What brought down WTC7

[Sclamoz]

Originally posted by: kylebisme
I dig his comedy.

Why?

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: kylebisme
I dig his comedy.

Speaking of comedy let me ask you this question.

My man in the elevator was an attempt to understand the equal and opposite force notion.

Consider a block of a building [for this, WTC tower might be easier] at the top of the building. Ok destroy all manner of the structural support and heat up the rest so the [tower thinking atm] floors that are connected to the outside walls and the central core sorta pull away from their support... pancaking down is very easy to see. But, there is a force they meet at the floor below pulverizing them. I'm not sure if my mind could get the pancaking to go all the way down. Now [again using the towers for illustration] the central core. A sealed section with increasingly bigger and stronger central core beams. What makes that section pancake too? How can it? I'd have expected to see the central core still standing below the block that was severed in two by the planes and fire or maybe that upper block of core fall off to the side after the pancaking occurred.
I know this ain't WTC 7 atm but in my mind a similar oddity exists there and If I can get my thinking right on the concept of the towers I can move back to '7'.

EDIT: Aside from saying explosives did it... I know every thing was pulverized except lengths of steel beams and the extreme bottom of the tower stucture..

EDIT: IOW, What is the path of least resistence for the core?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

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.

you've done no such thing. you've not shown how part of the building falling at near free fall well into the collapse is impossible without some force other than gravity and the action of impact and fire. all you've done is throw around your ignorance like the creationists do.

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.
[/quote]

my several posts that you IGNORE IGNORE IGNORE. you can go back through the thread.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
I know this ain't WTC 7 atm but in my mind a similar oddity exists there and If I can get my thinking right on the concept of the towers I can move back to '7'.

Your thinking on the towers is just fine. I get the impression that many are confused by accepting the official story through comparing the three collapses to each other, kind of an "if something like that happened twice, then it can happen again" mentality, even though none of the collapses happened the way the official story claims they did. But again, as it is easier to demonstrate the absurdity of the official story with regard to WTC7, I'd prefer work on addressing everyone's confusion with that first.

Originally posted by: ElFenix
you've not shown how part of the building falling at near free fall well into the collapse is impossible without some force other than gravity and the action of impact and fire.

I've provided the facts which prove that a structure falling at an acceleration indistinguishable from free fall during any portion of its collapse requires a force beyond that of gravity to remove the structural resistance which would otherwise keep the acceleration of collapse observably below free fall. To which you are effectively responding to with nothing but "why?", and to which I will respond to by quoting Lewis C. K.; "well, because somethings are, and somethings are not!"

Originally posted by: ElFenix
you can go back through the thread.

Ah, you didn't even post an argument, let alone a reasonable one, just alluded to seeing some which you believe are reasonable. If you state whatever you were alluding to directly here, I will be happy to address them. I won't bother with arguments quoted from web pages though, as if you can't even comprehend the arguments well enough to rephrase it into your own words, then I can't rightly expect you to be able to acknowledge whatever flaws in them there might be.

 

[First]

^ He's partially saying you can't show us the math, and you can't, because you don't have the first clue what's going on. And I'm sorry to say, but your dyslexia might have something to do with it. Some people just don't have "it".

 

[kylebisme]

I have no issue showing the math which proves the official story contradicts physical reality, but that you'd even believe it would be an issue shows you have no understanding of the physics involved, let alone the formulas which describe it, and hence the math which proves the official story false would be meaningless to you. On the other hand, not only can you not back the official story mathematically, neither can anyone else, as it is physically impossible. So instead you mock my dyslexia while ranting on about how splendid the emperor's new clothes are.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: kylebisme
I have no issue showing the math which proves the official story contradicts physical reality, but that you'd even believe it would be an issue shows you have no understanding of the physics involved, let alone the formulas which describe it, and hence the math which proves the official story false would be meaningless to you. On the other hand, not only can you not back the official story mathematically, neither can anyone else, as it is physically impossible. So instead you mock my dyslexia while ranting on about how splendid the emperor's new clothes are.

Is this your way of raising the white flag and admitting you don't know the math? Because you're not convincing anyone intelligent, and frankly I bet you don't know where to begin and wouldn't know anything about net force, vectors, or scalars, or have the faintest clue what the approximate speed of something mundane like escape velocity was, if you couldn't look it up on Wikipedia this very second. But sure, show the math; it's no more than 3 long Fusetalk lines of numbers combined with a two sentence hypothesis, so it really shouldn't be difficult given that you've spent 10 fruitless pages explaining, for all intents and purposes, why your disability can be so limiting.

 

[Mr. Lennon]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...ure=player_profilepage

 

[kylebisme]

Rather, I've posted the math under this username when some other mindless drone pestered me into doing so in another forum a while back, so I've got that timestamped to prove I know what I'm talking about here. I will be happy to present that just as soon as you lay out whatever math you believe proves me wrong, seeing as how you are the one arguing math will prove my position wrong. I have a feeling it won't come to that though, as I'm sure you are too terrified of making a fool of yourself to try it.

Also, your rants leave me to suspect you are one of the guys who used to beg me to help with your homework back in school, and then only pretended to be interested enough to finish the assignment with my help, and then parrot my explanations without rightly knowing what you are talking about at all. Now you've got our government and media to finish your assignments for you, and think you are all high and mighty for nodding along to the nonsense they spew. Looking back on it, I probably should have given you the wrong answers then, so you might have actually learned to think for yourself.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: kylebisme
Rather, I've posted the math under this username when some other mindless drone pestered me into doing so in another forum a while back, so I've got that timestamped to prove I know what I'm talking about here. I will be happy to present that just as soon as you lay out whatever math you believe proves me wrong, seeing as how you are the one arguing math will prove my position here wrong. I have a feeling it won't come to that, as I'm sure you are too terrified of making a fool of yourself to try it.

Also, your little rant leave me to suspect you are one of the guys who used to beg me to help with your homework back in school, and then only pretended to be interested enough to finish the assignment with my help and parrot back I explained to you, without rightly knowing what you are talking about at all. Now you've got our government and media to finish your assignments for you, and think you are all high and mighty for nodding alone to the nonsense they spew. Looking back on it, I should have given you the wrong answers then so you might have actually learned to think for yourself.

You didn't show the math in your OP because you don't actually know it, and whatever math you may have posted in the past was, no doubt, not your own since it's not hard to copy formulas and plug in numbers on the Internet. What I'm asking is that you post the math and actually explain it. It's very easy and the burden of proof is on your shoulders and no one else's, since you are claiming something an extraordinary minority of engineers (<1%, another mathematical fact even you can admit) are right and 99%+ are wrong. But it's funny you bring up doing other people's homework when, ironically, it's you who needs the tutoring here since you still can't man up and post the numbers because you don't actually understand the physics behind it (and you know it, of course). And yes, your dyslexia is limiting your ability to reason since, for example, you continue to parrot nonsense about something as insanely impossible as a secret group of conspiring "thems" in the U.S. gov't that apparently are incredibly well educated engineers/mathematicians/physicists capable of compartmentalizing hundreds of NIST engineers from each other. This ridiculous notion is parroted by you and others despite the stark reality that all these NIST guys can seek help from all sorts of sources outside the gov't that the gov't simply has no way of controlling or knowing about (like academia, an old college buddy, et al), further shooting holes in your ridiculous notion that this NIST material has somehow been highly controlled and tampered with. Again, that's the dyslexia talking, that's not something a reasonable, normal person concludes.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: First
You didn't show the math in your OP because...

...more people are capable of understanding a variable explanation, including anyone who could understand the mathematical one. On the other hand, you haven't tried to argue against the facts I've presented with anything but hand waving, because that is all you've got.

 

[Moonbeam]

So k, what do you think, did we go to the moon in the sixties, or was that staged? There are folk who swear it was and I am sure they have physics to prove it.

The really interesting thing about this thread to me, except for the question about takeoff from a treadmill which was truly fascinating, is the mental processes by which you and truthers seem to see the world compared to rational down to earth people like me, you know, the vast majority of folk who know they hate themselves and everybody else does too.

I listened to your claims like this. Before we posit any magical force, let's see what is if we don't. I have a perversion, I guess. I am not persuaded by words or assurances or pronouncements that people know physics and stuff like that. I say, no, I know physics so let's see if your physics is just like mine. I am every bit as impressed with myself as you are in that regard. I used to do the physics for the brightest kids seniors in high school in my junior year. But of course I did it only for the girls. Another quirk I have. And I remember even to this day the only question in physics that I conceptually missed and still hate myself for that failure. I kick myself in the ass every time I think about it. I got half the correct value a steam engine train delivers to the wheels and if you're smart you'll know why. Damn what dunce I was.

But any way, I say to myself, self, what are we looking at here, ah yes 911 the day of the planes. So rather than thinking three buildings were wired to explode when hit by holographic planes or aluminum pterodactyls, I go straight for the simple. What probably happened here. I say, let's just be evil and say it was planes. Then what jumps into my mind is that the planes were the cause of dropping three buildings.

Now the physics really gets easy. What you see, what was captured on tape, the actual reality of the event, that was all cause by the planes and not one whit of what you see is impossible and couldn't have happened because of that. Only a mind intent of being special, on seeing what isn't there, of fabrication and magical thinking will see anything else there. I know I could be wrong but the simple is always to be preferred by me to the complex because I am not a magical thinker. I look for fundamentals, like why people are killing the world. Easy, they hate themselves and deserve that fate in their feelings.

So the way my mind works is I look at what happened and work back. Buildings were hit by planes and there was fire and three fell. It's just so fucking damn simple. So I went through all your claims about impossible physics and periods of free fall and resistance and threw it all in a hat as garbage. No laws of physics were violated. All your violations are manufactured by your imagination. We hate ourselves and we have a perverse need to feel special. And being a nut case is a great way to do it. You get a lot of attention and can parade around as the only clown in the world who knows anything, you, of course and your clique. And you get to indulge in feeling persecuted, misunderstood, a misunderstood beacon of light in a dark world. Too bad you didn't go for self hate instead of termites. I don't have a clique. And nobody's going to do the math to disprove me.

 

[Cogman]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: First
You didn't show the math in your OP because...

...more people are capable of understanding a variable explanation, including anyone who could understand the mathematical one. On the other hand, you haven't tried to argue against the facts I've presented with anything but hand waving, because that is all you've got.

What facts have you posted that haven't been debunk, or which aren't in themselves hand wavy "facts"?

I personally would love to see you post the math, and I can guarantee you Ill understand it (Computer engineer, math minor, plus I was a math tutor in college). From my google of your name, and WTC, I wasn't able to find a post by you including any math to backup your assertions.

So please, post the math. Its ok, we can understand it. If all else fails, we have Dr. Pizza who is a math professor, and I believe has a PH.d in math. You can appeal to him if us dummies are reading your math incorrectly.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Cogman

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: First
You didn't show the math in your OP because...

...more people are capable of understanding a variable explanation, including anyone who could understand the mathematical one. On the other hand, you haven't tried to argue against the facts I've presented with anything but hand waving, because that is all you've got.

What facts have you posted that haven't been debunk, or which aren't in themselves hand wavy "facts"?

I personally would love to see you post the math, and I can guarantee you Ill understand it (Computer engineer, math minor, plus I was a math tutor in college). From my google of your name, and WTC, I wasn't able to find a post by you including any math to backup your assertions.

So please, post the math. Its ok, we can understand it. If all else fails, we have Dr. Pizza who is a math professor, and I believe has a PH.d in math. You can appeal to him if us dummies are reading your math incorrectly.

His math will be correct. The facts to which the math apply will be wrong, just as his posts the meaning of free fall and the laws of gravity and then completely misrepresent them in reality by saying that things you can see happening right before your eyes can't happen unless a preposterous condition exists and there is no violation of any laws in the first place.

An object dropped at the surface of the earth is going 32ft/sec after one second and the only way it can drop is for termites to eat its support. The math is right, a hand let go of the object, not termites. His imagination is needlessly complicating things and probably with motivation, an emotional need.

 

[Delita]

Originally posted by: First

Originally posted by: kylebisme
Rather, I've posted the math under this username when some other mindless drone pestered me into doing so in another forum a while back, so I've got that timestamped to prove I know what I'm talking about here. I will be happy to present that just as soon as you lay out whatever math you believe proves me wrong, seeing as how you are the one arguing math will prove my position here wrong. I have a feeling it won't come to that, as I'm sure you are too terrified of making a fool of yourself to try it.

Also, your little rant leave me to suspect you are one of the guys who used to beg me to help with your homework back in school, and then only pretended to be interested enough to finish the assignment with my help and parrot back I explained to you, without rightly knowing what you are talking about at all. Now you've got our government and media to finish your assignments for you, and think you are all high and mighty for nodding alone to the nonsense they spew. Looking back on it, I should have given you the wrong answers then so you might have actually learned to think for yourself.

You didn't show the math in your OP because you don't actually know it, and whatever math you may have posted in the past was, no doubt, not your own since it's not hard to copy formulas and plug in numbers on the Internet. What I'm asking is that you post the math and actually explain it. It's very easy and the burden of proof is on your shoulders and no one else's, since you are claiming something an extraordinary minority of engineers (<1%, another mathematical fact even you can admit) are right and 99%+ are wrong. But it's funny you bring up doing other people's homework when, ironically, it's you who needs the tutoring here since you still can't man up and post the numbers because you don't actually understand the physics behind it (and you know it, of course). And yes, your dyslexia is limiting your ability to reason since, for example, you continue to parrot nonsense about something as insanely impossible as a secret group of conspiring "thems" in the U.S. gov't that apparently are incredibly well educated engineers/mathematicians/physicists capable of compartmentalizing hundreds of NIST engineers from each other. This ridiculous notion is parroted by you and others despite the stark reality that all these NIST guys can seek help from all sorts of sources outside the gov't that the gov't simply has no way of controlling or knowing about (like academia, an old college buddy, et al), further shooting holes in your ridiculous notion that this NIST material has somehow been highly controlled and tampered with. Again, that's the dyslexia talking, that's not something a reasonable, normal person concludes.

Originally posted by: kylebisme
...more people are capable of understanding a variable explanation, including anyone who could understand the mathematical one. On the other hand, you haven't tried to argue against the facts I've presented with anything but hand waving, because that is all you've got.

Haha the OP has been owned so bad it hurts.

 

[Number1]

kylebisme wrote:
"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."
=====================================================

Kylebisme also think WTC1 and 2 were rigged, brought down somehow by" other" forces.

BUT, in this thread, kylebisme has tried to portray himself as someone who has notice one discrepency in the official story and is trying to expose it, a typical twuther tactic.

In reality kylebisme think the whole 911 event was a vast conspiracy. He pretends he doesn't know how, why or who brought down the towers because to say what he really believes would get him ridiculed.

kylebisme is a twuther in every sense of the word. He won't accept any of the official explanations.


Honest people don't try to misrepresent themselves like you did kylebisme.


You're lying kylebisme

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: ElFenix
you've not shown how part of the building falling at near free fall well into the collapse is impossible without some force other than gravity and the action of impact and fire.

I've provided the facts which prove that a structure falling at an acceleration indistinguishable from free fall during any portion of its collapse requires a force beyond that of gravity to remove the structural resistance which would otherwise keep the acceleration of collapse observably below free fall. To which you are effectively responding to with nothing but "why?", and to which I will respond to by quoting Lewis C. K.; "well, because somethings are, and somethings are not!"

the structure of the exterior walls down low was collapsing during the first 1.75 seconds when the exterior was moving much slower than at gravitation forces. it held up the fall for 1.75 seconds. after that, when the lower structure was collapsed and broken, the top part started moving at gravitational forces.

again, you are treating the free fall as a separate incident from the rest of the building 7 collapse.

Originally posted by: ElFenix
you can go back through the thread.

Ah, you didn't even post an argument, let alone a reasonable one, just alluded to seeing some which you believe are reasonable. If you state whatever you were alluding to directly here, I will be happy to address them. I won't bother with arguments quoted from web pages though, as if you can't even comprehend the arguments well enough to rephrase it into your own words, then I can't rightly expect you to be able to acknowledge whatever flaws in them there might be.

[/quote]

so when you post links to websites it's good, but when others post links to websites we're ignorant. awesome.

at temps above 180C, iron rapidly reacts with water in an exothermic reaction. there was plenty of residual heat buried in the debris pile, so we've got our temps. the buildings were made of steel, so we've got our iron. and firefighters poured water on to the debris pile. so we've got our water. so basically, what we were doing was feeding the fire.

:roll:

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Cogman
What facts have you posted that haven't been debunk, or which aren't in themselves hand wavy "facts"?

All of them, throughout the thread, but the OP has enough to prove my point in itself.

Originally posted by: Cogman
I personally would love to see you post the math, and I can guarantee you Ill understand it (Computer engineer, math minor, plus I was a math tutor in college).

Again, the physics of the matter are explained verbally in the OP, so there is no need for me to reiterate it mathematically here for anyone who understands the principles involved, and it would be pointless for me to do as much for those who don't. If you want to contest my position, feel free to make a verb argument or a mathematical one, but as you have so far demonstrated yourself incapable over doing either, I no reason to believe your guarantee of being able to understand the math involved has any basis in reality.

Originally posted by: Cogman
From my google of your name, and WTC, I wasn't able to find a post by you including any math to backup your assertions.

I previously guaranteed my post showing the math exists, and promised to present that post if someone would simply attempt to demonstrate his insulation that math would prove me wrong. That said, I'm curious as to what keywords you used along with my name in your googling, and that you'd even think you could dig my post out of the internet with such little information as to what the actual phrasing of it might be suggests you have an absurdly loose grasp on reality. But then your arguments here from the beginning have shown nothing but an absurdly loose grasp on reality, so that was to be expected. Regardless, unless you demonstrate your understanding of the math involved by presenting a mathematical argument, I have no reason to waste even what little time it would take to dig up mine from where I had posted it previously.

Originally posted by: Number1
...in this thread, kylebisme has tried to portray himself as someone who has notice one discrepency in the official story and is trying to expose it, a typical twuther tactic.

Rather, you are engaging in typical falser tactics; making an argument which contradicts demonstrable physical reality. In this case, the reality of my reasoning for pointing out the flaw in one specific part of the official story, is the fact that a moderator had requested I do exactly that:

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Pick out your best fact that contradicts what is accepted.

Yet you make a speculative argument which contradict this fact, incapable of addressing the facts I presented in the OP.

Originally posted by: Number1
so when you post links to websites it's good, but when others post links to websites we're ignorant. awesome.

When I post links to websites it is to substantiate the facts which my argument is based on, not to make an argument for me, as I have no interest in making an argument I don't understand. The fact that you have demonstrated yourself incapable of acknowledging that distinction only further illustrates the depths of your ignorance.

Originally posted by: Number1
at temps above 180C, iron rapidly reacts with water in an exothermic reaction. there was plenty of residual heat buried in the debris pile, so we've got our temps. the buildings were made of steel, so we've got our iron. and firefighters poured water on to the debris pile. so we've got our water. so basically, what we were doing was feeding the fire.

Not only does the reaction you speak of fail generate temperatures required to have produced the molten steel which eye witness reported, NASA thermal images support, and cooled remains prove; but if it could, that would suggest that the sprinkler systems used to fight fires in steel framed structures would cause those structures to melt when doing so. Hence the reason NIST had to deny the molten steel, as there is no rational explanation for in the context of the official story. Of course NIST's head danced around like a sock-puppet as he was confronted with this issue, much as you doing while trying to explain it away here; such are the ways of you falsers.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Watching the OP completely own himself by typing so much and saying absolutely nothing of value, along with completely failing to provide any sort of answers to the questions he has been asked by transparently side-stepping them (because we all know he can't answer them), is some of the best entertainment P&N has seen in a while.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Watching the OP completely own himself by typing so much and saying absolutely nothing of value, along with completely failing to provide any sort of answers to the questions he has been asked by transparently side-stepping them (because we all know he can't answer them), is some of the best entertainment P&N has seen in a while.

Frankly I think we all owe people like him a favor for uniting the rest of us and showing us that while we may disagree, even vehemently at times, that gosh darnit, some people are even more insane than butterbean.

 

[Sclamoz]

Originally posted by: kylebisme
this pretty much sums it up

 

[ElFenix]

i think his only contention is this:

How exactly that complete removal of structural resistance was accomplished would require a proper investigation, as the ones we've had so far have only obscured the fact that impact damage and office fires simply can't explain anything of the sort.

however, he doesn't have any explanation for why fire and impact damage can't.

 

[kylebisme]

Since TLC persists in droning on about my lack of interest in addressing all the smoke he blows over the facts I have presented here, I'm going explain why I have concluded that there is no point in responding to him directly, by quoting the one argument of his which convinced me to do so:

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
.. the devil is in 'em.

I've seen this argument before, and learned where it comes from along with the proper response, thanks to Jesus, though John 8:44-45:

You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me!

 

[Delita]

Originally posted by: kylebisme
Since TLC persists in droning on about my lack of interest in addressing all the smoke he blows over the facts I have presented here, I'm going explain why I have concluded that there is no point in responding to him directly, by quoting the one argument of his which convinced me to do so:

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
.. the devil is in 'em.

I've seen this argument before, and learned where it comes from along with the proper response, thanks to Jesus, though John 8:44-45:

You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me!

I've been following this thread from the beginning and I'm now convinced that you are legitamtely insane.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
i think his only contention is this:

How exactly that complete removal of structural resistance was accomplished would require a proper investigation, as the ones we've had so far have only obscured the fact that impact damage and office fires simply can't explain anything of the sort.

however, he doesn't have any explanation for why fire and impact damage can't.

or why every single person who worked on the NIST is lying about it (oh wait, he alleges bribery and blackmail...no evidence of that either but then again, "they" are very good at what they do)