What brought down WTC7

[kylebisme]

By the way, I previously overlooked responding to this:

Originally posted by: LunarRay
He, it seems to me, is simply trying to provide what has been developed by folks respected in the expertise they opine on that differs from the 'official version'.

Rather, I had the necessary knowledge to know for a fact that a yet to be explained force helped bring WTC7 down for over decade before it happened, and hence was in a position to conclude as much the moment I first saw a video if it in 2005. Of course there are other people with expertise in physics well beyond mine who acknowledge this fact too, but I didn't need anyone else to develop my position for me. What I would need to be convinced I'm wrong here is for someone to simulate an interconnected structure collapsing with a period of free all as the result of localised impact damage and fires. However, I highly doubt anyone could do that, as proving that possible would result in us having to throw out long understood and consistently observable laws of physics.

 

[Moonbeam]

k: You most certainly can, for the same reason you can lift your leg in the air and buckle it at your knee from there; because your muscles can exert the force needed to do so. If you use the force of those muscles to buckle your knees to drop to the ground, that additional force can accelerate your descent beyond that of the force exerted by gravity. It's for this same reason the pegs on those whack-a-mole games drop so damn quick; because it is not just gravity bringing them down, but also a mechanical force acting along with it.

M: Yes, if you yank your legs up in the air you will create an equal but opposite reaction in your body, but that is not what it means to buckle your knees. You simply unlock them and use no muscle force at all. And buildings do not have muscles and there is no mechanical force in them that would accelerate their fall. I have no idea what you are talking about with whack-a-mole games. Whacking something is supplying a force. Nothing whacked the building.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: kylebisme
By the way, I previously overlooked responding to this:

Originally posted by: LunarRay
He, it seems to me, is simply trying to provide what has been developed by folks respected in the expertise they opine on that differs from the 'official version'.

Rather, I had the necessary knowledge to know for a fact that a yet to be explained force helped bring WTC7 down for over decade before it happened, and hence was in a position to conclude as much the moment I first saw a video if it in 2005. Of course there are other people with expertise in physics well beyond mine who acknowledge this fact too, but I didn't need anyone else to develop my position for me. What I would need to be convinced I'm wrong here is for someone to simulate an interconnected structure collapsing with a period of free all as the result of localised impact damage and fires. However, I highly doubt anyone could do that, as proving that possible would result in us having to throw out long understood and consistently observable laws of physics.

Your statement that you had knowledge means nothing. You can say anything you like. The notion that unknown forces were at work is conjectural and not in evidence. You assume the building was interconnected when in fact is the interconnectedness failed and that is why the building collapsed. The shock of collapse in any part of the building would immediately destroy it. It is exactly as described with a straw. It can support a lot of weight if it doesn't bend. You could probably carefully balance a brick on one if you were careful, but hit one on the end with a brick and it will be like the straw isn't there.

You can erect a building of dominoes on a table and put a brick on the roof, or two bricks, but hit the table on the side just a bit and the whole thing will free fall. It's why they put buildings on springs in earth quake areas. Shock destroys them. If you jump off a high enough roof your knees will buckle no matter how strong you are and your descent will be slowed fractionally.

 

[First]

Only on the Internet can laymen physicists find a voice and be taken seriously. It truly is no different than the anti-vaccine or anti-evolution movements in this country. Truly sad.

 

[Moonbeam]

LR: There was no time to demo the place. And fire/structural damage had to be the cause. It is not only the simplest explanation but the only one. I just hate to think someone might have helped it along a bit.

It is always possible but I see now no way to really know. I agree with you that alternative opinions should be entered with reports, just as I think the mods made the right choice in leaving open this thread. I can see, however, if somebody claims over and over again that a building threw its knees in the air to bring itself down, it could get a little old. Hehe, just kidding about that, or sort of.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Yes, if you yank your legs up in the air you will create an equal but opposite reaction in your body...

Sure, but I was referring to the fact that you can keep your feet on the ground and use your muscles to yank yourself down faster than free fall.

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
...but that is not what it means to buckle your knees. You simply unlock them and use no muscle force at all.

From my perspective, if you unlock them and use no muscle force at all, you aren't buckling your knees, you are letting gravity buckle them for you. Hence, I replied:

Originally posted by: kylebisme
If you buckle your knees, you can descend at free fall or even quicker, as you are using the force of your muscles to do so. If you just go limp to let gravity bring you down, then your knees buckling provides resistive force which keeps you acceleration below that free fall.

In other words, to achieve free fall you need a force beyond that of gravity to overcome the resistive force provided by your knees, such as force supplied from your muscles.

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
And buildings do not have muscles and there is no mechanical force in them that would accelerate their fall.

Right, but they do have a resistive force provided by the mass of their structure, which will keep the acceleration of a collapse at bellow that of free fall unless it is removed by some force beyond that of gravity.

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I have no idea what you are talking about with whack-a-mole games. Whacking something is supplying a force.

That was an example in regard to your argument that you can't descend faster than free fall by bucking your knees, speaking of how fast the pegs are pulled down by the machine if you don't whack them.

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Nothing whacked the building.

Well "whacked" wouldn't be a term I'd think to use in regard to WTC7, and it certainly wasn't my intent to suggest otherwise, but some yet to be explained force facilitated the collapse.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: First
Only on the Internet can laymen physicists find a voice and be taken seriously. It truly is no different than the anti-vaccine or anti-evolution movements in this country. Truly sad.

It is absurd that you have to resort to bringing in two unrelated topics for which I'm quite comfortable with the science of to argue against a matter which you are apparently uncomfortable with the science of. Such an argument leaves me wondering if you hold your positions on the former two as matters of faith just as you obviously do with the latter.

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I can see, however, if somebody claims over and over again that a building threw its knees in the air to bring itself down, it could get a little old. Hehe, just kidding about that, or sort of.

Please Moonie, you are the one who brought buckling knees into this, and I simply elaborated on your analogy to exemplify the physics in question. I didn't suggest anything about throwing knees in the air either, just suggested lifting one to note the force your muscles exert to bend it, in regard to that force allowing you to overcome the resistance which would otherwise keep you falling slower than free fall. Put simply; something threw out a 105 foot chunk of the height of the building, as it couldn't have fallen so quickly otherwise.

 

[Moonbeam]

M: Yes, if you yank your legs up in the air you will create an equal but opposite reaction in your body...

k: Sure, but I was referring to the fact that you can keep your feet on the ground and use your muscles to yank yourself down faster than free fall.

M: How? Your feet aren't glued to the floor. This makes no sense to me at all.
-------
M:...but that is not what it means to buckle your knees. You simply unlock them and use no muscle force at all.

k: From my perspective, if you unlock them and use no muscle force at all, you aren't buckling your knees, you are letting gravity buckle them for you. Hence, I replied: If you buckle your knees, you can descend at free fall or even quicker, as you are using the force of your muscles to do so. If you just go limp to let gravity bring you down, then your knees buckling provides resistive force which keeps you acceleration below that free fall.

M: Whatever you want to call knee buckling it doesn't change a thing. When you buckle your knees you are using a lateral force just as hitting the table with dominoes. Lateral forces do not affect the rate of fall. If you do not use your muscles to slow your fall you will free fall. You will free fall as soon as your knees buckle whatever the cause and if you don't resist the fall you can never fall faster than free fall or slower for that matter. You are simply wrong that there is a force that can make you fall faster. Your knees buckling would be just like putting enough weight on the end of a straw to buckle it. The bricks will then fall at free fall acceleration because the straw supplies almost zero resistance.

k: In other words, to achieve free fall you need a force beyond that of gravity to overcome the resistive force provided by your knees, such as force supplied from your muscles.

M: Again the force is lateral and has zero influence of the rate of fall. It would be like sliding a brick off a level plane. Slide it fast or slide it slow, it will hit the floor in the exact same amount of time.
============

M: And buildings do not have muscles and there is no mechanical force in them that would accelerate their fall.

k: Right, but they do have a resistive force provided by the mass of their structure, which will keep the acceleration of a collapse at bellow that of free fall unless it is removed by some force beyond that of gravity.

M: I thought we were talking about some force that made them fall faster than free fall. Now we are talking slower. But as I said, faster or slower won't happen without some force making it so. But OK:

There is no resistive force provided by the mass of a building. Gravity acts simultaneously on all parts of a building equally and continuously. A building is supported by forces that counteract vertical collapse primarily. All the weight of a building is supported at its base. Suppose the ground floor, due to fire, is weakened so that it can't support the building. It collapses. The inertia of motion set up by the entire building falling one floor as a piece
would be colossal and completely destroy the integrity of the whole structure. The second floor would crush and the third and the top floor after floor racing down at free fall would take out anything vertical in the way. Every part of the building would be in free fall because the forces of support would be tiny compared to the inertia of motion generated by the huge falling mass.
=========

M: I have no idea what you are talking about with whack-a-mole games. Whacking something is supplying a force.

k: That was an example in regard to your argument that you can't descend faster than free fall by bucking your knees, speaking of how fast the pegs are pulled down by the machine if you don't whack them.

M: OK fine but there the pegs are attached to something pulling them. Nothing is pulling a building down but gravity.
----------
M: Nothing whacked the building.

k: Well "whacked" wouldn't be a term I'd think to use in regard to WTC7, and it certainly wasn't my intent to suggest otherwise, but some yet to be explained force facilitated the collapse.

M: Hehe, I used whack because I didn't know what you were talking about with the mole machine. I didn't know the pegs were pulled down. That has nothing to do with a building, however. I just explained, however, how the building would come down at free fall speed. It isn't unexplained but it may be misunderstood.

 

[miniMUNCH]

<-- PhD chemical engineer / materials scientist. Aced all my mechE coursework too for good measure.

<-- has read the majority of the 9/11 report and believes that the official 9/11 story is 'grade A baloney'.

There is so much misinformation out there concerning the supposed 'facts' of 9/11... it is absolutely mind boggling. But when you start sorting through information it quickly becomes apparent that the 9/11 investigation and the media coverage/treatment thereafter is a total snow job.

I will say this... if start reading through legitimate 9/11 truth'er information and reports (i.e. people who are doing honest investigation and simply reporting facts as they find them and reporting proper analysis) you will have to conclude one of two things: A) the 9/11 report is largely full of shit or (B) the legitimate 9/11 truth movement is making shit up. Well a lot of 9/11 truth info and reports, etc. are extremely well documents with supporting evidence in the form of pictures, interviews, videos, etc. There are loads of contradictions and omissions within the 9/11 commission report itself.

So to me the conclusion of where I place my belief and trust is a simple. Do i believe a government or do i believe it people who want the truth. And honestly, I think very little needs to be said concerning the trustworthiness of our federal government, particularly under Bush and Cheney... or the complete lack thereof.

Do I

 

[Moonbeam]

k: Please Moonie, you are the one who brought buckling knees into this, and I simply elaborated on your analogy to exemplify the physics in question. I didn't suggest anything about throwing knees in the air either, just suggested lifting one to note the force your muscles exert to bend it, in regard to that force allowing you to overcome the resistance which would otherwise keep you falling slower than free fall. Put simply; something threw out a 105 foot chunk of the height of the building, as it couldn't have fallen so quickly otherwise.

M: I know I exaggerated. But no 105 foot section of the building had to be thrown out, whatever the hell that would mean, for it to fall at free fall acceleration as I explained above. Earthquakes destroy buildings by making them bounce. The inertia of motion tears them apart just as a fat man can't fall very far without his legs giving out.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
LR: There was no time to demo the place. And fire/structural damage had to be the cause. It is not only the simplest explanation but the only one. I just hate to think someone might have helped it along a bit.

It is always possible but I see now no way to really know. I agree with you that alternative opinions should be entered with reports, just as I think the mods made the right choice in leaving open this thread. I can see, however, if somebody claims over and over again that a building threw its knees in the air to bring itself down, it could get a little old. Hehe, just kidding about that, or sort of.

What kept running through my mind about knees buckling was a person on an elevator and all of a sudden the cable breaks and (assume no other friction device) down it comes... on the way down the passenger says to himself, self, just before this elevator hits the bottom I'm going to jump up and avoid the impact! Now that seemed simple enough... but then I had to think a bit... won't he still be traveling down by gravity at 32ft per sec per sec? But now his only advantage is he's futher away from the elevator floor than he would have been... he don't eliminate gravity relative to him/earth but does relative to him/elevator for a bit. All this physics stuff gives me a head ache. I'd imagine he'd have very strong leg muscles...

What I really really like about this thread is the absence of all them vile comments toward each other.. These folks are about as far apart as in any thread but even with that there is a respect of the person regardless of how wrong they feel he is. There are a few but it is tame by comparison.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Your feet aren't glued to the floor.

They are somewhat stuck to the the floor by gravity, and you are flexing your muscles above that point, allowing you to descend quicker than free fall. That said, if you did actually superglue your feet to the floor, that would potentially allow you to descend even quicker, assuming you are strong enough and quick enough for it to make a difference. I can't get my feet off just making my knees buckle when trying it myself, but then I'm not nearly the athlete I once was either.

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
When you buckle your knees you are using a lateral force just as hitting the table with dominoes. Lateral forces do not affect the rate of fall.

You can't buckle your knees with standing without descending, and if you for instance put a chair in front of your knees to block them, the force required to push the chair out of the way slows your fall.

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
You will free fall as soon as your knees buckle whatever the cause and if you don't resist the fall you can never fall faster than free fall or slower for that matter.

Please Moonie, check the definition of free fall which which I provided in the OP, check the link I provided there to help explain the phenomena, and ask me whatever questions you might have in regard to the matter. Please stop trying to explain to me what I understand well and you so obviously don't.

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
M: Hehe, I used whack because I didn't know what you were talking about with the mole machine. I didn't know the pegs were pulled down.

You always could have just asked me how a whack-a-mole machine works, or Googled for an explanation yourself.

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
That has nothing to do with a building, however.

Nor did I ever suggest it did, as I had explained previously.

Originally posted by: kylebisme
I just explained, however, how the building would come down at free fall speed. It isn't unexplained but it may be misunderstood.

Rather, I explained what is required for a building to come down with a period of free fall acceleration, yet you keep misunderstanding the facts of the matter and attempting to explain it away.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: miniMUNCH
<-- PhD chemical engineer / materials scientist. Aced all my mechE coursework too for good measure.

<-- has read the majority of the 9/11 report and believes that the official 9/11 story is 'grade A baloney'.

There is so much misinformation out there concerning the supposed 'facts' of 9/11... it is absolutely mind boggling. But when you start sorting through information it quickly becomes apparent that the 9/11 investigation and the media coverage/treatment thereafter is a total snow job.

I will say this... if start reading through legitimate 9/11 truth'er information and reports (i.e. people who are doing honest investigation and simply reporting facts as they find them and reporting proper analysis) you will have to conclude one of two things: A) the 9/11 report is largely full of shit or (B) the legitimate 9/11 truth movement is making shit up. Well a lot of 9/11 truth info and reports, etc. are extremely well documents with supporting evidence in the form of pictures, interviews, videos, etc. There are loads of contradictions and omissions within the 9/11 commission report itself.

So to me the conclusion of where I place my belief and trust is a simple. Do i believe a government or do i believe it people who want the truth. And honestly, I think very little needs to be said concerning the trustworthiness of our federal government, particularly under Bush and Cheney... or the complete lack thereof.

Do I

Are you saying that even the gist of the Commission Report can't stand up to scrutiny? I [<------- not a scientist] mean wow... I'm flabberghasted!... They couldn't have just made stuff up. These are genuine scientists and have no motive to lie, cheat or put forth something that is outlandish on first blush to a knowledgeable reader.
They have the same data as the other folks who dissent. I guess my question would be: How can two scientists see the same data and be so far apart on their interpretation of it?

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: miniMUNCH
<-- PhD chemical engineer / materials scientist. Aced all my mechE coursework too for good measure.

<-- has read the majority of the 9/11 report and believes that the official 9/11 story is 'grade A baloney'.

It's good to see someone with a degree pop in here to fend off the falsers. I unfortunately had financial complications which kept me from being able to continue paying tuition without going into debt, and I have a philosophical aversion to credit. That said, I've always been a man of science, and studied architecture into college and then refocused towards physics before the financial issue struck.

And yeah, much of the official story is nonsense, and best I can tell compartmentalised and directed from the top down to keep most of the people working on it from even realizing what crap they were producing. Charlie Sheen, oddly enough, recently compiled sources showing 6 of the 10 official 9/11 commission members take issue with the investigation, along with a bunch of other notable individuals, listed under Highly Credible People Question 9/11 here.

Anyway, as I'm guessing from your credentials you that you are familiar enough with Newtonian physics to back me in regard to WTC7's period of free fall acceleration having to be the result of some yet to be identified force, I'm hoping you might chime in on that specific matter, as all we really need to do to get people to support a proper investigation is to help them understand just one flagrant impossibility of it, as that will leave them having to reconsider the whole of it.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Are you saying that even the gist of the Commission Report can't stand up to scrutiny? I [<------- not a scientist] mean wow... I'm flabberghasted!...

I'm sure that is what he is saying, as it is absurd to argue otherwise. I've trying to explain this to you for a while now.

Originally posted by: LunarRay
They couldn't have just made stuff up. These are genuine scientists and have no motive to lie, cheat or put forth something that is outlandish on first blush to a knowledgeable reader.
They have the same data as the other folks who dissent. I guess my question would be: How can two scientists see the same data and be so far apart on their interpretation of it?

As I mentioned in my reply to miniMUNCH, the investigations seem to have been compartmentalised and directed from the top down, so most of the people working on it, scientists and otherwise, were given tasks that separated the evidence into parts which would confirm the official story rather than expose them to anything that would lead them to question it. And of course anyone who does come forward against the official story gets shouted down or worse, so I'm sure many are dissuaded from ever really looking into the matter simply by that.

Who has been bought into covering things up, blackmailed into covering things up, or just simply confused into covering things up, is something I doubt more than some few people know, and certainly not anything I am in any position to speculate on. However, if we ever get a real investigation set up, I'd wager we find it is some mix of all of the above.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
LR: There was no time to demo the place. And fire/structural damage had to be the cause. It is not only the simplest explanation but the only one. I just hate to think someone might have helped it along a bit.

It is always possible but I see now no way to really know. I agree with you that alternative opinions should be entered with reports, just as I think the mods made the right choice in leaving open this thread. I can see, however, if somebody claims over and over again that a building threw its knees in the air to bring itself down, it could get a little old. Hehe, just kidding about that, or sort of.

What kept running through my mind about knees buckling was a person on an elevator and all of a sudden the cable breaks and (assume no other friction device) down it comes... on the way down the passenger says to himself, self, just before this elevator hits the bottom I'm going to jump up and avoid the impact! Now that seemed simple enough... but then I had to think a bit... won't he still be traveling down by gravity at 32ft per sec per sec? But now his only advantage is he's futher away from the elevator floor than he would have been... he don't eliminate gravity relative to him/earth but does relative to him/elevator for a bit. All this physics stuff gives me a head ache. I'd imagine he'd have very strong leg muscles...

What I really really like about this thread is the absence of all them vile comments toward each other.. These folks are about as far apart as in any thread but even with that there is a respect of the person regardless of how wrong they feel he is. There are a few but it is tame by comparison.

Assuming the elevator is in true free fall you would not be able to jump up at the last second because you would be weightless and floating in the elevator, at least if you discount air resistance on the elevator that would not be affecting you. If you could somehow maneuver yourself into a crouched position on the floor you could at the last second spring up, but if you were able to do it with such force as to reverse your downward acceleration you would be killed by hitting the roof of the elevator. At that point the impact would be worse than hitting the ground because by jumping off the floor you would have accelerated the elevator by pushing the floor away with your feet.

 

[Moonbeam]

M: Your feet aren't glued to the floor.

k: They are somewhat stuck to the the floor by gravity, and you are flexing your muscles above that point, allowing you to descend quicker than free fall. That said, if you did actually superglue your feet to the floor, that would potentially allow you to descend even quicker, assuming you are strong enough and quick enough for it to make a difference. I can't get my feet off just making my knees buckle when trying it myself, but then I'm not nearly the athlete I once was either.

M: You have got to be kidding me. Your feel aren't stuck to the floor by gravity. Suppose you put some news papers on the floor and rest your feet on them. If you lift a foot does the paper stick to your foot or stay on the floor. You are in no way attached to the floor by your feet and if you leave the floor say by jumping you will return to it in exactly twice the time it took you to rise to your highest point. Your going up and your coming down are mirror images of each other. You are not stuck to the floor, you are simply prevented from falling further by it.

Similarly, if you were to stand on a plank and have it yanked instantly from under you either by having some strong force push it down and away at faster than free fall, or simply yanked instantly sideways, you would hit the ground at exactly the same time either way. You aren't stuck to the plank. The yank would introduce a slight sideways vector because of friction, but you would still fall for exactly the same amount of time. Pulling it down would not pull you down. Of course a slight vacuum would form under your feet if the plank was pulled down but it would amount to almost nothing as would the molecular attraction of close contact between solids. Zip nada of any significance.
===============

M: When you buckle your knees you are using a lateral force just as hitting the table with dominoes. Lateral forces do not affect the rate of fall.

k: You can't buckle your knees with standing without depending,

M: Huh?

k: and if you for instance put a chair in front of your knees to block them, the force required to push the chair out of the way slows your fall.

M: Not if I weigh a thousand tons.
========

M: You will free fall as soon as your knees buckle whatever the cause and if you don't resist the fall you can never fall faster than free fall or slower for that matter.

k: Please Moonie, check the definition of free fall which which I provided in the OP, check the link I provided there to help explain the phenomena, and ask me whatever questions you might have in regard to the matter. Please stop trying to explain to me what I understand well and you so obviously don't.

M: No thanks. you do that for me. I am quite sure I know what free fall is. It's accelerating under the force of gravity without impediment. It happens when there's nothing to keep you from falling or collapsing, as the case may be. I got my physics in my bones.
=========
M: Hehe, I used whack because I didn't know what you were talking about with the mole machine. I didn't know the pegs were pulled down.

k: You always could have just asked me how a whack-a-mole machine works, or Googled for an explanation yourself.

I could have but there was no need. You can't accelerate free fall. There is no mystery about how the machine works. The mystery is how you assume it is analogous to a falling building. Nothing in a building can pull stuff in it down faster than free fall.

k: That has nothing to do with a building, however.
Nor did I ever suggest it did, as I had explained previously.

M: Good because something designed to go down faster than gravity can accelerate it by mechanical means has nothing to do with any mysterious force or any of that stuff you have been saying. Don't bring it into the discussion.
===========

M: I just explained, however, how the building would come down at free fall speed. It isn't unexplained but it may be misunderstood.

k: Rather, I explained what is required for a building to come down with a period of free fall acceleration, yet you keep misunderstanding the facts of the matter and attempting to explain it away.

M: What is a period of free fall acceleration? What is required? I don't misunderstand anything, I think.

I will tell you what causes a building to fall. A building falls when the force holding it up is exceeded by the force of gravity pulling it down.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: First
Only on the Internet can laymen physicists find a voice and be taken seriously. It truly is no different than the anti-vaccine or anti-evolution movements in this country. Truly sad.

It is absurd that you have to resort to bringing in two unrelated topics for which I'm quite comfortable with the science of to argue against a matter which you are apparently uncomfortable with the science of. Such an argument leaves me wondering if you hold your positions on the former two as matters of faith just as you obviously do with the latter

You don't understand the science in question and have wimped out of answering the numerous debunking of your points in this thread. It's pretty clear who the losers and winners are here.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Actually, they did consider many possible scenarios, and subsequently ruled them out because the evidence on the ground didn't back up those scenarios.

Rather, they ignored any evidence which contradicted the official conspiracy theory, and dance around like sock puppets when confronted about it. But again, the free fall itself disproves the official story, and your quoting a summery which pretends otherwise does nothing to change this.

First of all, all the handwaving about "molten steel" proves nothing and makes no case for demolition, except maybe to absolute simpletons, which is probably why it appeals to truthers.

Second of all, free fall does not disprove the official story. In fact, the official story accounts for the momentary free fall that happened in WTC7, as I've already pointed out. They also looked at the possibility of a demolition and the use of thermite and ruled those out because they were outside of the realm of possibility. I explained that previously. Please try to keep up.

Besides, in the OP is a link to the NIST report on the free fall and a quote from it which provides a more detailed explanation of NIST's claims than the summery you provided, a link to that report I had previously provided being presented right in what you quoted. Your refusal to address the facts I've presented makes me feel like guy who couldn't convince Verizon that $0.002 ? 0.002¢. Seriously, I wonder if I'd have better luck explaining what the rate of carbon decay explains about the age of matter to a bunch of Young Earth creationists.

Don't start with your lameass "your refusal to address the facts" tactic again, fool. I've told you about that employing that bullshit in other threads and here you go again, building that straw man you so love to flop out. I'm not refusing anything, I'm refuting your ridiculous claims where you seem to believe that using YouTube videos constitutes scientific proof.

Ironically enough, your claim about carbon decay and creationists suits truthers because I'm willing to bet there are particle physicists who are also creationists. You see, people often believe what they want to believe despite any knowledge they may have. That's why the truthers can scrape together a small gaggle of college professors (like Steven Jones) and others with degrees and claim, "Oh look, we have experts that disagree with the official story." People are just dumb like that sometimes.

 

[Number1]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: Number1
It's funny how a kid using big words he doesn't even know how to spell assumes he is more qualified to tell us how WTC7 fell then the US National Institute of Standards and Technology.

It's sad that:

1) You refer to a 33 year old man as a kid.

2) You take issue with words based on their size.

3) You attack the effect dyslexia has my ability to spell and proofread.

4) You obviously not only lack any semblance of understanding of Newtonian physics, but apparently also lack any interest in gaining any.

5) Your willful ignorance leaves you to put faith in whoever you consider most qualified to tell you how WTC7 fell.

6) Your willfully ignorant faith in authority leaves to believe that NSIT told us how WTC7 fell.

7) When confronted with the facts which disprove your position of faith, you reflexively shoot the messenger.

1) You are relatively young.

2) I would have no issues with your big words if you would use them competently.

3) Obviously your dyslexia is affecting and distorting more then your spelling. Your WTC7 story is nothing more then a fairy tale.

4) says who? You? There is plenty of evidence the building came down because of the fire. There is no evidence anything else brought it down.

5) what makes you more qualified then the NIST to decide how the building fell considering you base you conclusion on information you gathered yourself on 911 twuthers internet sites.

6) it's NIST not NSTI. Ill give you a trick on how to remember, National Institute of Science and Technology

7) you did not present any facts contradicting the official NIST version. The building fell as a result of multiple fires. It's that simple.

Educate yourself and read this report already posted by TLC:

Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation (Updated 04/21/2009)

 

[Pliablemoose]

Originally posted by: Number1


1) You are relatively young.

2) I would have no issues with your big words if you would use them competently.

3) Obviously your dyslexia is affecting and distorting more then your spelling. Your WTC7 story is nothing more then a fairy tale.

4) says who? You? There is plenty of evidence the building came down because of the fire. There is no evidence anything else brought it down.

5) what makes you more qualified then the NIST to decide how the building fell considering you base you conclusion on information you gathered yourself on 911 twuthers internet sites.

6) it's NIST not NSTI. Ill give you a trick on how to remember, National Institute of Science and Technology

7) you did not present any facts contradicting the official NIST version. The building fell as a result of multiple fires. It's that simple.

Educate yourself and read this report already posted by TLC:

Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation (Updated 04/21/2009)

I'm guessing someone was diagnosed with ADD as well as dyslexia :laugh:

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Your feet aren't glued to the floor.

They are somewhat stuck to the the floor by gravity, and you are flexing your muscles above that point, allowing you to descend quicker than free fall. That said, if you did actually superglue your feet to the floor, that would potentially allow you to descend even quicker, assuming you are strong enough and quick enough for it to make a difference. I can't get my feet off just making my knees buckle when trying it myself, but then I'm not nearly the athlete I once was either.

how do you exert any force downward? gluing your feet may allow you to do it but if your feet aren't glued to the floor you can't exert any force that direction.

Of course not, which is exactly my point. An approximately 105 feet tall section of the structure which was WTC7 provided a resistive force comparable to that of a sheet of paper while it came down. This free fall acceleration is well documented and indisputable, while the claim that impact damage and office fires caused the near complete near instantaneous removal the resistive force which had previously allowed the structure to stand contradicts demonstrable physical reality.

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.

 

[jonks]

What confuses me is that LunarRay believes the "official story" about the Shroud of Turin until and unless peer reviewed scientific research rebuts the paranormal explanation he favors, and yet he somehow doesn't belief the "official story" of 9/11 with regard to WT7 despite the peer reviewed scientific research (and having seen it with his own eyes).

Truly Mind Boggling.

 

[Number1]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Your feet aren't glued to the floor.

They are somewhat stuck to the the floor by gravity, and you are flexing your muscles above that point, allowing you to descend quicker than free fall. That said, if you did actually superglue your feet to the floor, that would potentially allow you to descend even quicker, assuming you are strong enough and quick enough for it to make a difference. I can't get my feet off just making my knees buckle when trying it myself, but then I'm not nearly the athlete I once was either.

LOL

Are you kidding me?

You have no understanding of basic physic.

You have to add a force to fall faster then free fall. Simply raising your knees would not do it.

The feet would HAVE to be glued to the floor and bending your knees would pull your body down potential faster then free fall.

So there you have it. Absolute proof the the OP has no reasonable understanding of BASIC physic.

Typical twuther.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Number1

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Your feet aren't glued to the floor.

They are somewhat stuck to the the floor by gravity, and you are flexing your muscles above that point, allowing you to descend quicker than free fall. That said, if you did actually superglue your feet to the floor, that would potentially allow you to descend even quicker, assuming you are strong enough and quick enough for it to make a difference. I can't get my feet off just making my knees buckle when trying it myself, but then I'm not nearly the athlete I once was either.

LOL

Are you kidding me?

You have no understanding of basic physic.

You have to add a force to fall faster then free fall. Simply raising your knees would not do it.

The feet would HAVE to be glued to the floor and bending your knees would pull your body down potential faster then free fall.

So there you have it. Absolute proof the the OP has no reasonable understanding of BASIC physic.

Typical twuther.

Don't be so quick. If you jerk your knees up in the air you will accelerate the rest of your body in the opposite direction. Basic physics, my friend.

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.