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

a reply to: MALBOSIA

Absolutely...

But it becomes unnerving when people intentionally leave out essential parts of the story..

a reply to: MALBOSIA

Absolutely...

But it becomes unnerving when people intentionally leave out essential parts of the story..

Such as when they claim the towers fell at freefall or that building 7 wasn’t already severely damaged before falling..

Or with JFK.. ever heard a conspiracy documentary tell you Oswald had already tried to kill a federal judge??

Well obviously those things are vital if your trying to understand what’s happened..

a reply to: MALBOSIA


It is the same concept, and I fact has a lot of the same audiences ..


About half the conspiracy videos draw the conclusion the conspiracy is knee deep in their personal religions dogmas..

They all usually go back to Satan worship or some other such religious insanity..

a reply to: JoshuaCox


As a matter of habit, do you draw your own conclusions?

a reply to: neutronflux

Building 7.

How could confident and valid collapse predictions have been made so far in advance?

A sequence of last-minute events inside the building that was unprecedented, unpredictable, and invisible to witnesses.

1,2 and 7 all lacked the same thing.... resistance.

originally posted by: kyleplatinum
a reply to: neutronflux

Building 7.

How could confident and valid collapse predictions have been made so far in advance?

A sequence of last-minute events inside the building that was unprecedented, unpredictable, and invisible to witnesses.

1,2 and 7 all lacked the same thing.... resistance.

As in firefighters knowledgeable about building safety reported a bulging outer wall, the structure had visible signs of distress, WTC 7 was damaged by the collapse of the towers, there was no opportunity to combat WTC 7 fires, there was no water for the sprinkler systems, WTC 7 had no traditional concrete core that has saved other high rises, firefighters which had ever reason to clear WTC 7 because of possible collapse?

So it’s unlogical that personnel knowledgeable/experienced in building safety predicted a building would collapse because that building started to bulge, showed signs of buckling, and was undergoing structural failure? Signs that started hours before collapse?

And do you have a credible cause of collapse to supersede building damage/fire/thermal stress?

Who said the buildings lacked resistance. Another false argument. The towers’ floor structures fell at 60 percent the rate of free fall. The towes’core columns fell around 40 percent the rate of free fall, and large sections stood for whole seconds after the complete collapse of the floor system.

The penthouse collapsing into WTC 7 shows the interior was undergoing collapse whole seconds before the WTC 7 facade began to collapse. WTC 7 fell at the rate of free fall for about 2/3rds of the total collapse time. WTC 7 did not suddenly stop. The rate of collapse actually slowed down near the end because there was resistance.

The dynamic load was great enough for items made to hold static loads, little resistance was offered by the steel bowed and buckled by fire/thermal stress.

a reply to: neutronflux

Maybe you will understand this.......

Since it is common knowledge that 7 fell at FF for about 2.5 seconds at the beginning of collapse, means there was nothing below it. Where did the lower portion of the building go?

If the falling section of the building had crushed the lower section, the lower section would have pushed back with an equal but opposite force. But that would have slowed the fall. Since the fall was not slowed in the slightest, we can conclude that the force of interaction was zero... in both directions.

Any amount of free fall is impossible for a naturally collapsing building.

"I walked around it (Building 7). I saw a hole. I didn't see a hole bad enough to knock a building down, though. Yeah there was definitely fire in the building, but I didn't hear any... I didn't hear any creaking, or... I didn't hear any indication that it was going to come down. And all of a sudden the radios exploded and everyone started screaming 'get away, get away, get away from it!'... It was at that moment... I looked up, and it was nothing I would ever imagine seeing in my life. The thing started pealing in on itself... Somebody grabbed my shoulder and I started running, and the #'s hitting the ground behind me, and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... Yeah it had some damage to it, but nothing like what they're saying... Nothing to account for what we saw... I am shocked at the story we've heard about it to be quite honest."

-Former NYPD Officer & 9/11 First Responder Craig Bartmer

a reply to: kyleplatinum

Since it is common knowledge that 7 fell at FF for about 2.5 seconds at the beginning of collapse, means there was nothing below it. Where did the lower portion of the building go?

FF is a fallacy. Therefore your conclusion is based on fallacies.
But that is what conspiracy believer have to do to keep their conspiracy religion alive.

a reply to: samkent

Try again.. this is common knowledge. #7 was in FF for about 2.5 sec. Even the almighty NIST admits this.

Please wake up.

Even though it may hurt your brain, please read my last post again... repeat if needed.

a reply to: kyleplatinum

You....

If the falling section of the building had crushed the lower section, the lower section would have pushed back with an equal but opposite force

How does a buckeled and bowed damage structure push back with equal and opposite force?

What happens when you drop a 50 pound steel block on a tight thread securely tied off on each end? It’s going to stop the momentum of the steel block.

You are using Newton’s third law incorrectly......

Your argument relies on pseudoscience?

en.m.wikipedia.org...'s_laws_of_motion


Newton's laws are applied to objects which are idealised as single point masses,[9] in the sense that the size and shape of the object's body are neglected to focus on its motion more easily. This can be done when the object is small compared to the distances involved in its analysis, or the deformation and rotation of the body are of no importance. In this way, even a planet can be idealised as a particle for analysis of its orbital motion around a star.

In their original form, Newton's laws of motion are not adequate to characterise the motion of rigid bodies and deformable bodies. Leonhard Euler in 1750 introduced a generalisation of Newton's laws of motion for rigid bodies called Euler's laws of motion, later applied as well for deformable bodies assumed as a continuum. If a body is represented as an assemblage of discrete particles, each governed by Newton's laws of motion, then Euler's laws can be derived from Newton's laws. Euler's laws can, however, be taken as axioms describing the laws of motion for extended bodies, independently of any particle structure.[10]

a reply to: kyleplatinum

You are guilty of trying to treat the upper portion of a structure, and the lower portion of a structure as two separate single point masses. Masses unable to deform. Does that sound like the correct model for WTC 7. A mostly hollow building, comprised of various components with various masses, in various states of bowing and buckling, and able to deform?

Again, the penthouse on WTC 7 showed the interior of WTC 7 was undergoing a progressive collapse from one side of WTC 7 to the other side before WTC 7’s facade starred to fall.

The facade collapse of WTC 7 was stright down, the interior of WTC 7 was more like a house of cards or dominos falling?

Using your logic, dropping a card into a house of cards should never cause the house of cards to collapse. That is false.

a reply to: Salander

As a matter of habit conceribg conspiracy theories..

I have a checklist..

A) can I think of a cheaper , easier and less risky way to achieve the same goal..

B) is it something a real life person would do?? Rather than a mustach twirling villian conspiracy..

C) is it logistically feasible..

D) is there a motivation that is acheivabke by the conspiracy?

a reply to: JoshuaCox

And don’t forget.

Does it represent real science, or pseudoscience.

Is the required technology based in reality, or fantasy.

In the absence of a credible counter theory, the argument uses terms like impossible or never to dismiss the cause with the most evidence...

a reply to: JoshuaCox


How do you know the goal, and who determines risk?

Motivation comes first, then conspiracy. One is motivated to achieve some particular goal or other, and then one possibly conspires with others to reach that goal.

Cui Bono?

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: JoshuaCox


How do you know the goal, and who determines risk?

Motivation comes first, then conspiracy. One is motivated to achieve some particular goal or other, and then one possibly conspires with others to reach that goal.

Cui Bono?

Do you have proof of CD at WTC7. Or just more useless rants?

a reply to: Salander

Whatever the conspiracy narrative is...

Like for example , “911 was to create the willingness for the American people to invade Iraq and Afghanistan” is kinda the theory..
so is 911 the easiest, cheapest and least risky way to achieve that??


Well no..

Poisioning a water treatment plant would kill 30,000 in an afternoon and only require one or 2 agents..


Gulf of tonkin was a previous false flag that worked just fine.

So was the Lusitania...

So why are they blowing up buildings when there are 1000 easier ways to armrest a war.


Any conspiracy that cannot even establish a motivation for said conspiracy. I discount almost out of hand..


Like climate change..

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: Salander

Whatever the conspiracy narrative is...

Like for example , “911 was to create the willingness for the American people to invade Iraq and Afghanistan” is kinda the theory..
so is 911 the easiest, cheapest and least risky way to achieve that??


Well no..

Poisioning a water treatment plant would kill 30,000 in an afternoon and only require one or 2 agents..


Gulf of tonkin was a previous false flag that worked just fine.

So was the Lusitania...

So why are they blowing up buildings when there are 1000 easier ways to armrest a war.


Any conspiracy that cannot even establish a motivation for said conspiracy. I discount almost out of hand..


Like climate change..

9/11 was on the world stage. The visuals associated with it and replayed ad naseum by the media helped foster the emotions necessary to gain overwhelming support for the U.S. government's maneuvers afterwards.

Poisoning a well would piss off many. But not nearly at the emotional level of 9/11.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Poisioning a water treatment plant would kill 30,000 in an afternoon and only require one or 2 agents..

The dilution fact makes that an impractical idea.

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: Salander

Whatever the conspiracy narrative is...

Like for example , “911 was to create the willingness for the American people to invade Iraq and Afghanistan” is kinda the theory..
so is 911 the easiest, cheapest and least risky way to achieve that??


Well no..

Poisioning a water treatment plant would kill 30,000 in an afternoon and only require one or 2 agents..


Gulf of tonkin was a previous false flag that worked just fine.

So was the Lusitania...

So why are they blowing up buildings when there are 1000 easier ways to armrest a war.


Any conspiracy that cannot even establish a motivation for said conspiracy. I discount almost out of hand..


Like climate change..

9/11 was on the world stage. The visuals associated with it and replayed ad naseum by the media helped foster the emotions necessary to gain overwhelming support for the U.S. government's maneuvers afterwards.

Poisoning a well would piss off many. But not nearly at the emotional level of 9/11.

I think it has to do more with suicide terror attacks on none harden targets that made the USA feel venerable, and the large number of lost civilian lives?

I think for conspiracists, they feel the need to believe in a false narrative that the government was directly in control of masterminding 9/11. They need the belief somebody is in control, even if it’s a mirderous plot. They hate the thought of living in a world without purpose. A world of chaos. Why else would people think ever mass-shooting and terror attack is a false flag operation. I think conspiracy theory has lots to do with people cannot come to terms the world is still powerless against those that are truly evil. People feel powerless. How do you fight random evil people? But fighting a murderous government gives them a target to oppose, even when the presented truth movement narrative of CD is proven false. Again, and again, and again......



And does anyone have evidence WTC 7 was brought down by demolitions?

a reply to: neutronflux

Again....

Any amount of free fall is impossible for a naturally collapsing building.