How WTC 7 was pulled down

[Clarrisani]

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

MM

With big invincible cables and bulldozers!

 

[Miragememories]

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

"With big invincible cables and bulldozers!"

Maybe address this instead of using cheap one-liners?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6478555&postcount=120

MM

 

[TJM]

Maybe address this instead of using cheap one-liners?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6478555&postcount=120

MM

Sure.

The northeast face is clearly falling ahead of the rest of the building.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

So where were the cables when WTC7 was pulled down?

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

MM also believes no plane hit the pentagon.............if you are foolish enough to fall for CIT and Balsamos snake oil then you are game for any lunacy.

 

[Miragememories]

Sure.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=199&pictureid=3982[/qimg]

The northeast face is clearly falling ahead of the rest of the building.

I suggest you actually watch the video.

In that video, the west face descends in unison with the north face.

There is no fracture where they meet, which would a indicate non-identical collapse speed.

MM

 

[TJM]

I suggest you actually watch the video.

In that video, the west face descends in unison with the north face.

There is no fracture where they meet, which would a indicate non-identical collapse speed.

MM

Yet we have a still and video which shows the northeast face falling ahead of the rest of the building.

I would suggest you watch it again, but would it really make any difference?

 

[GlennB]

There is no fracture where they meet, which would a indicate non-identical collapse speed.

There is no apparent fracture below the kink, but obviously there's a difference in collapse speeds in that region. Otherwise, no kink.

AJM is right. The NE corner starts dropping slightly before the NW corner. And a kink develops. And the whole building leans significantly S as it falls.

 

[TJM]

I just wish the video would've began earlier in the collapse. It begins as the northeast side collapse has begun - notice the broken windows. Then as the rest of the structure starts falling, the northwest windows let go.

It clearly began collapsing on the northeast side first.

 

[Miragememories]

"In that video, the west face descends in unison with the north face.

There is no fracture where they meet, which would a indicate non-identical collapse speed."

There is no apparent fracture below the kink, but obviously there's a difference in collapse speeds in that region. Otherwise, no kink.

AJM is right. The NE corner starts dropping slightly before the NW corner. And a kink develops. And the whole building leans significantly S as it falls.

The north face and the west face stay joined as WTC7 descends.

They are both clearly falling in unison.

MM

 

[TJM]

Both sides fall in unison once the building is in full collapse, which clearly began on the northeast side.

 

[triforcharity]

The north face and the west face stay joined as WTC7 descends.

They are both clearly falling in unison.

[qimg]http://img264.imageshack.us/img264/3233/wtc7northwesttogether1o.jpg[/qimg]

MM

Do you find the absolute worst video in terms of quality, and use that one to base your failure on?

 

[kylebisme]

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

Again, NIST never said anything about measuring anything but a point on the North face, so their comments about the North face can't rightly be taken to say anything about the other faces one way or another.

Do you find the absolute worst video in terms of quality, and use that one to base your failure on?

Those of you claiming the other faces of the building didn't accelerate at free fall in unison with the North face have failed to provide any video to support that argument. You don't have any evidence of the sort, do you?

 

[Checkmite]

I like how Truthers are starting to refer to the presumed demolition of buildings as "pulling"; like if they make the reference often enough, the term "pulling" might actually begin to become connected in any way with building demolition to the rest of the world.

 

[triforcharity]

Again, NIST never said anything about measuring anything but a point on the North face, so their comments about the North face can't rightly be taken to say anything about the other faces one way or another.

Don't you think they would have said "The North and East face fell at FFA" if it did?

Those of you claiming the other faces of the building didn't accelerate at free fall in unison with the North face have failed to provide any video to support that argument. You don't have any evidence of the sort, do you?

The kink?

 

[A W Smith]

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

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6447437#post6447437

No it is not impossible to have a period of free fall for the north face. If you remember the yardstick and ball experiment (or haven't hand waved it away yet.) Imagine the beams and slabs connecting the core structure to the perimeter columns as those yardsticks, The ball end representing the load on the columns of the north face. The interior core collapse precedes the outside perimeter collapse as shown when the penthouse drops through the roof. The core representing the hinge end of the yardsticks pulls in on the perimeter buckling the columns ( yes even 57 SIMULTANEOUSLY if you insist,) and there you have it, Global collapse ensues with a portion of it at free fall acceleration with no explosives at all necessary. We can close this thread now.

 

[kylebisme]

Don't you think they would have said "The North and East face fell at FFA" if it did?

I know they could have said that as that is what all the videos show, but they apparently didn't bother to measure anything more than a single point on the North face, or at least that is all they mention having mesured in their report.

The kink?

The kink forms in NIST's "Stage 1", at the end of witch "the north face had descended approximately 2.2 m (7 ft)." Then in NIST "Stage 2", that point they measured "descended at gravitational acceleration" and that "free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 meters (105 feet)", as did the rest of the faces of the building free fall for around that same distance, as can be seen in the many videos of WTC 7 coming down.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6447437#post6447437

Where can I find more detail on this yardstick and ball experiment you mention?

 

[JackDaniels]

I like how Truthers are starting to refer to the presumed demolition of buildings as "pulling"; like if they make the reference often enough, the term "pulling" might actually begin to become connected in any way with building demolition to the rest of the world.

I believe it is connected with building demolition - in the sense of literally pulling a building (or what's left of one) down with cables etc. This has nothing to do with controlled explosive demolitions, and nothing to do with wtc7.

 

[A W Smith]

Where can I find more detail on this yardstick and ball experiment you mention?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6434860&postcount=267

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6436568&postcount=272

 

[mzelinski]

Heiwa and others (see cmatrix’s discussion “Open Letter to Dave Thomas”) seem to make a solid case for the collapse of WTC7 being a controlled demolition, and one that agrees with observable features, such as the three corners falling in unison with a high degree of symmetry.

To make matters worse for the skeptics, the NIST even concluded that WTC7 did not suffer significant structural damage due to WTC1's collapse.

In "The NIST WTC 7 Report: Bush Science reaches its peak" Kevin Ryan calculates that the thermal expansion in the NIST’s explanation is less than 3 inches. For those of you here who do not support the controlled demolition explanation, do you feel that 3 inches is enough thermal expansion to bring down WTC7 in the way that it did? Is there a way to verify the NIST's hypothesis?

 

[ozeco41]

Heiwa and others (see cmatrix’s discussion “Open Letter to Dave Thomas”) seem to make a solid case for the collapse of WTC7 being a controlled demolition, and one that agrees with observable features, such as the three corners falling in unison with a high degree of symmetry.

To make matters worse for the skeptics, the NIST even concluded that WTC7 did not suffer significant structural damage due to WTC1's collapse.

In "The NIST WTC 7 Report: Bush Science reaches its peak" Kevin Ryan calculates that the thermal expansion in the NIST’s explanation is less than 3 inches. For those of you here who do not support the controlled demolition explanation, do you feel that 3 inches is enough thermal expansion to bring down WTC7 in the way that it did? Is there a way to verify the NIST's hypothesis?

Make life easy for yourself - ask "Who am I trying to convince?"

If you are trying to convince truthers - forget it - they have no interest in being convinced.

If you want to convince yourself don't even bother with the technical structural details. Rely on these two:

1) The simple fact is that it was logistically impossible for WTC 7 to be demolished without the fact being clearly evident.

AND 2) there was no way that the collapse which happened could be caused by demolition - at least not without the evidence being clear for all to see.

Then walk away from the nonsense discussions about alleged technical details.