How WTC 7 was pulled down

Dave Rogers said:
I've found that serious editing is necessary to reply to thecritta. I've tried not to alter the intended meaning of the original.



Not exactly, no. NIST's modelling indicates that one of the floors gave way at the connections to column 79, and fell on the next floor down, breaking the connections on that floor too. This happened over several floors, leaving a long section of column 79 unsupported. Column 79 was designed to be braced by the floor support beams; without that lateral bracing it wasn't stiff enough, so it buckled and collapsed. The rest of the core followed, resulting in the inside of the building collapsing before the outside. We know something like this must have happened, because videos show a clear view to sky through several upper storey windows between the penthouse and facade collapses, so the interior must have already collapsed at that point.



The shell itself had some strength, though not enough to hold itself up. But one of the points some truthers like to make is that they don't think there was enough resistance to the collapse, because part of it was at an acceleration close to freefall.



From the vertical columns of the facade, and from the lateral connections between them. But they weren't designed to stand on their own once the floors were gone, so they didn't.



Not exactly right, because of the timing involved. The first penthouse collapse started about 4-6 seconds before the facade collapse, and it would have taken about 7 seconds for the interior to collapse to ground level even if there wasn't any resistance to that part of the collapse. So the interior was still falling as the facade began to collapse, but there probably wasn't any structural connection left between the core and the facade by then.

Dave
Click to expand...

Then thing is the building doesnt mostly look empty to me when it falls, even when it is descending straight down into a cloud of dust it still looks like building with most of the floors intact, it looks like to me the building is
collapsing staright down because columns have been removed and the floors are hitting each other crushing slamming against each other pulverising the floors at the weight of the building is being dragged down by gravity pulversising everything inside to dust.

Think about it this way look how much dust there was when wtc 7 had fell completely to the ground would it NOT require a tremendous amount of mass
hitting the ground to displace all that dust? Just think about it in order for all that dust to move the way it did it would require that a great amount of air
in the atmosphere be compressed and displaced and in order to compress move and displace all of that air and dust would you not need a tremendous
amount of weight & energy and all of that weight & energy require to displace the air and atmosphere would have to come from largely an intact
structure with most of the floors in place descending falling and crushing each other.

Im sorry i just can imagine how an empty shell with some of the inside
of the building still in place could displace all that dust and create all that
airpressure maybe you can prove me wrong idk we shall see.
 
thecritta said:
Then thing is the building doesn't mostly look empty to me when it falls. Even when it is descending straight down into a cloud of dust it still looks like a building with most of the floors intact.
Click to expand...

How can you tell the difference? The videos aren't good enough to make out any interior detail through the windows; they're barely good enough to make out the windows.

thecritta said:
It looks like to me the building is
collapsing straight down because columns have been removed and the floors are hitting each other, crushing, slamming against each other, pulverising the floors at the weight of the building, which is being dragged down by gravity, pulverising everything inside to dust.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't look that way to you, because you can't see any of the things you've described. It looks the way you think the outside of a building would look if all that was going on inside it. Since you have no experience of what buildings collapsing in either way look like, all you're doing is guessing. You'll never find out anything useful if you start by assuming your guesses must be true.

thecritta said:
Think about it this way: look how much dust there was when WTC7 had fallen completely to the ground. Would it NOT require a tremendous amount of mass hitting the ground to displace all that dust?
Click to expand...

We know that all the mass of WTC7 did in fact end up in the rubble pile, so there's no reason for you even to ask that question.

thecritta said:
Just think about it. In order for all that dust to move the way it did, it would require that a great amount of air in the atmosphere be compressed and displaced. In order to compress, move and displace all of that air and dust, would you not need a tremendous amount of weight & energy?
Click to expand...

Even if you did, there was plenty available.

thecritta said:
All of that weight & energy required to displace the air and atmosphere would have to come from, largely, an intact structure with most of the floors in place descending falling and crushing each other.
Click to expand...

You're committing one of the classic truther fallacies; you're assuming that a broken structure releases less energy than an intact one when it hits the ground. It simply isn't true. The mass of the building doesn't change as a result of it being broken up.

thecritta said:
Im sorry, but I just can't imagine how an empty shell with some of the inside of the building still in place could displace all that dust and create all that airpressure. Maybe you can prove me wrong, I don't know. We shall see.
Click to expand...

So, basically, you're saying that the rubble was broken up too much to produce a lot of dust? Your logic seems completely backwards.

The amount of energy released by the building hitting the ground is pretty much the same whether it fell intact or in pieces. And, since we're talking about stirring up dust, there isn't even the incorrect argument that rubble should cause less damage to a structure to confuse you; if you want to create a lot of dust by dropping rubble, then break up the rubble as much as possible. It seems pretty obvious to me.

Dave

PS: To other forum members - is the critta editing service any help?
 
this qualifies as literature

thecritta said:
Let me get this straight just before wtc 7 came down all the floors
basically gave way caved in kind of and fell straight down all the floors
connections buckled gave way failed knocking down critical columns
causing the whole building to descent straight down, and the floors
collapsed straight down almost leaving wtc 7 basically as an empty shell
kind of like an empty box is that right? If that is right and there where no
intact floors left in the building actually i think there where still some floors
left intact on the right side of the building as it started to descent looking
at NIST's collapse model, so when did all the gravitational resistance come
from if the building was just an empty shell when it collapsed? If the where no intact floors and the vast majority of them where gone already lying collpased on the ground inside the building at the bottom where did all the resistance come from if there where no floors if they had already fallen?
So wtc 7 was basically just an empty outer shell as it fell is that right?

I dont understand because the was a freefall period of about 2.25 seconds right so the rest of the time the collapse was encountering resistance so this means that there must have been intact floors in order for their to be resistance as it fell because as i understand it if the building does not descend at a complete rate of free fall without any resistance which i didnt most of the time anyway, so how could the building have been encountering and resistance as it feel if the floors are not there can someone explain where this resistance has come from if there are no intact floors to crush to create some resitance?

I picture it kind of this way if i take a square 24 can slab of pepsi take all the cans out empty them all out and place them all back in the box right where they came from and then take another square 24 can slab of pepsi exactly the same as the first slab of pepse but this time i do not empty the cans and put them back in i leave just the empty box like the empty wtc 7 moments before it decided to suddenly collapse staright down and now for example i take a heavy object just like a dell poweredge 2650 server just like the one i have in my room which is quiet heavy and i would say would way maybe 1/3 quarters the weigh of and average person doesnt matter anyhow it is off a sufficient size relative to the box and you should be able to drop it squarely and quiet accuratly over the top of the box.

My question is which box of pepsi will collapse to the ground be flattened first which one will be crushed the quickest
the one with nothing in it or the one with empty cans? Of course the answer should be quiet obvious.

For example my reasoning which wtc 7 would collapse to the ground in the quickest time just like the square box of pepsi cans.

Box of pepsi cans (A) is wtc 7 with all of the floors intact

Box of pepse cans (B) is wtc 7 with all the floors gone just prior to collapsing

I could also do a box of pepsi cans (C) which would be a box of pepse cans with all 24 cans removed and most of them put back but not all of them so there wouldnt be quiet as much resistance as box of pepsi cans (A) which represents wtc 7 with most if not all the floors still intact.

There i hope you can understand what i am trying to say i can put it any better.

And can we please lay off the comments like "Why dont you just use a stack of pizza boxes instead" Really if i could find a better analogue a better example for an experiment to try to explain to you what
i am saying i would trust me but i cant think of one nor do i have even further time to waste to sit around trying to think up a better experiment like half an hour or an hour i ahve already wasted too much time just
typing this stupid damn post anyways tell me what you think, but please keep it civil and if you do i will too i hate coming around here and getting mad when i get responses i dont like whether it is my fault or not ok.

Cheers
Click to expand...

Nominated.
 
Miragememories said:
Truther logic?

No, just logic.

If it is a forgery, only the 'untouched' original, or a valid comparable recording can provide proof.

MM
Click to expand...


Thats precious coming from a person who can't understand that if Mr Morin saw the plane fly down and hit the Pentogon it CANNOT have been SOC.
If you can't get the simple things right..........
 
Mind you, now that thecritta has been banned, your truther translation service will no longer be required.
 
sheeplesnshills said:
Thats precious coming from a person who can't understand that if Mr Morin saw the plane fly down and hit the Pentogon it CANNOT have been SOC.
If you can't get the simple things right..........
Click to expand...

What has that got to do with the topic of this thread?

Just asking this non-thread question might get me banned but I had to ask since I know the Mods will not.

MM
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom