What brought down WTC7

[Number1]

I've only skimmed the first 1900 or so posts.. but I think its pretty reasonable to conclude Cheney and Condi did this right?

Kylebisme is your friend then. He has been talking about unknown forces and I think you might be onto something here.

Why don't you guys get a room?

 

[Number1]

I'd say the other two towers makes perfect sense but WTC7? It seems more like an bottom floor precision demolition.

If it was that easy to demolish a building then why not just use a lot of nitro cellulose on ONE end, it should fix it.... It doesn't.

What makes you more qualified to decide how WTC 7 came down then the bunch of scientist at the national institute of science and technology who spent years studying the process? Just curious.

 

[ElFenix]

That 'Free Fall' bit indicates there was NO Resistance against the 'Free Fall' [I don't think it was absolute free fall but to the extent it was there was no Resistance].

NIST indicates the damage had no affect... I suspect they had to say that cuz usually the building falling would have tipped toward the damaged section.. that corner... It came straight down.

why would it have necessarily tipped? it wasn't a solid mass, it was a barely connected heap of toothpicks.

and as a matter of fact the building came down all over the place. it's not visible in the youtube videos that certain posters want to rely on, but it did.

NIST indicates their best hypothesis is that fire caused the collapse... But, fire is a sequential type of affair... free fall is an immediate type of affair... The brains saying that added forces were needed assume it to be impossible to have an immediate and complete elimination of all the structural Resistance from a fire origin alone... especially since you can't see a blasted thing happening to the exterior structure via the facade that is connected to it...

what's the observable difference between 'immediate' and 'sequential' when you have that last big failure on a grainy youtube video?

and you'd have to ignore the sequence of failures that happened during the previous 10 seconds prior to the near or at free fall portion to claim it wasn't sequential.

IF you look at the NIST SIM with damage included you see the building sort of get all wrapped up and curl and then the damage area buckles inward... thus the collapse would have tipped toward that direction.. tis why they had to omit damage as a causal...

the NIST sim is the inside of the building, not the facade. plus, they don't know exactly where the impact damage was.

honestly, these are the same things that have been discussed before in this thread.

 

[kylebisme]

Has you have stated countless times you don't have the academic qualifications or intellect to credibly determine that the video consist proof of the conspiracy theory that the buildings were rigged for demolition.

I didn't state anything of the sort, and nor is it true. You are obviously engaging in psychological projecting here, and making inane arguments which I will skip except for:

I don't get why you had to bump this thread with conversation tidbit you picked up in other threads. eskimospy is not in here to defend his views and is most likely not aware you posted replies to him here.

Typical dishonest twuther tactic.

Typical delusional falser nonsense. A moderator asked for further WTC7 discussion to be kept out of that other thread, so I posted theresaying I would quote and reply here.

what's the observable difference between 'immediate' and 'sequential' when you have that last big failure on a grainy youtube video?

I'm skipping your towers talk as WTC7 is the focus of this thread. Anyway, the "immedate" is the four corners of the roofline going from being supported to free fall in an instant.

and you'd have to ignore the sequence of failures that happened during the previous 10 seconds prior to the near or at free fall portion to claim it wasn't sequential.

No, you just have to acknowledge that the four corners of the roof line didn't start dropping until after that sequence, and that when they did they free fell.

the NIST sim is the inside of the building, not the facade. plus, they don't know exactly where the impact damage was.

Am I to take this to suggest you believe the facade was not connected to the inside of the building, but rather just sat like a sheath over it? If so, you are wrong. Regardless, note that NIST's didn't even show their sim collapse, just start to. They can't show it collapse looking anything like the real thing while sticking to the official story laws of physics, nor can anyone else, regardless of how much you might like to believe otherwise.

 

[ElFenix]

I'm skipping your towers talk as WTC7 is the focus of this thread. Anyway, the "immedate" is the four corners of the roofline going from being supported to free fall in an instant.

uh, what towers talk?

No, you just have to acknowledge that the four corners of the roof line didn't start dropping until after that sequence, and that when they did they free fell.

i've never denied that the facade didn't start drooping until after the interior had been collapsing for a while. however, i see that there is a connection there between the two and hence one cannot be separated from the other.

Am I to take this to suggest you believe the facade was not connected to the inside of the building, but rather just sat like a sheath over it? If so, you are wrong.

i didn't state anything of the sort. good going trying to straw man me.

Regardless, note that NIST's didn't even show their sim collapse, just start to. They can't show it collapse looking anything like the real thing while sticking to the official story laws of physics, nor can anyone else, regardless of how much you might like to believe otherwise.

you've yet to show any proof that the laws of physics state a part of a building collapsing under its own weight can't fall at or near free falls speeds for periods.



"i'm asking questions! ...shouldn't we be worried if our school president is a girl who would rather get her tits licked than go to student council meetings?"

 

[LunarRay]

<------ My doggie is growling at you!!!

Regarding WTC7:
In 2006 NIST said Free Fall collapse was impossible cuz it would require the absence of resistance of the interior/exterior columns.
In 2008 NIST said Free Fall occurred for a period of over 2 seconds or for the building to fall 105'.
The videos existed both in 2006 and 2008.
The building came down as depicted in the videos.
Why would NIST not consider the obvious in 2006?

When the building engaged resistance after some seconds of Free Fall it tilted to the South as a bloc and fell apart there into a heap [a few videos show this action].

A collapse caused by fire alone or fire and damage [NIST says damage did not play a part] would have resulted in a sequential collapse of the columns and this would have been seen. The building would have fallen apart and the bits would have followed the path of least resistance toward the ground.

NIST did not look for evidence of explosives. Their spokesperson indicated that it made no sense to look for what was not there. IOW, they had no reason to look so they didn't. Their spoke person indicated that he knew of no credible statements of Molten anything anywhere or any proof of it... I'm not sure if he means he heard the evidence provided by fire fighters, police, demolition folks on the scene to clear the debris, photos of molten stuff and FIMA's comments plus other evidence available.

Any action regarding the exterior columns would be reflected in the granite and windows that made up the facade... no one rejects this to my knowledge.

The issue is and will continue to be the manner in which a fire only caused thermal expansion collapse of ALL the structure for 105' to enable the upper 105' to fall at Free Fall Acceleration can occur. IF someone has special insight into how to enable this thermal expansion to occur symmetrically and immediately to 105' of structural beams, columns, trusses and what ever else there is in there including the stair wells and etc., kindly send it to NIST so they might insert it into their SIM and have the SIM depict the video from start to finish...

Don't send them info regarding the big smoke and fires on one face... that won't cause a symmetrical failure cuz they reject that.

 

[LunarRay]

Quote: Regardless, note that NIST's didn't even show their sim collapse, just start to. They can't show it collapse looking anything like the real thing while sticking to the official story laws of physics, nor can anyone else, regardless of how much you might like to believe otherwise. you've yet to show any proof that the laws of physics state a part of a building collapsing under its own weight can't fall at or near free falls speeds for periods.

Any structure will stand where it is or collapse and do so at what ever rate the resistance to that collapse allows... What ever bit or bits are no longer supported will do so through the path of least resistance or stop collapsing. WTC7 found straight down to be that path for at least 105'. At some point the fall met resistance to further collapse straight down and tilted as a bloc to the South and fell apart...
Newton's laws control here... with a few others tossed in to help get the building to change direction from straight down to 'fall over'...

 

[Nemesis 1]

This is a sore spot it is clear. Even tho I reject the writter or so said writter of these words. The words are Good and true. Here them understand them and be at peace.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKlb3URnWHY&feature=related


Now that you watched it. Tell me . Plainly this is suppose to be one author. But I see 2 differant authers here. I see 2 differant meanings here . I see confusion here. The first reading was perfect in concept . The second is pure garbage handing authority over to men . Paul spoke with forked tongue. Talking as he knows the True GOD. But giving power over to men and saying GOD ordained it . Ya god ordained Hitler . Ya right.(Satan did). Hitler was to be obeyed without question . NOT EVER.

These guys been around along time beating them when they control all is tuff . Especially given many of the elite know whats coming . They will stay silent for a so called chance to beat death. Funny how this will turn out . None of them will survive.

 

[LunarRay]

Nemesis1,
I'm not sure how your post relates to WTC7.
Not sure how God relates to WTC7 either.
I assume you mean that no matter what happens eventually they like we will die?

 

[Ozoned]

<------ My doggie is growling at you!!!

Regarding WTC7:
In 2006 NIST said Free Fall collapse was impossible cuz it would require the absence of resistance of the interior/exterior columns.
In 2008 NIST said Free Fall occurred for a period of over 2 seconds or for the building to fall 105'.
The videos existed both in 2006 and 2008.
The building came down as depicted in the videos.
Why would NIST not consider the obvious in 2006?

When the building engaged resistance after some seconds of Free Fall it tilted to the South as a bloc and fell apart there into a heap [a few videos show this action].

A collapse caused by fire alone or fire and damage [NIST says damage did not play a part] would have resulted in a sequential collapse of the columns and this would have been seen. The building would have fallen apart and the bits would have followed the path of least resistance toward the ground.

NIST did not look for evidence of explosives. Their spokesperson indicated that it made no sense to look for what was not there. IOW, they had no reason to look so they didn't. Their spoke person indicated that he knew of no credible statements of Molten anything anywhere or any proof of it... I'm not sure if he means he heard the evidence provided by fire fighters, police, demolition folks on the scene to clear the debris, photos of molten stuff and FIMA's comments plus other evidence available.

Any action regarding the exterior columns would be reflected in the granite and windows that made up the facade... no one rejects this to my knowledge.

The issue is and will continue to be the manner in which a fire only caused thermal expansion collapse of ALL the structure for 105' to enable the upper 105' to fall at Free Fall Acceleration can occur. IF someone has special insight into how to enable this thermal expansion to occur symmetrically and immediately to 105' of structural beams, columns, trusses and what ever else there is in there including the stair wells and etc., kindly send it to NIST so they might insert it into their SIM and have the SIM depict the video from start to finish...

Don't send them info regarding the big smoke and fires on one face... that won't cause a symmetrical failure cuz they reject that.

Did you ever tackle the city code thing I mentioned? Despite what you would think, a good reverse engineering person always starts at the beginning.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Not really what I had in mind. The debate of what happened on 9/11 is fruitless. Because if the buildings were brought down it was done by the powerful and they are of 1 mind 1 cause that cause is total control. The reading I gave you . Shows how and ware this power comes from . The words were Pauls or so said. The second reading was Paul the first I dought if Paul wrote. Paul was a Roman / The book was Romans/ This is about the Church handing power over to evil people . The history tho distorted is there to read. But read both western and eastern history to become aware. Someone is lieing here. The point is . If this is conspirecy its older than you or I . Its older than your great grandparents.

Lers pretend that there is 12 planet and it does come around every 3,600 years. Surely it would be in History books . Or would it. Not if A plan started to take shape to suppress the trueth so as to make ready for the next event. The lie in all of this is that the world shall be destoyed, its not true . They know this as do I. But words were written as propochy rather than history as it should have been . It all about control. Read revelations its a blue print for their handy work.

There is trueth in that book . I will use the rapture of the church for example of a pure lie.

The last to die shall be the first to rise. This is the trueth. So there cann't be a rapture. The First to rise will be the 2 witnesses who lie dead in streets for 3 days while world parties because of there deaths. But in 3 days like the living word they rise up .

Even tho I can except this . What I cann't . I will not except is 144,000 male virgin jews being the elect. All MALES. This shit is getting old . The First Pope who was it . According to ya all it be Peter. Not true . Mary Mag . was the First head after the Christ.

Christ supposedly said Peter was the Rock on which the Chuch be built. The corner stone so to speak. Yet it was Mary Mag who lead early church . But dam if she wasn't a women . It was unexceptable . Funny that. Litith to was demeonized when she was infact perfect in equility / Again funny that. All 3 great religions demonize her. About the only thing they all agree on . Funny that. All three have suppressed women . These small facts are easy to find but not so easy to understand,

Now hows this fit. Its so hard when were talking about differant men acting together for one cause.

THe tower of Babel all peoples of a common tongue. All destroyed and changed by the Living GOD. NIMROD the whole one world leader at babels time was suddenly not one world leader. As the tower being destoyed and the people in confusion broke apart all going there own way . Nimrod was a Blackman. The living word said these words . As it was in the beginning so shall it be in the end. We have come full circle when the NWO is announced.

Back to Mary mag and Lilith. When hillary said she was running My wife was happy . I laughed out loud. I said do you really believe that man has grown that much in 5,500 years. She said I hope so. I said not. I didn't know Obama was running but I did tell her I black man could beat hillary so it was said and done. I also said that same thing here long ago befor we knew any of this stuff. It just a matter of search and ye shall find. So the towers are = to babel and the anti Christ coming back and setting up one world government. As it was in the beginning so shall it be at the end.

The END-> Nope God did promise to restore Adam to eden at the end . The end is nothing more than the beginning of enlightened humans.

The end times are suppose to be purification by fire. Yet that fire has no power over good humans. We are moving to the age of aquarious . The Water bearer. Not FIRE as so many liars say . Do not fear the fire it has no power to hurt you unless you let it. Its a lie . WAter bearer Comes . Not flame thrower. The lieing bastereds.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Nemesis1....who shit in your Wheaties???

 

[LunarRay]

Did you ever tackle the city code thing I mentioned? Despite what you would think, a good reverse engineering person always starts at the beginning.

The design was consistent with the 1968 NYCBC except for the thickness of the thermal installation and a few other minor bits.. I looked at the bedrock to see if the short duration of the tower collapse 'earthquakes' could cause liquefaction and undermine the foundation. I looked at the new truss system to get over the ConEd bit and like that and figured that was a problematic issue... that could have gone at once or nearly so but there were only minor fires there and no fuel oil burned to any extent...
By just looking at the column 79 - 80 area I sorta felt that was a weak area compared to the rest...
I could not see anything else remarkable or that NIST or FEMA said that advanced any other issues regarding code.

Since the area there is in a sorta of excavated and walled in fish tank like thingi I'd have expected other buildings to also have foundation damage if something related to the bed rock.. schist or what ever else is in that enclosure and I haven't found any info on that.

 

[LunarRay]

Nemesis1,

Interesting thesis there. At the moment God is NOT the causal or motive for WTC 7 collapse in my opinion. I don't think the tribulation is upon us since the other building is not yet built.. the one in Israel .. The Temple... The 3rd most holy of holy places - The Dome of the Rock - is in the way and not likely to be moved peacefully. What God may have said to whomever he chats with got it wrong, I think.
WTC 7, in my opinion, is the work of some conspiracy that is related to men being men... God's work is not so ill defined and clumsy... God would have used C4!

 

[LunarRay]

What makes you more qualified to decide how WTC 7 came down then the bunch of scientist at the national institute of science and technology who spent years studying the process? Just curious.

Any time a scientist rejects, with out the least bit of examination, evidence that points away from their hypothesis it is reasonable to not only wonder why but also to consider an alternative hypothesis that includes all the evidence... Empirical evidence is found using the senses... Eye witness statements, physical evidence that can be tested and videos of the event come to mind.
The Free Fall Acceleration was right there in the videos and yet NIST did not consider it... To me they worked by direction to develop a fire only or fire/damage only scenario and it is weak... Had they looked at the video and produced a Hypothesis that recognized all aspects they may have done some additional evidence gathering.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Regarding WTC7:
In 2006 NIST said Free Fall collapse was impossible cuz it would require the absence of resistance of the interior/exterior columns.
In 2008 NIST said Free Fall occurred for a period of over 2 seconds or for the building to fall 105'.
The videos existed both in 2006 and 2008.
The building came down as depicted in the videos.
Why would NIST not consider the obvious in 2006?.

Ugh. Please, LR. Don't fall for that truther slight of hand.

When NIST insisted in 2006 that the building did not free-fall they were speaking of the entire collapse. In order to argue and focus on the minutiae, as truthers so frequently love to do, they decided to break the argument into little bits and claim that there was a very short period of free-fall (which is NOT what the truthers argued previously regarding free-fall). NIST agreed that free-fall or very near free-fall happened during a short period of time during the overall collapse. However, NIST also reiterated in 2008 that the entire collapse was not a free-fall event, not even close.

Neither does that short period of free-fall throw any real doubt on NIST's finding that the damage and fires ultimately caused the collapse. It doesn't change anything and it certainly doesn't suddenly mean that termites or tunneling gnomes should be evaluated as a possible cause.

 

[LunarRay]

=TastesLikeChicken;28913819]Ugh. Please, LR. Don't fall for that truther slight of hand. When NIST insisted in 2006 that the building did not free-fall they were speaking of the entire collapse. In order to argue and focus on the minutiae, as truthers so frequently love to do, they decided to break the argument into little bits and claim that there was a very short period of free-fall (which is NOT what the truthers argued previously regarding free-fall). NIST agreed that free-fall or very near free-fall happened during a short period of time during the overall collapse. However, NIST also reiterated in 2008 that the entire collapse was not a free-fall event, not even close. Neither does that short period of free-fall throw any real doubt on NIST's finding that the damage and fires ultimately caused the collapse. It doesn't change anything and it certainly doesn't suddenly mean that termites or tunneling gnomes should be evaluated as a possible cause.

Hehehehe, you do have a way of bursting one's bubble...😉

I did read the reports on it all... and watched the videos of the HS teacher and the Engineer and know the difference tween a two data point graph and one that contains all the timed events... 5.4 seconds from start to the roof line passing that building... of which 2.25 ish were near free fall acceleration... That is where it ended up... It began as a 'contant velocity'... for 5.4 seconds... in '06...

BTW, perhaps you can opine on the EPA air quality opinion or is that a White House Lie? Everyone, including me, knew there was asbestos in those Towers... not WTC 7.. but no one should have been allowed to breathe that crap... Do you think it was to get Wall St. open faster... or perhaps... well, I can't think of a motive..

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Hehehehe, you do have a way of bursting one's bubble...😉

I did read the reports on it all... and watched the videos of the HS teacher and the Engineer and know the difference tween a two data point graph and one that contains all the timed events... 5.4 seconds from start to the roof line passing that building... of which 2.25 ish were near free fall acceleration... That is where it ended up... It began as a 'contant velocity'... for 5.4 seconds... in '06...

BTW, perhaps you can opine on the EPA air quality opinion or is that a White House Lie? Everyone, including me, knew there was asbestos in those Towers... not WTC 7.. but no one should have been allowed to breathe that crap... Do you think it was to get Wall St. open faster... or perhaps... well, I can't think of a motive..

Honestly, I don't care much about the EPA claim and air quality issue. That was after the fact, has no real bearing on why the towers collapsed, and so it really doesn't interest me.

 

[dphantom]

I cannot believe this is still going on. The case is settled and clearly there was no "conspiracy to bring down WTC 7 just as there is nothing with the WTC. The willingness of truthers to disbelieve the truth knows no bounds.

 

[LunarRay]

I cannot believe this is still going on. The case is settled and clearly there was no "conspiracy to bring down WTC 7 just as there is nothing with the WTC. The willingness of truthers to disbelieve the truth knows no bounds.

You don't accept the Government's Conspiracy theory either? The Alternate Theories are many and the one thing in common is they examine all the evidence. Why should folks roll over and agree? Dissent is good to have. The Left and Right can't agree on a thing either and each has their own truth to boot.

 

[dphantom]

You don't accept the Government's Conspiracy theory either? The Alternate Theories are many and the one thing in common is they examine all the evidence. Why should folks roll over and agree? Dissent is good to have. The Left and Right can't agree on a thing either and each has their own truth to boot.

Dissent is fine except when as in this case truthers take a small piece of data out of context and try to build a conspiracy around it. Then it becomes not dissent but obfuscation.

 

[dphantom]

You don't accept the Government's Conspiracy theory either? The Alternate Theories are many and the one thing in common is they examine all the evidence. Why should folks roll over and agree? Dissent is good to have. The Left and Right can't agree on a thing either and each has their own truth to boot.

And not all dissent or arguments are equal. When you take facts out of context or misrepresent the science and physics, then that person has cancelled their right to argue as an equal. And as such, can and should be ignored by those of us who question, but in the end, agree to abide by the data in its entirety.

 

[LunarRay]

Honestly, I don't care much about the EPA claim and air quality issue. That was after the fact, has no real bearing on why the towers collapsed, and so it really doesn't interest me.

It could. One Tower and 64 floors of the other one had Asbestos that needed being rid of at a cost of nearly 2 billion $. I wondered why Silverstein took a 99 year lease on a place that couldn't even accommodate computer infrastructure needs...
It is facts like these that make WTC 7's demise a bit more interesting. IOW, it points to motive for complicity if one wanted to go there.

In any event, NIST has not said their hypothesis IS the only way WTC7 fell... but simply that it is their most probable scenario. I'd agree with that, however, given that their hypothesis omits empirical evidence one can easily discard the hypothesis if ANY evidence does not sustain that hypothesis...

 

[LunarRay]

And not all dissent or arguments are equal. When you take facts out of context or misrepresent the science and physics, then that person has cancelled their right to argue as an equal. And as such, can and should be ignored by those of us who question, but in the end, agree to abide by the data in its entirety.

Just cuz NIST refused to look for evidence is no reason to label them bad scientists... they determined what they needed to determine and some folks accept that... no biggie. 🙂

When the NIST spokesman said they didn't look for evidence of control demolition, as is standard in a fire according to Fire investigation methods, and one finds that evidence for them one begins to wonder why they acted that way... They said why look for what is not there... They determined there was not evidence without looking for it... That seems odd to me. When their spokesman said he never heard anyone indicate molten stuff under WTC7 and there is a plethora of evidence to that, I get a bit more concerned.

IF you accept the Government Conspiracy Theory cuz you don't accept the evidence NIST has not, for what ever reason, accepted then that is fine by me... I won't deny your right to that opinion... But, if you accept their Theory cuz they said so in the face of pretty solid contra evidence... then I think you do so for the wrong reason.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

It could. One Tower and 64 floors of the other one had Asbestos that needed being rid of at a cost of nearly 2 billion $. I wondered why Silverstein took a 99 year lease on a place that couldn't even accommodate computer infrastructure needs...
It is facts like these that make WTC 7's demise a bit more interesting. IOW, it points to motive for complicity if one wanted to go there.

In any event, NIST has not said their hypothesis IS the only way WTC7 fell... but simply that it is their most probable scenario. I'd agree with that, however, given that their hypothesis omits empirical evidence one can easily discard the hypothesis if ANY evidence does not sustain that hypothesis...

Except that "complicity" argument becomes circular because you then have to take into consideration all the people involved, show proof that the towers were demolished, etc. - something has has never been close to being proven. So there's more than complicity involved, there's common sense, considering the entire picture, and taking all of the known facts into consideration. When you do that there is no basis for the complicity argument. Common sense and science argues othrwise.