What brought down WTC7

[Number1]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: Cogman
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...ature=player_embedded#

That video does a good job of exemplifying the point of the OP; a force beyond that of gravity is needed to achieve a period of near free fall acceleration, the force being provided by the backhoes in that case.

I can't believe you wrote that. It's so incredibly stupid it's beyond explanation.
The backhoe pulled on the building sideways. How would it possibly accelerate the fall of the building?

Reality doesn't matter to twuthers.

A few questions:

Why do the wires go loose as the building starts to falls down if the wire are used to accelerate the fall of the building?

Why are the wires hit by debris if they are pulling the building at or near free fall speed. The debris would not have time to catch up with the cables according to your theory.


LOL

 

[Number1]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

The proof is in the laws of physics, but as I've noted before in this thread, I can't rightly expect anyone to come to terms with the physical impossibility of the offical story of how the towers came down when they can't even come to terms with as much in regard to WTC7.

Your analisys of the backhoe video is uterly ridiculous as I demonstrated in an earlyer post and you want us to listen to you about WTC7.


Ludicrous.

 

[Number1]

Originally posted by: Cogman

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: Cogman

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: Cogman
The Backhoes are neither pulling during the descent, nor are they significantly adding any vertical work before the decent. The vertical work done by the backhoes is completely negligible.

Nor did I claim otherwise.

:disgust:

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: Cogman
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...ature=player_embedded#

That video does a good job of exemplifying the point of the OP; a force beyond that of gravity is needed to achieve a period of near free fall acceleration, the force being provided by the backhoes in that case.

Gee, are you really that retarded?

I'm not being retared here, and neither is LunarRay, which is why he understood what I was referring to:

Originally posted by: LunarRay
They removed the vertical support...

Any chance you could muster the intellect to do the same?

LOL, How am I supposed to know that you really mean that the backhoes didn't provide any force to the falling of the building when you SAID that the backhoes provided the additional force needed for the falling building?

If anything the video is a clear example of why you are full of crap. A building, that when upper column support is removed, is able to completely collapse, at free fall speed none the less. Isn't that what you said was completely impossible?

Can't you just admit to being wrong? Just once? The contradiction is so clear here that I just can't fathom that someone could be so blind as to not be able to see it.

No he can't, that would mean all the time he has used to convert others to his ideas has been wasted and the realization he is an idiot.

It won't happen.

 

[Number1]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
lets be honest one thing you can say about Kylebisme, at least he claims to have a 6th graders understanding of physics.........

Rather, I pointed out the fact that those arguing against me here lack the understanding of physics I first became familiar with in the 5th grade, and both reviewed and expanded on throughout my education since then. But then you can't even keep the grade I mentioned straight, so I can't rightly expect you to come to terms with the physics.

How pretentious. Only twuthers posses the truth trough superior intellect you say.

99 % of the scientific community is inept you imply.

Your a joke.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: event8horizon
lets get into the steel they found at the wtc 7 site:
reposted b/c the pseudoskeptics have no answers.

ive been keeping up with a thread over at jref. i think this sums it up quit nicely.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=155743

"the main problem i have is the rate of corrosion. this is the only study to try and replicate the conditions for the corrosion to occur.
http://www.me.wpi.edu/MTE/News/seminars3.html

A Metallurgical Examination and Simulation of the Oxidation and Sulfidation of the World Trade Center Structural Steel
Thursday, September 25, 2003, Washburn 323, 12:00 Noon

Presented by:
Erin Sullivan

Abstract
"To simulate the extreme wastage experienced by WTC building 7 structural steel during the fires experienced on September 11, 2001, A36 steel was reacted with powder FeS/FeO/SiO2/C in an open air furnace environment at 900C and 1100C. Initial investigations of the WTC structural steel revealed an apparent liquid "slag" attack and penetration down grain boundaries by liquid iron oxides and sulfides. The current laboratory simulation results show grain boundary penetration by a liquid slag at higher temperatures regardless of powder reactants applied to the steel samples. Eutectic structures within the Fe-S-O and Fe-Si-O systems were observed along with elemental segregation within the near surface microstructure. In all cases, grain boundary penetration appears to be strongly influenced by the addition of alloying elements and contaminants. "


remember Dr. Astaneh-As was in new york 8 days after the attack and saw "Parts of the flat top of the I, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized."

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10...lues-and-remedies.html

then later in the tread a poster actually quotes sisson (if anyone is that into the fema bpat report app c)

"However, preliminary experiments [5] at 1100 °C with mixtures of FeS and FeO placed on the steel surface and heated in air indicated that the reaction was not fast and dissolved little metal in 24 h. This observation indicates that the liquid slag attack probably took place during the prolonged exposure to the fire in the rubble."


5. R.R. Biederman, E. Sullivan, and R.D. Sisson, Jr., Worcester Polytechnic Institute, and G.F. Vander Voort, Buehler: ?Microstructural Analysis of the Steels from Buildings 7, 1 and 2 from the World Trade Center,? private communication

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=155743&page=2

so what we have is sisson saying that the attack was caused by iron, oxygen, and sulfur but when it came to experiment, it dissolved little in 24 hours. now five- eighths of an inch is 15.9 mm. so over 24 hrs, there should have been almost 2 mm "erroded".

I've taken Professor Astaneh's course before. Sure it was only an under grad lower division mechanics course, but he did talk about the WTC a few times during that course. He surely is NOT one of those who believe in some controlled demolition crap. Additionally, how is a stupid experiment in an oven going to simulate a collapse? It's going to just simulate steel sitting there in ideal conditions. I don't think a quick 24 hour experiment will jump to the conclusion that BAM there's no way that the rubble after 8 days or however long it sat there before Astaneh got to it could have corroded like that. I think you'll need to get some more definitive answers from several materials science corrosion experts.

Do you have any answers from Astaneh's investigation into the steel rather than some other dude's lame attempt to say that the steel vaporized?

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Number1

It maters to me because one side is accusing their compatriot of mass murder.

Yeah.. I think before you or anyone can accuse or even think to accuse in this case you've to first find the crime. I think honest and well meaning folks can find bits of 'evidence' that point to an alternative hypothesis in this WTC tragedy that conflicts with the more reasonable notion. Others can see piles of evidence all pointing to a crime and jump to the who as if that confirms the interpretation of the evidence. To me that is insane.
I think the more rational approach is what my sister said to me.. (I've two living in NYC and one worked there at the site in WTC7. The other's hubby was in on the clean up but died apparently the result of being there... some sort of cancer) She said - more or less, Does it matter now? I'd looked at this event at the time and wondered about WTC 7 but only WTC 7 and not that some conspiracy happened but that some opportunists used the event. I know, per her comments to me, that fires occurred on 11 - 13 in WTC7 but not 10... She said it was odd... cuz there were none there on that side she was looking at then poof they were.. But, Does it matter now? I don't know if it does or not... Does the invasion of Iraq matter now? I don't know.. We've tons of evidence something happened extra legal and with lots of lives lost but we've moved on, it seems... I think this is a nagging issue for some who latch onto what is to them the obvious and scientific and can't stand to move on...
I've seen stuff that I can't answer but am I equipped to answer what I see? Well, I'm equipped to be able to develop a hypothesis and I have and bounce the data and observations off it and wonder about what is left that needs answering to accept that hypothesis. (Planes and Fire only) There are some very troubling aspects that still need resolution. But, Does it matter if I, a simple citizen, can't accept the 'official' hypothesis or can't reject some alternative null hypothesis? I doubt it. Should we move on? I think at the end of the day we should move on when we've exhausted ourselves and recognize that no matter what caused the WTC tragedy Americans, by and large, say, " Does it matter?"

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: munky
Operation Northwoods - yet another historical example of a secret govt conspiracy. Make sure all you experts google it.

Uh huh. Another example of a secret government conspiracy that was never acted upon, a fact that makes truthers look stupid every bazillionth time they bring it up.

Are you denying that it ever existed? The point is not that it wasn't acted upon (as I knew people in denial like you would emphasize), but the scope of what the government had as a plan, and what were their motives?

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: Cogman

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: Cogman
Umm, the first is a site from a clearly truther bias website, with, surprise, no audio/video recordings of the explosions. The second is a video of the buildings collapsing, sorry, plumbs of debris are going to go everywhere when a building collapses.

How come there isn't any recording of the explosions happening? According to your first link, there were 3 explosions total, two happening minutes before the collapse. BOTH should have been caught on camera, but neither was. (and yes, they should be on camera because people filmed the entire collapse of the building.)

Then google "9/11 explosions," how hard can that be? Here's a video I found within a few seconds. There are others available if you bothered searching.

Text

See, when you automatically dismiss a hypothesis because you don't like what it's suggesting, you don't even bother looking further to see if there is evidence supporting it. Classical approach to the way the "experts" handled the investigation.

In the second video I linked, you are plainly ignoring the fact the "plumbs of debris" are being ejected out at concentrated points, well below the wave of collapse. That kinda contradicts the whole pancake theory.

Already done, and the pages that come up are all Truthers pages with no video or audio. Do you expect me to go wading through the muck just to try and prove YOUR point?

I haven't had a chance to listen/watch your link as the website is blocked here. Ill get back to you on that.

*edit* watched the video. How do you know that wasn't the sound of the building collapsing? You can't see anything, you only hear stuff. My guess (from all the smoke) is it is the sound of the building collapsing.

I'm pretty sure what it wasn't - that it's not the sound of a building collapsing from natural forces like fire.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: event8horizon
snip lunatic1

Originally posted by: kylebisme
snip lunatic2

The plan worked! We got both of em in the same thread. Nuke it, do it! Do it now! What are you waiting for! Get to da choppa!

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: munky
I'm pretty sure what it wasn't - that it's not the sound of a building collapsing from natural forces like fire.

wow, that's scienteriffic..

 

[Cogman]

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: Cogman

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: Cogman
Umm, the first is a site from a clearly truther bias website, with, surprise, no audio/video recordings of the explosions. The second is a video of the buildings collapsing, sorry, plumbs of debris are going to go everywhere when a building collapses.

How come there isn't any recording of the explosions happening? According to your first link, there were 3 explosions total, two happening minutes before the collapse. BOTH should have been caught on camera, but neither was. (and yes, they should be on camera because people filmed the entire collapse of the building.)

Then google "9/11 explosions," how hard can that be? Here's a video I found within a few seconds. There are others available if you bothered searching.

Text

See, when you automatically dismiss a hypothesis because you don't like what it's suggesting, you don't even bother looking further to see if there is evidence supporting it. Classical approach to the way the "experts" handled the investigation.

In the second video I linked, you are plainly ignoring the fact the "plumbs of debris" are being ejected out at concentrated points, well below the wave of collapse. That kinda contradicts the whole pancake theory.

Already done, and the pages that come up are all Truthers pages with no video or audio. Do you expect me to go wading through the muck just to try and prove YOUR point?

I haven't had a chance to listen/watch your link as the website is blocked here. Ill get back to you on that.

*edit* watched the video. How do you know that wasn't the sound of the building collapsing? You can't see anything, you only hear stuff. My guess (from all the smoke) is it is the sound of the building collapsing.

I'm pretty sure what it wasn't - that it's not the sound of a building collapsing from natural forces like fire.

And you know this... How? Oh wait, you don't. This is just a wild speculation.

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: Cogman

Originally posted by: munky


I'm pretty sure what it wasn't - that it's not the sound of a building collapsing from natural forces like fire.

And you know this... How? Oh wait, you don't. This is just a wild speculation.

Are you deaf? Do you hear the sound of a building coming down after the initial explosion? Do you see any debris being spewed all around?

 

[Cogman]

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: Cogman

Originally posted by: munky


I'm pretty sure what it wasn't - that it's not the sound of a building collapsing from natural forces like fire.

And you know this... How? Oh wait, you don't. This is just a wild speculation.

Are you deaf? Do you hear the sound of a building coming down after the initial explosion? Do you see any debris being spewed all around?

I heard a loud sound. That's it. The only other noise that I can here is the reverberation of the loud sound.

Without a visual confirmation, this loud sound it completely pointless.

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: Cogman

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: Cogman

Originally posted by: munky


I'm pretty sure what it wasn't - that it's not the sound of a building collapsing from natural forces like fire.

And you know this... How? Oh wait, you don't. This is just a wild speculation.

Are you deaf? Do you hear the sound of a building coming down after the initial explosion? Do you see any debris being spewed all around?

I heard a loud sound. That's it. The only other noise that I can here is the reverberation of the loud sound.

Without a visual confirmation, this loud sound it completely pointless.

With genius conclusions like that, it's no wonder the official story failed to investigate or even acknowledge the possibility of a controlled demolition.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: Cogman

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: Cogman

Originally posted by: munky


I'm pretty sure what it wasn't - that it's not the sound of a building collapsing from natural forces like fire.

And you know this... How? Oh wait, you don't. This is just a wild speculation.

Are you deaf? Do you hear the sound of a building coming down after the initial explosion? Do you see any debris being spewed all around?

I heard a loud sound. That's it. The only other noise that I can here is the reverberation of the loud sound.

Without a visual confirmation, this loud sound it completely pointless.

With genius conclusions like that, it's no wonder the official story failed to investigate or even acknowledge the possibility of a controlled demolition.

yes, well, that and the whole no evidence of a controlled demolition thing.

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: Cogman

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: Cogman

Originally posted by: munky


I'm pretty sure what it wasn't - that it's not the sound of a building collapsing from natural forces like fire.

And you know this... How? Oh wait, you don't. This is just a wild speculation.

Are you deaf? Do you hear the sound of a building coming down after the initial explosion? Do you see any debris being spewed all around?

I heard a loud sound. That's it. The only other noise that I can here is the reverberation of the loud sound.

Without a visual confirmation, this loud sound it completely pointless.

With genius conclusions like that, it's no wonder the official story failed to investigate or even acknowledge the possibility of a controlled demolition.

yes, well, that and the whole no evidence of a controlled demolition thing.

Based on what? If you never even bothered investigating if there was a controlled demolition, how are you gonna find evidence supporting or refuting that possibility.

 

[Cogman]

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: Cogman

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: Cogman

Originally posted by: munky


I'm pretty sure what it wasn't - that it's not the sound of a building collapsing from natural forces like fire.

And you know this... How? Oh wait, you don't. This is just a wild speculation.

Are you deaf? Do you hear the sound of a building coming down after the initial explosion? Do you see any debris being spewed all around?

I heard a loud sound. That's it. The only other noise that I can here is the reverberation of the loud sound.

Without a visual confirmation, this loud sound it completely pointless.

With genius conclusions like that, it's no wonder the official story failed to investigate or even acknowledge the possibility of a controlled demolition.

So you expect there to be an investigation every time someone hears a clap of thunder? OMG there MUST have been a controlled demolition.

Get me a video with audio and visual confirmation and I might take you seriously. However, this BS with a camera positioned who knows where and who knows what time frame doesn't fly with me.

Heck, did you even watch the 9/11 conspiracy videos? 1/2 of them are people saying "The explosion of the collapse of the video". Heck, the one with the reporter looking up at the building as the tower begins to fall is a prime example of their idiocracy "OMG, the reporter said the word explosion, that must mean explosives!!".

The other half are extremely zoom in images showing the building burst into flames. Yes, fires WILL burst out of windows like that, yes I HAVE burned down a building before and witnessed it.

So excuse me for not trusting your fellow crack reporters who can't get a shred of video evidence other then a film in some remote part of town of a couple of fire fighters.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: munky
Based on what? If you never even bothered investigating if there was a controlled demolition, how are you gonna find evidence supporting or refuting that possibility.

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
1) If planes did not bring down the WTC, what did? How did it get there? A controlled demolition on the scale required by the WTC would have required thousands of pounds of explosives, miles (miles!) of detonation cord, and months of preparation. Have you ever seen videos of buildings when they're wired to come down? There is wire and explosives everywhere. In the WTC there was nothing. I hate to break it to you, but it would be nearly impossible for all of that stuff to be hidden.

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: Cogman

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: Cogman

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: Cogman

Originally posted by: munky


I'm pretty sure what it wasn't - that it's not the sound of a building collapsing from natural forces like fire.

And you know this... How? Oh wait, you don't. This is just a wild speculation.

Are you deaf? Do you hear the sound of a building coming down after the initial explosion? Do you see any debris being spewed all around?

I heard a loud sound. That's it. The only other noise that I can here is the reverberation of the loud sound.

Without a visual confirmation, this loud sound it completely pointless.

With genius conclusions like that, it's no wonder the official story failed to investigate or even acknowledge the possibility of a controlled demolition.

So you expect there to be an investigation every time someone hears a clap of thunder? OMG there MUST have been a controlled demolition.

Get me a video with audio and visual confirmation and I might take you seriously. However, this BS with a camera positioned who knows where and who knows what time frame doesn't fly with me.

Heck, did you even watch the 9/11 conspiracy videos? 1/2 of them are people saying "The explosion of the collapse of the video". Heck, the one with the reporter looking up at the building as the tower begins to fall is a prime example of their idiocracy "OMG, the reporter said the word explosion, that must mean explosives!!".

The other half are extremely zoom in images showing the building burst into flames. Yes, fires WILL burst out of windows like that, yes I HAVE burned down a building before and witnessed it.

So excuse me for not trusting your fellow crack reporters who can't get a shred of video evidence other then a film in some remote part of town of a couple of fire fighters.

Do you see rain and lightning in any video at the scene of the incident? Funny way to classify it as a clap of thunder, when it obviously could not have been a "clap of thunder." And yes, I'd expect a thorough investigation to examine what could have caused the sound of an explosion at a major cataclysmic event like that.

 

[Cogman]

Originally posted by: munky

Do you see rain and lighting in any video at the scene of the incident? Funny way to classify it as a clap of thunder, when it obviously could not have been a "clap of thunder." And yes, I'd expect a thorough investigation to examine what could have caused the sound of an explosion at a major cataclysmic event like that.

I was not referring to the video. I've already stated previously what I thought it might be. What I am stating is that it is stupid to DEMAND an investigation because 3 years after the event, someone releases a video of a couple of guys around a payphone that hear a loud noise.

There is no way to confirm that the noise wasn't the collapse of the building, or any other numerous things that make loud noises. Yet you insist that it MUST have been explosives because, it just must, because anyone who doesn't believe that is stupid!

What you are stating is that every time a building collapses and we hear a loud noise, there should be an investigation into it to see if explosives were used. Hence the reference to thunder.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: munky
Do you see rain and lighting in any video at the scene of the incident? Funny way to classify it as a clap of thunder, when it obviously could not have been a "clap of thunder." And yes, I'd expect a thorough investigation to examine what could have caused the sound of an explosion at a major cataclysmic event like that.

Exactly what the NIST did. They considered every possibility and ruled out any sort of controlled demolition based on a lack of evidence.

There is ZERO evidence for a controlled demolition, neither in the rubble of the WTC nor in the circumstantial evidence surrounding the event. Noises themselves are not indicative of anything, neither are people who use the word "explosives." The BBC saying WTC 7 collapsed long before it did indicates how confused the entire situation was and may indicate their own inability to accurately report what was happening. It doesn't mean there is a conspiracy. The "pull it" video is equally lacking in any sort of evidence.

Truthers have had eight full years to find one shred of evidence that explosives brought the building down. They have failed to do so.

 

[manowar821]

People fail to realize that nobody ever proved that office fires and the plane crashes brought the buildings down, nor did anybody ever successfully prove that it would even be possible.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: manowar821
People fail to realize that nobody ever proved that office fires and the plane crashes brought the buildings down, nor did anybody ever successfully prove that it would even be possible.

got us another one! hope y'all are keeping track.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: manowar821
People fail to realize that nobody ever proved that office fires and the plane crashes brought the buildings down, nor did anybody ever successfully prove that it would even be possible.

Are you literate? Then please go read the NIST's report.

They proved all of it. Then a whole bunch of physicists and disaster specialists confirmed their work independently.

 

[Cogman]

Originally posted by: manowar821
People fail to realize that nobody ever proved that office fires and the plane crashes brought the buildings down, nor did anybody ever successfully prove that it would even be possible.

Other then the 1000's of videos showing planes ramming into buildings, large fires in the buildings, A large team of scientists who research this very subject, and a complete and total lack of a reasonable explanation of anything else happening.

Or do I need to post a link to NIST's report again for you?