• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

How WTC 7 was pulled down

UWdude said:
painfully obvious?

You all think 1 charge at column 79 is all it would take. Because you believe that the failure of column 79 was all it took to trigger global collapse.

But to debunk the demolition charge theory, you claim it would take a complex set up of many charges.

Now why is it the building can collapse in global, simultaneous collapse with just the buckling of one column, yet require multiple charges to cause a global, simultaneous demolition collapse?

And how many extra charges would it take? 2 charges would create twice the instability, and surely still be just as easy to be hidden, and certainly not "painfully obvious". Even four charges on four columns can do it, and surely be unseen and relatively unheard.

But the point is not how many charges would it take. The point is 1 column failure, causing, global, simultaneous collapse of at least 3 walls, if not all four is plain ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Because the column didn't fail in a single spot. It failed over 8 floors IIRC of unrestrained lateral buckling.

Can you also show me an explosive capable of cutting a core column that is soundless?
 
UWdude said:
painfully obvious?

You all think 1 charge at column 79 is all it would take. Because you believe that the failure of column 79 was all it took to trigger global collapse.

But to debunk the demolition charge theory, you claim it would take a complex set up of many charges.

Now why is it the building can collapse in global, simultaneous collapse with just the buckling of one column, yet require multiple charges to cause a global, simultaneous demolition collapse?

And how many extra charges would it take? 2 charges would create twice the instability, and surely still be just as easy to be hidden, and certainly not "painfully obvious". Even four charges on four columns can do it, and surely be unseen and relatively unheard.

But the point is not how many charges would it take. The point is 1 column failure, causing, global, simultaneous collapse of at least 3 walls, if not all four is plain ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Why do you think it could be done with one charge? Please don't say that NIST theory just cuts column 79 and the building falls. You would need to duplicate (with explosives) what the fires did. You also have to take into account the placement would not be ideal (due to the building being finished). This translates to a lot of noise. Maybe you should read the section NIST did on this.
 
Miragememories said:
bolding is mine

Well if you want to get into the laws of decay, one could argue that WTC7 collapse initiation began as soon as its construction was completed.

MM
Click to expand...
What did Bob Dylan say? "If you ain't busy being born you're busy dying".
 
WildCat said:
What did Bob Dylan say? "If you ain't busy being born you're busy dying".
Click to expand...

Pointed threats, they bluff with scorn
Suicide remarks are torn
From the fool’s gold mouthpiece the hollow horn
Plays wasted words, proves to warn
That he not busy being born is busy dying
 
UWdude said:
But to debunk the demolition charge theory, you claim it would take a complex set up of many charges.
Click to expand...

No, that's your claim.

Remember Gage and Jones', squibs? They think they had loads of explosives all over the building.

Also, you would still need an explosive that would make a huge explosive sound. There were no explosive detonations.

Lastly, how would an explosive on column 79 cause the building to lean, bulge, groan and be in such dissarry that all the firefighters thought it would collapse from fire/structural damage with not a sniff of a dissenting opinion from any of them for all these years since?
 
Miragememories said:
Maybe you can explain how the the east, north and west faces were falling in unison?

The NIST determined free fall from those videos; videos that show 3 sides.

MM
Click to expand...

Personally I don't think they were falling in unison but I'd be interested to see these videos that MM says shows all of those three sides with the data showing simultaneous freefall of the North, east and west.

I've only ever seen the northside data and since the building collapses to the south I would have thought the south, east and west side failures would be slightly in advance of the northside.
 
kylebisme said:
While that portion of the North face was falling at free fall, what portions of the building were accelerating slower, and how much slower?
Click to expand...

Well, my educated guess would be anything not considered the N face, and my guess is something slower than freefall.

I could be wrong though,........:rolleyes:
 
UWdude said:
painfully obvious?

You all think 1 charge at column 79 is all it would take. Because you believe that the failure of column 79 was all it took to trigger global collapse.
Click to expand...

To be more accurate, "the failure of 79, given the structural weakening caused by widespread fires due to an unprecendented massive rain of debris, burning for seven hours with no water available for firefighting, was all it took to trigger global collapse" might be a better description. But don't let that stop you from your "column 79 is all it would take" narrative.
 
UWdude said:
painfully obvious?

You all think 1 charge at column 79 is all it would take. Because you believe that the failure of column 79 was all it took to trigger global collapse.

But to debunk the demolition charge theory, you claim it would take a complex set up of many charges.

Now why is it the building can collapse in global, simultaneous collapse with just the buckling of one column, yet require multiple charges to cause a global, simultaneous demolition collapse?

And how many extra charges would it take? 2 charges would create twice the instability, and surely still be just as easy to be hidden, and certainly not "painfully obvious". Even four charges on four columns can do it, and surely be unseen and relatively unheard.

But the point is not how many charges would it take. The point is 1 column failure, causing, global, simultaneous collapse of at least 3 walls, if not all four is plain ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Actually you seem to be misrepresenting what was said.

According to the 911 conspiracy theory in order to have the north face of WTC 7 fall at free fall acelleration it is absolutly neccessary to remove every bit of support.
THAT "would take a complex set up of many charges."

OTOH, if one accepts NIST's report in that the failure of col 79 over several floors LED TO progressive failure of the core and central structure of the building which in turn LED TO a global collapse
THEN
a single explosive that takes out the girder between col 79 and 44 could have had the same effect.

Fact is that this 2.2 sec period of free fall of the north face occurs after 10-12 seconds of interior collapse and at least 1.5 sec AFTER the north face begins its downward movement.
IF the CT is correct and FFA can only occur by the removal of every bit of support when did these explosives go off? While the building was already collapsing?
 
kylebisme said:
Is your guess based on any evidence? If so, please share.
Click to expand...

Wll, since NIST specifically said the NORTH face fell at FFA, then that would exclude anything facing East, South, and West.

Since they also specifically said "The North Face fell at FFA for 2.25 seconds" that would conclude that the rest of the building fell at something slower than FFA.

Is that so hard to understand? You don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to figure that one out.....
 
Ah, yeah, like if you said one of your neighbors left his house at 7:00 this morning, that would exclude anyone else from having left their houses at the same time or earlier. That isn't hard to understand at all.
 
Last edited:
kylebisme said:
Ah, yeah, like if you said one of your neighbors left his house at 7:00 this morning, that would exclude anyone else from having left their houses at the same time or earlier. That isn't hard to understand at all.
Click to expand...

Well, if you said my neighbor Bob left his house (address being 1888 Reality St. Florida) at 7:00 am, and nobody else lives with him, I would say that Bob left his house at 7am this morning.

Why is this concept lost on you?

They didn't say "The N face and the S face". No, they said, very clearly, the NORTH face.

Sherlock you are not.
 
NIST didn't say "the North face only" either though, or say anything one way or another about measuring any other faces of the building. A real Sherlock can conclude the other faces had to accelerate slower through exegesis of NIST's analysis though, and has no need to look at the evidence itself, eh?
 
Last edited:
kylebisme said:
NIST didn't say "the North face only" either though, or say anything one way or another about measuring any other faces of the building. A real Sherlock can conclude the other faces had to accelerate slower through exegesis of NIST's analysis though, and has no need to look at the evidence itself, eh?
Click to expand...

They woold have said "The North and East face".

Holy Christ on a corndog, why is this so hard to understand?

THE FORTH ******** FACE!!
 
Miragememories said:
"Maybe you can explain how the the east, north and west faces were falling in unison?

The NIST determined free fall from those videos; videos that show 3 sides."
Click to expand...
Reactor drone said:
"Personally I don't think they were falling in unison but I'd be interested to see these videos that MM says shows all of those three sides with the data showing simultaneous freefall of the North, east and west.

I've only ever seen the northside data and since the building collapses to the south I would have thought the south, east and west side failures would be slightly in advance of the northside."
Click to expand...

normalcbsb7montno3.jpg



set3sccompositeua1.png


The NIST's north side data was created from the video of the north face collapse.

If those three sides were not falling in unison, we would have seen the north side
falling and the other sides delayed in their fall (not-in-unison). Or we would have
observed some significant irregularity in outline of the east and/or west sides.

The profile of the WTC7 collapse clearly shows that the 3 sides were falling in unison.

MM
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom