhh.. the love..!!

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: LunarRay
I think I'll try to grasp this concept one more time because it seems somehow to be important to understanding WTC 7's event..

Don't waste your time. Moonie is way off in the deep end here, only arguing loosely based on reality, and not in any way important to understanding WTC7's collapse.

ah.. not to worry, Moonbeam has said he is dyslexic too... reads stuff backward.. guess that means he looks back over his shoulder. That would give me a stiff neck. But it does enable him to also do the dishes... heheheheheh

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Number1

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Number1

I also know pilots who said the plane would not take off. Your obvious paranoid view of the world and the government is distorting your reality.

I'm not sure I follow that statement. Or how it related.
Are you speaking to the Terrorist piloted Planes or the US Jets intercepting?

I am referring to the plane on a treadmill question and how so many people were unable to understand that the plane would indeed take off until it was demonstrated on the show Mythbuster.

The second sentence is just to show hat preconceived ideas can distort someone's understanding of world issues.

Oh.. ok thanks.

I know why gravity sticks your feet to the ground now... Cuz the ground is like the internal structure of a building keeping me or you from going on into the center of earth caused by the force of gravity. And, watch this, I need to overcome 1G to jump... but I won't move the earth much but I might move me up 25" or so... I got smart! er?

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
alot of peoples lives are in total free fall......

But each is issued a parachute and a backup.

 

[JEDIYoda]

hahahhaa I have the definitive answer to Kylebi9sme`s question-- What brought down WTC7?

Essentially when everything is said and done ---- gravity brought down wtc7.....if there was no gravity it would well look different but it would still be standing in a manner of speaking!!!

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: 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.

So if I've got this right, using my words, you are saying: There was an elimination of structure below the top 105 feet that was at least 105 feet and that bit did not provide any resistance to the 'block' [from the roof down 105'] of WTC 7 that did fall 105 feet at the free fall speed?
Additionally, that the top 105' fell as one block with out topple or very discernible dipping from edges indicates the failure of 105' at least of structure occurred in one fell swoop. EDIT: upon reflection you could be saying that the structure gave out sequentially for at least 105' but that sequence had to be faster than the accelerating 105' block?
And, as someone said, beam 79 gave out and all the rest of the core beams instantly (or very quickly) lost their ability to resist the call of nature... gravity.

That really is a question cuz I'm laboring with this and hope I have it right.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
It is impossible for a bumble bee to fly. It's body is too massive for it's tiny wings. This can be demonstrated with physics and I heard it when I was a child. Physics can't be wrong.

Bumble bees don't read... ergo, they are not subject to the aerodynamic aspects of physics. Geesh..

 

[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.

and who are They again? or is it Them? i wanna get the lingo right. and once again, why did They/Them do it? (in all the broken up quotes I see you didn't ever answer the main question of Why)

 

[LunarRay]

Will someone correct me if I'm wrong here..

It seems to me that only one floor let's say of structure needed to be rendered useless for its purpose in order to bring WTC 7 down. Maybe even just enough of the beams to cause the rest of the beams on that floor to buckle and be useless. It seems that would cause it to come down. But not in its foot print... most likely not, anyhow.

WTC 7 did not display the above mechanic IF it free fell for over the distance of One floor.

IF a simple person like me were to want '7' on the ground all in pieces I'd not waste my energy to do more than was needed... KISS!

For there to be an event as seen in video of WTC 7's descent a whole mess of support had to give out and so my thinking is why would a conspiracy minded bloke care if it fell all over the place or in its footprint.. neatness ought not play a roll in that kinda thinking? IF it was the result of fire/damage from the tower collapse or both of them IS that more likely to cause what we see?

Why would WTC 7 be a CT target and how could they [whoever they are] get debris to hit WTC 7 and start fires?
I guess I'm a bit confused on what the main target of CT is?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I must say, LR, that the vaunted rationality of the official version sure comes apart in a hurry when they deal with you. You must ipso facto be nuts if you vary from their beliefs a single scintilla. It's, um, unbelievable. It must be the mercy of God that another of your crimes isn't that you also believe is self hate. I think that would put you beyond the pail.

I'm learning alot from this thread.

I did grasp the free fall in the elevator thingi finally! When we were doing those Mechanical IQ tests and I had to follow my logic while you saw the big picture is alot like what happened here. I never realized I had the ability to use my leg muscle to create the kenetic energy which upon my release would propell me to the ceiling. And, the elevator was going that fraction faster than G based on the added force I applied... that is right, I hope?

Heheheeheh I'm always beyond the pale!
He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool; avoid him.
He who knows not and knows that he knows not is a student; teach him.
He who knows and knows not that he knows is asleep; wake him.
He who knows and knows he knows is a wise man; follow him.

The most difficult target to hit is one that is not there.

Thanks for the help on the elevator - which I mentioned to L and was told... Not to worry.. you're elevator don't reach the top floor anyhow... ahhhh.. the love..!!

hehehehe...

The above is correct except for one thing. To cancel the velocity you would acquire in a falling elevator that fell form any reasonable hight would require legs so strong you would probably punch through the floor of the elevator if you delivered the required force.

If you fell for just one second your velocity would be 32 ft per second so you would have to deliver to the floor of the elevator enough force to launch you at 32 ft /sec by the time your feet left the floor. That would be enough to cause you to jump 16 feet in the air if you had jumped from solid ground. You can see why the roof of the elevator becomes a problem. It would probably also cause you to jump out of your pants and your balls to sling up and hit you in the chin.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: 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.

and who are They again? or is it Them? i wanna get the lingo right. and once again, why did They/Them do it? (in all the broken up quotes I see you didn't ever answer the main question of Why)

he cannot answer the main question...
After all he says he has a 6th grade understanding of physics.....
For him to answer the main question he will try to claim that he already has..
If he were to answer the main question the mods would be totally locking this thread because all the crap would be spilling into the mod lounge!!

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Here's what I find astonishing:

In the now 8 years since 9/11, the fucknut troothers haven't been able to find ONE SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE that supports ANY of their assertions.

In the now 8 years since 9/11, the fucknut troothers haven't been able to find ONE SINGLE WITNESS that supports ANY of their assertions.

In the now 8 years since 9/11, the fucknut troothers haven't been able to provide MOTIVE that supports ANY of their assertions.

In the now 8 years since 9/11, the fucknut troothers haven't been able to put forth ONE LAWSUIT or CRIMINAL CASE that supports ANY of their assertions.

Wiki links? Try this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof


Go back to sleep? Fuck you idiot.

Well... that fellow Barry Jenkins said he heard explosions and challenged the story line which got change to be more in line with him and the City Corp attorney guy who was with him... I think. link

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

hehehehe...

The above is correct except for one thing. To cancel the velocity you would acquire in a falling elevator that fell form any reasonable hight would require legs so strong you would probably punch through the floor of the elevator if you delivered the required force.

If you fell for just one second your velocity would be 32 ft per second so you would have to deliver to the floor of the elevator enough force to launch you at 32 ft /sec by the time your feet left the floor. That would be enough to cause you to jump 16 feet in the air if you had jumped from solid ground. You can see why the roof of the elevator becomes a problem. It would probably also cause you to jump out of your pants and your balls to sling up and hit you in the chin.

Oh boy...
So to jump up i've to overcome not only G but also the velocity Me and my elevator are traveling at.... hmmmmm ok
BTW, is that acceleration constant even up to C?

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: 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.

You are just flaunting your opinion in the face of thousands of people who have much, much more than a "competent understanding of Newtonian physics" and thus far you've presented nothing that has actually disproved anything. You have simply taken the facts and managed to squeeze a massive conspiracy into them by manipulating the timeline and ignoring the greater picture.

You are LOOKING to find a conspiracy. No matter what TLC, myself, or anyone else says you have shrugged it off, ignored it, or simply intentionally misunderstood it.

There is worldwide consensus that there was no foul play in any of the WTC center collapses.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
So if I've got this right, using my words, you are saying: There was an elimination of structure below the top 105 feet that was at least 105 feet and that bit did not provide any resistance to the 'block' [from the roof down 105'] of WTC 7 that did fall 105 feet at the free fall speed?

Pretty much, though the 105 feet which was taken out was well more than 105 feet down from the top, as the videos of the collapse show considerably more than that intact.

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Additionally, that the top 105' fell as one block with out topple or very discernible dipping from edges indicates the failure of 105' at least of structure occurred in one fell swoop. EDIT: upon reflection you could be saying that the structure gave out sequentially for at least 105' but that sequence had to be faster than the accelerating 105' block?

Right, not necessarily all in one fell swoop, but at least as quick as the acceleration of gravity, as otherwise there would have been resistance keeping the rate of fall below the acceleration of gravity.

Originally posted by: LunarRay
And, as someone said, beam 79 gave out and all the rest of the core beams instantly (or very quickly) lost their ability to resist the call of nature... gravity.

Perhaps I should first note that buildings are designed to have well more than the resistive force necessary to hold them up, as one has to account for everything that might be put in the building, the force of hurricane winds pushing on the building and earthquakes shaking it, and a reasonable safety margin beyond what one could reasonably expect from all of that combined. That said, some/all core columns were taken out first, column 79 included, leaving the building to sag but not collapse. Then the perimeter columns and whatever might have been left of the core was taken out, leaving nothing to resist the acceleration of gravity, hence the free fall. Had it just been gravity pushing all that structural resistance out of the way, the force exerted to do that would have kept rate of descent below that of free fall.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: jonks
and who are They again? or is it Them? i wanna get the lingo right. and once again, why did They/Them do it? (in all the broken up quotes I see you didn't ever answer the main question of Why)

Shit man, not having been in on it myself, and lacking omnipresence, I'm not rightly in a position to say.

That said, here is a decent guess.

Anyway, some friends just dropped in, so I'll have to get to the other posts later.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Will someone correct me if I'm wrong here..

It seems to me that only one floor let's say of structure needed to be rendered useless for its purpose in order to bring WTC 7 down. Maybe even just enough of the beams to cause the rest of the beams on that floor to buckle and be useless. It seems that would cause it to come down. But not in its foot print... most likely not, anyhow.

WTC 7 did not display the above mechanic IF it free fell for over the distance of One floor.

IF a simple person like me were to want '7' on the ground all in pieces I'd not waste my energy to do more than was needed... KISS!

For there to be an event as seen in video of WTC 7's descent a whole mess of support had to give out and so my thinking is why would a conspiracy minded bloke care if it fell all over the place or in its footprint.. neatness ought not play a roll in that kinda thinking? IF it was the result of fire/damage from the tower collapse or both of them IS that more likely to cause what we see?

Why would WTC 7 be a CT target and how could they [whoever they are] get debris to hit WTC 7 and start fires?
I guess I'm a bit confused on what the main target of CT is?

I see it something like this. If you lean too far back in a chair you will fall backward and not straight down. If an elephant sits in your chair he will go straight down. Building 7 was wide stance like that Republican dude who looks for sex in public restrooms. You spread your legs when somebody tries to push you over, but if an elephant sits on your head you do straight down. A building won't tip over that has a wide stance and is made of millions of elephants. Once the building starts to go down is is going to come straight down and it is going to come in a hurry because for every second of fall it becomes 4 times harder to stop the collapse.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

hehehehe...

The above is correct except for one thing. To cancel the velocity you would acquire in a falling elevator that fell form any reasonable hight would require legs so strong you would probably punch through the floor of the elevator if you delivered the required force.

If you fell for just one second your velocity would be 32 ft per second so you would have to deliver to the floor of the elevator enough force to launch you at 32 ft /sec by the time your feet left the floor. That would be enough to cause you to jump 16 feet in the air if you had jumped from solid ground. You can see why the roof of the elevator becomes a problem. It would probably also cause you to jump out of your pants and your balls to sling up and hit you in the chin.

Oh boy...
So to jump up i've to overcome not only G but also the velocity Me and my elevator are traveling at.... hmmmmm ok
BTW, is that acceleration constant even up to C?

You don't need to overcome g. You can't overcome g. All you need to do is accelerate up as fast as you are falling. That will cancel your fall. You will be at rest stopped in relation to your elevation. You will then have your normal weight. You would have gone from weightless to very heavy to normal in a brief period of time. You pay the debt of inertia of falling when you accelerate of the elevator floor.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: LunarRay
So if I've got this right, using my words, you are saying: There was an elimination of structure below the top 105 feet that was at least 105 feet and that bit did not provide any resistance to the 'block' [from the roof down 105'] of WTC 7 that did fall 105 feet at the free fall speed?

Pretty much, though the 105 feet which was taken out was well more than 105 feet down from the top, as the videos of the collapse show considerably more than that intact.

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Additionally, that the top 105' fell as one block with out topple or very discernible dipping from edges indicates the failure of 105' at least of structure occurred in one fell swoop. EDIT: upon reflection you could be saying that the structure gave out sequentially for at least 105' but that sequence had to be faster than the accelerating 105' block?

Right, not necessarily all in one fell swoop, but at least as quick as the acceleration of gravity, as otherwise there would have been resistance keeping the rate of fall below the acceleration of gravity.

Originally posted by: LunarRay
And, as someone said, beam 79 gave out and all the rest of the core beams instantly (or very quickly) lost their ability to resist the call of nature... gravity.

Perhaps I should first note that buildings are designed to have well more than the resistive force necessary to hold them up, as one has to account for everything that might be put in the building, the force of hurricane winds pushing on the building and earthquakes shaking it, and a reasonable safety margin beyond what one could reasonably expect from all of that combined. That said, some/all core columns were taken out first, column 79 included, leaving the building to sag but not collapse. Then the perimeter columns and whatever might have been left of the core was taken out, leaving nothing to resist the acceleration of gravity, hence the free fall. Had it just been gravity pushing all that structural resistance out of the way, the force exerted to do that would have kept rate of descent below that of free fall.

The structural did not need to be pushed out of the way. It was falling too. I told you that gravity acts everywhere. The material will all be compacted when it stops at the ground and is crushed by the massive inertia of the rest of the falling building. If the ground floor collapses the second story will be next as the inertia of the rest of the falling building crushes it, and so on faster and faster. The shock waves destroying the integrity will travel through the building structure at the speed or sound in materials, I should reckon. The building would be demolished by concussion and free fall.