What brought down WTC7

[Number1]

It's only an "irrefutable fact" in your own mind. Plenty of others in here who are actually knowledgeable understand why it's possible. We understand that it not only possible, but inevitable in this case. The fact they you can't understand doesn't imply unknown forces were involved. It merely means you're too ignorant and/or wrapped up in your own stupidity to even want to understand in the first place.

QFT

We're wasting our time with him if we think we can change his mind but it's good to expose him for the fool he is. I have to admit he is doing a good job at inescapably proving his complete idiocy himself.

Now what would Kyle's reply be?

"I have done nothing of the sort."

LOL

 

[LunarRay]

QFT

We're wasting our time with him if we think we can change his mind but it's good to expose him for the fool he is. I have to admit he is doing a good job at inescapably proving his complete idiocy himself.

Now what would Kyle's reply be?

"I have done nothing of the sort."

LOL

Kyle sees all the same videos and evidence as you and the rest of the planet sees. What you folks don't see is that he believes in what he espouses. To Kyle the only explanation to the WTC7 collapse is some other force maybe in concert with fires/damage collapsed that building. We don't know what his bias is nor what the extent of his expertise is in this field.
The key to the Collapse of WTC7 is in the video. IF it depicts a symmetrical collapse at free fall acceleration for over 105' then all Resistance related had to be absent to allow that. Fire sequence is sequential not all at once. I think that is the thing that most folks looking at that video conclude. How do you get a sequential collapse of the Resistance to happen as if it happened all at once.
You may be able to see that, but I can't.

 

[kylebisme]

What evidence beyond what already has been 'outed' might there be that could get folks to do that?

It's not a matter of lacking evidence, it's just a matter of getting people to come to terms with what the available evidence proves. Many people have never even seen the fall of WTC7, but have the intellect to know the official story is false the moment they do. Granted, many are too emotionally invested in the official story to accept the logical conclusions of the evidence. However, the more people who do speak out against the official conspiracy theory, the less the rest can feel comfortable clinging to it.

You have to choose when to fish and when to cut bait...

I'm not fishing here.

 

[kylebisme]

What you folks don't see is that he believes in what he espouses.

Rather, they see it as a matter of beleif rather than the understanding of fact that it is.

The key to the Collapse of WTC7 is in the video. IF it depicts a symmetrical collapse at free fall acceleration for over 105' then all Resistance related had to be absent to allow that.

The head of the NIST investigation admitted the latter, before NIST was forced to admit the former, at which point they went to pretending the latter isn't true. Now you are admitting the latter is true and pretending the former might not be?

 

[LunarRay]

Rather, they see it as a matter of beleif rather than the understanding of fact that it is.


The head of the NIST investigation admitted the latter, before NIST was forced to admit the former, at which point they went to pretending the latter isn't true. Now you are admitting the latter is true and pretending the former might not be?

I'm beginning to understand that there exists a failure to communicate at least between you and I.

An 'If, Then' statement suggests that if the first condition 'IF' is true then the second one 'THEN' is true as well.. I suppose you could word it to be false as well.. but the idea is same.

'The nexus between belief and knowledge is that a belief is knowledge if the belief is true, and if the believer has a justification for believing it is true.'
I've put that in quotes cuz I probably read that somewhere... When I say you believe something I think that is what I mean...

 

[kylebisme]

I'm just hoping you might communicate how managed to turn the essentially symmetrical collapse at free fall acceleration for around 105' into a matter of "if" here, since I've pointed out that it is an established matter of fact right in the OP. But judging from the quote you added to your post, it seems your answer is that you deny the existence of objective reality.

 

[LunarRay]

I'm just hoping you might communicate how managed to turn the essentially symmetrical collapse at free fall acceleration for around 105' into a matter of "if" here, since I've pointed out that it is an established matter of fact right in the OP. But judging from the quote you added to your post, it seems your answer is that you deny the existence of objective reality.

It is a statement, Kyle... AND, a paragraph usually coveys what a single sentence or word may not fully convey.. read the entire bit before you cut out what strikes your mind especially in the bit about 'belief'.

You might say it is self evident, axiomatic... that IF it was a symmetrical free fall collapse there was no Resistance to that event other than air.
You ought to use IF when you cannot reasonably state with certainty that something is absolute... can you see every bit of that building as it collapsed... the front, back, and sides? I can't! When you say essentially something you mean it ain't completely that something.. IOW, It was not symmetrical but nearly so. That is not what I said... cuz in an almost (our) something there is almost no resistence.... Do you see the difference?

EDIT: I know... here... I think it was Euclid who said... IF A=B and B=C, then C=A.... that is what I mean using other words...

 

[LunarRay]

Quote:
Originally Posted by LunarRay
You have to choose when to fish and when to cut bait...

I'm not fishing here.

You don't get the idiom? Fish = continue, cut bait = quit the issue.

quote amended by me from some site...

"Fish or cut bait. (American)
Something that you say to someone when you want them to make a decision and take action. Your argument is going nowhere. It's time to fish or cut bait. "

 

[LunarRay]

Quote:
Originally Posted by LunarRay
What evidence beyond what already has been 'outed' might there be that could get folks to do that?

KYLE Said: It's not a matter of lacking evidence, it's just a matter of getting people to come to terms with what the available evidence proves. Many people have never even seen the fall of WTC7, but have the intellect to know the official story is false the moment they do. Granted, many are too emotionally invested in the official story to accept the logical conclusions of the evidence. However, the more people who do speak out against the official conspiracy theory, the less the rest can feel comfortable clinging to it

Apathy denies truthers that group, bias denies truthers that group, self preservation denies truthers that group so what is left? New members of the population with bias, apathy and if they're smart, self preservation and those unaware... the apathy folks. Truthers already have all the folks with positive bias to their cause or at least most cuz they are active...

You need more evidence... better evidence... a smoking guy! Anything less and you will have the status quo. (give or take a few thousand folks)

 

[kylebisme]

I've copied these quotes over from the thread linked in the quotes:

You're right, there's really no explanation other than teams of dozens if not hundreds of workers strategically weakening support beams, rigging thousands of pounds of explosives in busy office buildings without a single witness to their action, and having these explosives survive an impact by a huge jetliner all so that they could start a controlled demolition of the buildings that just happened to start from the point where the jets impacted.

There are countless possibliteds for how the buildings could have been rigged to come down, and refuting any one you might come up with doesn't change the fact that the video evidence and the laws of physics alone prove that they were. And by the way, I've been talking about WTC7 here, which wasn't hit by any jet liner.

Because... damn. Then again, this has to be true. You saw the video on Youtube and you're a self proclaimed engineer/physicist.

I've never claimed to be an engineer or a physicist, but I've studied enough of both to explain why claim you are defending is false, while you've obviously know little to nothing about either subject as evidenced by your vacant appeals to authority and diversionary arguments.

More people telling you are wrong is just more evidence of the conspiracy.

No, just more evidence of people being averse to accepting what the evidence I refer to proves. I figure it most people simply have too much of an emotional investment in the official conspiracy theory to even think to question it.

Oh, and about that petition. They are such thorough checkers of engineering certifications that people like the mighty Dennis Salisbury and his BS in Business Administration are on the list, Fernando Morales the computer science major, Nils Johnson (no credentials listed), and others. Truly a whos-who.

If you click on their names, it lists their experience, and notes the fact that it has been verified.

Forget it, I won't debate the 9/11 conspiracy bullshit with you any more because I feel myself getting stupider by listening to it.

I wish you would stop attempting to debate consperacy bullshit and adress the facts.

Ockham's Razor is your friend, I suggest you use it.

That only suggests you never actually learned how to use it.

Oh by the way if anyone is interested in an actual, peer reviewed analysis of the bullshit free fall theory, here's one from the Journal of Engineering Mechanics: http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/p...TC Collapse - What Did & Did Not Cause It.pdf

That paper doesn't even mention WTC7, and the fact that WTC7 underwent a period of free fall acceleration is well documented by the video evidence, and even NIST was finally pressured into admitting as much, as I noted in the OP of this thread.

 

[ElFenix]

WTC7 underwent a period of free fall acceleration

so what?

 

[LunarRay]

so what?

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

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

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

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

 

[JEDIYoda]

wow..any reason you can find to bump a worthless thread......

 

[LunarRay]

wow..any reason you can find to bump a worthless thread......

You've your opinion. It don't trump another's opinion. That you can't see the WTC7 issue don't mean others can't.
I talked to a person at the VA today who never heard of WTC7 and I was surprised that this [he is a designer at an engineering company] had never heard of it... He actually used his Iphone to go to the internet and look... Now he's a bit pro government on the 9/11 stuff but he don't understand this WTC7 stuff. I'd say he's about 55 ish... a bit more maybe... been doing structural design since he got out of the Seabee forces... kinda knows stuff... does have a degree in Engineering but not a licensed Engineer.
He and I have the same clinic visits so I'll see him again in two weeks... I wonder what He'll come up with by then...

 

[werepossum]

I have to believe after 78 pages of this that Red Dawn is banging his head on wall somewhere.

 

[JEDIYoda]

You've your opinion. It don't trump another's opinion. That you can't see the WTC7 issue don't mean others can't.
I talked to a person at the VA today who never heard of WTC7 and I was surprised that this [he is a designer at an engineering company] had never heard of it... He actually used his Iphone to go to the internet and look... Now he's a bit pro government on the 9/11 stuff but he don't understand this WTC7 stuff. I'd say he's about 55 ish... a bit more maybe... been doing structural design since he got out of the Seabee forces... kinda knows stuff... does have a degree in Engineering but not a licensed Engineer.
He and I have the same clinic visits so I'll see him again in two weeks... I wonder what He'll come up with by then...

really....well i was invited to sit in on a top secret meeting today of top government engineers who told me that everytime they read about another conspiracy thoerie they just laugh at the engineer wannabees who claim...

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

really....well i was invited to sit in on a top secret meeting today of top government engineers who told me that everytime they read about another conspiracy thoerie they just laugh at the engineer wannabees who claim...

You were invited to a top secret meeting and English isn't your first language? (you told me it's not).

What nation? What language, i'll talk to you in pretty much any language.

 

[kylebisme]

I talked to a person at the VA today who never heard of WTC7 and I was surprised that this [he is a designer at an engineering company] had never heard of it...

Yeah, WTC7 got a bit of mention in our media at first and there has been a blackout on it since, so doubt even a majority of the population knows about it. For instance, David Ray Griffin said that when Tucker Carlson had him on he was asked if he wanted to show any video, and he asked specifically for video of the fall of WTC7, but they denied him and railroaded him with nonsense instead.

I'd say the other two towers makes perfect sense but WTC7?

The official story on the towers is completely absurd too, but at least most of the arguments there can seem to make reasonable sense if you don't bother to look into how the buildings were actually designed and compare that to the video evidence.

It seems more like an bottom floor precision demolition.

It was a very precise demolition of eight floors somewhere along the lower portion of the building anyway, as that is the distance the roofline free fell as seen in the videos of the upper section.

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

Exactly, demolition teams would have much easier jobs if setting office fires was all it took.

 

[LunarRay]

really....well i was invited to sit in on a top secret meeting today of top government engineers who told me that everytime they read about another conspiracy thoerie they just laugh at the engineer wannabees who claim...

There ya go... use that to help form your opinion.. IF you trust their opinion you can't be far off the mark.
Maybe after this meeting you can edify us as to WTC7's collapse... I for one won't discount what credible info you present.

I should say that I'm not into the science of this building stuff... My forte is in another field so I defer to folks who know stuff... I listen and try to use what bit of sense I have to figure a bit more out...
I do have some experience with explosives.. but that has been so long ago that I don't even remember the sound if I ever did.

 

[LunarRay]

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

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

For years the Towers seemed to be able to simply react as they did or as how NIST (first I heard of NIST is in recent years) said. But, then I looked at that bloc of building above the damage floors... and Newton's Third Law.... equal and opposite... that pulverization we see initially appears to be the upper bloc being ripped apart by something but at least by the lower portion... Best case for that 15 floor bloc is about 8 floors and it is totally gone... since all the crap is 'blown' out into the surrounding air there is nothing to continue to pound on the remaining floors... Either that or apples don't fall and if they do they ought to drive on to the middle of the Earth... or maybe only a few thousand kilometers or so... Guess Newton should have moved his head... or... did he break the apple?

 

[LunarRay]

Yeah, WTC7 got a bit of mention in our media at first and there has been a blackout on it since, so doubt even a majority of the population knows about it. For instance, David Ray Griffin said that when Tucker Carlson had him on he was asked if he wanted to show any video, and he asked specifically for video of the fall of WTC7, but they denied him and railroaded him with nonsense instead.

DRG is a very good 'spokesman' for the 911 Truth folks but he is not a scientist of this building stuff.
Regarding WTC7 I'm pretty well convinced that fire alone could not cause immediate termination of resistance unless something other than NIST states caused it by fires alone... I considered the lower truss system over ConEd for instance. But, can't see a universal collapse there either... but it is at least possible for maybe 6 floors... but would have taken all the oil tanks with it and they evacuated that oil... or most of it..
Regarding the Towers...
I don't know how anyone or any group could have orchestrated a 'hit by plane' and 'blow it up' scenario... But, that said... and considering what I've not considered until I read some guy talk about a small bloc destroying a larger bloc and it could not be done... That bugged me... why can't it if it is massive enough.. and in there is the clue... Newton's Third... equal and opposite... IF that building bloc (the 15 floors) was dropped from a mile up it would exert an unbelievable force on the lower 90 floors... but also it would have been disintegrated in the process. You simply can't have a bloc fall down hitting and breaking stuff and survive till the bottom or much more than about 8 floors... and if it could by some miracle where is it at the bottom... it simply ain't...
To me I don't have to show or prove that explosives were used... but that what happened couldn't have by damage/fires alone...
Can someone show how a 15 floor bloc can act like a hammer and destroy the bottom part... it ain't a hammer hitting glass.. it is what it is... a bit of the top hitting the lot of the bottom...

 

[Fear No Evil]

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

 

[LunarRay]

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

Well... the 'who did it' is not important until you are sure about the 'how it happened'.

If you are certain that the collapse of the Towers, WTC7 and the Pentagon occurred as NIST etc. said... then there is no reason to go further with the who... 19 terrorists armed with something took some planes and drove them where they did and it resulted in what happened..

I'm seeing stuff happen that I can't explain to my satisfaction... mainly cuz I'm not skilled in the field to do that... maybe some day I'll be all warm and fuzzie with NIST and the rest... well... never with the 9/11 commission... heheheheheheh a waste of dollars there..

 

[Number1]

I've copied these quotes over from the thread linked in the quotes:


1: There are countless possibliteds for how the buildings could have been rigged to come down, and refuting any one you might come up with doesn't change the fact that the video evidence and the laws of physics alone prove that they were. And by the way, I've been talking about WTC7 here, which wasn't hit by any jet liner.


I've never claimed to be an engineer or a physicist, but I've studied enough of both to explain why claim you are defending is false, while you've obviously know little to nothing about either subject as evidenced by your vacant appeals to authority and diversionary arguments.


2: No, just more evidence of people being averse to accepting what the evidence I refer to proves. I figure it most people simply have too much of an emotional investment in the official conspiracy theory to even think to question it.


If you click on their names, it lists their experience, and notes the fact that it has been verified.


3: I wish you would stop attempting to debate consperacy bullshit and adress the facts.


That only suggests you never actually learned how to use it.


4: That paper doesn't even mention WTC7, and the fact that WTC7 underwent a period of free fall acceleration is well documented by the video evidence, and even NIST was finally pressured into admitting as much, as I noted in the OP of this thread.

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

2: Your reference proves nothing. No credible accredited scientific organization has ever agreed with your allegations. See 1

3: Your OP and this entire thread is about your conspiracy theory bullshit.

4: You like to make a big deal out of this. The free fall in itself only proves that there was negligible resistance to the collapse of the building, NOT ZERO resistance.


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

Typical dishonest twuther tactic.