What brought down WTC7

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: nkgreen
Shit, do any math. :laugh:

Kyle versus DrPizza in a math competition. Loser gets banned. I'll put $100 on DrPizza. Who's in?

I raise you $100 and i say we let Lunar Ray and kylebisme tag team...muahahaaa

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: nkgreen
Shit, do any math. :laugh:

Kyle versus DrPizza in a math competition. Loser gets banned. I'll put $100 on DrPizza. Who's in?

I raise you $100 and i say we let Lunar Ray and kylebisme tag team...muahahaaa

hehehehe oh boy!

I'll tell ya what...nah.. that wouldn't be fair of me..

I'll give you a hint! I know nothing much about structural engineering or as little as can be expected to be known by someone who took not a one engineering course in any of their academic pursuits. But, I can qualify in at least one Social Science as being reasonably proficient enough to opine on the price elasticity of demand, for instance or teach others to come to my way of thinking... He who holds the red pencil has that power for a time at least..

I also studied the law so I'm empowered to make what I wrote above mean anything I want it to... So, be careful.. hehehehehehe
I feel so diabolical tonight...

 

[LunarRay]

Ozoned


I can now see why DrPizza chose the problem he did... I for one would never have seen some of the 'beams' as being zero force members as in that link you gave me. The dam forces go all over the place like scattering mice to what ever egress they can find... but in a more orderly and defined manner. Why couldn't Newton simply have said 'Cuz' and left it at that?

What seems hard for me is that if you wanted to support an elephant atop a structure of some sort an upper half a circle type affair might support better than a ^ type using the same type steel... not sure here but it seems that way...

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
btw, still waiting for your math. In fact, in the JREF link you didn't even post your own math. You copied and pasted it from someone else.

Now that's just a flagrant lie...

It's no lie. It's plain for everyone to see that wants to bother doing the research.

Another flagrant lie from one of the worst of the falsers.

You could easily prove me wrong if I'm lying.

To those who might be mislead by TLC's deceptions, the proof of him lying is right here in the fact that he can't provide any source to substantiate his claim. Nor can he be expected to, as the math in question was my own work.

The fact that TLC makes such blatantly false arguments leaves me to wonder if he actually knows I speaking the truth, but gets some sick pleasure out of deluding people into believing otherwise. Given his demeanor, I wouldn't be surprised if he actually admires the people who masterminded 9/11 and have thus far gotten away with it. Perhaps he even hopes to be part of some such diabolical scheme himself one day.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: nkgreen
Shit, do any math. :laugh:

Kyle versus DrPizza in a math competition. Loser gets banned. I'll put $100 on DrPizza. Who's in?

I'm in and I'll even set up the PayPal bet. You know he's going to bitch out, though. These guys always pussy out when push comes to shove. Typical of quitters/drop-outs from shitty states.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
btw, still waiting for your math. In fact, in the JREF link you didn't even post your own math. You copied and pasted it from someone else.

Now that's just a flagrant lie...

It's no lie. It's plain for everyone to see that wants to bother doing the research.

Another flagrant lie from one of the worst of the falsers.

You could easily prove me wrong if I'm lying.

Do it or STFU.

In law, when a defamatory assertion is made, in this case written [the tort of libel], one defense to the tort is to provide the truth! BTW, SCOTUS does not think the First Amendment requires an opinion privilege. So, who has the burden of proof here?
You made (wrote) the assertion so it is for you to prove it to be true or you stand to be considered by the court of 'On High' a tortfeasor.

The court of 'On High', ('' OH ''), is the final arbiter! You may wish to reconsider and withdraw the defamatory assertion or face the punishment of having to say 10 Hail Mary's and an Act of Contrition along with as many as 4 Our Fathers... Your choice, of course, but do please look at the down side.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Ozoned


I can now see why DrPizza chose the problem he did... I for one would never have seen some of the 'beams' as being zero force members as in that link you gave me. The dam forces go all over the place like scattering mice to what ever egress they can find... but in a more orderly and defined manner. Why couldn't Newton simply have said 'Cuz' and left it at that?

What seems hard for me is that if you wanted to support an elephant atop a structure of some sort an upper half a circle type affair might support better than a ^ type using the same type steel... not sure here but it seems that way...

You have unknown forces (Damage) involved in bringing the building down. Proving that it was impossible for the building to come down the way it did, with math, can't be done, because their is not a single member that could prevent it. The official version can't be proved with math either.

 

[Delita]

Originally posted by: kylebisme
I've posted more math on this subject than all you falsers combined. Granted, one of you falsers had to go dig up that math to post it here, since none of you were able to fulfill my request to demonstrate some comprehension of the math involved by attempting to refute my position mathematically. Until that changes, you can scream like little babies for all I care, I'm not your mommy, and I'm not going to be preparing any bottle to press up to your lips.

Kyle you are pretty much the laughing stock of the internet. I think people who were probably on the fence about 9/11 being a conspiracy, now believe the official story after reading the retarded shit you put out.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: kylebisme
I've posted more math on this subject than all you falsers combined. Granted, one of you falsers had to go dig up that math to post it here, since none of you were able to fulfill my request to demonstrate some comprehension of the math involved by attempting to refute my position mathematically. Until that changes, you can scream like little babies for all I care, I'm not your mommy, and I'm not going to be preparing any bottle to press up to your lips.

It`s one thing to copy and paste and call it yours when we all know you are not capable of actually undersrtanding or doing the math!!

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
btw, still waiting for your math. In fact, in the JREF link you didn't even post your own math. You copied and pasted it from someone else.

Now that's just a flagrant lie...

It's no lie. It's plain for everyone to see that wants to bother doing the research.

Another flagrant lie from one of the worst of the falsers.

You could easily prove me wrong if I'm lying.

To those who might be mislead by TLC's deceptions, the proof of him lying is right here in the fact that he can't provide any source to substantiate his claim. Nor can he be expected to, as the math in question was my own work.

The fact that TLC makes such blatantly false arguments leaves me to wonder if he actually knows I speaking the truth, but gets some sick pleasure out of deluding people into believing otherwise. Given his demeanor, I wouldn't be surprised if he actually admires the people who masterminded 9/11 and have thus far gotten away with it. Perhaps he even hopes to be part of some such diabolical scheme himself one day.

The source of my claim has already been provided in this thread. Simply go to the JREF thread and it becomes plain to see that you copied and pasted the math from another.

But keep owning yourself by spewing bullshit again, fool. Your bs just keeps piling up deeper and deeper and watching you bury yourself in it is a source of great pleasure.

 

[Number1]

Tower Collapse Questions for Critical Thinkers

This is the thread Kyle created at James Randy Educational Foundation, jref.

The last post in that thread was made on the 28 of September 2009.

Having been unable to convince anybody of his point of view he abandoned the thread and started a brand new one here 7 days later.

I would be willing to bet some of those people in that thread would be interested to know Kyle is at it again here and would probably be more then willing to continue the twuther flogging.

I registered with jref under the same user name as here.

Do you people think it would be a good idea to invite them over and let the good time roll?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
as posted over there:

Without numbers your comments are meaningless. How much resistance are you talking about? Enough to reduce the acceleration by how much? What's the error margin on the measured acceleration, and does the actual acceleration fall within that margin? You have no idea, so stop pretending that you know.

 

[Number1]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

To those who might be mislead by TLC's deceptions, the proof of him lying is right here in the fact that he can't provide any source to substantiate his claim. Nor can he be expected to, as the math in question was my own work.

The fact that TLC makes such blatantly false arguments leaves me to wonder if he actually knows I speaking the truth, but gets some sick pleasure out of deluding people into believing otherwise. Given his demeanor, I wouldn't be surprised if he actually admires the people who masterminded 9/11 and have thus far gotten away with it. Perhaps he even hopes to be part of some such diabolical scheme himself one day.

You could easily prove TLC wrong by posting your "math" and demonstrating how you reach your conclusions. No you prefer to hide you're "math" and call everybody who does not believe YOU a falser.

LOL


You're the joke of the year on these forums Kyle. Somebody should submit your name for the AT ownage of the year award. It is well deserved by any standard.

 

[Number1]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: ElFenix
as posted over there:

Without numbers your comments are meaningless. How much resistance are you talking about? Enough to reduce the acceleration by how much? What's the error margin on the measured acceleration, and does the actual acceleration fall within that margin? You have no idea, so stop pretending that you know.

Precisely! This has got to be the most powerful argument presented in this thread yet.
You posted it before and he simply ignored it and I predict he will keep ignoring it.

He can't answer this question and no other twuther can.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Number1

Originally posted by: kylebisme

To those who might be mislead by TLC's deceptions, the proof of him lying is right here in the fact that he can't provide any source to substantiate his claim. Nor can he be expected to, as the math in question was my own work.

The fact that TLC makes such blatantly false arguments leaves me to wonder if he actually knows I speaking the truth, but gets some sick pleasure out of deluding people into believing otherwise. Given his demeanor, I wouldn't be surprised if he actually admires the people who masterminded 9/11 and have thus far gotten away with it. Perhaps he even hopes to be part of some such diabolical scheme himself one day.

You could easily prove TLC wrong by posting your "math" and demonstrating how you reach your conclusions. No you prefer to hide you're "math" and call everybody who does not believe YOU a falser.

LOL


You're the joke of the year on these forums Kyle. Somebody should submit your name for the AT ownage of the year award. It is well deserved by any standard.

He won't post it because he knows my claim is correct.

The first bit of math kyle delves into is C & P'd directly from Robert Mackey's paper. See here, bottom of page 196. Then he goes on in the JREF thread to demonstrate that he doesn't even have any grasp of that math and R. Mackey exposes kyle's complete ignorance on the issue.

In his second attempt at math he uses equations that were already provided in the thread by JREF member Jaydeehess, and which were provided to demonstrate to kyle that his grasp of basic physics (based on a previous claim he had made in the thread) was erroneous, to put it kindly.

kyle has none of his own math. He couldn't possibly have it because he demonstrates over and over that he doesn't even understand how to apply basic principles of math and physics and steps in shit every time he tries to pretend that he does. Then he follows up his shit-wading with some billious claim about how it's because he's trying to "dumb down" such highly technical concepts so everyone else can understand, because nobody could possibly understand if he truly dazzled us with his storehouse of technical knowledge that's so far above and beyond all others. Such gyrations of his are a riot and the fact that he actually seems to believe that nobody can see through his little smokescreen is even funnier. The depths of delusion he goes to are just amazing. Typical of a truther though.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

You have unknown forces (Damage) involved in bringing the building down. Proving that it was impossible for the building to come down the way it did, with math, can't be done, because their is not a single member that could prevent it. The official version can't be proved with math either.

I spent a few hours reading a link someone provided regarding NIST's analysis of WTC 7 and what went on and their why. Seems to me they did alot of work. It appears they had all the right tools and should be able to reach a proper conclusion. They provided a conclusion that fits their input data so that; if what they put in is accurate the conclusion is. I'll assume the 'data in' to be accurate and that the SIM it generated is too but with a caveat. The Caveat in this case, as I see it, is the SIM rendering itself.
A SIM is or should be a mirror of what it purports to be a SIM of. Can it be independently tested? Yes! Especially if we have experimental or other Empirical evidence related to the SIM's expected results.
The easiest way to test a model is to see if it fits Empirical data and in this case the video of the event in WTC 7. One can reasonably conclude that if SIM does match the Video then the 'data in' probably is reflective of the dynamics that developed the Empirical data (The Videos). So, no math calculations, formula, functions or some esoteric Algebraic notation here.. just a simple look see side by each of the SIM and the VIDEO.
The SIM does not match the Video as I see it! The curling in of the East and West faces simply did not occur in the Video. I, therefore, conclude: The SIM fails to include some force or forces or includes some force or forces, in error.
The variance to the Videos is material. That the SIM ended at a point about where the roof lined starts to dip; if I extrapolate from that point I'd have a SIM collapse that is so different to the VIDEO of it that something major is wrong!.
IF anyone can look at the SIM and VIDEO and announce to the Forum that they are the same or similar, I suggest there exists a bias so strong that no further effort to persuade can do so. That or my bias has blinded me and what I see is not what is depicted.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
I spent a few hours reading a link someone provided regarding NIST's analysis of WTC 7 and what went on and their why. Seems to me they did alot of work. It appears they had all the right tools and should be able to reach a proper conclusion. They provided a conclusion that fits their input data so that; if what they put in is accurate the conclusion is. I'll assume the 'data in' to be accurate and that the SIM it generated is too but with a caveat. The Caveat in this case, as I see it, is the SIM rendering itself.
A SIM is or should be a mirror of what it purports to be a SIM of. Can it be independently tested? Yes! Especially if we have experimental or other Empirical evidence related to the SIM's expected results.
The easiest way to test a model is to see if it fits Empirical data and in this case the video of the event in WTC 7. One can reasonably conclude that if SIM does match the Video then the 'data in' probably is reflective of the dynamics that developed the Empirical data (The Videos). So, no math calculations, formula, functions or some esoteric Algebraic notation here.. just a simple look see side by each of the SIM and the VIDEO.
The SIM does not match the Video as I see it! The curling in of the East and West faces simply did not occur in the Video. I, therefore, conclude: The SIM fails to include some force or forces or includes some force or forces, in error.
The variance to the Videos is material. That the SIM ended at a point about where the roof lined starts to dip; if I extrapolate from that point I'd have a SIM collapse that is so different to the VIDEO of it that something major is wrong!.
IF anyone can look at the SIM and VIDEO and announce to the Forum that they are the same or similar, I suggest there exists a bias so strong that no further effort to persuade can do so. That or my bias has blinded me and what I see is not what is depicted.

Where are you seeing video that clearly show the lower floors of WTC7 in the first place to make the comparison? afaik, there is a single video that does show somewhat of a view of the entire west face, though it's more to the southwest, and you can see some sort of buckling happening, though even that video is not clear and definitive. The remainder of the videos only show the upper half or upper third of WTC7 (the rest is blocked by surrounding buildings) so it would be impossible to observe the "curling in" in those videos.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: LunarRay
I spent a few hours reading a link someone provided regarding NIST's analysis of WTC 7 and what went on and their why. Seems to me they did alot of work. It appears they had all the right tools and should be able to reach a proper conclusion. They provided a conclusion that fits their input data so that; if what they put in is accurate the conclusion is. I'll assume the 'data in' to be accurate and that the SIM it generated is too but with a caveat. The Caveat in this case, as I see it, is the SIM rendering itself.
A SIM is or should be a mirror of what it purports to be a SIM of. Can it be independently tested? Yes! Especially if we have experimental or other Empirical evidence related to the SIM's expected results.
The easiest way to test a model is to see if it fits Empirical data and in this case the video of the event in WTC 7. One can reasonably conclude that if SIM does match the Video then the 'data in' probably is reflective of the dynamics that developed the Empirical data (The Videos). So, no math calculations, formula, functions or some esoteric Algebraic notation here.. just a simple look see side by each of the SIM and the VIDEO.
The SIM does not match the Video as I see it! The curling in of the East and West faces simply did not occur in the Video. I, therefore, conclude: The SIM fails to include some force or forces or includes some force or forces, in error.
The variance to the Videos is material. That the SIM ended at a point about where the roof lined starts to dip; if I extrapolate from that point I'd have a SIM collapse that is so different to the VIDEO of it that something major is wrong!.
IF anyone can look at the SIM and VIDEO and announce to the Forum that they are the same or similar, I suggest there exists a bias so strong that no further effort to persuade can do so. That or my bias has blinded me and what I see is not what is depicted.

Where are you seeing video that clearly show the lower floors of WTC7 in the first place to make the comparison? afaik, there is a single video that does show somewhat of a view of the entire west face, though it's more to the southwest, and you can see some sort of buckling happening, though even that video is not clear and definitive. The remainder of the videos only show the upper half or upper third of WTC7 (the rest is blocked by surrounding buildings) so it would be impossible to observe the "curling in" in those videos.

Not trying to be rude to you in the following but, I said what I said.
In comparing the SIM to the VIDEO I see the roof line on the East and West faces curling in. Where the SIM stops all I can do is extrapolate that the exterior columns will continue to curl in. The empirical evidence is the VIDEO... It does not show any face 'curling in'. They appear to me to simply come down in one uncurling block whereas the SIM contorts and does stuff that suggests the SIM is not reflective of the evidence. Let them adjust their SIM to so reflect the evidence and then THAT WILL be, in all probability, what happened... what ever that is...
IOW, match what you see in the SIM to what you see in the VIDEO related to that event time period especially the top of the building on the faces visable.

The SIM ended according to them at a point that allowed them to end it cuz as they said Global Collapse had started... What we can't see from the SIM or on the VIDEO can't be matched. So, I am commenting on what I can see on both and extrapolating on from where the SIM ends... I think that is reasonable.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Not trying to be rude to you in the following but, I said what I said.
In comparing the SIM to the VIDEO I see the roof line on the East and West faces curling in. Where the SIM stops all I can do is extrapolate that the exterior columns will continue to curl in. The empirical evidence is the VIDEO... It does not show any face 'curling in'. They appear to me to simply come down in one uncurling block whereas the SIM contorts and does stuff that suggests the SIM is not reflective of the evidence. Let them adjust their SIM to so reflect the evidence and then THAT WILL be, in all probability, what happened... what ever that is...
IOW, match what you see in the SIM to what you see in the VIDEO related to that event time period especially the top of the building on the faces visable.

The SIM ended according to them at a point that allowed them to end it cuz as they said Global Collapse had started... What we can't see from the SIM or on the VIDEO can't be matched. So, I am commenting on what I can see on both and extrapolating on from where the SIM ends... I think that is reasonable.

Actually, you didn't make it clear previously that you were speaking about the roofline on the east and west faces. You simply said east and west faces, both of which experienced column buckling. Thanks for clarifying though. Now at least I know specifically what you are talking about.

I guess what needs to be pointed out is that you are making one glaringly faulty error in your assessment. The NIST model does not incorporate the building facade, which was made from red granite, for purposes of clarity. The model shows how the actual columns buckled, not how the facade went down. Because of that you aren't going to see represented in the video that which is shown in the models unless you could somehow magically strip away the facade.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Actually, you didn't make it clear previously that you were speaking about the roofline on the east and west faces. You simply said east and west faces, both of which experienced column buckling. Thanks for clarifying though. Now at least I know specifically what you are talking about.

I guess what needs to be pointed out is that you are making one glaringly faulty error in your assessment. The NIST model does not incorporate the building facade, which was made from red granite, for purposes of clarity. The model shows how the actual columns buckled, not how the facade went down. Because of that you aren't going to see represented in the video that which is shown in the models unless you could somehow magically strip away the facade.

Ok, I thought it was obvious but If you didn't then I'm happy I clarified. The SIM ends where it does and I don't recall if any lower floors also were 'warping' in-wards.

The facade or in my terms fascia [that may be different stuff for all I know] are connected to the exterior columns from what I read.. but I will revisit that element and IF I can see that the whatever it is called - the exterior - is not connected to anything that is doing the twist then I'd have to reconsider.
My simple mind says, however, and before I go digging for my answer, if it ain't connected what kept it up? And/or, if the twisty bit separated from the exterior stuff why don't I see that and why don't the exterior fall or crumble or something...
What I think I understand you to say is: This facade from the top down to where I can't see it in the video stayed up until after all the interior and exterior columns fell and then it came down nice and organized like where it finally (as I can see in the video) bent over toward the back or front depending on which view it is... [I think it is a looking south view if I remember which building is where.] Anyhow.. it bent over as a block.. the South face and the East face as a unit bent or what ever the term is... 'took a bow'.. but stayed bowed.. AND since I can't see over to the West face looking at the South face I'm not concerned with that bit.

 

[Cogman]

Originally posted by: Number1
Tower Collapse Questions for Critical Thinkers

This is the thread Kyle created at James Randy Educational Foundation, jref.

The last post in that thread was made on the 28 of September 2009.

Having been unable to convince anybody of his point of view he abandoned the thread and started a brand new one here 7 days later.

I would be willing to bet some of those people in that thread would be interested to know Kyle is at it again here and would probably be more then willing to continue the twuther flogging.

I registered with jref under the same user name as here.

Do you people think it would be a good idea to invite them over and let the good time roll?

Already done in kyle's thread . I think the good times will roll quite nicely (at least until kyle decides to move to another forum like "whack jobs r us")

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I guess what needs to be pointed out is that you are making one glaringly faulty error in your assessment. The NIST model does not incorporate the building facade, which was made from red granite, for purposes of clarity. The model shows how the actual columns buckled, not how the facade went down. Because of that you aren't going to see represented in the video that which is shown in the models unless you could somehow magically strip away the facade.

On page 5-9 of the FEMA report Titled 5 WTC 7, at the bottom [I can't seem to find a way to copy and paste from this pdf type thingi] is a reference to the granite facade. It seems that the panels are connected to the 'building columns' and from reading that paragraph it appears the granite facade panels are rather small and not made to carry any weight as they are connected to welded things on the columns and trusses. I'm not sure what that means but to me it means if you did something with the exterior columns you'd have the panels sure to follow or fall off individually. What you think it means?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Actually, you didn't make it clear previously that you were speaking about the roofline on the east and west faces. You simply said east and west faces, both of which experienced column buckling. Thanks for clarifying though. Now at least I know specifically what you are talking about.

I guess what needs to be pointed out is that you are making one glaringly faulty error in your assessment. The NIST model does not incorporate the building facade, which was made from red granite, for purposes of clarity. The model shows how the actual columns buckled, not how the facade went down. Because of that you aren't going to see represented in the video that which is shown in the models unless you could somehow magically strip away the facade.

Ok, I thought it was obvious but If you didn't then I'm happy I clarified. The SIM ends where it does and I don't recall if any lower floors also were 'warping' in-wards.

The facade or in my terms fascia [that may be different stuff for all I know] are connected to the exterior columns from what I read.. but I will revisit that element and IF I can see that the whatever it is called - the exterior - is not connected to anything that is doing the twist then I'd have to reconsider.
My simple mind says, however, and before I go digging for my answer, if it ain't connected what kept it up? And/or, if the twisty bit separated from the exterior stuff why don't I see that and why don't the exterior fall or crumble or something...
What I think I understand you to say is: This facade from the top down to where I can't see it in the video stayed up until after all the interior and exterior columns fell and then it came down nice and organized like where it finally (as I can see in the video) bent over toward the back or front depending on which view it is... [I think it is a looking south view if I remember which building is where.] Anyhow.. it bent over as a block.. the South face and the East face as a unit bent or what ever the term is... 'took a bow'.. but stayed bowed.. AND since I can't see over to the West face looking at the South face I'm not concerned with that bit.

First, fascia is something different. Fascia is the surface you see under the eaves of your house.

Second, I wasn't claiming that the facade was not attached. I would imagine it was bonded to the columns by some kind of epoxy or cement. Don't quote me on that though. It's purely a guess based on past experience with bonding dissimilar materials.

Third, what I am saying is that the interior columns began to fall first. The exterior columns were the last to go and those that buckled pulled away from the facade where they buckled. Of course, that's speculation because we can't see from the video whether those columns actually buckled or not, nor do the videos that are available provide enough resolution or clarity to determine that with any certainty in the first place.

Lastly, there are plenty of structural engineering graduate students out there who would love to be able to make a name for themselves by showing that the NIST findings are wrong. Yet not a single peer reviewed paper has come forth yet making that case. If one had the truthers would be all over it. That tells me that the NIST report has the essentials correct.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I guess what needs to be pointed out is that you are making one glaringly faulty error in your assessment. The NIST model does not incorporate the building facade, which was made from red granite, for purposes of clarity. The model shows how the actual columns buckled, not how the facade went down. Because of that you aren't going to see represented in the video that which is shown in the models unless you could somehow magically strip away the facade.

On page 5-9 of the FEMA report Titled 5 WTC 7, at the bottom [I can't seem to find a way to copy and paste from this pdf type thingi] is a reference to the granite facade. It seems that the panels are connected to the 'building columns' and from reading that paragraph it appears the granite facade panels are rather small and not made to carry any weight as they are connected to welded things on the columns and trusses. I'm not sure what that means but to me it means if you did something with the exterior columns you'd have the panels sure to follow or fall off individually. What you think it means?

Thanks for finding that. According to that description the panels were not directly attached to the exterior columns but were supported by their own trusses that were connected to the exterior columns, which means that the columns theoretically could pull away without deleteriously affecting the facade, at least for a short time.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I guess what needs to be pointed out is that you are making one glaringly faulty error in your assessment. The NIST model does not incorporate the building facade, which was made from red granite, for purposes of clarity. The model shows how the actual columns buckled, not how the facade went down. Because of that you aren't going to see represented in the video that which is shown in the models unless you could somehow magically strip away the facade.

On page 5-9 of the FEMA report Titled 5 WTC 7, at the bottom [I can't seem to find a way to copy and paste from this pdf type thingi] is a reference to the granite facade. It seems that the panels are connected to the 'building columns' and from reading that paragraph it appears the granite facade panels are rather small and not made to carry any weight as they are connected to welded things on the columns and trusses. I'm not sure what that means but to me it means if you did something with the exterior columns you'd have the panels sure to follow or fall off individually. What you think it means?

Thanks for finding that. According to that description the panels were not directly attached to the exterior columns but were supported by their own trusses that were connected to the exterior columns, which means that the columns theoretically could pull away without deleteriously affecting the facade, at least for a short time.

There are a variety of connections apparently but I can't visualize what they mean so I'll accept your description and ponder further.. but if you say they would stand up there with all the guts of the building twisting and falling and what not.. then I guess that is what happened..
My entire position rests with the exterior (facade ) being connected in such a way that what the exterior columns do so do the facade(s).