How WTC 7 was pulled down

[Mince]

I know the OP is gone, and I hate to extend this ridiculous thread any longer than necessary; but I'd like a truther who's perhaps picked up the torch Heiwa dropped to answer or at least theorize a question:

If the destruction of WTC 7 was planned, how did they get debris from the collapse of WTC 2 to hit building 7 and start fires giving them the reason for its collapse?

 

[GlennB]

I know the OP is gone, and I hate to extend this ridiculous thread any longer than necessary; but I'd like a truther who's perhaps picked up the torch Heiwa dropped to answer or at least theorize a question:

If the destruction of WTC 7 was planned, how did they get debris from the collapse of WTC 2 to hit building 7 and start fires giving them the reason for its collapse?

I assume you mean WTC 1 .... but it's a good question.

The nearest miragememories (for example) has come to proposing a theory here was to claim that WTC7 was 'meant' to come down in the WTC1 collapse but something went wrong and was corrected later. (It's also worth noting than many CTists have long given up on the idea of WTC7 being rigged on 9/11 itself as just too ridiculous, even for them).

This would have been a huge problem for the perps, as a massive skyscraper would have been felled at a time when many videos would show little or no impact damage from WTC1. Thus WTC7 would have spontaneously collapsed without even several hours of fire as an alibi for the actual CD. In fact nobody could be stupid enough even to think of implementing such a scheme.

But this objection also applies to the actual events as seen on 9/11. There was never a guarantee of the impact and fires at any time and therefore, ultimately, no guarantee of an alibi even if the 5:30 collapse time was planned. Then they'd have been left with WTC7 thick with explosive devices both before and after 9/11.

It's a nonsense. A giant argument from incredulity that is desperately searching for any grain of support.

 

[kylebisme]

If the destruction of WTC 7 was planned, how did they get debris from the collapse of WTC 2 to hit building 7 and start fires giving them the reason for its collapse?

There's no proof that debris from the towers did start the fires WTC 7, or any evidence of fires in WTC 7 before noon, is there?

The nearest miragememories (for example) has come to proposing a theory here was to claim that WTC7 was 'meant' to come down in the WTC1 collapse but something went wrong and was corrected later.

That jives with this false report that an approximately 50 story building came down at 10:45:



And this video of explosions from the direction of WTC 7 around that time:

This would have been a huge problem for the perps, as a massive skyscraper would have been felled at a time when many videos would show little or no impact damage from WTC1.

Rather, if WTC 7 had came down in the chaos just shortly after the towers did, nobody would've had time to document what damage it took, and hence there would be no way to determine whether damage inflicted by the towers coming down was extensive enough to bring WTC 7 down or otherwise.

 

[Oystein]

There's no proof that debris from the towers did start the fires WTC 7, or any evidence of fires in WTC 7 before noon, is there?

None that I am aware of. If fires were planned, would they not have made that part a little more obvious by better timing?

That jives with this false report that an approximately 50 story building came down at 10:45:

Why does if jive you? It only shows that journalists get confused in the torrent of newsbits on such a day.

And this video of explosions from the direction of WTC 7 around that time:

How do you know it's from "the direction" of WTC7, and not, say, WTC5, the basement levels on GZ, or even somewhere entirely else?

Rather, if WTC 7 had came down in the chaos just shortly after the towers did, nobody would've had time to document what damage it took, and hence there would be no way to determine whether damage inflicted by the towers coming down was extensive enough to bring WTC 7 down or otherwise.

And this means?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Regardless of how support members might be severed, there are many examples to demonstate the fact that building can come down much like WTC did when support members are intentally severed, such as the ones in these side by side comparisons which I presented previously:

BANG!!!!

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

My simple analysis is essentially no different than an energy imbalance approach (First Law). Using this approach, work is still assumed to be reversible, so the work available can be equated with the heat input (not realistic!), ΔW = ΔQ = 6.4E+08 J < KE_{upper section} = 2.263E+10 J. For our purposes, this energy difference is sufficient to show that an additional source of energy had to have been involved in the collapse.

If it's "essentially no different than an energy imbalance approach", then it's trivially obvious that the additional source of energy is the gravitational potential energy of the building. Clearly, that energy is available to do work.

The motivation for using the entropy regime, however, is that in reality work is not reversible, and the damage of shearing columns, etc., comes only from the internal entropy production, which is the actual quantity sought.

No, sorry, I don't believe you there. I think that the motivation for using the entropy regime is that your energy imbalance argument is so obviously absurd that some misdirection is called for, so you've divided everything by temperature so that you can talk about entropy, which people don't understand as well as energy. That way, you can take an an argument that you know is completely wrong and pretend it has some merit, and hope that it fools the people you want to mislead.

Now, how about an entropy analysis of the release of gravitational potential energy as the building collapsed? Are you prepared to attempt that, or will you make excuses because you know it's the obvious reason why your analysis is utter rubbish?

Dave

 

[Oystein]

Sure, just like people often use such words to describe race car engines revving, yet those same sounds are very faint on recordings from interview mics some 1000 feet away.

That's because the sound engineers predict that they will haver to shield against that specific noise, and do.

I can hear the booms, louder than WTC 7 coming down after it, and I could boost the base on the audio and upload that to demonstrate as much if need be. However, surely you can hear the final boom at the start of the other video I posted, and hear that it is louder than the sound of WTC 7 collapsing shortly after it, eh?

In your imagination.
WTC 7 did not collapse "shortly" after it, and you did not explain why you think it came from the direction of WTC7.

 

[Miragememories]

"Sure, just like people often use such words to describe race car engines revving, yet those same sounds are very faint on recordings from interview mics some 1000 feet away."

"That's because the sound engineers predict that they will haver to shield against that specific noise, and do."

They use an audio man/woman, not an engineer.

They use directional microphones set at a record level to pickup
only at very close range.

MM

 

[excaza]

They use an audio man/woman, not an engineer.

What do you think they go to school for, microphoning?

 

[kylebisme]

If fires were planned, would they not have made that part a little more obvious by better timing?

I didn't suggest the fires were planned, and rather suspect they were an unintended result of an unsuccessful demolition attempt on WTC 7 shortly after the towers came down, before anyone had a chance to document how much damage WTC 7 took from that.

It only shows that journalists get confused in the torrent of newsbits on such a day.

It further shows that as early as 10:45 loud noise and a billowing dust cloud confused people into believing a building approximately the size of WTC 7 had come down.

How do you know it's from "the direction" of WTC7, and not, say, WTC5, the basement levels on GZ, or even somewhere entirely else?

The direction is evident from the dust cloud rising right around WTC 7 directly after the blast.

That's because the sound engineers predict that they will haver to shield against that specific noise, and do.

Rather, it's because interview mics are designed to focus on nearby sound at the exclusion of sound further in the distance, be those distant sounds that of revving race car engines, roaring crowds, explosions, or anything else.

WTC 7 did not collapse "shortly" after it, and you did not explain why you think it came from the direction of WTC7.

It did and I did, but your obviously intent on imaging otherwise, so I'll leave you to that.

BANG!!!!

Yep, explosives are one way to sever columns to make a building come down as quickly and completely as WTC 7 did, and I've provided multiple recordings from around WTC 7 which document bangs throughout the day, and witness reports of such to too. But again, you can't provide even a single example to support the notion that a building without any such systematic severing of columns could come down anything like WTC 7 did, can you?

 

[BigAl]

They use an audio man/woman, not an engineer.

They use directional microphones set at a record level to pickup
only at very close range.

MM

Directional microphones reduce boom to boom.

You are clueless about audio.

 

[kylebisme]

How well an directional mic reduces the sound of background noise varies depending on the design of the mic, and it's distance from the source of the noise. One would have to be rather clueless to imagine otherwise.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

How well an directional mic reduces the sound of background noise varies depending on the design of the mic, and it's distance from the source of the noise. One would have to be rather clueless to imagine otherwise.

Also direction, measured with respect to the primary axis of the microphone. (Most directional microphones have radially symmetric patterns.) Maximum rejection is typically on the order of 25dB.

 

[Furcifer]

Oxford's English Dictionary defines Wishful Thinking as: maintaining the belief for 9 years that the US government or its agents managed to demolish 3 buildings in a controlled manner infront of thousands of eye witnesses without them suspecting a thing.

I've got to admit, I really don't know if the sound caught on tape is that of an explosive being set off. It's possible. But it isn't sufficient to make any determination one way or the other. I can look at the video evidence however and determine that the ejecta was not traveling at super sonic speed and from that determine it wasn't explosives being set off. But I'm smart like that.

 

[Architect]

But again, you can't provide even a single example to support the notion that a building without any such systematic severing of columns could come down anything like WTC 7 did, can you?

I can't prove it wasn't sky pixies either; what's your point, caller? And are you familiar with Van Rijn's invisible elf?

 

[BigAl]

How well an directional mic reduces the sound of background noise varies depending on the design of the mic, and it's distance from the source of the noise. One would have to be rather clueless to imagine otherwise.

A portable mic still can only reduce boom to boom.

 

[Miragememories]

Also direction, measured with respect to the primary axis of the microphone. (Most directional microphones have radially symmetric patterns.) Maximum rejection is typically on the order of 25dB.

Note how little audio was picked up during the WTC collapses.

Those must have been horrifically loud collapses.

MM

 

[Miragememories]

I can't prove it wasn't sky pixies either; what's your point, caller? And are you familiar with Van Rijn's invisible elf?

I got the impression there was little that you hadn't proven.

Don't know Van Rijn's invisible elf but have encountered a few spin doctors
in my time.

MM

 

[Furcifer]

Note how little audio was picked up during the WTC collapses.

Those must have been horrifically loud collapses.

MM

Notice how the decibel scale is logarithmic.

 

[Miragememories]

Notice how the decibel scale is logarithmic.

Your point?

This is news?

MM