WTC 7 fell in relative silence, no detonation capable of cutting steel.

a reply to: kyleplatinum

Concerning WTC 7 collapse:
By video evidence:
With the start of the penthouse falling into WTC 7, WTC 7 as a whole did not fall at the rate of free fall. You cannot even state the interior collapse that consumed as much a 60 percent of the interior of WTC 7 before the facade began to fall fell at the rate of collapse.

The only thing you have is the north face of the facade/exterior, which did not have to fight the resistance of the already collapsing interior, shortly achieved the rate of collapse. The facade took 40 percent longer to collapse than if it fell during the whole period at the rate of free fall.

And the facade itself did not fall uniformly.

I have provided the NIST explanation how the Noth face of WTC 7 for a period achieved the rate of free fall on the exterior of WTC 7. A collapse that did not have to fight WTC 7 core resistance.

What was stored in the basement?
Start there.
Much data was destroyed as in the Pentagon hit.

a reply to: samkent


Oh Sam! The comments of Rather and Jennings are not all we truthers have. Those comments and observations are but 2 tiny pieces of straw on a very large pile of straw that is the metaphorical haystack that is the case against the official story.

Lordy, Sam. There are missing airplanes, wrong airplanes. There are impossible cell phone calls. There is near free-fall rates of collapse. There is magnificent cover-up. There is Vigilant Guardian, Project Hammer, heads of the commission stating in public they were set up to fail, and so much more. The haystack of facts that contradict the official story is huge.

a reply to: Salander

Since when are Dan Rather/Peter Jennings experts in fire behavior and structural collapse?

They are stupid NEWS READERS !!! Put a scrip in front of them and turn on camera and watch them babble on

Rather is especially stupid having been caught putting out fake news (even before if known as such) story about George Bush time in Texas National Guard

Story fell apart in about 10 minutes , Rather still insisting was right . Keep on shoveling that manure Dan.....

I prefer to listen to the FDNY fire chiefs present that day

a reply to: skunkape23

So why did they need a plane and couldn’t just use a shredder lol?!?!

Y’all seem to forget that for a group with the ability to perpetrate 911. Things like files, wars and tax scams are small potatoes..

a reply to: Salander

It’s about all y’all have that isn’t a lie...


None of the truth movement make ANY sense..


A) 911 was riskier, more expensive and harder to pull off than was ever necessary to start a war..

B) any group who could pull off 911 isn’t worried about insurance money nor government files..

It is a nuke to a knife fight..

a reply to: skunkape23

PS you have no idea what was stored in the basement...

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: samkent


Oh Sam! The comments of Rather and Jennings are not all we truthers have. Those comments and observations are but 2 tiny pieces of straw on a very large pile of straw that is the metaphorical haystack that is the case against the official story.

Lordy, Sam. There are missing airplanes, wrong airplanes. There are impossible cell phone calls. There is near free-fall rates of collapse. There is magnificent cover-up. There is Vigilant Guardian, Project Hammer, heads of the commission stating in public they were set up to fail, and so much more. The haystack of facts that contradict the official story is huge.

Can you actually describe how WTC 7 looked like a CD? It seems you cannot. Again? You contradict yourself. If the media knew about your false conspiracy, then they sure wouldn’t say WTC 7 looked like a CD.

All you have is “Those comments and observations“ because you will not actually cite video and physical evidence.

Innuendo about a false conspiracy concerning documents is not a physical account Of the WTC 7 collapse.

Do you have physical proof citing video evidence, physical evidenced, photos, and science that WTC 7 was a CD. Or just speculation concerning a general fantasy. You not being able to stick to just evidence concerning WTC 7 is very telling. You are trying to draw attention to a larger theory of conspiracy to distract from the fact there is no evidence or credibility that WTC 7 was brought down by planted charges.

a reply to: firerescue


One does not need to be an expert to watch CD or porno. It's just watching pictures, and most people are capable of recognizing the pattern of CD once you've seen it. I know I am. That free-fall characteristic is a big clue.

a reply to: JoshuaCox


Yep, everything you say is true, but that does not change the fact that the details of the official conspiracy theory cannot be proved. Impossible cell phone calls, impossible aviation angles, impossible reason for what we saw.

Why should I believe a story that cannot be true?

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: firerescue


One does not need to be an expert to watch CD or porno. It's just watching pictures, and most people are capable of recognizing the pattern of CD once you've seen it. I know I am. That free-fall characteristic is a big clue.

Again. The start of the collapse was the penthouse falling into WTC 7. The interior of WTC 7 collapsed from east to west. The interior collapse east to west is attested to how items collapse from the top of WTC 7 into the interior of WTC 7. As much as sixty percent of the interior of WTC 7 may have already collapsed before the facade of WTC 7 started to fall. The total collapse time for the north face of the facade was 40 percent slower than the rate of collapse. The span in the middle of the collapse of the facade that reached the rate of free fall was only the facade. Most of WTC 7’s interior was already collapsed. The facade is no indication the floor system of WTC 7 collapsed at the rate of free fall. Remember, the pentagon collapsed into WTC 7 before the facade began to fall.

Your real argument should be: After 60 percent of the interior of WTC 7 collapsed before the witnessed movement of the north face of the facade, the facade could not fall at the rate free fall in the middle of the facade’s collapse. Is that a false statement? Not really that shocking of an event. Sad the truth movement has to lie about their WTC 7 “Smoking gun”. Stating WTC 7 could not reach the rate of free fall because floor to floor resistance is a false argument. Most of the floor system was gone when the facade began to fall!

How was WTC 7’s collapse like a classic CD? Can you point to a known CD similar to WTC 7?

Can you discredit this from NIST?

In a video, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free fall, something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you describe. How can you ignore basic laws of physics?


In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at wtc.nist.gov...), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail.
To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video. Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent displacement data. The instant at which vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was determined by tracking the numerical value of the brightness of a pixel (a single element in the video image) at the roofline. This pixel became brighter as the roofline began to descend because the color of the pixel started to change from that of the building façade to the lighter color of the sky.
The approach taken by NIST is summarized in Section 3.6 of the final summary report, NCSTAR 1A (released Nov. 20, 2008; available at wtc.nist.gov...) and detailed in Section 12.5.3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (available at wtc.nist.gov...).
The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:
Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.

Sorry, double post

a reply to: neutronflux

The items on the roof did not come down at the same time.

I did not say the ITEMS ON the roof came down at the same time... I said "levelness of the roofline as it came down"

Like how you have to push the false narrative “evidenced by the levelness of the roofline as it came down,“ which is not supported by the video evidence in anyway.

False narrative???.. Open your eyes. I get it, you just can't and won't accept it, even know you are watching what is happening. For you to say "which is not supported by the video evidence in anyway" ... well, that's your issue and not reality.

When the entire building collapses, does the roof line tilt to the right or left, NO... It begins to slightly kink in the center (i.e. CD) and then completely falls even, strait down, fast.

Again, WTC 7 collapse was nothing like a CD.

You can keep repeating this over and over, as you have been doing... but the fact is, #7 looks exactly like a CD

a reply to: Salander

Nothing HAS EVER been proven to be impossible..

That is the place where the craziest conspiracy theories live..

In the areas your average joe doesn’t know much about..

They don’t provide you actual proof of any conspiracy.. they just point to something and claim “it’s impossible!”..

Forgetting/ignoring that they have to actually prove something isn’t possible... then prove that is what is supposed to have happened...

They can provide no motivation that makes sense..

No logistical theory that makes sense..

Nor pout to any specific perpetrators..


It is always “look at this thing you can’t personally explain because it is not your field of experience.. isn’t this impossible?”

a reply to: kyleplatinum

What, you don’t like there is no proof of CD? You don’t like the questions your false narrative cannot answer.

You don’t like the list of questions you cannot answer with any credibility.

How would a floor to floor CD system you claim must have existed survive WTC 7’s building damage and wide spread fires?

I have cited NIST’s answer how the facade reached the rate of free fall. You have not provided a rebuttal.

If the facade did not collapse at slightly different rates of over its length and width, why is it a big deal the north face was used as the reference to measure the rate of collapse.

Can you cite any physical evidence or effects of CD?

WTC 7 does not ever look like a CD.

All you have is:

After 60 percent of the interior of WTC 7 collapsed before the witnessed movement of the north face of the facade, the facade could not fall at the rate free fall in the middle of the facade’s collapse? Is that a false statement?

Again, not really that shocking of an event. Sad the truth movement has to lie about their WTC 7 “Smoking gun”. Stating WTC 7 could not reach the rate of free fall because floor to floor resistance is a false argument. Most of the floor system was gone when the facade began to collapse! And NIST has provided an answer how the facade reached the rate of free fall for a period. What is your rebuttal?

The hollow shell theory is an oldie. And the most ridiculous one ever. To simplify things if the facade falls with f(t) and i(t) is the interior collapse then the difference d(t)= | i(t)-f(t)| is a measure of the connection. If this is small then heavily connected etc.

If the facade is heavily connected then d(t) is small which means i(t) is what we see from the outside, i.e the video evidence. If this is the case d(t) is in fact a small wave added to the internal collapse. This can increase the collapse a bit but still means i(t) is near g.

If the facade is not heavily connected then f(t) can be anything. The extreme opposite is indeed thd hollow facade theory. How would that behave ? Just drop an empty shell and it will fall over, twist and rotate.

But since f(t) is measured as near g, symmetrical and horizon level there can only be a heavy connection between facade and the internal building.

In other words the near g fall is for the whole building.

originally posted by: drommelsboef
The hollow shell theory is an oldie. And the most ridiculous one ever. To simplify things if the facade falls with f(t) and i(t) is the interior collapse then the difference d(t)= | i(t)-f(t)| is a measure of the connection. If this is small then heavily connected etc.

If the facade is heavily connected then d(t) is small which means i(t) is what we see from the outside, i.e the video evidence. If this is the case d(t) is in fact a small wave added to the internal collapse. This can increase the collapse a bit but still means i(t) is near g.

If the facade is not heavily connected then f(t) can be anything. The extreme opposite is indeed thd hollow facade theory. How would that behave ? Just drop an empty shell and it will fall over, twist and rotate.

But since f(t) is measured as near g, symmetrical and horizon level there can only be a heavy connection between facade and the internal building.

In other words the near g fall is for the whole building.

Random equations? That totally ignore:
One: the internal progressive collapse of WTC 7. Progressive collapse from the interior outward.
Two: equations that do not account for building damage from the collapse of the towers.
Three : equations that do not take in account how much the steel was weaken by fire, thermal stress, and buckling.
Four: equations that do not take in account that steel columns gain their strength from straightness and bracing. In other words, equations that ignore the geometry of the steel columns, and ignore how the geometry of WTC 7 changed from its early signs of structural failure.
Five: equations that do not take in account as floor truss to steel column connections and facade to steel column connections twist, they loose strength and tend to fail. In other words, connections that hold up against perpendicular forces don’t fair so well against a tangent or twisting force.



Whole thread at Metabunk on the free fall of WTC 7 and how it supports the NIST model.

how-buckling-led-to-free-fall-acceleration-for-part-of-wtc7s-collapse.t8270/

www.metabunk.org...

By Jedo

www.metabunk.org...

So they see here buckling for floors 7 to 14, that is 8 floors, which is consistent with the free-fall time observed; NCSTAR1-9, Ch.12.5.3 p. 602 (668 pdf)

a reply to: neutronflux

What, you don’t like there is no proof of CD? You don’t like the questions your false narrative cannot answer.

Proof of CD is visual. Where is your proof that it is not CD??

You don’t like the list of questions you cannot answer with any credibility.

You don't like the answers that have been answered many times, not my fault.

How would a floor to floor CD system you claim must have existed survive WTC 7’s building damage and wide spread fires?

I've never claimed a floor to floor system. The entire building was not damaged and on fire.

I have cited NIST’s answer how the facade reached the rate of free fall. You have not provided a rebuttal.

The entire building reached the rate of free fall.

If the facade did not collapse at slightly different rates of over its length and width, why is it a big deal the north face was used as the reference to measure the rate of collapse.

The building collapsed evenly.

Can you cite any physical evidence or effects of CD?

I have many times. Very tiresome now.

WTC 7 does not ever look like a CD.

SMH....sigh....Last time, yes it does. Agree to disagree OK?

After 60 percent of the interior of WTC 7 collapsed before the witnessed movement of the north face of the facade, the facade could not fall at the rate free fall in the middle of the facade’s collapse? Is that a false statement?

The "percentage" of interior damage will always be unknown.

Most of the floor system was gone when the facade began to collapse!

Pure Speculation. Accurate knowledge of the interior events are unknown.

I will be awaiting your response again of... "are you going to answer my questions"

a reply to: kyleplatinum

What model can you point to, or video evidence that shows the entire building reached the rate of free fall. Not just the facade.

If the interior did not collapse before the facade fell, how did the penthouse entirely disappeare in to WTC 7 before the facade began to fall.

How long and how many seconds did it take the penthouse to disappear in to WTC 7 before the facade began to fall. You have proof WTC 7’s floor system collapsed at the rate of free fall? You have proof the interior of WTC 7 did not progressively collapse from east to west.

Please cite a source that the facade fell evenly.

I have stated repeatedly that seismic devices in Manhattan recorded no indication of charges setting off with the power to cut steel. There is no audio evidence of charges setting off with the power to cut steel. No indication of a charge setting off with the power to cut steel by indication of a pressure/shockwave. No indication of distinctive shrapnel caused by an explosive charge cutting steel. Shrapnel that is sharped edged, where the metal looks washed away, and shows being burnt in the grain of the metal. No demolitions shrapnel forcefully ejecting into the street. There is no video evidence, no photographic evidence, nor witness accounts related to steel worked on by demolitions at WTC 7.

You just contradicted yourself. You claim WTC 7 did not need a floor to floor CD system to remove the floor to floor resistance of what you claim was a building collapsing as a unit at the rate of free fall? Then how did WTC 7 reach the rate of free fall for your narrative. Are you saying free fall is possible without removing the floor to floor resistance?

If you claim the interior damage of WTC 7 will always be unknown, than how can you say the facade collapsing for a period at the rate of free fall is impossible without CD?


However, the order and rate items sank from WTC 7’s roof is a good indication of how the interior fell before the facade stated to fall.

You cannot cite how WTC 7 looked like a CD. The faced fell at different rates. I can cite models and video evidence. You have not refuted NIST’s explanation how the facade fell at the rate of free fall for a period. You want to cite NIST’s rate of collapse measurements, say they are credible, but you completely ignore that NIST clearly states it only applies to the north face of the facade. I have repeatedly cited what evidence is missing to prove CD. You try to claim WTC 7 looked like a CD because you claim the top length of WTC 7 looked like it collapsed in a straight line which is false. Why did NIST pick a pixel on the north face of the facade, and not the entire top line of the building. You are now saying you never claimed there was a floor to floor CD system, but what to claim the floor to floor resistance had to removed to achieve the rate of collapse NIST measured for the facade?

So you incorrectly cite what fell at the rate of free fall, you do not cite video evidence, have no proof of CD than your false claims concerning the “roof line”, completely ignoring how the penthouse/items on the roof disappear in to WTC 7 before the facade began to fall, ignore NIST used a single pixel off the north face to measure the facade’s rate of collapse, cannot cite any physical evidence of detonations with enough power to cut steel. You contradict yourself by claiming you don’t back a floor to floor CD system, but want to say it is impossible for the facade to collapse at the rate of free fall unless the floor to floor resistance was removed.

There is no evidence of CD at WTC 7. Plenty of evidence that you claim things without citing a source, make statements with no credibility, and you contradict yourself.

a reply to: neutronflux

What always got me was Silvermen saying pull it.