What brought down WTC7

[bobsmith1492]

I just wanted to post in one of the most insane threads I've ever read. It's right behind the airplane on a treadmill thread. Self-confidence married to lack of critical thinking and logic leaves bizarreness.

 

[Number1]

Kylebisme thinks if a fire can bring down a building then only a small amount of explosive should be needed to bring it down. As if those facts were mutually exclusive.

How moronic is that and he keeps claiming he won the exchange with TLC and others with this.

It's like his math.
Kylebisme: "folks, 2+2 = 4 therefor and unknown force was used and I did the calculations myself"

 

[kylebisme]

Kylebisme thinks if a fire can bring down a building then only a small amount of explosive should be needed to bring it down.

Rather, I am aware of the fact that it wouldn't have taken much explosives impart more damage to the building than what the fires that were in them could have ever come close to causing on their own. I'm also aware of the fact that the fires which were in the buildings couldn't have caused the buildings to be demolished anywhere closed to the extent which they were. Put simply, lots of explosives were used on the towers, and likely some on WTC7 too, though the latter could have been accomplished though other means.

Kylebisme: "folks, 2+2 = 4 therefor and unknown force was used and I did the calculations myself"

It is pretty close to that simple, but sadly still not nearly simple enough for morons like yourself which can't even come to terms with the fact that the fatal shot on JFK came from his front.

 

[Carmen813]

I've discovered the answer to this thread title.

Gravity.

 

[kylebisme]

Gravity obvious played a part, but it doesn't account for the rate of fall alone. The observable period of free fall required the assistance of some yet to be identified force(s) acting on the system to remove the structural resistance which otherwise would have kept the rate of acceleration bellow free fall, as explained in the OP.

 

[fskimospy]

Man I bet the guys plotting the demolition of WTC7 were sure glad that flaming debris caught the building on fire and had it burn for a few hours. Otherwise they would have been demolishing a perfectly good building and trying to blame it on the evil Muslims.

Man oh man, I can just hear what the jokes would have been around the US Department of Mass Murder the morning after that, talk about embarrassing.

 

[kylebisme]

How did you derive your claim of the building being impacted by flaming debris? The official story doesn't claim the debris were flaming, but rather that they impacted with electrical equipment and such in the building which started the fires, and I figure the official story is likely correct in that regard. Granted, the guys who rigged the buildings could have easily included some devises specifically to insure such fires started, but the chance of the demolition of the towers not starting fires in WTC7 is so slim that I doubt they bothered.

By the way, I doubt our government or any other was behind the attacks, and consider it far more likely that they were masterminded by some non-state entity which maintains operatives within our government and others.

 

[JEDIYoda]

the sad part is that kylebisme treats sarcastic remarks as if the person makes the remarks actually cares.......

way too funny!!

Hey isn`t Kylebisme the one who started the WTC7 thread???????????????

 

[LunarRay]

I'm not familiar with the photo you refer to, but the evidence I've seen makes it rather clear that it was hit by something, and I'm not certain it was the plane claimed by the official story, but have yet to see any hard evidence to rightly refute the story either

There is a photo of the pentagon before the collapse.. on the ground floor, right side where the right wing ought to have impacted are a couple of columns that are bowed, bent or displaced toward the exterior. The narrator said the normal... "explosion inside blew toward the exterior", however, it could have easily been the load buckling the columns toward the exterior. After the wing went past it...

 

[LunarRay]

Pre or concurrent crash double post

 

[LunarRay]

lmao at believing the JFK conspiracy theory. This thread just keeps on getting better and better and is definitely AT thread ownage of the year material.

Cryil Wecht seems to think the shot came from the front.
An interesting tid bit is the Zapruder film sequence being placed out of sequence so it appears that JFK went forward with the impact.
The time to fire that rifle with its loose scope and all (as per the testimony) coupled with Oswald's less than stellar rifle skill (as per testimony while he was in Army) seems to indicate that in order for him to have made the final shot (of four as per testimony and physical evidence) he'd have to be a rather duplicative person. Which brings us to WTC7... What happened happened. It seems odd that evidence was not included. But I'd like to know how the Mayor knew that the WTC tower was going to fall and why, if that is true, [I heard him say it] he let the first responders continue on... I sure hope I either mis-heard or he was referring to something else.

 

[LunarRay]

I missed it, but where is freefall proven? If you would be so kind as to provide the video used I would appreciate it.

WTC7 had free fall as per NIST. The proof is in the video. It free fell for 2.25 seconds. Originally NIST did not consider that but when confronted with the evidence they had to include it but did not change their original sequence.

The towers fell at something like 75% of Free Fall... through the path of greatest Resistance. That is quite some feat. To crush all that cement and the steel core ought to have taken much much longer.

Everyone who starts at the premise that explosives or other means could not have been used because of the logistics and the other reasonable to consider aspects tend to dismiss every bit of evidence that does not comport.
I'm sure there is a reasonable explanation to all the contra evidence of Government's Conspiracy Theory and it should be investigated to put an end to this. I don't think any of the 'official' efforts were what I'd call a criminal investigation and it is plausible for them to have controlled it as they did. It, however, provides for lots of issues.

 

[LunarRay]

Mackey doesn't get it, and is frustrated by his own cognitive dissonance. I ran into him over at JREF forums, where he contested me with one ridiculous argument after another. It ended with when I pointed out the fact that he was making the argument of claiming the buildings came down without the use of explosives while also claiming it would have taken far too much explosives to bring the building down, the same false dichotomy argument I called TLC on here earlier. In response he deflected by falsely accusing me of not understanding calculus in regard to another part of the discussion to claim I wasn't worth his time, putting me on his ignore list. I've see many people accuse Mackey of being intentionally deceptive, but I rather figure he is just too wrapped up in himself to maintain a reasonable grasp of reality.

Mackey is pretty sharp. His arguments are reasoned and if one accepts the premise he builds upon one would conclude as he does.
He always take the position consistent with the Government's Theory and falls back on that as the proof [at times] that the view of the evidence is or has to be factual and proof of the Government Theory... It in not quite circular but if the evidence was taken as individual bits one could construct any kind of Theory one wanted, I suppose. This thing has to hold together from start to finish to be a viable working hypothesis.
I'm waiting for his analysis on the Flight Data spreadsheet showing the Pentagon plane to the left of all the land marks and the Commission's thingi showing it the the right where it knocked down like 5 lamp posts etc.. Witnesses see this and witnesses see that... maybe they both saw what they say...
One thing for sure.. a taxi going 40MPH getting hit by a light tower that was just hit by a plane going 500MPH would have a bit more damage than a pole stuck through the windshield... no scratches on the hood... hell, that light thing must have hit that cab with a force that would have tore the car apart.

 

[LunarRay]

Those of you who are simply riding on the bus that someone else is driving will generally arrive at the same destination as the driver but with out having contributed to the journey... in this case not even a bus fare has been extracted. What gain you from all the comments toward drivers that pass you by or that you pass by? Do you sate some need inside your own lacking ego?
I think it reasonable to question anything that gets left out of an investigation. It may not prove a thing but at least everything would have been considered and then folks could argue for a voice in the interpretation. What we have now is not even an 'official' interpretation of most evidence that does not fit their theory. Heck, they deny some evidence is real despite of the credible eyeballs viewing it.
You ought to demand a full investigation into the deaths of so many people and not scoff at the notion that something seems very odd to some very credible people.

 

[LunarRay]

Man I bet the guys plotting the demolition of WTC7 were sure glad that flaming debris caught the building on fire and had it burn for a few hours. Otherwise they would have been demolishing a perfectly good building and trying to blame it on the evil Muslims.

Man oh man, I can just hear what the jokes would have been around the US Department of Mass Murder the morning after that, talk about embarrassing.

hehehehehe,
Ah well... when opportunity knocks.. :sneaky: You know... you don't look a gift horse in the mouth... It took, what... 7 hours for WTC7 to get the ok to fall... had to make sure all was in order and stuff...

WTC7 could have collapsed due to fire only, I suppose.. but it would not or should not have been a symmetrical and partial free fall.. Organic collapse should be bit by bit and toward the path of least resistance... very disorganized and perhaps not even total....

 

[exar333]

I think this thread brought down the building with it's uber-fail comments.

 

[LunarRay]

I think this thread brought down the building with it's uber-fail comments.

Well, it does have about as much resistance to the gravity of the situation as did WTC7.

 

[LunarRay]

It's like his math. Kylebisme: "folks, 2+2 = 4 therefor and unknown force was used and I did the calculations myself"

I can't imagine a fire causing a symmetrical collapse in free fall acceleration. I can imagine it is possible to have a partial collapse of a steel structure or maybe even a total collapse but it would be bit by bit and falling through the path of least resistance. Walls falling out and stuff like that. But for the way it collapsed I'd not have too much issue with the theory NIST produced. Heck, their own SIM depicts a tangled mess prior to the general collapse... that is what I'd expect from an organically derived collapse. In this case math is not the issue. Make the SIM represent the video and then look at the sequence of events that the SIM develops to get there. Then I can 'buy' into it...

 

[BeauJangles]

I can't imagine a fire causing a symmetrical collapse in free fall acceleration. I can imagine it is possible to have a partial collapse of a steel structure or maybe even a total collapse but it would be bit by bit and falling through the path of least resistance. Walls falling out and stuff like that. But for the way it collapsed I'd not have too much issue with the theory NIST produced. Heck, their own SIM depicts a tangled mess prior to the general collapse... that is what I'd expect from an organically derived collapse. In this case math is not the issue. Make the SIM represent the video and then look at the sequence of events that the SIM develops to get there. Then I can 'buy' into it...

Are you seriously still touting the fact that WTC7 was a symmetrical collapse? About fifty pages ago, I told you to take a good look at the video when you called it "basically" symmetrical. It isn't symmetrical. You can see the whole building torque. "Basically" symmetrical is. not. symmetrical.

These continued repetitions of lies do not make your case stronger.

 

[kylebisme]

Are you seriously still touting the fact that WTC7 was a symmetrical collapse?

At least you admit it is a fact here.

About fifty pages ago, I told you to take a good look at the video when you called it "basically" symmetrical. It isn't symmetrical. You can see the whole building torque.

Rather, you can see it flex while the support is being removed from it, fall almost perfectly symetriclly for well over 100 feet, and tilt and twist well further down. There is nothing anywhere close to the whole building torquing anywhere in it's fall.

"Basically" symmetrical is. not. symmetrical.

Rather, "symmetrical" isn't necessarily "perfectly symmetrical", but simply "a hell of a lot more symmetrical than not."

These continued repetitions of lies do not make your case stronger.

Rather, your continued repetition of ridiculous symantec nitpicking is only keeping you oblivious to the facts.

 

[LunarRay]

Are you seriously still touting the fact that WTC7 was a symmetrical collapse? About fifty pages ago, I told you to take a good look at the video when you called it "basically" symmetrical. It isn't symmetrical. You can see the whole building torque. "Basically" symmetrical is. not. symmetrical.

These continued repetitions of lies do not make your case stronger.

I'm not making a case. It makes itself. Almost symmetrical, basically symmetrical what ever you want to define the collapse for the first 100' or so as, it is not an organic type collapse.

 

[syrillus]

I posit that invisible giants squashed the WTC towers with their giant, invisible feet.

Disprove me, Kyle!

 

[LunarRay]

I posit that invisible giants squashed the WTC towers with their giant, invisible feet.

Disprove me, Kyle!

They didn't find bits of invisible giants in the dust from the collapse... but I suppose something had to help collapse them... giants dressed as Nano Thermite... possible.

 

[jonks]

http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1920944

---

Thanks. It's funny, but we don't need further bumps of this tired old thread.

Harvey
Senior AnandTech Moderator/Administrator