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

a reply to: six67seven

Actually MIT did a computer generated model where they explain all the physics involved.

They explain exactly how they fell.


The two towers when hit with the planes . Sheared off the thermal coating o the steel support beams. Then the gas caused an inferno that wasn’t hot enough to melt the beams outright, but was more than hot enough to bend them. Once the supports start to bend they loose the vertical stability which starts the pancake effect.

The towers DONOT fall at free fall speeds. In the video you can watch debris out pace the buildings fall..

Building 7 was totally gutted from the backside of the pictures they like to show. A chunk of the towers landed on the roof taking out the back half of the building. So the side we see as it falls is basically a shell. With only 2 1/2 walls still remaining.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: intrptr

I think he is saying that an explosion capable of cutting through the supports would register on local seismic scales..

Not just make a popping sound.

It would have an audible sound around 140 dB to have evidence of enough energy to cut steel columns.

a reply to: Salander

Why would the government need to perpetuate 911??


To start the war on terror?? Right?

Is 911 the easiest, cheapest, most effective and least risky plan we can think of?

Basically, is 911 the path of least resistance??

HELL NO, the US government has never needed a 911 level event to go to war..


The Lusitania..

The missing WMD’s

The gulf of Tonkin..

All false flags that started wars..


Known and agreed upon false flags..


I’m saying it is OVERKILL..

Poison one small towns water supply and kill 50,000 in an afternoon..then say the Muslims did it..

you got your war on terror for less than 1,000,000$

How much did 911 cost to perpetrate and maintain??

originally posted by: LightSpeedDriver
Please do just stop with your continuous misinformation. It's getting old. Not as old as me, but it is getting old.

Let us instead promote the virtues of the US government and how they have all your (I am not a US citizen or resident) best interests at heart, almost 2 decades after the greatest "terrorist" attack was perpetrated with no action from aforementioned "authorities".

Yeah....

You forgot the passport they found. I'm only trying to help!

Quote where I ever said the things you implied.

A false argument by you.

I believe the government conspired to hide its incompetence concerning 9/11, and political ties with the Middle East that allowed the terrorists to enter the USA.

I think NIST glosssed over the WTC construction, that WTC was not strictly built to the code of the time, WTC 7 structure used angles not commonly used, and the buildings did not have traditional concrete cores that saved other building to cut building cost.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: JoshuaCox

If the government were being honest, Cheney & Bush would have testified in public and under oath.

If the government were being honest, Kean and Hamilton would not have stated that the commission was set up to fail.


If the government were being honest, it would have no need to have confiscated surveillance footage from hotels and other private interests near the pentagon.

What does that have to do with AE and the truth movement have no proof of CD at the WTC?

originally posted by: Oldtimer2
a reply to: neutronflux

What are you talking about,there were explosions on all the main support members,the building was set up for demolition in 99,use fact instead of theory,makes more sense

Where is your evidence. Hope you are being sarcastic.....

originally posted by: SkeptiSchism
a reply to: neutronflux

So how did the towers manage to fall perfectly into their own footprints? You do realize that a structural failure at that height of the building would have induced rotation (moments) somewhere in the structure which would have then magnified the direction of motion of the building causing it to fall laterally (horizontally)?

Please explain your theory as to how the buildings collapsed perfectly into their own footprints.

The towers did not fall in their own footprints. You realize the collapse of the towers destroyed, or damaged beyond economical repair, around 12 buildings.

originally posted by: Stevenjames15
a reply to: neutronflux

If sarcasm went over your head this is WAYYYYY over your intelligence level. Sorry chief.

Do you have proof of CD at WTC. Or just pointless innuendo?

Can anyone quote physical evidence of CD at the WTC 7 from this thread as of yet?

I just see a bunch of whining....

And off topic subjects?

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: six67seven
Well to find out what really happened to WTC 7, let's just review the scientific findings within the 9/11 Commission Report...

.... oh wait ....

Quote where the commission was a scientific analysis of collapse for WTC 7

Really?

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: six67seven

Actually MIT did a computer generated model where they explain all the physics involved.

They explain exactly how they fell.


The two towers when hit with the planes . Sheared off the thermal coating o the steel support beams. Then the gas caused an inferno that wasn’t hot enough to melt the beams outright, but was more than hot enough to bend them. Once the supports start to bend they loose the vertical stability which starts the pancake effect.

The towers DONOT fall at free fall speeds. In the video you can watch debris out pace the buildings fall..

Building 7 was totally gutted from the backside of the pictures they like to show. A chunk of the towers landed on the roof taking out the back half of the building. So the side we see as it falls is basically a shell. With only 2 1/2 walls still remaining.

Which columns, the columns at the floor of impact? Do you mean the idea that jet fuel leaked out and ignited? Do you realize that each floor had firewalls in between floors? That is a building code requirement. The firewalls would have prevented any jet fuel from leaking between floors and would have prevented the combustion from advancing between floors.

Either way it doesn't explain how the towers fell predominantly vertically. Any eccentricity in the failure of columns at the floors of impact would have induced rotation into the structural system. Perhaps I was wrong implying they fell entirely in their own footprint, but the height of the towers and a rotational eccentricity would have caused their collapse over several blocks.

BBC reported the collapse of building 7 while it was still standing in the background.

a reply to: six67seven

WTC 7 was not examined by 911 Commission because IT WAS NOT IN THEIR SCOPE !!!

911 Commission was set up to examine the intelligence failures and the how that Bin Laden was able to place
terrorists in country and get flight training

WTC 7 was collateral damage in that it was not a primary target, it was damaged by collapse of WTC 1 which
ignited fires on multiple floors and cut off the water mains to area crippling sprinkler/standpipes to building
preventing FDNY from fighting the fires

After searching the building and discovering extent of damage and lack of water to fight the fires FDNY made
decision to abandon building in early afternoon

A transit setup to monitor the building detected that WTC 7 was "creeping' - structure moving out of plumb

It was this fact that caused FDNY to establish collapse zone around building and clear area at 3PM

Heard this from the FDNY Incident Commander (that's person in charge) ,at seminar 6 months after 911......

a reply to: skunkape23

So the BBC screwing up is proof of conspiracy ??

BBC was quoting Reuters, who in turn quoted a local new report

By Mid afternoon word was out that FDNY was anticipating possible collapse of WTC 7

By 3pm had set up collapse zone around WTC 7 and cleared area

Actually heard the order being passed down to clear around WTC7 - this was from neighboring city FD (we were covering for them) who had crew working at World Finance Center 3 (WFC 3) across West St from WTC 7

a reply to: SkeptiSchism

The fire walls between floors are only relevant on the floors the plane struck, and obvious the fire walls would have been breached in the impact..

The floors impacted became a furnace, the wind at that height providing the flu. Once the beams even started to soften. The mass of the 25 floors above the crash site just crushed the weakened beams.

Once those 25 floors crashed into the first I damaged floor. The fall was on ...

25 floors falling on the 26th floor. Becomes 26 floors falling down on the 27th floor.

We can argue something else happened, but that’s a sound theory.

originally posted by: skunkape23
BBC reported the collapse of building 7 while it was still standing in the background.

It was confusion over WTC 7 was showing signs it would fail.

Funny you ignore all the reported indications that WTC 7 would fail.

Do you have actual evidence of CD? Or just innuendo, hiding of facts, and items out of context?

en.m.wikipedia.org...

At approximately 2:00 pm, firefighters noticed a bulge in the southwest corner of 7 World Trade Center between the 10th and 13th floors, a sign that the building was unstable and might collapse.[35] During the afternoon, firefighters also heard creaking sounds coming from the building.[36] Around 3:30 pm, FDNY Chief Daniel A. Nigro decided to halt rescue operations, surface removal, and searches along the surface of the debris near 7 World Trade Center and evacuate the area due to concerns for the safety of personnel.[37]

www.skeptic.com...

10WHAT CAUSED BUILDING 7 TO COLLAPSE? Many firefighters reported seeing structural deformations of Building 7 hours before its collapse, including the top FDNY fire Chief Daniel Nigro, who stated, “I feared a collapse of Building 7 (as did many on my staff). The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of 7. Building 7 was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels. Fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them. For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else—as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone.

a reply to: SkeptiSchism

This is about WTC 7....

Here is a simplified outline of what I think trigger the collapse of the towers.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

A would kindly ask you to debate the towers there....

a reply to: SkeptiSchism

Can you prove the fires in WTC 7 were not started by WTC 1 and WTC 2 crashing into and breaching WTC 7. This would make fire walls useless.

And doors only stop fires if they are shut.

FDNY: 4-ALARM UPPER WEST SIDE FIRE CAUSED BY CANDLE, SPREAD THROUGH OPEN DOOR
abc7ny.com...

It is well documented that WTC 7 was showing signs of structural failure before collapse.

There is no proof of detonations with the power to cut structural steel at WTC 7. Not by the indication of loud 140 db blasts, and no proof of pressure waves from detonated explosives on video. The pressure waves should have carried distinct demolitions shrapnel.

There is no proof of thermite, and the proof presented is either:
1) Fraudulent
2) Lab results could not be replicated by other individuals.
3) The results of testing the WTC dust in an inert atmosphere which would prove thermite beyond a doubt never published.
4) The chain of custody of Jones samples appalling.

There is no proof that WTC 7 under went the floor by floor rigging of CD to remove the resistance that the truth movement claims had to happen to achieve the observed rate of collapse.

It’s never been explained how a sophisticated and complex floor to floor detonation system in the WTC 7 would have maintained its integrity through wall breaches, early minor structure failures, and extensive fires.