World Trade Center 7 Explosion and Controlled Collaspe Caught on Tape.

a reply to: ForteanOrg

But what DID change in those 14 years is that thousands of highly trained engineers and architects now speak out against the official story.

Let's take another look.

Why did NIST not Consider a “Controlled Demolition

Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.

www.webcitation.org...


Towers Weakened by Planes; Brought Down by Fire

WASHINGTON, D.C., MAY 1, 2002
Analysis by a team of 25 of the nation's leading structural and fire protection engineers suggests that the World Trade Center Towers could have remained standing indefinitely if fire had not overwhelmed the weakened structures, according to a report presented today at a hearing of the House Science Committee. That finding is significant, said W. Gene Corley, Ph.D., team lead for the ASCE/FEMA Building Performance Study Team, because extreme events of this type, resulting in such substantial damage, are generally not considered in building design, and the fact that these structures were able to successfully withstand such damage is noteworthy.

Only a handful of architects and engineers question the NIST Report, but they have never come up with an alternative. Although at first blush it may seem impressive that these people don't believe the NIST Report, remember that there are123,000 members of ASCE(American Society of Civil Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 80,000 members of AIA(American Institute of Architects) who do not question the NIST Report.

911-engineers.blogspot.com...


Architects Shy From Trutherism
ARCHITECT Magazine
The Magzine of the American Institute of Architects

Architects didn't show up for a 9/11-architecture-conspiracy documentary screening—and the AIA doesn't want its name associated with Trutherism.

www.architectmagazine.com...


Fire, Not Extra Explosives, Doomed Buildings, Expert Says

A New Mexico explosives expert says he now believes there were no explosives in the World Trade Center towers, contrary to comments he made the day of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack.

"Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail," said Van Romero, a vice president at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology. The day of the attack, Romero told the Journal the towers' collapse, as seen in news videotapes, looked as though it had been triggered by carefully placed explosives.

Subsequent conversations with structural engineers and more detailed looks at the tape have led Romero to a different conclusion. Romero supports other experts, who have said the intense heat of the jet fuel fires weakened the skyscrapers' steel structural beams to the point that they gave way under the weight of the floors above. That set off a chain reaction, as upper floors pancaked onto lower ones.

911research.wtc7.net...


Why the World Trade Center Buildings Collapsed: A Fire Chief ’s Assessment

Bearing walls and Open floor design

When the jet liners crashed into the towers based upon knowledge of the tower construction and high-rise firefighting experience the following happened: First the plane broke through the tubular steel-bearing wall. This started the building failure. Next the exploding, disintegrating, 185-ton jet plane slid across an open office floor area and severed many of the steel interior columns in the center core area. Plane parts also crashed through the plasterboard-enclosed stairways, cutting off the exits from the upper floors.

The jet collapsed the ceilings and scraped most of the spray-on fire retarding asbestos from the steel trusses. The steel truss floor supports probably started to fail quickly from the flames and the center steel supporting columns severed by plane parts heated by the flames began to buckle, sag, warp and fail. Then the top part of the tower crashed down on the lower portion of the structure. This pancake collapse triggered the entire cascading collapse of the 110-story structure.

vincentdunn.com...

I kind of admire you ForteanOrg. You make waffle statements using words that don't even exist and at the end finish up with alien ray as if this actually counts as an idea. I hate to break the news to you but there isn't any evidence of aliens either. I get that the conspiracy world has a much lower threshold of what counts as evidence than the actual scientific rational world.

Dustification isn't a thing. I urge you to watch videos of concrete cubes being crushed in a lab or of actual controlled demolition. These clouds of concrete dust you see is expected. Entirely expected and predictable. It didn't vapourise. They were shifting concrete and steel off the site for months.

You also mentioned collapsing into their own footprint. Not true. Look at aerial views of the site post collapse. The footprint is the shape of the building..All that material around it isn't in the footprint. All those other damaged buildings are because material exited the footprint.

Instant rusting of police cars? Burnt police cars with undamaged lights on top? Show me these date stamped pictures please. I am interested in this.

You mentioned govt lies. You mentioned Clinton and his statement. Clinton is your biggest example of why conspiracy is so incredibly unlikely. He was in the oval office with 1 person getting some action. 2 people in total involved in an entirely private moment. Yet we all know about it. People can't keep secrets. The hundreds or indeed thousands of people who would need to be involved here have stayed silent for 14 years now.

a reply to: samkent

It's now the 23rd of July 2015 and as of today 2,353 architects and engineers have signed the petition you can find on www.ae911truth.org... Please note these architects and engineers do NOT support the DEW/Alien Ray theory at all, that's just lonely me there being in the know

There are probably many, many more whom feel there is something smelly in Danmark, but they haven't signed the petion (yet). I can't really blame them, given the resistance against non-mainstream theories, even in this forum. People are mostly very susceptible to peer pressure and to be honest: why SHOULD they bother? Most engineers frankly don't give a dang - they do their job, do it well and they don't want to be Don Quixotes, nor get involved in some "silly" virtual war which the simply can't win anyway. Because no matter how well they would be able to present their argument, immediately the defenders of the official story would jump in and ridiculize the very same facts they otherwisely would appreciate. You are NOT allowed to question the official story, as we "all know" that is the truth, period. People can't fly, can not go faster than the speed of sound, can not go to the moon, there are no aliens on this planet and 9/11 was not an inside job. Stuff like that.

Alien ray. Told ya.

originally posted by: scottyirnbru
I kind of admire you ForteanOrg.

Thank you

You make waffle statements using words that don't even exist

I love to waffle. After all, I assume I've been silent for an eternity before I was born, assume I will be silent for eternity after I die; so why not waffle a bit while I can! Also, I'm Dutch, my vocabulary is somewhat different from the English speaking natives. But if you fail to understand my clumsy linguistic efforts, please tell me what sentence you did not understand, so I may retry enlightening you?

and at the end finish up with alien ray as if this actually counts as an idea.

Oh, but it does. It's just as truthfull - I'd say: more so - than a story that assumes that steel framed buildings of various types and sizes can collapse in the blink of an eye, taking the path of most resistance.

I hate to break the news to you but there isn't any evidence of aliens either.

You DO know you're on ATS, right? I bet there are many readers out there that beg to differ...

I get that the conspiracy world has a much lower threshold of what counts as evidence than the actual scientific rational world.

Well, if you talk about real science - perhaps. But even scientists regularly tell nonsense, either peer reviewed or not. And most of the participants in here aren't exactly scientists.. you can tell because of all the red flags raised. Read this page to get an idea of what I mean. One of the red flags is "Stressing status and appealing to authority" - the one most used by OS defenders:

People who use this tactic try to convince you by quoting some ‘authority’ who agrees with their claims and pointing to that person’s status, position or qualifications, instead of producing real-world evidence. The tactic is known as the argument from authority.

A scientific investigation never took place - the evidence was rushed away with breakneck speed, though nobody could yet have investigated anything the government already provided an explanation within hours, observed facts are explained away - in short: if we only had HAD a scientific investigation..

Dustification isn't a thing. I urge you to watch videos of concrete cubes being crushed in a lab or of actual controlled demolition. These clouds of concrete dust you see is expected. Entirely expected and predictable. It didn't vapourise. They were shifting concrete and steel off the site for months.

I know. I use the term quite loosely, agreed. What I mean to say is that roughly a million tonnes of concrete and steel were dustified. This dustification process is inexplainable if not some external force was added.

You also mentioned collapsing into their own footprint. Not true. Look at aerial views of the site post collapse. The footprint is the shape of the building..All that material around it isn't in the footprint. All those other damaged buildings are because material exited the footprint.

Actually, parts were ejected with immense speed and vigorance. I know. The energy that was needed to eject these parts came from .. er.. you already know what I will say, don't you?

Instant rusting of police cars? Burnt police cars with undamaged lights on top? Show me these date stamped pictures please. I am interested in this.

Well, check out the site of Judy Wood, for example. She provides plenty of photo's of this effect.

You mentioned govt lies. You mentioned Clinton and his statement. Clinton is your biggest example of why conspiracy is so incredibly unlikely. He was in the oval office with 1 person getting some action. 2 people in total involved in an entirely private moment. Yet we all know about it. People can't keep secrets. The hundreds or indeed thousands of people who would need to be involved here have stayed silent for 14 years now.

Manhattan project, ever heard of it?

Alien ray. Told ya.

originally posted by: ForteanOrg


Manhattan project, ever heard of it?

Morris Cohen – American, "Thanks to Cohen, designers of the Soviet atomic bomb got piles of technical documentation straight from the secret laboratory in Los Alamos," the newspaper Komsomolskaya Pravda said. Morris and his wife, Lona, served eight years in prison, less than half of their sentences before being released in a prisoner swap with the Soviet Union. He died without revealing the name of the American scientist who helped pass vital information about the United States atomic bomb project.[13]

Klaus Fuchs – German-born British theoretical physicist who worked with the British delegation at Los Alamos during the Manhattan Project. After Fuchs' confession there was a trial that lasted less than 90 minutes, Lord Goddard sentenced him to fourteen years' imprisonment, the maximum for violating the Official Secrets Act. He escaped the charge of espionage because of the lack of independent evidence and because, at the time of the crime, the Soviet Union was not an enemy of Great Britain.[14] In December 1950 he was stripped of his British citizenship. He was released on June 23, 1959, after serving nine years and four months of his sentence at Wakefield prison. He was allowed to emigrate to Dresden, then in the German Democratic Republic.[15][16]

Harry Gold – American, confessed to acting as a courier for Greenglass and Fuchs. He was sentenced in 1951 to thirty years imprisonment. He was paroled in May 1966, after serving just over half of his sentence.[17]

David Greenglass – an American machinist at Los Alamos during the Manhattan Project. Greenglass confessed that he gave crude schematics of lab experiments to the Russians during World War II. Some aspects of his testimony against his sister and brother-in-law (the Rosenbergs, see below) are now thought to have been fabricated in an effort to keep his own wife, Ruth, from prosecution. Greenglass was sentenced to 15 years in prison, served 10 years, and later reunited with his wife.[18]

Theodore Hall – a young American physicist at Los Alamos, whose identity as a spy was not revealed until very late in the 20th century. He was never tried for his espionage work, though he seems to have admitted to it in later years to reporters and to his family.[19]

George Koval – The American born son of a Belorussian emigrant family that returned to the Soviet Union where he was inducted into the Red Army and recruited into the GRU intelligence service. He infiltrated the US Army and became a radiation health officer in the Special Engineering Detachment. Acting under the code name DELMAR he obtained information from Oak Ridge and the Dayton Project about the Urchin (detonator) used on the Fat Man plutonium bomb. His work was not known to the west until he was posthumously recognized as a hero of the Russian Federation by Vladimir Putin in 2007.
Irving Lerner – An American film director, he was caught photographing the cyclotron at the University of California, Berkeley in 1944.[20] After the war he was blacklisted.

Allan Nunn May – A British citizen, he was one of the first Soviet spies uncovered during the Cold War. He worked on the Manhattan Project and was betrayed by a Soviet defector in Canada. His was uncovered in 1946 and it led the United States to restrict the sharing of atomic secrets with Britain. On May 1, 1946, he was sentenced to ten years hard labour. He was released in 1952, after serving six and a half years.[21]

Ethel and Julius Rosenberg – Americans who were involved in coordinating and recruiting an espionage network that included Ethel's brother, David Greenglass. Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were tried for conspiracy to commit espionage, since the prosecution seemed to feel that there was not enough evidence to convict on espionage. Treason charges were not applicable, since the United States and the Soviet Union were allies at the time. The Rosenbergs denied all the charges but were convicted in a trial in which the prosecutor Roy Cohn said he was in daily secret contact with the judge, Irving Kaufman. Despite an international movement demanding clemency, and appeals to President Dwight D. Eisenhower by leading European intellectuals and the Pope, the Rosenbergs were executed at the height of the Korean War. President Eisenhower wrote to his son, serving in Korea, that if he spared Ethel (presumably for the sake of her children), then the Soviets would simply recruit their spies from among women.[22][23][24]

Saville Sax – American, acted as the courier for Klaus Fuchs and Theodore Hall.[19]

Morton Sobell – American engineer tried and convicted along with the Rosenbergs, was sentenced to 30 years imprisonment but released from Alcatraz in 1969, after serving 17 years and 9 months.[25] After proclaiming his innocence for over half a century, Sobell admitted spying for the Soviets, and implicated Julius Rosenberg, in an interview with the New York Times published on September 11, 2008.[26]

Even office furniture is flammable when coated with jet fuel. WTC5 suffered an internal collapse due only to office furniture and contents. No jet fuel responsible for the internal collapse of WTC5.

a reply to: skyeagle409


The fuel load of a modern office is staggering

Almost everything in there is made of synthetic materials, ie plastics,

Plastics are derived from petroleum - a lb of synthetic material has a heat content of some 12,000 to 16,000 btu

Organic materials - wood, paper cloth only contain some 8000 - 8500 btu/lb

Almost everything will burn, carpets, desks, chairs , ceiling tiles Modern office equipment - computer, monitors,
printers are plastic

Once set on fire will generate enormous amounts of heat, Beyond the capacity of the fire department to control

FDNY commanders made decision to concentrate on rescue people trapped on upper floors

Doubled up manpower and had engine companies drop 1/2 their hose to move quicker

Only carried enough hose protect crews and people inside

a reply to: firerescue

The fuel load of a modern office is indeed staggering. Therefore, there are requirements for these materials, fire-proofing etc. But let's recheck the facts: soot, black smoke - you're a firefighter, right? What does that signify to you?

a reply to: waypastvne

130.000 people involved in over 30 locations, I think we did quite well there. Certainly given the circumstances: most of these "spies" were spying for what were then our allies: the Russians. Whom were also already working on the A-bomb, as were the Germans.

But you are right: it became publicly know very fast after the detonation of the bombs in Japan.

ETA: and there are no 100.000's of people involved here - just a handful of aliens and roughly 1000 human insiders, I'd guess. Whom al have exceptionally high living standards (read: very high incomes) that are kept in place because they all keep their mouths shut. They all know that - and they also know how it would look if one of them opened their mouth: nobody would believe them.

a reply to: ForteanOrg

there are no 100.000's of people involved here - just a handful of aliens and roughly 1000 human insiders, I'd guess.

I see no reason to debate with you.

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: scottyirnbru
I kind of admire you ForteanOrg.

Thank you

You make waffle statements using words that don't even exist

I love to waffle. After all, I assume I've been silent for an eternity before I was born, assume I will be silent for eternity after I die; so why not waffle a bit while I can! Also, I'm Dutch, my vocabulary is somewhat different from the English speaking natives. But if you fail to understand my clumsy linguistic efforts, please tell me what sentence you did not understand, so I may retry enlightening you?

and at the end finish up with alien ray as if this actually counts as an idea.

Oh, but it does. It's just as truthfull - I'd say: more so - than a story that assumes that steel framed buildings of various types and sizes can collapse in the blink of an eye, taking the path of most resistance.

I hate to break the news to you but there isn't any evidence of aliens either.

You DO know you're on ATS, right? I bet there are many readers out there that beg to differ...

I get that the conspiracy world has a much lower threshold of what counts as evidence than the actual scientific rational world.

Well, if you talk about real science - perhaps. But even scientists regularly tell nonsense, either peer reviewed or not. And most of the participants in here aren't exactly scientists.. you can tell because of all the red flags raised. Read this page to get an idea of what I mean. One of the red flags is "Stressing status and appealing to authority" - the one most used by OS defenders:

People who use this tactic try to convince you by quoting some ‘authority’ who agrees with their claims and pointing to that person’s status, position or qualifications, instead of producing real-world evidence. The tactic is known as the argument from authority.

A scientific investigation never took place - the evidence was rushed away with breakneck speed, though nobody could yet have investigated anything the government already provided an explanation within hours, observed facts are explained away - in short: if we only had HAD a scientific investigation..

Dustification isn't a thing. I urge you to watch videos of concrete cubes being crushed in a lab or of actual controlled demolition. These clouds of concrete dust you see is expected. Entirely expected and predictable. It didn't vapourise. They were shifting concrete and steel off the site for months.

I know. I use the term quite loosely, agreed. What I mean to say is that roughly a million tonnes of concrete and steel were dustified. This dustification process is inexplainable if not some external force was added.

You also mentioned collapsing into their own footprint. Not true. Look at aerial views of the site post collapse. The footprint is the shape of the building..All that material around it isn't in the footprint. All those other damaged buildings are because material exited the footprint.

Actually, parts were ejected with immense speed and vigorance. I know. The energy that was needed to eject these parts came from .. er.. you already know what I will say, don't you?

Instant rusting of police cars? Burnt police cars with undamaged lights on top? Show me these date stamped pictures please. I am interested in this.

Well, check out the site of Judy Wood, for example. She provides plenty of photo's of this effect.

You mentioned govt lies. You mentioned Clinton and his statement. Clinton is your biggest example of why conspiracy is so incredibly unlikely. He was in the oval office with 1 person getting some action. 2 people in total involved in an entirely private moment. Yet we all know about it. People can't keep secrets. The hundreds or indeed thousands of people who would need to be involved here have stayed silent for 14 years now.

Manhattan project, ever heard of it?

Alien ray. Told ya.

Firstly I figured you were German or Dutch. I'm not questioning your linguistic abilities what I'm saying is the actual meat of the statements are waffle.

You firstly say the building took the path of most resistance. Correct. Vertically down. That's how gravity works. There isn't a force pushing the buildings to the side. The only force acting upon them is gravity. Wind is negligible. You then state that items were ejected with great force. Go watch steel beams failing under tension or compression and look at the energy generated during failure. It has to go somewhere.

What do you want the collapse to look like?

Please do not be offended by the following statement. Judy Wood is a moron. Judy Wood is the least credible person to introduce into an argument. If you've never seen a car where one half is consumed by fire and the other not then I do not think you have been looking hard enough.

As for the manhattan project it was knowledge that both the axis and allies were pursuing his weapon. The heroes of the telemark and their norwegian successes greatly hindered the nazis. The allies succeeded first. Not exactly the most covert of operations.

Alien ray? Oh my aching sides. Stop. You're making me laugh too hard.

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: ForteanOrg

there are no 100.000's of people involved here - just a handful of aliens and roughly 1000 human insiders, I'd guess.

I see no reason to debate with you.

Well, then don't

originally posted by: scottyirnbruFirstly I figured you were German or Dutch. I'm not questioning your linguistic abilities what I'm saying is the actual meat of the statements are waffle.

Not much to figure - if you'd care to check what it says right after "Location:" over there to the left, you know I'm Dutch. Or at least doing a succesful impersonation of a Dutchman

You firstly say the building took the path of most resistance. Correct.

Ah, sorry, one mark less on the waffle scale. Will try to avoid that

Vertically down. That's how gravity works. There isn't a force pushing the buildings to the side. The only force acting upon them is gravity. Wind is negligible. You then state that items were ejected with great force. Go watch steel beams failing under tension or compression and look at the energy generated during failure. It has to go somewhere.

You don't make much sense here: if a beam falls, it falls, period. It can only release the kinetic energy stored in it when it was brought up using cranes and such. Which is quite a bit, agreed, but it is not like it releases that in an instance: it releases it when it hits a floor or another component that is still standing. And then it only releases the amount of energy stored in it when it was hoisted the distance it falls, no more. But wait: what provided the energy to loosen the beam out of the construction in the first place? Heat - 10-15 storeys ABOVE the flames (that, as we saw were oxygen starved)? Oh, and wait: you know - I hope - that the force of the falling object is met with an equal and opposing force - the rest of the building was still firmly standing, after all. So, why then did the building collapse as it did? How come the antenna of WTC1 went down BEFORE the rim of the roof buckled? The antenna was right over the central cores - did these magically disappear?

(Yes the did, Alien Ray, told ya)

What do you want the collapse to look like?

I actually would not expect a collapse. But even if part of the building had collapsed, I'd expect a much slower pace as each floor had to be dustified, broken from its anchors - that takes energy and time. I'd not expect the massive dustification of the building. I'd expect some heavy equipment (e.g. the transformers and water tanks) to stay more or less intact. I'd expect a pile of partially in tact floors, stacked on each other. I'd expect most of the building to stand.

I most certainly would not expect a sudden, symmetric collapse at near free fall speed. And we haven't even discussed WTC6 yet.

Please do not be offended by the following statement. Judy Wood is a moron. Judy Wood is the least credible person to introduce into an argument. If you've never seen a car where one half is consumed by fire and the other not then I do not think you have been looking hard enough.

Re-read the "scientific red flags". You are waving one. Simply saying that Dr Wood is a moron is not good enough; you may be right, you may be wrong - on what do you base your opinion? She is actually quite close to the truth.

Alien ray? Oh my aching sides. Stop. You're making me laugh too hard.

Free fall collapse of an 110 storey building in 10 seconds? Likewise!

Alien ray. Told ya

So because something you have never seen before did not look the way you think it should have, you don't believe what happened is what actually happened. Ok then. Although really I think you're just having yourself a jolly old time trolling a board with this alien ray garbage.

a reply to: jaffo

What is most unusual about WTC7, and the towers for that matter, is that never before has a modern steel building collapsed at essentially free fall speeds from simple office fires. Yet we are told to believe there is nothing unusual about 3 such buildings collapsing in that manner, all on the same day, all in the same city block.

Large pieces blown out and away means that something besides gravity was at play. Only explosive devices can move such pieces like that. Fires and gravity cannot.

a reply to: Salander

As there is not a single shred of evidence for weakened steel (due to pre-collapse fires), we may also try to be firm believers in the flying spaghetti monster either. Or in Alien Rays for that matter, I see no difference nor proof for any of those theories.

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: Salander

As there is not a single shred of evidence for weakened steel (due to pre-collapse fires), we may also try to be firm believers in the flying spaghetti monster either. Or in Alien Rays for that matter, I see no difference nor proof for any of those theories.

Yeah, then you're clearly not reading very much. Because steel weakening at the temperatures present that day is a fact.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: jaffo

What is most unusual about WTC7, and the towers for that matter, is that never before has a modern steel building collapsed at essentially free fall speeds from simple office fires. Yet we are told to believe there is nothing unusual about 3 such buildings collapsing in that manner, all on the same day, all in the same city block.

Large pieces blown out and away means that something besides gravity was at play. Only explosive devices can move such pieces like that. Fires and gravity cannot.

Or the massive air bursts caused by the collapse of one of the tallest buildings in the World. You are aware that air has mass and can generate an amazing force when placed under pressure, right?

a reply to: jaffo

Because steel weakening at the temperatures present that day is a fact.

Then show me your facts, please! I already pulled that part from the NIST-docs (the hardness evaluation) to discuss this part of our topic with facts. Stick to them or cry out loud, I don't care. Pastafarian?

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: jaffo

Because steel weakening at the temperatures present that day is a fact.

Then show me your facts, please! I already pulled that part from the NIST-docs (the hardness evaluation) to discuss this part of our topic with facts. Stick to them or cry out loud, I don't care. Pastafarian?

The temperature at which steel loses 80% of its structural integrity is a fact. If you want to keep plugging your ears about that reality and making your silly little aliens and pastafarian remarks, that's your choice. Deny ignorance, indeed.

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: scottyirnbruFirstly I figured you were German or Dutch. I'm not questioning your linguistic abilities what I'm saying is the actual meat of the statements are waffle.

Not much to figure - if you'd care to check what it says right after "Location:" over there to the left, you know I'm Dutch. Or at least doing a succesful impersonation of a Dutchman

You firstly say the building took the path of most resistance. Correct.

Ah, sorry, one mark less on the waffle scale. Will try to avoid that

Vertically down. That's how gravity works. There isn't a force pushing the buildings to the side. The only force acting upon them is gravity. Wind is negligible. You then state that items were ejected with great force. Go watch steel beams failing under tension or compression and look at the energy generated during failure. It has to go somewhere.

You don't make much sense here: if a beam falls, it falls, period. It can only release the kinetic energy stored in it when it was brought up using cranes and such. Which is quite a bit, agreed, but it is not like it releases that in an instance: it releases it when it hits a floor or another component that is still standing. And then it only releases the amount of energy stored in it when it was hoisted the distance it falls, no more. But wait: what provided the energy to loosen the beam out of the construction in the first place? Heat - 10-15 storeys ABOVE the flames (that, as we saw were oxygen starved)? Oh, and wait: you know - I hope - that the force of the falling object is met with an equal and opposing force - the rest of the building was still firmly standing, after all. So, why then did the building collapse as it did? How come the antenna of WTC1 went down BEFORE the rim of the roof buckled? The antenna was right over the central cores - did these magically disappear?

(Yes the did, Alien Ray, told ya)

What do you want the collapse to look like?

I actually would not expect a collapse. But even if part of the building had collapsed, I'd expect a much slower pace as each floor had to be dustified, broken from its anchors - that takes energy and time. I'd not expect the massive dustification of the building. I'd expect some heavy equipment (e.g. the transformers and water tanks) to stay more or less intact. I'd expect a pile of partially in tact floors, stacked on each other. I'd expect most of the building to stand.

I most certainly would not expect a sudden, symmetric collapse at near free fall speed. And we haven't even discussed WTC6 yet.

Please do not be offended by the following statement. Judy Wood is a moron. Judy Wood is the least credible person to introduce into an argument. If you've never seen a car where one half is consumed by fire and the other not then I do not think you have been looking hard enough.

Re-read the "scientific red flags". You are waving one. Simply saying that Dr Wood is a moron is not good enough; you may be right, you may be wrong - on what do you base your opinion? She is actually quite close to the truth.

Alien ray? Oh my aching sides. Stop. You're making me laugh too hard.

Free fall collapse of an 110 storey building in 10 seconds? Likewise!

Alien ray. Told ya

I'm on a mobile view so it doesn't show me anything other than your name. It's why I don't post pics or vids or links. Too much hassle.

The energy stored is released in the collapse. The beams aren't falling apart like lego blocks. They are splitting and shearing and twisting and snapping. Lots of potential energy being released.

The antenna falls before the roof line because the building is tearing itself in. The floors are collapsing. The core columns are being pulled in, the exterior columns too. When the turning force gets too much over a certain area the columns fail. Dramatically as you've seen.

As for Judy Wood, fine. Agree to disagree but when the gist of her argument is massive secret space laser thingy then it kinda falls apart. To what end? Was it a test?