• We should now be fully online following an overnight outage. Apologies for any inconvenience, we do not expect there to be any further issues.

What brought down WTC7

Page 48 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I've read it multiple times already and it's still faulty. There's not any comparison that's apples to apples unless I assume that you are already taking into considertation the gash in the south side along with the weakening from the fire.

Then you also have to consider the logistics of placing tons of thermite on the beams. Want to know a dirty little secret that the truthers fail to mention? Nano-thermite still doesn't exist. Like nearly everything "nano" it's still in the research phase. Yet we are supposed to believe we had this capability already 8 years ago, and far longer than that if you consider the planning that must have been required to plan 9/11.

C'mon, man. I'm all about considering possibilities. Those possibilities have to conform to logic and sense though.

NIST said that the gash had not at all to do with the failure of 79. They said fire cause it to weaken etc...
I'm using NIST to suggest any focus ought to start with column 79.
I asked what to me is a sensible question and that is: NIST says failure of 79 caused the building to collapse. Fires caused 79 to undergo the events that led to 79's failure. I'm simply asking IF that is true could fire and thermite or thermite and no fire have caused the events? IF we absolutely need fire then I'm not so sure Thermite on only 79 would do it... but we don't know. They didn't test that hypothesis.

ONE COLUMN don't need tons of Thermite... I'm talking about 1 column... column 79...
One column of the size used in WTC7 requires tons of thermite, not pounds (It has to be ignited too, not an easy feat, yet there's no evidence of any such ignition devices). Then it has to be demonstrated that thermite can actually make a diagonal or vertical cut through such a large steel column, something that has never been proven in the first place, and there are plenty of tests that show that it's not likely (see the Mythbusters episode where they use thermite). The use of thermite is a fancifull myth. It sounds viable superficially but the facts are that thermite isn't used as a demolition device for massive buildings.
 

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,941
1
0
Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: Number1

We're all waiting anxiously for Kyle's reply now.

Don't you think Kyle could look up the already done calculations for how much potential energy that building represented? I do. But, I also think that we can't look at that aspect until we look at how the building did start to fall.
NIST indicated column 79 lost lateral support from the beam between column 44 and 79.
Knowing the formula to calculate the potential energy is nice but meaningless, imo, until you know all the other interconnected relationships.
I think the real issue is in testing that hypothesis. I wonder what their Sim would do if you just removed 79? Would the load redistribute to other columns? Was the design of the building so 'fragile' that losing one column flattens the building. IF that is the case then don't you think One of Kyle's nano thermite thingi could have done it too? Forget about Free Fall... the building came down and NIST said cuz of failure of 79 at the 13th floor...
It caused what appears to be a close to Free Fall event...
OK... Kyle's contention is that bad guys attacked the column 79 on the 13th floor...
Would that kill the building?

Edit: I don't mean that it IS Kyle's contention but using his name for my question.. :)
If you consider thermite we are back to termites and elephants again. Why didn't the NIST report consider termites and elephants? It's because they could be easily ruled out.

The planting of thermite would mean that super ninjas somehow snuck in past any security and planted thousands of pounds of thermite around the beams without anyone noticing. That includes the day and night workers in WTC7 as well as the maintenance staff and janitorial staff. Not single person noticed anything out of place while ninjas were tearing out drywall (the beams were not exposed), placing charges, wiring charges, re-drywalling (taping, mudding, and texturing), and painting to cover up any traces of their tampering. Then they obviously got rid of the paint smell too, somehow, before anyone came across the area and noticed.

That kind of stuff may exist in Hollywood movies. It doesn't irl though. It's simply not possible that thermite/super-thermite/thermate/nano-thermite was planted. It's as unlikely as elephants and termites.

Tons LOL . Why is it so unlikely. If this goes to the top . its more than likely. Many possiabilities exist if its USA government involved. The Idea of terrorist doing this . Than I agree with you . Whos to say the real target here was building 7 . Were the criminals were set lose because fraud evidance was destroyed 100,s of billions. Calfornia could sure use the Money enron stole from them can't they.

He's pointing out how unlikely it is that not a single solitary soul ever mentioned the fact that guys had gutted his or her floor of the WTC. He's pointing out that an operation to strap thermite to the support beams of any skyscraper would involve hundreds of people, miles of detonation cord, and thousands of pounds of explosives (or thermite).

He's raising the biggest point of contention I have with these stupid conspiracy theories:

Why the fuck wouldn't the government just take over the building, truck in explosives and blow the motherfuckers up? Why have such a stupidly elaborate plan that had thousands of chances to fail and, even if pulled off perfectly, would leave questionable physics behind? That makes ZERO fucking sense.

If the government was behind 911 they would have brought down the towers with explosives, with RPGs, with tanks, with trucks full of fertilizer, with an army of trained fucking beavers before they considered slamming plans into the skyscrapers AND THEN setting off carefully planted explosives.

Shit and if they decided to use EXPLOSIVES to take down the buildings, why not use a real explosive? Why use thermite? Why use something that has no proven success taking down buildings? That's like using a serrated knife to cut down a tree because the knife can cut bread.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: BeauJangles
He's pointing out how unlikely it is that not a single solitary soul ever mentioned the fact that guys had gutted his or her floor of the WTC. He's pointing out that an operation to strap thermite to the support beams of any skyscraper would involve hundreds of people, miles of detonation cord, and thousands of pounds of explosives (or thermite).

He's raising the biggest point of contention I have with these stupid conspiracy theories:

Why the fuck wouldn't the government just take over the building, truck in explosives and blow the motherfuckers up? Why have such a stupidly elaborate plan that had thousands of chances to fail and, even if pulled off perfectly, would leave questionable physics behind? That makes ZERO fucking sense.

If the government was behind 911 they would have brought down the towers with explosives, with RPGs, with tanks, with trucks full of fertilizer, with an army of trained fucking beavers before they considered slamming plans into the skyscrapers AND THEN setting off carefully planted explosives.

Shit and if they decided to use EXPLOSIVES to take down the buildings, why not use a real explosive? Why use thermite? Why use something that has no proven success taking down buildings? That's like using a serrated knife to cut down a tree because the knife can cut bread.
Don't use logic and rational thinking with truthers. It only serves to confuse them.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

One column of the size used in WTC7 requires tons of thermite, not pounds (It has to be ignited too, not an easy feat, yet there's no evidence of any such ignition devices). Then it has to be demonstrated that thermite can actually make a diagonal or vertical cut through such a large steel column, something that has never been proven in the first place, and there are plenty of tests that show that it's not likely (see the Mythbusters episode where they use thermite). The use of thermite is a fancifull myth. It sounds viable superficially but the facts if thermite don't support it's use as a demolition device for massive buildings.

Ok.. well, would you agree with the notion that however much whatever kind of explosive/cutting stuff was applied taking out column 79 would have caused the the building to collapse. NIST said fires on 11 -13 caused it to buckle and lose load but also fires weakened other stuff as well.
I'm not sure anyone would know that a fire in the East location from 11 - 13 would do what occurred but if anyone knew that I'd guess it would be someone close to the design aspects and not some Government agent or Terrorist or Elephant or Moonbeams Termites..

I think between 20 and 30 lbs of thermite configured in a vertical cutter device would do that..[cut through column 79] and start fires... down from the 13th floor to probably the 11th.

You said you can't cut vertical with Nano thermite.. I think you can.. but for that I'll see if I can find some reference to the device I'm speaking of... so hold "no it can't" for the moment.
 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0
Man you guys actually believe that JFK was done by alone gunmen . And ruby who is dieing of cancer just walks up ozwald and shots him dead . Why RUBY . Because he was dieing ? Little brother died in same manner as oswald . Whats hard to believe is no one shot BUSH . SR/Jr either or. Don't forget nostol . He did say and idiot son would follow his daddy
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
Originally posted by: DrPizza
I teach physics. I am a calculus professor. I majored in ceramic engineering (materials engineering) at Alfred University - the #1 school in the world for ceramic engineering at the time. Before you dismiss that engineering field as being irrelevant, consider that it requires extensive knowledge about the mechanics of materials, loads, etc. Subsequent to that, I decided to return to school to major in applied mathematics. I graduated summa cum laude & was ranked #1 in my university during my junior year. My conceptual understanding of physics is exceptional. Please, make with the math.
As I noted previously, I already have the math posted and timestamped elsewhere on the net under this same username, and I have promised to present it just as soon as someone makes a mathematical argument which demonstrates some semblance of understanding of the physics involved. Absent that, presenting the math would be pointless, and while credentials you list suggest you have been exposed to the necessary understanding, as long as you insist on refuting my position verbally rather than mathematically, I'm going to stick to responding in kind.

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Allow me to explain with a VERY simple analogy, one that you can probably wrap your head around: Stand on an aluminum can. An aluminum can is strong enough to support a person's weight. Have someone very gently tap the side of the aluminum can. You will come crashing down with an acceleration indistinguishable from free-fall. Does your friend have nano-thermite on his finger?
Not nano-thermite, but the friend is exerting a force beyond that of gravity on the system, and the same goes for the karate example you presented later in your post.

Anyway, try your suggestion with multiple cans spaced apart from each other and with a board on top of them to stand on. Then try that again with a few additional stacks of the same setup on on top of each other. Then try gluing those cans to the boards so they have lateral support. Then try to get all that to come down with a period of free fall by lighting a fire in it. You could put it all in a blast furnace for that matter, you still aren't going to get free fall.

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Acceleration is equal to the net force divided by the mass. As the gravitational force on the falling building was tremendous, the structure could still provide a large amount of resistance, however compared to that tremendous amount of gravitational force, that resistance is negligible.
I understand this, but we are talking about what did have at least 100% of the force needed to hold up the structure turning into about 0%, near instantaneously and near symmetrically across some 105 foot section of the height of the building. Otherwise, the four corners of the roof wouldn't have gone from being at rest to falling at free fall for about 105 feet.

Originally posted by: DrPizza
This thread has been going for over 1000 posts.
Most of which failed to even address the OP, and I thank you taking the time to do otherwise.
 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I've read it multiple times already and it's still faulty. There's not any comparison that's apples to apples unless I assume that you are already taking into considertation the gash in the south side along with the weakening from the fire.

Then you also have to consider the logistics of placing tons of thermite on the beams. Want to know a dirty little secret that the truthers fail to mention? Nano-thermite still doesn't exist. Like nearly everything "nano" it's still in the research phase. Yet we are supposed to believe we had this capability already 8 years ago, and far longer than that if you consider the planning that must have been required to plan 9/11.

C'mon, man. I'm all about considering possibilities. Those possibilities have to conform to logic and sense though.

NIST said that the gash had not at all to do with the failure of 79. They said fire cause it to weaken etc...
I'm using NIST to suggest any focus ought to start with column 79.
I asked what to me is a sensible question and that is: NIST says failure of 79 caused the building to collapse. Fires caused 79 to undergo the events that led to 79's failure. I'm simply asking IF that is true could fire and thermite or thermite and no fire have caused the events? IF we absolutely need fire then I'm not so sure Thermite on only 79 would do it... but we don't know. They didn't test that hypothesis.

ONE COLUMN don't need tons of Thermite... I'm talking about 1 column... column 79...
One column of the size used in WTC7 requires tons of thermite, not pounds (It has to be ignited too, not an easy feat, yet there's no evidence of any such ignition devices). Then it has to be demonstrated that thermite can actually make a diagonal or vertical cut through such a large steel column, something that has never been proven in the first place, and there are plenty of tests that show that it's not likely (see the Mythbusters episode where they use thermite). The use of thermite is a fancifull myth. It sounds viable superficially but the facts are that thermite isn't used as a demolition device for massive buildings.

Your talking about the core . None would see it or the workers . Not in the core. only supports and elavator shaft and wiring and plumbing in there. Easily out of sight . How many people worked in those buildings. I live in small town area with fewr people than the numbers were talking about I see someone I don't know it means nothing . In a big city it means even less than nothing.

 

Number1

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2006
7,881
549
126
To BeauJangles, TastesLikeChicken. Jonks, ElFenix, DLeRium, Cogman, TheSkinsFan, Common Courtesy.

I just want to thank you gentleman for the great work you did in debunking those bozos.

Well done and keep it up.
 

Venix

Golden Member
Aug 22, 2002
1,084
3
81
Originally posted by: Venix
Originally posted by: kylebisme
The proof is in the laws of physics, but as I've noted before in this thread, I can't rightly expect anyone to come to terms with the physical impossibility of the offical story of how the towers came down when they can't even come to terms with as much in regard to WTC7.

You don't even understand integrals, Ohm's Law or inertia. You seriously expect anyone to believe that you know more about physics than Zdenek Ba?ant and the 99%+ of engineers and scientists who support his research?

In any case, I had a French-speaking friend e-mail BCT Demolition and inquire about how they prepared that building for demolition. I wonder what lame cop-out you'll come up with when they confirm that the building's lower floors weren't weakened.

My friend didn't receive an e-mail response, so he asked his cousin who lives in France to call the company. No surprise here: The structural integrity of the building's lower portion was not at all compromised.

But in kylebisme's defense, maybe the laws of physics are just different in France. He couldn't possibly have been talking out of his ass when he claimed that the demolition was physically impossible.
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
Originally posted by: BeauJangles
It's wrong to stick any number on it, but it doesn't make it wrong to say that all evidence points to an extremely high degree of concurrence among engineers.
You've provided nothing even approaching evidence to support this claim, just handwaving, which goes to demonstrate how exceedingly wrongheaded you are. Granted, you already demonstrated that well enough by continuing to claim "thermite doesn't explode" after I provided you with a credible source noting the fact that thermite can be engineered to explode. So, at this point you are just doing what can be expected of you as the falser you are.
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
Originally posted by: Venix
My friend didn't receive an e-mail response, so he asked his cousin who lives in France to call the company. No surprise here: The structural integrity of the building's lower portion was not at all compromised.

But in kylebisme's defense, maybe the laws of physics...
In your defence; maybe your friend's cousin didn't ask the right question, or asked someone who wasn't in a position to give him the right answer.
 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0
Originally posted by: Number1
To BeauJangles, TastesLikeChicken. Jonks, ElFenix, DLeRium, Cogman, TheSkinsFan, Common Courtesy.

I just want to thank you gentleman for the great work you did in debunking those bozos.

Well done and keep it up.

Never happened your a dreamer. None were debunked by them . None changed their minds . The only fact is were all loser in this. Some just going to feel the pain more than others when the real reasons are revealed when we are no longer free . The trueth may or may not come to ya . I would say you won't get it , Even after the fullplan is in operating state . You won't get it even befor ya die . Its not given to sheep to know who the wolf(bad sheppard} is until their dinner. If anything your so called debunking is amusing . Why did we send all that steal to china? What our industries couldn't use it . We do still produce steel in this country. No you believe lies feverishly while the trueth passes ya by . Why ? Because your scarred . Ya don't want to know the trueth. and your young . Its easy to see your education has been recent . Since your reasoning is flawed . That what they teach now ya know .
 
Feb 19, 2001
20,155
23
81
Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I've read it multiple times already and it's still faulty. There's not any comparison that's apples to apples unless I assume that you are already taking into considertation the gash in the south side along with the weakening from the fire.

Then you also have to consider the logistics of placing tons of thermite on the beams. Want to know a dirty little secret that the truthers fail to mention? Nano-thermite still doesn't exist. Like nearly everything "nano" it's still in the research phase. Yet we are supposed to believe we had this capability already 8 years ago, and far longer than that if you consider the planning that must have been required to plan 9/11.

C'mon, man. I'm all about considering possibilities. Those possibilities have to conform to logic and sense though.

NIST said that the gash had not at all to do with the failure of 79. They said fire cause it to weaken etc...
I'm using NIST to suggest any focus ought to start with column 79.
I asked what to me is a sensible question and that is: NIST says failure of 79 caused the building to collapse. Fires caused 79 to undergo the events that led to 79's failure. I'm simply asking IF that is true could fire and thermite or thermite and no fire have caused the events? IF we absolutely need fire then I'm not so sure Thermite on only 79 would do it... but we don't know. They didn't test that hypothesis.

ONE COLUMN don't need tons of Thermite... I'm talking about 1 column... column 79...
One column of the size used in WTC7 requires tons of thermite, not pounds (It has to be ignited too, not an easy feat, yet there's no evidence of any such ignition devices). Then it has to be demonstrated that thermite can actually make a diagonal or vertical cut through such a large steel column, something that has never been proven in the first place, and there are plenty of tests that show that it's not likely (see the Mythbusters episode where they use thermite). The use of thermite is a fancifull myth. It sounds viable superficially but the facts are that thermite isn't used as a demolition device for massive buildings.

Your talking about the core . None would see it or the workers . Not in the core. only supports and elavator shaft and wiring and plumbing in there. Easily out of sight . How many people worked in those buildings. I live in small town area with fewr people than the numbers were talking about I see someone I don't know it means nothing . In a big city it means even less than nothing.

You're right, it may be hideable in elevator shafts and what not. HOW THE HELL DO YOU BRING IN THERMITE... we're talking TONS? and to rig it properly? You're right, when the job is all done, you could probably cover it up with a bunch of "renovation" sites but come on, anything is possible. This just isn't realistic.

When you're picking small details and saying that a few things are possible, you may be partially right, but come on, look at the grand scheme of things?

And like many others have mentioned, PLEASE disprove the NIST report first before you start making thermite claims. You aren't even making claims. You're using speculation. A three year old could do this.

Edit: Please stop putting a space , after and before your commas , and periods . Our HR person does this too. Maybe you're the same person. Shit.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Would someone take a crack at answering an issue in WTC 1 (the one with the 15 story bloc at and above the plane crash area)?

We can see the building pancaked floor by floor... but what about the core section. Those massive columns, did they pancake too? Not using some report but just visualizing the event. I can't see how that can happen floor by floor.. or every 35' for so. Did they just bend and snap, bend and snap?
 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0
I have 2 grown children . Both were graded high in school . My daughter is a college grad with computer science degree. Recently my wife asked me how is it that these children grew up with high grades in school and you were below average pupil and I was an average student . I lol . Trueth can't hurt if ya already know it.

She can't believe were both smarter and better educated . She is questioning many things now. She doesn't understand how I knew she was going to lose big $$$ befor it happened or how I knew it was a short term loss which it was were fully recovered plus now . 35 years it took to make her see the light. Man if only she would have paid attention. We would be out of this country by now. My choice would have been Russia.
 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Would someone take a crack at answering an issue in WTC 1 (the one with the 15 story bloc at and above the plane crash area)?

We can see the building pancaked floor by floor... but what about the core section. Those massive columns, did they pancake too? Not using some report but just visualizing the event. I can't see how that can happen floor by floor.. or every 35' for so. Did they just bend and snap, bend and snap?

Yep . your at least thinking . The outer floors should have pancaked never the core

 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Originally posted by: kylebisme
Originally posted by: DrPizza
I teach physics. I am a calculus professor. I majored in ceramic engineering (materials engineering) at Alfred University - the #1 school in the world for ceramic engineering at the time. Before you dismiss that engineering field as being irrelevant, consider that it requires extensive knowledge about the mechanics of materials, loads, etc. Subsequent to that, I decided to return to school to major in applied mathematics. I graduated summa cum laude & was ranked #1 in my university during my junior year. My conceptual understanding of physics is exceptional. Please, make with the math.
As I noted previously, I already have the math posted and timestamped elsewhere on the net under this same username, and I have promised to present it just as soon as someone makes a mathematical argument which demonstrates some semblance of understanding of the physics involved. Absent that, presenting the math would be pointless, and while credentials you list suggest you have been exposed to the necessary understanding, as long as you insist on refuting my position verbally rather than mathematically, I'm going to stick to responding in kind.
Oh, gee willickers. Do you mean THIS "math":

Post #656 4:30 PM, 9/20/09 - Amazingly lame math

an object of mass 'm' drops under the influence of gravity

the force on the mass due to gravity is Fg=mg

along the way another force acts in the opposite direction so it is a negative vector here.
call it the resistive force -Fr

The total force on the object is
Ft=Fg+(-Fr)
Ft=Fg-Fr

The resultant acceleration is given by
Ft=ma
Fg-Fr=ma

Fg=mg, so in the last equation we can substitute mg for Fg to get:

mg-Fr=ma

As NIST noted in what I quoted above, the distance traveled for a period of 2.25 seconds was not distinguishable from free fall. As free fall is a situation where the resistive force of air leaves a?g, we can substitute g for a to rewrite the above equation as:

mg-Fr?mg

Now we can solve for Fr with simple algebra:

-Fr?mg-mg

Fr?0

This means that for every moment of the fall in time over the course of that 2.25 seconds mentioned above, we have a 32.0 m (105 ft) section of the building providing a resistive force indistinguishable from that of thin air. So again, while it seems many here willingly believe impact damage and office fires caused WTC7 to fall as it did, I have to doubt such a claim, as it quite simply defies consistently demonstatable laws of physics.

Looks like first-week high-school physics to me, and it is absurd. As is extremely well known, and as Dr Pizza reiterated earlier in this thread, the "-Fr" term Kyle is using to represent the "resistive force" of pillars and such is NEGLIGIBLE in a dynamic-load situation. With a huge, moving mass, the pillars would be so many matchsticks, and the difference between free-fall and (free-fall - .000000001) would be indistinguishable.

Edit: Let me make this really simple: The "mg" term being used in the equations above is enormous - DWARFING Fr in a dynamic load situation - and overwhelms "Fr" almost instantly. Fr then goes to 0 (virtually instantly) as the pillars collapse (Dr Pizza's aluminum can and karate-chopped brick analogies), and the dynamic load is then completely unopposed. Voila! Instantaneous free fall.
 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0
Originally posted by: DLeRium
Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I've read it multiple times already and it's still faulty. There's not any comparison that's apples to apples unless I assume that you are already taking into considertation the gash in the south side along with the weakening from the fire.

Then you also have to consider the logistics of placing tons of thermite on the beams. Want to know a dirty little secret that the truthers fail to mention? Nano-thermite still doesn't exist. Like nearly everything "nano" it's still in the research phase. Yet we are supposed to believe we had this capability already 8 years ago, and far longer than that if you consider the planning that must have been required to plan 9/11.

C'mon, man. I'm all about considering possibilities. Those possibilities have to conform to logic and sense though.

NIST said that the gash had not at all to do with the failure of 79. They said fire cause it to weaken etc...
I'm using NIST to suggest any focus ought to start with column 79.
I asked what to me is a sensible question and that is: NIST says failure of 79 caused the building to collapse. Fires caused 79 to undergo the events that led to 79's failure. I'm simply asking IF that is true could fire and thermite or thermite and no fire have caused the events? IF we absolutely need fire then I'm not so sure Thermite on only 79 would do it... but we don't know. They didn't test that hypothesis.

ONE COLUMN don't need tons of Thermite... I'm talking about 1 column... column 79...
One column of the size used in WTC7 requires tons of thermite, not pounds (It has to be ignited too, not an easy feat, yet there's no evidence of any such ignition devices). Then it has to be demonstrated that thermite can actually make a diagonal or vertical cut through such a large steel column, something that has never been proven in the first place, and there are plenty of tests that show that it's not likely (see the Mythbusters episode where they use thermite). The use of thermite is a fancifull myth. It sounds viable superficially but the facts are that thermite isn't used as a demolition device for massive buildings.

Your talking about the core . None would see it or the workers . Not in the core. only supports and elavator shaft and wiring and plumbing in there. Easily out of sight . How many people worked in those buildings. I live in small town area with fewr people than the numbers were talking about I see someone I don't know it means nothing . In a big city it means even less than nothing.

You're right, it may be hideable in elevator shafts and what not. HOW THE HELL DO YOU BRING IN THERMITE... we're talking TONS? and to rig it properly? You're right, when the job is all done, you could probably cover it up with a bunch of "renovation" sites but come on, anything is possible. This just isn't realistic.

When you're picking small details and saying that a few things are possible, you may be partially right, but come on, look at the grand scheme of things?

And like many others have mentioned, PLEASE disprove the NIST report first before you start making thermite claims. You aren't even making claims. You're using speculation. A three year old could do this.

Edit: Please stop putting a space , after and before your commas , and periods . Our HR person does this too. Maybe you're the same person. Shit.

How long did it take to setup . Clinton had years to set it up . Bush not as much time.

But if it took along time to set up . carry in a few hundred lbs a day would be nothing.

 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0
lok guys were all americans some blind some not . We all know about what suppose to happen in 2012 or that something is suppose to happen .

Well it will be befor 2012 dec. It has to start befor next election . Know way they going to let us vote again not ever.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: DLeRium


And like many others have mentioned, PLEASE disprove the NIST report first before you start making thermite claims. You aren't even making claims. You're using speculation. A three year old could do this.

Edit: Please stop putting a space , after and before your commas , and periods . Our HR person does this too. Maybe you're the same person. Shit.

Well, NIST has postulated their hypothesis of what caused the events we witnessed. Why disprove it? Some have developed their hypothesis and produced evidence to support it. NIST's leader stated that WTC 7 was a problem for the team. I think he said that in '06. I don't know how many person hours had been devoted to WTC 7 up to that time but, it was for sure not a slam dunk easy answer.
Disproving NIST may not be possible but that does not mean all other Hypotheses are invalid cuz NIST has one.
I think both the 'Truther' AND NIST hypotheses could possibly be valid regarding WTC 7 and the Towers. There is not much forensically derived evidence. At the moment looking at the SIM of WTC 7 they developed that purports to show how WTC 7 fell and why and then looking at video of the fall there is no way they are similar. NIST SIM
 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: kylebisme
Originally posted by: DrPizza
I teach physics. I am a calculus professor. I majored in ceramic engineering (materials engineering) at Alfred University - the #1 school in the world for ceramic engineering at the time. Before you dismiss that engineering field as being irrelevant, consider that it requires extensive knowledge about the mechanics of materials, loads, etc. Subsequent to that, I decided to return to school to major in applied mathematics. I graduated summa cum laude & was ranked #1 in my university during my junior year. My conceptual understanding of physics is exceptional. Please, make with the math.
As I noted previously, I already have the math posted and timestamped elsewhere on the net under this same username, and I have promised to present it just as soon as someone makes a mathematical argument which demonstrates some semblance of understanding of the physics involved. Absent that, presenting the math would be pointless, and while credentials you list suggest you have been exposed to the necessary understanding, as long as you insist on refuting my position verbally rather than mathematically, I'm going to stick to responding in kind.
Oh, gee willickers. Do you mean THIS "math":

Post #656 4:30 PM, 9/20/09 - Amazingly lame math I was referring to the man you quoted

an object of mass 'm' drops under the influence of gravity

the force on the mass due to gravity is Fg=mg

along the way another force acts in the opposite direction so it is a negative vector here.
call it the resistive force -Fr

The total force on the object is
Ft=Fg+(-Fr)
Ft=Fg-Fr

The resultant acceleration is given by
Ft=ma
Fg-Fr=ma

Fg=mg, so in the last equation we can substitute mg for Fg to get:

mg-Fr=ma

As NIST noted in what I quoted above, the distance traveled for a period of 2.25 seconds was not distinguishable from free fall. As free fall is a situation where the resistive force of air leaves a?g, we can substitute g for a to rewrite the above equation as:

mg-Fr?mg

Now we can solve for Fr with simple algebra:

-Fr?mg-mg

Fr?0

This means that for every moment of the fall in time over the course of that 2.25 seconds mentioned above, we have a 32.0 m (105 ft) section of the building providing a resistive force indistinguishable from that of thin air. So again, while it seems many here willingly believe impact damage and office fires caused WTC7 to fall as it did, I have to doubt such a claim, as it quite simply defies consistently demonstatable laws of physics.

Looks like first-week high-school physics to me, and it is absurd. As is extremely well known, and as Dr Pizza reiterated earlier in this thread, the "-Fr" term Kyle is using to represent the "resistive force" of pillars and such is NEGLIGIBLE in a dynamic-load situation. With a huge, moving mass, the pillars would be so many matchsticks, and the difference between free-fall and (free-fall - .000000001) would be indistinguishable.

Good one I was waiting on that. I almost gave up. So you did more than just talk good for U. I was referring to the man who was quoted

 

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,941
1
0
Originally posted by: kylebisme
Originally posted by: BeauJangles
It's wrong to stick any number on it, but it doesn't make it wrong to say that all evidence points to an extremely high degree of concurrence among engineers.
You've provided nothing even approaching evidence to support this claim, just handwaving, which goes to demonstrate how exceedingly wrongheaded you are. Granted, you already demonstrated that well enough by continuing to claim "thermite doesn't explode" after I provided you with a credible source noting the fact that thermite can be engineered to explode. So, at this point you are just doing what can be expected of you as the falser you are.

The largest engineering society in the United States, the engineering societies of most states, their magazines, their peer-reviewed journals, and their other publications have all universally published articles, accounts, and analysis of 911 and every single solitary one of them supports the fact that planes and nothing else brought down the WTC.

There isn't a single peer-reviewed article that raises any credible points about holes in that same story.

There isn't any journal or magazine that is part of the engineering community that has voiced its support for your theory.

In fact, many of these people were eager to contribute to the NIST report and help the NIST conduct its simulations and studies.

You have not provided a single solitary shred of evidence to contradict anything about how little support your theories have with people who actually are paid to understand this stuff.

Name calling doesn't change the fact that you cannot address any of the points I raised in my previous post. Nope, instead you've conveniently skirted every single issue I raised, failed to address any of the contextual points and continue to harp on the same old tired story about how you're right and every other person in the world is wrong.

You demand accountability, you demand that we take off our blinders, you demand that this issue be reinvestigation, yet the same standard you are trying to force on us is the one you are continually ignoring yourself.

The NIST didn't get tunnel vision. They considered the hypothesis you are so fervently defending. They actually devoted time, money, and resources to investigating it both in as a possibility in terms of physics and a possibility in terms of context. In both cases they found it highly unlikely, if not impossible.

You've spent hundreds of posts now desperately trying to convince us that your evidence is foolproof. Foolproof evidence doesn't take hundreds of posts. There are a lot of very smart people here who have raised points you fail to address and, instead of addressing them you just continually shout, "What points? I've addressed everything!" over and over again in hopes that it comes true.

Venix actually had a buddy of his make a phone call to ask some pretty basic questions. You are unhappy with the results. What do we get? "In your defence; maybe your friend's cousin didn't ask the right question, or asked someone who wasn't in a position to give him the right answer." Grow up. It isn't like he was asking a complicated question about quantum. Maybe if this was the only shred of evidence we had, you might be right to question it, but it isn't. It's just one more fact in a now-mountainous pile of evidence that is sitting out there against your beliefs.

You know, it really makes me laugh sometimes when pro-911-conspiracy-believers proclaim that all they want is transparency from the government. Not only have two different branches of the government released reports explaining their theory on what happened, but they've made those reports publicly available. They aren't hiding their evidence behind some metaphorical wall, they've left it all out in the open and they've even had the courtesy to write it in a way that is fairly comprehensible to the average person.

What transparency do we have from the conspiracy folks? We can't even get one straight story out of any of you about what happened that day. No, instead it's "nano-thermite" this and "what about these cracks in the sidewalk 18 miles from ground zero" that. I know, I know, you're going to snap back at me about how you never said any of that. You didn't, but your fellow conspiracy people did.

The story you are choosing to support is exactly the opposite of what you demand from the government. It's a story that shape-shifts. It morphs itself around flaws. It ignores evidence. Worst of all, it is never fully presented. Instead we're lead on a wild goose-chase that jumps from the physics of WTC 7 to the Pentagon, to the explosive properties of thermite, to Larry Silverstein, to FEMA, to the President, and all the way back to the Twin Towers.

That's the beauty of a conspiracy. If the believers simply shout, "I want to believe" loud enough, they'll find a way to jump through all sorts of hoops to get there. Case in point is Venix's post. Or Dr. Pizza's. Or TLC's. Or mine.
 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: DLeRium


And like many others have mentioned, PLEASE disprove the NIST report first before you start making thermite claims. You aren't even making claims. You're using speculation. A three year old could do this.

Edit: Please stop putting a space , after and before your commas , and periods . Our HR person does this too. Maybe you're the same person. Shit.

Well, NIST has postulated their hypothesis of what caused the events we witnessed. Why disprove it? Some have developed their hypothesis and produced evidence to support it. NIST's leader stated that WTC 7 was a problem for the team. I think he said that in '06. I don't know how many person hours had been devoted to WTC 7 up to that time but, it was for sure not a slam dunk easy answer.
Disproving NIST may not be possible but that does not mean all other Hypotheses are invalid cuz NIST has one.
I think both the 'Truther' AND NIST hypotheses could possibly be valid regarding WTC 7 and the Towers. There is not much forensically derived evidence. At the moment looking at the SIM of WTC 7 they developed that purports to show how WTC 7 fell and why and then looking at video of the fall there is no way they are similar. NIST SIM

Well if they wouldn't have sent that steel to china so fast there would be lots and lots of forensic evidance . Is that why they sent it to china?

 

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,941
1
0
Originally posted by: kylebisme
Originally posted by: DLeRium
HOW THE HELL DO YOU BRING IN THERMITE... we're talking TONS?
You are talking tons because you are listening to falsers. We are talking about thermite compounds specifically engineered to have a very high mass to force ratio, not your average sparkler dust. Besides, even bog-standard thermite is nasty stuff.

Why use a compound that is primarily used to either fuse or cut steel to take down a skyscraper when it has never been done before and there are far, far better options out there?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.