What brought down WTC7

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Yes it seems so. But, then think about that for a second. All stuff that fell at free fall did so. The roof upon which the coyote sat fell as did the sides and front and back. That means all the stuff inside did too. All at the same time otherwise there would be Resistance in some amount to obviate free fall to whatever it (the Resistance) resisted.
So, we have to get all the stuff inside to not resist in any way any part of the observable free fall bit. We have to do this using gravity alone. The fire enabled the event but the fire didn't make the stuff fall... But for gravity it would have just floated there. So, how can we do that... all at same time?
The NIST argument is something like ok... 79 went and 44 walked off its joint there and all the other beams and cross trusses and ties and well, everything went down in a manner that the last bit to go held everything up until it went too and it fell at free fall as well cuz then nothing was connected or resisted.
I'd have said 79 was the last to go since it held up the penthouse and immediately after the penthouse area buckled the whole shebang fell... at free fall..

Edit: the fall was symetrical ergo the loss of vertical counter force also had to be symetrical as well as the lateral force to keep the walls from buckling in, out or whichever.
I can't visualize how that could happen..

the fall wasn't symmetrical, the tower was leaning to the south but that isn't apparent from the northern angle. video

the fall also wasn't as you described it. the stuff on the inside had already been collapsing before anything was visible from the exterior. the first you see of it is the collapse of the east penthouse. then there is several seconds where it looks like nothing is happening (but there was a lot going on inside). once the interior was gone the damaged exterior couldn't handle the load any more, the lower columns started to bend and eventually reached the breaking point (to be a little colloquial).

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Wouldn't it be more fun to try and deal with WTC 7's dynamic defiance of obvious logic than to say that don't exist cuz In America bad guys use Crest and never ever ever use Baking Powder.

EDIT: before you say... Baking Soda... I meant to say Powder... !!! There is a reason..

How did WTC7 defy any logic? Please explain.

 

[Number1]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: kylebisme


Nonsensical paranoid fairy tale

Your "free fall acceleration" claim has already been debunked in this thread. You either don't realize it or refuse to recognize that fact. But apparently you want to waste everyone's time pretending that you still have a solid claim. Not only that, but you clearly do not understand the structural aspects of the failure in WTC7. If you did you wouldn't have used the Wile E. Coyote analogy. However, you already did which makes you look like the Looney Tuner.

I think Looney Twuther would be more appropriate.

LOL

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

the fall wasn't symmetrical, the tower was leaning to the south but that isn't apparent from the northern angle. video

the fall also wasn't as you described it. the stuff on the inside had already been collapsing before anything was visible from the exterior. the first you see of it is the collapse of the east penthouse. then there is several seconds where it looks like nothing is happening (but there was a lot going on inside). once the interior was gone the damaged exterior couldn't handle the load any more, the lower columns started to bend and eventually reached the breaking point (to be a little colloquial).

Interesting video. He says it is leaning already. I'm trying to get my bearings on which way it is leaning but, Heck, I can't make out the building or perspective... not a biggie though.

I've not a doubt that stuff happened in a sequence but that sequence is what I'm having difficulty with. I've to re look at the NIST sim again and again.. to see if what they depict mirrors what I see...
But, yes I don't disagree that I can't see the affect of the goings on... but you'd agree that what ever that was it didn't manifest in what we can see in the videos. I don't even see the sway the fire guy said is obvious. What ever went on with the vertical support must have occurred after the penthouse?? I think, cuz otherwise we'd have seen it I think... or like I said only what was needed to hold it up was viable then it too went. I'm off to relook at the sims...
You probably see all this.. I can't yet... Looking at the way it was structured is wierd to start with but we see.. ok... off to the movies.. or videos..

 

[WildHorse]

If anyone is genuinely interested in looking more deeply into the OP's question, here's an excellent read by a brilliant scholar as a good resource for you:

The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7: Why the Official Final Report about 9/11 Is Unscientific and False by David Ray Griffin, ISBN 9781566567862

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Wouldn't it be more fun to try and deal with WTC 7's dynamic defiance of obvious logic than to say that don't exist cuz In America bad guys use Crest and never ever ever use Baking Powder.

EDIT: before you say... Baking Soda... I meant to say Powder... !!! There is a reason..

How did WTC7 defy any logic? Please explain.

Well, so far, aside from a few folks who know or at least accept with some degree of skepticism that I'm trying to understand stuff when I ask a question or proffer a concept or my current understanding and ask if that is right, reasonable or if folks have issue with it, I get bombarded with prove it and such... How do I prove a question? Ask it again, maybe
My Dynamic Defiance of obvious Logic means......
Obvious logic... Gravity.... It stood until it fell, vertical support ceased to provide support to keep the coyote up there on the roof. Some portion fell at or near free fall acceleration. Meaning everything keeping it up fell at once or nearly at once OR only what was needed to keep the coyote up there was viable until that support ended, tout de suite.. or some variation thereof. I see symmetrical while ElFenix says it wasn't.
Dynamic defiance... Dynamic is sorta movement... not static. So, while the inside moved about, the outsides defied the fall somehow. But, obviously cuz it could and did. NIST can print a forest worth of paper and have every engineer or AIA on the planet agree but I like to visualize, in this case, what others say can't be or is be.... And that is what I'm trying and others are trying to deal with... In short, what happened and when did it happen and could it happen in any other sequence. You see, once you can visualize the sequence you can accept the reasonableness of it... IF one is not otherwise blinded to that. When one can't agree with the 'fired did it' one then is tempted to introduce other forces to show how it happened... Like steel eating termites.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: kylebisme
Nah, that all fell away first, and then only after that would the upper section fall, just like Wile E. Coyote hovering over a crumbling pillar of rock before free falling onto the rubble below.

the upper section started falling slowly. why do you keep ignoring that?

Yes it seems so. But, then think about that for a second. All stuff that fell at free fall did so. The roof upon which the coyote sat fell as did the sides and front and back. That means all the stuff inside did too. All at the same time otherwise there would be Resistance in some amount to obviate free fall to whatever it (the Resistance) resisted.
So, we have to get all the stuff inside to not resist in any way any part of the observable free fall bit. We have to do this using gravity alone. The fire enabled the event but the fire didn't make the stuff fall... But for gravity it would have just floated there. So, how can we do that... all at same time?
The NIST argument is something like ok... 79 went and 44 walked off its joint there and all the other beams and cross trusses and ties and well, everything went down in a manner that the last bit to go held everything up until it went too and it fell at free fall as well cuz then nothing was connected or resisted.
I'd have said 79 was the last to go since it held up the penthouse and immediately after the penthouse area buckled the whole shebang fell... at free fall..

Yeah, and note that when ElFenix (and NIST) say "the upper section started falling slowly", they are only referring to the bowing towards the middle of the roofline, while the corners go pretty much straight from standing still to free all. In the Wile E. Coyote comparison, that is basicly like him wagging his feet in the air for a moment before he falls.

Originally posted by: LunarRay
...the fall was symetrical ergo the loss of vertical counter force also had to be symetrical as well as the lateral force to keep the walls from buckling in, out or whichever.
I can't visualize how that could happen..

It's easy to visualize many ways it could happen once you accept the fact that the official story is false. Unfortunately, it's impossible to determine how it did happen while so many people insist on clinging the false explanation, as we will never have the support needed to conduct a real investigation as long as the masses refuse to acknowledge the faults in the currently accepted conspiracy theory.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

It's easy to visualize many ways it could happen once you accept the fact that the official story is false. Unfortunately, it's impossible to determine how it did happen while so many people insist on cleaning the false explanation, as we will never have the support needed to conduct a real investigation as long as the masses refuse to acknowledge the faults in the currently accepted conspiracy theory.

So basically you're rejecting the most obvious answer because you just don't believe it, then you're filling in the gaps wherever you want because "what ifs" are so much more plausible?

What if Russia had something similar to the LHC, but it was 10x bigger and 20x more powerful and they shot a black hole into the middle of the building, causing it to collapse. The "thermetic material" is actually how iron reacts to small black holes. The "free fall" was nothing more than the speed the building fell into the black hole.

There we go, it's a Russian plot to undermine our financial system.

BTW, we all know it, just admit you're gay.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
BTW, we all know it, just admit you're gay.

Why would anyone admit to their being happy with trying to prove the aerodynamic qualities of a cube when opening an egg is always done on the small end?

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
BTW, we all know it, just admit you're gay.

Why would anyone admit to their being happy with trying to prove the aerodynamic qualities of a cube when opening an egg is always done on the small end?

Ohh, so you're a murderer? Why try to hide it, we all know it.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
So basically you're rejecting the most obvious answer because you just don't believe it...

I'm rejecting the answer you believe in because it is physically impossible, as I explained in the OP.

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
BTW, we all know it, just admit you're gay.

I'd happily admit it if I were, but that simply isn't the case. That said, you claiming to know what has no basis in reality further demonstrates what a falser you are. It also suggests you have an unhealthy fixation with homosexuality, but I suppose you've got to find something to keep your mind of the facts.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
So basically you're rejecting the most obvious answer because you just don't believe it...

I'm rejecting the answer you believe in because it is physically impossible, as I explained in the OP.

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
BTW, we all know it, just admit you're gay.

I'd happily admit it if I were, but that simply isn't the case. That said, you claiming to know what has no basis in reality further demonstrates what a falser you are. It also suggests you have an unhealthy fixation with homosexuality, but I suppose you've got to find something to keep your mind of the facts.

No, I have no fixation with homosexuality. But I do know you're gay. No matter what you say, you are. Why? Because I reject your claims you aren't, they are false. Thus, if they are false, then it opens up other avenues of conjecture, such as you being gay.

If that's true, we have no solid evidence you aren't gay, but we have no solid evidence you are. Thus, we must look at peripheral evidence.

Have you ever watched porn? Did it contain males?

Have you ever hugged a man? Men outside your immediate family?

Have you ever been in a lockeroom where men were naked?

If you answered yes to any of those questions, then you're probably gay.




You see, we can make up all sorts of wild shit if we wanted to, merely by claiming the "truth" is false and then coming up with all sorts of conjecture based upon tangential "evidence". It's impossible for you to counter since we can just keep inferring from the tangential evidence that we are correct.

Even if you were to counter any single piece of evidence (as many have done here) we'll just ignore it and say that our conjecture refutes that "evidence", as you do many times (or you just ignore it and not address it). Even if you were successful in countering any single piece of evidence, and we conceded that point, we'll just bring up more circumstantial evidence.

Thus, no matter what, you cannot prove you aren't a gay person or a murderer or a closet midget squirrel porn lover.

Perhaps you should look at the Glenn Beck murderer website to gain some insight.

 

[IronWing]

I came in here point out that post 911 of this thread about 911 is about grown men naked. This makes sense to me.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: ironwing
I came in here point out that post 911 of this thread about 911 is about grown men naked. This makes sense to me.

Just trying to teach people about logic.

What I find humorous about his post is that he highlighted his obvious error in logic. He said


"It's easy to visualize many ways it could happen once you accept the fact that the official story is false."

He didn't even say "...once you accept the *possibility* that the official story *COULD* be false"

This underlies the lesson. He is fixated upon the idea that no matter what, with 100% certainty, the official story is false. This is a huge hole in his argument and one that makes no sense at all. It highlights the fact that he has an agenda, just like anybody else who creates a Glenn Beck tengential attack scenario in which they create an argument not through fact, but rejection of fact and creation of a circumstantial lie.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
BTW, we all know it, just admit you're gay.

Why would anyone admit to their being happy with trying to prove the aerodynamic qualities of a cube when opening an egg is always done on the small end?

Ohh, so you're a murderer? Why try to hide it, we all know it.

Oh... I get it now! You're not projecting bias you're simply drawing a parallel. I presume between your bias and his.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
BTW, we all know it, just admit you're gay.

Why would anyone admit to their being happy with trying to prove the aerodynamic qualities of a cube when opening an egg is always done on the small end?

Ohh, so you're a murderer? Why try to hide it, we all know it.

Oh... I get it now! You're not projecting bias you're simply drawing a parallel. I presume between your bias and his.

I have no bias. You see, I acknowledge that his alternatives COULD be true, but the preponderance of evidence indicate that they are not true.

 

[kylebisme]

By the way, 80,000 New Yorkers petitioned to have the possibility of opening a new investigation put to vote, but the will of the people was shut down by the powers that be.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
BTW, we all know it, just admit you're gay.

Why would anyone admit to their being happy with trying to prove the aerodynamic qualities of a cube when opening an egg is always done on the small end?

Ohh, so you're a murderer? Why try to hide it, we all know it.

Oh... I get it now! You're not projecting bias you're simply drawing a parallel. I presume between your bias and his.

I have no bias. You see, I acknowledge that his alternatives COULD be true, but the preponderance of evidence indicate that they are not true.

Ok... that is fair enough. But would you agree that that evidence that is not part of the preponderance might invalidate the hypothesis the preponderance supports or IF it does not invalidate the hypothesis then would you agree it is evidence but not related or not material or misinterpreted data and not evidence at all?

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: kylebisme
By the way, 80,000 New Yorkers petitioned to have the possibility of opening a new investigation put to vote, but the will of the people was shut down by the powers that be.

The will of the people? You do realize that truthers are in the far, far minority, right?

The "will of the people" is to support the only story that makes sense, the NIST report.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: kylebisme
By the way, 80,000 New Yorkers petitioned to have the possibility of opening a new investigation put to vote, but the will of the people was shut down by the powers that be.

Wow, 80,000 nutjobs out of a city with population over 8.3MM, not even including the # of people like me who live in the exurbs extending out into CT.

Great, you agree with 0.90% of the population. That should tell you something.

Let me know when you get at least 20% of the population, then I'll know it isn't just nutjobs who agree with you. Only 1,580,000 signatures to go.

Shit, more people believe Elvis is alive right now than believe your bullshit.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: kylebisme
By the way, 80,000 New Yorkers petitioned to have the possibility of opening a new investigation put to vote, but the will of the people was shut down by the powers that be.

The will of the people? You do realize that truthers are in the far, far minority, right?

The "will of the people" is to support the only story that makes sense, the NIST report.

Well... Gosh I don't want to bring another topic in here but just as an example of how some think... some who sat on the center bench of our highest court...

"I realize that it is an unpopular and unhumanitarian position, for which I have been excoriated by 'liberal' colleagues but I think Plessy v. Ferguson was right and should be reaffirmed." Rehnquist continued, "To the argument . . . that a majority may not deprive a minority of its constitutional right, the answer must be made that while this is sound in theory, in the long run it is the majority who will determine what the constitutional rights of the minorities are."

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: kylebisme
By the way, 80,000 New Yorkers petitioned to have the possibility of opening a new investigation put to vote, but the will of the people was shut down by the powers that be.

The will of the people? You do realize that truthers are in the far, far minority, right?

The "will of the people" is to support the only story that makes sense, the NIST report.

Well... Gosh I don't want to bring another topic in here but just as an example of how some think... some who sat on the center bench of our highest court...

"I realize that it is an unpopular and unhumanitarian position, for which I have been excoriated by 'liberal' colleagues but I think Plessy v. Ferguson was right and should be reaffirmed." Rehnquist continued, "To the argument . . . that a majority may not deprive a minority of its constitutional right, the answer must be made that while this is sound in theory, in the long run it is the majority who will determine what the constitutional rights of the minorities are."

Huge difference.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: kylebisme
By the way, 80,000 New Yorkers petitioned to have the possibility of opening a new investigation put to vote, but the will of the people was shut down by the powers that be.

The will of the people? You do realize that truthers are in the far, far minority, right?

The "will of the people" is to support the only story that makes sense, the NIST report.

Well... Gosh I don't want to bring another topic in here but just as an example of how some think... some who sat on the center bench of our highest court...

"I realize that it is an unpopular and unhumanitarian position, for which I have been excoriated by 'liberal' colleagues but I think Plessy v. Ferguson was right and should be reaffirmed." Rehnquist continued, "To the argument . . . that a majority may not deprive a minority of its constitutional right, the answer must be made that while this is sound in theory, in the long run it is the majority who will determine what the constitutional rights of the minorities are."

Oh I see how it works now. "The will of the people" now means whatever you truthers want it to mean. Again, you'd have an argument if there was ANY SHRED OF EVIDENCE. You've provided absolutely nothing meaningful. You've shown no ability to even understand the basic facts of what happened and you willfully deny anything that threatens your primitive perception of what happened on that day.

Considering neither of you idiots seem to be terribly good at math, let's see.

80,000 / 20,000,000 = .4% of the population of greater New York thinks that there should be a reinvestigation of 9/11. I bet you .4% of the population also believe Obama is an alien or that Elvis is still alive, or that the Holocaust never happened.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: kylebisme
By the way, 80,000 New Yorkers petitioned to have the possibility of opening a new investigation put to vote, but the will of the people was shut down by the powers that be.

Wow, 80,000...

That is the number they stopped at because that is the number of people they were told would need be needed to put the idea of a new invesgtation to vote.

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Let me know when you get at least 20% of the population...

It was around 66% of New Yorkers calling for new probe according to a Zogby poll back in 2004, and I've seen no evidence to suggest the numbers have dropped since then.

 

[Number1]

Originally posted by: kylebisme
By the way, 80,000 New Yorkers petitioned to have the possibility of opening a new investigation put to vote, but the will of the people was shut down by the powers that be.

There are a lot of gullible people out there.

Your link mentions 80K who want a referendum. How about you tell us how many did not want a referendum. Let me guess: the vast majority of sane people in the good state of NY.

And you lectured us in a previous post for talking about things other then the OP and even said you would not comment any more on anything else.

Your body wildehorse referred us to an article by David Ray Griffin as a good read about "WTC7 Mysterious Fall". David Ray Griffin is a man of faith, a retired professor of philosophy of religion and theology. How did he become an expert in building collapses.

Have faith the twuthers say.

Ya right.