University Study Finds Fire Did Not Cause Building 7's Collapse on 9/11

[TECSHARE]

You keep telling me the energy required to move the mass. I keep telling you that more than that amount of energy needs to be released in order to move that mass, because your calculation only accounts for the kinetic energy transferred to it, not the total energy required under the conditions to deliver that sum of energy to the mass. It is not complicated. You are calculating the bare minimum amount of explosives assuming 100% efficiency. Maybe you can argue with me some more about the question if glass is weaker than steel.

[franky1]

if you stood ontop of a skyscraper, on the edge. it does not need a bomb to push you over the edge. just a little tap or a gust of wind will send you tumbling

[franky1]

The blue is the building huh? You can't even make any sense under your own terms. So the building just peeled like a banana in every direction huh? Cool story. I never once tried to confuse the external structure with the internal, not that you need a reason to just make shit up and attribute it to me.

watch the video you actually see the external panals falling of in a tilt.
if you think buildings should only lose their external panels on one side  is more foolish nonsense

if the main building structure is collapsing down. then there is nothing for the external panels to hold onto. so the fall away and because the external panels are surrounding every side. then yea every side will peel away

..
here is a test for you to try..
if you have a GF or spouse. pick them up and get them to wrap their legs around your waist and their arms around your neck
then ask them to let go of hugging u around the neck... they will lean backwards, without you needing to put a granade between you and her

tits called gravity and moment and balance.
the force needed does not need to be much. it just needs not having a building to secure against

[Spendulus]

You keep telling me the energy required to move the mass. I keep telling you that more than that amount of energy needs to be released in order to move that mass, because your calculation only accounts for the kinetic energy transferred to it, not the total energy required under the conditions to deliver that sum of energy to the mass. It is not complicated. You are calculating the bare minimum amount of explosives assuming 100% efficiency. Maybe you can argue with me some more about the question if glass is weaker than steel.

We're in agreement with one important exception. YOU are the only one saying "Explosives, explosives, explosives, blah, blah, blah."

Any transfer of energy may be assumed somewhat inefficient. For example, suppose that two falling beams hit each other, just right, and one receives a energy transfer enough to create the 11 m/s vector force.  The impact likely created considerable heat, and perhaps the 2nd beam moved in some direction also. Therefore, perhaps the total energy transferred was 250 joules, and the part of interest to us is 192 joules.

[TECSHARE]

We're in agreement with one important exception. YOU are the only one saying "Explosives, explosives, explosives, blah, blah, blah."

Any transfer of energy may be assumed somewhat inefficient. For example, suppose that two falling beams hit each other, just right, and one receives a energy transfer enough to create the 11 m/s vector force.  The impact likely created considerable heat, and perhaps the 2nd beam moved in some direction also. Therefore, perhaps the total energy transferred was 250 joules, and the part of interest to us is 192 joules.

Amazing how something so statistically improbable happened so many times that day isn't it?

[franky1]

Amazing how something so statistically improbable happened so many times that day isn't it?

statistically probable that terrorists would do something bad. statistically probable that the damage to a building would cause the outer panels fall away when the main structure collapses

..
statistically improbably that terrorists just happened to hit a building which just happened to have been primed with explosives but where none of the office staff ever seen the explosives during the priors days/hours being installed.

i know you want to keep pushing that it must have been explosives to have the velocity needed to push a large object horizontal..

but the way the pillar was lodged in the roof and not slammed into the side shows it was not horizontal.
the video backs this up by showing the detaching of the pillars from the main structure and leaning over as it falls sending debris out with it. and breaking up on the way down in a curved diagonal motion.

so why are you keep on pressing the illusion of a horizontal high force theory when there is no evidence or video footage of a high force horizontal action.

[Spendulus]

We're in agreement with one important exception. YOU are the only one saying "Explosives, explosives, explosives, blah, blah, blah."

Any transfer of energy may be assumed somewhat inefficient. For example, suppose that two falling beams hit each other, just right, and one receives a energy transfer enough to create the 11 m/s vector force.  The impact likely created considerable heat, and perhaps the 2nd beam moved in some direction also. Therefore, perhaps the total energy transferred was 250 joules, and the part of interest to us is 192 joules.

Amazing how something so statistically improbable happened so many times that day isn't it?

I'm good with your alleging "statistically improbable" as long as you show the statistics that show it's statistically improbable, but in the absence of that, forget it. You don't get to use big words and assert they are Truey. You are not the arbitrator of what happened on that day. You are just one guy arguing that explosives were required without any evidence and without producing serious arguments for that premise.

It's pretty laughable to say something like "it's obvious that it's statistically improbable." What is the chance that of 30 people in a room 2 have the same birthday? If you are gambling, heads you win tails I win, start gambling with 1$ and double it every bet, you'll win it all after a while, right?

Huge fortunes and entire cities, such as Las Vegas, exist because of peoples' poor comprehension of statistical principles.

[coolcoinz]

It's funny how people call the story about it being an inside job "made up by conspiracy nutjobs" but they completely ignore that buildings that were not hit by planes on 9.11 collapsed to the inside, just like a normal demolished buildings do and witnesses heard explosions. It's the good old "if it looks like a duck..." case. Also, I haven't even seen the government try to prove that it wasn't a demolition. They just gave their version that it was all due to fire damage. How many often do you see buildings collapse and turn into a pile of rubble just hours after a fire breaks out? Never?

[Spendulus]

It's funny how people call the story about it being an inside job "made up by conspiracy nutjobs" but they completely ignore that buildings that were not hit by planes on 9.11 collapsed to the inside, just like a normal demolished buildings do and witnesses heard explosions. It's the good old "if it looks like a duck..." case. Also, I haven't even seen the government try to prove that it wasn't a demolition. They just gave their version that it was all due to fire damage. How many often do you see buildings collapse and turn into a pile of rubble just hours after a fire breaks out? Never?

Building 7 had been extensively changed prior to these tragic events. The interior had been hollowed out into a large atrium.

It's not exactly like the water pressure, fire sprinklers were working.

Steel under heat becomes weak. It doesn't have the strength to hold buildings up.

.... witnesses heard explosions. ...

It's hard for most people to tell the difference between a firecracker, a car backfiring, or a gunshot. After all, all three ARE explosions, of a sort.

[BADecker]

There are only two basic ways to look at it. Either 9/11 was done by terrorists from the outside, or 9/11 was an inside job by people in government and others.


The terrorists-from-the-outside idea doesn't fly, because the buildings were built to withstand the exact thing that happened to them. The only way to take them down via airplanes, is that some highly intelligent construction analysts examined the building plans, and found an overlooked weakness. The only people who could do this were people who were trained in such construction analysis.

In addition, there are loads of other things - like the lack of ability of Muslim pilots to properly fly the planes - that make the terrorists-from-the-outside idea to be impossible.


All that remains is "terrorists" from the inside - inside job.

Probably there was no design flaw in the Twin Towers. The way the planes were expertly piloted into the buildings as they were - through radio controlled, drone-like controllers - shows that the whole thing was a hoax, and that the buildings came down via demolition... of the kind shown here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2k_kuU84ro#t=3m0s.

[franky1]

the twin towers were not built to be invinsible..
they were also not built to just topple over with a push of wind or earthquake ir the instant there was a direct hit by a large plane not even available in the 1960's

the towers withstood the impact. but weakened the structure. which later collapsed.

it seems you think humans and buildings are immortal to harm. whats next, are you going to start saying that 911 wouldnt of happened if they injected megadosed of chlorine and vitamins into the concrete

sorry but i do find it really funny how one day you think buildings are not built or planned and you expect them to topple over.. but because it didnt topple over it must have been a bomb..

next you say it was so carefully designed that it would never fall under any circumstance

can you try and make your mind up.
because now your making so many theories that it just makes each of your arguments weaker

[BADecker]

^^^ Your excuses that attempt to defy logic, show how your mindset is being controlled by the sad situation you are in. It's been shown over and over - taking all the things into account that you said - that the buildings came down by demolition. Demolition experts express this, and have for the last almost 18 years.

But understanding this would wreck your cozy fantasies about how things work in life, wouldn't it?

[Spendulus]

- that the buildings came down by demolition. Demolition experts express this, and have for the last almost 18 years.
....

Only the few "demo experts" paid off by the anti-American, foreign enemies say these lies. All of the other demo experts, all of the other people laugh at these ridiculous crazy ideas.

One more time.

Why would anyone run planes into the towers, and then after a while, blow them up?

[TECSHARE]

- that the buildings came down by demolition. Demolition experts express this, and have for the last almost 18 years.
....

Only the few "demo experts" paid off by the anti-American, foreign enemies say these lies. All of the other demo experts, all of the other people laugh at these ridiculous crazy ideas.

One more time.

Why would anyone run planes into the towers, and then after a while, blow them up?

You assume it is the case, so it must be true! Am I anti-American? Do you really believe that? Just for the sake of argument assume my assertions of what happened on 9/11 were true. Which of us is REALLY anti-American here in that case?

[Spendulus]

- that the buildings came down by demolition. Demolition experts express this, and have for the last almost 18 years.
....

Only the few "demo experts" paid off by the anti-American, foreign enemies say these lies. All of the other demo experts, all of the other people laugh at these ridiculous crazy ideas.

One more time.

Why would anyone run planes into the towers, and then after a while, blow them up?

You assume it is the case, so it must be true! Am I anti-American? Do you really believe that? Just for the sake of argument assume my assertions of what happened on 9/11 were true. Which of us is REALLY anti-American here in that case?

Duck and dodge the question, AGAIN?

The ONE conspiracy theory that makes perfect sense about 911 is the continued funding and internet promotion of various schemes in which the US Government was behind the attack on the twin towers and the Pentagon. Why, for those who hate America it's just the gift that keeps on giving, isn't it?

[BADecker]

^^^ Wow! You did a little bit of your own research, rather than wait for TECSHARE to do it for you, and then express you don't believe him anyway.

[franky1]

^^^ Your excuses that attempt to defy logic, show how your mindset is being controlled by the sad situation you are in. It's been shown over and over - taking all the things into account that you said - that the buildings came down by demolition. Demolition experts express this, and have for the last almost 18 years.

But understanding this would wreck your cozy fantasies about how things work in life, wouldn't it?

the actual video shows no explosives. the logic is with the video footage from many sources.
the video shows no low floor huge velocity horizontal thrust.
many actual real videos and photos onscene show debris lodging in the roof not slamming the side. thus double backing up the lean/spin/curve fall of exterior panelling.
architects show no explosives. the logic is with the architects.
architects show that building is able to withstand the initial hit by the plane. but the weakening of the columns due to the plane would eventually not support the weight.

all logic supports reality.. so its your illogic an fantasy which you are not realising is your flaw

as for your conspiracy websites that ask for donations to get special priviledges of more conspiracy theories and other silly things, reavels their interest is in getting money by telling stories. even your supplement salesmen cultish sites do the same

so instead of believing websites that ask for loyalty and money and recurring loyalty and money. just take a step back. and start researching the facts. and when presented then look for the source.

[BADecker]

The university model talked about in the OP, is a peer reviewed study that shows that fire didn't bring Building 7 down.

[Spendulus]

The university model talked about in the OP, is a peer reviewed study that shows that fire didn't bring Building 7 down.

Virtually no one believes any of the conspiracy theories about 911.

They are just too nutty.

Nano-explosives built into concrete from the day the buildings were constructed?

Crackpot.

[franky1]

The university model talked about in the OP, is a peer reviewed study that shows that fire didn't bring Building 7 down.

the university done 2 models
one where the whole building tumbled over like a tree.. (never gonna happen even in natural disaster) and THEY said thats what happened in non explosive situation... but that has been disproven by science and architects.. and even by badecker himself by saying building suppose to be built to withstand certain things.

the other model was just a fall flat model. but it was not a model that resembled the actual fall of the building seven..
and THEY said this model was(facepalm) and then said it can only happen in a explosive used scenario.. again wrong

the models didnt accurately show actual events. and the summary of how the results of the models occured were not realistic either

.. sorry badecker. but try to actually do some research and compare info you find to actual events and other info available