Originally posted by: TheSlamma
I've heard fire can take down buildings.. this confirms it!
Originally posted by: kylebisme
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.
Originally posted by: kylebisme
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Please explain how your video is able to disprove the NIST report identified above.
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: kylebisme
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.
Right, so clearly he blew up the buildings and murdered thousands to make some money when he was already filthy rich. And then Silverstein admitted on camera that he called for the detonation of WT7. No, I mean, that was a mistake he must not have known the camera was there and was just admitting to someone else that he blew it up. No, wait, I mean Bush blew up the buildings to gin up support for the war. And then fired a missile at the pentagon because the 4th plane got shot down. And then they hid the bodies in that plane including the Solicitor General's wife. And the wreckage on the pentagon lawn was flown in from South America where they had plane wreckage on standby. It's all so perfect!
Originally posted by: al981
LOL TINFOIL HAT NUTJOBS.
OBVIOUSLY JET FUEL AND FIRES ALONE CAN BRING DOWN THREE SKYSCRAPERS.
THAT'S WHY DEMOLITION CREWS AROUND THE WORLD ARE NOT USING EXPLOSIVES ANYMORE.
THEY'RE ALL SAVING BILLIONS OF DOLLARS BY USING JET FUEL ONLY AND A FEW MATCHSTICKS.
JOKE'S ON YOU TINFOIL HAT NUTJOBS.
EDIT: LOCK THIS THREAD. I JUST WON THE THREAD.
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: al981
LOL TINFOIL HAT NUTJOBS.
OBVIOUSLY JET FUEL AND FIRES ALONE CAN BRING DOWN THREE SKYSCRAPERS.
THAT'S WHY DEMOLITION CREWS AROUND THE WORLD ARE NOT USING EXPLOSIVES ANYMORE.
THEY'RE ALL SAVING BILLIONS OF DOLLARS BY USING JET FUEL ONLY AND A FEW MATCHSTICKS.
JOKE'S ON YOU TINFOIL HAT NUTJOBS.
EDIT: LOCK THIS THREAD. I JUST WON THE THREAD.
Give me a break... they use the finest of logic.. they start on the ground floor and remove the support beams then go to the next floor up and do the same so by the time they get to the top they can free fall for a free ride down...
Originally posted by: 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.
Originally posted by: al981
LOL TINFOIL HAT NUTJOBS.
OBVIOUSLY JET FUEL AND FIRES ALONE CAN BRING DOWN THREE SKYSCRAPERS.
THAT'S WHY DEMOLITION CREWS AROUND THE WORLD ARE NOT USING EXPLOSIVES ANYMORE.
THEY'RE ALL SAVING BILLIONS OF DOLLARS BY USING JET FUEL ONLY AND A FEW MATCHSTICKS.
JOKE'S ON YOU TINFOIL HAT NUTJOBS.
EDIT: LOCK THIS THREAD. I JUST WON THE THREAD.
Originally posted by: kylebisme
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.
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
k: It (gravity) 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.
M: I don't understand this and disagree on the face of it. Gravity produces the acceleration of free fall. They are one and the same thing. No other force is needed.
k: The evidence I've seen doesn't support this hypothesis (rockets), 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.
M: What magic? What is physically impossible? If your knees buckle you go into free fall.
Originally posted by: Venix
Originally posted by: kylebisme
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.
After comparing footage of the WTC 7 collapse with one of the NIST models, the video says, "What? Did you notice the sides of the building folding inwards in video of the actual event? The NIST model looks NOTHING like reality." But of course it looks nothing like reality; it was a hypothetical scenario demonstrating how the building may have collapsed had there been no impact damage from the twin towers. Implying that it was meant to model the actual collapse is incredibly dishonest.
Were you aware that this video intentionally misleads its audience, or were you just stupid enough to be fooled by it? I'm not sure whether it's worse to be a liar or an incompetent moron, but either way your stupid ass should stop polluting the forums with this garbage.
Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
meh in 2012 we will all die and have no use for arguing this...
I highlighted the comments in my OP referring to what would have kept the building from ever achieving a period of free fall, if it had fallen due to the conditions NIST claims. You can watch a video of NIST's WTC 7 Collapse with Debris Impact Damage model directly from them on this page to see a representation of the columns and floors I spoke of. Note that model was made before NIST was persuaded to admit free fall, and again one simply can't make a model achieve any such period of free fall while adhering to both the official story and the laws of physics.Originally posted by: First
It wasn't addressed in your OP, your bolded assertions don't even make sense.Originally posted by: kylebisme
...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..
Doubtful, but on that note I do find it interesting that the cubby hole you mention was reported to have a its own air and water supply, which could conceivably have been employed for pneumatic and hydraulic collapse initiation mechanisms. Not that I'm in any position to claim that is what was used, but both are possible sources for the yet to be identified force in the collapse.Originally posted by: LunarRay
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?
I've no interest in deceiving anyone, and consider it idiotic to ever feel the need to try anything of the sort. Hence, I am not the one looking to convince people of a story which stands in contradiction to demonstrable physical reality here, and would greatly appreciate it if you could bring yourself to come to terms with this.Originally posted by: Harvey
But unlike your blithering idiocy, most people are amused by David Copperfield's deceptions.
Yeah, the big picture was what I was referring to, as that was what BeauJangles spoke in regard to.Originally posted by: LunarRay
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.Originally posted by: BeauJangles
Silverstein got absolutely fucked by the 9/11 attacks.
I've not suggested anything of the sort, and would appreciate if you could refrain from projecting your compulsion for making speculative arguments onto me, as such is not my way.Originally posted by: jonks
Right, so clearly he blew up the buildings and murdered thousands...
I'm fairly confident with my understanding of why, with the same answer on both counts; the official story makes no sense. That said, I'm curious as to what those ridiculing me here would propose as alternative answers to those questions, as they are so obviously hostile to mine.Originally posted by: LunarRay
Kyle, why not ask this guy [see link] the former head of NIST's Fire Science division why he wanted an independent investigation and did he get it yet?
Link
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. To get you yourself to fall in such a way at free fall with gravity alone, you'd have remove you legs from knees down by some means or another.Originally posted by: Moonbeam
What magic? What is physically impossible? If your knees buckle you go into free fall.
You are correct on how the calculations work, but it seems you overestimating the difference it makes when considering an enormous mass such as our Earth in relation to any mass which exists within its atmosphere. In such regard, one doesn't have to look at the location of a mass, let alone determine its center, to have a very accurate understanding of what acceleration it will free fall; that acceleration is well within within 1% of 9.8m/s^2.Originally posted by: LunarRay
In any event, the gravatity at any point on earth is different cuz you measure it from the center of the mass to the center of the other mass and at the WTC 7 site it was measured and the variance of the collapse was within 1% or about that.
The video showed both NIST's models with simulated impact damage and without, and identified both as such specifically, pointing out the fact that nether come close to simulating the actual event. Put simply, NIST's simulations are the intentionally misleading factor in this. What you are doing is akin to straining at a gnat to swallow a camel, and fixating on the speck in your brother's eye while failing to perceive the plank in your own; as a man who was particularly wise in such matters once characterised them.Originally posted by: Venix
Were you aware that this video intentionally misleads its audience...
If NIST would release their model it could easily be adapted to come down much like the real thing. However, doing so would require adding a force to the simulation which is not explained in the official story, hence the reason they can't release their model.Originally posted by: LunarRay
Do you think it possible to create a model that contains all the features of WTC 7 and work backwards.
The myth of impending Armageddon has long served to keep the masses disinterested. Please consider how many were lead astray by this deception before its current incarnation, and how foolish they were to believe in such nonsense.Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
meh in 2012 we will all die and have no use for arguing this...
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
k: 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 of free fall. To get you yourself to fall in such a way at free fall with gravity alone, you'd have remove you legs from knees down by some means or another.
M: You cannot buckle your knees and descend any faster than free fall. You can't use muscle power to accelerate your fall unless you push down from the ceiling or some such. If you go limp you go limp, there is no force in your knees to slow your fall because your knees are limp too. You would not have to remove your knees at all. The moment your go limp at the knees your legs cease to support your torso which is just as if you had no legs at all. Gravity acts everywhere instantaneously and every part of you will fall at the same acceleration if you are in free fall, limp. There is no resistance from below at all. If you are trying to stop your fall by using your leg muscles you can slow your fall but you can't accelerate it with muscle power at all, unless, as I said, you could use something to push or pull yourself down with. That does not happen in any normal fall.
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
k: 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 of free fall. To get you yourself to fall in such a way at free fall with gravity alone, you'd have remove you legs from knees down by some means or another.
M: You cannot buckle your knees and descend any faster than free fall. You can't use muscle power to accelerate your fall unless you push down from the ceiling or some such. If you go limp you go limp, there is no force in your knees to slow your fall because your knees are limp too. You would not have to remove your knees at all. The moment your go limp at the knees your legs cease to support your torso which is just as if you had no legs at all. Gravity acts everywhere instantaneously and every part of you will fall at the same acceleration if you are in free fall, limp. There is no resistance from below at all. If you are trying to stop your fall by using your leg muscles you can slow your fall but you can't accelerate it with muscle power at all, unless, as I said, you could use something to push or pull yourself down with. That does not happen in any normal fall.
Originally posted by: kylebisme
Where did you get your figures from? A quick Google search turns up:Originally posted by: LunarRay
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.Originally posted by: BeauJangles
Silverstein got absolutely fucked by the 9/11 attacks.
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.
Originally posted by: kylebisme
I've not suggested anything of the sort, and would appreciate if you could refrain from projecting your compulsion for making speculative arguments onto me, as such is not my way.Originally posted by: jonks
Right, so clearly he blew up the buildings and murdered thousands...