What brought down WTC7

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

He was going to gain 7 billion $. He had to put on a show.

I'll approach this from the other side.

So, he planned and executed a series of events that he determined would result in his possibly gaining 3.5 to 7 billion $ from WTC 1, 2, and 7? Less, of course, the mortgages and what not he owed.

And Bin Laden lied... ?? As much as I hate to say this... I believe Bin Laden.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

I'm a fan of sarcasm myself, but only when it makes a solid point. On the other hand, TLC seems to simply employ it for misdirection, making inane arguments to disrupt rational discussion. Think about it, he could have told Ozoned about the engineers who have come forward forward against the official conspiracy theory if he had any interest in discussing the facts, but he goes off spouting nonsense instead. Also he talks about having only seen video showing half the height of the building or less, apparently ignoring the video showing over two thirds the height which I presented in the OP. Beyond that, he even accused me of being possessed here, despite claiming he is agnostic elsewhere. Considering such, and similar behavior in other topics, I wouldn't be surprised to find he actually knows the NIST report is indisputably false, yet simply gets some sick pleasure out of playing devil's advocate to defend it anyway.

I knew I had seen that video contained in your OP a number of times but couldn't remember where... I spent an hour to find what I found.. I should copy links of stuff and not waste time.. but I figured IF I saw it everyone has.. So why clutter up my link thingi.

I wish there was some filter so that anyone who is looking at this WTC 7 from only a scientific POV could be in one bucket and the others with some political or other non scientific bias in another.

The question I keep asking my self is why is the SIM like it is... I'll ask a question... I think it is simple actually...
Could they simply create in the SIM exactly what eyeballs see in the video and input all the structure from the drawings and ask the sim to backward provide all the various options on what had to occur for the end result [which is fixed] to result? Structurally that is...
I view it like setting pieces on a chess board and asking what variety of moves from the opening until my set condition are possible.
Once we know what possible activity from start to our fixed end position had to occur we can then look to see what the first move had to be for each and I think we'd be far more comfortable with dealing with the possible than the impossible.
Engineers could look at each scenario like this column had to deflect to here and this and that and see if that can be ruled out. It should leave us with one or two scenarios that if we created another SIM and introduced the structure to it and pushed the start button it should mirror the video and the first SIM. IF there is one scenario that could collapse that building with out demolition charges placed and detonated I'd probably accept it over one that did. But that would depend on certification of the data and stuff... There still would be doubt bouncing about but at least I would be happy.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
IF that building was prepared for demolition before 9/11 Silverstein's wandering about the lobby on that afternoon indicates he is one brave dude... the place was on fire and could go boom on him!

But we aren't in a position to say for sure whether Silverstein even knew the building was rigged to come down. Granted, his "pull it" comment is suppositious, but then he might have only been made aware that it was rigged after he had left it. Besides, it was surely engineered to avoid accidental initiation, so even those who did know would have little reason to worry about being in it.

Originally posted by: LunarRay
IF the building had been all set up for demolition waiting for an event to occur in order to proceed then a plane is missing cuz Building 7 would not have even been a concern but for the fires in it under that scenario.

Perhaps flight 93 was headed to WTC7 before something went wrong with that.

Originally posted by: LunarRay
That building 7 had all sorts of folks in it who are sorta pushy when it comes to knowing what is going on in their offices... I mean think about all the approvals one would need in order to sneak about with explosives in there... Assuming the FBI and CIA are not on your list of bad guys the notion of preplanned and installed high explosives is not reasonable.

Given enough time to prepare, installation could have been done by as little as a single person with the right clearances, during off hours when it would be easy to avoid being noticed, and with a passable cover story if stumbled upon.

Originally posted by: LunarRay
After the hits on the Towers the time available to do an installation of charges is possible...

Possible I suppose, but very highly improbable. It takes considerable planning to pull off such a demolition, and that along with acquiring the needed materials and installing them over the course of hours would have been an amazing a feat.

Also, while you keep talking explosives, you are ignoring other options. Barry Jennings claim of explosions suggest some might have been used, but the melted steel had to be the work of incendiaries, and beyond that other forces could have been used to dislodge the structure, such as hydraulics.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Could they simply create in the SIM exactly what eyeballs see in the video and input all the structure from the drawings and ask the sim to backward provide all the various options on what had to occur for the end result [which is fixed] to result?

It seems rather obvious that is what NIST did, exaggerating the fires far beyond what any of the evidence suggests. It looks like they also loosened up the connections between various elements of the structure far beyond reason too, but they would have to actually release their model to be certain on that. Regardless, they got as close as one could rightly expect them to while sticking to the official conspiracy theory, as you simply can't get free fall without putting some yet to be identified force(s) in the system.

I suppose I could throw together a simplistic simulation of what has to be accomplished to facilitate free fall, and what would have prevented it in the official story, using ridged body physics and destructible objects in Crysis. However, I figure the falsers would dismiss that the same as they do everything else, so it hardly seems worth the bother.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

He was going to gain 7 billion $. He had to put on a show.

I'll approach this from the other side.

So, he planned and executed a series of events that he determined would result in his possibly gaining 3.5 to 7 billion $ from WTC 1, 2, and 7? Less, of course, the mortgages and what not he owed.

And Bin Laden lied... ?? As much as I hate to say this... I believe Bin Laden.

Which time to do believe bin . when he said he didn't do . or later when he was a moslem hero and said he did , bin was trained by cia . bin was treated and released from a hospital and we new were he was because it was our doctors . 25 million dead or alive reward on the guy and a reporter with a TV cameria tracked him down for interview

Thats as confusing as everthing else about this event , This whole thing is so sloppy everthing about it . Yet thet carried out a perfectly strike against us . This worse cluster screwing I ever seen in my life yet they exaquited perfectly while our airforce stood down

 

[First]

This thread is still going even after this loser's math was shown to be laughable? That's pretty impressive, I must admit. No wonder 9/11 Truthers generally have almost no education.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: First
This thread is still going even after this loser's math was shown to be laughable? That's pretty impressive, I must admit. No wonder 9/11 Truthers generally have almost no education.

Oh go put head back in sand.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: Ozoned
There are likely thousands of private citizens that have the engineering qualifications to simply watch the collapse and explain the logistics in the result.

It would seem to me to be statistically impossible that a small % of them have not come forward with conflicting or confirming information, in regards to this CT.

Yup:

In response to FEMA's concerns, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) was authorized to lead an investigation into the structural failure and collapse of the World Trade Center twin towers and 7 World Trade Center. The investigation, led by Dr S. Shyam Sunder, drew not only upon in-house technical expertise, but also upon the knowledge of several outside private institutions, including the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE), the Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE), the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH), and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY).

What's even sadder is that these same kooks still can't come to the blatantly obvious conclusion that individual engineers with no possible way of being universally shut up or shut down were given access to NIST's data and teams of engineers, not to mention the multitude of video evidence accessible by anyone in the world with an Internet connection. Making it essentially beyond belief that no one has come forward from the investigations and said there was a concerted cover-up, something that would be guaranteed to happen if this conspiracy had any validity. These sorts of nutballs further reinforce the notion that most 9/11 Truthers just never received basic education, and the few that did are simply outliers like any other outlier, including the few legit scientists the 9/11 movement actually has (which doesn't really say much given that they are in the extreme minority, with even evolution deniers having legitimate scientists backing them).

 

[kylebisme]

I'm left to wonder if First could even pass a Turing test. I've had house pets which demonstrated more semblance of intellect.

 

[event8horizon]

kylebisme brings up a good point with wtc 7 being flight 93's target. that is why wtc 7 was evacuated. if you read the firefighters oral histories, they state that a 3rd plane was hijaked, so it could have been a possibility. the secret service was at wtc 7 and i know that they have the power to watch a traffic situational display (FFAA radar).

anyway, has anyone ever thought about the CIA's biggest homeland office was in wtc 7. from what i remember, they were spying on diplomats and foreign officals (correct me if im wrong). anyway, think about the intel gained and where they would put that intel. probably in a big ass safe or vault. and how would one go about destroying intel that would be worth multiple millions if it got stolen. the military has used thermite for along time.
under a "war scenario", which we had on 911, the CIA could of just destroyed their intel. i would love to know where in the building their safe was (maybe around column 79)!! haha....

and of coarse the cia could have just rigged the whole building to come down in a war type scenario to destroy all the valuable intel so it wouldnt get into the wrong hands.

 

[Number1]

Originally posted by: kylebisme
I'm left to wonder if First could even pass a Turing test. I've had house pets which demonstrated more semblance of intellect.

And obviously you wouldn't pass a urine test.

You've got to be smoking up to believe the shit you believe in

 

[Number1]

Originally posted by: event8horizon
kylebisme brings up a good point with wtc 7 being flight 93's target. that is why wtc 7 was evacuated. if you read the firefighters oral histories, they state that a 3rd plane was hijaked, so it could have been a possibility. the secret service was at wtc 7 and i know that they have the power to watch a traffic situational display (FFAA radar).

anyway, has anyone ever thought about the CIA's biggest homeland office was in wtc 7. from what i remember, they were spying on diplomats and foreign officals (correct me if im wrong). anyway, think about the intel gained and where they would put that intel. probably in a big ass safe or vault. and how would one go about destroying intel that would be worth multiple millions if it got stolen. the military has used thermite for along time.
under a "war scenario", which we had on 911, the CIA could of just destroyed their intel. i would love to know where in the building their safe was (maybe around column 79)!! haha....

and of coarse the cia could have just rigged the whole building to come down in a war type scenario to destroy all the valuable intel so it wouldnt get into the wrong hands.

Another twuther post full of ridiculous spelling mistakes. Is illiteracy a prerequisite to join your movement?

 

[Number1]

Hey Kylebisme, check this out: 31 die in suicide attack targeting Iran troops

There are already conspiracies blaming the US for this attack. Run to that thread and proclaim your support for the mullahs and denounce the US.

Go my boy, go.

 

[Nemesis 1]

There a word in that report you all should learn . your going to be hearing alot about this bunch.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Number1
Hey Kylebisme, check this out: 31 die in suicide attack targeting Iran troops

There are already conspiracies blaming the US for this attack. Run to that thread and proclaim your support for the mullahs and denounce the US.

I've no interest in defending any theocrats, nor in denouncing our great nation, but I do have respect for reality, and responded to in thread with that regard. Am I to take your utter lack of respect for reality is based in bind patriotism and bigotry against Muslims?

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: event8horizon
kylebisme brings up a good point with wtc 7 being flight 93's target. that is why wtc 7 was evacuated. if you read the firefighters oral histories, they state that a 3rd plane was hijaked, so it could have been a possibility. the secret service was at wtc 7 and i know that they have the power to watch a traffic situational display (FFAA radar).

anyway, has anyone ever thought about the CIA's biggest homeland office was in wtc 7. from what i remember, they were spying on diplomats and foreign officals (correct me if im wrong). anyway, think about the intel gained and where they would put that intel. probably in a big ass safe or vault. and how would one go about destroying intel that would be worth multiple millions if it got stolen. the military has used thermite for along time.
under a "war scenario", which we had on 911, the CIA could of just destroyed their intel. i would love to know where in the building their safe was (maybe around column 79)!! haha....

and of coarse the cia could have just rigged the whole building to come down in a war type scenario to destroy all the valuable intel so it wouldnt get into the wrong hands.

In criminal law the prosecution need not prove motive to gain a conviction. They do need to prove a crime has been committed and that the accused had the opportunity to commit it. IF they can show motive they can elect to introduce it but motive itself is not enough to convict.
In the case of WTC 7 we can show a crime has been committed and the leading candidates are the terrorists. In order to introduce other candidates we've to prove... not just provide some evidence but sufficient evidence that is greater than that which points to the terrorists.. That evidence might be in how WTC 7 collapsed. Show that the fires did NOT cause it and that something else or in concert with the fires collapsed that building and I think that test has been met. Then the motive becomes relative to the crime...
Focus should be on WTC 7. IF the glove don't fit... you must make tomato soup.

 

[kylebisme]

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

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

 

[DrPizza]

So, I ask you to please consider the physics of the fall of WTC7 yourself rather than coming up with reasons to avoid doing so.

You have yet to prove you understand anything beyond the most basic physics yourself. It's impossible for you to "consider the physics" since you are blatantly ignorant of anything beyond introductory high school physics.

Originally posted by: First

Originally posted by: Ozoned
There are likely thousands of private citizens that have the engineering qualifications to simply watch the collapse and explain the logistics in the result.

It would seem to me to be statistically impossible that a small % of them have not come forward with conflicting or confirming information, in regards to this CT.

Yup:

In response to FEMA's concerns, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) was authorized to lead an investigation into the structural failure and collapse of the World Trade Center twin towers and 7 World Trade Center. The investigation, led by Dr S. Shyam Sunder, drew not only upon in-house technical expertise, but also upon the knowledge of several outside private institutions, including the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE), the Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE), the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH), and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY).

What's even sadder is that these same kooks still can't come to the blatantly obvious conclusion that individual engineers with no possible way of being universally shut up or shut down were given access to NIST's data and teams of engineers, not to mention the multitude of video evidence accessible by anyone in the world with an Internet connection. Making it essentially beyond belief that no one has come forward from the investigations and said there was a concerted cover-up, something that would be guaranteed to happen if this conspiracy had any validity. These sorts of nutballs further reinforce the notion that most 9/11 Truthers just never received basic education, and the few that did are simply outliers like any other outlier, including the few legit scientists the 9/11 movement actually has (which doesn't really say much given that they are in the extreme minority, with even evolution deniers having legitimate scientists backing them).

And... your only reply to that is : "I'm left to wonder if First could even pass a Turing test. I've had house pets which demonstrated more semblance of intellect. "
I guess when you have no rebuttal, that's the best you can do.

However, since you may characterize "since you are blatantly ignorant of anything beyond introductory high school physics" as being the same type of rebuttal, I'm going to offer you the chance to show I'm wrong - I base that statement on having seen your page of "mathematics" - I seriously almost pissed my pants laughing at that, since you apparently consider it to even remotely come close to the situation at hand. I can assure you that the problem you're dealing with is FAR more complicated. But, to allow you the opportunity to prove that you're not a moron - and I think the vast majority of people reading this thread think you're just a moron - so that everyone can see you're not as dumb as your posts make you sound.

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

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


And finally to address:

Eat your heart out with the specs, you aren't going to get it to work, and I feel sorry for your students if you waste their time trying.

I now consider you to be a fucking moron, not just a simple moron. There is no "waste" of time when conducting science experiments. Just a wild guess, but I'll bet such an experiment would be far more scientific than whatever your embarrassed (if he saw your posts) high school physics teacher had you do during a lab... if you've even taken a high school physics course.

 

[LunarRay]

I often wonder why some maintain that a person riding a bus must be able to drive the bus.
I wonder why when a person provides a link in which a credible professional presents his opinion or conclusion on HIS peer reviewed testing of evidence or his observations of evidence that the poster of such link must also have that level of expertise?
If that is the test that must be met in order to comment with out an outrageous character attack, I fear none are able to make any comments outside their area of expertise and then they may comment only if their expertise is accepted by the body qualified to pronounce such to be the case. Whoever that may be.

I think the only possible rebuttal to a qualified professional who presents what to him is evidence in support of some conclusion regarding this 9/11 tragedy is to show his credentials are not such that he is qualified to make such a statement. IOW, an author is not qualified to state with any degree of authority that this or that scientific analysis is wrong or that an alternative one is right... he is a blasted author without the background to so state...!! His opinion is worth the same as my wife's!

Some folks in this thread hold themselves out to be experts in what they opine on. I don't seek to diminish their credibility but what they say is no more or less valid than the next person of equal stature in the field. Some are brought to this thread via a link while others come on their own volition.. either way they present evidence. Well, they often do.

I see Kyle here present evidence... videos and commentary on those videos. I'm not impressed by Dan Rather's comments but I am by a Structural Engineer's... If Kyle comes on and interprets a video to mean something I'd expect that underlying that opinion is the knowledge to render that opinion. The formula exist to produce evidence that the opinion is credible... In some cases it is obvious or would be if someone used a stop watch as in the case of the WTC collapse event(s). And in other cases it is simply fill in the blanks with values provided... even a simple momentum calculation like P=MV just needs putting a number in to where the letters are... so "show the math" means to me... show the actual numbers that produce the opinion... It should be obvious that all the relevant numbers exist and therefore the 'maths' have been already worked out. Folks use different values and produce different results... that is all that is going on here. IMO

 

[Number1]

BREAKING NEWS-------------BREAKING NEWS-------------------BREAKING NEWS


DrPIZZA PROMOTES KILEBISME TO "FUCKING MORON"

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Kylebisme for this well deserved title. For Kyle, being a simple moron just did not cut it. He worked hard for this award and it's finally paying off.

Well done Kylebisme

Well done.

 

[Number1]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
I often wonder why some maintain that a person riding a bus must be able to drive the bus.
I wonder why when a person provides a link in which a credible professional presents his opinion or conclusion on HIS peer reviewed testing of evidence or his observations of evidence that the poster of such link must also have that level of expertise?
If that is the test that must be met in order to comment with out an outrageous character attack, I fear none are able to make any comments outside their area of expertise and then they may comment only if their expertise is accepted by the body qualified to pronounce such to be the case. Whoever that may be.

I think the only possible rebuttal to a qualified professional who presents what to him is evidence in support of some conclusion regarding this 9/11 tragedy is to show his credentials are not such that he is qualified to make such a statement. IOW, an author is not qualified to state with any degree of authority that this or that scientific analysis is wrong or that an alternative one is right... he is a blasted author without the background to so state...!! His opinion is worth the same as my wife's!

Some folks in this thread hold themselves out to be experts in what they opine on. I don't seek to diminish their credibility but what they say is no more or less valid than the next person of equal stature in the field. Some are brought to this thread via a link while others come on their own volition.. either way they present evidence. Well, they often do.

I see Kyle here present evidence... videos and commentary on those videos. I'm not impressed by Dan Rather's comments but I am by a Structural Engineer's... If Kyle comes on and interprets a video to mean something I'd expect that underlying that opinion is the knowledge to render that opinion. The formula exist to produce evidence that the opinion is credible... In some cases it is obvious or would be if someone used a stop watch as in the case of the WTC collapse event(s). And in other cases it is simply fill in the blanks with values provided... even a simple momentum calculation like P=MV just needs putting a number in to where the letters are... so "show the math" means to me... show the actual numbers that produce the opinion... It should be obvious that all the relevant numbers exist and therefore the 'maths' have been already worked out. Folks use different values and produce different results... that is all that is going on here. IMO

If he should not be expected to fully understand what he is talking about then he is talking from a point of view of faith, precisely what he so derisively accused people who don't agree with him of doing.

 

[LunarRay]

Earlier in this thread I opined that the 15 story bloc of WTC tower 1 had way more than enough potential energy ( 2 gjoules ) to pulverize the floor below at a cost of ~ 230 mjoules when and if they met. That is nothing but adding up the mass of the bloc of 15 floors.. we know that W=MG so in this case the bloc not being on say... Jupiter we can be reasonably sure that we can get close to the mass number by adding up the weight of the stuff in the 15 story bloc.
I also mentioned that my issue was getting the fall started for both the pancaking floor sections and the central core 'straws' section. And to get the collapse to run through the path of greatest Resistance [ thinking the central core now ] That meant that the top bloc couldn't just tip over but had to over come, cause to bend, I assume, the fairly massive central core columns and initially only on the floor below the 15 story bloc. I tried to see if I could mathamechanically do this with out fire weakening support. I figured I had 2 gjoules of energy representing the mass above wanting to meet mommy at the bottom. Since I saw the spire at the top come right on down first I knew the core gave out first. It fell to my eye about 30' before anything else showed signs of falling.. IF I lose the core I will lose the exterior regardless... With the floors attached, the core is intended to resist about 50% of the g energy the building above poses [15 stories in this case]
Soooo, how many core columns need being destroyed to have the rest simply fail? The rest of the columns and the existing balance of exterior support. Again, with no fire to weaken anything. I figure that 35% of the load was carried down by the existing exterior vertical support cuz the hole reduced that capacity from 50% to 35%.. and the various estimates of central core destruction indicated some 35% of them were sheared or bent or otherwise rendered ineffective from impact. That leaves 100% of the mass supported by 70% of the resistive force...
Does anyone see a material flaw in that analysis?

 

[Number1]

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

Prove me wrong Kyle.

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

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Number1

If he should not be expected to fully understand what he is talking about then he is talking from a point of view of faith, precisely what he so derisively accused people who don't agree with him of doing.

Faith? ... I suppose that might be assumed to be true.. Faith that the person does have credible authority to opine and that those who peer review his finding are equally capable to do it...

I suppose it is inferred that the experts are experts and implied by their comments that what they say is derived from their expertise.
I guess I have faith that that is true cuz I've no factual basis to state he/she is expert and he/she is not... I have faith that an author is not a structural engineer but he may be, I suppose and visa versa.

 

[JEDIYoda]

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

Prove me wrong Kyle.

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

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