What brought down WTC7

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Cogman

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")

Was that really necessary?

There are times like these when I feel really sad for folks.. not for Kyle but for the vulture like display some folks enjoy.
Moonbeam would have a delightful time presenting this to his graduate students of the Nasrudin school of the gifted thinker in Palo Alto, Ca....

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
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).

An illustration of the facade trusses and the connection to the exterior columns would have been a big help. Those trusses had to be interconnected to each other but the FEMA report doesn't describe that. Their description was a bit barren and wanting. You can see some of the effects that the interior had on the facade though because the videos show the entire facade rotating counter-clockwise and falling towards the south-southeast as it collapses.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: LunarRay
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).

An illustration of the facade trusses and the connection to the exterior columns would have been a big help. Those trusses had to be interconnected to each other but the FEMA report doesn't describe that. Their description was a bit barren and wanting. You can see some of the effects that the interior had on the facade though because the videos show the entire facade rotating counter-clockwise and falling towards the south-southeast as it collapses.

At least you know what they are saying..

I'll try and find some other reference to it. Actually, I have been but it seems the Truther places don't deal with it and if what you say is accurate I can imagine why... but I'll plod on. Somewhere there has to be the actual drawings that relate to the facade connections. I've seen some but it don't seem to depict the facade.
Regarding the twisting in the video... Kyle (my gson) is bringing over his something that can do something with a pixle and something plus something else... (I have no idea what he's talking about)
His (my Kyle) last remark to me was... "IF you get a video of folks with 'bad guy' on their jacket backs carrying boxes marked 'thermate' into the buildings and a video of them installing it and of it doing the cutting let me know." Oh... and... he's poking me "stop telling me what was found... look up what should be and what is not found. That is the key!" Berium or barium, He flew out so I don't know which it was regarding Thermate.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
At least you know what they are saying..

I'll try and find some other reference to it. Actually, I have been but it seems the Truther places don't deal with it and if what you say is accurate I can imagine why... but I'll plod on. Somewhere there has to be the actual drawings that relate to the facade connections. I've seen some but it don't seem to depict the facade.
Regarding the twisting in the video... Kyle (my gson) is bringing over his something that can do something with a pixle and something plus something else... (I have no idea what he's talking about)
His (my Kyle) last remark to me was... "IF you get a video of folks with 'bad guy' on their jacket backs carrying boxes marked 'thermate' into the buildings and a video of them installing it and of it doing the cutting let me know." Oh... and... he's poking me "stop telling me what was found... look up what should be and what is not found. That is the key!" Berium or barium, He flew out so I don't know which it was regarding Thermate.

Maybe event8horizon can answer the question about where the missing barium is? He seems to love mysteries that involve chemistry.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Maybe event8horizon can answer the question about where the missing barium is? He seems to love mysteries that involve chemistry.

I think that the absence of evidence in this case of one element and a viable alternative source of evidence to support what was found eliminates the notion that the absence of evidence does not prove the absence of the alleged substance, Thermite/Thermate or what ever derivations there are. It will be interesting, I expect.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: DrPizza
...I have 2 kids in college (one majoring in physics, the other majoring in construction engineering/management or something like that)...

Well, perhaps your kids can help you come to terms with the fact that the examples you provided include a force beyond that of gravity being exerted on the system. Maybe they could even help you come to terms with the fact that WTC7's period of free fall was facilitated by some yet to be explained force(s), but considering how hostile you are to even considering anything of the sort, I won't be holding my breath.

On the contrary, the only one needing to come to terms with the physics is you.

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.

Well, the purpose of giving you this thread opportunity was to give you the opportunity to prove the OP. Your OP is based on an ignorant assumption, and an incorrect one at that. Rapidly running out of patience waiting for you to prove it.

Originally posted by: LunarRay

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 don't know... a 1 is a 1 to everyone... hehehe I'll bet anyone who took 'College Algebra' (out here that is a prerequisite to the Calculus Courses AND they are not upper division as I recall.) Can do the 'Math'. Ya need a real live problem and the formula for most problems is right on the internet IF you know what to look for... that is, spell the google right. Kyle said he went to college so I've to assume he's equipped to do all that stuff too related to forces and the like.
Or, I don't know what is meant by the term 'Math'. I think Dr Pizza's problem requires structural insight and the related formula. The math is the easy bit... as I see it.

As you're dealing with rates, college algebra is inadequate. As even Kyle will admit that there are different values for the acceleration (the acceleration wasn't g the entire time; only a portion of the time), then you're dealing with jerk. (The time rate of change of acceleration, aka d3s/dt3 or d2v/dt2 or da/dt) As Kyle is using a formula/algebra based physics set of equations, it's doubtful that the physics book of whoever it was that Kyle copied and pasted his "math" from even mentions jerk. Nonetheless, Calc II & differential equations at the very least.
A little more on jerk here; nothing too technical:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerk_(physics)

But, as soon as you say that the acceleration of the building is changing, then you need some deeper math to explain it. (edit: conceptually, it can be explained why the rate of acceleration changes. However, since Kyle has some specific numbers, then we need the math to verify that those numbers either are or aren't possible.)

Also, not mentioned yet is how the amount of force (or resistance as Kyle calls it) provided by a material changes depending on the rate at which the force is varied to its maximum force.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: 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.

Gee, Kyle, is this true? If so, you're nothing but a troll here.
(That's a rhetorical question - everyone here knows it's true & has known this for, ohhhh, about 1200 posts in this thread)

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

As you're dealing with rates, college algebra is inadequate. As even Kyle will admit that there are different values for the acceleration (the acceleration wasn't g the entire time; only a portion of the time), then you're dealing with jerk. (The time rate of change of acceleration, aka d3s/dt3 or d2v/dt2 or da/dt) As Kyle is using a formula/algebra based physics set of equations, it's doubtful that the physics book of whoever it was that Kyle copied and pasted his "math" from even mentions jerk. Nonetheless, Calc II & differential equations at the very least.
A little more on jerk here; nothing too technical:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerk_(physics)

But, as soon as you say that the acceleration of the building is changing, then you need some deeper math to explain it. (edit: conceptually, it can be explained why the rate of acceleration changes. However, since Kyle has some specific numbers, then we need the math to verify that those numbers either are or aren't possible.)

Also, not mentioned yet is how the amount of force (or resistance as Kyle calls it) provided by a material changes depending on the rate at which the force is varied to its maximum force.

I can hardly remember back to my undergrad days but seem to remember there were only three Calc courses all in lower division so I was assuming that Kyle would have taken them as well as the related physical science related courses at the same time.. I have in my mind that he had to drop in the last year or nearly so. And, I don't think higher level math like calc is something that you can sorta assimilate off the internet or forum discussion unless you are John Nash.
Anyhow, I personally have to visualize first then calculate. In our WTC 7, my thoughts are that when one includes the word 'nearly'... one includes the words 'force in opposition'. So I am left to wonder why something on the one hand said to be in nearly 'free fall' and on the other hand, said to have no force opposing it from free fall does not free fall. IOW, the slope ought to be consistent with a constant rate of acceleration. Jerk would, therefore, represent a rate of change consistent with 'nearly' but not go to the why. That seems to make it irrelevant to me. (as I see you start to fume ) I can see the Jerk represented in the slope that physics guy developed. Although he uses only two pts that is ok the distance/time change is evident. It seems the rate of that change is not material except to say 'Something slowed it down' by this amount for this duration. Now don't choke... deeper math don't tell me what, but it may give me a hint of what could do that.
I had an Economics Prof in Grad skule once try to convince me that Calculus enabled the study of Economics. The darn guy introduced Physics problems to show Economic solutions... like I cared bout getting to the moon! There are two ways to do stuff.. one is to calculate it and the other is to visualize it. Although, I'd agree micro do need some of that there calculus stuff... "differentiation and integration" to me are simply "+ and -". Rates of change are nice but the why they change is the heart of my process.

So, when Kyle says 'impossible' I'm not looking for the math.. I'm looking for the why!

 

[event8horizon]

kinda interesting-

Comparative gravities in various cities around the world:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_gravity

for new york-

9.802m/s2 which would equal 32.14 feet/s2

so from the nist report, it says it was at gravitational acceleration of 32.2 feet/s2

that means that wtc 7 was going slightly faster than the acceleration of gravity for new york!! sounds like the margin of error has already been skewed to the faster side of gravitational acceleration.

anyway, remember what sunder said about freefall!!!!

 

[QuantumPion]

Originally posted by: event8horizon
kinda interesting-

Comparative gravities in various cities around the world:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_gravity

for new york-

9.802m/s2 which would equal 32.14 feet/s2

so from the nist report, it says it was at gravitational acceleration of 32.2 feet/s2

that means that wtc 7 was going slightly faster than the acceleration of gravity for new york!! sounds like the margin of error has already been skewed to the faster side of gravitational acceleration.

anyway, remember what sunder said about freefall!!!!

I haven't been keeping up with this thread, but how are you calculating the speed of the collapse of the building? Are you taking frames from a video?

 

[event8horizon]

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

Originally posted by: event8horizon
kinda interesting-

Comparative gravities in various cities around the world:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_gravity

for new york-

9.802m/s2 which would equal 32.14 feet/s2

so from the nist report, it says it was at gravitational acceleration of 32.2 feet/s2

that means that wtc 7 was going slightly faster than the acceleration of gravity for new york!! sounds like the margin of error has already been skewed to the faster side of gravitational acceleration.

anyway, remember what sunder said about freefall!!!!

I haven't been keeping up with this thread, but how are you calculating the speed of the collapse of the building? Are you taking frames from a video?

nist report

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: event8horizon
kinda interesting-

Comparative gravities in various cities around the world:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_gravity

for new york-

9.802m/s2 which would equal 32.14 feet/s2

so from the nist report, it says it was at gravitational acceleration of 32.2 feet/s2

that means that wtc 7 was going slightly faster than the acceleration of gravity for new york!! sounds like the margin of error has already been skewed to the faster side of gravitational acceleration.

anyway, remember what sunder said about freefall!!!!

Well that rules out demolition then since demolition only removes support so a building can fall at gravitational speed.

I guess what you have shown is that an alien ray beam from outer space was used to crush WTC 7 and accelerated the building beyond even free fall speed.

Phew. At least we all know the truth now. Good job. :thumbsup:

 

[event8horizon]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: event8horizon
kinda interesting-

Comparative gravities in various cities around the world:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_gravity

for new york-

9.802m/s2 which would equal 32.14 feet/s2

so from the nist report, it says it was at gravitational acceleration of 32.2 feet/s2

that means that wtc 7 was going slightly faster than the acceleration of gravity for new york!! sounds like the margin of error has already been skewed to the faster side of gravitational acceleration.

anyway, remember what sunder said about freefall!!!!

Well that rules out demolition then since demolition only removes support so a building can fall at gravitational speed.

I guess what you have shown is that an alien ray beam from outer space was used to crush WTC 7 and accelerated the building beyond even free fall speed.

Phew. At least we all know the truth now. Good job. :thumbsup:

:beer:

 

[QuantumPion]

Let me get this straight. Kyle's argument is that because the collapsed building sections were free falling, that their support structures must have been blown up with explosives?

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I guess what you have shown is that an alien ray beam from outer space was used to crush WTC 7 and accelerated the building beyond even free fall speed.

or perhaps a (Dr. Evil pinky) Lunar Ray?

 

[BassBomb]

I like how kyle has not posted

 

[Number1]

Originally posted by: BassBomb
I like how kyle has not posted

He must have come to term with the fact that he can't win his argument in here. He will never understand that his OP is wrong.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: BassBomb
I like how kyle has not posted

Just wait for it. He'll come back with the "I'm so much smarter than everybody else here that my math is completely incomprehensible to any of you, even though I claim that you only need a basic understanding of physics to determine that the official collapse report is wrong."

Then he'll fling insults at everyone, declare he's right, and disappear for a while. I promise you that when Dr. Pizza gives up trying to explain this shit to him he'll be back claiming victory.


:roll:

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I guess what you have shown is that an alien ray beam from outer space was used to crush WTC 7 and accelerated the building beyond even free fall speed.

or perhaps a (Dr. Evil pinky) Lunar Ray?

I think I can safely say that when we publish our findings and win Nobel prizes and the like you'all doubting Thomas clones will be like all yeah and stuff.

What we have discovered so far is mind boggling!

When some stuff gets blown up it goes down.
Gravity therefore is not a constant but, rather, it is the adverse reaction to intention. It is proportional and arbitrary.
Viz: Place a newly cleaned tuxedo on the bed. Observe the dog hair from all over the house migrate towards the tuxedo. The number of hairs on the Tuxedo after a period 'T' is dependent on how much momentum you will consume relative to time. Conservation of Energy = T/G [dogs x 10 to the 11th/mv/p] It is quite clear how this works now...

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
Let me get this straight. Kyle's argument is that because the collapsed building sections were free falling, that their support structures must have been blown up with explosives?

No... I think what Kyle postulates is that the forces to accomplish what the videos display can not be generated by Gravity alone.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: BassBomb
I like how kyle has not posted

Be truthful... you are having withdrawal symptoms and trying to convince yourself that what causes them is the presence of Kyle's posting when the absence of such still enables you to post.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Well that rules out demolition then since demolition only removes support so a building can fall at gravitational speed.

I guess what you have shown is that an alien ray beam from outer space was used to crush WTC 7 and accelerated the building beyond even free fall speed.

Phew. At least we all know the truth now. Good job. :thumbsup:

It not only includes demolition but proves it... heheheheh

The cuts made at a 45 degree angle coupled with explosive devices forced the structure to offset the downward force of gravity. It sort of free floated there for the time explained to catch up with the g constant.. which build up when it is not employed.
A newly created building does not fall down... but a very old one increases the g on a yearly basis so that when it is no longer viable, and you can visualize this.. the buildings look awful and are falling apart.. that is g... then when you blow them up g is so much more powerful than the up bit that it pulls em down faster than a newer building... AND the construction material's age matters in this equation as well... You need to use steel of the same manufacture date or you won't know what to expect.

EDIT: It is part of that conservation of energy thing.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: BassBomb
I like how kyle has not posted

Just wait for it. He'll come back with the "I'm so much smarter than everybody else here that my math is completely incomprehensible to any of you, even though I claim that you only need a basic understanding of physics to determine that the official collapse report is wrong."

Then he'll fling insults at everyone, declare he's right, and disappear for a while. I promise you that when Dr. Pizza gives up trying to explain this shit to him he'll be back claiming victory.


:roll:

Them NIST folks said that WTC 7 was a problem too. They had alot more brain power than most working on it. I assume they started with the premise that it did fall down. But it seems they didn't accept the 'free fall' bit until it was obvious that it occurred. IOW, I'm not sure they looked at the video initially. That video, to me at least, is the best evidence of the end process.

 

[BassBomb]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: BassBomb
I like how kyle has not posted

Be truthful... you are having withdrawal symptoms and trying to convince yourself that what causes them is the presence of Kyle's posting when the absence of such still enables you to post.

What?

I meant that he has not posted in awhile in his thread.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: BassBomb

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: BassBomb
I like how kyle has not posted

Be truthful... you are having withdrawal symptoms and trying to convince yourself that what causes them is the presence of Kyle's posting when the absence of such still enables you to post.

What?

I meant that he has not posted in awhile in his thread.

Exactly!