So Larry Silverstein *did* want WTC7 demolished on 9/11. Discuss.

reply to post by Joey Canoli


how can nist's simulation show buildings sevens collapse like a cork screw, but in the countless videos out there, it fell straight down with no twisting cork screw action.

nist's model, and what we have seen in video are completely different.

Originally posted by ugie1028
reply to post by Joey Canoli

 

how can nist's simulation show buildings sevens collapse like a cork screw, but in the countless videos out there, it fell straight down with no twisting cork screw action.

nist's model, and what we have seen in video are completely different.

This?

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by Joey Canoli


Joey, I debate even responding to your trolling as usual.

Please show me NIST's computer simulations of WTC7's collapse that actually matched observations made in reality that day.

If they were unable to reproduce WTC7's collapse accurately, you can admit it. It's fine. Just stop pretending they did a better job somewhere else.

Ok we have been through 3 pages so far, and the one question that is NOT answered is this,

HOW DID THEY MANAGE TO DEMOLISH WTC7 WITHIN 2 HOURS, AS IT WAS BURNING, LEANING, AND COVERED IN SMOKE?


Also if there were "preplanted" there, somehow, then how the hell did they NOT degrade over time, or detonate from the fires burning for seven long hours? Or even during the internal collapses?

And since when do demo charges go off silently?

Originally posted by bsbray11

Please show me NIST's computer simulations of WTC7's collapse that actually matched observations made in reality that day.

The animation I just posted is the one you fellas are questioning?

And now you can answer:

1-Is the figure you've been posting the same as 4-63 in the final report?

2- is it contained in section 4.5?

3- does section 4.5 discuss the building without damage from 1?

4- why have you been misrepresenting this as from the actual collapse?

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
This?

www.youtube.com...

No?


If you want an example of a discrepancy, watch the corners. In the simulation they curl up, and the building begins to twist and warp just like the images I showed earlier. In reality this never happened. NIST was also unable to reproduce a free-fall acceleration if you watch their public conferences, though they tried their damnedest to get as close as they could.


It's funny, we say the problems are that (1) the 4 corners of the roof line dropped within a fraction of a second of each other and straight down, and (2) it free-fell, among other issues. NIST comes up with computer simulations to try and support their collapse theory, and what are they unable to reproduce? Gee whiz, let me guess. I'm not even going to tell you. Take a wild guess.

reply to post by Joey Canoli


where is the rest of the collapse?

thats the just the beginning of it.

Originally posted by ugie1028

where is the rest of the collapse?

thats the just the beginning of it.

Did they do any more than that?

Is it technically feasible?

Originally posted by bsbray11

If you want an example of a discrepancy, watch the corners.

Ok.

Now, answer the 4 questions above.

Originally posted by GenRadek
HOW DID THEY MANAGE TO DEMOLISH WTC7 WITHIN 2 HOURS, AS IT WAS BURNING, LEANING, AND COVERED IN SMOKE?

YOU MUST NOT BE READING THE THREAD BECAUSE WE ARE ALL ASKING THE SAME QUESTION.




Now if it's really such a stupid idea, you should think it's odd that a veteran real estate mogul like Larry Silverstein would realize this. Or the fact that a controlled demolition of a 47-story skyscraper is never going to be authorized in an area as crowded as downtown Manhattan anyway.

The only way to demolish it on 9/11 would be to have rigged it in advance.

reply to post by Joey Canoli


if they claim what they claim with what took the building down it should be easily explained and reproduced.

nist could not even get it right.

so yes it should be possible, so why cant they get it right?

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Ok.

Now, answer the 4 questions above.

Your questions are meaningless. I am asking for any simulation that shows these things. It doesn't matter which one I post because they all suck just as much as the others!

I take "Ok" as an admission that you realize there are major discrepancies with these simulations and reality. That is my point! Thank you.


Stop being so petty and post about something that's actually relevant to WTC7 either being demolished or coming down from fire.

reply to post by bsbray11


So if it is a stupid idea, then why the hell are you even suggesting they demoed it?

So now comes part 2:

How did the pre-planted explosives and wiring manage to NOT degrade over time, NOT get discovered, NOT detonate when it was impacted by the falling debris, NOT detonate from the long burning fires over 6 hours, and then detonate silently and take 18 seconds to collapse?

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by ugie1028
where is the rest of the collapse?

thats the just the beginning of it.

Did they do any more than that?

Is it technically feasible?

If their theory was accurate, and they had access to the structural documentation, yes, it would be just as feasible as the simulation you posted.

If their theory is trash and doesn't work, then no, it wouldn't be feasible to recreate the collapse, because their explanation does not work.


What little they did model already didn't match basic observations, so there you have your answer as to why they were unable to accomplish a realistic simulation.

Originally posted by bsbray11
It doesn't matter which one I post because they all suck just as much as the others!

No, it matters when you ask questions about the wrong FEA analysis. Without you admitting that you've been looking at the wrong one, there's not much common ground to have any meanful discussion.

Stop being so petty and post about something that's actually relevant to WTC7 either being demolished or coming down from fire.

It's relevant.

You've been looking at the wrong one.

Originally posted by bsbray11
What little they did model already didn't match basic observations, so there you have your answer as to why they were unable to accomplish a realistic simulation.

The FEA analysis I pointed out to you matches.

You are comparing the actual collapses to the analysis done for 7 without damage.

You should really take a look.

Originally posted by GenRadek
So if it is a stupid idea, then why the hell are you even suggesting they demoed it?

Because I'm not saying they did it all in one day.

How did the pre-planted explosives and wiring manage to NOT degrade over time, NOT get discovered, NOT detonate when it was impacted by the falling debris, NOT detonate from the long burning fires over 6 hours, and then detonate silently and take 18 seconds to collapse?

These are not valid questions, and are based on confusion, ignorance, and fallacious reasoning.


How did they not degrade? Prove what they used and how long it was there first.

How did it not get discovered? Again, prove what they used and where it was placed first.

How did anything not detonate when impacted by falling debris? Prove that something was hit, and prove that it could be detonated by a physical impact. I hope you realize this doesn't set off most explosives to begin with, but I doubt you do.

How did whatever survive the fires? Prove that it would have been in an area exposed to fire. Prove that fire could set this device off in the first place. Many explosives are also not set off by heat (even basic C4).

How was it "silent"? Prove it was silent, because I have numerous witnesses who reported major explosions in and around that building, and even recordings of explosions coming from that building. So good luck proving it was silent in light of this.


What makes it all worse is that you have already received these responses countless times before. I feel like I'm babysitting. Like a small child keeps asking the same questions over and over just because they don't like the answer they get, so they ignore it.

Originally posted by bsbray11
it would be just as feasible

I asked if it is technically feasible.

As in when you recall that doing even this much took weeks, IIRC, of several computers working autonomously 24/7, would it be technically feasible to continue the animation?

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
No, it matters when you ask questions about the wrong FEA analysis. Without you admitting that you've been looking at the wrong one, there's not much common ground to have any meanful discussion.

When the points I am making apply equally to all simulations NIST attempted, this is a moot point and doesn't make a damned bit of difference.

I still ask you to show me a single simulation from NIST that demonstrates the 4 sharp building corners dropping simultaneously at free-fall. There is none. I could post any of NIST's simulations and they would all equally be evidence of this.

You've been looking at the wrong one.

Again, show me the simulation that actually looks like WTC7 collapsing then.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
As in when you recall that doing even this much took weeks, IIRC, of several computers working autonomously 24/7, would it be technically feasible to continue the animation?

There is no reason to believe it would not have been feasible, and you have no evidence to prove this.

It's an excuse, with no evidence. Excuses are not acceptable. They were totally unable to reproduce WTC7's collapse accurately, even with what little they did try to model. They could not account for free-fall acceleration. They didn't look at a single piece of steel. Their hypothesis and entire report on this building fails.