What brought down WTC7

[Moonbeam]

Well first thing, it looks like a bad design to me. Seems like ABC and EFI are irrelevant and contribute nothing to the bridge except adding a portion of the weight of BC and EF to the bridge at H and G. Any compression or tension, can't remember if that's the right word for being pulled apart, in BC or EF would simply cause AB and FI to rock expanding or contracting the angles BAC and FIE.

Seems to me the beams AB, BC IF and FE should be removed from the design.

So AH HG GI it seems to me to be under tension because weight on the bridge would cause them to bow, I think, not to mention the weight of the bridge itself doing that.

It looks like AC CD DE EI would be under compression as would HD DG. Because the weight pushing down at H and G is greater than the weight pushing left and fight at C and E I think CH and GE are also under compression but they are the hardest to figure for me.

To go farther I think will require learning stuff I don't now know like what kips are:

Not so hard, a thousand pounds or the force of 1000lb

What I also do not know is if the 60kips in the middle is the same 30 shared on the left and the right or an additional 30 at each of those points.

Then I will have to figure out now to do vectors, no?

 

[LunarRay]

The facade is connected to the exterior columns. What the exterior columns do so shall the facade. Unless some force acts on the one and not the other in some fashion. No one, not even NIST suggests that the facade is independent of the external columns.

We can see the North, East and West face all fall down at the same time because a line drawn across the roof line at the time of the collapse as seen on video shows it doing so. A line across any of the top 105 or so feet of the structure's North face indicate the same. The East and West face appear to act the same as the North face.
IF the collapse of the exterior columns was not at the same time we'd see that reflected in how the three faces fell in the areas where the columns preceded other columns in this fall.

The interior stuff we can't see happening but even if you assume it all crumpled down it would have taken the floors with it.. assuming the floors no longer were connected to the exterior columns. That would leave a block... sans the interior just sitting there with no load on the exterior columns except the facade...

The only reasonable explanation for the facade falling at the same time is that the columns holding them up did. And, that the facade falls symmetrically [reasonably so.. no one disputes that, I don't think] tells us that the exterior columns did cease to hold the load at the same time. We'd see that if it was not true.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Well first thing, it looks like a bad design to me. Seems like ABC and EFI are irrelevant and contribute nothing to the bridge except adding a portion of the weight of BC and EF to the bridge at H and G. Any compression or tension, can't remember if that's the right word for being pulled apart, in BC or EF would simply cause AB and FI to rock expanding or contracting the angles BAC and FIE.

Seems to me the beams AB, BC IF and FE should be removed from the design.

So AH HG GI it seems to me to be under tension because weight on the bridge would cause them to bow, I think, not to mention the weight of the bridge itself doing that.

It looks like AC CD DE EI would be under compression as would HD DG. Because the weight pushing down at H and G is greater than the weight pushing left and fight at C and E I think CH and GE are also under compression but they are the hardest to figure for me.

To go farther I think will require learning stuff I don't now know like what kips are:

Not so hard, a thousand pounds or the force of 1000lb

What I also do not know is if the 60kips in the middle is the same 30 shared on the left and the right or an additional 30 at each of those points.

Then I will have to figure out now to do vectors, no?

I totaslly agree...yet i find it amazing that the US Government will not admit that what brought down WTC7 was an implosion of the trans warp portal that was located under WTC7..........

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda


I totally agree...yet i find it amazing that the US Government will not admit that what brought down WTC7 was an implosion of the trans warp portal that was located under WTC7..........

They were very very busy at the time... They had all 19 of the terrorists ID'd in three days... how could they devote time to silly stuff like portals and stuff.. Besides, I told you the portals were dissolved by the molten kyrptonite in the basements.

I do have to admit, though, that they in their zeal ID'd a few that were incorrect... or it seems so since they showed up alive elsewhere. Probably a case of mistaken identity.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
The facade is connected to the exterior columns. What the exterior columns do so shall the facade. Unless some force acts on the one and not the other in some fashion. No one, not even NIST suggests that the facade is independent of the external columns.

We can see the North, East and West face all fall down at the same time because a line drawn across the roof line at the time of the collapse as seen on video shows it doing so. A line across any of the top 105 or so feet of the structure's North face indicate the same. The East and West face appear to act the same as the North face.
IF the collapse of the exterior columns was not at the same time we'd see that reflected in how the three faces fell in the areas where the columns preceded other columns in this fall.

The interior stuff we can't see happening but even if you assume it all crumpled down it would have taken the floors with it.. assuming the floors no longer were connected to the exterior columns. That would leave a block... sans the interior just sitting there with no load on the exterior columns except the facade...

The only reasonable explanation for the facade falling at the same time is that the columns holding them up did. And, that the facade falls symmetrically [reasonably so.. no one disputes that, I don't think] tells us that the exterior columns did cease to hold the load at the same time. We'd see that if it was not true.

The way I see it, not that it means much, mind you, is that only the bottom floor or basement structure had to give way or pretty much any of the lower floors. If the total structure falls one story it will fall all the way and at the free fall rate because the shock and inertia generated by falling one floor would completely disintegrate the building's integrity. It would be like a fat man trying to break a fall, or removing the bottom domino from a tall pile of them. It would be like dropping a egg.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam




The way I see it, not that it means much, mind you, is that only the bottom floor or basement structure had to give way or pretty much any of the lower floors. If the total structure falls one story it will fall all the way and at the free fall rate because the shock and inertia generated by falling one floor would completely disintegrate the building's integrity. It would be like a fat man trying to break a fall, or removing the bottom domino from a tall pile of them. It would be like dropping a egg.

But for the period of free fall I probably would agree... but the free fall suggests no Resistance for 105'. So a gap of 105' at least starting 105' down and running down 105' or we'd have noticeable slow down.
A shocking event would be reflected in the facade, it seems.. I think you've to account for: If one story went you have a drop then a drop and so on...
But, that is what I see.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
If the total structure falls one story it will fall all the way and at the free fall rate because the shock and inertia generated by falling one floor would completely disintegrate the building's integrity.

...the free fall suggests no Resistance for 105'. So a gap of 105' at least starting 105' down and running down 105' or we'd have noticeable slow down.

Exactly, disintegrating the building's integrity takes force, and were gravity the only force acting on the system, the acceleration of the fall would have been equivalent to the force imparted by gravity minus what portion of the force was disintegrating the building's integrity, notably less than free fall. This is what I had demonstrated mathematically previously, and many complained that it is too simple, even though I had mentioned how simply it was when the math was requested. Apparently, many want to believe that more complex math would prove me wrong here, but of course none of them can produce any math to prove me wrong, because their position is one of faith which stands in contradiction to fact.

 

[Cogman]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
If the total structure falls one story it will fall all the way and at the free fall rate because the shock and inertia generated by falling one floor would completely disintegrate the building's integrity.

...the free fall suggests no Resistance for 105'. So a gap of 105' at least starting 105' down and running down 105' or we'd have noticeable slow down.

Exactly, disintegrating the building's integrity takes force, and were gravity the only force acting on the system, the acceleration of the fall would have been equivalent to the force imparted by gravity minus what portion of the force was disintegrating the building's integrity, notably less than free fall. This is what I had demonstrated mathematically previously, and many complained that it is too simple, even though I had mentioned how simply it was when the math was requested. Apparently, many want to believe that more complex math would prove me wrong here, but of course none of them can produce any math to prove me wrong, because their position is one of faith which stands in contradiction to fact.

1. Resistive force isn't a constant.
2. Speeds due forces are comparative, a large mass going down exerts larger amounts of force then the thing resisting it. Even if the resistive force is 1000000, if the falling force is 10000000000000 you won't be able to see a difference in the falling speed. (Think, dropping a rock on a tin can vs an asteroid hitting the same can. The can provides the exact same amount of resistive force, but you won't be able to see the asteroid speed change from free fall as it hits the can. You will see the rock change its speed though).

You said that the resistive force would have to be approx. 0 to observe something approximately going at free fall speeds. That is wrong. The force has to be substantially lower for someone to observe something falling at free fall speeds.

There are more then enough ways to physically demonstrate this.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
The facade is connected to the exterior columns. What the exterior columns do so shall the facade. Unless some force acts on the one and not the other in some fashion. No one, not even NIST suggests that the facade is independent of the external columns.

We can see the North, East and West face all fall down at the same time because a line drawn across the roof line at the time of the collapse as seen on video shows it doing so. A line across any of the top 105 or so feet of the structure's North face indicate the same. The East and West face appear to act the same as the North face.
IF the collapse of the exterior columns was not at the same time we'd see that reflected in how the three faces fell in the areas where the columns preceded other columns in this fall.

The interior stuff we can't see happening but even if you assume it all crumpled down it would have taken the floors with it.. assuming the floors no longer were connected to the exterior columns. That would leave a block... sans the interior just sitting there with no load on the exterior columns except the facade...

The only reasonable explanation for the facade falling at the same time is that the columns holding them up did. And, that the facade falls symmetrically [reasonably so.. no one disputes that, I don't think] tells us that the exterior columns did cease to hold the load at the same time. We'd see that if it was not true.

It didn't actually all fall at the same time. Watch the following video of the collapse.

http://www.911research.com/wtc...eos/docs/wtc_7_cbs.mpg

After it starts, pause it and go to the 8 second mark. Now move through it second by second. Between 8 and 9 seconds you can see the sag in the roofline that is oriented more to the east. Notice that between the 10 second and 11 second mark you can see the east side begin to collapse first (which is the initial point of the peripheral column failure), then everything else follows shortly thereafter. It happens so fast as to be nearly imperceptible, but it is noticeable, and that failure in the east was all it took to bring the remainder of the exterior down.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: Cogman

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
If the total structure falls one story it will fall all the way and at the free fall rate because the shock and inertia generated by falling one floor would completely disintegrate the building's integrity.

...the free fall suggests no Resistance for 105'. So a gap of 105' at least starting 105' down and running down 105' or we'd have noticeable slow down.

Exactly, disintegrating the building's integrity takes force, and were gravity the only force acting on the system, the acceleration of the fall would have been equivalent to the force imparted by gravity minus what portion of the force was disintegrating the building's integrity, notably less than free fall. This is what I had demonstrated mathematically previously, and many complained that it is too simple, even though I had mentioned how simply it was when the math was requested. Apparently, many want to believe that more complex math would prove me wrong here, but of course none of them can produce any math to prove me wrong, because their position is one of faith which stands in contradiction to fact.

1. Resistive force isn't a constant.
2. Speeds due forces are comparative, a large mass going down exerts larger amounts of force then the thing resisting it. Even if the resistive force is 1000000, if the falling force is 10000000000000 you won't be able to see a difference in the falling speed. (Think, dropping a rock on a tin can vs an asteroid hitting the same can. The can provides the exact same amount of resistive force, but you won't be able to see the asteroid speed change from free fall as it hits the can. You will see the rock change its speed though).

You said that the resistive force would have to be approx. 0 to observe something approximately going at free fall speeds. That is wrong. The force has to be substantially lower for someone to observe something falling at free fall speeds.

There are more then enough ways to physically demonstrate this.

:thumbsup: Well said.

Originally posted by: LunarRay
The only reasonable explanation for the facade falling at the same time is that the columns holding them up did. And, that the facade falls symmetrically [reasonably so.. no one disputes that, I don't think] tells us that the exterior columns did cease to hold the load at the same time. We'd see that if it was not true.

Again, I don't see how conspiracy folks cling to the delusion that the collapse was symmetrical. We have definitive video evidence that it was not symmetrical and calling it "close enough for the sake of argument" o any other such nonsense shows a tiny sliver of truther thinking.

The building collapse was NOT symmetrical. Watch the video. A symmetrical collapse is... symmetrical. It's not "kinda symmetrical" or "sorta symmetrical." It is 100% symmetrical.

These are the memes that have propagated from the 911 movement -- if we say it loud enough and long enough, maybe it's true. It isn't.

 

[Moonbeam]

The first part to fall is also where the smoke is coming from. The moment the force resisting the fall of the building is less than the force trying to pull it down it will all come down at once because gravity acts independently on every part of it at the same time. And it will fall straight down because that is the direction gravity pulls.

As far as a shock not being seen on the exterior, I recall seeing such a shock in other vids, and shock travels in solids, like an earthquake that shakes the ground but doesn't shock the air.

If you turned your bones to jello you would fall in a pool of flesh.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The first part to fall is also where the smoke is coming from. The moment the force resisting the fall of the building is less than the force trying to pull it down it will all come down at once because gravity acts independently on every part of it at the same time. And it will fall straight down because that is the direction gravity pulls.

As far as a shock not being seen on the exterior, I recall seeing such a shock in other vids, and shock travels in solids, like an earthquake that shakes the ground but doesn't shock the air.

If you turned your bones to jello you would fall in a pool of flesh.

I don't really know who coined the phrase "'Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." I suspect it was some 'Truther' on about Monticello not rolling down that mountain.

The logic you propose is not lost on me even though I use terms preceding 'Symmetrical' like 'almost', 'about', or some other term to denote 'not exactly' because what I see or can conceptualize IS NOT EXACT and the more scientific terms take too much energy to type.

I agree that some force caused the facade [windows and granite and the rest of it] and what it is attached to [exterior columns] overcame what ever resistive force was left to keep it up there in a building like fashion. We don't disagree!
It seems we disagree with [I quote you] "...the force trying to pull it down it will all come down at once..." bit.
It will come down exactly as the force G overcomes the Resistance to that on all bits until the bits reach the center of Earth or meet resistance that prevents further G related downward movement. I got that OK... I'm fine with it. I know that if my bones all go poof my head top sans the skull will go to the pavement below a distance of 6' 3" and stop. But, consider this bit.

A structure the same height with cladding attached to some 'exterior' sticks and those sticks are designed to not only hold up the cladding but also some interior structure that I'll call levels or floors. Additionally, this structure has a few interior sticks in the middle holding up the floors and way up there is my head... a penthouse or two.. [right/left brain]. Then along comes Moonbeam and grabs on to the brain and lifts it right on up and with it comes all the middle sticks and floors leaving just the 'exterior' sticks and the cladding attached. During this extraction process some damage occurred to the 'exterior' bits but not all that much. However, little people standing around at the base noticed something was afoot cause they see some movements and hear some noises and such.

In my thinking either you weakened the 'exterior' sticks, by some means, to the point the sticks could not stand there as they were designed to or they will. If you weakened some enough and they were on the left side the structure should fall to the left and the same for the right, front or back or it won't until G is greater than R - weaken more sticks on the left. But, the entire structure should topple on over as a bloc and not sort of pancake down. The pivot point does not have to be deep in the earth to do this only the absence of Resistance to this act can allow it. To get the structure, the entire structure to come straight down you'd need to enable that via weakening sufficient numbers of sticks probably in some uniform manner around the four face base or near there and then when the remaining sticks are too weak to hold up what is left of the structure it shall all fall down in a uniform manner equal to G - RF... where RF is the force to be compressed or otherwise overcome. Once the portion of the structure is at the level of the weakened portion of the sticks that bit provides resistance to the G and may stop it or at worst slow it down... and so on. [we can calculate how many joules the structure has and how many are needed to 'crush' the resistance to keep going] At no time can you have 'Free Fall' so long as you have resistance to it.
This is not a 1000000/100000000000 event... an elephant on a coke can is not a good analogy... We know that P=MV and that stuff. But using the elephant analogy and putting a steel bit in that can of coke what may happen is the can will be crushed as before but the steel bit might penetrate the foot of the elephant and he'd be forever heard clanking about.

So, in essence, I can get the structure to fall much like WTC7 but not without the dynamics that enable it. You act as if the exterior columns are flimsy, irrelevant or redundant and I say they are substantial and the facade will reflect, visually, anything going on with them from the interior bits, if anything. In WTC7, I see not much happening to them vis a vis the facade nor did anyone else except the fire folks having to use a transit to determine if there was a bulge. iow, that bulge was not convincingly evident to the eyeball.

Now, here is where math comes in... Just considering for the moment the exterior columns and the facade attached and say from the 18th floor up how much potential energy is there in that upper bit? We know that W=M at the same place or reasonably so. And that 1/2M*Vsq. etc.. will give us that answer. Next is to calculate how much resistance there is in the columns as they meet stuff on the way down? That takes knowing the values of the steel and the number of them etc etc... we saw it fall down so we know the kinetic energy either was so great and the resistance so small that it almost free fell or the upper bit had very little resistance and all most free fell... I don't know which it is but it IS one of those two... It almost free fell...

 

[Moonbeam]

Your skin won't stand up without your body inside. If your bones melt your skin will pool on the floor. It will fall looking like a person till it puddles at the bottom on the floor because gravity will be acting equally on all parts of it.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Your skin won't stand up without your body inside. If your bones melt your skin will pool on the floor. It will fall looking like a person till it puddles at the bottom on the floor because gravity will be acting equally on all parts of it.

The bones didn't melt! The bones had some fractures at the knees... I expected to see Moonbeam walking about on his stubs...

Sorta like the 15 story bloc above The Tower... It had about 2 gjoules of potential energy... and to crush the concrete into 4 [ I think it was ] grades of fine particulates or pulverized concrete required about 230 mjoules... For the first meeting of the top bloc and the floor below it... Not an issue there for me...

WTC7 is not the same in terms of the potential energy and what it took or takes to squish what is below the broken knees... and what is above the knees that needs being squished too... floor by floor by floor and still fall as if there is jelly steel..


EDIT: I've often wondered when this occurred if folks adopted their truth one way or another based on what they wanted the truth to be and if they actually looked at it bit by bit and accepted or rejected based on that predetermined bias.

As soon as a point is raised by 'truthers' the next thing that pops up (aside from all the irrelevant bits like being an idiot or moron or even a commie hehehehe) is that it can't be that way cuz aliens planted stuff or what ever..
No one actually has presented the actual math to determine what could have happened... Well, I did on that bloc but it was My Kyle's effort.... I'm lazy like that... I know that 15 story block could have done what occurred to the first floor below it... I just don't know exactly why it started down as it did... I said or surmised that after the crash of the jet into that Tower there was only about 70% of the resistive force holding up 100% of the mass it was designed to hold up... No one agreed or disagreed but Kylebisme.. but not why he disagreed... It seems so obvious to me... it could overcome the Resistance with out fire... if the steel columns were not designed to hold up what was up there....

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Your skin won't stand up without your body inside. If your bones melt your skin will pool on the floor. It will fall looking like a person till it puddles at the bottom on the floor because gravity will be acting equally on all parts of it.

The bones didn't melt! The bones had some fractures at the knees... I expected to see Moonbeam walking about on his stubs...

Sorta like the 15 story bloc above The Tower... It had about 2 gjoules of potential energy... and to crush the concrete into 4 [ I think it was ] grades of fine particulates or pulverized concrete required about 230 mjoules... For the first meeting of the top bloc and the floor below it... Not an issue there for me...

WTC7 is not the same in terms of the potential energy and what it took or takes to squish what is below the broken knees... and what is above the knees that needs being squished too... floor by floor by floor and still fall as if there is jelly steel..

Proof that bones melt. It was captured on video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfV_ENR5IZE

Oh, what a world.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Proof that bones melt. It was captured on video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfV_ENR5IZE

Oh, what a world.

And haystacks are sentient... I loved your proof... Click your shoes, Dorothy... er... TLC and you too will be in Kansas.... awh... That brings up a sad moment for a friend... Toto! I miss my Brad...

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Your skin won't stand up without your body inside. If your bones melt your skin will pool on the floor. It will fall looking like a person till it puddles at the bottom on the floor because gravity will be acting equally on all parts of it.

The bones didn't melt! The bones had some fractures at the knees... I expected to see Moonbeam walking about on his stubs...

Sorta like the 15 story bloc above The Tower... It had about 2 gjoules of potential energy... and to crush the concrete into 4 [ I think it was ] grades of fine particulates or pulverized concrete required about 230 mjoules... For the first meeting of the top bloc and the floor below it... Not an issue there for me...

WTC7 is not the same in terms of the potential energy and what it took or takes to squish what is below the broken knees... and what is above the knees that needs being squished too... floor by floor by floor and still fall as if there is jelly steel..


EDIT: I've often wondered when this occurred if folks adopted their truth one way or another based on what they wanted the truth to be and if they actually looked at it bit by bit and accepted or rejected based on that predetermined bias.

As soon as a point is raised by 'truthers' the next thing that pops up (aside from all the irrelevant bits like being an idiot or moron or even a commie hehehehe) is that it can't be that way cuz aliens planted stuff or what ever..
No one actually has presented the actual math to determine what could have happened... Well, I did on that bloc but it was My Kyle's effort.... I'm lazy like that... I know that 15 story block could have done what occurred to the first floor... I just don't know exactly why it started down as it did... I said or surmised that after the crash of the jet into that Tower there was only about 70% of the resistive force holding up 100% of the mass it was designed to hold up... No one agreed or disagreed but Kylebisme.. but not why he disagreed... It seems so obvious to me... it could overcome the Resistance with out fire... if the steel columns were not designed to hold up what was up there....

It makes no difference to me what brought 7 down. There was structural damage and fire. The Goverment termites got in and out without ever being seen and so most folk via Occham's Razor will just ignore the fact they were ever there. And since what people don't see don't exist, neither do the termites.

We see a part of the building fall in before the rest falls and that falling part doubtless destroyed enough of the internal support to bring the rest of it down. That is what I see, not any anomaly.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

It makes no difference to me what brought 7 down. There was structural damage and fire. The Goverment termites got in and out without ever being seen and so most folk via Occham's Razor will just ignore the fact they were ever there. And since what people don't see don't exist, neither do the termites.

We see a part of the building fall in before the rest falls and that falling part doubtless destroyed enough of the internal support to bring the rest of it down. That is what I see, not any anomaly.

That is what you see... what your mind sees as being the reality of the situation... That is fine by me. What I see is different and that is fine by me too...

What I know can sort this out is to calculate the forces doing stuff using My hypothesis and Yours. At some point one of them there hypotheses will be sustained or maybe even both.
I was hoping some one would do that analysis but realizing the laborious task that would be accept no one unpaid to do it will. NIST has in their SIM the data to get to the start of the 'somewhat symmetrical' collapse and I wish they'd produce it. We paid for it... you more than me... but nonetheless I want seeing it...

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Topic Title: What brought down WTC7

It was Colnel Mustard in the drawing room with the candlestick.

No... wait...

It was Sergent Pepper in the recording studio with the Beatles.

No... wait...

It was Mrs. Paul in the kitchen with the fishstick.

No... wait...

It was kylebisme in P&N with the bullshit generator.

No... wait...
.
.
.
.

 

[ElFenix]

i think a lot of the problem here is that kylebisme has conceptualized girder and rivets skyscrapers as a mudpie:

Originally posted by: kylebisme
If you took a bucket of loose dirt, set a brick on it, and wet down one corner, would you expect the brick to sink straight down?

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Topic Title: What brought down WTC7

It was Colnel Mustard in the drawing room with the candlestick.

No... wait...

It was Sergent Pepper in the recording studio with the Beatles.

No... wait...

It was Mrs. Paul in the kitchen with the fishstick.

No... wait...

It was kylebisme in P&N with the bullshit generator.

No... wait...
.
.
.
.

Well, ... ya know that may be the answer to part of it.. The BS generator, that is...
We all know that Bulls poop in places to mark their 'spot'.... It don't take much BS for a like minded creature to 'read the mail' as it were... know exactly where to 'drop their load'.
Nice work, Harvey... You old guys sure know how to indirectly give the answers...

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
i think a lot of the problem here is that kylebisme has conceptualized girder and rivets skyscrapers as a mudpie:

Originally posted by: kylebisme
If you took a bucket of loose dirt, set a brick on it, and wet down one corner, would you expect the brick to sink straight down?

Well, I recall back that liquefaction could cause the brick to 'sink'. But, you'd have to vibrate the bucket until that happened... Do you think they had lots of vibrators in WTC7?... hmmmmm Evidence lockers.... I wonder... ?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Proof that bones melt. It was captured on video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfV_ENR5IZE

Oh, what a world.

And haystacks are sentient... I loved your proof... Click your shoes, Dorothy... er... TLC and you too will be in Kansas.... awh... That brings up a sad moment for a friend... Toto! I miss my Brad...

I was thinking that it wasn't me that needs to get back to reality in Kansas, but someone else in here.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Cogman
1. Resistive force isn't a constant.

Not that I claimed it was.

Originally posted by: Cogman
2. Speeds due forces are comparative, a large mass going down exerts larger amounts of force then the thing resisting it. Even if the resistive force is 1000000, if the falling force is 10000000000000 you won't be able to see a difference in the falling speed.

Sure, but you aren't describing the situation in question.

Originally posted by: Cogman
(Think, dropping a rock on a tin can vs an asteroid hitting the same can. The can provides the exact same amount of resistive force, but you won't be able to see the asteroid speed change from free fall as it hits the can. You will see the rock change its speed though).

And if the videos showed an asteroid crushing the building, that would make sense.

Originally posted by: Cogman
You said that the resistive force would have to be approx. 0 to observe something approximately going at free fall speeds.

It has to be approximately 0% of what it was when it was holding the building up, as it was, because some yet to be identified force(s) displaced that resistive force.

Originally posted by: LunarRay
And haystacks are sentient... I loved your proof... Click your shoes, Dorothy... er... TLC and you too will be in Kansas...

He obviously prefers to shill for the man behind the curtain.

 

[Number1]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

It has to be approximately 0% of what it was when it was holding the building up, as it was, because some yet to be identified force(s) displaced that resistive force.

More references to magical unidentified "forces"

LOL