Revisiting Word Trade Center 7

To this day, after the long years since that Historical day of 9/11/2001, NONE of the usual official story followers/believers have EVER turned up to confront my huge list of evidences that 9/11 was a bunch of big lies from the then existing US government institutions, and the following (installed by big banking) administration( s? ) .


A LONG EVIDENCE list exposing the whole 911 OFFICIAL LIE :

www.abovetopsecret.com...
Includes Graeme McQueen and Dr Rousseau's publications.

My 3 Signature links, for those ATS-GUESTS who can't see my signature links, since those can only be viewed by ATS members who are logged-in :

WISDOMwillWIN--->9/11=a LIE !--->EVIDENCE--->LIST

I invite anyone having read and absorbed that HUGE pack of evidence of a black operation on 9/11/2001, to prove me wrong on any of that evidence.

And again, as so many times before, I am waiting for serious debate on ANY of these items.
Especially on my WTC 7 seismic and photographic evidence that WTC 7 was DEMOLISHED as planned.

JameSimon
While I do believe the September 11 attacks were already acknowledged by the security intelligence in the USA and everything that happened was deliberate, I don't believe it was an "inside job". It was just a pretext to enter war with oil rich countries, nothing more. The OP's thread is very good and does actually provide scientific research and evidence, something that the average "tin foil hat American" can't recognize, only because his distorted view of the world would crumble like a house of cards. And yes, I'm a shill, a disinfo agent and I do work for the NSA dpt in Portugal. /irony

So knowing about it and letting it happen is not considered an inside job..? Are you saying they found out about it and then let it happen so it would spring them into war? IMO this attack could not happen unless it was helped along by the US. Sounds like you are aware of the agents that were pulled of cases when they uncovered the attacks.
So how is that not an inside job? If people on the inside are helping the plan not get hindered...

Maybe it is just my tinfoil hat that makes me feel that way, if that is the case then I hope I never lose it...
The United states intel and national defense were absent that entire morning, not till after the last plane went down did the war games get suspended...Not after the first tower was hit.
Bush was reading a book to kindergartners and didn't even flinch after the first tower was hit
Do you not find that weird?

The OP states that the source of his claims has problems and holes and cover ups involved but yet will still use it as a source to back the claims he makes... That does not make sense. If your are willing to believe there was a cover up to "save face" for the incompetence shown that morning then IMO you would have to be willing to look a possible cover up of the attack its self.

There are a couple post up on this thread, I would love to see you come in and make them crumble like a stack of cards, that is if your are not to busy with the NSA....

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

The did tell us HOW you just dont like the answer.

...spot fire and brand new science that ONLY occurred on 9-11.

2005 NIST scientific investigation did not find any reason why these three buildings failed on 9-11, yet 2008 NIST is allowed to ignore their own scientific investigation, and claim fire not only caused collapse, but did so as "no other" building has done before, stated by Shyam Sunder at NIST technical briefing
vimeo.com...

Shyam Sunder, all through the Q&A section of the video stating, .....
"brand new event"...
"new phenomenon"...
"there has *NEVER* been a collapse like WTC7".

and the only supporting evidence they have are computer models which they *REFUSE* to release the data that *TELLS* the models what to do...WHY?
one, that will show them the frauds they are, and two, because they have a Presidential Executive Order stating they don't have to prove what ever they claim.

i post this same info to you and YOU continually IGNORE these FACTS that YOU nor anyone else can do a anything about....cept what you are doing.....running away.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

Firstly the towers did not fall in free fall

they fell at 2/3 free fall, meaning apparent weight is 1/3 it's static weight. Cons of energy E=t+v

how does mass falling at 2/3 free fall, all in the same direction, have the dynamic ability to completely destroy itself in the process?

the ONLY time that occurs is when it's is IMPACTING resistance....If a mass is accelerating down, loading function is gravity, then it is exerting less Force than its static weight. The only way it can apply an amplified Force is to decelerate.....impact with FORCE...yet, we see no impact, NO JOLT!

We see they were obviously one smooth collapse wave....no stopping and starting of the collapses, once initiated the collapses were non-stop, symmetrical, and complete...start to finish...x2

Friction force

A block of mass projected onto a surface will be brought to rest by the kinetic friction force. There is no way to get back the original kinetic energy of the block after the friction force has brought it to rest. The directed long-scale motion of the block has been transformed into kinetic energy of the randomly directed moving atoms that make up the block and the plane. We can not associate a potential energy with the friction force.

NIST WTC7 report states that the top of building reaches total free-fall for approx 2.5 Sec., [starting at 1.75s to 4.0s.] (NIST WTC7 fig 3-15). Regardless of how it achieved free fall, basic Physics tells you a free falling mass can do no work. Plus any constant acceleration, no jolts, means apparent weight is less than static weight.
Drop the 100# block on a chair you will see a deceleration, if the chair is capable of supporting static weight of chair. Else, the destruction of the chair is caused by another energy.

Also if you disagree with me that is fine, you are more than entitled to your own opinion on what happened.

lol.....a little MORE than opinion....it's TAUGHT SCIENCE!!!
...and FACTS!

where are YOURS?

However unless you can back it up with hard facts and evidence do not tell me that I am factually wrong

lmao.....oops....just DID!!!....you ARE!!!

now what???

....gonna run?

a reply to: hgfbob

If a mass is accelerating down, loading function is gravity, then it is exerting less Force than its static weight.

I'm sorry but did I just read this right????


Are you claiming that a dynamic load has LESS force than a static load?

originally posted by: cantonear1968
a reply to: hgfbob

If a mass is accelerating down, loading function is gravity, then it is exerting less Force than its static weight.

I'm sorry but did I just read this right????


Are you claiming that a dynamic load has LESS force than a static load?

the ONLY way a 'dynamic' load can do damage is by IMPACT....we see no hesitation anywhere from this NATURAL, needed occurrence...
mass projected onto a surface will be brought to rest by the kinetic friction force. There is no way to get back the original kinetic energy of the block after the friction force has brought it to rest. We can not associate a potential energy with the friction force.

and too bad for you, there are NO dynamics until the vertical support ALLOW it to occur...the REASON we are here.

you seem to forget that part.

and yes, that is exactly what it says.....like objects can not go through themselves.

go to the top of a building and throw a box of bowling balls off.....and lets watch them disintegrate BEFORE they hit the ground...as you claim occurs.

materials of like structure in terms of identical composition CANNOT SMASH THROUGH EACH OTHER, WITHOUT the addition of a huge extra motivating force, either in the form of massive extra density, huge velocity, or external force.
Neither of which applied at the Towers.

Since 9/11 hundreds of tower blocks have caught fire and none fell down and sure no two buildings are the same but to a building of that size a plane does not do that much damages and wind sheer places more force on the buildings than a plane with a weight of 100 tons and doing 400mph.

Did bin-laden change the laws of maths on 9/11 or was it an inside job

Building seven was not even hit and still it fell down at free faill speed and it is high time we took control back and that won't happen using any of the institutions that only serve the rich elite.

originally posted by: LaBTop
To this day, after the long years since that Historical day of 9/11/2001, NONE of the usual official story followers/believers have EVER turned up to confront my huge list of evidences that 9/11 was a bunch of big lies from the then existing US government institutions, and the following (installed by big banking) administration( s? ) .


A LONG EVIDENCE list exposing the whole 911 OFFICIAL LIE :

www.abovetopsecret.com...

LaBTop, I'm sorry but I'm missing what you are referring to as proof of explosives. It appears all you have done is copy/paste the seismic data from 9/11 and then claim this to be explosions going off. I have to point to one of the seismologists who recorded the event, and I am paraphrasing, but he states their work is NOT evidence of explosives. So unless I am missing something more substantive, and I apologize before hand if I am, I really don't see the data to support your conclusions.

a reply to: cantonear1968

So unless I am missing something more substantive, and I apologize before hand if I am, I really don't see the data to support your conclusions.

yea...that impact damaged and the fires present allowed the collapses on 9-11 to proceed as never before seen....3 collapses unique to ONLY 9-11....

wanna prove NO explosives or accelerants, prove the official claims pushed as truth.....simple.

I really don't see the data to support your conclusions.

care to tell me why there is NOTHING supporting the official NIST 2008 claim that a new science phenomenon , as is the official story, fell WTC7

please tell me all about this new physics where thermal expansion works at low temperatures.....new science that has occurred ONLY on 9-11

"the phenomenon that we saw on 9/11 that brought this particular building down was really thermal expansion, which occurs at lower temperatures."

Shyam Sunde, 2008 NIST technical briefing

a reply to: hgfbob

wanna prove NO explosives or accelerants

No. As I have to need, desire, or obligation to prove a negative.

It's your job to prove they WERE used. And seeing as how in almost 13 years no such evidence exists, you have quite the job cut out for yourself.

care to tell me why there is NOTHING supporting the official NIST 2008 claim

I see lots supporting NIST's conclusions. Please tell me what you find erroneous with them. Be specific. Try it without hand waving this time.

Shyam Sunde, 2008 NIST technical briefing

Why do you believe thermal expansion is a new phenomenon? You seem to be the only one!

a reply to: cantonear1968

No. As I have to need, desire, or obligation to prove a negative.

a 'negative'???..dude, the 2008 NIST officially claimed NO explosives or accelerants were used.......you are NOT proving a negative, YOU are SUPPORTING an official claim stemming from a scientific investigation bestowed by Congress.

and that involves SCIENCE.

since we all know the 2005 NIST never tested any material for this.....then HOW do they get their SCIENTIFIC finding????


ENTER YOUTUBE!!!

[NCSTAR1A 4.3.4] Basing the decision of "No explosives or accelerants were used" on videos that were recorded at the time of collapse.

...NONE the ENTIRE day based on 26 SECONDS of audioless collapse video.

...WICKED scientific huh!!!!!!

Why do you believe thermal expansion is a new phenomenon? You seem to be the only one!

WHY do you leave off the other two words when replying back??????....low temp?????......do you not think people can see this????...do you actual think people are gonna CONTINUE to ignore the huge withe elephant when presented with DIRECT complicity within a Gov. organization.

"the phenomenon that we saw on 9/11 that brought this particular building down was really thermal expansion, which occurs at lower temperatures."

Shyam Sunder at 2008 NIST technical briefing

to make it easy for ya there is a PDF transcript on the same page as the video you can follow along with.....sorry, no pics or outlines to color in.

that quote is on page 34.......

MORE wicked awesome science from the 2008 NIST huh......a brand new phenomenon where thermal expansion works at LOW TEMPS.

gonna tell us all about this, or are ya gonna reply back stating the same, looking foolish in the meantime.....either way...you lose.

hey......also like your 'missing-links'.....great way to support.

a reply to: hgfbob

a 'negative'

wanna prove NO explosives or accelerants

Yes, asking to prove something wasn't there is proving a negative. Go look it up.

YOU are SUPPORTING an official claim

And I have a whole engineering report fully supported and endorsed by multiple engineering organizations which proves this. "Proving" no explosives were used doesn't change this.

then HOW do they get their SCIENTIFIC finding????

Video
Audio
Witness Testimony
Computer simulations.

All proper scientific methods for determining the cause of collapse.

Basing the decision of "No explosives or accelerants were used" on videos that were recorded at the time of collapse.

NIST do not YouTube in their investigation. Appeal to emotion and incredulity logical fallacy.

NONE the ENTIRE day based on 26 SECONDS of audioless collapse video.

...WICKED scientific huh

Considering there is absolutely no audio sounds of explosives going off at the time of collapse, nor any visual signs, Yes, I'd say a VERY scientific analysis that explosives weren't used.

And if you want to get into accelerates removing 560 core/perimeter columns simultaneously....well....then maybe we should take this discussion back to the Judy Woods thread because THAT'S just as silly as her DEW claims.

WHY do you leave off the other two words when replying back

Because you've done nothing to show that thermal expansion at low temps or not is a New Phenomenon that is impossible to have caused girder W33 to walk off its seat plate.

a brand new phenomenon where thermal expansion works at LOW TEMPS

Why do you continue to refer to thermal expansion, even at LOW TEMPS as a "new phenomenon" when this is not what Dr. Sunder is referring to? As I have pointed out, no one believes thermal expansion, even at LOW TEMPS is a new phenomenon....or new physics.....or new science.....EXCEPT YOU!

also like your 'missing-links'

I have had no need to link to anything considering you are not offering anything that in any way refutes NIST's conclusions.
[also, you ignore anything I link anyway so really...what's the point?]

a reply to: cantonear1968

the 2005 NIST could find NO scientific reason for collapse....

"No conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were sever enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure." NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, p. 235

no evidence the type of joining methods, materials, or welding procedures used was improper NIST 1-3 p.99

recovered bolts were stronger than typical. NIST 1-2 p.133

"no core column examined showed temp. above 250C" NIST 1-3 6.6.2

NCSTAR1-3 7.7.2 "because no steel was recovered from WTC7,it is not possable to make any statements about it's quality"


"NIST did not test for the residue from explosives or accelerants" wtc. nist. gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006. htm

they stall for three years till the 2008 NIST hypothesis crew claims a brand new never before seen physics phenomenon took place to enable what we saw to occur.

"the phenomenon that we saw on 9/11 that brought this particular building down was really thermal expansion, which occurs at lower temperatures."

Shyam Sunder at NIST technical briefing

tell me about LOW TEMP thermal expansion and why they reuse to prove this claim as to the reason three thousand are dead in an instant?

a reply to: hgfbob

NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, p. 235

Stop posting reports on the Towers when we are speaking about WTC 7.

As you say Bob. This isn't Youtube. You're not going to find a 14 yr old here to fall for this sleight of hand.

they stall for three years

NIST finished the WTC Tower Reports before moving back to WTC 7.

This has been explained to you numerous times. Do you have anything new to add?

tell me about LOW TEMP thermal expansion

I have. Even gave you examples of damgers from LOW TEMP thermal expansion (bridges). You ignored this.

Again....do you have anything new to add?

a reply to: cantonear1968

Stop posting reports on the Towers when we are speaking about WTC 7.

2005 NIST did NOT find a reason for collapse x3.

Even gave you examples of damgers from LOW TEMP thermal expansion (bridges). You ignored this.

....no ........I asked YOU to tell me HOW that REMOVED the structural mass in order to ACCELERATE EQUAL to g.

remember this quote from the Shyam Sunder?????

"free fall acceleration can ONLY occur when there is NO STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS BELOW IT"

and 2005 NIST found 105 vertical feet of it globally occurring unified starting at 1.75 SECONDS, when we see the kink form, to 4.0s.....now how bout you be a good boy and tell me how your 'bridge' analogy does ALL that work

a reply to: hgfbob

2005 NIST did NOT find a reason for collapse x3.

This thread is on WTC 7. NIST released 2 different reports on the collapses of WTCs 1 & 2 and WTC 7. Both showed different collapse mechanisms. As this is a thread on WTC 7, quoting references to WTCs 1 & 2 is off topic and not relevant to our discussion.

.no........I asked YOU to tell me HOW that REMOVED the structural mass

Two different discussions and not related to each other. The thermal expansion was the initiating factor and the period of FFA was the progressive collapse.

Both have been explained to you multiple times. You have not responded to this ever.

"free fall acceleration can ONLY occur when there is NO STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS BELOW IT"

Again, quoting out of context. Dr. Sunder was speaking about the total collapse of WTC 7, which was 40% longer than FFA for the visible and timed 18 floors.

Explained to you multiple times.

now how bout you be a good boy and tell me how your 'bridge' analogy does ALL that work

It doesn't. Explained above.

Do you have anything new Bob?

Bob, this was in the Judy Woods thread, which is better suited for here:

The NIST WTC7 Fig 3-15 shows the graph....

And my question:

"Shows points above the FFA line. Please explain this."

I hope you will address this.

a reply to: cantonear1968

"Shows points above the FFA line. Please explain this."

.....uhm......no free fall.....FREE FALL...no free fall......hows that.

see the words FREE and FALL.

when you put the two together within a scientific context of it occurring in a steel framed building, there is a prerequisite BEFORE the event of free fall even occurs supported by ALL science, [even Shyam at that tech briefing when he said]...

"free fall acceleration can ONLY occur when there is NO STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS BELOW IT"

.....a 'CLEAR PATH' below in which to constantly accelerate WITHOUT interruption......and since that STARTS when the kink forms at 1.74 seconds to allow the UNIFIED global descent EQUAL to g. @1.75 seconds to 4.0s.

what Cantoneer here is ALSO playing with, , is cryptically describing the graph in the WTC7 report. Fig 3-15 is a graph with the regression line yielding acceleration of 32.196ft/s^2. we see the time interval between 1.75 and 4 is 2.25 sec. the interval where WTC7 does achieve a period of free-fall ACCELERATION.

found by the 2005 NIST scientific investigation.

a first time EVER event....NEVER been a GLOBAL UNIFIED collapse of a steel framed building for ANY reason throughout history of mankind..and now three in one day.

yea, I know, your gonna reply back posting TWO halfs of a sentence of mine, creating your OWN meaning, and looking foolish in the process...but hey, if that's all ya got, then go for it.

a reply to: hgfbob

Bob, there is nothing "cryptic" about anything I am describing. Only your inability...or possibly unwillingness....to understand what the graph means.

There are 3, possibly 4 points above the FFA line showing the roofline of WTC 7 was collapsing FASTER than FFA. How is is this possible if gravity is the only force exerting energy on the building???

You can take a few days to try and comprehend this and come back with a response if you like Bob. But since this was brought to your attention 8 months ago I'm not overly hopeful.

a reply to: cantonear1968

There are 3, possibly 4 points above the FFA line showing the roofline of WTC 7 was collapsing FASTER than FFA.

WOW!!!!!

FASTER than FFA.....


seems that is an explanation that needs to come from the ones PUSHING the official claims they REFUSE to prove...

what does ALL SCIENCE say about the 2.3 second interval of collapse, "Indistinguishable from FREEFALL". The significance is NONE of the gravitational energy is available to destroy the supporting structures, ALL converted to MOTION!

meaning, any bending, crushing, breaking connections, REMOVAL of structural RESISTANCE, BELOW the mass ACCELERATING, is occurring WITHOUT the assistance of energy from the mass accelerating. Zero resistance.

now can you tell me where else ON EARTH do we see those SAME numbers, 9.8m/s^2 ????
open ANY science/physics text...."rate of acceleration seen by ALL mass REGARDLESS of weight toward the earth, at sea level, *~**WITHIN a VACUUM**~* is *9.8m/s^2*.

hmm.....the SAME numbers we see under 'CONTROLLED conditions, WE SEE occurring globally and UNIFIED in a 47 story steel frame @ 1.75 SECONDS, when kink forms, to 4.0s of the collapse....2.5 seconds later, it's done....6.5 second building collapse from FIRE we can't really see from the windows.

NCSTAR1A-3.2]"It is likely that much of the burning took place beyond the views of the windows"


then we STALL for three years till, ENTER 2008 NIST hypothesis crew crooning their number one hit....

"the phenomenon that we saw on 9/11 that brought this particular building down was really thermal expansion, which occurs at lower temperatures."

they REFUSE to prove through Peer Review..... a process of self-regulation by a profession or a process of evaluation involving qualified individuals within the relevant field. Peer review methods are employed to maintain standards, improve performance and provide credibility. In academia peer review is often used to determine an academic paper's suitability for publication.

"NIST is withholding 68,246 files. These records are currently exempt from disclosure. All input and results files of the ANSYS 16 story and the LS-DYNA 47-story global collapse model that were used to simulate sequential structural failures leading to collapse."