What brought down WTC7

[kylebisme]

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.

The explanation for that is the simple fact fire doesn't demolish matter, it burns and/or melts it progressively. I suppose I sipped over that detail that because I didn't expect anyone to assume the complete removal of structural resistance of 105 foot of steel framed structure could be instantaneously accomplished by office fires, regardless of how much impact damage the structure had previously received. Surely you can come to terms with this fact?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: kylebisme
The explanation for that is the simple fact fire doesn't demolish matter, it burns and/or melts it progressively. I suppose I sipped over that detail that because I didn't expect anyone to assume the complete removal of structural resistance of 105 foot of steel framed structure could be instantaneously accomplished by office fires, regardless of how much impact damage the structure had previously received. Surely you can come to terms with this fact?

a wax candle burns or melts progressively. stressed joints pop. one stressed joint pops, the load gets distributed in different ways than designed, other stressed joints pop, and the whole thing collapses. the building wasn't a whole single piece of metal.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: jonks
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)

Do you simply lack the intellect to comprehend the portion of the discussion you are so flagrantly misrepresenting here, or are you doing this intently?

 

[First]

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.

I've seen better wimp-outs here at P&N just over the past week. Until you post something of quantitative value, your thread and posts will continue to be the laughing stock of this message board.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
a wax candle burns or melts progressively. stressed joints pop. one stressed joint pops, the load gets distributed in different ways than designed, other stressed joints pop, and the whole thing collapses.

Joints stressed enough to pop will, and the load will gets distributed in different ways than designed, at which point other joints might pop, but to get the whole thing to collapse at free fall for 105 feet, you need to pop 105 feet worth of joints near simultaneously. Even the idea that office fires could accomplish that to the extent you are suggesting is flatly absurd, let alone at free fall, which is why not even the models created to buttress the official story don't show anything of the sort.

Originally posted by: ElFenix
the building wasn't a whole single piece of metal.

Nor did I ever think otherwise.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: First

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.

I've seen better wimp-outs here at P&N just over the past week. Until you post something of quantitative value, your thread and posts will continue to be the laughing stock of this message board.

First don`t feel bad....thats the way he responds even to threads concerning the Middle east......he never says anything that is quantatative or based on real facts other than what he belives to be fact in his reality...looney toones..lol

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: 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.

I do not know. That us a question that would require technical knowledge I do not have and of a specific and narrow materials kind. There is no way I can use a general understanding of physics to answer it. I do think, however, the horseshoes are made of steel. I also believe that if they found a steel beam bent in the way you describe in the ruins that it is possible for it to happen. Occam's razor again.

Well elevated heat levels causes an increased strain rate. Exposed and elevated temperatures can do a lot because the effective yield strength of steel is completely compromised. Ductile to Brittle transition temperatures are pretty low I'm sure for steel. I don't know why people think it would crack so easily....

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: First
I've seen better wimp-outs here at P&N just over the past week. Until you post something of quantitative value, your thread and posts will continue to be the laughing stock of this message board.

Oh, Evan, you constantly belgrantly spout arguments that have no basis in reality, and then turn tail and run when confronted with the facts. This being one of my favorite examples:

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: Evan
Anyone using the term zionist automatically gets put in the loony bin...

Wow, you revel in willful ignorance more than I ever suspected. Try a dictionary:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/zionist

Or for more detailed information on the movement, try the Jewish Encyclopedia.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia....etter=Z&search=zionism

Or you could have just read a description of the ideology in the Hasbara Handbook itself if you didn't perfer to live in the dark while waving your finger at those who don't.

So, yeah, I've no reason to take you at your word on anything, and plenty of reason not to.

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
...he never says anything that is quantatative or based on real facts other than what he belives to be fact in his reality...

Rather you constantly spout nonsense, which I refute by citing sources which document the facts to refute your imaginary arguments, and then you whine incessantly in denial of those facts.

Put simply; you both wallow in lies, and it is because I tell the truth that you do not believe me.

 

[First]

^ LOL! Hate to break it to you, but virtually no one talks about Jews or Israelis using the term "zionist" without some serious red flags going off about their sanity. "Zionist" is routinely used by crazies to describe conspiracy among Jews (for example, banking or Hollywood) and is basically never used in civilized, rationale debate unless it's purely a historical or academic discussion (which of course, your threads and you yourself aren't capable of). It's certainly not a curse word or something, but it's a giant red flag that says "Hey, I'm a crazy, ignore my posts". Anti-Semitic nutbags love to use the term to describe their hope for Palestine and other ME nations to take Israel away from the Jews.

Btw, I like the deflection there. It was almost decent until I remembered you continue to puss out of posting numbers. Will you post anything I've requested (literally 5 lines of words and math) in your next post? Nope. You're just not capable kiddo.

 

[Cogman]

Originally posted by: 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.

Ok, while I'm sure it has been done before, Ill do it again just for the heck of it.

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.

Absolutely NO physics was explained verbally in the first post. You took a definition of free fall, said it couldn't happen, and then said that is enough proof that the NIST is wrong.

If you had ever taken kinematics, you would know that free-fall, while it doesn't happen, pretty dang near happens when an object is falling at low speeds. Friction due to air is negligable at low speeds because air drag is an exponential function. It is a common, and reasonable practice to ignore air friction.

Saying that something "free falls" is like saying that all forces except for gravity are negligible, thus the calculations can hold up. Considering we had several tons of matter moving in the same direction, I would agree that any support or resistance offered by the building would have been negligible. It would have either buckled or sheered.

But, you want proof? Lets assume for a moment that the building was at a complete stand still when it was falling (it wasn't). That would mean in the 2.25 seconds, if free fall holds, it would have traveled 24 meters. Less then the projected falling time by about 8 meters. Thats assuming that the building wasn't moving at that period of time.

In order for it to be traveling fast enough to cover the distance, the building would have had to be previously traveling at 3.2 m/s (approx). That;s really not that fast. Given that if in the first 1.75 it had free-falled, it would have been going 17.15. I think it is reasonable to accept that the building would have been going 3.2 m/s IF NOT FASTER at the point where the NIST said it was free falling.

Even a little extra speed could have easily accounted for any air friction or other resistance in the building that massive hunk of metal would have encountered. This is a large piece of material with large amounts of momentum behind it. Buildings and their support aren't made to handle slamming forces, they are made to handle steady and constant tension.

Your whole argument here is based on the scientists using the word free fall and then saying it would be impossible for the building to go from point A to B. Here I show that it is completely likely that it did and was.

Now for the fun part.

Your "Only" explanation for the free fall is that there was absolutely no support. And that the only way to explain that is that the support magically disappeared.

This is completely laughable. Tell me, How do you make support beams magically disappear? The only way to remove that much metal in a short enough time frame to allow the building to fall at free fall would be an explosion. Thermite will not do it, it isn't instantaneous enough, Neither would any sort of chemical reaction. So where is the explosion? Where is the NOISE from the explosion. To take out 8 stories of support, it would have to have been MASSIVE.

Which sounds more believable to you? That scientists said the building was falling a 3.2 m/s and then free fell, and someone set off a massive detonation that somehow went completely unnoticed from any camera perspective. (not to mention the complete absence of left over charge material.). Or that the building was falling at 3.21 m/s, crushing any resistance that occurred while still traversing that 32m the the NIST said it traveled.

But don't let me stop you from believing in magic thermite and invisible explosions.

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.

I searched for kylebisme and WTC. Looked through a few threads, and didn't come up with anything. That doesn't mean that you didn't post it, but it does mean that it isn't easy to find or reference.

Why are you so scared to show your math?

*edit* cleaned up a few grammatical and spelling errors*/edit*

 

[First]

Originally posted by: kylebisme
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.

Uh, hate to break another harsh reality for you kiddo, but you wasted more lines refuting a single sentence of Cogman's than it would have taken to post this mythical mathematical proof you've apparently posted sometime in the past. It's pretty amazing you think people are falling for any of this when you've literally wasted hours on this thread explaining your position qualitatively while falling flat on your face quantitatively, telling people you don't want to "waste" time...while wasting time everywhere else. Amazingly contradictory. All this despite numerous requests and even guarantees that professionals would look over your work, too. That's someone who's scared to have his work critiqued; because his work doesn't actually exist, it's YouTube layman education yet again FTL.

 

[Cogman]

One other thing, buildings aren't built to withstand a metior imact, or the upper half of the building falling on it, they are built to hold up the building and a few extra pounds. Architects and engineers try as hard as possible to use as little support as possible, expecially in big buildings because it directly translates into large amounts of money.

Any building support that sees more force applied to it then expected will quickly buckle and become part of the problem.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: kylebisme
Joints stressed enough to pop will, and the load will gets distributed in different ways than designed, at which point other joints might pop, but to get the whole thing to collapse at free fall for 105 feet, you need to pop 105 feet worth of joints near simultaneously. Even the idea that office fires could accomplish that to the extent you are suggesting is flatly absurd, let alone at free fall, which is why not even the models created to buttress the official story don't show anything of the sort.

see page 37

why do you assume the joints needed to pop simultaneously?

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: First
Btw, I like the deflection there.

It was a response to your deflecting from your inability to substatiate your claim that math would prove my argument wrong, and I responded to your delusional argument in the thread you would have known well enough to post it in if you even had your head screwed on half way stright.

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: kylebisme
Joints stressed enough to pop will, and the load will gets distributed in different ways than designed, at which point other joints might pop, but to get the whole thing to collapse at free fall for 105 feet, you need to pop 105 feet worth of joints near simultaneously.

why do you assume the joints needed to pop simultaneously?

What I said isn't an assumption, and what you said is a misrepresentation of the fact I mentioned. Such falsification is rampant in the rest of the nonsense you spewed above too, so I won't even wading though that bile. If you want me to respond to you again, you are going to have to start respecting what I've said enough to stop twisting it into strawmen.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: kylebisme
What I said isn't an assumption, and what you said is a misrepresentation of the fact I mentioned.

Look in the mirror = ass found

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Look in the mirror = ass found

Coming to terms with your problem is the first step to recovery.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: kylebisme
What I said isn't an assumption, and what you said is a misrepresentation of the fact I mentioned. Such falsification is rampant in the rest of the nonsense you spewed above too, so I won't even wading though that bile. If you want me to respond to you again, you are going to have to start respecting what I've said enough to stop twisting it into strawmen.

define near simultaneously. is 1.75 seconds near simultaneously?

IGNORE IGNORE IGNORE

 

[LunarRay]

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.

We have Newton's formuli, all it is is plug in the dang numbers... why is that a challenge?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

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!

Maybe you should pray hard that your god grants you the intelligence to recognize when you're making a complete and utter fool of yourself so you can walk away from this thread before you sink any lower?

 

[First]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

It was a response to your deflecting from your inability to substatiate your claim that math would prove my argument wrong, and I responded to your delusional argument in the thread you would have known well enough to post it in if you even had your head screwed on half way stright.

Does your dyslexia prevent you from reading several posts up? Your link was dismantled with relative ease. And I'll say it yet again since it's not sinking in; the burden of proof is on your shoulders to provide the math or continue to be laughed at.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam


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.

Well, Moonster, in all the centuries we've known each other and of all the discussions we've had on Vent and Skype and where ever I don't recall ever bringing up or you bringing up 9/11 except maybe in regard to Bin Laden and going after him... once maybe, if at all.

I say this to sorta prove that this never was an interest of mine or yours. However, over the last week something has really bugged me. I watch the videos of the falling buildings over and over and over again with no sound cuz I don't need bias too... Something has caught my sub-conscious cuz my conscious mind had not a clue. I'll get to it in a minute.

I've not a problem with math, hell I can count to maybe oh.. 35 or so! I've a problem with applying the right concept to the issue and or determine its relevance to the issue. My guy in the elevator for instance.

We all know newton's laws or have heard some one mention them. Apples and oranges and stuff.. But, what caught my eye was finally revealed. It may be nothing at all and explained away by some other theory or law. So I try to defer to those who are more in tune with this kinda stuff.

Here's the deal... And this applies to WTC 7 as well but differently. Watching the towers fall, My eye caught [can't recall atm which tower it is] the top of a tower starting to fall over to the side. Then it righted itself and proceeded to be smushed as you'd expect from Newton's third. My question is: How can that block tip over like I saw it do and not continue to fall in the direction it was heading. What force could have altered that from happening? We have a few principles at work that say it can't. At least in my understanding thus far. Angular Mo, Conservation of energy which I call the taking the path of least resistance. (maybe incorrectly) and others.
If you can't answer it maybe some one else can?

Oh yeah... force to the wheels... the only variable missed might be the number of cylinders?

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: kylebisme
What I said isn't an assumption, and what you said is a misrepresentation of the fact I mentioned. Such falsification is rampant in the rest of the nonsense you spewed above too, so I won't even wading though that bile. If you want me to respond to you again, you are going to have to start respecting what I've said enough to stop twisting it into strawmen.

define near simultaneously. is 1.75 seconds near simultaneously?

IGNORE IGNORE IGNORE

oooh oooh.. I know... I know..

Depends! The Earth and Venus were created simultaniously, within approx. a million years of each other. See.. you made me smarter, I think.. even if not say yes.. my ego you know...

 

[Cogman]

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journa.../Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journa...an/Biederman-0112.html
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml

BTW, here are a couple of links to published journals of professors of civil engineering. The first and the third SPECIFICALLY address the issues the OP raised.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Cogman

This is completely laughable. Tell me, How do you make support beams magically disappear? The only way to remove that much metal in a short enough time frame to allow the building to fall at free fall would be an explosion. Thermite will not do it, it isn't instantaneous enough, Neither would any sort of chemical reaction. So where is the explosion? Where is the NOISE from the explosion. To take out 8 stories of support, it would have to have been MASSIVE.

Would that stuff called Nano-Thermite work? I saw it [a small amount] cut right through a vertical steel bar about an inch and half thick in the blink of an eye.. I was told it is almost 3200c and if it has something added.. sulphur? it lowers the melting point of the steel... how it does that I've not a clue. (maybe is was 2300c). It didn't go boom... sorta like fizzled.

 

[LunarRay]

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

Well... If I can go out on a limb and not fall up, I'd say I'm more informed than before the thread. I'm swayed away from thinking that bad guys maybe started fires on WTC 7 11-13 to destroy evidence if that counts.
In my case, when there are two sides and one side brings up an issue that makes sense I keep falling back to the planes the terrorists flew and the people on board and the how do you get the 'cutting' product to the right sites with out being detected... I estimate some 500 or so separate beam locations per building... not easy to do.