How WTC 7 was pulled down

[Dave Rogers]

The highly symmetric,

Lie. As I said earlier, consider the symmetry of the collapse about any horizontal axis.

nearly instantaneous,

Lie, and really quite a stupid one. The collapse was an extended process with several distinct phases, lasting over ten seconds.

nearly free fall

Lie. A small part of the collapse was at an acceleration close to freefall.

collapse of WTC7 represents release from a highly ordered – or relative low entropy – state.

Fortunately for us, due to the relatively isolated free fall Phase 2, we are able to quantify this entropy change by identifying it with the kinetic energy of the upper section of the building, ΔS_f = -KE/T.

Meaningless rubbish. It's clear that you have no interest in analysing the collapse, and are only trying to generate a spurious line of reasoning that supports an incorrect conclusion.

In short, you've run out of benefit of the doubt; you're just another worthless, lying truther.

Dave

 

[kylebisme]

Again I'll reiterate how it works, you want to challenge the system, the man, the way it is, it's up to you to build the model and show how it really happened.

That really isn't how it works, as one can only rightly model and approximation of how something might have happened. Unfortunately, many of you already believe "the man" has built a model to show how WTC 7 really collapsed, even though they haven't even shown video of their model actually collapse.

We have that with NIST's damage collapse model.

You don't have NIST's model, you just have their word that their model comes down as quickly and completely as WTC 7 did, not even a video to back it up.

 

[Furcifer]

That really isn't how it works, as one can only rightly model and approximation of how something might have happened. Unfortunately, many of you already believe "the man" has built a model to show how WTC 7 really collapsed, even though they haven't even shown video of their model actually collapse.

Again wrong. I gave several examples where "kooks" said something wasn't right and they went out and proved it.

If you want to say the Titantic wasn't sunk by hitting an iceberg it's up to you to prove it. You can insist until you are blue in the face that it was attacked by a rogue flock of Emperor penguins but that doesn't make it so.

It's always fascinating how Conspiracy nuts rationalize things in their mind. They think the World shold suddenly operate on an entirely new set of rules "Because they said so".

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

That really isn't how it works, as one can only rightly model and approximation of how something might have happened. Unfortunately, many of you already believe "the man" has built a model to show how WTC 7 really collapsed, even though they haven't even shown video of their model actually collapse.


You don't have NIST's model, you just have their word that their model comes down as quickly and completely as WTC 7 did, not even a video to back it up.

You're not a firefighter nor a CD expert to make a judgement call about WTC7.

Either show us the evidence or STFU!

 

[kylebisme]

I gave several examples where "kooks" said something wasn't right and they went out and proved it.

No, that's not actually what you did.

You're not a firefighter nor a CD expert to make a judgement call about WTC7.

Either show us the evidence or STFU!

Again, one of the most notable bits of evidence is how quickly and completely the building came down. However, as you prefer to vest your faith in the judgement calls of others, I can't rightly expect any amount of evidence to the contrary to sway you.

 

[excaza]

I can't rightly expect any amount of evidence to the contrary to sway you.

Where's that evidence of explosives again?

Oh, that's right, nonexistent.

 

[kylebisme]

While the recordings and witness reports of explosions and other such evidence doesn't meet your criteria, that doesn't change the fact that it exists.

 

[Furcifer]

No, that's not actually what you did.

Yes I did. Let's see there's Keppler, Newton, Galileo, Copernicus, Einstein...

Could you give me an example where the "kooks" insisted something wasn't right based on innate sense and the entire establishment did a double take only to find the "kooks" were right? I'm having trouble following you here. Thanks

 

[excaza]

Yet no unspent explosives, explosive residue, blasting caps, wiring, nor evidence of explosives actually exists. Nor is there any explanation for how the building was rigged to explode without anyone noticing. Or how they managed to keep their perfect timing after an airplane crashed into the building. Or how they managed to make the explosions silent.

Thanks but no thanks, you can keep your CD delusions.

 

[TJM]

While the recordings and witness reports of explosions and other such evidence doesn't meet your criteria, that doesn't change the fact that it exists.

Recordings of what explosions?

 

[Furcifer]

While the recordings and witness reports of explosions and other such evidence doesn't meet your criteria, that doesn't change the fact that it exists.

I just heard an explosion in my bathroom. That's not evidence of explosives nor does it mean explosives exist in my bathroom.

The fact that there were numerous dogs searching for explosives and didn't find any doesn't mean anything right. I mean someone heard an explosion!

So flawed...

 

[TJM]

I just heard an explosion in my bathroom. That's not evidence of explosives nor does it mean explosives exist in my bathroom.

Yeah, but I would advise against lighting a match for a few minutes.

 

[kylebisme]

Yes I did. Let's see there's Keppler, Newton, Galileo, Copernicus, Einstein...

You didn't actually give any such examples, but rather only vaugly implied some of them with this statement:

You plot the path of the sun and the stars and show how the Earth revolves around the sun.

And in that regard, I"m insisting the fire induced collapse model isn't right based on how quickly and completely WTC 7 came down much like Galileo insisted the geocentric model isn't right based on the phases of Venus. Granted, such evidence didn't stop defenders of the Church from slandering him as if he were a heretic simply for pointing out the obvious.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Yet no unspent explosives, explosive residue, blasting caps, wiring, nor evidence of explosives actually exists. Nor is there any explanation for how the building was rigged to explode without anyone noticing. Or how they managed to keep their perfect timing after an airplane crashed into the building. Or how they managed to make the explosions silent.

Thanks but no thanks, you can keep your CD delusions.

ALways makes me curious why the fires, or the combustibles that are being consumed can't be directly responsible for some actual explosion events. They completely omit that (truthers)

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

While the recordings and witness reports of explosions and other such evidence doesn't meet your criteria, that doesn't change the fact that it exists.

No one is denying the existence of "explosions". You're being asked how those sounds match the general profile of an implosion. "Our" criteria isn't some personal opinion, like you're trying to make it out to be. A handful of explosions over the course of many hours does not fit the profile of a deliberate implosion.

Explain this.

 

[Furcifer]

You didn't actually give any such examples, but rather only vaugly implied some of them with this statement:

Come on, dodge noted. You're still dodging the question, when in history has the scientific method worked in reverse? Precedent, capiche?

And in that regard, I"m insisting the fire induced collapse model isn't right based on how quickly and completely WTC 7 came down much like Galileo insisted the geocentric model isn't right based on the phases of Venus. Granted, such evidence didn't stop defenders of the Church from slandering him as if he were a heretic simply for pointing out the obvious.

It's your turn Galileo

Just give us the speed or acceleration that was to be expected and we will look into it. It's that easy!

I solemnly swear that I will look into your claims with all of my experience and knowledge. I also pledge the skills and experience of every member in the forum, if required, in order to investigate your claims. I pledge to remain objective, and only use accepted science to validate or invalidate your claims.

If you so chose, you may designate another person to represent you and your claims.

You go girl! Give me a number,any number.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

While the recordings and witness reports of explosions and other such evidence doesn't meet your criteria, that doesn't change the fact that it exists.

Mother of God... what makes you think we're not justified in rejecting those as arguments in favor of explosives demolitions? The fact of the matter is that many of us here have looked into those reports, and realized that there are indeed explanations for all - all - of them that do not involve intentional demolitions.

Read:

• http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/whattheyheard
• http://debunking911.com/explosions.htm
• http://www.911myths.com/html/accounts_of_explosions.html

 

[Miragememories]

"Lie. A small part of the collapse was at an acceleration close to freefall."

No, 105 feet, 8 storeys, was in free fall.

But then, you already knew it was a lie when you stated it.

"In short, you've run out of benefit of the doubt; you're just another worthless, lying truther."

Same sentence only change truther to Official Conspiracy Theory salesman.

MM

 

[triforcharity]

While the recordings and witness reports of explosions and other such evidence doesn't meet your criteria, that doesn't change the fact that it exists.

Yes, EXPLOSIONS do NOT mean EXPLOSIVES.

Do you know how many things go "boom" in a fire?

I can name some.

CRT type monitors
HVAC equipment, including compressors and condensors.
Large electric motors
Electrical Transformers
Lead-acid batteries
Cleaning supplies
Hydraulics of office chairs

Those are just a FEW of the things that go boom in a fire.

Can you rule those out as sources of a loud boom?

No.

Carry on.

 

[Dog Town]

Same sentence only change truther to Official Conspiracy Theory salesman.

MM

Sadly for you, Twooofers are the ones trying to sell! Not the rational thinkers!


Two funny!