What brought down WTC7

[Number1]

I'm in no position to know how WTC7 came down

But in a later post

# The buildings wouldn't have came down from only the impact damage and fire. # Massive rigging was required to bring the buildings down.

It's either one or the other Kyle, you either know or you don't know.
Let me figure it out for you:
You don't know what brought down the building Kyle.
It boggles the mind to see a high school drop out trying to disprove the national institute of science and technology.

 

[Number1]

Let me 'splain it to you in simple English, and hopefully you can actually grasp it, though I doubt it. Your penchant for comprehending concepts seems to be a bit, well...lacking, to put it nicely.

A massive government conspiracy involving WTC7 would have required them to place massive amounts of thermite/thermate/whatever in order to ensure the building came down. Why? Because there's no way that they could have planned that they would ram planes into WTC1 and WTC2 know that pieces of WTC1 would fall on WTC7, starting fires that couldn't be put out, and disabling the water mains so the firefighters wouldn't have any water to put out the fires, so they only required a tiny bit of thermite in a critical place to bring it down after all the other damage had occurred.

Additionally, the fact they you can't understand why the damage and fires alone would bring down WTC7 demonstrates, yet again, your ignorance. You don't understand the first thing about building structures, building materials, material properties, points of failure, and the physics involved in collapses.

But continue to own yourself in this thread. Your ignorance is nothing if not persistent. That's what stupid tends to be though. Keep it up. Bra-fucking-vo.

Nicely put TLC. He can't see the whale sitting in the room that so loudly screams Kyle:thousands and thousands of people from all over the world would have to be involved in this conspiracy to carry it out. 9 years later nobody has come out to denounce it?

Bill couldn't hide a blow job from the American public, an act involving 2 people.

 

[kylebisme]

I'm not in a position to know how the buildings were specifically rigged to come down, but the video evidence and the laws of physics alone proves they were rigged to come down by some means or another, and neither TLC's misleading arguments or your ridiculous use of fonts does anything to change that.

 

[Number1]

I'm not in a position to know how the buildings were specifically rigged to come down, but the video evidence and the laws of physics alone proves they were rigged to come down by some means or another, and neither TLC's misleading arguments or your ridiculous use of fonts does anything to change that.

For a guy with dyslexia, you pretty perceptive to have noticed the different sizes of fonts I used. Very good.

It's funny how the reputable world is not picking up on your video "evidences".

 

[LunarRay]

The buildings came down as the result of the impact damage and fire.
Massive rigging would have been required to bring the buildings down had something like thermite been used.

These two sentences state one thing that did occur and one thing that did not occur. The second sentence contains the past participle 'would have' and it is the result that did not occur had the condition 'had thermite been used'. I think it is called a 'past perfect tense containing a third conditional'. Usually you have an 'IF' to start it off followed by the condition "Thermite had been used" with the result that That did not occur following.."Massive rigging Would have been ... " or like that anyhow.


So, as I read it, I might see the second sentence support the first... IOW: Massive rigging would have been needed to install the thermite and that is not reasonable because of access, timing, plane circumstances and, etc. so, therefore, Tower debris damage and ensuing fires caused the collapse.
Now, I'm not sure if that is what he meant but that is what I get from it.
I will say that the physicians in my family would not use that kind of wording but the lawyers might. It is all about how your mind links stuff... Any time you see a 'would have' and elsewhere a 'had' you have a link of a negative fashion, usually. IOW, Had the elephant danced on the roof of WTC7 he would have fell on through. It didn't happen!

 

[event8horizon]

That brings up another issue. First though, not all steel in WTC7 was fire-proofed. Columns, some beams, and floor trusses were but there's no proof that piece of steel came from either of those.

Also, the fact that so few pieces of steel were found with that same corrosion is telling. event8horizon likes to imply that the corrossion must have been caused by thermite/thermate/super-thermite/painted on nano-thermite or whatever kind of thermite/thermite is the order of the day for truthers. However, the amount of thermite/thermite required to bring down the buildings would have been massive. Many, many more pieces of steel should have shown that same sort of corrosion, including columns. So where is all the same sort of corossion on those? It should have been in evidence everywhere, not a rarity.

rarity? try again. from the wtc 7 debris pile:

"A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said."

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/29/n...ange-collapse-7-world-trade.html?pagewanted=2

notice that he states "steel members". how much would be nice to know. ill try and find his email address and ask. how knows, maybe ill get a reply but i doubt it. and also check out the fema bpat report to see an example of swiss cheese steel that came from the wtc 7 debris pile.

 

[event8horizon]

Personally, I tend to believe the experts that are actual experts, ones without a political agenda to fuel their beliefs and bias their findings. Jones, Griffin, and the rest do not fit in that category.

and the experts say (prof sisson) that little steel can be removed by the liquid "slag" theory in 24 hrs.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

rarity? try again. from the wtc 7 debris pile:

"A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said."

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/29/n...ange-collapse-7-world-trade.html?pagewanted=2

notice that he states "steel members". how much would be nice to know. ill try and find his email address and ask. how knows, maybe ill get a reply but i doubt it. and also check out the fema bpat report to see an example of swiss cheese steel that came from the wtc 7 debris pile.

I see that you can't put a number on it or even demonstrate that it wasn't a rarity. Duly noted. Thanks for that demonstration.

I also notice that you also continue to fail to address the problem of proving the steel wasn't already corroded. Keep trying to dance around that question.

 

[LunarRay]

I see that you can't put a number on it or even demonstrate that it wasn't a rarity. Duly noted. Thanks for that demonstration.

I also notice that you also continue to fail to address the problem of proving the steel wasn't already corroded. Keep trying to dance around that question.

Do you mean by a statistical sampling of the steel that was seen? I'd imagine the steel prior to 9/11 was all stuck up in a building and this was probably the first time corrosion was noticed on that piece of steel or any other prior to and after their installation. Given the viewer did not mention how many were or were not corroded among the many bits of steel, I'd guess it/they to be both unique as a group being corroded among other non corroded steel, which was not clearly mentioned, and of interest to the technical expertise that the viewer brought to the scene.

 

[event8horizon]

Do you mean by a statistical sampling of the steel that was seen? I'd imagine the steel prior to 9/11 was all stuck up in a building and this was probably the first time corrosion was noticed on that piece of steel or any other prior to and after their installation. Given the viewer did not mention how many were or were not corroded among the many bits of steel, I'd guess it/they to be both unique as a group being corroded among other non corroded steel, which was not clearly mentioned, and of interest to the technical expertise that the viewer brought to the scene.

the "corrosion" was a very unexpected event.

" Yet metallurgical studies on WTC steel brought back to WPI reveal that a novel phenomenon--called a eutectic reaction--occurred at the surface, causing intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese."

http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html

then from the fema bpat report:
"The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event."

 

[LunarRay]

"A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said."

I'm not sure if this bit has been followed up on. I know that a number of years ago the thoughts about this eutectic stuff included a number of potential causes among which was acid rain. IIRC, Acid Rain was thought to take a minimum of a year exposure to produce the amount of 'damage' seen on the samples they acquired.
I know FEMA's report somewhere mentions a follow up as well. I don't think NIST bothered with it or maybe I'm mistaken but I don't recall seeing a reference to it in the NIST report...

Do you know where they went with this?

 

[kylebisme]

The buildings came down as the result of the impact damage and fire.
Massive rigging would have been required to bring the buildings down had something like thermite been used.

These two sentences state one thing that did occur and one thing that did not occur.

Please tell me; if you believe the buildings came down because of impact and fire damage, how can you not also believe that it would only take the small amount of rigging needed to simulate that damage to bring the building down?

Byond that:

Massive rigging would have been needed to install the thermite and that is not reasonable because of access, timing, plane circumstances and, etc. so, therefore, Tower debris damage and ensuing fires caused the collapse.

Dismissing a possibility on the grounds of probably is not reasonable, and deriving a conclusion from having done so is outright irrational.

 

[Number1]

Please tell me; if you believe the buildings came down because of impact and fire damage, how can you not also believe that it would only take the small amount of rigging needed to simulate that damage to bring the building down?

Byond that:


Dismissing a possibility on the grounds of probably is not reasonable, and deriving a conclusion from having done so is outright irrational.

1: You obviously don't understand what it takes to bring down a building. Massive fires or massive explosions can do it.

2: Dismissing the impossible is the only logical action any rational unbiased intelligent person should do when looking for answers.

 

[LunarRay]

Please tell me; if you believe the buildings came down because of impact and fire damage, how can you not also believe that it would only take the small amount of rigging needed to simulate that damage to bring the building down?

Byond that:


Dismissing a possibility on the grounds of probably is not reasonable, and deriving a conclusion from having done so is outright irrational.

Regarding my last response to you:
I think my comment was related to TLC's use of a 'tense' and the inclusion of a 3rd conditional. A "had this happened, this would have"... a way of communicating in English.

Regarding my current response to you:
I have not enough certainty to believe anything regarding WTC7 is true other than the obvious. I cannot see what I cannot see in the videos of WTC7's Collapse. I have not seen an exhaustive and independent analysis of every possible scenario that could have resulted in what is depicted in the videos. What I can see in the videos is what you can also see. How it came to be that what I see happing in the videos coupled with other evidence is, therefore, interpretation and or speculation coupled with bias. I am not a scientist of this field.

Science can opine to the extent the evidence allows. It seems to me, however, when science does this opine stuff we are at times left with a degree of probability of being correct. In the case of WTC7 there are a few options that have a probability attached. IF one [and I'm omitting the non science approach of the masses who use bias filtered common sense to reach a conclusion] scientist can reasonably omit some evidence as being anecdotal and reach a probable cause then I'd say it is a viable opinion. The next scientist may include that evidence and reach a different conclusion and it too be viable. Who holds the opinion that is most probable as to the collapse of WTC7? I'd say the one who has the greatest support among the scientific community...

TLC has adopted a scenario that makes sense to him. I don't assume one way or the other the level of expertise he holds in this field. He rejects evidence and refuses to link some evidence (thermite et. al.), molten stuff, corroded stuff and other stuff to the collapse. He does so based on what he believes to be highly improbable. That being the installation of the substance that results (possibly) in the stuff he rejects. His conclusion is reasonable imo. IF there was evidence of credible nature going to the installation of the stuff - none yet has been produced - like eye witness or some such, I think he'd adopt a different stance on it all. Saying the stuff he rejects proves it was installed is somewhat reasonable IF you can eliminate every other way and move the installation of Thermate et. al. into a more probable position that may then work to provide circumstantial evidence he and others may buy into.

How one concludes as they do is based on their approach. Irrational is when someone has no rational basis for what they conclude... A whole host of Engineers in this field agree with TLC... so, based on that his approach seems quite rational... right or wrong as the case may be.

 

[Ozoned]

I have the answer to the question that the thread title asks. My answer can not be disputed.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Spoiler

Gravity

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[LunarRay]

I have the answer to the question that the thread title asks. My answer can not be disputed.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Spoiler

Gravity

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

That answers the directionality of the fall... but not what caused the elimination of the forces opposing Herr Dr Gravity...

 

[Nemesis 1]

the "corrosion" was a very unexpected event.

" Yet metallurgical studies on WTC steel brought back to WPI reveal that a novel phenomenon--called a eutectic reaction--occurred at the surface, causing intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese."

http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html

then from the fema bpat report:
"The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event."

Yes it is . But heres another unusual event . The new leaser and the insurance companies.

Now If I* sell my home it has to be inspected, Are you saying that neither the insurer or the leaser didn't comply with law and have building inspected . If those beams were as bad as all that. The inspectors are at fault and should be held accountable.

 

[Ozoned]

Yes it is . But heres another unusual event . The new leaser and the insurance companies.

Now If I* sell my home it has to be inspected, Are you saying that neither the insurer or the leaser didn't comply with law and have building inspected . If those beams were as bad as all that. The inspectors are at fault and should be held accountable.

I can think of 2 different household chemicals (that I have under my kitchen sink) that can corode metal in a relatively short amount of time, once they are mixed with water.

 

[LunarRay]

I can think of 2 different household chemicals (that I have under my kitchen sink) that can corode metal in a relatively short amount of time, once they are mixed with water.

You understood that... I'm impressed!

Can you elaborate.. I'm interested in that steel... what aside from the thermate stuff do you think could have done it in that short time that also would have been in contact with those steel bits... and would it have left any tell tale evidence the investigators ought to have found?

 

[kylebisme]

You obviously don't understand what it takes to bring down a building. Massive fires or massive explosions can do it.

Rather, I understand the simple fact that a building which can be brought down by massive fires, and is on fire, it doesn't need massive explosions to bring it down.

Regarding my last response to you:
I think my comment was related to TLC's use of a 'tense' and the inclusion of a 3rd conditional. A "had this happened, this would have"... a way of communicating in English.

I noticed, and it is a ridiculous argument which completely avoids responding to the logical contradiction in the two statements. I wish you could bring yourself to stop humoring TLCs misdirection, as that would allow us both to avoid wasting a lot of time on such nonsense.

I have not enough certainty to believe anything regarding WTC7 is true other than the obvious.

It was an "if" question, meaning assume the first claim, and then compare it to the latter.

How about this; don't think of WTC7, or 9/11 at all, and rather consider these two statements on their own, and imagine a structure which each one would be true:

• The structure can come down as the result of the impact damage and fire alone.
• Massive rigging with explosives would be required to bring the impact damaged and on fire structure down.

Now, can you imagine a structure to which both statements apply?

 

[LunarRay]

How about this; don't think of WTC7, or 9/11 at all, and rather consider these two statements on their own, and imagine a structure which each one would be true:
The structure can come down as the result of the impact damage and fire alone.
Massive rigging with explosives would be required to bring the impact damaged and on fire structure down.
Now, can you imagine a structure to which both statements apply

My house would collapse with fire and damage alone.

The massive rigging along with the other conditions brings to mind a building like the Pentagon.
If you limit the rigging of explosives to say moderate or maybe a bit less.. I'd say you could easily do a medium sized steel building of some 40 to 50 floors. But, I'm a bit concerned with the fires and damage.. I'd assume I'd want it in a foot print of itself.. and I'm not sure how much control I'd have over that with fires and other damage... I'd maybe consult a professional on it.

A structure to which both would apply... hmmmm assuming time is not of the essence, I'd say any building of any size burning long enough [having fuel to do that] would collapse but since fuel is finite I'd say a very large building... made of wood?... Depending on the rain situation I would use splosives too.

 

[Number1]

Poor Kyle, his imaginary demolition planners would have taken into account the size of the fires, the number of fires and their locations in order to minimize the amount of explosive needed. We're in lala land here.

The only logical explanation for the building collapse is fire and it explains everything we have seen reasonably well.

Let me repeat my point: Nobody has been able to provide an better explanation for the building collapse then the NIST.

You do not have the expertise to prove them wrong. You have said so yourself. All you have done in this thread is point out what you and the twuther community considers to be an anomaly and you have use this single instance to try to invalidate the entire NIST report. It doesn't work, you have failed miserably.

 

[LunarRay]

I noticed, and it is a ridiculous argument which completely avoids responding to the logical contradiction in the two statements. I wish you could bring yourself to stop humoring TLCs misdirection, as that would allow us both to avoid wasting a lot of time on such nonsense.

You see a contradiction so I can't go any further.
Fire and damage caused the pier to collapse. Had giant squid danced on the pier and collapsed it they would have taken dance lessons.

 

[First]

Poor Kyle, his imaginary demolition planners would have taken into account the size of the fires, the number of fires and their locations in order to minimize the amount of explosive needed. We're in lala land here.

The only logical explanation for the building collapse is fire and it explains everything we have seen reasonably well.

Let me repeat my point: Nobody has been able to provide an better explanation for the building collapse then the NIST.

You do not have the expertise to prove them wrong. You have said so yourself. All you have done in this thread is point out what you and the twuther community considers to be an anomaly and you have use this single instance to try to invalidate the entire NIST report. It doesn't work, you have failed miserably.

That's the calling card of a truther; narrow the discussion to things they can explain and deflect both the unexplainable/incompatible or claim said dialog is irrelevant to the discussion.

Everyone here knows what's up.

 

[LunarRay]

Everyone here knows what's up.

There exists a bunch of evidence. The evidence points to where it points based on how it is interpreted, accepted or rejected and why.
To say 'Thermate, et. al. is in the 'dust' (assume no argument to that at all...) we are still left with evidence needed to place it somewhere and that the 'dust' evidence can be extrapolated to indicate an amount needed to do what the premise suggests.
We simply have an anomaly. Lots of them anomalies bouncing about... get enough of them and you start to see a picture unfold. Right now we've a picture puzzle with lots of missing pieces... and we have one group who left out available pieces and colored in the missing bits and said 'look, it is a cow'... I'm not too sure it ain't a Duck... Their cow is getting feathers.. I think..