WT7: Silverstein vs the Official Gov't Report

[SFC Ollie]

Interesting. perhaps you should define your meaning of " physical mechanism".

 

[KokomoJojo]

Interesting. perhaps you should define your meaning of " physical mechanism".

sets the bait LOL

 

[KokomoJojo]

Interesting. perhaps you should define your meaning of " physical mechanism".

oh that easy enough

 

[SFC Ollie]

I'm sorry, did someone yank your chain? Didn't think so.

 

[KokomoJojo]

they sure blew er all to hell eh....

 

[Capstone]

Interesting. perhaps you should define your meaning of " physical mechanism".

From my earlier link:

...3. An instrument or a process, physical or mental, by which something is done or comes into being: "The mechanism of oral learning is largely that of continuous repetition" (T.G.E. Powell). ...

As I've already pointed out, without violating the third law of motion, even two and a quarter seconds worth of free-fall would necessitate the removal of all resistance to the downward motion for that period of time.

NIST's explanation, which remained essentially unchanged from the first to its "final" incarnation, was that the building experienced a "progressive collapse" involving the interaction of building materials (read some degree of physical resistance) from start to finish.

In their own words:

"Progressive collapse is defined as the spread of local damage from a single initiating event, from structural element to element, eventually resulting in the collapse of an entire structure or a disproportionately large part of it. The failure of WTC 7 was an example of a fire-induced progressive collapse."

Even granting the ridiculous notion that the building's "entire façade" could somehow remain standing intact as all of the internal structural beams were taken out 'progressively' like a trail of fallen dominoes (as opposed to simultaneously by some other means), the interacting materials in the façade itself would necessarily slow its descent, because concrete doesn't pulverize concrete without creating resistance either.

Physical progression "from structural element to element" is contingent on resistance. That means a "fire-induced progressive collapse" couldn't possibly have been the mechanism of free-fall. It also means NIST would have us believe that the laws of physics were violated for 2.25 seconds on 9/11; and that's something I simply can't accept with any degree of intellectual honesty.

 

[SAYIT]

Interesting. perhaps you should define your meaning of " physical mechanism".

From my earlier link:

...3. An instrument or a process, physical or mental, by which something is done or comes into being: "The mechanism of oral learning is largely that of continuous repetition" (T.G.E. Powell). ...

As I've already pointed out, without violating the third law of motion, even two and a quarter seconds worth of free-fall would necessitate the removal of all resistance to the downward motion for that period of time.

NIST's explanation, which remained essentially unchanged from the first to its "final" incarnation, was that the building experienced a "progressive collapse" involving the interaction of building materials (read some degree of physical resistance) from start to finish.

In their own words:

"Progressive collapse is defined as the spread of local damage from a single initiating event, from structural element to element, eventually resulting in the collapse of an entire structure or a disproportionately large part of it. The failure of WTC 7 was an example of a fire-induced progressive collapse."

Even granting the ridiculous notion that the building's "entire façade" could somehow remain standing intact as all of the internal structural beams were taken out 'progressively' like a trail of fallen dominoes (as opposed to simultaneously by some other means), the interacting materials in the façade itself would necessarily slow its descent, because concrete doesn't pulverize concrete without creating resistance either.

Physical progression "from structural element to element" is contingent on resistance. That means a "fire-induced progressive collapse" couldn't possibly have been the mechanism of free-fall. It also means NIST would have us believe that the laws of physics were violated for 2.25 seconds on 9/11; and that's something I simply can't accept with any degree of intellectual honesty.

But no evidence of any mechanical device was found so unless you believe all those connected to the investigation are hiding something, we're gonna hafta go with their findings. Do you have any evidence of or a theory about what brought down WTC7?

 

[Dude111]

And secondly, if building 7 was brought down manually by the Fire Department how did they manage to get the explosives set, etc so quickly?

Simple....... THEY WERE ALREADY IN PLACE LIKE THEY WERE IN THE TOWERS!!

 

[Capstone]

But no evidence of any mechanical device was found so unless you believe all those connected to the investigation are hiding something, we're gonna hafta go with what their findings. Do you have any evidence of or a theory about what brought down WTC7?

The lack of explanatory power as to the mechanism by which all resistance to the downward motion was completely removed for a period of 2.25 seconds is evidence in itself of the inadequacy of the NIST Report. That alone is a solid basis for questioning the legitimacy of their findings and for calling for a more objective analysis of the available data.

As badly as it might irk you, I don't have to theorize about a goddamned thing.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Translation: DUH?

 

[Capstone]

That's okay, Ollieboy; you keep on a'totin' and toutin' the veracity of your autographed copies of The 9/11 Commission Report (which has been derided as a coverup by some of its own participants) and The NIST Report (which, granted, only asks us to collectively suspend our faith in the laws of physics for a couple of seconds) ...and I'll keep on pushing for something remotely compelling from advocates of the officially authorized conspiracy theory.

 

[SFC Ollie]

And again, there is only one official report done by those in the best position to compile it. Other than trying to pick it apart with absolutely nothing, you got nothing.

It is the CTers who insist that the entire WTC7 fell at freefall speed. I have shown through nothing more than common sense that it did not. You want to pretend that both are wrong because of physics that you can't prove.

Carry on.........

 

[LA RAM FAN]

dont know how you can stand being in this thread with ollie since he cant open up his mouth without shitting all over the floor Cap.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

And secondly, if building 7 was brought down manually by the Fire Department how did they manage to get the explosives set, etc so quickly?

Simple....... THEY WERE ALREADY IN PLACE LIKE THEY WERE IN THE TOWERS!!

facts that are alittle bit too complicated for the concidence theorists to comprehend.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

delete,double post.

 

[Capstone]

It is the CTers who insist that the entire WTC7 fell at freefall speed. I have shown through nothing more than common sense that it did not. You want to pretend that both are wrong because of physics that you can't prove.

I can't prove what?

That every action has an equal yet opposite reaction?

It doesn't matter whether Building 7 fell at free-fall velocity throughout its entire descent or not. What matters is that, according to NIST, it fell at the acceleration of gravity (free-fall) for about 2.25 seconds. That's around a hundred feet or approximately 8 floors worth of building materials descending against zero physical resistance; and that's not consistent with the forces at work in a "fire-induced progressive collapse".

In other words, NIST's explanation doesn't follow from their own findings.

David Chandler (a guy who was instrumental in NIST's 2008 concession) explains why in the following video from 20:05 to 22:00.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9S6TYGVgpE]9/11-David Chandler-The Toronto Hearings - 09/10/11 - 11:02AM. - YouTube[/ame]

He also breaks down NIST's admission of free-fall from 40:11 to 42:20.

I personally don't go as far as Chandler's claim that free-fall is proof of explosive demolition, but it definitively disproves 'progressive collapse' as the mechanism behind the building's descent during the free-fall period; and that's more than sufficient to call into question the legitimacy of The NIST Report.

 

[SFC Ollie]

And still we ignore that only a portion of the building (the North facing facade) ever hit freefall speed.

And we know that the interior of the building had already collapsed seconds ahead of that...

Not difficult and don't need a guy reading Physics off a paper....

That's were those first 8 seconds that truthers like to ignore comes into play.

 

[Capstone]

And still we ignore that only a portion of the building (the North facing facade) ever hit freefall speed.


And we know that the interior of the building had already collapsed seconds ahead of that...

Again, a physical impossibility is a physical impossibility, whether it involves 500 ft., 100 ft., or even a single foot.

That means I can take your points for granted and still deny the legitimacy of the goddamned NIST report.

 

[Paulie]

Here is an article to answer your question/observation that the collapse has never happened before, and why it did collapse: Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - First Time In History

Thanks, I’ve actually seen this before. All it does is assert that there were some things that never happened before with WTC 7 and therefore we are asked to accept the official report. Do you have anything that dives into the collapse itself more deeply?

WTC 7 had 47 giant steel beams that ran up and down the center of the building. Structural damage was only on the south end, and although we have many example of partial collapses due to fire (when speaking of steel skyscrapers) I don’t know of any TOTAL building collapses to compare this with. Straight down!

80 perimeter columns and 24 core columns all gave way at the exact same time due to fire? 6 seconds. Do you have something that explains this off?

You sure do know of other buildings that more or less collapsed straight down, WTC 1and2. How many other buildings do you know of that have collapsed? I doubt many.

Any way here are some pictures and a video of a site that should not have an axe to grind. Note how intense the fires were: Footage that kills the conspiracy theories: Rare footage shows WTC 7 consumed by fire | Mail Online

Also the link I provided you made this statement: To put it simply, the building DID fall over backward and to the south-east. Just not like a steel reinforced concrete building would. Another telling photo is this one taken closer to the event date.

Which is not falling into its footprint. So I am not sure you looked at the evidence that was in the link.

Bottom line to me is, we know it was on fire, we know fire weakens steel, we know people could not have gone in and placed charges, and we know the result. Why exactly it fell as it did we may never know we just know it did.

So we really don't know ANYTHING other than seeing some pics of fire, and that it fell.

But people are nut cases because they have questions about it, and the official story.

The only people who get upset about that are the ones that are scared to death of the idea that maybe the official explanation wasn't true.

What are you so afraid of?

 

[SFC Ollie]

No Paulie, people are nutcases when they totally disregard facts like the first 8 seconds of the collapse.