What brought down WTC7

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
so who snuck large hydraulic jacks into WTC7?

I made no claim that anyone did, only presented hydraulic force as one force other than explosives which could have provided the force necessary to allow the period of free fall acceleration observable in the collapse of WTC7.

Originally posted by: munky
... it was easy to... accuse Iraq on WMD charges without evidence.

I was ridiculed for pointing out the flagrant absurdities of that bullshit story too, by some of the same people attacking me here no less, and with just as inane of arguments as those being thrown at me now.

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Why the hell didn't somebody tell me sooner that Bush brought down the towers.

How did you come to that conclusion? I figure it's just as likely, if not more so, that he was duped much the same as many have been.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Sclamoz
The part where he says "the NIST was forced to admit the near freefall speed of the WTC collapse..."?

He never says anything about why it couldn't happen...

Sure, because that part is obvious to anyone with a competent understanding of physics, as I explained in my OP. Did you not bother to check the other explanations of this fact on this page which I had presented previously?

Originally posted by: Sclamoz
I want you to tell me, in detail the physics because you apparently understand this all better then the rest of us....

Then you'll have to ask me specific questions in regard to what you are having trouble comprehending, as not being psychic I can't rightly figure that out on my own.

Originally posted by: Sclamoz
I mean if the NIST can come up with an explanation and a computer simulation...

Again, NIST didn't come up with a computer simulation to exemplify the period of free fall acceleration WTC7 underwent, and they can't as long as they are sticking to the official story, because it is physically impossible.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: ElFenix
so who snuck large hydraulic jacks into WTC7?

I made no claim that anyone did, only presented hydraulic force as one force other than explosives which could have provided the force necessary to allow the period of free fall acceleration observable in the collapse of WTC7.

so so far you haven't done anything other than claim there are holes in the NIST report, make vague claims that some outside force must have been present, and IGNORE IGNORE IGNORE any evidence that refutes your 'molten steel' claim. and we're the creationists. gotcha.

 

[Sclamoz]

Originally posted by: Sclamoz
The part where he says "the NIST was forced to admit the near freefall speed of the WTC collapse..."?

He never says anything about why it couldn't happen...

Originally posted by: kylebisme
Sure, because that part is obvious to anyone with a competent understanding of physics, as I explained in my OP. Did you not bother to check the other explanations of this fact on this page which I had presented previously?

Yeah, they are just all very soooooooo confusing lolz! Like the last video, where it points out that he doesn't see any sign of the interior collapsing before the exterior does, yet you can see whatever the structure that is on the northeast corner of the roof collapse downwards just like the NIST said it would. If the interior wasn't collapsing ,why would that fall down before the exterior begins to drop?

Originally posted by: kylebisme
Again, NIST didn't come up with a computer simulation to exemplify the period of free fall acceleration WTC7 underwent, and they can't as long as they are sticking to the official story, because it is physically impossible.

Why is it physically impossible?

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: OCguy
I heard Bush bombed the levys in NOLA during Katrina.

No, Bush bombed his Levis when the levies broke.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: Cogman

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: Cogman
So, you're saying that 1000 structural engineers who's sole task it was to determine that cause of the fall, were incapable of considering an explosion inside the building? Or that they were all so incompetent as to not see such glaring contradictions?

I've said:

Originally posted by: kylebisme
... 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.

And I take issue with your "1000" claim, as it seems to be dervied from your imagination.

Originally posted by: kylebisme
Why, pre-tell isn't there a small army of structural engineers that are troothers?

They are 912 architectural and engineering professionals at the moment, but it's hard to expect others to even try to look into the matter, let alone come forward on it, with all you falsers standing poised to shout them down with inane arguments while refusing to address the facts.

Check your list out, A fair portion of the people listed as engineers in that 912 count are electrical, computer, and mechanical engineers. Guess what? They know nothing about structural engineering. I counted a total of about 10 structural engineers on the list. (using a quick search)

Heck, they even list Marine Engineers... Yeah, a guy that works as a coast guard agent knows a lot about building integrity.

The guy who runs AETruth, who claims to have tons of knowledge and experience with skyscrapers is a guy who has designed two different shopping centers and never worked with buildings more than 10 stories. They're a bunch of fraudsters, who lie about their credentials and exaggerate their knowledge.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Sclamoz

Originally posted by: Sclamoz
The part where he says "the NIST was forced to admit the near freefall speed of the WTC collapse..."?

He never says anything about why it couldn't happen...

Originally posted by: kylebisme
Sure, because that part is obvious to anyone with a competent understanding of physics, as I explained in my OP. Did you not bother to check the other explanations of this fact on this page which I had presented previously?

Yeah, they are just all very soooooooo confusing lolz! Like the last video, where it points out that he doesn't see any sign of the interior collapsing before the exterior does, yet you can see whatever the structure that is on the northeast corner of the roof collapse downwards just like the NIST said it would. If the interior wasn't collapsing ,why would that fall down before the exterior begins to drop?

Originally posted by: kylebisme
Again, NIST didn't come up with a computer simulation to exemplify the period of free fall acceleration WTC7 underwent, and they can't as long as they are sticking to the official story, because it is physically impossible.

Why is it physically impossible?

There is a video of the roof section on 7 not shown in he truther videos where you can see a portion of it fall through a number of seconds before the roof line itself begins to fall. That is the only sign that the interior of the building is being wiped out until the rest, now unsupported begins to free fall. Everything about the fall then feels totally right and that is in the sim. The impossible free fall stuff is baloney. Support gone, all mass free falls. The only thing that can slow the descent with the mass of inertia being generated, is the electrical repulsion of electron and protons but we won't go into that because somebody will claim the saw molten neutronium.

 

[LunarRay]

Ya know... looking at all the sims and pictorials of the collapse of WTC 7 one thing I notice is in the NIST they are more of less consistent that the south face faces the viewer [it is the shorter of the two north south faces] meaning that key beam 79 is on the right as we view it. But in video footage I'm not seeing that right side penthouse collapse.. I see the left side dip down first. So depending on which view you are getting you first have to orientate to which face is which.

The Tower 1,2 debris contribution to WTC 7 occurs to the south and west faces. Fires start in that area only - initially.

Some floors per NIST the fires go clockwise. But the critical 13th floor they go counter clockwise. And seem to start on the east face. A place rather unique in terms of where fires started. No other view or evidence shows fires on floor 13 until they are noticed in the east area.

They indicate that lateral support from beam 44 to 79 gave way when fire induced expansion walked 44 off of 79 at the 13th floor. No video I can find shows the 13th floor on the north or east face. My question would be at this point why is the fires so much hotter on that corner of the 13th floor than other areas which had been burning noticably for a time? And why didn't those floors undergo thermal expansion to the same extent if they were as hot? They mention this all occurred at under 400c much lower than the rated >500c of the steel.

I'll stop there maybe someone can correct my observation or reading. But one final question. did anyone ever see beam 79? My thinking is that that beam should have been critical to look at and to recognize cuz of its dimension being much larger than the other ones from the edges and center?

 

[Sclamoz]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Sclamoz

Originally posted by: Sclamoz
The part where he says "the NIST was forced to admit the near freefall speed of the WTC collapse..."?

He never says anything about why it couldn't happen...

Originally posted by: kylebisme
Sure, because that part is obvious to anyone with a competent understanding of physics, as I explained in my OP. Did you not bother to check the other explanations of this fact on this page which I had presented previously?

Yeah, they are just all very soooooooo confusing lolz! Like the last video, where it points out that he doesn't see any sign of the interior collapsing before the exterior does, yet you can see whatever the structure that is on the northeast corner of the roof collapse downwards just like the NIST said it would. If the interior wasn't collapsing ,why would that fall down before the exterior begins to drop?

Originally posted by: kylebisme
Again, NIST didn't come up with a computer simulation to exemplify the period of free fall acceleration WTC7 underwent, and they can't as long as they are sticking to the official story, because it is physically impossible.

Why is it physically impossible?

There is a video of the roof section on 7 not shown in he truther videos where you can see a portion of it fall through a number of seconds before the roof line itself begins to fall. That is the only sign that the interior of the building is being wiped out until the rest, now unsupported begins to free fall. Everything about the fall then feels totally right and that is in the sim. The impossible free fall stuff is baloney. Support gone, all mass free falls. The only thing that can slow the descent with the mass of inertia being generated, is the electrical repulsion of electron and protons but we won't go into that because somebody will claim the saw molten neutronium.

Stop it with your lies Moonbeam.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkuOAY-S6OY

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: Sclamoz
I want you to tell me, in detail the physics because you apparently understand this all better then the rest of us....

Then you'll have to ask me specific questions in regard to what you are having trouble comprehending, as not being psychic I can't rightly figure that out on my own.

Translation = You don't have the first clue why physics makes the free fall impossible, as you claim.

It's hilarious watching you try to bullshit your way through though and actually thinking you're doing a good job of it. Keep it up. It's a belly-laugh riot.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

There is a video of the roof section on 7 not shown in he truther videos where you can see a portion of it fall through a number of seconds before the roof line itself begins to fall. That is the only sign that the interior of the building is being wiped out until the rest, now unsupported begins to free fall. Everything about the fall then feels totally right and that is in the sim. The impossible free fall stuff is baloney. Support gone, all mass free falls. The only thing that can slow the descent with the mass of inertia being generated, is the electrical repulsion of electron and protons but we won't go into that because somebody will claim the saw molten neutronium.

The videos are not just truther videos they are the evidence both the NIST and the others are looking at!

What is the orientation of the of the portion that intitially falls? Which face is facing you when you see the roof dip? Beam 79 is the critical one that started the whole show, as I see it.

Did the dipping you saw bring the east or west face in toward the center in your view depending on your orientation vis a vis the dip? Or North South for that matter... Iow was the dipping bit connected to the exterior support and ought to have moved that in ? Or did it act like a cantilever
I also wonder if the steel in China reacts to thermal expansion the same as when it is in the US or is the coating significantly different enough to allow a 20 hr raging fire to not react similar to a 3 hr one?

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: OCguy
I heard Bush bombed the levys in NOLA during Katrina.

No, Bush bombed his Levis when the levies broke.

Good one.

I wish it was true - that he really cared. By all accounts, he didn't - except when he figured out how to get his 'friends' more bloated contracts.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Ya know... looking at all the sims and pictorials of the collapse of WTC 7 one thing I notice is in the NIST they are more of less consistent that the south face faces the viewer [it is the shorter of the two north south faces] meaning that key beam 79 is on the right as we view it. But in video footage I'm not seeing that right side penthouse collapse.. I see the left side dip down first. So depending on which view you are getting you first have to orientate to which face is which.

The Tower 1,2 debris contribution to WTC 7 occurs to the south and west faces. Fires start in that area only - initially.

Some floors per NIST the fires go clockwise. But the critical 13th floor they go counter clockwise. And seem to start on the east face. A place rather unique in terms of where fires started. No other view or evidence shows fires on floor 13 until they are noticed in the east area.

They indicate that lateral support from beam 44 to 79 gave way when fire induced expansion walked 44 off of 79 at the 13th floor. No video I can find shows the 13th floor on the north or east face. My question would be at this point why is the fires so much hotter on that corner of the 13th floor than other areas which had been burning noticably for a time? And why didn't those floors undergo thermal expansion to the same extent if they were as hot? They mention this all occurred at under 400c much lower than the rated >500c of the steel.

I'll stop there maybe someone can correct my observation or reading. But one final question. did anyone ever see beam 79? My thinking is that that beam should have been critical to look at and to recognize cuz of its dimension being much larger than the other ones from the edges and center?

As far as I have been able to determine there are three leading theories about 79.

1. Probably the least favored, that it became a horseshoe and galloped away.

2. It was eaten by termites, nobody tells me how to spell termites, and

3. It melted.1

And amazingly, my search for 'secret metal eating government termites' or whatever the phrase I used above, took me straight to a truther sight, so now we know the government has them.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: OCguy
I heard Bush bombed the levys in NOLA during Katrina.

No, Bush bombed his Levis when the levies broke.

Good one.

I wish it was true - that he really cared. By all accounts, he didn't - except when he figured out how to get his 'friends' more bloated contracts.

Well you have to remember that Bush was out to prove that the Government is the problem, not the solution. Keep that in mind and things make a lot more sense.

 

[Sclamoz]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam



And amazingly, my search for 'secret metal eating government termites' or whatever the phrase I used above, took me straight to a truther sight, so now we know the government has them.

Mock all you want falser, can you prove that government termites weren't involved in 9/11?

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

As far as I have been able to determine there are three leading theories about 79.

1. Probably the least favored, that it became a horseshoe and galloped away.

2. It was eaten by termites, nobody tells me how to spell termites, and

3. It melted.1

And amazingly, my search for 'secret metal eating government termites' or whatever the phrase I used above, took me straight to a truther sight, so now we know the government has them.

I can see the thermites termites a risk to national security eating stuff but did they eat beam 79? I'm trying real hard to see the central core sufficate and leave the exterior pristine [related to the consumption of the core] Dancing lateral support beams due to thermal expansion but right in plain view is a perfectly normal exterior... only the hidden part did the dancing... I'm trying to grasp it all... tis why the dude on the elevator is important to me in this. Seems to me something is missing... Maybe a Ph.D. in building physics... I should have stayed in Engineering all them years ago... That Jesuit was right.... I'd regret it some day... ehehhehehe

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Sclamoz

Originally posted by: Moonbeam



And amazingly, my search for 'secret metal eating government termites' or whatever the phrase I used above, took me straight to a truther sight, so now we know the government has them.

Mock all you want falser, can you prove that government termites weren't involved in 9/11?

Of course he can! They are imbedded in his walls and in the foundation of his mockery against the good intentions of the 'Seekers of Truth'. He knows Secret Government Termites and they were no secret termites!

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Sclamoz

Originally posted by: Moonbeam



And amazingly, my search for 'secret metal eating government termites' or whatever the phrase I used above, took me straight to a truther sight, so now we know the government has them.

Mock all you want falser, can you prove that government termites weren't involved in 9/11?

Of course he can! They are imbedded in his walls and in the foundation of his mockery against the good intentions of the 'Seekers of Truth'. He knows Secret Government Termites and they were no secret termites!

No secret to you either. There the same ones you collected in Plaguewood and let loose in an Alliance lumber yard. It's when you thought up how to bring 7 down.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Of course he can! They are imbedded in his walls and in the foundation of his mockery against the good intentions of the 'Seekers of Truth'. He knows Secret Government Termites and they were no secret termites!

No secret to you either. There the same ones you collected in Plaguewood and let loose in an Alliance lumber yard. It's when you thought up how to bring 7 down.

Hehehehe let me say that in Law and Economics you must drop your 'pet theories' when they don't square with the facts.. No idea about Physics but that seems reasonable there too.. I did have some notion about the Plaguewood endeavor as being a progressive event but then Newton's third fig said to me... When a block of structure once meets the force repelling it makes the block, in this case descending, become poofy... IOW, equal and opposite... like "Back and to the left"... but I digress... So I said to myself... Self you can't do 7 like 1,2 cuz there wont be enough dust to cloud the issue... like there... block hits main body... main body said ha ha you gonna what? Just plow on through me... you falser!... I'm a gonna dust you!... so to speak...
I wish I could find a probability of having an event never before seen to occur happen three times in a row... that must be astronomical given the last one was so different to the first two.
I can see Bin Laden sittin in his cave now reading this AT forum... and joking with his comrad... I told you Achmed, they'd never figure it out..

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Sclamoz
Yeah, they are just all very soooooooo confusing lolz! Like the last video, where it points out that he doesn't see any sign of the interior collapsing before the exterior does...

Rather, he's saying it's obvious from the outside that the whole damn inside didn't collapse first, as there isn't nearly enough damage to the outside to reflect such thing. You do realise that the outside of buildings don't just sit loose like a sheath over the insides, right? They are connected, one falling tugs on the other.

Originally posted by: Sclamoz
Why is it physically impossible?

I've been advised not to humor you here.

Seriously, I answered your question in the OP. What ever difficulties you are having in understanding that answer, you are going to have to be specific in identifying them for me to be able to address them. Otherwise, I'd just be rephrasing what I said in it's entirety, over and over again, as I'm lacking the psychic powers which would be required for me to identify your comprehension issues without you presenting them.

Originally posted by: ElFenix
so so far you haven't done anything other than claim there are holes in the NIST report, make vague claims that some outside force must have been present...

Rather, I provided the facts which prove the latter, and that proves the former.

Originally posted by: ElFenix
...and IGNORE IGNORE IGNORE any evidence that refutes your 'molten steel' claim.

I skipped over some absurd arguments from others attempting to ignore the evidence of molten steel as I found them too inane to bother wasting my time with, particularly as the free fall stands on it's own even if there hadn't been any molten steel. However, since it seems you've been mislead by some argument about the molten steel, I'd be happy to address it if you tell me specifically what you are alluding to.

Originally posted by: LunarRay
I'm trying real hard to see the central core sufficate and leave the exterior pristine [related to the consumption of the core] Dancing lateral support beams due to thermal expansion but right in plain view is a perfectly normal exterior... only the hidden part did the dancing... I'm trying to grasp it all...

That is all explained in one word.

Originally posted by: LunarRay
...tis why the dude on the elevator is important to me in this.

I just skimmed over that part of the discussion between you and Moonie as it isn't particularly relevant to WTC7, but unless I overlooked something I'm pretty sure you two got that figured out for the most part on your own.

Basically, the guy would have to use a handrail or whatever to pull/push himself to a squatting position and then spring up, which will push the elevator down quicker. It wouldn't likely do much good though, as it only necessarily changes the direction of his motion in respect to the elevator. In respect to the ground he's just going to temporarily reduce his acceleration in the downward direction, assuming they have fallen far enough to have built up enough speed to where landing would be an issue in the first place anyway. So, while it would soften the fall a bill, its unlikely to make any crucial difference, even when timed exactly right.

Originally posted by: LunarRay
I wish I could find a probability of having an event never before seen to occur happen three times in a row... that must be astronomical given the last one was so different to the first two.

The thing is, all three could be reasonably well repeated with any structure, but not while simulating anything like the conditions of the official story. I'm just focusing on the official story for WTC7 with this thread because the physical impossibility of it is simpler to explain than the other two, and can't rightly expect people to understand the physics of the latter if they can't grasp that of the former.

 

[Fear No Evil]

So has there been 1 person thats been swayed by this thread?

 

[Sclamoz]

yeah make that 0 if you're counting me, I was just trying to get him to explain his "theories"

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
So has there been 1 person thats been swayed by this thread?

Individuals who are into being swayed are generally going to go with the headwind, which is blowing hard against the facts I've presented here. I'm not interested in swaying anyone, I've never put in effort in learning how to do so, and hence my arguments are only going to convince people who are willing to address the facts. I'm guessing some people reading the thread might have done that, but all you falsers belligerently ridiculing anyone who does is sure to dissuade them from admitting to it.

Originally posted by: Sclamoz
yeah make that 0 if you're counting me, I was just trying to get him to explain his "theories"

Rather you doing what [profanity warning] this guy is talking about [profanity warning].

 

[Sclamoz]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
So has there been 1 person thats been swayed by this thread?

Individuals who are into being swayed are generally going to go with the headwind, which is blowing hard against the facts I've presented here. I'm not interested in swaying anyone, I've never put in effort in learning how to do so, and hence my arguments are only going to convince people who are willing to address the facts. I'm guessing some people reading the thread might have done that, but all you falsers belligerently ridiculing anyone who does is sure to dissuade them from admitting to it.

Originally posted by: Sclamoz
yeah make that 0 if you're counting me, I was just trying to get him to explain his "theories"

Rather you doing what [profanity warning] this guy is talking about [profanity warning].

Louis C.K. is awesome huh?

 

[kylebisme]

I dig his comedy.