What brought down WTC7

[Cogman]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

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?

So what, Air friction only exists when it is convenient? Yes, I am more then just guessing, I am stating. Air friction and air currents are the reasons for these tiny debris to have a smaller arch then a cannon ball.

I mean seriously take a moment and think about this, the video is complaining that the debris didn't go far enough out! And then after it makes that complaint, it changes the source of the shot, and says "Look, this fits better!".

Here, try this, grab a hand full of powder, and chuck it as far as you can, then calculate how far the powder should have gone without air friction. Surprise, the distance isn't as far. Air friction doesn't just work in the downward direction you ninny.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

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.

The horse IS dead. What killed the horse is interesting cuz although you can see holes running clear through the means to create those holes is kinda important. Some say it is so obvious that bullets did it while others say a tornado in New Jersey hurled projectiles to Manhatten which caused the holes then vanished and still others say that the horse ran back and forth into sharp sticks until it was dead and then moved to its location many meters away and we are debating whether or not it died immediately from the sticks and walked the many meters or if someone or something moved it there. But, the dang horse IS dead... No pulse... but it does have a singed mane.

 

[Nemesis 1]

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

I agree these were taken down , But your trying to hard so hard in fact your not thinking right . Why is it so important to ya to make them see . They can see . They just refuse to believe what their eyes show them . Relax slow down . I know your taking a beating , Its good for ya . But those outside walls coming down as they did with those windows your going to see blow outs . Relax . People in authority are saying one thing , Eye witness at scene say another other than the plants who were promised a birth at D>U>M>B .

You still have asswipe saying they pulled 7, and fema saying they arrived on monday night. Take these authorities at there word . while the sheepo deny these 2 authorities but except all others . Don't you see the irony of it all . Relax move on . You can't change what they think so stop tring . There lost anyway . You still have a chance . Don't let it slip threw your fingers. Safe haven for americans . Indian land its safe . Figure out were your going to go and prepare . do it slow and easy do not hide. Todays sunrise was extra special . I had over a 100 people here after the commotion started . Welding helmets are so cool . There are 95 new truethers who are scarred to death.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: 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.

Oh know. You're another one that believes that stupid insane shit?

Have you ever been to New York?

Did you watch the towers be built?

Did you have friends die in their trying to rescue people?

If you believe that shit you have no critical thinking ability whatsoever.

You should be out away as Lunar crazy.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: 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.

Oh know. You're another one that believes that stupid insane shit?

Have you ever been to New York?Born on Staten Island raised in Brooklyn and 48 and 9th and Staten Island again.

Did you watch the towers be built?I watched the Verrazano Narrows being built but was in Service when it opened and stayed in Ca after that.

Did you have friends die in their trying to rescue people?Just my Brother in Law but my sister worked there (not the one whose hubby died of cancer) My cousin was a cop there if that counts Edit: I forgot ... a relative was on the ferry to South Ferry.. Manhatten when they hit... but he died in '06 and probably not related to the crap in the air everyone breathed with immunity or what ever the Mayor proclaimed about he air

If you believe that shit you have no critical thinking ability whatsoever.Oh well.. you presume I guess cuz you've not seen the 40 or more times I've said I accept the Government Conspiracy Theory but still have interest in the WTC 7 phenomenon

You should be out away as Lunar crazy. Not at all sure what this means but it must be some sort of conclusion to the prior inaccurate assumptive questions.

I've bold the response which I hope is ok.

 

[Venix]

Originally posted by: 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.

Yet the cloud in every gravity-driven collapse has exactly the same "arch," and debris is always ejected to a significant distance from the building.

At the 46 second mark of this video, large pieces of debris are even ejected upwards and away from the collapsing building. But according to Kyle Physics?, that isn't possible in a gravity-driven collapse. How can this be?!

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Venix

Originally posted by: 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.

Yet the cloud in every gravity-driven collapse has exactly the same "arch," and debris is always ejected to a significant distance from the building.

At the 46 second mark of this video, large pieces of debris are even ejected upwards and away from the collapsing building. But according to Kyle Physics?, that isn't possible in a gravity-driven collapse. How can this be?!

Introducing an explosive (TNT or such) demo collapse to deny a non TNT demo collapse WTC is not a good idea... assuming your example used explosive devices and if they looked alike I'd say... oh my...

 

[Venix]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Venix

Originally posted by: 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.

Yet the cloud in every gravity-driven collapse has exactly the same "arch," and debris is always ejected to a significant distance from the building.

At the 46 second mark of this video, large pieces of debris are even ejected upwards and away from the collapsing building. But according to Kyle Physics?, that isn't possible in a gravity-driven collapse. How can this be?!

Introducing an explosive (TNT or such) demo collapse to deny a non TNT demo collapse WTC is not a good idea... assuming your example used explosive devices and if they looked alike I'd say... oh my...

Read the video description. These demolitions are performed without explosives, which is plainly obvious even by just watching the video.

That's why I said "gravity-driven collapse" in that post twice. Do you just not bother to read anything?

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Venix


Read the video description. These are gravity-driven collapses.

Yup... Explosiveless demo!
Gravity is a constant according to my dinner dishes.

Another mystery... don't we have enough already... adding another is not a good idea.

I liked the one with the back hoe pulling the vertical support out.

Some thing caused the vertical support to cease supporting, I think.. I know the debate is to do with the cloud of debris but think the particulates acted just like the WTC while the more massive bits stayed around the base... WTC seemed to be beyond their gravity only perimiter.

I did and do read the content but mis read it or something cuz I watched the video that I'd seen before and said to myself that still had to have something to terminate the vertical support.. Sorry if I confused me..

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
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..

Quintiere wants another investigation because he disagrees with some of the NIST details regarding how the fires caused the towers (WTC1, 2, & 7) to collapse. He does NOT, however, agree that any demolitions or thermite was involved. In fact, he pretty much scoffs at the conspiracy theories.

http://www.fpe.umd.edu/documents/QuintiereNATOFinal.pdf

What is lacking from NIST is a clear account of the logic they used in
explaining the collapse mechanisms. It is one thing to state the cause and
imply their computation by computer codes; it is another to clearly illustrate
the physics behind the collapse mechanisms. Perhaps that is the reason for
so many conspiracy theories. A contrast can be made to the investigation of
the Columbia shuttle accident that occurred after 911 and whose
investigation concluded before the NIST final report. The NASA team
clearly identified the cause by using the photographic evidence, analysis
and clear testing done at Southwest Research Institute. No conspiracy
theories here.

Unfortunately, Dr. Quintiere does not appear to be familiar with 9/11 Truthers or conspiracy theorists in general, since he was wrong about the Columbia shuttle and lack of conspiracies. All the evidence in the world that demonstrates that fires ultimately brought down the buildings wouldn't convince them. They are already firmly convinced of their unofficial story because their beliefs aren't based in science but instead are founded in their personal paranoid worldview. They are merely waiting for any sort of evidence to back up their nearly religious paranoid convictions. They desperately hope that one day it will magically appear too. Reality doesn't bode well for that happening though. I guess that won't stop them from trying to poke holes in the NIST science just like Creationists believe that poking holes in Evolution science somehow proves their beliefs to be correct.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: LunarRay
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..

Quintiere wants another investigation because he disagrees with some of the NIST details regarding how the fires caused the towers (WTC1, 2, & 7) to collapse. He does NOT, however, agree that any demolitions or thermite was involved. In fact, he pretty much scoffs at the conspiracy theories.

http://www.fpe.umd.edu/documents/QuintiereNATOFinal.pdf

What is lacking from NIST is a clear account of the logic they used in
explaining the collapse mechanisms. It is one thing to state the cause and
imply their computation by computer codes; it is another to clearly illustrate
the physics behind the collapse mechanisms. Perhaps that is the reason for
so many conspiracy theories. A contrast can be made to the investigation of
the Columbia shuttle accident that occurred after 911 and whose
investigation concluded before the NIST final report. The NASA team
clearly identified the cause by using the photographic evidence, analysis
and clear testing done at Southwest Research Institute. No conspiracy
theories here.

Unfortunately, Dr. Quintiere does not appear to be familiar with 9/11 Truthers or conspiracy theorists in general, since he was wrong about the Columbia shuttle and lack of conspiracies. All the evidence in the world that demonstrates that fires ultimately brought down the buildings wouldn't convince them. They are already firmly convinced of their unofficial story because their beliefs aren't based in science but instead are founded in their personal paranoid worldview. They are merely waiting for any sort of evidence to back up their nearly religious paranoid convictions. They desperately hope that one day it will magically appear too. Reality doesn't bode well for that happening though. I guess that won't stop them from trying to poke holes in the NIST science just like Creationists believe that poking holes in Evolution science somehow proves their beliefs to be correct.

I agree that he's not a supporter of some other conspiracy theory. But there are many ... I had a list here I was going off of... some 150 pretty ok people with the knowledge equal to the folks at NIST... but took my medicine a bit ago and can't seem to find anything so I'll get back to you when I can focus better.

Well, I think I can say this being a bit fuzzy and all.. MY want is for everything that has been brought up to be analyzed by a NIST type entity or Congressional investigation so there are no stones left unturned. Find a better Sim and hypothesis for WTC 7 cuz many see what they say as 'bunk'. I think the Sim v Video is not in sync... it needs being so.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
I agree that he's not a supporter of some other conspiracy theory. But there are many ... I had a list here I was going off of... some 150 pretty ok people with the knowledge equal to the folks at NIST... but took my medicine a bit ago and can't seem to find anything so I'll get back to you when I can focus better.

Well, I think I can say this being a bit fuzzy and all.. MY want is for everything that has been brought up to be analyzed by a NIST type entity or Congressional investigation so there are no stones left unturned. Find a better Sim and hypothesis for WTC 7 cuz many see what they say as 'bunk'. I think the Sim v Video is not in sync... it needs being so.

Does the model have everything perfect? Unlikely. In fact, making a perfect model is impossible because there is no way to ever reconstruct the exact sequence of every beam, truss, and column failure along with the heating and damage that each was subjected to prior to the collapse. Even having every bit of forensic evidence from the rubble pile wouldn't permit that level of reconstruction.

What we do know is that explosives can be ruled out. The video, photo, and audio evidence does not support explosive detonation. Thermite can be ruled out as well because the potential of its use for that purpose and the logisitics involved is about the same as considering whether alien ray beams, micro-nukes, or tunneling gnomes were the cause.

We are left with the damage and the subsequent fires that burned for hours and the models can explain the collapse reasonably well.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

What we do know is that explosives can be ruled out. The video, photo, and audio evidence does not support explosive detonation. Thermite can be ruled out as well because the potential of its use for that purpose and the logisitics involved is about the same as considering whether alien ray beams, micro-nukes, or tunneling gnomes were the cause.

We are left with the damage and the subsequent fires that burned for hours and the models can explain the collapse reasonably well.

I can reconcile [WTC 1, 2 ] the gross activity of most visually proposed anomalies. There are a few I think both he and I would like to see and the main one is the analysis of the Towers after the initiation of the collapse. NIST had that aspect as part of their Charter but did not address it in the report with anything like the time they spent on the impact aircraft features. This enormous time on the Aircraft and not much of a percentage on the collapsing characteristics suggests to me the budget did not allow for that time. Further, they had subpoena and under oath authority but found no need, to my knowledge, to use it. That they didn't order the saving of the steel from the affected floors which would have given them precise forensic evidence [each piece was labeled to the exact location] is not indicative of conspiracy but of an absent of malice breach of standard reconstructive procedures.
I can find fault as anyone can with NIST if we look hard enough for something. They are not part of some grand scheme but they displayed a disregard for what many feel are the basics from which to extrapolate to remedy recommendations for similar building type fire codes - Their higher calling as it were.

As a separate issue in my thinking is WTC 7. I'm not a fire expert or an expert in anything but my own niche in life and that is questionable... But, I can logically visualize a sequence of events or compare a gnome and a tome of data that others with expertise point to and gasp. The gnome with his alien ray beam leaves gnome poop in his wake while the NIST WTC 7 seems to poop and spin while directing the viewer to their work of art. They call conclusive evidence something that has algorithms and inputs but won't let folks examine those features (to my knowledge). The SIM itself should have been secreted away in some vault until they could make it and the observed phenomenon of WTC 7 at least seem consistent. It, the SIM, should mirror the collapse instant by instant all the way down. Otherwise we are left thinking their numbers and indeed their assumptions are as accurate as the SIM portrayal and it is visually different and incomplete to most eye balls.
That critique does not mean Explosive energy from Krypton, Thermate, Bean eating Termites is the only alternative explanation but I think it is one way. What I'm looking for is a NIST or other investigative body to eliminate ALL of the current 'Truther' arguments so that we know what happened. Sorta of like fishing up plane bits to reconstruct an Air disaster which costs gazillions to do.. How can we justify 16 million on the worst disaster in my lifetime after Vietnam. Well... maybe Jimmy Carter might fit between the two..

We should be willing to spend what it takes to eliminate a further erosion of our system of government IF it is possible money can do that. I think it can. I don't like a Bin Laden sitting in a cave laughing at those Americans who think Government did it.... I want included all aspects of an inside job by any one or just a consequence of of a fire... IT must be answered to the satisfaction of any critic... To me it is just that important.

I didn't address the issue of the 'Truther' mind set. So I will. The proposed investigation should include the heart of their scientific community. It seems to me that highly educated folks may have a political bent but they are grounded in their science. Let them prove their points and if they can fine... IF they can't then let them so proclaim! They will, of course, blame that on the lack of timely investigation or continued 'cover up' but at least they will have to apply scientific methods to the evidence that does exist... I think that may be enough to satisfy those who are not myopically focused nincompoops.

 

[Ozoned]

There are likely thousands of private citizens that have the engineering qualifications to simply watch the collapse and explain the logistics in the result.

It would seem to me to be statistically impossible that a small % of them have not come forward with conflicting or confirming information, in regards to this CT.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

The numbers seem right to me. Then again, any collapse video I've seen of WTC7 only shows 1/2 to upper 1/3 of the building. I haven't seen a single video yet that shows the lower columns, which would help to verify the model. If you have a full building vid of the collapse I'd like to see it. Regardless, the model predicts the basics very closely, which is about the best we can expect. Like I said, perfect is not possible. We can never have perfection.

btw, here's another angle of the WTC7 collapse (As much as I detest posting YouTube vids as proof of anything, the truthers seem to take them as gospel so, why not? Maybe they'll see some light?). One thing that's telling is the comments, many from truthers, who deny that the total collapse time took 13 seconds. However, the video clearly shows that the east penthouse begins collapse at 5 seconds and the end of the collapse (at least what the video can show and which isn't blocked by the surrounding buildings) is 18 seconds. afaik, in all math on earth, 18-5=13. Truthers will frequently deny evidence that's right in front of them though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4k6GMddY-lQ

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Ozoned
There are likely thousands of private citizens that have the engineering qualifications to simply watch the collapse and explain the logistics in the result.

It would seem to me to be statistically impossible that a small % of them have not come forward with conflicting or confirming information, in regards to this CT.

Any expert who could prove that the NIST report was conclusively wrong would make his career.

But the Illuminati, Neocons, CIA, FBI, NYPD, NYFD, Skull & Bones, your local Moose Lodge and, naturally, the Jews are keeping those people quiet. 😉

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
The numbers seem right to me. Then again, any collapse video I've seen of WTC7 only shows 1/2 to upper 1/3 of the building. I haven't seen a single video yet that shows the lower columns, which would help to verify the model. If you have a full building vid of the collapse I'd like to see it. Regardless, the model predicts the basics very closely, which is about the best we can expect. Like I said, perfect is not possible. We can never have perfection.

btw, here's another angle of the WTC7 collapse (As much as I detest posting YouTube vids as proof of anything, the truthers seem to take them as gospel so, why not? Maybe they'll see some light?). One thing that's telling is the comments, many from truthers, who deny that the total collapse time took 13 seconds. However, the video clearly shows that the east penthouse begins collapse at 5 seconds and the end of the collapse (at least what the video can show and which isn't blocked by the surrounding buildings) is 18 seconds. afaik, in all math on earth, 18-5=13. Truthers will frequently deny evidence that's right in front of them though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4k6GMddY-lQ

I've seen one video that shows an edge view down to what appears to be some 15 story depth below that interposed build that most video depict... I'll have to find it...

I'll look at the video you gave but using just the video/SIM of the roof line suggests a difference to me... I've also always wondered why create a sim of something they knew did not match... the one with no damage from the ejected WTC Tower collapse..
I'll get back to this after a bit.
I'm not sure of the timing, actually. But I am sure of about 2.5 seconds of it... that was near free fall acceleration. NIST agrees there but by agreeing to that and holding other aspects constant I don't get the warm and fuzzies...
I used to create economic models with the expectation that by inputting a dataum the resulting out put should mirror my expectations. When it don't I know something is wrong with the internal math or relationships of my model. The NIST SIM is just the same. If you input XYZ then you should be able to predict ABC will occur. Simply change some assumptions until you have collapse with a symmetrical or reasonably so collapse with some portion being in free fall or nearly so. Then find what gets you to that step.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
The numbers seem right to me. Then again, any collapse video I've seen of WTC7 only shows 1/2 to upper 1/3 of the building. I haven't seen a single video yet that shows the lower columns, which would help to verify the model. If you have a full building vid of the collapse I'd like to see it. Regardless, the model predicts the basics very closely, which is about the best we can expect. Like I said, perfect is not possible. We can never have perfection.

btw, here's another angle of the WTC7 collapse (As much as I detest posting YouTube vids as proof of anything, the truthers seem to take them as gospel so, why not? Maybe they'll see some light?). One thing that's telling is the comments, many from truthers, who deny that the total collapse time took 13 seconds. However, the video clearly shows that the east penthouse begins collapse at 5 seconds and the end of the collapse (at least what the video can show and which isn't blocked by the surrounding buildings) is 18 seconds. afaik, in all math on earth, 18-5=13. Truthers will frequently deny evidence that's right in front of them though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4k6GMddY-lQ

I've seen one video that shows an edge view down to what appears to be some 15 story depth below that interposed build that most video depict... I'll have to find it...

I'll look at the video you gave but using just the video/SIM of the roof line suggests a difference to me... I've also always wondered why create a sim of something they knew did not match... the one with no damage from the ejected WTC Tower collapse..
I'll get back to this after a bit.
I'm not sure of the timing, actually. But I am sure of about 2.5 seconds of it... that was near free fall acceleration. NIST agrees there but by agreeing to that and holding other aspects constant I don't get the warm and fuzzies...
I used to create economic models with the expectation that by inputting a dataum the resulting out put should mirror my expectations. When it don't I know something is wrong with the internal math or relationships of my model. The NIST SIM is just the same. If you input XYZ then you should be able to predict ABC will occur. Simply change some assumptions until you have collapse with a symmetrical or reasonably so collapse with some portion being in free fall or nearly so. Then find what gets you to that step.

Can you explain precisely where you don't agree with the model? The NIST model rather simply explains the free fall, or near free fall, moment so I'm not sure where you are confused.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Can you explain precisely where you don't agree with the model? The NIST model rather simply explains the free fall, or near free fall, moment so I'm not sure where you are confused.

I was off looking for the view of collapse I had mentioned and I found one that is about what I recall seeing before... I turned of the audio cuz I don't care for the comments or the music..
The SIM has the sides bowing in early in the fall but I think you can see that the view presents the face and a side view and runs until obscured by the dust cloud but visible is the fall until about the top 18 floors are above the ground and you can see the entire block bend in with little if any noticable deformation to the face nor side that is depicted. IOW, it appears to me that it fell as a block down until about the top 18 floors were above ground and then folded as a bloc in toward the center. I see no deformation of any consequence resembling the SIM which stops much earlier on.. I'd like to see what the rest of the SIM depicts but can rationally assume the folding in that the SIM shows would continue.

Early on is bldg 7 the mid stuff is the towers and not an issue but the end bit is 7 again.

IF the SIM is intended to only show the free fall event I'd like to see that.. it seems to show only the start of it... IS there another SIM that shows the free fall portion?

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Ozoned
There are likely thousands of private citizens that have the engineering qualifications to simply watch the collapse and explain the logistics in the result.

It would seem to me to be statistically impossible that a small % of them have not come forward with conflicting or confirming information, in regards to this CT.

Any expert who could prove that the NIST report was conclusively wrong would make his career.

But the Illuminati, Neocons, CIA, FBI, NYPD, NYFD, Skull & Bones, your local Moose Lodge and, naturally, the Jews are keeping those people quiet. 😉

I love your view of stuff... I enjoy the more sarcastic approach to humor.

The only bit of the entire tragedy I can't buy is that dang building 7 bit. IF 79 broke or bent it had to pull exterior beams on the south in as it bent... they were still connected to the vertical columns on the south face and east too. That spider web of connections didn't all walk off on the 13th floor and certainly not on the top floors either... so where is the deformation that would account for the affect of 79 bending down? The sim produces it like I'd expect assuming NIST is right but the video does not.. not that I can see... That is my problem.. well, that and the entire block falling and then all bending in toward the center ... that means the floors from like 1 to 18 ish are still all structurally sound at the exterior at least but they can't be if at floor 13 and a few below underwent interior destruction...
I've looked at these videos now for hours and hours and read NIST and any other commentary that I could find and can't move on.. so, I guess I'm back to saying It don't make sense to ME and unless new evidence is produced I'm sort of stuck with no hypothesis that deals with what I see.. But, not to worry... there are other thread topics to infiltrate with my idiosyncratic approach to boiling water...

 

[Nemesis 1]

Yep building 7 that was pulled which means it was prepared in advanvced. Had that building not gone down . I would have been a sheepo.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Ozoned
There are likely thousands of private citizens that have the engineering qualifications to simply watch the collapse and explain the logistics in the result.

It would seem to me to be statistically impossible that a small % of them have not come forward with conflicting or confirming information, in regards to this CT.

First off, this thread isn't about a consperacy theory, as it isn't speculation into who and why, It is simply discussion of what the videos of the fall of WTC7 show did happen, and how the official conspiracy theory stands in contradiction to that.

That said, there is nearly a thousand architects and engineers who have come forward through this group so far. You can watch one of them, a retired engineer who worked 37 years for NASA, explaining the same thing I did in the OP starting at 1:27 on the video linked on this page.

As for why there aren't more, there are plenty of reasons for that. Many people, regardless of their education and intellect, are so emotionally invested in the official conspiracy theory that they abhor the idea of even questioning it. Those who do speak up are often shouted down as conspiracy nuts or worse, which surely makes others adverse to even considering the evidence or intimidated from speaking up about it even if they have. Then of those who aren't susceptible to such manipulation still might never see the most flagrant impossibility in the official account, as aside from some reports of the fall of WTC7 on the day it happened, as our media simply doesn't show video of it.

So, I ask you to please consider the physics of the fall of WTC7 yourself rather than coming up with reasons to avoid doing so. I worry that people here are just holding their breath waiting for others to do their thinking for them, and we aren't going to get any closer to finding out the real who and why of 9/11 as long as a majority clings to their faith in a false explanation rather than demanding a proper investigation.

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Any expert who could prove that the NIST report was conclusively wrong would make his career.

But the Illuminati, Neocons, CIA, FBI, NYPD, NYFD, Skull & Bones, your local Moose Lodge and, naturally, the Jews are keeping those people quiet. 😉

I love your view of stuff... I enjoy the more sarcastic approach to humor.

I'm a fan of sarcasm myself, but only when it makes a solid point. On the other hand, TLC seems to simply employ it for misdirection, making inane arguments to disrupt rational discussion. Think about it, he could have told Ozoned about the engineers who have come forward forward against the official conspiracy theory if he had any interest in discussing the facts, but he goes off spouting nonsense instead. Also he talks about having only seen video showing half the height of the building or less, apparently ignoring the video showing over two thirds the height which I presented in the OP. Beyond that, he even accused me of being possessed here, despite claiming he is agnostic elsewhere. Considering such, and similar behavior in other topics, I wouldn't be surprised to find he actually knows the NIST report is indisputably false, yet simply gets some sick pleasure out of playing devil's advocate to defend it anyway.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Yep building 7 that was pulled which means it was prepared in advanvced. Had that building not gone down . I would have been a sheepo.

IF that building was prepared for demolition before 9/11 Silverstein's wandering about the lobby on that afternoon indicates he is one brave dude... the place was on fire and could go boom on him!

IF the building had been all set up for demolition waiting for an event to occur in order to proceed then a plane is missing cuz Building 7 would not have even been a concern but for the fires in it under that scenario.

That building 7 had all sorts of folks in it who are sorta pushy when it comes to knowing what is going on in their offices... I mean think about all the approvals one would need in order to sneak about with explosives in there... Assuming the FBI and CIA are not on your list of bad guys the notion of preplanned and installed high explosives is not reasonable.

After the hits on the Towers the time available to do an installation of charges is possible and supportable if you can come up with motive that excludes Silverstein if done while he was waddling about in there. In this case, I'd have to see the motive to why.

I do agree that the collapse is a mystery for me regarding how it fell... it did fall so the why is also a consideration until the how is sorted out... me thinks.

 

[Nemesis 1]

I go offtopic a bit here ok. You guys have heard me talk of lilith. Most everthing written about her says she evil demon . Youguys are aware of how moslims treat woman and so to did jews at one time. with that in mind read this . Its the truth . See why she was demonized. Much untrueth written , If your a good at comprehension you can find her in genious. This is perfect for this thread as the majority believe the lie because of ego of man .

Genesis 2:18 that "it is not good for man to be alone"; in this text God forms Lilith out of the clay from which he made Adam but she and Adam bicker. Lilith claims that since she and Adam were created in the same way they were equal and she refuses to submit to him:

After God created Adam, who was alone, He said, 'It is not good for man to be alone.' He then created a woman for Adam, from the earth, as He had created Adam himself, and called her Lilith. Adam and Lilith immediately began to fight. She said, 'I will not lie below,' and he said, 'I will not lie beneath you, but only on top. For you are fit only to be in the bottom position, while I am to be the superior one.' Lilith responded, 'We are equal to each other inasmuch as we were both created from the earth.' But they would not listen to one another. When Lilith saw this, she pronounced the Ineffable Name and flew away into the air.
Adam stood in prayer before his Creator: 'Sovereign of the universe!' he said, 'the woman you gave me has run away.' At once, the Holy One, blessed be He, sent these three angels Senoy, Sansenoy, and Semangelof, to bring her back.

Said the Holy One to Adam, 'If she agrees to come back, what is made is good. If not, she must permit one hundred of her children to die every day.' The angels left God and pursued Lilith, whom they overtook in the midst of the sea, in the mighty waters wherein the Egyptians were destined to drown. They told her God's word, but she did not wish to return. The angels said, 'We shall drown you in the sea.?

'Leave me!' she said. 'I was created only to cause sickness to infants. If the infant is male, I have dominion over him for eight days after his birth, and if female, for twenty days.?

When the angels heard Lilith's words, they insisted she go back. But she swore to them by the name of the living and eternal God: 'Whenever I see you or your names or your forms in an amulet, I will have no power over that infant.' She also agreed to have one hundred of her children die every day. Accordingly, every day one hundred demons perish, and for the same reason, we write the angels' names on the amulets of young children. When Lilith sees their names, she remembers her oath, and the child recovers.

Now the only part thats true here is the part I bold Ya want to no trueth you must search it out when ya find it your heart will know

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Yep building 7 that was pulled which means it was prepared in advanvced. Had that building not gone down . I would have been a sheepo.

IF that building was prepared for demolition before 9/11 Silverstein's wandering about the lobby on that afternoon indicates he is one brave dude... the place was on fire and could go boom on him!

IF the building had been all set up for demolition waiting for an event to occur in order to proceed then a plane is missing cuz Building 7 would not have even been a concern but for the fires in it under that scenario.

That building 7 had all sorts of folks in it who are sorta pushy when it comes to knowing what is going on in their offices... I mean think about all the approvals one would need in order to sneak about with explosives in there... Assuming the FBI and CIA are not on your list of bad guys the notion of preplanned and installed high explosives is not reasonable.

After the hits on the Towers the time available to do an installation of charges is possible and supportable if you can come up with motive that excludes Silverstein if done while he was waddling about in there. In this case, I'd have to see the motive to why.

I do agree that the collapse is a mystery for me regarding how it fell... it did fall so the why is also a consideration until the how is sorted out... me thinks.

He was going to gain 7 billion $. He had to put on a show.