How WTC 7 was pulled down

[BigAl]

Your "cause", is only a theory Al.

A more accurate statement would have been; "the cause of the collapse is unknown at this time, but a widely accepted theory has it that unfought fire in the steel-framed building was the cause.".

MM

ftfy

 

[triforcharity]

Your "cause", is only a theory Al.

A more accurate statement would have been; "the cause of the collapse is unknown at this time, but a widely accepted theory has it that unfought fire in the steel-framed building was the cause.".

MM

Do you have a better, more complete theory that fits all the available evidence and known facts?

We'll wait.....

 

[Miragememories]

Yes. Read NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 1 Pages 299-304

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/NCSTAR1-9index.htm

Been there.

Already responded.

Already been ignored.

I would rather you addressed this Al;

The videos show WTC7 perimeter collapsing in unison.

The NIST agree that 8 storeys, 105 feet of collapse occurred as free fall.

Well, for all 4 sides to be dropping in unison at free fall speed for 105 feet, they have to be falling through a vertical path of zero resistance. Any disagreement in the timing of this zero resistance would show up as asymmetry in the observed collapse.

So how did the north, the east, the west and the south walls, all have 105 feet removed simultaneously?

MM

 

[triforcharity]

Been there.

Already responded.

Already been ignored.

I would rather you addressed this Al;

The videos show WTC7 perimeter collapsing in unison.

The NIST agree that 8 storeys, 105 feet of collapse occurred as free fall.

Well, for all 4 sides to be dropping in unison at free fall speed for 105 feet, they have to be falling through a vertical path of zero resistance. Any disagreement in the timing of this zero resistance would show up as asymmetry in the observed collapse.

So how did the north, the east, the west and the south walls, all have 105 feet removed simultaneously?

MM

They didn't. Only a PORTION of the N face fell at FFA.

Have you been watching grainy YouTube videos again?

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

It would work fine if they would have just put the charges on column 79.

No need to place them all over the building, just on column 79... bad bing, bada boom. WTC 7 goes down perfectly. Good job, let's get lunch.

But then there's nothing suspicious about the collapse of the building itself. Truthers have taken to hanging their hat on the fraction-of-a-second period of freefall that part of the building experienced as proof of explosives removing all supports.

If you simply apply the charges to the same location where NIST concluded thermal expansion initiated the collapse, then truthers have to throw out all the external, observational "evidence" that they keep touting as proof of a controlled demolition.

They won't like that.

 

[BigAl]

Been there.

Already responded.

Already been ignored.

I would rather you addressed this Al;

The videos show WTC7 perimeter collapsing in unison.

The NIST agree that 8 storeys, 105 feet of collapse occurred as free fall.

Well, for all 4 sides to be dropping in unison at free fall speed for 105 feet, they have to be falling through a vertical path of zero resistance. Any disagreement in the timing of this zero resistance would show up as asymmetry in the observed collapse.

So how did the north, the east, the west and the south walls, all have 105 feet removed simultaneously?

MM

All caused by hours of unfought fire in a steel frame building.

 

[Miragememories]

"But then there's nothing suspicious about the collapse of the building itself. Truthers have taken to hanging their hat on the fraction-of-a-second period of freefall that part of the building experienced as proof of explosives removing all supports.

If you simply apply the charges to the same location where NIST concluded thermal expansion initiated the collapse, then truthers have to throw out all the external, observational "evidence" that they keep touting as proof of a controlled demolition."

It was not a fraction-of-a-second of free fall.

A free fall drop of 8 storeys, and 105 feet is not inconsequential.

MM

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

It was not a fraction-of-a-second of free fall.

You're right. It was ~2.25 seconds. My bad. It doesn't change the point of my post, however.

(See how that works? Your turn.)

 

[Miragememories]

"The videos show WTC7 perimeter collapsing in unison.

The NIST agree that 8 storeys, 105 feet of collapse occurred as free fall.

Well, for all 4 sides to be dropping in unison at free fall speed for 105 feet, they have to be falling through a vertical path of zero resistance. Any disagreement in the timing of this zero resistance would show up as asymmetry in the observed collapse.

So how did the north, the east, the west and the south walls, all have 105 feet removed simultaneously?"

"They didn't. Only a PORTION of the N face fell at FFA.

Have you been watching grainy YouTube videos again?"

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

 

[Miragememories]

"But then there's nothing suspicious about the collapse of the building itself. Truthers have taken to hanging their hat on the fraction-of-a-second period of freefall that part of the building experienced as proof of explosives removing all supports.

If you simply apply the charges to the same location where NIST concluded thermal expansion initiated the collapse, then truthers have to throw out all the external, observational "evidence" that they keep touting as proof of a controlled demolition.

They won't like that"

You pre-suppose the correctness of the unproven NIST theory that the source of collapse was the failure of column 79.

MM

 

[BigAl]

You pre-suppose the correctness of the unproven NIST theory that the source of collapse was the failure of column 79.

MM

Caused by unfought fire.

WTC7 collapsed due to unfought fire in a steel-frame building.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

You pre-suppose the correctness of the unproven NIST theory that the source of collapse was the failure of column 79.

This thing you do where you pretend that a debunker is the sole originator of a line of discussion is intensely idiotic, Miragememories, even for you. It shows a significant lack of awareness, difficulty in following a line of discussion, or just plain old pettiness.

In post #69, UWdude pre-supposed the correctness of NIST's conclusion with regard to location of collapse initiation as an attempt to provide a somewhat reasonable explanation as to how explosives could be used to initiate WTC7's collapse while still matching all other observational evidence.

Perhaps you should lecture him instead.

 

[Miragememories]

"It was not a fraction-of-a-second of free fall.

A free fall drop of 8 storeys, and 105 feet is not inconsequential."

"You're right. It was ~2.25 seconds. My bad. It doesn't change the point of my post, however."

No?

"But then there's nothing suspicious about the collapse of the building itself. Truthers have taken to hanging their hat on the period of freefall that part of the building experienced as proof of explosives removing all supports.

If you simply apply the charges to the same location where NIST concluded thermal expansion initiated the collapse, then truthers have to throw out all the external, observational "evidence" that they keep touting as proof of a controlled demolition."

Since instantaneous removal of vertical support is a pre-condition for free fall, maybe you can explain how this occurred with the east, north and west faces for 105 feet?

MM

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

No?

No. You may think otherwise, but that's because you've missed the point of my post entirely.

 

[Miragememories]

Caused by unfought fire.

WTC7 collapsed due to unfought fire in a steel-frame building.

I am sorry Al.

I wish to have a discussion about the thread topic; How WTC 7 was pulled down.

You are simply spamming, so I must put you back on ignore.

MM

 

[UWdude]

In post #69, UWdude pre-supposed the correctness of NIST's conclusion with regard to location of collapse initiation as an attempt to provide a somewhat reasonable explanation as to how explosives could be used to initiate WTC7's collapse while still matching all other observational evidence.

It was just a demolition charge set at the whole "it would take months to set up charges" argument.

You guys believe a faulty/damaged core column could cause global simultaneous collapse, yet think the entire building would have to be professionally rigged with demolition charges to cause global, simultaneous collapse.

 

[BigAl]

I am sorry Al.

I wish to have a discussion about the thread topic; How WTC 7 was pulled down.


MM

That would be a very short thread.

 

[DGM]

It was just a demolition charge set at the whole "it would take months to set up charges" argument.

You guys believe a faulty/damaged core column could cause global simultaneous collapse, yet think the entire building would have to be professionally rigged with demolition charges to cause global, simultaneous collapse.

That's not entirely true. It would take months to prepare it so it would not spray glass and be painfully obvious. I've always said that it could be rigged quickly, just not covertly.

 

[Edx]

So where were the cables when WTC7 was pulled down?

Oh yes, MM apparently still thinks pull is a demolition term. How sad.

 

[UWdude]

That not entirely true. It would take months to prepare it so it would not spray glass and be painfully obvious. I've always said that it could be rigged quickly, just not covertly.

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.