What brought down WTC7

[Nemesis 1]

Ill have son light up a mag wheel tomorrow and I see how close it has to be to damage the steel . Ill melt some aluminium also . I don't haveany I beam large enough to test that . But I got some nice 3/4 high quality flat stock . I see if I can fuss the 2 let ya know howit goes . god I hate burning that shit . But colors are cool as all shit

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Regarding WTC 7, Has anyone seen the NIST Simulation thingi that goes beyond the 3ish seconds and shows the building falling all that way down?
Regarding WTC 1, 2 has anyone seen a simulation of those building from the plane hit until the event was over? I don't see too much in the way of data or information regarding the core fall sequence and beyond. Has anyone seen any calculations regarding the floor by floor pancaking event? Perhaps they simply figured that once it started with way enough energy to do the first floor below that Momentum would insure enough energy to crumple the building all the way down. I was thinking that with each floor collision that mass of the floor hit is pulverized and blown out adding no mass to the bloc and the floor doing the hitting loses some mass too and eventually should run out of mass. So, if you know of any calculations done [I cant seem to find them] at NIST or FEMA.

You don't have to produce a link. Just tell me they exist and I'll try to find them myself

Anyone who tells you any of that exists would be sending you on a wild goose chase. Again, the official story stands in contradiction to the laws of physics in regard to all three buildings. While I'd prefer to keep this thread on the topic of WTC7, since no one seems to want to come to terms with that, here is a video pointing out one of the obvious contradictions to the official story in regard to the towers.

 

[LunarRay]

For what it's worth...

The pools of molten stuff and the continued hot spots...

Any metal fire will be exacerbated by the presence of water. It rained for days after the collapse and NY's Finest poured water on the metal fires to put them out, I guess.. days and days they poured water down there... It rained alot in those day until it went out in end Dec '01..

"Fire is a very uncontrolled process. Nonetheless, it requires 4
factors: FUEL, OXIDANT, HEAT, IGNITION SOURCE. So "how" a fire
behaves depends upon the characteristics of these 4 factors, and how
they interact with one another. With regard to your question:
If the fuel is a burning metal, the addition of water will
almost certainly aggravate the fire because most hot metals react
with water, frequently liberating hydrogen gas which would explode.
So adding water to any fire in which the FUEL reacts with water
will increase the severity of the fire. Neither water nor CO2
should be used against a metal fire -- both serve as further fuel
and/or oxidant for the metal fire.
If the fuel is hot enough it is possible that the water would
turn to steam before it ever reaches the origin of the ignition.
This hot steam would rise causing turbulence, drawing in more air
(OXIDANT) from the bottom, making the fire worse. A related effect
is if the water hits the burning surface, then turns to steam,
expands, and exposes more fuel to the air. Here, too, the water
could make the fire worse by exposing more fuel to the other
components of the fire.
Yet another way that water can make a fire worse is if the fire
is the surface of a burning liquid that is less dense than water.
Here, even if the fire is not so hot, the water can sink beneath
the surface of the less dense flammable liquid. The water then
starts to heat rapidly, but is covered by the burning liquid. If
the conditions are right the steam formed beneath the surface of
the burning fuel will "burp", explosively spreading the burning liquid.
You can see that "fire" is not a simple process, and "pouring
gasoline on a fire" is not the only way to make it worse."

 

[kylebisme]

Sure, that's why steel foundries don't bother with blast furnaces and other fancy methods, but rather just use office furnishing level accelerants and watter instead. That's also why we don't put sprinkler systems in steel frame buildings, because to use them to try to stop a fire would just make the buildings melt. Eh?

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: kylebisme
Sure, that's why steel foundries don't bother with blast furnaces and other fancy methods, but rather just use office furnishing level accelerants and watter instead. That's also why we don't put sprinkler systems in steel frame buildings, because to use them to try to stop a fire would just make the buildings melt. Eh?

Well, a blast furnace injects air or air and added oxy to increase the temp.

Generally in a metal bldg you won't have the metal on fire so the water acts to cool em down and cool down the temprature of the other burning stuff... You don't often have magnesium or like stuff burning but IF you do wa wa ain't the thing to use.
IF you think water will put out a magnesium fire... heheheheheh well... I'd not be too close with the hose.

I watched the video link you gave me... That is interesting how the pulverize concrete billowed up like that. IF it was like a situation where that building created its own atmosphere and winds I might could account for that... To go up and out would require trajectory like the cannon ball in the video... not sure a cutter charge would be - but could be - up at a oh... 45 degree angle...
I was really hoping I'd see the coyote... but alas... beep beep.... zoom

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Ill have son light up a mag wheel tomorrow and I see how close it has to be to damage the steel . Ill melt some aluminium also . I don't haveany I beam large enough to test that . But I got some nice 3/4 high quality flat stock . I see if I can fuss the 2 let ya know howit goes . god I hate burning that shit . But colors are cool as all shit

I'm sure the INTERNET has already captured that stuff... actually I saw a demo of a horizontal burn on a steel rod looked to be about 2"... burned it right in half in no time at all.. they used Thermate or mite or some Thermate stuff...

Regarding the Mag wheel... I've seen that done already... A demo given to us in case we ever got hit with a hot rod in the Mekong Delta area... now up North I did see some hot rods but not in the way South... Actually, it was a demo after Forestal in '67 almost sunk (you remember Sen McCain) it was his A4 that was hit by the Zuni missle... they said it could have been the one next to his.. it hit his fuel tank.. shot from a Phantom F4. All hell broke loose and among stuff that burned... right, Magnesium... burned right on through to the hanger bay and burned vertically through the blast door that separated the hanger bay area... I didn't see it but read the damage report. I can't tell you too much about a blast door other than it is about 5" thick... and 40' or so high... but it destroyed it almost to the bottom of it.. like Darth Vader's light saber was at work.

I'd opine that it is alot like welding to fuse stuff.. tricky bit is the aluminum.. and magnesium melt at about the same temp... ~ 600 or so and to get the steel and magnesium to fuse they need being in contact after the steel is over what... 1500c? So... something heated the steel to melting point and then the magnesium married to it... IF IT DID...

 

[Venix]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
I watched the video link you gave me... That is interesting how the pulverize concrete billowed up like that. IF it was like a situation where that building created its own atmosphere and winds I might could account for that... To go up and out would require trajectory like the cannon ball in the video... not sure a cutter charge would be - but could be - up at a oh... 45 degree angle...
I was really hoping I'd see the coyote... but alas... beep beep.... zoom

It's not interesting at all. The debris cloud formed during the TU Delft architecture building's partial collapse also billows. Here's another view.

The same happens during this explosiveless controlled demolition. And this one. The dust cloud during any building collapse will billow outward and upward.

Note also that the TU Delft collapse plainly contradicts the video's assertion that "in a natural collapse, debris should fall close to the side of the building." As the collapse progresses, debris is ejected with increasing horizontal force and progressively lands further from the building. Before the view is completely obscured, several large bits of rubble can be seen reaching the edge of that lower roof.

 

[kylebisme]

It's interesting that you are incapable of acknowledging the vast difference between billowing dust and ejecting rubble.

 

[MotF Bane]

Originally posted by: kylebisme
It's interesting that you are incapable of acknowledging the vast difference between billowing dust and ejecting rubble.

It's interesting that you are incapable of acknowledging reality.

 

[First]

^ rofl.

 

[Venix]

Originally posted by: MotF Bane

Originally posted by: kylebisme
It's interesting that you are incapable of acknowledging the vast difference between billowing dust and ejecting rubble.

It's interesting that you are incapable of acknowledging reality.

More interesting is that he doesn't even understand his own video. The video repeatedly refers to the "dust cloud" and "smoke", claiming that in a "natural collapse" there would be no cloud.

Yet as we can see in every building collapse ever, there is always a cloud, it's always ejected at a high speed and moves a good distance from the building, and it always billows, typically in a "cannon ball trajectory" curve.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: event8horizon
dr astaneh never denied saying vaporized.

And this is the kind of stupid argumentation the truthers bring forth.

Congrats on further highlighting that kind of stupid, even though you likely won't recognize how idiotic it is.

Would you oppose an open Congressional hearing on 9/11? Say in a Select Committee of Congress? Wouldn't cost much extra. And I'd get to watch C-Span all day!

Examine all 3 of the major buildings that collapsed... All the evidence!
Examine Who knew what and When did they know it... and what did they do?
And any other relevant evidence and all Under Oath.

Why just the Congress? Why not have the entire Federation look into it? I swear it had to be those damn Ferengi using their super-secret, paint-on, nano-nukite technology. It's the only possible explanation for what happened. Why has the Federation ignored it? Those tricky Ferengi are always behind this kind of stuff and can't be trusted. I demand an official agency check into it.

 

[Number1]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Anyone who tells you any of that exists would be sending you on a wild goose chase. Again,in regard to all three buildings. While I'd prefer to keep this thread on the topic of WTC7, since no one seems to want to come to terms with that, here is a video pointing out one of the obvious contradictions to the official story in regard to the towers.

You got to be on fucking drugs to pretend the WTC1 and 2 event is similar to firing a canon. Especially when in your movie they superpose their canon ball trajectory onto the cloud of dust half way trough the building collapse.

This is just like your "math".

You people are retarded.


Oh how you like to use this mantra:

"the official story stands in contradiction to the laws of physics"

As if repeating it enough times is going to make it true.

LOL

 

[Number1]

Originally posted by: kylebisme
Sure, that's why steel foundries don't bother with blast furnaces and other fancy methods, but rather just use office furnishing level accelerants and watter instead. That's also why we don't put sprinkler systems in steel frame buildings, because to use them to try to stop a fire would just make the buildings melt. Eh?

Again you sound like that preacher in the video I already posted.

 

[Number1]

Originally posted by: Venix

Originally posted by: MotF Bane

Originally posted by: kylebisme
It's interesting that you are incapable of acknowledging the vast difference between billowing dust and ejecting rubble.

It's interesting that you are incapable of acknowledging reality.

More interesting is that he doesn't even understand his own video. The video repeatedly refers to the "dust cloud" and "smoke", claiming that in a "natural collapse" there would be no cloud.

Yet as we can see in every building collapse ever, there is always a cloud, it's always ejected at a high speed and moves a good distance from the building, and it always billows, typically in a "cannon ball trajectory" curve.

Good point. Don't expect him to understand. The guy is a nut.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Regarding WTC 7, Has anyone seen the NIST Simulation thingi that goes beyond the 3ish seconds and shows the building falling all that way down?
Regarding WTC 1, 2 has anyone seen a simulation of those building from the plane hit until the event was over? I don't see too much in the way of data or information regarding the core fall sequence and beyond. Has anyone seen any calculations regarding the floor by floor pancaking event? Perhaps they simply figured that once it started with way enough energy to do the first floor below that Momentum would insure enough energy to crumple the building all the way down. I was thinking that with each floor collision that mass of the floor hit is pulverized and blown out adding no mass to the bloc and the floor doing the hitting loses some mass too and eventually should run out of mass. So, if you know of any calculations done [I cant seem to find them] at NIST or FEMA.

You don't have to produce a link. Just tell me they exist and I'll try to find them myself

Anyone who tells you any of that exists would be sending you on a wild goose chase. Again, the official story stands in contradiction to the laws of physics in regard to all three buildings. While I'd prefer to keep this thread on the topic of WTC7, since no one seems to want to come to terms with that, here is a video pointing out one of the obvious contradictions to the official story in regard to the towers.

That video is so whacked out. Upward exploding debris? That guy isn't even watching the same video. There's no "upward explosion" that debris is there from the building that JUST collapsed downward. It's dust, left hanging in the air. If it were an explosion, we'd see debris being forcibly ejected upward. It isn't. It hangs there as the tower collapses.

2:23 immediately shows how ridiculous this video is.

 

[Number1]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles


2:23 immediately shows how ridiculous this video is.

The video is beyond stupid. There is no sense demonstrating the absurdity of it all, they would not understand.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

That video is so whacked out. Upward exploding debris? That guy isn't even watching the same video. There's no "upward explosion" that debris is there from the building that JUST collapsed downward. It's dust, left hanging in the air. If it were an explosion, we'd see debris being forcibly ejected upward. It isn't. It hangs there as the tower collapses.

2:23 immediately shows how ridiculous this video is.

Oh my god.

Anyone that believes this stupid shit should be put away as a danger to society.

Crazy stupid

 

[Cogman]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Regarding WTC 7, Has anyone seen the NIST Simulation thingi that goes beyond the 3ish seconds and shows the building falling all that way down?
Regarding WTC 1, 2 has anyone seen a simulation of those building from the plane hit until the event was over? I don't see too much in the way of data or information regarding the core fall sequence and beyond. Has anyone seen any calculations regarding the floor by floor pancaking event? Perhaps they simply figured that once it started with way enough energy to do the first floor below that Momentum would insure enough energy to crumple the building all the way down. I was thinking that with each floor collision that mass of the floor hit is pulverized and blown out adding no mass to the bloc and the floor doing the hitting loses some mass too and eventually should run out of mass. So, if you know of any calculations done [I cant seem to find them] at NIST or FEMA.

You don't have to produce a link. Just tell me they exist and I'll try to find them myself

Anyone who tells you any of that exists would be sending you on a wild goose chase. Again, the official story stands in contradiction to the laws of physics in regard to all three buildings. While I'd prefer to keep this thread on the topic of WTC7, since no one seems to want to come to terms with that, here is a video pointing out one of the obvious contradictions to the official story in regard to the towers.

That's it, take back everything you ever claimed to have known about physics. You have just proven what a complete moron you are with this video.

You remember that free fall issue you where talking about earlier? and air friction? Yeah, guess what, smaller debris falls slower then large debris because of air friction.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Venix
The video repeatedly refers to the "dust cloud" and "smoke", claiming that in a "natural collapse" there would be no cloud.

Rather, he narrator says the cloud wouldn't have the arch it does in a gravity driven collapse, and he also says "dust cloud" and "smoke" less than "debris". Granted, what terms he uses does nothing to change the fact that the videos quite clearly show ejecting rubble, as does the massive chunks of it which was embedded into the sides buildings hundreds of yards away.

Originally posted by: Number1
You got to be on fucking drugs to pretend the WTC1 and 2 event is similar to firing a canon. Especially when in your movie they superpose their canon ball trajectory onto the cloud of dust half way trough the building collapse.

Rather, you've got to be a mindless drone clining to the offical consperacy theory to not understand the comparison.

Originally posted by: Number1
This is just like your "math".

Rather, this is like you and your fellow falsers total lack of math, or any semblance of actual cognitive ability.

Originally posted by: Cogman
Yeah, guess what, smaller debris falls slower then large debris because of air friction.

Am I to take it you are mindlessly guessing this fact is responsible for the debris clouds having a tighter arch than a canon ball fired from a horizontal?

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: event8horizon
dr astaneh never denied saying vaporized.

And this is the kind of stupid argumentation the truthers bring forth.

Congrats on further highlighting that kind of stupid, even though you likely won't recognize how idiotic it is.

Would you oppose an open Congressional hearing on 9/11? Say in a Select Committee of Congress? Wouldn't cost much extra. And I'd get to watch C-Span all day!

Examine all 3 of the major buildings that collapsed... All the evidence!
Examine Who knew what and When did they know it... and what did they do?
And any other relevant evidence and all Under Oath.

Why just the Congress? Why not have the entire Federation look into it? I swear it had to be those damn Ferengi using their super-secret, paint-on, nano-nukite technology. It's the only possible explanation for what happened. Why has the Federation ignored it? Those tricky Ferengi are always behind this kind of stuff and can't be trusted. I demand an official agency check into it.

A non answer answer is usually ok.. if you want. I'm interested in what you think about the effort of some folks like the ex head of that NIST thingi who said he wants an investigation. There are many non Federation folks wanting that..
As to the Ferengi, The Grand Negus has decreed that the profit motive always includes consideration for the risk. The beta in this case requires a yield far beyond the usury law of the Federation, as I understand it..

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: event8horizon
dr astaneh never denied saying vaporized.

And this is the kind of stupid argumentation the truthers bring forth.

Congrats on further highlighting that kind of stupid, even though you likely won't recognize how idiotic it is.

Would you oppose an open Congressional hearing on 9/11? Say in a Select Committee of Congress? Wouldn't cost much extra. And I'd get to watch C-Span all day!

Examine all 3 of the major buildings that collapsed... All the evidence!
Examine Who knew what and When did they know it... and what did they do?
And any other relevant evidence and all Under Oath.

Why just the Congress? Why not have the entire Federation look into it? I swear it had to be those damn Ferengi using their super-secret, paint-on, nano-nukite technology. It's the only possible explanation for what happened. Why has the Federation ignored it? Those tricky Ferengi are always behind this kind of stuff and can't be trusted. I demand an official agency check into it.

Great post . Good laugh. Ya no I was going to get that video of the ufo . But I just don't care about this . I believe what I believe and that it . What you believe you believe . Thats life . One of us is in for hugh surprise the trurthers or the sheepo . Matters not to me . I already KNOW the truethers are more correct than the sheepo. But facts are still missing . Until than its just debating a dead horse.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Venix

Originally posted by: LunarRay
I watched the video link you gave me... That is interesting how the pulverize concrete billowed up like that. IF it was like a situation where that building created its own atmosphere and winds I might could account for that... To go up and out would require trajectory like the cannon ball in the video... not sure a cutter charge would be - but could be - up at a oh... 45 degree angle...
I was really hoping I'd see the coyote... but alas... beep beep.... zoom

It's not interesting at all. The debris cloud formed during the TU Delft architecture building's partial collapse also billows. Here's another view.

The same happens during this explosiveless controlled demolition. And this one. The dust cloud during any building collapse will billow outward and upward.

Note also that the TU Delft collapse plainly contradicts the video's assertion that "in a natural collapse, debris should fall close to the side of the building." As the collapse progresses, debris is ejected with increasing horizontal force and progressively lands further from the building. Before the view is completely obscured, several large bits of rubble can be seen reaching the edge of that lower roof.

No... I found it interesting! The fact that bits of heavy steel 'debris' was found lodged in the sides of buildings.. I think measured to be 600' away indicates some force propelled that debris to that location. WTC 7 had some in it too as NIST indicates some 340' away. So to me if the force to do that is considered an 'energy sink' to the momentum that would be important to me.
The smaller the particulate the more air friction would affect its gravitational propensity to fall right on down... Dust was found all over the place... just like ash from a forest fire would be expected to be carried miles away.
Heat causes air to rise... anyone who thinks pulverizing concrete does not cause heat is mistaken, I think. That heat transfers to all about it... air as well.
I did see about a 45 degree arc of 'debris' and have a few ways to get there.
Yes, I have looked at the videos many times looking for what is not obvious and seen stuff that is interesting. I have seen where some chunks went etc...
I also found in that video what looked like a core section near the end of the fall sorta vanish heheheh but I know stuff don't vanish so wonder about a few things... It didn't seem to topple over and didn't seem to go right on down... so my first question needing answered is the video itself... But, as usual that is another story.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: MotF Bane

Originally posted by: kylebisme
It's interesting that you are incapable of acknowledging the vast difference between billowing dust and ejecting rubble.

It's interesting that you are incapable of acknowledging reality.

Well, by that statement I'd normally infer that you do not accept that rubble of say > 10 lbs as apposed to dust (pulverized to dust building stuff) was created and forced to transit beyond a gravitational only trajectory and find itself embedded in the surrounding structures and streets. But, knowing you agree with NIST and NIST said it happened to lots of buildings like and including WTC 7, I'll assume your comment is more directed to what you see as dust only and can distinguish between dust and rubble in the video.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

That video is so whacked out. Upward exploding debris? That guy isn't even watching the same video. There's no "upward explosion" that debris is there from the building that JUST collapsed downward. It's dust, left hanging in the air. If it were an explosion, we'd see debris being forcibly ejected upward. It isn't. It hangs there as the tower collapses.

2:23 immediately shows how ridiculous this video is.

Oh my god.

Anyone that believes this stupid shit should be put away as a danger to society.

Crazy stupid

When you view a video of this 9/11 tragedy do you look only for what you want to see, expect to see or do you let the video allow you to see what ever it depicts? I look at the videos with out a purpose in mind. I simply let what my eyes see and transfer that to my mind. Since my conscious and subconsious are impacted by what I see, I simply let what is go in and allow my process to determine stuff of interest.. I have to view stuff many times to do this but I always find interest in most stuff I see.