What brought down WTC7

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Number1
I would like to predict that Kylebisme will find a creative reason for not solving DrPizza's challenge or he will not post in this thread anymore.

Prove me wrong Kyle.

PS: If he does solve the challenge I will apologize to him on this issue.

Well, I'll make an assumption that you agree that WTC 7 underwent for some period of time collapse equal to or near free fall... I saw it in one video fall beyond that magic 105' but that aside, I further assume you would agree that there is little or no deformation to the roof line fascia or the sides seen in the various videos or any portion seen except the roof proper where the penthouse lived prior to but maybe not during this Free Fall event.
We know or I think we agree that in order to Free Fall or nearly so there could not have been any structure resisting or better said.. no significant structure resisting the collapse for the duration of that portion.
That means to me that the failure of the vertical columns had to proceed the symmetrical collapse we see.
I deduce that the exterior fascia was held up by the exterior columns since that is the design criteria as I see it. IF the vertical support columns fail the fascia fails.
Assume for one scenario that all the inner core columns fail as per some logic... nothing there but the final bit that fails to enable the penthouse to fail but the exterior vertical columns do exist cuz we see them holding up the exterior fascia. Then the building all nice and symmetrical like collapses with at least 105' of which is at near free fall acceleration.
Now... what dynamic allowed the exterior to stand then drop at free fall? It seems to me a defect at least 105' below the top gave out equally around the building. Every column gave out at the same time all around the building at the same level so the symmetrical free fall could occur. I say the same floor but some could have been lower but not likely cuz I see a video of the corner section still falling below that 105' level and still all connected and looking much like it did during the entire fall.
That scenario agrees that the central core got all weak and somehow disconnected from the exterior and bent over and broke or what ever it did but it was of no consequence in resisting anything otherwise we'd have seen that. If any part resisted then that part would have sort of broke apart from the bit that didn't have Resistance cuz it couldn't free fall. I saw nothing like that happen.. the building exterior at least from all angles stayed intact as a unit even until it got to a level above the street and then tipped in to the back or front depending on the view I'm seeing.
What math would one need to opine on that scenario.. I think it is quite obvious from the videos.
The only question regarding the scenario above is what dynamic could have caused the exterior to give out at the same time at the same level so the exterior could free fall for the distance it did..
There are other scenarios but this one, at least don't need any math, I don't think. I stipulate that the core went poof and did so in a manner that provided no resistive force.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

exactly!! also I would bvet that none of those who stick up for Kylebisme could solve the challenge iether....
Yet there is always Goggle and I am sure it would be easy to get somebody to solve the problem for him..lol

How could you tell the difference if it was a google effort? And if he independently provided the 'answer' would you say 'you googled it' ?... heheheheehhehehe

 

[event8horizon]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Show that the fires did NOT cause it and that something else or in concert with the fires collapsed that building and I think that test has been met.

The videos of the fall prove that much, as I explained in the OP. Unfortunately, showing such facts doesn't change anything as long as some many are unwilling to coming to terms with them. I do think event8horizon comments make the task harder though; implicating government agencies as a whole while ignoring the possibility of a much smaller faction with operatives within such agencies, that latter possibility I consider far more likely.

im not implicating agencies as a whole by any means. how could "they" bring in excelerants into wtc 7? im thinking probably when the office of emergency management was built.
anyway, check out some of this ive read about recently. ive read about this "engineer" a while back but sunder actually talks about him too. he predicted wtc 1 and 2 and he also predicted wtc 7 a full 5 hrs before collapse. i usually read mainstream yahoo news and from there 911blogger and jref forum. gotta see what the debunkers think about things too! this is some stuff from blogger and jref.

Peruggia's fireman oral history:
"At that point I went back into the building. I was in a
discussion with Mr. Rotanz and I believe it was a
representative from the Department of Buildings, but
I'm not sure. Some engineer type person, and several
of us were huddled talking in the lobby and it was
brought to my attention, it was believed that the
structural damage that was suffered to the towers was
quite significant and they were very confident that the
building's stability was compromised and they felt that
the north tower was in danger of a near imminent
collapse.I grabbed EMT Zarrillo, I advised him of that
information. I told him he was to proceed immediately
to the command post where Chief Ganci was located.
Told him where it was across the street from number 1
World Trade Center. I told him "You see Chief Ganci
and Chief Ganci only. Provide him with the information
that the building integrity is severely compromised and
they believe the building is in danger of imminent
collapse." So, he left off in that direction."

is this the same "engineer" predicting 7 collapse?

Hayden: "Well we had our special operations people set up surveying instruments to monitor and see if there was any movement of the building. We were concerned of the possibility of collapse of the building, and we had a discussion with one particular engineer and we asked him if we allowed it to burn could we anticipate a collapse and, if so, how soon. And it turned out that he was pretty much right on the money that he said in its current state you have about five hours."

http://video.google.com/videop...d=9072062020229593250#

now hear what sunder has to say about this "engineer". noone knows this guys name!

In an Oct 15, 2008 interview with Allan Rees (following the release of the NIST WTC 7 report), Dr. Shyam Sunder (lead investigator) responded to a question about the evidence of foreknowledge of the collapse of WTC 7 by saying that they were ?aware that an engineer or a technical expert or a technical advisor was providing advice to the city agencies with regard to the condition of building 7?, and that they had been hearing creaking noises and the area was cleared about 2:30 pm. He refused to name this person, and then implied it may have been more than one ?advisor?.
http://www.ae911truth.org/info/39

very interesting if ya ask me!

 

[event8horizon]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Show that the fires did NOT cause it and that something else or in concert with the fires collapsed that building and I think that test has been met.

The videos of the fall prove that much, as I explained in the OP. Unfortunately, showing such facts doesn't change anything as long as some many are unwilling to coming to terms with them. I do think event8horizon comments make the task harder though; implicating government agencies as a whole while ignoring the possibility of a much smaller faction with operatives within such agencies, that latter possibility I consider far more likely.

basically it boils down to who had access to the steel!

Demolition access to the World Trade Center towers: Part one - Tenants
http://www.911truth.org/articl...tory=20090713033854249

Demolition Access To The WTC Towers: Part Two - Security
http://www.911truth.org/articl...tory=20090813150853871

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

exactly!! also I would bvet that none of those who stick up for Kylebisme could solve the challenge iether....
Yet there is always Goggle and I am sure it would be easy to get somebody to solve the problem for him..lol

How could you tell the difference if it was a google effort? And if he independently provided the 'answer' would you say 'you googled it' ?... heheheheehhehehe

Thats just it sherlock.....he would claim to have solved the challenge himself..,...your insight was very telling indeed!!!

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

exactly!! also I would bvet that none of those who stick up for Kylebisme could solve the challenge iether....
Yet there is always Goggle and I am sure it would be easy to get somebody to solve the problem for him..lol

How could you tell the difference if it was a google effort? And if he independently provided the 'answer' would you say 'you googled it' ?... heheheheehhehehe

Thats just it sherlock.....he would claim to have solved the challenge himself..,...your insight was very telling indeed!!!

Hehehehe Thank you Dr. Watson... Ya know when I grow up I'm a gonna be a AUSA and apply my deductive reasoning to the mundane and obvious... I shall indict Termites for conspiracy with Gnomes and Aliens to consume bandwidth at AT, A mister-meanie, on or about October 5, 2009 through at least October 17, 2009. I will prove the motive to be "bandwidth consumption furthered the clandestine efforts to defer interest from the Health Care Threads". The Health Care Industry will be an un-indicted co-conspirator!.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: event8horizon


very interesting if ya ask me!

I listened to the interview with Sunder and watched part of the video... The reporter challenged Sunder and NIST's rationalization vis a vis the witnesses and other anecdotal evidence...
Anecdotal evidence is construed two very different ways... one, is hearsay and used mainly, if not only, when there is doubt as to the veracity of the statement... the evidence underlying is not considered trustworthy...
The second application of Anecdotal evidence is when the evidence may be true and can be verified but it is used to deduce a conclusion which does not flow from it or is a generalization.
So, the interviewer should insure or pin down the respondent to what he means cuz it could be something that might link two anecdotal bits of non related evidence to the general theme.
An example of what I mean here is: My dog eats chocolate every day and lived to 15 and died of old age... It don't disprove that chocolate may cause some affect that would kill my dog at a younger age.
As applied to WTC 7 I think Sunder did not trust the evidence and referred to it as anecdotal or hearsay.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: event8horizon

Demolition access to the World Trade Center towers: Part one - Tenants
http://www.911truth.org/articl...tory=20090713033854249

Demolition Access To The WTC Towers: Part Two - Security
http://www.911truth.org/articl...tory=20090813150853871

That goes to opportunity. True, it is an element to be proved. But you must put that aside until you deal with the Collapse of WTC 7. You must show that '7' collapsed the result of what your conspirators had access to 'plant'. You can't get around that element...
When you have an entire Government all agreed as to what caused the collapse you've a mountain to climb. Even if you could get a few of the involved scientists to state 'on the record' doubts about the conclusion, you'd only have their doubts. You need a totally new investigation to conclude the building, without question, could only have collapsed if a force beyond the dynamics NIST has offered caused the collapse and that dynamic has to be something not possibly related to the planes and oil and the like... I'd like to say criminal iow but the entire 9/11 event itself is criminal from start to finish.. so I'll use this; stuff placed to induce building failure. And then you deal with opportunity... It could have been hydraulics as Kyle said as a possibility.. then you need that kind of opportunity...

 

[Number1]

Originally posted by: event8horizon


im not implicating agencies as a whole by any means. how could "they" bring in excelerants into wtc 7? im thinking probably when the office of emergency management was built.
anyway, check out some of this ive read about recently. ive read about this "engineer" a while back but sunder actually talks about him too. he predicted wtc 1 and 2 and he also predicted wtc 7 a full 5 hrs before collapse. i usually read mainstream yahoo news and from there 911blogger and jref forum. gotta see what the debunkers think about things too! this is some stuff from blogger and jref.

What is this excelerants you speak of? Some kind of spreadsheet?

Did they teach you about proper capitalization back in kindergarten?

You, Kyle and Nemesis1' s lack of education shows. Why don't you guys take some English as a second language courses. It would help you a lot.

Sincerely.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

exactly!! also I would bvet that none of those who stick up for Kylebisme could solve the challenge iether....
Yet there is always Goggle and I am sure it would be easy to get somebody to solve the problem for him..lol

How could you tell the difference if it was a google effort? And if he independently provided the 'answer' would you say 'you googled it' ?... heheheheehhehehe

Thats just it sherlock.....he would claim to have solved the challenge himself..,...your insight was very telling indeed!!!

It is not without shock that after I posted that challenge, LunarRay posted this:

I often wonder why some maintain that a person riding a bus must be able to drive the bus.

In other words "just because we don't have a clue, doesn't mean we're wrong."

It is with great irony that LunarRay managed that perfect sentence. You see, LunarRay, there are bus drivers, and there are bus riders. However, among the bus riders are enough people with the education to know when a bus driver is completely full of shit when he tells a story about what he did while driving his bus. If you cannot solve that little challenge problem, then in essence, you are just a passenger in the bus at the level of "the wheels on the bus go round and round, round and round, round and round. The wheels on the bus go round and round... The horn on the bus goes beep beep beep..." And, as such a passenger, you're trying to make claims that there are "experts" out there whose opinions are valid.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: kylebisme
What brought down WTC7 was a near instantaneous removal of approximately 8 stories of structural support. This is proven by the following two facts; (1) acceleration indistinguishable from free fall is only possible in absence of any notable resistive force, (2) WTC7 dropped with period of acceleration indistinguishable from free fall for approximately 105 feet. To substantiate these facts:

1) This is simply inherent to the definition of the term free fall, as documented here:

free fall
?noun
1. the hypothetical fall of a body such that the only force acting upon it is that of gravity.

Note they say "hypothetical" as there is always at lease some air in the way preventing a falling object to accelerate at the full acceleration of gravity, and the absence of even the any resistive force of air is only possible in the hypothetical case of a complete vacuum, but acceleration indistinguishable from free fall means that what little mass is in the way is not enough to provide any observable resistive force. For those who don't understand why this is, but would like to, I recommend starting here, and feel free to ask questions on this matter as needed.


2) While WTC7's period of free fall acceleration was previously denied by the government agencies which investigated the event, due to the widely available video evidence NIST was eventually persuaded to to admit this fact, as documented here:

In Stage 1, the descent was slow and the acceleration was less than that of gravity. This stage corresponds to the initial buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. By 1.75 s, the north face had descended approximately 2.2 m (7 ft).

In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face. This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 m (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s.
...

From these facts, NIST suggests distinct stages where an initial buckling of columns on one face of the building allowed the point on the they measured roofline to drop approximately 7 feet, which then allowed for 105 feet of free fall to happen next. Note that while NIST only refers to the one point on the roofline, any video of the event will show that after the initial sagging of the roofline towards the middle, the entire roof falls symmetrically though the period of free fall and beyond, until notably asymmetrical resistive force well further down causes it to tilt. You can observe the fall of WTC7 from best two angles I've seen, compared to what little NIST released of their simulations, in this video.

Any other video of the event in existence will show the same period of free fall, and please don't hesitate to dig up more to see for yourself, and post whatever videos of the event you like. Regardless, such video evidence demonstrates that for the period of free fall, not only were the north face columns not providing any notable support, neither were those of any other face, or all of the mass that made up the floors and everything else in the building.

How exactly that complete removal of structural resistance was accomplished would require a proper investigation, as the ones we've had so far have only obscured the fact that impact damage and office fires simply can't explain anything of the sort. To view clearly visible examples of a near instantaneous removal of multiple stories of structural support for comparison sake, see the hydraulically initiated demolitions in this video. As for examples of where free fall acceleration can be observed without removal some distance of structural support by an outside force; you simply won't find even a one, as it is physically impossible.

So, we are all left with a choice here; have faith in the offical story of the fall of WTC7, or accept the fact that the offical story stands in contradction to demonstrable physical reality. Which do you choose?

-----------------------------------------

There is a post from Pulsar on the NIST report.
Please refute that report to allow this thread to continue

Senior AnandTech Moderator
Common Courtesy

---

I'm not as tolerant of this BS as Common Courtesy. LOCKED.

Harvey
Senior AnandTech Moderator


Thread doesn't break any rules, lock retracted.

Anandtech Senior Moderator
Red Dawn

The video that is available shows the fall of the face of the building. The load bearing columns Which are not on the face failed and transfered the load to the columns on the face. The columns on the face are designed to hold and transfer the the load of 1 floor of the building to the interior load bearing columns, not to the set of face columns below it. A lower set of columns that were designed to assist in handling the deflection of the face of the building suddenly had the weight of 47 floors bearing on it.

This would be akin to balancing a 100 ton piece of iron on a ridgid center support and using beer cans at the outermost points to keep it from rocking. The ridgid center support fails, I guarantee it is going to free-fall.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: event8horizon

http://video.google.com/videop...d=9072062020229593250#

very interesting if ya ask me!

I watched this video and some parts over and over. I see the south face issuing smoke FROM the interior and that is corroborated by the Lieutenant Fire person and the Honorary Deputy Fire Chief photographer. Their demeanor did not indicate deceit to me. I am not a trained deceit discerner but I know what to look for and I didn't see it. The video speaks for itself. The A&E engineer Gage's 'debunk' of the fire and smoke source was not compelling.

I'm not trying to lead you away from the fire aspect but, rather, I'm trying to suggest that Fire did exist just as they say. The evidence of that is overwhelming in my opinion. The point 'Truthers' make, I think, is; notwithstanding fires the building collapsed in a manner not consistent with fire only. Consistent perhaps with the aforementioned is Jennings' video interview about WTC 7 where he is seen discussing events that occur long before that raging fire aspect. That IS compelling with regard to issues of sounds and destruction early on.
End of the day, evidence of what brought the building down beyond what has been presented already is unlikely, barring a confession to that fact... Getting Government Agencies to open an investigation and find differently than what already is the determined causation is unlikely. In this case, I fear, you'd have a greater probability of suggesting design defect as the ultimate cause than planted whatever or hydraulic devices. Government simply won't support 'wasting money' to placate a few or even a few million 'Truthers'. "Back and to the left"...

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

exactly!! also I would bvet that none of those who stick up for Kylebisme could solve the challenge iether....
Yet there is always Goggle and I am sure it would be easy to get somebody to solve the problem for him..lol

How could you tell the difference if it was a google effort? And if he independently provided the 'answer' would you say 'you googled it' ?... heheheheehhehehe

Thats just it sherlock.....he would claim to have solved the challenge himself..,...your insight was very telling indeed!!!

It is not without shock that after I posted that challenge, LunarRay posted this:

I often wonder why some maintain that a person riding a bus must be able to drive the bus.

In other words "just because we don't have a clue, doesn't mean we're wrong."


It is with great irony that LunarRay managed that perfect sentence. You see, LunarRay, there are bus drivers, and there are bus riders. However, among the bus riders are enough people with the education to know when a bus driver is completely full of shit when he tells a story about what he did while driving his bus. If you cannot solve that little challenge problem, then in essence, you are just a passenger in the bus at the level of "the wheels on the bus go round and round, round and round, round and round. The wheels on the bus go round and round... The horn on the bus goes beep beep beep..." And, as such a passenger, you're trying to make claims that there are "experts" out there whose opinions are valid.

Nope! It means you don't have to know how to drive a bus to ride on one... I think that is pretty clear. What you suggest is something not related to my meaning.
Nope! I state that other experts state that they are equipped to state that their opinions are valid.
As a kid, I used to get a kick out of others saying, 'My dad can beat up your dad!" In this case, I'm saying some dads say they can beat up some other dads. It is their claim not mine. So why should I have to defend or prove that? Organize a match and we'll see.

You humor me with the jingle. I liked the Greyhound bus jingle. "... leave the driving to us..." In other words, the experts get the buses to the destinations while the passengers enjoy the trip. I probably could steer the bus if I had to which is sort of driving it, I suppose.

I don't expect to solve anything to anyone else's satisfaction regarding this topic. I'm not equipped to do that unless some aspect of the subject is within my expertise. I otherwise solve to my own satisfaction what I can solve. I'll simply sit back in the bus and munch on my Pizza and rely on the expert to get the bus to the terminal. I'm not sure what city he's going to but I'll assume a terminal exists there. I'm sightseeing, as it were. And, I'm having a very nice trip.

EDIT: I just noticed that it was you, DrPizza, who made the comment to me... I didn't mean anything other than I like Pizza in that reference to Pizza...

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
You have yet to prove you understand anything beyond the most basic physics yourself.

That is because it doesn't take anything more than the basic physics I presented to understand what is wrong with the offical story of how WTC7 came down.

Originally posted by: DrPizza
I base that statement on having seen your page of "mathematics" - I seriously almost pissed my pants laughing at that...

If you'd have been following the dicussion you wouldn't have been surpised by the math, as I've been saying it is simple since I was first asked for it.

Originally posted by: DrPizza
I can assure you that the problem you're dealing with is FAR more complicated.

I assure you I could go into far more detail on the complications of it, but as I know it won't change the conclusions, I've no reason to bother. If you insist on continuing to argue otherwise, then make your argument and I'll be happy to show you where you've gone wrong, just as I did with the can and karate arguments you presented previously.

Originally posted by: DrPizza
But, to allow you the opportunity to prove that you're not a moron

I'd prefer you prove as much of yourself by sticking to the topic at hand. Is that too much to expect of you?

Originally posted by: DrPizza
There is no "waste" of time when conducting science experiments.

Trying to disprove long understood and consistently demostatable laws of physics is a waste of time. You'd be better off getting your students to conduct an "experiment" to find out if a penny will float in watter, since at least that wouldn't waste as much of their time.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Does anyone see a material flaw in that analysis?

Yeah, but I'd really prefer to stick to WTC7 rather than derailing the discussion with other matters.

Originally posted by: event8horizon
im not implicating agencies as a whole by any means.

That is what I took your "the cia could have just rigged the whole building" to suggest.

Originally posted by: event8horizon
...how could "they" bring in excelerants into wtc 7? im thinking probably when the office of emergency management was built.

That is one possibility of many. I don't see any point in speculating on such though, as we need to get a real investigation established before we can come to any reasonable conclusions on that.

Originally posted by: Ozoned
The columns on the face are designed to hold and transfer the the load of 1 floor of the building to the interior load bearing columns, not to the set of face columns below it.

Would you please explain how you came up with this?

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: event8horizon

http://video.google.com/videop...d=9072062020229593250#

The A&E engineer Gage's 'debunk' of the fire and smoke source was not compelling.

Any chance you could give me the timestamp of what you are referring to here? I'm listening to the Sunder interview now and am not sure when I can get to watching the whole video.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: event8horizon

http://video.google.com/videop...d=9072062020229593250#

The A&E engineer Gage's 'debunk' of the fire and smoke source was not compelling.

Any chance you could give me the timestamp of what you are referring to here? I'm listening to the Sunder interview now and am not sure when I can get to watching the whole video.

Ok and I'll edit this.. I'm looking now.. just got back from my doggie walk

Edit: Gage begins at about 40:45 but you might start about 39:00 or so.. just to get a feel for what he's commenting on... and run it for a few minutes after that.. I will say the guy in the black shirt does not appear to be truthful... his swallowing is a sign... just before he says "... a long time after.. "

 

[kylebisme]

Ah, yeah, Gage's argument there is sensible in the abstract, but conflicts with the some of the video evidence shown. Consider though that we can't rightly say what Gage got to see and what he hadn't seen, and the program in general is obviously biased towards defending the official conspiracy theory. From what I've watched so far anyway, they are doing a lot of conflating the weakest and most absurd claims to undermine the truth movement as a whole, cautiously avoiding anything of notable substance and resorting to a lot of emotional appeals rather than sticking to the facts. Did they even discuss the physics of free fall in the program at all?

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: kylebisme
Ah, yeah, Gage's argument there is sensible in the abstract, but conflicts with the some of the video evidence shown. Consider though that we can't rightly say what Gage got to see and what he hadn't seen, and the program in general is obviously biased towards defending the official conspiracy theory. From what I've watched so far anyway, they are doing a lot of conflating the weakest and most absurd claims to undermine the truth movement as a whole, cautiously avoiding anything of notable substance and resorting to a lot of emotional appeals rather than sticking to the facts. Did they even discuss the physics of free fall in the program at all?

Gage was interviewed in his office so I've no idea what he was shown. I've heard him in another forum point to bldg 6 and 5 showing the smoke coming from them. I think the timing of the events are different. The bldg 7 fires really flared moments before the collapse or minutes I guess.. and 5, 6 were burning right after 1,2 collapsed and through out that earlier period.. I also recall him pointing to the dust from 1, 2 as being attributed to 7 in error. So, in conclusion I can't determine if we have apples and apples... but, the referenced link of Gage is not compelling to the referenced fires assuming he is relating to those fires.

I'm not sure what they said actually on that topic.. I was just looking... not focusing until the fire bit came up. I've to look a few time with the sound on cuz I usually watch a few times with no sound to simply watch and not have a voice point me to what they want. I'll choose my own view.. hehehehheheheh but I'll get back to you on the physics..

 

[First]

Damn, another puss out on the math? This is too comical. In case the wimp forgets:

Originally posted by: DrPizza

I present to you this problem. It's only a 2-D problem from a simple mechanics of materials book, but I figure that giving you a 2-D problem instead of a 3-D problem is sufficient in this case. I believe this is the simlpest approach - having you do this problem - because once we agree that you're capable of solving this problem, then we can explore how the forces are drastically changed once a few angles are changed. Then, it should be relatively trivial to show mathematically how the force can drop to a tiny fraction of its original force holding the building up.

So, I present to you an elementary mechanics of materials problem for you to solve. Find the force in each member, and indicate whether each member is under compression or tension. thing.jpg

 

[LunarRay]

So, I present to you an elementary mechanics of materials problem for you to solve. Find the force in each member, and indicate whether each member is under compression or tension. thing.jpg

A puzzle... oh boy! I do love puzzles...
Dam, what is that? A side of a gym or something, a building but only a side view... a bridge??
Under compression or tension... hmmmm
Ok.. let's see... if you push on something you are in compression and if you pull on some thing you are in tension... I think... well.. if my building collapses it is your fault!

I'll try this... ba,fi,ei,ca,dh,dg are compression, (gotta find some pushy stuff)
looks like db and df are doing the same thing... but what is it? dang this kid stuff is hard. I think they are both pulling at the area D... ok I'll guess..
ai,ch,eg ? df, db are tension, (gotta find some pulling stuff)

I assume the o with the mustache below it is a foundation?

Step one... Is my building or is it the London Bridge.. hehehehe going to topple?

I think ch has to pull to transfer load back to a.. but oh well...

Don't give me answers please... this is interesting.. but a way off, sorta off will suffice..

Moonbeam can just look at this stuff and have an answer.. I've to labor through what pushes and pulls and can't tell most of the time... you should label them like NIST does..

Also: I don't know what a "Kips" is. Is it ok to look up a formula on internet? or do I have to somehow do it long hand... assuming I can for the force factors (I'm not presuming I'm right or even close on the push pull thing but want to know if I would normally know a formula at this level?)

 

[event8horizon]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: event8horizon

http://video.google.com/videop...d=9072062020229593250#

very interesting if ya ask me!

I watched this video and some parts over and over. I see the south face issuing smoke FROM the interior and that is corroborated by the Lieutenant Fire person and the Honorary Deputy Fire Chief photographer. Their demeanor did not indicate deceit to me. I am not a trained deceit discerner but I know what to look for and I didn't see it. The video speaks for itself. The A&E engineer Gage's 'debunk' of the fire and smoke source was not compelling.

I'm not trying to lead you away from the fire aspect but, rather, I'm trying to suggest that Fire did exist just as they say. The evidence of that is overwhelming in my opinion. The point 'Truthers' make, I think, is; notwithstanding fires the building collapsed in a manner not consistent with fire only. Consistent perhaps with the aforementioned is Jennings' video interview about WTC 7 where he is seen discussing events that occur long before that raging fire aspect. That IS compelling with regard to issues of sounds and destruction early on.
End of the day, evidence of what brought the building down beyond what has been presented already is unlikely, barring a confession to that fact... Getting Government Agencies to open an investigation and find differently than what already is the determined causation is unlikely. In this case, I fear, you'd have a greater probability of suggesting design defect as the ultimate cause than planted whatever or hydraulic devices. Government simply won't support 'wasting money' to placate a few or even a few million 'Truthers'. "Back and to the left"...

with that link, i was just showing the "engineer" somehow predicted wtc 7:

Deputy Chief Hayden - start at 19:35

Hayden: "Well we had our special operations people set up surveying instruments to monitor and see if there was any movement of the building. We were concerned of the possibility of collapse of the building, and we had a discussion with one particular engineer and we asked him if we allowed it to burn could we anticipate a collapse and, if so, how soon. And it turned out that he was pretty much right on the money that he said in its current state you have about five hours."

same guy that predicted the fall of wtc 1 and 2. i just found this prediction interesting.

 

[event8horizon]

somemore intersting statements by made by Peruggia. from the fireman oral history.

"Looking up at it, you could see that, you
could see through the smoke or whatever, that there was
significant structural damage to the exterior of the
building. Very noticeable. Now you know, again, this
is not a scene where the thought of both buildings
collapsing ever entered into my mind.
I was there in 1993, 14 minutes after the
bomb went off. I operated some 16 hours at the
building and with all the post-incident critiques and
debriefings with various agencies. We were always told
by everyone, the experts, that these buildings could
withstand direct hits from airplanes. That's the way
they were designed. They went through all of this
architectural stuff, way beyond the scope of my
knowledge."

 

[Delita]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: DrPizza
You have yet to prove you understand anything beyond the most basic physics yourself.

That is because it doesn't take anything more than the basic physics I presented to understand what is wrong with the offical story of how WTC7 came down.

Originally posted by: DrPizza
I base that statement on having seen your page of "mathematics" - I seriously almost pissed my pants laughing at that...

If you'd have been following the dicussion you wouldn't have been surpised by the math, as I've been saying it is simple since I was first asked for it.

Originally posted by: DrPizza
I can assure you that the problem you're dealing with is FAR more complicated.

I assure you I could go into far more detail on the complications of it, but as I know it won't change the conclusions, I've no reason to bother. If you insist on continuing to argue otherwise, then make your argument and I'll be happy to show you where you've gone wrong, just as I did with the can and karate arguments you presented previously.

Originally posted by: DrPizza
But, to allow you the opportunity to prove that you're not a moron

I'd prefer you prove as much of yourself by sticking to the topic at hand. Is that too much to expect of you?

Originally posted by: DrPizza
There is no "waste" of time when conducting science experiments.

Trying to disprove long understood and consistently demostatable laws of physics is a waste of time. You'd be better off getting your students to conduct an "experiment" to find out if a penny will float in watter, since at least that wouldn't waste as much of their time.

Hahahahahah. This is the perfect storm of retard. First we have kyle"I don't know shit about anything and if you ask me about it I'll say 'I could talk about it more but it won't change the conclusion'"bisme. Then you have nemesis 1 spouting who the fuck knows what. He must have internet privileges at the mental institution he is currently attending.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Number1
I would like to predict that Kylebisme will find a creative reason for not solving DrPizza's challenge or he will not post in this thread anymore.

Prove me wrong Kyle.

PS: If he does solve the challenge I will apologize to him on this issue.

Not even a creative reason...

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: event8horizon

with that link, i was just showing the "engineer" somehow predicted wtc 7:

Deputy Chief Hayden - start at 19:35

Hayden: "Well we had our special operations people set up surveying instruments to monitor and see if there was any movement of the building. We were concerned of the possibility of collapse of the building, and we had a discussion with one particular engineer and we asked him if we allowed it to burn could we anticipate a collapse and, if so, how soon. And it turned out that he was pretty much right on the money that he said in its current state you have about five hours."

same guy that predicted the fall of wtc 1 and 2. i just found this prediction interesting.

Ah.. I see.

I'd think using that kind of equipment he was looking for tilt or bulge. Some kind of weakening apparent if a bulge I'd expect that would be more in keeping with a center down and with a tilt, a topple over.
I guess the problem I'd have with 7 is if he knew so early on... well before the NIST start of events on 79 what would he have seen? This would be at noonish and from what I recall the fires were mainly on the West or South area and moved clockwise... [on lower floors than 11 - 13] and they said the fires were out by virtue of the roof or upper water tanks.
Recalling from DrPizza's puzzle a bulge would also mean tension loss or column failure? or Both?