What brought down WTC7

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Money
its quite funny how sceptics have the largest share of the vote in the poll, yet 90% of posts are from OMG TIN FOIL HATS 4 U HAHA

i am fully convinced all these people decrying `truthers` simply bash and reiterate the lies to convince themselves that 9/11 really was done by angry afghanis.

after all, i too wish that 9/11 was not a false flag attack, but unfortunately, all the evidence points to that being the case

I think most people realize 9-11 was carried out by a bunch of angry Saudi's. They saw the biggest events unfold with their own eyes on live TV. Then watched as the leader of the group who organized it dicsussed it on video.

Now I am sure this is where somebody tells us Bin Laden is a CIA plant from the 80s and Bush personally detonated the explosives that really took down the towers after he remote controlled the planes and cruise missile that hit the pentagon all while reading a childs book in Florida to pre school kids. The man is a damned mastermind obviously!

And I'm sure that if some nut says the sky is blue you will say it's green, right. Your post says nothing.

That is backwards. I am the one saying the sky is blue, the nut\truther comes up with some conspiracy where the sky is green.

You are saying that if some people say one thing others will say another, each side fully convinced they are arguing the sky is the color they think it is. It tells us nothing as to who is correct.

Sure it does. In your scenarion one can look outside and clearly decide who is right. The side stating the sky is blue, or the side stating the sky is green.

 

[waggy]

lol jonks

 

[TheSkinsFan]

lol.. anyone else notice the mod war going on in the OP? LOL! good stuff!

Now, kylebisme, who in the U.S. Government, or elsewhere, do you believe is/was complicit in the 9/11 attacks?

 

[MotF Bane]

Originally posted by: Born2bwire

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
Posts like this one always force me to stop and look around to try and spot the lunatics near me. I know you're always out there somewhere, but I really wish you'd carry signs that say "I'm batshit fucking crazy, please stand back."

LOL... :laugh:

I wish I remember the comic's name that came up with this joke, but...

What's the difference between my ex and Charles Manson? Charles Manson has the courtesy to look as batshit-crazy as he is when you first meet him.

LOL

 

[Possessed Freak]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: Possessed Freak
Q: What brought down WTC7?
A: Gravity.

It played its part, but gravity doesn't exert the force necessary to collapse onto itself with a rate of acceleration indistinguishable from free fall. Again, you need another force in the system to accomplish that.

Buh? Rockets were aimed downward to flatten the building faster than gravity could?

 

[bfdd]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Money
its quite funny how sceptics have the largest share of the vote in the poll, yet 90% of posts are from OMG TIN FOIL HATS 4 U HAHA

i am fully convinced all these people decrying `truthers` simply bash and reiterate the lies to convince themselves that 9/11 really was done by angry afghanis.

after all, i too wish that 9/11 was not a false flag attack, but unfortunately, all the evidence points to that being the case

I think most people realize 9-11 was carried out by a bunch of angry Saudi's. They saw the biggest events unfold with their own eyes on live TV. Then watched as the leader of the group who organized it dicsussed it on video.

Now I am sure this is where somebody tells us Bin Laden is a CIA plant from the 80s and Bush personally detonated the explosives that really took down the towers after he remote controlled the planes and cruise missile that hit the pentagon all while reading a childs book in Florida to pre school kids. The man is a damned mastermind obviously!

lol im always amazed when "truthers" say how bush did this. Are we talking about the same bush?

The same Bush they'd slam with idiot and stupid? Yeah it's always pretty funny to me when people talk about how stupid they think the man is, then point all these elaborate schemes to him.

 

[LunarRay]

Well... well... , WTC 7 once stood and then fell... I saw it.. my sister was there. She saw it fall... Well, she was up toward 35th st by then... but I believe she saw it...

Someone want to tell me why it fell? No... not physically why.. but either there was motive to have it fall or it fell due to the damage and fire. IF you can't produce the motive, you must acquit... something like that.
IF Silverstein meant 'Pull it' as in pull the plug.. why? To insure the federal bldg next door wasn't damaged? ... Did he know at that point is was doomed? Who knew what and when did they know it? I've no idea what he Meant but 'Pull it' usually means get the troops out.. Least that is what my Cousin the NYC Cop said... He used other words... he said F'it.
Failing Motive for the bldg to come down... It must have been the very simple honest NIST report explanation... or Juvenile Delinquents ...

Edit:
Show Motive and Opportunity.. then show the means or the how!

 

[shrumpage]

"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

?Larry Silverstein

 

[LunarRay]

Here are the folks who occupied WTC 7 on 9/11 in case anyone wonders


Link

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Topic Title: What brought down WTC7

I have it on good authority that YOU did it all by yourself with your little toy chemistry set and a pea shooter. Al Qaeda is pissed that you sullied their name. They plan to retalliate by blowing up your house using a fake pizza delivery car and stuffing the crust with explosive turds.

Be afraid. Be VER-R-R-R-RY AFRAID! :laugh:

To be quite honest I saw the men in pink leotards confiscating Kylebisme`s chemistry set in the name of galactic security.
Seems kylebisme was banished from the planet Imagoofalot because he single handedly did irrepaairable harm to the Ozone layer. Word has it on his planet he was the Galactic Champion Flatulator!!
So they expelled him from their planet and sent him to this hole in the wall planet!@!
Well the story has it he was found on the side of Dairy Queen by an old couple who owned a dairy farm. Mr & Mrs Kent took him home and raised him as there own. Of course they never knew that the odor that permeated the house was caused by their little darling. But to make matters worse the cows quit giving milk in protest to this alien who could flatulate better than all of them combined.
As he grew up his reputation for truth, justice and flatulence grew from town to town and city to city and state to state...you get the picture.
Until one day he discovered the transwarp portal under wtc7. That was his ticket off this planet to his home planet...or so he thought......
then the unexplained happenned....the building that was standing on top of the transwarp portal came crashing down.
Seems unknown partys decided to fly a passenger plane into wtc7. Well no amount of flatulence could stop the passenger plane from crashing into wtc7. try as he could...grunting and straining with his face turning red he could not stop the tragedy from happenning.
It affected Kylebisme so profoundly that he has set out on a mission to prove those who can logically explaion what happenned wrong. Oftimes people like Kyle are called contrians.........to be continued...

 

[First]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
Please stop the frivilous, meritless 9/11 truther threads.

Please either present your reasoning for taking issue with what I've brought up here, or quit pretending like you have some.

Your post has been dismantled several times, and your nonsense was still not answered in the OP. See below for one example:

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
From your PFI thread

Originally posted by: Pulsar
Dude, seriously? That's your single fact?

Very clearly, you are NOT an engineer.

On August 21, 2008, NIST released its draft report on the causes of the collapse of 7 World Trade Center, beginning a period for public comments.[32] In its investigation, NIST utilized ANSYS to model events leading up to collapse initiation and LS-DYNA models to simulate the global response to the initiating events.[44] NIST determined that diesel fuel did not play an important role, nor did the structural damage from the collapse of the twin towers. But the lack of water to fight the fire was an important factor. The fires burned out of control during the afternoon, including on floor 13, where a critical interior column buckled. With the buckling of that column, adjacent columns also failed along with the floor structure above. This triggered a vertical progression of floor failures to the roof. The collapse then progressed east-to-west across the structure, and ultimately the entire structure collapsed. The fires, fueled by office contents, along with the lack of water, were the key reasons for the collapse.[45]

Structural members are only strong in a certain direction. For instance, if you take a drinking straw (column), it's actually quite strong if you try to collapse it vertically but keep it in column. You can easily rest your hand on it and it will hold your hand up. However, the second it goes out of column, the plastic folds, and it becomes literally ORDERS of MAGNITUDES (x100 or x1000) easier to collapse it.

Structural members in buildings are NO different. Once they buckle, they have absolutely no strength. When you start talking about the weight of 30 stories of material above that, the amount they can slow that fall is statistically completely insignificant - or to put it another way, totally immeasurable because their effect is so minimal once they've lost structural cohesiveness.

You clearly don't even understand the most basic tenants of engineering. Rigidity, structural support, bending momemnts, etc. Your "single" fact is one of the single biggest FAILS of the entire WTC conspiracy.

You're a nutjob. Go away.

-Signed, an engineer with 25 years of experience.

Please explain how your video is able to disprove the NIST report identified above.
What you are claiming is external interference, NIST covers in detail using engineering and physics without any hocus pocus.

Please demonstrate the NIST report is false in order to allow this thread to continue

Senior Anandtech Moderator
Common Courtesy

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Here are the folks who occupied WTC 7 on 9/11 in case anyone wonders


Link

Very crafty of the CIA to burn a building for a few hours, then blow up the whole building instead of using paper shredders and deleting files. And did you notice, they hide the square footage? Hmm...very crafty.

They probably would have gotten away with it, if it wasn't for those meddling kids and their hippy-dippy van!

 

[Zorba]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee
Wow. When *Dave* says you're loony, you really are off-base.

QFT, exactly what I thought.

Originally posted by: Money
its quite funny how sceptics have the largest share of the vote in the poll, yet 90% of posts are from OMG TIN FOIL HATS 4 U HAHA

i am fully convinced all these people decrying `truthers` simply bash and reiterate the lies to convince themselves that 9/11 really was done by angry afghanis.

after all, i too wish that 9/11 was not a false flag attack, but unfortunately, all the evidence points to that being the case

That is because it is a bullshit push poll.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: WildHorse
Well the owner said this.

Silverstein: Things just keep getting worse and worse, you're right there. Listen, fellas, about that building complex ...

Cheney: Yes?

Silverstein: Do you think you could make sure that the WTC-7 building goes down, too? See, the thing is, I just signed a new insurance deal with Industrial Risk Insurers, this could all work out very nicely for me ...

Cheney: Larry, it's such an amazing coincidence, we were just talking about that. As it happens, we need to destroy the building to get rid of the evidence anyway. So say no more about that, we'll take care of it.

Wolfowitz: Well, say no more until it happens. Then you might just want to casually mention near a PBS camera that you're planning on "pulling" the building.

Silverstein: What does "pulling" mean?

Cheney: Well, it's not a demolition term, but some will say it is. We're thinking you might just want to make a little admission in that direction.

Silverstein: Before my insurance investigation is concluded? At exactly the time when such an admission would cost me my entire settlement? Consider it done!

All: Thanks, Larry.

Silverstein: You bet, fellas! See you on the links. Mazel tov! Oh, hey, Paul--

Wolfowitz: Yes?

Silverstein: Pull my finger, Paul! Pull it!

Wolfowitz: You bet I'll "pull it," you mensch!

/Matt Taibbi *smooch*

Just to add to this, Silverstein stood to make no financial gain from aiding the WTC coming down. If anything, he stood to losing billions of dollars... and that's exactly what's happened. It's why he's had to give up his stake in the leases of the new buildings in order to obtain federal loans to complete them.

Silverstein got absolutely fucked by the 9/11 attacks.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: shrumpage

"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

?Larry Silverstein

I don't think Silverstein thought the building would come down the reason why... read the Times article linked too inside But he might have given the folks in England reported it fell 30 minutes early and he could have been watching their feed? I think he meant get the folks out and let it burn. No need to risk any more lives..

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Here are the folks who occupied WTC 7 on 9/11 in case anyone wonders


Link

Very crafty of the CIA to burn a building for a few hours, then blow up the whole building instead of using paper shredders and deleting files. And did you notice, they hide the square footage? Hmm...very crafty.

They probably would have gotten away with it, if it wasn't for those meddling kids and their hippy-dippy van!

You may not mean to but I get a kick out of every one of your posts... for or against what I am pushing...
Nah... CIA had no motive that I can find.

The footage is not listed cuz they weren't even listed that is how sneaky they are... I think NYT or CNN got the 'inside' scoop and at least they then got listed... My sister worked in that Building but I can't say where... it is a secret.. shhhhhh

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
Now, kylebisme, who in the U.S. Government, or elsewhere, do you believe is/was complicit in the 9/11 attacks?

I'm in no position to rightly speculate on such things, and have no interest in deluding myself into believing otherwise. That is why I am interested in a new and independent investigation, as that is what is needed to answer the question of "who".

Originally posted by: First
Your post has been dismantled several times, and your nonsense was still not answered in the OP. See below for one example:

See below, where I pointed out the fact that the argument you quoted CC quoting was already addressed in my OP:

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Please explain how your video is able to disprove the NIST report identified above.

I had adressed that in the OP:

Originally posted by: kylebisme
2) While WTC7's period of free fall acceleration was previously denied by the government agencies which investigated the event, due to the widely available video evidence NIST was eventually persuaded to to admit this fact, as documented here:

In Stage 1, the descent was slow and the acceleration was less than that of gravity. This stage corresponds to the initial buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. By 1.75 s, the north face had descended approximately 2.2 m (7 ft).

In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face. This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 m (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s.
...

From these facts, NIST suggests distinct stages where an initial buckling of columns on one face of the building allowed the point on the they measured roofline to drop approximately 7 feet, which then allowed for 105 feet of free fall to happen next. Note that while NIST only refers to the one point on the roofline, any video of the event will show that after the initial sagging of the roofline towards the middle, the entire roof falls symmetrically though the period of free fall and beyond, until notably asymmetrical resistive force well further down causes it to tilt. You can observe the fall of WTC7 from best two angles I've seen, compared to what little NIST released of their simulations, in this video.

Any other video of the event in existence will show the same period of free fall, and please don't hesitate to dig up more to see for yourself, and post whatever videos of the event you like. Regardless, such video evidence demonstrates that for the period of free fall, not only were the north face columns not providing any notable support, neither were those of any other face, or all of the mass that made up the floors and everything else in the building.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Silverstein got absolutely fucked by the 9/11 attacks.

He didn't make any money on the deal cept for the insurance he was fighting about... at best he lost 40 or 60 million depending... my estimate.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Possessed Freak

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: Possessed Freak
A: Gravity.

It played its part, but gravity doesn't exert the force necessary to collapse onto itself with a rate of acceleration indistinguishable from free fall. Again, you need another force in the system to accomplish that.

Buh? Rockets were aimed downward to flatten the building faster than gravity could?

The evidence I've seen doesn't support this hypothesis, but you are right to suggest it as one way to get a system of interconnected mass to collapse on itself with a period acceleration indistinguishable from free fall. The problem is simply that the official story claimed that free fall happened without any force besides gravity acting on the system, which is physically impossible. I can't explain how David Copperfield does all his tricks either, but I am rather sure he doesn't actually have any magic powers.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
Silverstein got absolutely fucked by the 9/11 attacks.

He didn't make any money on the deal cept for the insurance he was fighting about... at best he lost 40 or 60 million depending... my estimate.

Where did you get your figures from? A quick Google search turns up:

The deal with seven insurers brings the total payout for the World Trade Center to $4.55 billion, about $130 million less than what Ground Zero developer Larry Silverstein and the Port Authority had been seeking.

Granted, I'm not sure how much went to him and how much to the Port Authority, but I'd be shocked to learn either actually lost cash in the settlement.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
Now, kylebisme, who in the U.S. Government, or elsewhere, do you believe is/was complicit in the 9/11 attacks?

I'm in no position to rightly speculate on such things, and have no interest in deluding myself into believing otherwise. That is why I am interested in a new and independent investigation, as that is what is needed to answer the question of "who".

Originally posted by: First
Your post has been dismantled several times, and your nonsense was still not answered in the OP. See below for one example:

See below, where I pointed out the fact that the argument you quoted CC quoting was already addressed in my OP:

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Please explain how your video is able to disprove the NIST report identified above.

I had adressed that in the OP:

Originally posted by: kylebisme
2) While WTC7's period of free fall acceleration was previously denied by the government agencies which investigated the event, due to the widely available video evidence NIST was eventually persuaded to to admit this fact, as documented here:

In Stage 1, the descent was slow and the acceleration was less than that of gravity. This stage corresponds to the initial buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. By 1.75 s, the north face had descended approximately 2.2 m (7 ft).

In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face. This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 m (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s.
...

From these facts, NIST suggests distinct stages where an initial buckling of columns on one face of the building allowed the point on the they measured roofline to drop approximately 7 feet, which then allowed for 105 feet of free fall to happen next. Note that while NIST only refers to the one point on the roofline, any video of the event will show that after the initial sagging of the roofline towards the middle, the entire roof falls symmetrically though the period of free fall and beyond, until notably asymmetrical resistive force well further down causes it to tilt. You can observe the fall of WTC7 from best two angles I've seen, compared to what little NIST released of their simulations, in this video.

Any other video of the event in existence will show the same period of free fall, and please don't hesitate to dig up more to see for yourself, and post whatever videos of the event you like. Regardless, such video evidence demonstrates that for the period of free fall, not only were the north face columns not providing any notable support, neither were those of any other face, or all of the mass that made up the floors and everything else in the building.

It wasn't addressed in your OP, your bolded assertions don't even make sense. How does "the north face columns not providing any notable support...or all of the mass that made up the floors and everything else in the building" refute NIST's analysis and claims? You literally bolded something that isn't the least bit applicable. It seems as if you randomly bolded some text because you're not capable of explaining it yourself. Which makes sense for a Truther.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: kylebisme
I can't explain how David Copperfield does all his tricks either, but I am rather sure he doesn't actually have any magic powers.

Do you think Copperfield was hired by the mayor to figure out which building of all the buildings in NYC or Manhatten was the most secure and sturdiest to put his Emergency Management cubby hole in?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

I can't explain how David Copperfield does all his tricks either, but I am rather sure he doesn't actually have any magic powers.

But unlike your blithering idiocy, most people are amused by David Copperfield's deceptions. :laugh:

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
Silverstein got absolutely fucked by the 9/11 attacks.

He didn't make any money on the deal cept for the insurance he was fighting about... at best he lost 40 or 60 million depending... my estimate.

Where did you get your figures from? A quick Google search turns up:

The deal with seven insurers brings the total payout for the World Trade Center to $4.55 billion, about $130 million less than what Ground Zero developer Larry Silverstein and the Port Authority had been seeking.

Granted, I'm not sure how much went to him and how much to the Port Authority, but I'd be shocked to learn either actually lost cash in the settlement.

Are you speaking of his entire WTC complex involvement or just WTC 7? I'll have to dig up my estimates but I don't have a clue on anything but WTC 7 and unless the airlines paid him for '7' I'd not expect a gain... I'm going from memory... but billions of loss is not accurate at all. I think he had to deal with the subordinated insurance from a few of the players in the building like Solomon Bros... But I'll even go with B/E on '7'.

EDIT: He got 861 from ins on '7' had a book of 386 so booked almost 500 but the current value and other cost and expenses get me to -40. No matter.. he didn't lose on the big picture especially cuz of the two event issue the court decided.. gave him double the ins on the towers.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: kylebisme

I can't explain how David Copperfield does all his tricks either, but I am rather sure he doesn't actually have any magic powers.

But unlike your blithering idiocy, most people are amused by David Copperfield's deceptions. :laugh:

OMG, Harvey said Blithering... I'm tellin....