Judges shocked by first time seeing video of WTC 7 collapse in Denmark court, March 2015

a reply to: hellobruce

Was seven hit by a jetliner?

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: hellobruce

Was seven hit by a jetliner?

It was severely damaged when WTC 1 collapsed, leaving a 20 story high deep gash in it.

a reply to: hellobruce

One side faced both towers, let's call it the front. The front would have taken more damage than the back. No different than jenga, the side with less integrity fails first creating an inertia in that direction. I'm still bewildered by how such a perfect implosion at that speed could happen without that specific result being in mind. Same with the other two. Unfortunately we both represent two very strong ideas in my opinion having enough merit to argue either, we're bound to agree to disagree. But I was always born a questioner, curiosity is a strong driving driving force in how I take in ideas. I doubt I'll ever change, however as I said before I don't particularly have a definitive stance on this as at the end of the day I have to be honest with my self and say ultimately I don't know. And that will make me question even harder.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
But I was always born a questioner,

How about you question how tonnes of explosives were smuggled into all the buildings, past the bomb sniffing dogs, and also question how they wired the buildings up without anyone noticing the tonnes of explosives, km of wire, the holes punched in the walls etc etc.

Or do you propose they used the James Bond technique using egg timers attached to walls?

a reply to: hellobruce
That is the thing I think about..still 7 fell pretty much an equal free fall..you have to admit it is unheard of in history. I understand the 20 story gash but a free fall has very specific requirment that do not appear to be met by the damage.
I have no answers only reasonable question.

a reply to: hellobruce

Another great point, and as I said I think your whole argument is valid. How they would have accomplished that I do not know. What I do know is that was anomaly day. The two ideas I humor (and I'd be open to more should they arrive with compelling arguement) is the official version, that every safeguard in place did not work, most notably in my mind is it was the day NORAD didn't successfully scramble responses to a reported hijacking, but on top of that it failed four times on the same day even after a crisis had developed. And the other version that it was orchestrated by other powers or at least known about and aloud to happen or some where in the middle. I sincerely doubt I'll be able to in my lifetime say I know what happened, so I'll always question, your points as much as the others. And I'll give your stars Haha.

a reply to: smurfy

Ryan, got fired because he used his position as an employee of the water testing lab at UL to bolster his silly theories about 9/11. Especially the one about UL certifying the steel.

Those stating that people in the buildings would have seen explosives or thermite being planted are incorrect. There were many vacant offices, entire vacant floors in both of the Twin Towers where nobody but construction types would have gone. Anyone that has ever worked in a large office building knows that occupancy is always a challenge and it was a big one at the Twin Towers.

Work crews go in and out of these kinds of buildings daily. Whether it is electricians, elevator maintenance, office build outs, deconstruction or simple clean up. Plumbers, custodians, IT techs...every day in a building of any size. Security would not have been concerned with that type of activity.

The exposure of fiberglass insulation made the place a risk and the cost to replace it was prohibitive. They were in decline, losing residents and entire floors were empty. None of the workers would have known if teams were working in those areas building cubicles or strapping bombs or load-weakening technology. It would not have taken every floor or even most of them. Just a few near the center would cause the collapse down like all three buildings fell.

Watching controlled demolition shows that the center is weakened, the top falls and then crushes what is below into a basic but never exact "footprint". And sometimes even those expert demolitions fail.

Logic would need to be suspended to simply accept that the occasion that all three fall almost identically since the stated causes are all different, i.e. planes on different floors and one on fire. One can argue science and speculation all day but the coincidental occurrences of 9/11 and the sheer odds of it happening just that way are simply beyond astronomical.

originally posted by: Beaux
Work crews go in and out of these kinds of buildings daily. Whether it is electricians, elevator maintenance, office build outs, deconstruction or simple clean up. Plumbers, custodians, IT techs...every day in a building of any size. Security would not have been concerned with that type of activity.

So how did they smuggle the tonnes of explosives past the explosive sniffing dogs?

a reply to: hellobruce
For the sake of argument all it would take is a new type of explosive the dogs are not familiar with..I think though it's logisticly difficult..keeping it secret is another thing alltogether.

a reply to: hellobruce

Out of curiosity you keep saying it would take tons, but with that logic why would an aircraft with only enough fuel to propel itself from point A to point B be able to bring down this steel structure you argue would take an immense amount of equipment and planning?

a reply to: CriticalStinker

One side faced both towers, let's call it the front. The front would have taken more damage than the back. No different than jenga, the side with less integrity fails first creating an inertia in that direction.

It must have had something to do with the smell of jet fuel.....once a large building comes into contact with even just jet fuel fumes they tend fall straight down,it is like one of those unknown laws of physics

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

Out of curiosity you keep saying it would take tons,

I never said it would take tons.... You must get your demolition experience from the James Bond school of putting egg timers on walls to blow up a building!

Here we go again, the 'high school physics' crowd think they're smarter than everyone else once more.
Yes, someone with 'just a high school level knowledge of physics' probably can clearly see something is amiss, of course if you actually have a serious level of knowledge of physics and engineering the whole conspiracy argument falls apart - unless you're some book writing wannabe kook that suckers in the sheep.
Stop circle jerking and actually take a real unbiased education program lasting a few years in the relevant areas and you might one day realise why your building 7 and anything else 9/11 physics related arguments are such crap.

a reply to: Beaux

Fiberglass insulation? I think you meant asbestos. The cost of asbestos abatement for the WTC complex was going to be 200 million dollars over several years.....or about five months of revenue. In other words, it was not going to be cost prohibitive. And, since the complex was over ninety percent occupied, how many empty areas do you really think there were?

a reply to: hellobruce

Yes the James Bond egg timers sound outlandish..... Almost as outlandish as petrol melting steel.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Shamrock6. Twenty STORY hole carved out of 7. Just for clarification....

All of the pictures I have found of WTC7, immediately after the "gash" show the building standing with no fires and no smoke. So, the structural integrity was fine, the gash was only about 15 feet wide and maybe 15 stories high. The most important part...

THERE WERE NO FIRES!

Maybe you know of some nice retouched or photo-shopped images out there, that you can give a link to?

Cheers - Dave

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: hellobruce

Out of curiosity you keep saying it would take tons, but with that logic why would an aircraft with only enough fuel to propel itself from point A to point B be able to bring down this steel structure you argue would take an immense amount of equipment and planning?

haha, yeah, funny that.

And I'm not surprised your post is totally ignored by the parrots and repeaters.

a reply to: Debunkology

I'm sure there will be some responses. Agent Smith I'm sure will rebuttal that were high school physics needs with no real education. Apparently insults work in lieu of a response with data, works for politicians right? But it is true I do not have a degree in engineering, so I guess I shouldn't even look at the subject to begin with. Well Agent Smith that sounds like a very matrixy thing to ask of us in America, shut up sit down listen to your leaders. Don't mind the zeros and ones.

originally posted by: AgentSmith
if you actually have a serious level of knowledge of physics and engineering the whole conspiracy argument falls apart - .

Great point, that's why 2,334 architects and engineers who have a higher knowledge than the rest of us have signed a petition saying the official conspiracy argument is a load of B-S.

Just like Danny Jewenko, who not only had a high level of knowledge of engineering and physics but was also a Demoltions expert. He was shown several videos and photos of Building 7 by Dutch tv in an interview. However he was not told at the time that it happened on 9/11. He was in no doubt that it "was a controlled demolition carried out by a team of experts"

However when told that it was a building that collapsed on 9/11, he was in a shock and couldn't believe it. After his own research he became instrumental in letting others know about building 7. But sadly he is no longer with us since he was killed in a car crash.