What brought down WTC7

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: jonks
Right, so ya got no "why" or "how" or "who". You have a purported "newtonian physics buff's" understanding and a few seconds of video explained 10 ways from sunday and from that you extract....

I have the facts of Newtonian physics and the facts of the free fall acceleration of WTC7 supported by every video of the event to the point that NIST was forced to admit it and simply pretend it makes sense, and from that you extract nonsense arguments I never suggested to dodge those facts. My only question about your position here at this point is if you know the official story of how WTC& came down is flagrantly false, yet get some sick pleasure out of defending it anyway.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: kylebisme
You can ask TLC for a learned explanation for what caused the molten steel, but he can't give you one, nor can anyone else who insists on clinging to the official story. If you do ask him for a reasonable explanation, he'll likely lash out at you, calling you a simpleton and anything else he can come up with to obfuscate the evidence in his demented defense of the official conspiracy theory.

Nobody can give an explanation because nobody can show that it was actually molten steel. But keeping tossing around phrases and making assumptions that you have absolutely zero proof for. And, no, a YouTube video does not constitute valid proof. Spouting claims with no real proof and leaving out factual details that don't fit your story seems to be about all you're capable of doing. It's typical of the misleading bullshit and outright lies that the truthers spread.

 

[BeauJangles]

So what technology have you developed that can determine the composition of something in a youtube video? VIDEO doesn't tell us what that stuff was, you're just assuming that it was steel.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: jonks
Right, so ya got no "why" or "how" or "who". You have a purported "newtonian physics buff's" understanding and a few seconds of video explained 10 ways from sunday and from that you extract....

I have the facts of Newtonian physics and the facts of the free fall acceleration of WTC7 supported by every video of the event to the point that NIST was forced to admit it and simply pretend it makes sense, and from that you extract nonsense arguments I never suggested to dodge those facts. My only question about your position here at this point is if you know the official story of how WTC& came down is flagrantly false, yet get some sick pleasure out of defending it anyway.

I could give a shit how the building came down. Termites or fire, it makes no difference to me. I would not be shocked in the slightest to think the government would kill half the world for some fucked up reason or other. I am not a believer in anything and I can go anywhere in my thinking. I died to all my illusory ideals long ago. I am a total nobody with nothing to gain. In short, I knew nothing of the this truther thingi or anything about the raging debate before I stepped foot in this thread. I have read and looked at what has been said and shown. And I have drawn my conclusion.

The simplest, most logical, most physics consistent explanation for the fall of building 7 was fire, and its fall was in perfect accord with Newtonian and every other kind of physics. I am persuaded by the words and explanations that you use that in fact you have no real intuitive understanding of what you are talking about and have instead a mission, a need of some odd sort to see what isn't there. You physical explanation of the events we see are simply bull shit in my opinion, and I have great confidence in my opinion when it comes to physics. You claim you are good at it. Well, you might know some formulas and shit, but you don't know how to apply it. The building fell and the model of its falling matches the real fall perfectly. You are dreaming if you see something else. You are far away from Occam's razor.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

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!

Right. They constantly say Bush is a moron and that he's the dumbest president we've ever had. he's incompitent, ect. But he masterminded the largest terrorist attack in history.

Anyone that can't see that it was done by angry people of Muslim origin is lying to themselves. They either are fearful of being called a " gasp" racist for point out facts, or they smoked themselves retarded in school.

 

[Number1]

Originally posted by: kylebisme
They couldn't look for anything of the sort if they wanted to defend the official story, just like they can't admit the molten steel. Or they won't admit it unless directly confronted with the evidence like TLC was, and of course then he just pretends it is irrelevant. Such are the ways of the falsers.

Wow. look at the title of that youtube video: 9/11 Incontravertable Proof the Government is Lying


It's fucking "INCONTRAVERTABLE" !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Imagine that.

We're in LALA land people LALA land.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: kylebisme
for the same reason a steel grill doesn't fall when you make a fire in it.

wow. just... wow.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: kylebisme
for the same reason a steel grill doesn't fall when you make a fire in it.

wow. just... wow.

are you happy? are you satisfied now? you broke his brain

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I think the Chinese building was sprayed with Mandarin orange oil because you could hear the termites exploding. They must have exploded before they could drill into the metal with their Mandarin mandibles.

That's it Moonie, just clutch it like a cornerstone, otherwise it all comes down.

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
So what technology have you developed that can determine the composition of something in a youtube video? VIDEO doesn't tell us what that stuff was, you're just assuming that it was steel.

Rather, you are just ignoring the information presented in the video to assume against it. While falsers obviously can't say there was molten steel at the WTC complex, plenty of eye witness not only can but have said there was. You not only see some of those witness right in the video I linked, but even a block of molten steel and other rubble from the WTC complex, at this timestamp, and plenty of other supporting evidence of this fact. You can also dig around and find much more conformation if you start relying on your intellect rather than expecting technology to accomplish such things for you while playing make-believe with the falsers.

Originally posted by: Number1
Wow. look at the title of that youtube video: 9/11 Incontravertable Proof the Government is Lying
...

We're in LALA land people LALA land.

You certainly are in LaLa land if you think you have a rational argument to defend that NIST guy's denial of the reality of molten steel at the WTC complex. Granted, as you can apparently bring yourself to believe impact damage and office fires caused WTC7 fall, despite the fact that it stands in direct contradiction to long understood and consistently observable laws of physics, you obviously have no qualms about putting your faith in fairy-tales.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: kylebisme
There are steel buildings all over the place which have caught on fire but didn't fall, let alone free fall, for the same reason a steel grill doesn't fall when you make a fire in it. You can find some more examples of skyscraper fires here.

wow. just... wow.

are you happy? are you satisfied now? you broke his brain

Rather, your brains are so broke that you couldn't even comprehend the intent of that comment, let alone construct a rational argument against it, so instead you just had to pick it out of context to mock me in your denial of physical reality.

 

[Number1]

kylebisme wrote
" If you choose to believe the official story of how WTC7 came down, you are holding to a position of faith in contradiction to demonstrable physical reality."

And you chose to believe in an unidentified force that somehow brought down the building because you can' t understand the official theory.

Specifically:

You have not demonstrated how you think the building fell, only how you don't think it did.

You have not provided a motive, only a belief that it must exist to explain your assertion.

You have not provide a who, just a belief that somebody must have done it

All the references you used to discredit the official story are from questionable twuther related web sites.


In summary, you would rather believe a bunch of illiterate paranoid twuthers over world renowned scientists.

Loose Change is your bible.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: kylebisme
Rather, your brains are so broke that you couldn't even comprehend the intent of that comment, let alone construct a rational argument against it, so instead you just had to pick it out of context to mock me in your denial of physical reality.

even making the comparison shows that you already ignore the difference between a couple hundred degree fire and a couple thousand degree fire. if you're going to ignore that difference what can i possibly say to change your mind?


and i like how you've completely ignored a completely rational explanation for the glowing steel.

 

[Sclamoz]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: kylebisme
There are steel buildings all over the place which have caught on fire but didn't fall, let alone free fall, for the same reason a steel grill doesn't fall when you make a fire in it. You can find some more examples of skyscraper fires here.

wow. just... wow.

are you happy? are you satisfied now? you broke his brain

Rather, your brains are so broke that you couldn't even comprehend the intent of that comment, let alone construct a rational argument against it, so instead you just had to pick it out of context to mock me in your denial of physical reality.

I'm just going to say what everyone else is thinking but is to scared to say. You are.....100% correct.

Thank you sir, for opening my eyes and allowing me to see the truth with these youtube videos.

Come on everyone, just admit it! You know he's right, you're just in denial.
JUST ADMIT HE'S RIGHT.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
So what technology have you developed that can determine the composition of something in a youtube video? VIDEO doesn't tell us what that stuff was, you're just assuming that it was steel.

Rather, you are just ignoring the information presented in the video to assume against it. While falsers obviously can't say there was molten steel at the WTC complex, plenty of eye witness not only can but have said there was. You not only see some of those witness right in the video I linked, but even a block of molten steel and other rubble from the WTC complex, at this timestamp, and plenty of other supporting evidence of this fact. You can also dig around and find much more conformation if you start relying on your intellect rather than expecting technology to accomplish such things for you while playing make-believe with the falsers.

Seriously dude, you must be delusional. There is no way that even highly trained people (like fire-fighters) are going to be able to tell one melting substance from another, especially when it comes to metals. Yes, they may have said there was molten steel, but there are lots of inaccuracies in eye witness accounts, even on 9/11 itself. Just because a firefighter said it does not make it true.

In that same statement they say it was "like lava." So now are we supposed to believe there were hundreds of thousands of tons of molten rock flowing down the sides of the buildings? Absolutely not. These observations are correct -- there was a molten substance, but to start speculating as to what it was AND to rely on firefighters to make that determination, is just lunacy.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

enough structure gave out that it did not give significant resistant to the weight of ~30 stories of exterior falling, so that the fall could be approximately at G. however, the event of falling at G was after the internal structure of the building had already been collapsing for several (~10) seconds and the exterior falling for nearly 2 seconds already. so there was some momentum already. no, it wasn't instantly, no where near it when talking about how long it takes something to fall from the top of a 47 story building


click meh!

I see... And the fires on 11- 13 per the NIST weakened beam 79 [I just read the dam thing and forgot already] I'll go reread it again cuz I can see the reason the floors gave out but I'm trying to reconcile the exterior load beams in the same red area maintained their load throughout until the collapse.

Assuming the NIST posit, we become faced with the fires and if they reacted as the Sim required. I think NIST sorta found a likely structural sequence to cause the collapse and then forced the precursor to that. I say that because I read [This is like a novel I can't put down] a few assumption changes like how much furniture and paper and the like. They eliminated the petrol type fuel as being much of anything so we only speaking to the typical office stuff and file storage locations.
The only comment I can think of regarding that is the length of time a typical office would burn seems shorter to me. They have it all going clockwise to account for that but I didn't eye ball smoke all day long and visual of the floors didn't seem to provide that fire scenario. The comments made later in the day by Silverstein would seem to confirm it all. And it did fall.

Regarding the link and the molten steel/iron or what ever it is claimed and all that and the link.
The first thing I'd like to say is that there is a cross my sister, rather, her hubby took pictures of that was fused together [a miracle in her mind] and it does have hardened but previously molten something over the left branch of the horizontal member. I think I should also mention that her husband worked at that site too. He died of some kind of Cancer in 2004 [he was fine until his year long tenure at the 9/11 site]
I've been told that cross is common knowledge. It was said to be fused together in that cross shape by my BiL... So at least some kind of molten stuff exists on that cross. ??

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
So what technology have you developed that can determine the composition of something in a youtube video? VIDEO doesn't tell us what that stuff was, you're just assuming that it was steel.

Rather, you are just ignoring the information presented in the video to assume against it. While falsers obviously can't say there was molten steel at the WTC complex, plenty of eye witness not only can but have said there was. You not only see some of those witness right in the video I linked, but even a block of molten steel and other rubble from the WTC complex, at this timestamp, and plenty of other supporting evidence of this fact. You can also dig around and find much more conformation if you start relying on your intellect rather than expecting technology to accomplish such things for you while playing make-believe with the falsers.

Seriously dude, you must be delusional. There is no way that even highly trained people (like fire-fighters) are going to be able to tell one melting substance from another, especially when it comes to metals. Yes, they may have said there was molten steel, but there are lots of inaccuracies in eye witness accounts, even on 9/11 itself. Just because a firefighter said it does not make it true.

In that same statement they say it was "like lava." So now are we supposed to believe there were hundreds of thousands of tons of molten rock flowing down the sides of the buildings? Absolutely not. These observations are correct -- there was a molten substance, but to start speculating as to what it was AND to rely on firefighters to make that determination, is just lunacy.

BeauJangles,
Assume that the statements of anyone are evidence. I think to say one can't tell [example] molten steel from molten iron assumes facts not in evidence. You'd have to show that he was not able to make the claim with any authority. Not as an expert cuz lab tests are the best expert on that issue. AND, exactly what someone who'd seek to debunk should use. So... if I were a juror and you could not or did not disprove by testing the nature of the molten stuff and told me I should reject his statement cuz he may not know... I'd say I'll accept it cuz you didn't test it... the proof is in the best evidence and you didn't provide it to debunk his testimony. [not you but the folks who could have settled the issue]
What really is a problem as I see it is the absence of testing for Thermite/Thermate. That is the very first thing protocol indicates you test for in a crime scene fire investigation. But it was not tested for here? Not in anything I've read thus far, anyhow.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
So what technology have you developed that can determine the composition of something in a youtube video? VIDEO doesn't tell us what that stuff was, you're just assuming that it was steel.

Rather, you are just ignoring the information presented in the video to assume against it. While falsers obviously can't say there was molten steel at the WTC complex, plenty of eye witness not only can but have said there was. You not only see some of those witness right in the video I linked, but even a block of molten steel and other rubble from the WTC complex, at this timestamp, and plenty of other supporting evidence of this fact. You can also dig around and find much more conformation if you start relying on your intellect rather than expecting technology to accomplish such things for you while playing make-believe with the falsers.

Seriously dude, you must be delusional. There is no way that even highly trained people (like fire-fighters) are going to be able to tell one melting substance from another, especially when it comes to metals. Yes, they may have said there was molten steel, but there are lots of inaccuracies in eye witness accounts, even on 9/11 itself. Just because a firefighter said it does not make it true.

In that same statement they say it was "like lava." So now are we supposed to believe there were hundreds of thousands of tons of molten rock flowing down the sides of the buildings? Absolutely not. These observations are correct -- there was a molten substance, but to start speculating as to what it was AND to rely on firefighters to make that determination, is just lunacy.

BeauJangles,
Assume that the statements of anyone are evidence. I think to say one can't tell molten steel from molten iron assumes facts not in evidence. You'd have to show that he was not able to make the claim with any authority. Not as an expert cuz lab tests are the best expert on that issue. AND, exactly what someone who'd seek to debunk should use. So... if I were a juror and you could not or did not disprove by testing the nature of the molten stuff and told me I should reject his statement cuz he may not know... I'd say I'll accept it cuz you didn't test it... the proof is in the best evidence and you didn't provide it to debunk his testimony. [not you but the folks who could have settled the issue]
What really is a problem as I see it is the absence of testing for Thermite/Thermate. That is the very first thing protocol indicates you test for in a crime scene fire investigation. But it was not tested for here? Not in anything I've read thus far, anyhow.

Like someone else said, we should have also tested the ground for the presence of Gremlins who could have chewed through the beams. There was and still remains no evidence of thermite being responsible for the fall of the WTC. As others have said, the byproducts of a thermite reaction at ground zero wouldn't be surprising and to that end, the USGS did a survey of the site and found the following elements:

Silicon, Calcium, Magnesium, Sulfur, Iron, Aluminum, Carbon (organic and carbonate), Sodium, Potassium, Titanium, Manganese, and Phosphorus. Four of these are flagged by Professor Jones as possible indicators for thermate (Sulfur, Potassium, Titanium, Manganese), yet the authors of this study don?t seem to require any special explanations for them at all.

According to the same study, these were found in levels consistent with their presence within the materials that made up the building.

As for your previous point, it IS evidence, but considering there is plenty of evidence to the contrary and that there is no way a fire fighter can tell the difference between a molten steel and another metallic substance, it is highly improbable that he is correct. He can't make the claim with any authority because firefighters aren't taught to identify molten substances. What you're doing is letting an eye-witness (who are notoriously inaccurate in even recounting the details of what happened to events that unfolded in front of their eyes) color your judgement.

He says one thing. Great. There is zero evidence to support it. So what do we do? Do we throw out all the science, the expert analysis, and the science involved and simply believe that firefighter Joe Blow, in the heat of the moment observed melted steel? No, we realize that, like his comment about lava, he saw something (metallic melted substance) and ASSUMED it was steel. It wasn't. It's a mistake anyone could make, but it doesn't prove anything and is pretty worthless as a piece of "evidence" that the official story is not correct.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Number1
And you chose to believe in an unidentified force that somehow brought down the building because you can' t understand the official theory.

Right, just like I can't understand how our Earth could be only 6000 years old.

Originally posted by: Number1
You have not demonstrated how you think the building fell, only how you don't think it did.

I'm telling you about what I know about how the building fell, how that demonstrates the fact that the official story contradicts the laws of physics. While you are apparently incapable of addressing those facts, that is no reason for you to rattle on nonsensically asking me to explain things which I'm not in any position to determine. I want the answers to those questions too, and would appreciate it if you would look at the facts I'm presenting you with so that you might come to agree that we need a new and proper investigation to answer the questions such facts leave us with.

Originally posted by: ElFenix
even making the comparison shows that you already ignore the difference between a couple hundred degree fire and a couple thousand degree fire.

I'm not ignoring the difference, but rather you are exaggerating the difference it makes to ignore my point, and taking my comparison far out of the context of my statements to do so.

Originally posted by: ElFenix
and i like how you've completely ignored a completely rational explanation for the glowing steel.

Not just glowing steel, Molten steel, which formed the massive rock of steel and rubble seen here, and which others note having seen flowing at the WTC complex, and which explains the extreme temperatures you mentioned which are also evidenced by NASA thermal imaging. There is a completely rational explanation for that liquefied steel, and that explanation coincides with the free fall acceleration of WTC7; I've been presenting it here since the OP.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
There is no way that even highly trained people (like fire-fighters) are going to be able to tell one melting substance from another, especially when it comes to metals.

Rather, it's plainly obvious when you see melted steel beams sticking out of the rubble, or even just be the intensity of the glow of you have ever been around molten metals, or even just reasonable grasp of physics even if you haven't. And of course it is even more obvious when you find massive rocks formed from liquefied steel and other rubble.

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
In that same statement they say it was "like lava." So now are we supposed to believe there were hundreds of thousands of tons of molten...

Not a all, to believe that comparison was referring to the amount of molten steel rather than simply the appearance of it is just absurd.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Number1
kylebisme wrote
" If you choose to believe the official story of how WTC7 came down, you are holding to a position of faith in contradiction to demonstrable physical reality."

And you chose to believe in an unidentified force that somehow brought down the building because you can' t understand the official theory.

Specifically:

You have not demonstrated how you think the building fell, only how you don't think it did.

You have not provided a motive, only a belief that it must exist to explain your assertion.

You have not provide a who, just a belief that somebody must have done it

All the references you used to discredit the official story are from questionable twuther related web sites.


In summary, you would rather believe a bunch of illiterate paranoid twuthers over world renowned scientists.

Loose Change is your bible.

What evidence exists that is prima facie in nature? The buildings 1,2 were hit by some aircraft. That they collapsed and building 7 collapsed as well and a few other building in the area sustained terminal damage.
Regarding WTC 7 alone NIST is looking at SIMulation models to suggest the most likely scenario. OK... What facts have been assembled but more importantly what facts may not have been assembled to conclude what NIST concludes? NIST cannot say 'without doubt' anything. I chuckle at the notion that no explosive device was used [per NIST] cuz we'd have heard it or there would be broken windows.. Other stuff could cut beams but there is no mention of that nor that they even tested for Thermate/Thermite as per crime scene protocol. Because they are not the right investigative lead authority in a crime scene like that. They were tasked with it cuz of the nature of the task... keep that in mind. (NIST)

IF You have a body you start an investigation on cause of death. Having the dead body of WTC 7 you know a crime has been committed. When you have conflicting motive or no motive or just one motive you MUST collect everything, test everything and reject nothing regardless how insignificant it may seem. We assumed it was AQ even though folks with eye balls on the scene had versions not in accord with the 'official' pronouncement or assumption. An investigative body must always consider that the matter may someday reside in a Court of Law. They MUST act accordingly... The Commission had determine cause as a sort of mandate among others but the vehicle through which that mandate was prosecuted was not the best choice in my opinion. The very fact that Kyle can say what he says and be confident that while there are alternative explanations there are none that absolutely disprove his ascertions... Some dudes Razor notwithstanding..

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Assuming the NIST posit, we become faced with the fires and if they reacted as the Sim required. I think NIST sorta found a likely structural sequence to cause the collapse and then forced the precursor to that.

That is exactly what they did, commonly known as "cooking the evidence", which is a particularly accurate metaphor in this case.

Originally posted by: LunarRay
So at least some kind of molten stuff exists on that cross. ??

That is just aluminum on the cross, which melts at considerably lower temperatures than steel, and the two steel beams which form the cross obviously got hot enough to melt together too, and of course there are the reports, thermal images of the hot spots from NASA, an leftover rocks of it too.

 

[BeauJangles]

I'm sorry, a reasonable grasp of physics now makes you an expert on determining the composition of molten substances? Please provide any evidence for molten steel beyond youtube videos and this guy. Most likely, this firefighter saw molten metal, as you saw, and simply used the word steel to describe it because we all know the building was made of steel.

As for the debris, there is a huge difference between melted and deformed beams. Steel loses a huge percent of its strength even when it's heated to non-melting temperatures (~60% @ 1000 degrees I believe). Deformed beams does not indicate that there was molten steel anywhere.

You've provided nothing more than a misunderstanding of the facts and have failed to contextualize any of the supposed inconsistencies you've found in the NIST report. You continue to neglect the 800 lb gorilla in this conversation -- the absolutely vast mountain of evidence that supports the general framework of planes taking down WTC 1 and 2, and the fire and falling debris taking down #7.

We can argue all day about the collapse, but until someone can provide something that refutes the framework (which is very, very well supported) and prove that thousands of experts are straight-up wrong, then we're talking about nothing. Until we get one shred of evidence that someone actually planted explosives or until we get an actual model of events that can explain these inconsistencies with explosives, show there was both opportunity and ability to plant them, and ultimately provide some evidence that they existed, you aren't proving anything.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Sclamoz, that makes all the sense in the world and is totally consistent with how I picture what happened intuitively, but sadly we now know it is all completely wrong. There is a steel building in China that caught fire, really caught fire, but it didn't fall.

My only hope now is that somehow, in some magical way, the mighty, TastesLikePullet, will be able to explain why no occult command was issued in that case, to pull it and bring it down.

I hear, however, that there are millions of Chinese who claim it was a government conspiracy that left it standing, some secret effort to shame American building technology with ceramic insulation. Traces of feldspar and silica were found on the girders, apparently.

Well, It could be a Chinese coup. Too bad our pseudo investigation did not or could not test like the Chinese did, if they did. We sent most all the steel from 9/11 to them so maybe we'll get a report back someday.

I gots an affirmative question for you Moonerator

Take a typical beam section from WTC 1,2 that is about 35' in length. But after the event was bent like a horse shoe. Given the carbon content of that kind of steel etc... should it have bent like that or cracked or split or what? Seems to me very intense heat AND lots of pressure had to be applied. I've read that the steel becomes brittle and breaks before it would deform into a horse shoe configuration.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: ElFenix
even making the comparison shows that you already ignore the difference between a couple hundred degree fire and a couple thousand degree fire.

I'm not ignoring the difference, but rather you are exaggerating the difference it makes to ignore my point, and taking my comparison far out of the context of my statements to do so.

what is your point? you have yet to post anything other than "something must have been forcing the building to collapse other than the force of gravity!!!11!!one!eleventy" and as we've all pointed out again and again, your admittedly 5th grade physics understanding has come woefully short. not only that but i'm not at all certain you have a full understanding of the available facts.

Originally posted by: ElFenix
and i like how you've completely ignored a completely rational explanation for the glowing steel.

Not just glowing steel, Molten steel, which formed the massive rock of steel and rubble seen here, and which others note having seen flowing at the WTC complex, and which explains the extreme temperatures you mentioned which are also evidenced by NASA thermal imaging. There is a completely rational explanation for that liquefied steel, and that explanation coincides with the free fall acceleration of WTC7; I've been presenting it here since the OP.

IGNORE IGNORE IGNORE

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: kylebisme
Here is an example of fire's effect on a steel building, and a shot of the aftermath. As for examples of fire bringing down any such structure with a period of free fall acceleration; you won't find any, and you won't find anyone to make one, as it is physically impossible.

That's the effect of fire on a building with a completely different structural design and which is also clad in titanium-zinc on two sides and the top. The building also had a functioning sprinkler system and firefighting efforts were on the scene in a short time to put out the fires. The fires didn't burn for hours and hours, like WTC7 did. Oh, then there's the fact that the Mandarin Oriental didn't suffer any initial strucural damage from pieces of another building falling on it, taking out supporting structure along the way.

Truthers don't like to mention those details though because the devil is in 'em.

Isn't that the one that burned out of control for 20 something hours?