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

a reply to: kyleplatinum

So? You only have WTC 7 had to have “help” to reach the rate of free fall. While you ignore the help was the momentum of the collapse initiation, the dynamic loads of the the falling structure, the continual redistribution of load to a structure that only could provide negligible resistance, the fire buckled steel that witnesses said was causing visible distortions in WTC 7, and the results of thermal stress.

While you ignore the NIST conclusion is backed by two other studies.

While you don’t have the heart to say which truth movement theory is more credible than the NIST conclusion.

While you will not state how much resistance had to be removed from WTC 7.

While you will not explain what evidence there is of CD to point to a specific cause. Floor to floor thermite? Floor to floor c-4?

While you cannot explain how the “help” you claim WTC 7 had to have got there, how much of it was placed, and how the help servived building damage and fire.

Are you saying it would be hard to calculate how much explosives it would take to collapse WTC 7, and model the effects? Then compare the model to the actual video? Makes you wonder why AE 9/11 Truth has not done that? Oh, to keep the conspiracy cash cow alive?

You believe what exactly? Please define what help means?

a reply to: howtonhawky

Same thing happened in Newark NJ number of years ago

Garbage - including tires caught fire under section of I 78 causing it to collapse

a reply to: kyleplatinum

Was the ENTIRE building damaged and on fire?? I'll answer for you.. NO.

13 floors of WTC 7 were on fire - that's 30 % of building

Now explain how a CD system survives fire on multiple floors and still can simultaneous be detonated

a reply to: neutronflux

I know that everyone in the country felt the same way that day. We all wanted to discover what exactly happened that fateful morning. I have heard so many things about 9-11 that my opinion has become that plenty of the politicians, along with brain dead Bush knew what was happening.

I'm not going to yammer on and on. A couple more things: 1) I wish we could bring all of the troops home, and allow those who despise America to fall by the wayside. 2) I don't see the logic of travel with a wall at all US borders, but I really do hope that Trump is the president next election; and as well, I very much believe that he's a no nonsense president like Reagan and Roosevelt.

Penny4oh AKA Nonnie...out.

I will reiterate...seeing as my original reply seems to have been deleted.
Thermite doesn't make a loud explosion.
A little aluminum powder mixed with iron oxide and magnesium will cut through iron.
It's not rocket science.
I'm not going to tell you how to do it here.

originally posted by: skunkape23
I will reiterate...seeing as my original reply seems to have been deleted.
Thermite doesn't make a loud explosion.
A little aluminum powder mixed with iron oxide and magnesium will cut through iron.
It's not rocket science.
I'm not going to tell you how to do it here.

What proof do you have of thermite? Steven Jones fraudulent and discredited research?

Iron microspheres that can be explained by hydrocarbon fires?

When was the floor to floor thermite CD system installed?

How did a floor to floor CD system survive building damage and wide spread fires.

How did a comprised CD system of slow and inconsistent burning cutting charges bring down WTC 7 as witnessed?

Do you have photos of WTC 7 cut columns?

There are accounts WTC 7 was buckling and experiencing structural failure. Signs so prevalent a perimeter was cleared from around WTC 7, and people know it would collapse.

The angle cuts at WTC 1 and 2 have been throughly proven to be made by workers during WTC cleanup.
debunked-the-wtc-9-11-angle-cut-column-not-thermite-cut-later.t9469/
www.metabunk.org...

a reply to: neutronflux

Hacksaws and bandsaws cut through steel? Was it hacksaws and bandsaws!

Thermite is also used to join or weld metal? That was thermites original purpose. So you have thermite cutting steel, making molten cuts being pushed together underload? Cuts that could have portions harden while the remainder is being cut? I don’t think thermite CD would work well.....

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: skunkape23
I will reiterate...seeing as my original reply seems to have been deleted.
Thermite doesn't make a loud explosion.
A little aluminum powder mixed with iron oxide and magnesium will cut through iron.
It's not rocket science.
I'm not going to tell you how to do it here.

What proof do you have of thermite? Steven Jones fraudulent and discredited research?

Iron microspheres that can be explained by hydrocarbon fires?

When was the floor to floor thermite CD system installed?

How did a floor to floor CD system survive building damage and wide spread fires.

How did a comprised CD system of slow and inconsistent burning cutting charges bring down WTC 7 as witnessed?

Do you have photos of WTC 7 cut columns?

There are accounts WTC 7 was buckling and experiencing structural failure. Signs so prevalent a perimeter was cleared from around WTC 7, and people know it would collapse.

The angle cuts at WTC 1 and 2 have been throughly proven to be made by workers during WTC cleanup.
debunked-the-wtc-9-11-angle-cut-column-not-thermite-cut-later.t9469/
www.metabunk.org...

I've seen controlled demolitions.
They look just like that.

a reply to: skunkape23

How?

How many thermite controlled CDs can you point to?

WTC7 does not look like a classic CD.

The penthouse and items on 7’s roof showed the building began to collapse progressively in the interior from one end of the building to the other end. I think it is estimated as much as 60 percent of WTC 7 collapsed internally before the facade gave. The penthouse disappeared below the roofline before the facade began to fall. The facade only began to collapse once WTC 7 sufficiently gutted itself. Even points on the facade fell at different rates.

Can you point to a similar CD?

This linked to document below explains how WTC 7 did not look like a CD.

www.implosionworld.com...

a reply to: skunkape23

I've seen controlled demolitions. They look just like that.

Intentional fires look just like accidental fires.
But their cause is totally different.
You can't go just on looks alone.

Hey all. I'm quite on the fence about this these days. When I first saw the WTC7 collapse videos I instantly thought it was a CD.

Every video I have watched (quite a lot) of WTC7 coming down show what looks like a complete undamaged building. I must have seen a lot but all show the same angle roughly. If it was hit and there was severe damage to one side of the building prior to collapse can some of you please post video links showing it as there must be many videos illustrating this?

originally posted by: lifttheveil
Hey all. I'm quite on the fence about this these days. When I first saw the WTC7 collapse videos I instantly thought it was a CD.

Every video I have watched (quite a lot) of WTC7 coming down show what looks like a complete undamaged building. I must have seen a lot but all show the same angle roughly. If it was hit and there was severe damage to one side of the building prior to collapse can some of you please post video links showing it as there must be many videos illustrating this?

There's a compilation here



Also disproving the myth about the towers falling in their own footprints.


(Audio is ridiculous IMO)

originally posted by: lifttheveil
Hey all. I'm quite on the fence about this these days. When I first saw the WTC7 collapse videos I instantly thought it was a CD.

Every video I have watched (quite a lot) of WTC7 coming down show what looks like a complete undamaged building. I must have seen a lot but all show the same angle roughly. If it was hit and there was severe damage to one side of the building prior to collapse can some of you please post video links showing it as there must be many videos illustrating this?

You and Peter Jennings and Dan Rather and me, and probably many others thought it looked like CD. That's because it was CD. Occam's Razor applies. The reason it looked like CD is that it was CD

a reply to: Salander

others thought it looked like CD.

And that's all truthers have had to support their case for 16 years.
Does a burning building look like it was arson?

a reply to: neutronflux

There is zero evidence of CD.

Evidence:

Synchronicity of the removal of support across the whole width of the building, evidenced by the levelness of the roofline as it came down, and the suddenness of onset of collapse, and the immediate transition from full support to total freefall.

Natural collapse resulting in freefall is simply not plausible. It did not happen. It could not happen. Yet freefall did in fact happen.

This means it was not a natural collapse. Forces other than the falling upper section of the building suddenly destroyed and removed the supporting columns for at least eight stories across the entire length and width of the building.

a reply to: Salander

I have repeatedly explained how WTC 7 does not look like a CD. I have cited a source that explains why WTC 7 does not look anything like a CD.

And you contradict yourself in your claims the media was part of 9/11, but would state WTC 7 looked like a CD? If the media was part of 9/11, they would say anything but WTC 7 looked like a CD. And you put in with Dan Rather, who used forged papers to base a news story on.

So, please explain how WTC 7 looked like a CD.

And what is this Occam’s razor crap. There is no audio proof of CD. No video evidence of CD. No physical evidence of CD. Fire collapse is possible. Hello, why is structural steel required to be insulated by code. And there has never been a high rise building demolished by thermite CD. It’s WTC 7 building, fire, thermal stress damage to collapse that uses the least amount of assumptions, not CD.

It is documented WRC 7 fire insulation was deficient. It is documented that fire weakens steel and causes buckling. It’s documented that WTC 7 was damage. It is documented that WTc 7 was failing because of fire damage. It was documented that WTC 7 would fail from building, fire, and thermal stress damage.

What is your credibil evidence of CD again? Because a news reporter said it looked like CD?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Salander

I have repeatedly explained how WTC 7 does not look like a CD. I have cited a source that explains why WTC 7 does not look anything like a CD.

And you contradict yourself in your claims the media was part of 9/11, but would state WTC 7 looked like a CD? If the media was part of 9/11, they would say anything but WTC 7 looked like a CD. And you put in with Dan Rather, who used forged papers to base a news story on.

So, please explain how WTC 7 looked like a CD.

And what is this Occam’s razor crap. There is no audio proof of CD. No video evidence of CD. No physical evidence of CD. Fire collapse is possible. Hello, why is structural steel required to be insulated by code. And there has never been a high rise building demolished by thermite CD. It’s WTC 7 building, fire, thermal stress damage to collapse that uses the least amount of assumptions, not CD.

It is documented WRC 7 fire insulation was deficient. It is documented that fire weakens steel and causes buckling. It’s documented that WTC 7 was damage. It is documented that WTc 7 was failing because of fire damage. It was documented that WTC 7 would fail from building, fire, and thermal stress damage.

What is your credibil evidence of CD again? Because a news reporter said it looked like CD?

Anyone can explain anything. Certain factions within government have made decades long careers out of "explaining things (away)". And despite all the explaining, WTC7 looked like a CD, and it looked like one to multi-millions of people all over the planet. That doesn't necessarily make it so, but it IS what it LOOKED like. And people know that when something looks like something, it usually IS.

And here's a big newsflash: Factions in government are also very good at "Documenting" all kinds of things when it suits them to do so. That doesn't make them true either. If it weren't for the fact that officials lie through their teeth whenever they speak about some tragedy, we wouldn't need this topic in the first place.

originally posted by: kyleplatinum
a reply to: neutronflux

There is zero evidence of CD.

Evidence:

Synchronicity of the removal of support across the whole width of the building, evidenced by the levelness of the roofline as it came down, and the suddenness of onset of collapse, and the immediate transition from full support to total freefall.

Natural collapse resulting in freefall is simply not plausible. It did not happen. It could not happen. Yet freefall did in fact happen.

This means it was not a natural collapse. Forces other than the falling upper section of the building suddenly destroyed and removed the supporting columns for at least eight stories across the entire length and width of the building.

The items on the roof did not come down at the same time. The penthouse completely disappears, and you can still see items on the roof falling into WTC 7 before the facade starts to fall. There is every indication the start of the collapse was internal to WTC 7, and was from east to west.

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.

Again, what scientific law states it’s impossible for a building to fall at the rate of free fall.

I noticed you offer no rebuttal to the below source.

By Mick West

www.metabunk.org...
www.metabunk.org...

The problem here is that it does not make sense to people. Even if the columns buckled, wouldn't they still provide some resistance? Well yes, but the key question here is how much resistance. If they provide a force equal to the mass they support times g, then the mass they support will not move. If they provide a force equal to 1% of the mass times g, then the mass will move down with an acceleration of 99% of g (i.e. negligible resistance, and essentially free fall).

Columns of a building can support a static load of a low multiple of the mass above them before failing. Conservatively you can use 2x. So put very simply if the support of a column was to be reduced so that the mass it previously supported were to fall at 99% of g, then the supporting strength of the column would have to be reduced by a factor of 200.

And this happens when a tall column or wall loses its support and buckles.

Notice is does not mean zero support. If a column could support 1000 tons, and it's degraded by a factor of 200 then than means it can still support 5 tons. However while the column is buckling the 1000 tons it was supporting will fall at an acceleration of 99% of g.

And I don’t think you ever refuted the difficulty in defining when the actual collapse started. Making it well in the realm of accuracy of analysis the collapse only achieved 99 percent the rate of free fall. Also, what did fall at the rate of free fall? Only the facade? Especially in that as much as 60 percent of the interior of WTC 7 may have already collapsed before the facade began to fall. Even the facade did not fall in a uniform manner.

Again, WTC 7 collapse was nothing like a CD. The interior collapsed from East to West. As much as 60 percent of WTC 7’s interior may had already collapse before the facade began to fall.

a reply to: kyleplatinum

The free fall was for the exterior of WTC 7. The interior of WTC 7 was undergoing a progressive collapse once the penthouse began to drop. What is the total time from the moment the penthouse started to fall, to the facade began to fall, to the time WTC 7 was leveled?

This is NIST’s explanation. Is it right? Can you discredit the explanation?

www.nist.gov...

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.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Salander

I have repeatedly explained how WTC 7 does not look like a CD. I have cited a source that explains why WTC 7 does not look anything like a CD.

And you contradict yourself in your claims the media was part of 9/11, but would state WTC 7 looked like a CD? If the media was part of 9/11, they would say anything but WTC 7 looked like a CD. And you put in with Dan Rather, who used forged papers to base a news story on.

So, please explain how WTC 7 looked like a CD.

And what is this Occam’s razor crap. There is no audio proof of CD. No video evidence of CD. No physical evidence of CD. Fire collapse is possible. Hello, why is structural steel required to be insulated by code. And there has never been a high rise building demolished by thermite CD. It’s WTC 7 building, fire, thermal stress damage to collapse that uses the least amount of assumptions, not CD.

It is documented WRC 7 fire insulation was deficient. It is documented that fire weakens steel and causes buckling. It’s documented that WTC 7 was damage. It is documented that WTc 7 was failing because of fire damage. It was documented that WTC 7 would fail from building, fire, and thermal stress damage.

What is your credibil evidence of CD again? Because a news reporter said it looked like CD?

Anyone can explain anything. Certain factions within government have made decades long careers out of "explaining things (away)". And despite all the explaining, WTC7 looked like a CD, and it looked like one to multi-millions of people all over the planet. That doesn't necessarily make it so, but it IS what it LOOKED like. And people know that when something looks like something, it usually IS.

And here's a big newsflash: Factions in government are also very good at "Documenting" all kinds of things when it suits them to do so. That doesn't make them true either. If it weren't for the fact that officials lie through their teeth whenever they speak about some tragedy, we wouldn't need this topic in the first place.

A rant based on nothing but innuendo does not explain the video, audio, science, and physical evidence concerning WTC 7, and why WTC 7 collapse.

Yes, anyone can make up an argument of BS when that argument is based on speculation, not facts. Thanks to the truth movement for providing the example.

Can you cite credible proof WTC 7 was brought down by planted demolitions?