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

a reply to: kyleplatinum

No amount of freefall happens..


Watch the debris in the videos .. the debris out paces the building when it falls. Pretty much every video, ever debunks the “freefall narrative...

a reply to: AgarthaSeed


Not a well. a whole town.. a couple gallons of the right chemicals in the outgoing water supply and you have 30,000 people dead in an afternoon,isn’t poisioning a water treatment center “wold stage worthy to you”, lol???

That’s more than six times the bodies of 911..


The gulf of Tonkin wasn’t considered “world stage?!?!

a reply to: neutronflux

Can you imagaine how much more fear the water supply thing causes anyway?!?!


Everyone takes a bath, shower, brushes their teeth, exc....

It wouldn’t be a threat only 911 level targets would have to worry over.. the water supply could be attacked ANYWHERE and recurve a crazy casualty count...

a reply to: samkent

There is PLENTY of stuff that can kill you in micrograms..

In fact there is plenty of stuff ALREADY I STOCK AT THE PLANT!!!


I had a bust who ran the “grade A” water plant in Vicksburg, ms..


He worked there alone and one day when giving me a tour showed me some of the crazy concentrated chemicals they have for purification or whatever..


He specifically told me the micro gram ratio required to kill and that the out going water is considered “clean” so there is no further filtration to catch it.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

No amount of freefall happens..

Again... yes it does!, common knowledge, even admitted by NIST.

"A freefall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s"
-NIST, WTC 7 Global Collapse Analysis - page 607

a reply to: kyleplatinum

Uhhhh,

Again, the building did not start collapsing at the rate of free fall. The building did decelerate at the end of the collapse before total collapse. Free fall is not impossible. It just indicates that the dynamic load fell with enough force and maginitude on the remaining buckled, bowed, and damaged structure, the remaining structure offered negligible resistance.

Again, using your misrepresentation of the modeling of Newton’s third law, by your logic a taut thread should stop a falling 50 pound steel block? Do you think the thread is really going to provide any measurable resistance?

The resistance was there, the building as a dynamic load provided enough force the remaining resistance was negligible.

Remember, the interior of WTC 7 was already undergoing a progressive collapse before the facade began to fall. Is that a false statement?

And how do you get to pick and choose if NIST is reliable to cite. You like their data, but don’t agree with their conclusions because it doesn’t fit your fantasy.

Other than your misunderstanding of offered resistance and magnitude of force, what evidence is there at WTC 7 of CD?

a reply to: neutronflux


The evidence is everywhere, but only the most perceptive are able to see it, like Dan Rather and Peter Jennings. Besides being perceptive, one must also be honest with himself and a bit on the curious side.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: neutronflux


The evidence is everywhere, but only the most perceptive are able to see it, like Dan Rather and Peter Jennings. Besides being perceptive, one must also be honest with himself and a bit on the curious side.

You are playing he said with the media who you say cannot be trusted. How many times will you contradict yourself.

How about citing and invoking the video and physical evidence. Please start with evidence of detonations powerful enough to cut steel. Oh, there is not any. Kills your pet theory of nukes at the WTC.

So, please state what brought down WTC 7?

a reply to: Salander

So we are back with it looked like a CD by using out of context statements from the media you don’t trust?

All the while, the WTC 7 collapse does not look like a classic CD.

WTC 7’s penthouse and items on WTC 7’s roof completely fell into WTC 7 before the collapse of the facade.

What classic CD caused a progressive collapse starting from the interior, from one end of the building to the other end, then the outside of the building falls as a unit last?

a reply to: Salander

With no flashing and no sounds of detonations powerful enough to cut steel? With no shrapnel? By a mythical CD system that survived building damage and wide spread fires?

a reply to: neutronflux

And how do you get to pick and choose if NIST is reliable to cite. You like their data, but don’t agree with their conclusions because it doesn’t fit your fantasy.

I do not like their data, just stating a fact that they finally admit (after a final revise) that free fall did occur, fact.

Any amount of free fall defeats a natural collapse.

All the while, the WTC 7 collapse does not look like a classic CD.

Yes it does. To say otherwise is comical. There would not be debates about 17 years later if it did not look like CD.

a reply to: kyleplatinum

One, pleae state the scientific law that “natural” collapse cannot obtain the rate of free fall. Especially for a building already failing from buckling and bowing. In defining the ratios of falling mass and force in relation to a damaged building built to maximize empty space.

Two, please define what is a “natural collapse” for a manmade building of forged steel. Again, a building with damage, weakened by fire and thermal stress, in a complex of buildings that pre 9/11 inspectors showed had deficient fire insulation, no water for fire fighting, with floor connections not standard, and had the lack of a concrete core that had saved other buildings from collapse.

Three, I explained how WTC 7 was not like a classic CD. If that is laughable, please explain how WTC7 is like a classic CD.

There is no evidence of sets of charges setting off to remove the resistance of any floor, let alone all floors. No flashes. No seismic record by near by recorders. No evidence of shrapnel. No evidence of pressure waves from charges capable of cutting steel. No audio evidence of charges setting of powerful enough to cut steel. No physical evidence that steel was cut by demolitionss. No realistic way the complex CD system the truth movement claimed had to take out the resistance of every floor could survive the building damage and fires.


So do you have anything other than false arguments, impossible theories, all based on a false premise?

a reply to: kyleplatinum

Please show there is a wide spread debate that WTC 7 collapsed from fire related causes. A fringe group lead by the charlatans of AE 9/11 Truth is not a debate. It is individuals profiting from the fantasies of the truth movement by selling a product to a target audience.

Another false argument by you.

Yep... everything happened exactly how the official story says it did... no conspiracy here... move along.



... it's pure coincidence that all of the major documents relating to a bunch of different scandals and corruption just happened to be in the buildings or in the location of buildings that happened to be destroyed.

What luck!

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
Yep... everything happened exactly how the official story says it did... no conspiracy here... move along.

... it's pure coincidence that all of the major documents relating to a bunch of different scandals and corruption just happened to be in the buildings or in the location of buildings that happened to be destroyed.

What luck!

Would you like to actually cite evidence of CD at WTC 7.

And quote where I believe and support ever aspect of what you label “Official Story”?

A guess you buy everything the truth movement puts out?

Richard Gage and fizzle no flash explosives. Gage treating the upper part and lower part of buildings as single point solid masses.

Or Steven Jones, and his claims of thermite he never really got around to publishing the tests he claimed he would preform.

How about Dr Wood and Dustification from a captured hurricane.

Rebar covered in C-4?
Lasers and Holograms?
Missiles and Holograms?
Nukes?


So, which conspiracy is the truth. Oh, conspiracy theories are not about truth. Conspiracy theories are about con artists sensationalizing innuendo to milk a target audience for a livelihood, social media likes, book sales, and notoriety.

a reply to: neutronflux

No... you're exactly right... everything all the "official" stories say are 100% fact, in all conspiracies. The government/s have never done anything nefarious.

Oh...and I absolutely buy everything the Truth Movement says, because that's exactly what I said in my post... that's not a jump of logic on your part at all, and it's great that you make such huge assumptions about what other people think, because you're always 100% accurate (just like the official stories) and contribute your great comprehension skills to a discourse.

Bravo.

I think we should all stop speculating about all potential conspiracies because a few whack-jobs went overboard with their particular theories, and take a page from your book and accept our lot as peons under the all knowledgeable and all truthful powers-that-be, even when there is a mountain of coincidences and logical discrepancies that suggest not everything may be as it seems.

a reply to: kyleplatinum

The video can be sped up or slowed down to to simulate any time frame you want..


youtu.be...

Watch the smoke clouds of debis in ANY video..

The smoke and debris CLEARLY out paces the building’s fall..

It is not even close.. at all..

Freefall equals the maximum speed something can fall.. the debis is falling at freefall speed, the building is not.

a reply to: puzzlesphere

How about just don’t lie about the facts???


Such as the RIDICULOUS freefall claim...


youtu.be...

Every truther I have seen has made that claim, and it is OBVIOUSLY false..


Please watch this video.. some random guy compiled proof that debunked 9 truther claims

youtu.be...


This covers all the main falsehoods truthers push..

It even has a regular joe heat steel to “jet fuel temp” and then he bends it with his pinky finger..


If you find something that is actually true, people will listen, unless you sandwich it between 2 obvious lies..

a reply to: puzzlesphere


Very well put! Yes, we should all play the fool because NIST and NF says it's so.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

It is not even close.. at all..

Again.....For building #7, Free fall is a FACT for 2.25 sec of the collapse, fact.

You are CLEARLY not accepting this.