Fox News: much more open-minded about explosive devices bringing down 7 World Trade

[Vette73]

Fox news: much more open-minded about explosive devices bringing down 7 World Trade Center

First...
"I'm certainly much more open-minded about it than I was," Rivera said of the alternate possibility for the building's fall.

Now you would think that is just one nut at fox right... wrong.

then...
Days later Napolitano – a legal analyst for Fox – said of the theory:
"It's hard for me to believe that [7 World Trade Center] came down by itself. I was gratified to see Geraldo Rivera investigating it. I'm gratified to see the people across the border interested."

You can't make this up its that crazy.

Only on FOX!!!

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...from-left-and-right-over-analyst/#more-137689

 

[xj0hnx]

Geralda Rivera, the same dip shit that was drawing troop positions, and movements in the sand on live TV during the invasion of Iraq? That same dip shit?

And how are Truther nuts "only on Fox"?

 

[bamacre]

Geralda Rivera, the same dip shit that was drawing troop positions, and movements in the sand on live TV during the invasion of Iraq? That same dip shit?

And how are Truther nuts "only on Fox"?

LOL, I still remember his "investigation" into Al Capone's "hidden vault," which ended up containing a few empty liquor bottles. :biggrin:

 

[Wheezer]

sounds like someone needs a ratings boost

 

[kylebisme]

While Geraldo is far from the sharpest tool in the shed, Napolitano is a reasonably bright guy, and both are correct in doubting the notion that WTC 7 was felled by fires. For those who've yet to come to terms with that fact, I recently made this video.

 

[manimal]

LOL, I still remember his "investigation" into Al Capone's "hidden vault," which ended up containing a few empty liquor bottles. :biggrin:

I remember sitting around with the fam watching that crap...Geraldo's star began to fall immediately thereafter..

 

[DominionSeraph]

While Geraldo is far from the sharpest tool in the shed, Napolitano is a reasonably bright guy, and both are correct in doubting the notion that WTC 7 was felled by fires. For those who've yet to come to terms with that fact, I recently made this video.

Well now, somebody doesn't understand that buildings are three dimensional objects.

At 0:10 in the upper left hand corner of the video feed of the top floors you can see the back corner of the building falls, then the rest of the backside start to unzip. As the remainder of the backside falls it pulls the whole front down. All of this is EXACTLY IN LINE WITH THE MODEL.

You can see the whole front side flexing like a sheet of paper as it falls. That is out of line with the building being taken down as a unit.
My inner demolition man is seeing that steel flex and is screaming, "CUT! CUT!" as it twists out of shape. The controlled demolition, OTOH, is perfect. It simply falls -- no tension whatsoever on the building elements.

 

[al981]

oh look, two deep thunders right before wtc7 is brought down.

say, why did NIST refuse to model the now admitted free fall part of the collapse?

 

[Acanthus]

There are officially two people in this thread that don't understand high school level physics.

I'll let you all troll each other to decide who i'm talking about

 

[Double Trouble]

You'd think the truther nuts would sort of die down as time passes by, but I guess it's going to be one of those things like the moon landing where some nuts will always come up with new zany theories of what "really" happened.

 

[Vette73]

You'd think the truther nuts would sort of die down as time passes by, but I guess it's going to be one of those things like the moon landing where some nuts will always come up with new zany theories of what "really" happened.

I'm sure Fox will make sure to hire plenty of more "balanced" people as time goes on to keep things "fair". :awe:

 

[kylebisme]

At 0:10 in the upper left hand corner of the video feed of the top floors you can see the back corner of the building falls, then the rest of the backside start to unzip.

The back of building can't be seen in that video, and unfortunatly not in any other video of the collapse either. What you are refering to is the penthouses in the center of the buiilding, as can be seen in these pictures.

As the remainder of the backside falls it pulls the whole front down. All of this is EXACTLY IN LINE WITH THE MODEL.

The model does mimic the penthouse collapses fairly well, but it stops shortly after the rest of the structure starts to come down, and doesn't show anything close to what would continue to come down like WTC 7 did.

You can see the whole front side flexing like a sheet of paper as it falls... The controlled demolition, OTOH, is perfect.

Rather, they both begin "flexing like a sheet of paper" just before they fall, as I've illustrated here:

That's how controlled demolitions are often done so that the buildings fall in on themselves. On the other hand, fires can't come anywhere close to making a building come down like that, one previously damaged by impacting rubble or otherwise. Hence the reason our government can only show the model they built with our tax dollars start to come down like WTC 7 did, and it's also why what little they do show of the model crumples like cloth rather than flexing like a sheet of paper as WTC 7 and the other demolition example does.

oh look, two deep thunders right before wtc7 is brought down.

Here is another video from the same camera, but apparently recorded with a different mic, and some videos of explosions earlier in the day here and here.

 

[rudder]

While Geraldo is far from the sharpest tool in the shed, Napolitano is a reasonably bright guy, and both are correct in doubting the notion that WTC 7 was felled by fires. For those who've yet to come to terms with that fact, I recently made this video.

thanks for the video... I am now a believer. I believe you seriously have too much time on your hands.

And mods should lock this... just a troll thread that will devolve into a 1000+ post count about dipshits believing something that has been debunked time and time again.

kylebisme... weren't there some contrails recently that needed looking into.

 

[ElFenix]

oh look, two deep thunders right before wtc7 is brought down.

say, why did NIST refuse to model the now admitted free fall part of the collapse?

those 2 deep sounds area guy saying 'second movie' when discussing the 3 stooges.

 

[spacejamz]

For the love of [insert politically correct noun here], Please lock this thread!!!!

 

[MotF Bane]

Okay guys, we're going nut fishing again!

9/11 was not an inside job, if for no other reason, the government couldn't keep a secret of that magnitude.

 

[CycloWizard]

The back of building can't be seen in that video, and unfortunatly not in any other video of the collapse either. What you are refering to is the penthouses in the center of the buiilding, as can be seen in these pictures.


The model does mimic the penthouse collapses fairly well, but it stops shortly after the rest of the structure starts to come down, and doesn't show anything close to what would continue to come down like WTC 7 did.


Rather, they both begin "flexing like a sheet of paper" just before they fall, as I've illustrated here:

That's how controlled demolitions are often done so that the buildings fall in on themselves. On the other hand, fires can't come anywhere close to making a building come down like that, one previously damaged by impacting rubble or otherwise. Hence the reason our government can only show the model they built with our tax dollars start to come down like WTC 7 did, and it's also why what little they do show of the model crumples like cloth rather than flexing like a sheet of paper as WTC 7 and the other demolition example does.


Here is another video from the same camera, but apparently recorded with a different mic, and some videos of explosions earlier in the day here and here.

You need to take a course in finite element analysis if you want to pursue this further. The reason the model stops is because the simulation is over, not because the model predicts the collapse will stop. Once the constitutive elements of a structure are separated or undergo fracture, it's computationally impossible to simulate the remainder of the collapse. I'm actually impressed with how much the model captures - hardly a trivial accomplishment, given the complexity of the problem. If anything, your video shows me that the official story is more believable than I might have previously suspected. One key thing you need to realize is that once the building undergoes brittle failure, it will freefall regardless of the cause of the failure.

 

[kylebisme]

Once the constitutive elements of a structure are separated or undergo fracture, it's computationally impossible to simulate the remainder of the collapse.

It's possible to simulate an actual building collapse, as demonstrated by this fire induced collapse FEA, and these demolition simulations.

If anything, your video shows me that the official story is more believable than I might have previously suspected.

That's a psychological mater known as backfiring.

One key thing you need to realize is that once the building undergoes brittle failure, it will freefall regardless of the cause of the failure.

Rather, you're failing to realise that the kind of "brittle failure" that would result in global collapse achieving anything close to free fall is far beyond the scope of what can be induced by fire. Hence the reason neither our government nor anyone else has been able to show a fire induced collapse model undergoing anything comparable to WTC 7's period free fall, and the reason other high-rise fires don't result in anything like what happened to WTC 7.

 

[CallMeJoe]

...

Just when we think Anarchist420 has secured his position in the nether regions of P&N, along comes kylebisme to remind us there's still a challenger...

 

[Nintendesert]

Wikileaks is dumping hundreds of thousands of classified documents onto the internet but yet something this big somehow is still being kept secret.

I don't know how screwed up your mind has to be to believe something like that. A conspiracy of the magnitude required to make 9/11 an inside job completely negates the feasibility of the conspiracy theory itself. Someone would have talked.

 

[Darwin333]

Wikileaks is dumping hundreds of thousands of classified documents onto the internet but yet something this big somehow is still being kept secret.

I don't know how screwed up your mind has to be to believe something like that. A conspiracy of the magnitude required to make 9/11 an inside job completely negates the feasibility of the conspiracy theory itself. Someone would have talked.

Obviously the Illuminati had everyone involved killed, duh.

 

[CycloWizard]

It's possible to simulate an actual building collapse, as demonstrated by this fire induced collapse FEA, and these demolition simulations.

It's possible to simulate anything you want. But, if you had taken a course in FEA as I suggested, you'd probably know that the results of such simulations are utter nonsense.

That's a psychological mater known as backfiring.

Yes, I'm the ignorant one here who blindly throws my trust around. I'm the biggest backer of government you'll find on these forums, I suppose. :roll:

Rather, you're failing to realise that the kind of "brittle failure" that would result in global collapse achieving anything close to free fall is far beyond the scope of what can be induced by fire. Hence the reason neither our government nor anyone else has been able to show a fire induced collapse model undergoing anything comparable to WTC 7's period free fall, and the reason other high-rise fires don't result in anything like what happened to WTC 7.

You don't understand what brittle failure means. Ductile failure may be induced by fire in metals when the loading of the building on the metal structures exceeds the temperature-depressed strength of the metal. Once this occurs, the stresses are transferred to brittle components of the building, like bricks, mortar, and concrete, which were not designed to support these loads. Since the metal has already failed in a ductile fashion, the brittle failure of the remaining components occurs very suddenly as fracture occurs, rather than simple plastic deformation in the case of ductile failure. But then, I'm sure you already knew that based on your vast engineering expertise, right? Stay in school.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

LOL, I still remember his "investigation" into Al Capone's "hidden vault," which ended up containing a few empty liquor bottles. :biggrin:

LOL, I remember that special and how awful it was. His expression was priceless when they opened it and nothing important was there.

 

[Ns1]

not on wikileaks = it never happened

 

[LunarRay]

There are officially two people in this thread that don't understand high school level physics.

I'll let you all troll each other to decide who I'm talking about

It used to be that the first step in creating a hypothesis is observation. That folks looking at the same thing see different things occur seems to create two hypotheses which now require the examination of the available evidence to terminate those hypotheses that do not stand up to the evidence.

I've read some comments - "Loony Toons", etc. - that is simply opinion and not evidence of anything but bias....

So where is the evidence to support anything? Produce the evidence and let that prove or disprove each hypothesis ... one at a time.