# Amazing chutzpah - New 9-11 museum never mentions WTC-7!!!



## ShootSpeeders (Jun 7, 2014)

Building 7 is the smokiest gun in history and proves beyond a doubt that 911 was an inside job. The govt and  media can censor all they want but thanks to the internet, everybody knows about Bldg 7.



> The 9/11 Museum's Biggest Oversight: No Mention of WTC Building 7 - sf911truth.org
> 
> june 6, 2014
> 
> ...


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 7, 2014)

*One day a generation of Americans will wonder how two planes toppled three steel-framed skyscrapers. I suspect that generation will look back at mine, and others, who were adults on 9/11/2001 and see a cohort of cowards too frightened to demand answers to how such a crime could have happened.*

"To my surprise, there was even a small section on the publics questioning of the events. 

"This included photos of people calling for investigations, protestors claiming 9/11 was an inside job, and the cover of Popular Mechanics which supposedly debunked all those 'conspiracy theories'. 

"At least the museum planners can attempt to say they were thorough in addressing all of the 'focus groups'. 

"But this small section did nothing to go into the broad scope of alternative research based on science and journalistic analysis."

The 9/11 Museum's Biggest Oversight: No Mention of WTC Building 7 - sf911truth.org


----------



## ShootSpeeders (Jun 7, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> [
> 
> "This included photos of people calling for investigations, protestors claiming 9/11 was an inside job, and the cover of Popular Mechanics which supposedly debunked all those 'conspiracy theories'.



PM didn't debunk building 7. No one can or even tries to.  Everyone knows 7 was brought down by controlled demo.   Buildings don't undergo unitary collapse at free fall speed because two other buildings a block away were hit by planes. THINK


----------



## USNavyVet (Jun 7, 2014)

Shouldn't this be in the conspiracy theory forum?


----------



## ShootSpeeders (Jun 7, 2014)

USNavyVet said:


> Shouldn't this be in the conspiracy theory forum?



Absolutely not.  The collapse of 7 is a fact not a theory.  THINK


----------



## Indeependent (Jun 7, 2014)

Worse...The 9/11 Memorial Museum virtually ignores Islamic Terrorism.
The museum is nothing more than a tribute to the architects and engineers of the WTC.
It's a politically correct farce.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 7, 2014)

WTC 7 fell as an after affect of the two towers falling

What else needs to be told?  Nobody died


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Jun 7, 2014)

Why should they mention an empty building that collapsed after hours of un-fought fires???


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 7, 2014)

I am glad the museum gives no mention of the Truthers. It would be a disgrace


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 7, 2014)

ShootSpeeders said:


> Building 7 is the smokiest gun in history and proves beyond a doubt that 911 was an inside job. The govt and  media can censor all they want but thanks to the internet, everybody knows about Bldg 7.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah yeah yeah...And there are conspiracy theorists that claim the buildings were riddled with charges that were detonated the moment each aircraft collided with each building.
How is there info being "kept" from anyone. WTC 7 was heavily damaged from the collapse of WTC 1 and 2...
Your are entitled to your stupidity.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 7, 2014)

Attention Mods...
PLease send this nonsense to Conspiracy Theories..
Thanks.


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 8, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> WTC 7 fell as an after affect of the two towers falling
> 
> What else needs to be told?  Nobody died


How did it fall?
Straight down into its footprint?
In eight seconds?


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 8, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > WTC 7 fell as an after affect of the two towers falling
> ...



How are buildings supposed to fall?


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 8, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Without controlled demolition?
Slower.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Jun 8, 2014)

Why would they blow up an empty building? What was their endgame for doing that?


----------



## Missourian (Jun 8, 2014)

[youtube]TH3gRwf4XIA[/youtube]


----------



## Indofred (Jun 8, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Like a tree, in the direct of the first side of the structure to fail.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 8, 2014)

Indofred said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



How many skyscrapers have you seen fall like a tree?


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Jun 8, 2014)

Indofred said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...





Thanks for the laughs, Truther.


----------



## Indofred (Jun 8, 2014)

Rat in the Hat said:


> Why would they blow up an empty building? What was their endgame for doing that?



That would depend.
What was the insurance cover like and what did you want to lose?
Lets say something was in there you wanted forgotten.
Take it out and destroy the building/

Of course, to do that you would have to have foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 8, 2014)

I highly doubt that the 9-11 memorial makes "no mention" of WTC 7 falling

I am proud that the designers chose to ignore the "inside job" bullshit of the truthers


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Jun 8, 2014)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXqs0ZYCHlA&feature=plcp]Controlled Demolition vs. Reality - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Toro (Jun 8, 2014)

Rat in the Hat said:


> Why should they mention an empty building that collapsed after hours of un-fought fires???



If they did, retards like Shootspeeders would then complain about there being no mention of Silverstein yelling "pull."


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Jun 8, 2014)

Indofred said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> > Why would they blow up an empty building? What was their endgame for doing that?
> ...



Destroy an entire building after sneaking a few things out of it? 




And what would they have said if miles of det cord and detonator remnants had been found?


----------



## shart_attack (Jun 8, 2014)

I don't think SS even knows what _chutzpah_ means.

I also highly doubt that he has any Yiddish friends who've ever used it.


----------



## SteadyMercury (Jun 8, 2014)

ShootSpeeders said:


> Everyone knows 7 was brought down by controlled demo.


Translation = the forum retard subscribes to conspiracy theories about WTC 7, and has decided this means everyone knows it.


----------



## ShootSpeeders (Jun 8, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> WTC 7 fell as an after affect of the two towers falling
> 
> What else needs to be told?  Nobody died




WTF???  Are you saying it's normal for a tower to collapse because 2 towers a block away collapsed.?? THINK


----------



## ShootSpeeders (Jun 8, 2014)

Rat in the Hat said:


> Why would they blow up an empty building? What was their endgame for doing that?



That's the big question.  As far as justifying wars, all the  warmongers needed was the collapse of the twin towers. 

 There was likely some very incriminating evidence stored in 7.  It did house lots of govt data.


----------



## ShootSpeeders (Jun 8, 2014)

SteadyMercury said:


> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> > Everyone knows 7 was brought down by controlled demo.
> ...



The board notes all you have is personal attacks.  Thanks for admitting i'm right.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Jun 8, 2014)

ShootSpeeders said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > WTC 7 fell as an after affect of the two towers falling
> ...



Large chunks of Tower 1 hit building 7 causing fires that were not fought.






*THINK*


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Jun 8, 2014)

ShootSpeeders said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> > Why would they blow up an empty building? What was their endgame for doing that?
> ...



So they couldn't destroy the evidence with a simple paper shredder, no,  they had to destroy the WHOLE BUILDING.


----------



## Jack203 (Jun 8, 2014)

After all these years the truthers still don't have a motive that makes an ounce of sense, or a viable suspect (nor will they ever).

The remaining truthers have to be feeling pretty lonely.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 8, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



What would make you think that?

Once a structure fails, it fails


----------



## Capstone (Jun 8, 2014)

Missourian said:


> [youtube]TH3gRwf4XIA[/youtube]



From that video's description:



> An interchange connecting highways to the Oakland-San Francisco Bay Bridge collapsed early Sunday,April 29 2007, *after a tractor trailer hauling 8,600 gallons of gasoline caught fire.* ...



Disregarding the absence of fuel or fuel-oil fires in the case of building 7, the design and construction of freeway overpasses aren't remotely analogous to those of steel-framed skyscrapers. Sections of that overpass collapsed onto the road below, mainly because of the lack of physical resistance _from below_ in the spaces between the vertical supports, once the horizontal supports had given way. Building 7, on the other hand, fell straight through what the laws of physics tell us _should_ have been the path of greatest resistance, as if it had been transformed by magic into the path of least resistance.

According to the "scientific analysis" that was conducted by the government's own science lackeys (NIST), all physical resistance to the downward motion had somehow been removed or circumvented for approximately 2.25 of the 5.4 seconds that were analyzed on video. That's something along the order of 100 sq. feet or about 8 floors worth of building materials that violated the third law of motion in their collective descent on 9/11. NIST's explanation for this, a "fire-induced progressive collapse", is entirely non-explanatory. That is, the forces required to remove or circumvent ALL physical resistance for _any_ period of time, couldn't possibly have arisen in a "progressive" collapse of that kind, because resistance would have been a necessary consequence of the sort of physical interaction described (from "structural element to element", as stated by NIST). The official storyline then, would apparently have us believe that the laws of physics _can_ be broken for a couple of seconds at a time, so long as doing so fits into some authorized narrative. 

I, too, find it a little hard to believe that building 7 isn't represented or mentioned anywhere in the new museum; but I'm also confident that its mysterious "collapse" is one of those 'anomalies' certain people would *much rather* forget about than try to explain to the still significant portion of the population that hasn't heard about it.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Jun 8, 2014)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYzIbOYaSy8&feature=player_embedded]Important Message from 9/11 Truth! - YouTube[/ame]


#6 & #7


----------



## SteadyMercury (Jun 8, 2014)

ShootSpeeders said:


> The board notes all you have is personal attacks.  Thanks for admitting i'm right.


The board notes you have problems drawing conclusions from premise. Thanks for admitting you have the mental capacity of a 7 year old.


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 8, 2014)

Capstone said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > [youtube]TH3gRwf4XIA[/youtube]
> ...


Do you happen to know what that still significant portion of the population is?


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 8, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


2.5 seconds of free fall acceleration doesn't usually happen without some help, no?


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 8, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Gravity is gravity


----------



## aaronleland (Jun 8, 2014)

Why is there no mention of Bigfoot in the 9/11 museum? What are they trying to hide?


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 8, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


If WTC7 fell at free fall acceleration for 2.25 seconds over eight floors, gravity had an assist from another agent which removed an immense network of steel columns and beams running from the foundation of the building to its penthouse.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 8, 2014)

When the towers collapsed, FDNY lost 343 Firefighters

At that point they were not going to risk another firefighter. Especially in an evacuated WTC 7. The fires were allowed to burn unabated and nobody was going to do a thing about it. Intense fire weakens steel and a weakened structure collapses. That is what happened to WTC 7


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Jun 8, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Yes, it had an assist from the east and west mechanical penthouses falling thru the structure 7 seconds before the front facade started to move.


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 8, 2014)

Rat in the Hat said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Which one of those penthouses was responsible for more than 400 structural-steel connections failing every second over each of those 8 stories that experienced free fall?


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Jun 8, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Both of them destroyed the inner structure of the building. Leaving the facade unsupported, and it finally fell.


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 8, 2014)

Rat in the Hat said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Rat in the Hat said:
> ...


How much did they weigh?


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Jun 8, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Many tons.

What difference does it make?


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 8, 2014)

Rat in the Hat said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Rat in the Hat said:
> ...


40,000 tons of structural steel comprising the central core and path of greatest resistance of a modern fire-resistant 47 story skyscraper.


----------



## Capstone (Jun 8, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> Do you happen to know what that still significant portion of the population is?



Polling data on the matter is hard to come by, so much so it's almost as if the big boy polling services have avoided the topic like the plague. 

What I do know is that the truth movement has been largely an internet phenomenon since its inception, and has only been ridiculed in the mainstream if and when it's ever been mentioned by those media sources at all. According to a recent study, somewhere around 22% of the US population doesn't have home access to the internet. That's nearly 70 million people. Now, that's a non-scientific analysis I'm alluding to, and one based on indirect controls with numerous factors unaccounted for (there are, almost certainly, millions of uninformed people _with_ internet access in their homes, for instance), but it _does_ provide some perspective on the question.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 8, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Gravity is still gravity

Steel has never liked intense fires burning out of control


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 8, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


WTC7 had a central core composed of an immense network of steal columns and beams weighing in at 40,000 tons. For 8 floors to collapse at free fall acceleration, 400 structural steel connection would have had to fail every second, evenly, across all eight floors. Neither fire nor gravity could accomplish that.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 8, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Yup....And intense fires burning out of control will cause that steel core to yield 

After that it is F=M x a


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 8, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Would you expect to see pancaked floors in such a debris field?


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 8, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



The force will magnify exponentially as the building comes down

Those floors are barely any resistance


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 8, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Force capable of pulverizing 90,000 tons of concrete and metal decking in mid-air and ejecting laterally multi-ton steel sections? Office fires?


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 8, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Yes, structural failure of that magnitude would generate that force


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 8, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


What do you think initiated a force of that magnitude?


----------



## R.C. Christian (Jun 8, 2014)

Has anyone even mentioned how fucked up the concept of a fucking museum on a grave site that people are charged over 24 bucks to enter plus all the fun shit that can be purchased at the grave shop, err.. I mean gift shop is? Sick mother fuckers. Just what I expect from NYC.


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 8, 2014)

R.C. Christian said:


> Has anyone even mentioned how fucked up the concept of a fucking museum on a grave site that people are charged over 24 bucks to enter plus all the fun shit that can be purchased at the grave shop, err.. I mean gift shop is? Sick mother fuckers. Just what I expect from NYC.


Why do you hate capitalism?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 8, 2014)

ShootSpeeders said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



*Everyone knows 7 was brought down by controlled demo.*

For what reason? Explain.


----------



## R.C. Christian (Jun 8, 2014)

I hate stupid capitalism. Somewhere in Pennsylvania some dumb shits pay the NPS money to see a field where a plane crashed. You'd have to be 1 stupid ass American to pay to see something like that let alone make a selfie in front of that shit.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 8, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Failure of steel due to immense heat, mass and gravity


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 8, 2014)

R.C. Christian said:


> I hate stupid capitalism. Somewhere in Pennsylvania some dumb shits pay the NPS money to see a field where a plane crashed. You'd have to be 1 stupid ass American to pay to see something like that let alone make a selfie in front of that shit.


What happens if enough Americans become convinced explosives were used to bring down all three towers?


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 8, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


How can anyone supply a motive before an investigation into how the building fell and who stood to profit from its fall is completed?


----------



## Indofred (Jun 8, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Well, as all I've watch fall were controlled demolitions, none.

Luckily, youtube has the answer.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKeENdyIluI]Building Collapse - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzGJs-uyaSY]DRAMATIC BUILDING COLLAPSE CAUGHT ON TAPE! - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Indofred (Jun 8, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> R.C. Christian said:
> 
> 
> > I hate stupid capitalism. Somewhere in Pennsylvania some dumb shits pay the NPS money to see a field where a plane crashed. You'd have to be 1 stupid ass American to pay to see something like that let alone make a selfie in front of that shit.
> ...



People will end up in old sparky and Israel will get bombed.


----------



## Peach (Jun 8, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Yes, impact damage, steel distortion, immense heat (causing lack of strength), and then collapse, inward. Explosives in the buildings would have exploded, not imploded.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 8, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > ShootSpeeders said:
> ...



If fell from uncontrolled fires and from debris from the towers causing massive damage.


----------



## Indofred (Jun 8, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



All the fires did exactly the same damage to all the building's supports equally, thus the thing dropped in on itself.
Bullshit.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 8, 2014)

Indofred said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Yeah, that's harder to believe than secret demo charges.
Secret charges not disrupted by debris or uncontrolled fires burning for hours and hours.


----------



## LiberalMedia (Jun 8, 2014)

How many people died in building 7 that need to be recognized in the memorial?


----------



## ShootSpeeders (Jun 8, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> When the towers collapsed, FDNY lost 343 Firefighters
> 
> At that point they were not going to risk another firefighter. Especially in an evacuated WTC 7. The fires were allowed to burn unabated and nobody was going to do a thing about it. Intense fire weakens steel and a weakened structure collapses. That is what happened to WTC 7




HAHAHA  Even you know that's a preposterous lie. The fires were barely visible and even if the fires had been extensive enough to cause collapse, the fires are NOT going to cause a unitary collapse.   7 came down all at once exactly as in controlled demo which it obviously was.


----------



## ShootSpeeders (Jun 8, 2014)

Capstone said:


> What I do know is that the truth movement has been largely an internet phenomenon since its inception, and has only been ridiculed in the mainstream if and when it's ever been mentioned by those media sources at all.



Fact is, without the internet , 911 would have never been questioned.   Our pathetic pc-press would have repeated the govt line and that would have been the end of it.


----------



## ShootSpeeders (Jun 8, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> [
> Yup....And intense fires burning out of control will cause that steel core to yield



HAHAHA.  You need to change your name to paid govt shill.  There were no intense fires in 7.  They were barely visible. In fact from the north, the building looked completely normal.  Anyway - fires don't cause unitary collapse.


----------



## ShootSpeeders (Jun 8, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> If fell from uncontrolled fires and from debris from the towers causing massive damage.


 

Uncontrolled fires?  I guess they were but that doesn't matter.  What's important is the fires were very small - barely visible from outside in fact.  And there was no massive damage.  All the damage was on the south side where debris from the collapsing tower a block  away had hit it.   How can that cause unitary collapse?  THINK


----------



## Indofred (Jun 8, 2014)

It was a set, they even released the news of the collapse to the press BEFORE it fell down.






Yes, I know they made excuses after the fake news had been broadcast, they had to cover up their error.


----------



## Snouter (Jun 9, 2014)

They actually moved this by request to "conspiracy theories?"    The government theory is the conspiracy theory.  The "immense heat" is the equivalent of the "magic bullet" in the JFK terrorist act.  Also performed by the MOSSAD.


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 9, 2014)

ShootSpeeders said:


> Capstone said:
> 
> 
> > What I do know is that the truth movement has been largely an internet phenomenon since its inception, and has only been ridiculed in the mainstream if and when it's ever been mentioned by those media sources at all.
> ...


*Without the internet, 911 would have disappeared like Liberty*

"On June 8, 1967, US Navy intelligence ship USS Liberty was suddenly and brutally attacked on the high seas in international waters by the air and naval forces of Israel. The Israeli forces attacked with full knowledge that this was an American ship and lied about it. Survivors have been forbidden for 40 years to tell their story under oath to the American public. The USS Liberty Memorial web site tells their story and is dedicated to the memory of the 34 brave men who died."

USS Liberty Memorial


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 9, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


In what amount of time?
How does that amount of time compare to free-fall?


----------



## ShootSpeeders (Jun 9, 2014)

Snouter said:


> They actually moved this by request to "conspiracy theories?"    The government theory is the conspiracy theory.  The "immense heat" is the equivalent of the "magic bullet" in the JFK terrorist act.  Also performed by the MOSSAD.



Yes indeed.  The govt explanation that 911 was caused by arabs is, of course, a conspiracy theory too though the press never says that.  Our useless pc-press takes the govt side on everything.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 9, 2014)

We need a 9-11 Truthers Museum

Let them present all their facts on the attacks and watch the people flock through the doors


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Jun 9, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> We need a 9-11 Truthers Museum
> 
> Let them present all their facts on the attacks and watch the people flock through the doors



They're going to build one.


Right after they present their 8 year old petition to Congress.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 9, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



How long should a 500 foot freefalling buiding take?


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 9, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


As I recall, WTC7 was 571 feet tall and an object dropped from its top (inside a vacuum) would take slightly more than 5.9 seconds. I'll verify that information and give a link when I can find it.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 9, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Looks like 14 sec

Hardly "Freefall"

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQkWCRV54lY"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQkWCRV54lY[/ame]


----------



## Capstone (Jun 9, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> Looks like 14 sec
> 
> Hardly "Freefall"



The building could have taken a week to _completely_ "collapse" and that still wouldn't erase or account for the 2.25 seconds of 'freefall' admitted by NIST in stage 2 of their 3-stage analysis. Two and a quarter seconds worth of a physical impossibility is no less damning than a violation of physical law for _any_ length of time.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 9, 2014)

Capstone said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Looks like 14 sec
> ...



Looks more like 4 or more seconds in the video

From when the rest of the building starts to fall


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 9, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Freefall applied only to 8 stories over 2.25 seconds of the total collapse time.
That would have required the near-simultaneous buckling and breaking of the 58 perimeter columns and most of the 25 core columns over all eight floors. Your government's official explanation is "office fires."

A Scientific Theory of the WTC 7 Collapse | Foreign Policy Journal


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 9, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



How do you know that didn't happen before the building finally collapsed?


What happened to the penthouse?


----------



## Rozman (Jun 9, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> We need a 9-11 Truthers Museum
> 
> Let them present all their facts on the attacks and watch the people flock through the doors



Will you be the one at the door to thank them for coming?


----------



## ShootSpeeders (Jun 9, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> [As I recall, WTC7 was 571 feet tall and an object dropped from its top (inside a vacuum) would take slightly more than 5.9 seconds. I'll verify that information and give a link when I can find it.





t = square root of (2 x 571 /32).  That's right about  6 seconds.


----------



## ShootSpeeders (Jun 9, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> We need a 9-11 Truthers Museum
> 
> Let them present all their facts on the attacks and watch the people flock through the doors



Only one fact needs presenting.  A video of the collapse of 7.  It was controlled demo.  Most obvious thing in the world.


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 9, 2014)

ShootSpeeders said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > We need a 9-11 Truthers Museum
> ...


Especially the significant percentage of people in the US who haven't seen video of WTC7 since the day of the attacks, if at all. I wonder how many in the US would even be willing to consider the possibility that elements of their government could commit treason on this scale?


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 10, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



What would the "freefall" time be to drop 8 stories (approx 90 feet)

Acceleration due to gravity is 32 ft per second squared
A falling object would take 1.67 seconds to drop 90 feet

2.25 seconds is hardly "freefall"

Kind of shoots your theory to hell doesn't it?


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 10, 2014)

Capstone said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > ...I wonder how many in the US would even be willing to consider the possibility that elements of their government could commit treason on this scale?
> ...


If a majority of Americans should ever become convinced elements of their government allowed 911 to happen, I suspect there will be an outpouring of anger/hatred toward those perceived responsible unlike anything we've ever seen or at least since the attack of Pearl Harbor. Will "government" take the blame or will those whose money controls government finally be judged responsible? I don't know the answer to that question, but I suspect if we don't find out, future generations won't have to worry about losing their belief in America; they will be brainwashed from cradle to grave with patriotic platitudes with no debate tolerated. Damned if we do and damned if we don't?


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 10, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


What's your formula?
I get 2.371 seconds from T=Square Root of (2x90/32)


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 10, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



It is squared not x2

Square root of 90/32


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Jun 10, 2014)

Did you know that there are Truthers who believe that this is what happened on 9/11?


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 10, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Are we both forgetting to convert the distance to meters from feet?


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 10, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



So what do we have in terms of "Freefall" of WTC 7?

Worst case, 8 floors took 2.25 sec. The rest of the building took over 14 sec

At freefall speeds 162 feet would be covered in 2.25 sec almost twice that which WTC experienced


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 10, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


Now, I'm really CONFUSED, Winger
571 feet is equal to about 174.04 meters.
According to equations on the Physics Classroom:Kinematic Equations and Free Fall, I get 5.959 seconds for an object to free fall 174.04 meters NOT feet in a vacuum.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 10, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Will you Truthers please get the lie you are trying to sell straight?

If you are talking about the WHOLE WTC 7 it took 14 SECONDS....much more than a 5.9 sec free fall

If you are talking about a tiny portion of the building which appeared to fall faster than the rest, those 90 feet took 2.25 sec, much more than the 1.67 free fall time

In either case, the building did not fall at FREEFALL speeds


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 10, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Have you noticed how WTC7's roof line does not begin to collapse until about eight seconds into your video? No one is saying all 47 floors collapsed at free fall; however, 8 floors did which would have required 400 structural steel connections to fail evenly over all 8 floors   every second.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 10, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



What you saw was the internal structure of the building compromised which enabled the penthouse to drop down into it.  That shows what happened to your 400 structural steel connections. They were gone. 
Your eight floors fell at almost half the speed of freefalL


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 10, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Half the speed of freefall?
90 feet is equal to about 27.43 meters.
Right?
I get a time of 2.365 seconds of free-fall over those 8 floors.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 10, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



You could FREEFALL 160 feet in 2.365 seconds

Almost twice the distance the building actually fell


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 10, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Show your math.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 10, 2014)

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 Disaster Study), 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 Disaster Study) and detailed in Section 12.5.3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (available at WTC Disaster Study).

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.
Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 10, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Equations for a falling body - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Near the surface of the Earth, use g*=*9.81*m/s² (meters per second squared; which might be thought of as "meters per second, per second", or 32*ft/s² as "feet per second per second") approximately.

2.365 squared equals 5.6
5.6  Times 32 equals 159 feet


----------



## ShootSpeeders (Jun 10, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> [
> If a majority of Americans should ever become convinced elements of their government allowed 911 to happen,



Hey stupid.  They didn't allow it to happen, they did it!! And we years ago passed the point where more than half of america knows it.  I guarantee everyone on this thread who says  they accept the official story is a liar and paid govt shill.


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 10, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


5.6 x 32 = 179.2 feet

*Here's the formula I found and how it applies to a roofer dropping a pile of shingles from a roof top located 8.52 meters above the ground:* 

"d = vi  t + ½  a  t2
Once the equation is identified and written down, the next step involves substituting known values into the equation and using proper algebraic steps to solve for the unknown information. This step is shown below.

-8.52 m = (0 m/s)  (t) + ½  (-9.8 m/s2)  (t)2

-8.52 m = (0 m) *(t) + (-4.9 m/s2)  (t)2

-8.52 m = (-4.9 m/s2)  (t)2

(-8.52 m)/(-4.9 m/s2) = t2

1.739 s2 = t2

t = 1.32 s"

Kinematic Equations and Free Fall


----------



## ShootSpeeders (Jun 10, 2014)

I can't believe people here are still arguing about a simple physics formula most of us learned in 8th grade.

s = 1/2 x g x t x t


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 11, 2014)

ShootSpeeders said:


> I can't believe people here are still arguing about a simple physics formula most of us learned in 8th grade.
> 
> s = 1/2 x g x t x t


Are you new here?


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 11, 2014)

"Everyone has seen the destruction of the Twin Towers. Many people have never seen, or even heard about, the destruction of Building 7, a 47-story building across the street from the North Tower. 

"For many people it was seeing Building 7 fall that brought them into the 9/11 Truth Movement. Building 7 came down at 5:20 in the evening of 9/11, even though it was not hit by an airplane and only had fires on a few floors. 

"If you have ever seen a controlled demolition on TV, that is what the collapse of Building 7 looked like. 

"*It was a bottom-up demolition.* 

"It looks like the building is just sinking into the ground. 

"The roof line stayed level as it fell, implying that the onset of collapse was simultaneous across the whole width of the building, and it came down in freefall, implying that it met zero resistance. 

"I had heard others claim that it fell at freefall, which seemed hard to believe, so I measured the rate of collapse myself. 

"*I can confirm that the first 2.5 seconds of the collapse is indistinguishable from absolute freefall.* 

"Everything about the collapse points to controlled demolition. 

"The 9/11 commission omitted any mention of Building 7, and the main NIST investigation offered no explanation for its collapse."

Why I Am Convinced 9/11 Was an Inside Job


----------



## ShootSpeeders (Jun 11, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> "Everyone has seen the destruction of the Twin Towers. Many people have never seen, or even heard about, the destruction of Building 7, a 47-story building across the street from the North Tower.
> 
> "For many people it was seeing Building 7 fall that brought them into the 9/11 Truth Movement. Building 7 came down at 5:20 in the evening of 9/11, even though it was not hit by an airplane and only had fires on a few floors.
> 
> ...



Bldg 7 was controlled demo and that's the most obvious thing in the world.  All the posters here who say otherwise are paid govt shills.  That's obvious too.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 11, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


false equivalent.. not valid


----------



## daws101 (Jun 11, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> "Everyone has seen the destruction of the Twin Towers. Many people have never seen, or even heard about, the destruction of Building 7, a 47-story building across the street from the North Tower.
> 
> "For many people it was seeing Building 7 fall that brought them into the 9/11 Truth Movement. Building 7 came down at 5:20 in the evening of 9/11, even though it was not hit by an airplane and only had fires on a few floors.
> 
> ...


A&E FOR TRUTH is not scientifically credible...


----------



## daws101 (Jun 11, 2014)

ShootSpeeders said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > "Everyone has seen the destruction of the Twin Towers. Many people have never seen, or even heard about, the destruction of Building 7, a 47-story building across the street from the North Tower.
> ...


really got any evidence to back that up?
a check stub will do!


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Jun 11, 2014)

ShootSpeeders said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > "Everyone has seen the destruction of the Twin Towers. Many people have never seen, or even heard about, the destruction of Building 7, a 47-story building across the street from the North Tower.
> ...



If it was controlled demo, why hasn't anybody come forward with proof of det cord and detonator remnants in the rubble??


----------



## daws101 (Jun 11, 2014)

Rat in the Hat said:


> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


gremlins!


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Jun 11, 2014)

daws101 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > "Everyone has seen the destruction of the Twin Towers. Many people have never seen, or even heard about, the destruction of Building 7, a 47-story building across the street from the North Tower.
> ...



AE9/11T is only a bank account to fund Truther Pope Dickie The Gage's extravagant vacations (oops, I mean speaking tours to foreign countries)


----------



## peach174 (Jun 11, 2014)

Why should building 7 be in the museum.
No one died in the old one and no plane hit it.
It fell after many hours of burning from debris that fell from the 2 larger towers.
Building 7 has been rebuilt and is higher than the old building was.
Building 7 is alive and well after being rebuilt in a new location.
The twin towers were not rebuilt and many people died in those two buildings and that is what the museum is all about.
Not a newly built building 7 that is higher than the old one.
The new building 7 is the tribute to the old one.


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 11, 2014)

daws101 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Did you mean False equivalence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia or material equivalence?

How long does it take for an object dropped from a height of 8.52 meters to reach the ground? Show your work.

Using the same valid formula for WTC7's eight stories of freefall (27.43M):

27.43/4.9 = t^2
2.365 = t


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 11, 2014)

peach174 said:


> Why should building 7 be in the museum.
> No one died in the old one and no plane hit it.
> It fell after many hours of burning from debris that fell from the 2 larger towers.
> Building 7 has been rebuilt and is higher than the old building was.
> ...


A significant percentage of Americans are still unaware two airplanes toppled three steel-framed skyscrapers on 9/11/2001.
3000 innocent human beings perished that day and more first responders continue to die from their rescue attempts. 
The US government has lied consistently about what happened on 911, and WTC7 is where their lies are the most glaringly obvious to those who are unafraid to look.


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 11, 2014)

daws101 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > "Everyone has seen the destruction of the Twin Towers. Many people have never seen, or even heard about, the destruction of Building 7, a 47-story building across the street from the North Tower.
> ...


*What are your scientific credentials?

How many public talks have you given on the Physics of 911?

How many to a roomful of physics teachers?*

"I presented a talk on the physics of 9/11 at a physics teachers' conference at Occidental College in early 2008. 

"The physics teachers in the audience certainly represent a sample of the population with above average intelligence and intellectual curiosity. Yet approximately one-third of the audience had never heard of the collapse of Building 7. 

"Anyone who is 'into' 9/11 has seen endless discussion of Building 7, but for those who depend on the mainstream media for their information, it never happened. 

"Given that this was one of the most anomalous events of 9/11, there seems to be a clear conspiracy of silence in the media. 

"Video footage was broadcast on the day of 9/11 itself, but whereas videos of the falling towers persisted on TV for weeks, Building 7 immediately disappeared from the scene."

Why I Am Convinced 9/11 Was an Inside Job

*Go back under your bridge.*


----------



## daws101 (Jun 11, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


don't need to show my work...a guys dropping shit is not the same as a multi story building burning for eight hours after being damaged by another multi story building  collapsing...
your formula does no account for variables...


----------



## daws101 (Jun 11, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


yours first....


----------



## jillian (Jun 11, 2014)

ShootSpeeders said:


> Building 7 is the smokiest gun in history and proves beyond a doubt that 911 was an inside job. The govt and  media can censor all they want but thanks to the internet, everybody knows about Bldg 7.



you do realize that the memorial is a memorial to people.... 

not to buildings except insofar as they came down on people and were attacked.

last I checked no one died in bldg. 7

last I checked bldg. 7 wasn't attacked but came down as an unfortunate byproduct of destabilization of the site.

check your tinfoil hat... it might be getting too tight.


----------



## jillian (Jun 11, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> "Everyone has seen the destruction of the Twin Towers. Many people have never seen, or even heard about, the destruction of Building 7, a 47-story building across the street from the North Tower.
> 
> "For many people it was seeing Building 7 fall that brought them into the 9/11 Truth Movement. Building 7 came down at 5:20 in the evening of 9/11, even though it was not hit by an airplane and only had fires on a few floors.
> 
> ...



good to know you're delusional on subjects other than the middle east.

your site is a troofer site... zero cred.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 11, 2014)

jillian said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > "Everyone has seen the destruction of the Twin Towers. Many people have never seen, or even heard about, the destruction of Building 7, a 47-story building across the street from the North Tower.
> ...


if he had any real scientific education or any higher education at all he'd have known that


----------



## jillian (Jun 11, 2014)

daws101 said:


> if he had any real scientific education or any higher education at all he'd have known that



he isn't very good with anything but propaganda.


----------



## Toro (Jun 11, 2014)

jillian said:


> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> > Building 7 is the smokiest gun in history and proves beyond a doubt that 911 was an inside job. The govt and  media can censor all they want but thanks to the internet, everybody knows about Bldg 7.
> ...



She thinks Obama personally sets the price of stamps.


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 11, 2014)

jillian said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > "Everyone has seen the destruction of the Twin Towers. Many people have never seen, or even heard about, the destruction of Building 7, a 47-story building across the street from the North Tower.
> ...


I hope you're rational enough to admit that the Republican Party vanishes from the page of time if enough Americans come to believe elements of "their" government facilitated the terror attacks of 911?


----------



## ShootSpeeders (Jun 11, 2014)

jillian said:


> [
> 
> last I checked bldg. 7 wasn't attacked but came down as an unfortunate byproduct of destabilization of the site.
> 
> .



HAHAHA.  Destabilization of the site?  Did you really say that?   That's as funny as Bush telling us the twin towers came down cause they were like a stack of pancakes.


----------



## ShootSpeeders (Jun 11, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



I'd say 70% of adult americans now know 911 was an inside job and the repubs are still here. The public knows democrats  went along with the  govt's brazen 911 lies.


----------



## Politico (Jun 12, 2014)

Yeah everyone knows about building 7. It wasn't hit by a plane and no one died in it. Thus no reason to mention it.



USNavyVet said:


> Shouldn't this be in the conspiracy theory forum?



It is now.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 12, 2014)

Toro said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > ShootSpeeders said:
> ...


shoot speeders is female?


----------



## ShootSpeeders (Jun 12, 2014)

Politico said:


> Yeah everyone knows about building 7. It wasn't hit by a plane and no one died in it. Thus no reason to mention it.
> 
> .




HAHAHA.  Another paid govt shill makes a fool of himself.  A 600 foot high skyscraper collapses for no apparent  reason and you say there's no story!!!!

BTW - what makes you think no one died in 7?  "The govt says so" is not an answer.


----------



## ShootSpeeders (Jun 12, 2014)

Politico said:


> Yeah everyone knows about building 7. It wasn't hit by a plane and no one died in it. Thus no reason to mention it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



When you know you're in the wrong, use censorship.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 12, 2014)

ShootSpeeders said:


> Politico said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah everyone knows about building 7. It wasn't hit by a plane and no one died in it. Thus no reason to mention it.
> ...


wtf are you yammering about wtc7 collapse because it was hit by the debris form the north tower and then burned for 7 hours.. that's why it collapse.
btw no one did die in wtc7 because it was evacuated  hours before the collapse.
and the fdny  did several sweeps after the evacuation....and found no one..


----------



## wihosa (Jun 27, 2014)

I see the moderators have dutifully hidden this topic under " conspiracy theories". It's not a conspiracy theory to point out the impossibilities of the 'Official ConspiracyTheory'. The impossible didn't happen on 911. The laws of physics were not suspended on 911. Only the weak minded can not face the fact that only controlled demolition could bring down a steel framed high rise building at free fall acceleration. If I am a Truther because I seek the truth, so be it, better than being a defender of an obvious lie, as that makes one a lier.


----------



## Toro (Jun 27, 2014)

twoofer said:
			
		

> derp, derp, derp, derp



.


----------



## wihosa (Jun 27, 2014)

Wow, now that is there is a well reasoned reply!


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 27, 2014)

wihosa said:


> Wow, now that is there is a well reasoned reply!


*Maybe he's found the missing gold?*

"Some $230 million worth of gold was discovered in a lorry in a tunnel under the Center in November 2001. 21 We have seen no reports of other caches being found. However, Comex was reported to have at least $950 million worth of gold stored in its vault under the Center, and the fate of that haul remains unknown."

http://911review.com/motive/gold.html


----------



## wihosa (Jun 27, 2014)

There are so many "anomalies"to the 'Official Conspiracy Theory' which have gone unexplained as to prove the point that the OCT is nothing but a lie. I do not offer a theory, only a real investigation by a special prosecutor with subpoena power can test the evidence to determine all the facts. But one fact is clear, Building Seven was brought down by controlled demolition. The NIST admitted that it fell at free fall acceleration  which can not possibly occur as a result of accidental collapse due to "normal office fires". It is IMPOSSIBLE!


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 27, 2014)

wihosa said:


> There are so many "anomalies"to the 'Official Conspiracy Theory' which have gone unexplained as to prove the point that the OCT is nothing but a lie. I do not offer a theory, only a real investigation by a special prosecutor with subpoena power can test the evidence to determine all the facts. But one fact is clear, Building Seven was brought down by controlled demolition. The NIST admitted that it fell at free fall acceleration  which can not possibly occur as a result of accidental collapse due to "normal office fires". It is IMPOSSIBLE!


*Much of the physical evidence needed to properly investigate the attack was disposed of long ago. Possibly, the most promising avenue of investigation today would require following the money, since those who facilitated the attack also expected to profit materially from it:*

"FTW, December 6, 2001 -- On October 9th, FTW broke a story on insider trading connected to the 9-11 attacks on the World Trade Center that sparked worldwide controversy. 

"In that story we reported how the Israeli Herzliyya Institute for Counterterrorism had documented that unknown individuals -- with accurate foreknowledge of the attacks -- had purchased an obvious and unusually large number of 'put' options on United and American Airlines shortly before the attacks."

Profits of Death - Insider Trading and 9-11


----------



## Toro (Jun 27, 2014)

wihosa said:


> Wow, now that is there is a well reasoned reply!



Appropriate for the idiotic twoofer argument!


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 28, 2014)

*The deepest and darkest secrets of 9/11 lie buried in the records of the US National Energy Policy Development Group which was headed by Rich-Dick Cheney almost from Day One of Bush II.*

"The Energy Task Force, officially the National Energy Policy Development Group (NEPDG), was a task force created by then-U.S. President George W. Bush in 2001 during his second week in office. 

"*Vice President Dick Cheney was named chairman.* 

"This group was intended to 'develop a national energy policy designed to help the private sector, and, as necessary and appropriate, State and local governments, promote dependable, affordable, and environmentally sound production and distribution of energy for the future.'"

Energy Task Force - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## wihosa (Jun 29, 2014)

Toro said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > Wow, now that is there is a well reasoned reply!
> ...



Yours' is clearly the argument of the intellectually disadvantaged, the equivalent of " I know you are but what am I?"


----------



## wihosa (Jun 29, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> *The deepest and darkest secrets of 9/11 lie buried in the records of the US National Energy Policy Development Group which was headed by Rich-Dick Cheney almost from Day One of Bush II.*
> 
> "The Energy Task Force, officially the National Energy Policy Development Group (NEPDG), was a task force created by then-U.S. President George W. Bush in 2001 during his second week in office.
> 
> ...



No doubt those records would shed much light on 911. There are certainly others with secrets to be revealed also, unfortunately without the threat of prosecution it will be very difficult to get to the truth. We need a real investigation by a special prosecutor armed with subpoena power.

Those who resist a real investigation either have something to hide or simply don't want to risk finding out their "team" was involved.

I voted for President Obama, but it is obvious that he is willfully or perhaps unwittingly perpetuating the cover up of our nations' greatest crime. Regardless, I am prepared to see all involved prosecuted to the fullest, even if my own ox be gored for I am a patriot.

Those who opposed to an investigation are either criminals or cowards.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 29, 2014)

wihosa said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > *The deepest and darkest secrets of 9/11 lie buried in the records of the US National Energy Policy Development Group which was headed by Rich-Dick Cheney almost from Day One of Bush II.*
> ...



*No doubt those records would shed much light on 911.*

Really? What light would they shed on Osama?

Perhaps they would reveal that Muslims don't like infidels much?


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 29, 2014)

wihosa said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > *The deepest and darkest secrets of 9/11 lie buried in the records of the US National Energy Policy Development Group which was headed by Rich-Dick Cheney almost from Day One of Bush II.*
> ...


They are also well aware there is enough blame for 911 to end both major political parties in the US if an investigation like the one you propose ever took place.

On the morning of 911, General Mahmoud Ahmad the Pakistani who's alleged to be the "money man" behind the hijackers was having breakfast on Capitol Hill will the chairmen of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees; both politicians, one Democrat the other Republican, were later put in charge of public hearings on "intelligence failures."

General Ahmad's leg man in wiring $100,000 to 911 ringleader Mohamed Atta was an ISI asset who went by many names including Omar Saeed Sheikh, the same man convicted for the murder of a possible CIA asset named Daniel Pearl.

If enough Americans become convinced the CIA helped finance the 911 attacks, they may come to the conclusion both major parties have outlived their usefulness to this republic.


----------



## wihosa (Jun 29, 2014)

Let the chips fall where they may. If we, the American public demand this investigation and carry it through to its conclusion we will prove our country the greatest in history.

It's time to wake ourselves from the fiction of the OfficialConspiracy Theory, the worst that could happened is that the OCT is proven true, but that isn't what will happen, once the first domino falls the truth will come out.


----------



## wihosa (Jun 30, 2014)

Going to sleep, up at 5:00. I'll check in tomorrow, try out youtube and see for yourself, you don't have to believe me


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 30, 2014)

wihosa said:


> Let the chips fall where they may. If we, the American public demand this investigation and carry it through to its conclusion we will prove our country the greatest in history.
> 
> It's time to wake ourselves from the fiction of the OfficialConspiracy Theory, the worst that could happened is that the OCT is proven true, but that isn't what will happen, once the first domino falls the truth will come out.


If so, Americans will have a spiritual awakening unlike any other we've experienced so far. It's hard for me to wrap my mind around the level of anger and hatred that will sweep this republic if a majority of its citizens ever become convinced their government facilitated the terror attacks of 911.


----------



## ShootSpeeders (Jun 30, 2014)

wihosa said:


> There are so many "anomalies"to the 'Official Conspiracy Theory' which have gone unexplained as to prove the point that the OCT is nothing but a lie. I do not offer a theory, only a real investigation by a special prosecutor with subpoena power can test the evidence to determine all the facts. But one fact is clear, Building Seven was brought down by controlled demolition. The NIST admitted that it fell at free fall acceleration  which can not possibly occur as a result of accidental collapse due to "normal office fires". It is IMPOSSIBLE!



Of course. Bldg 7 was unquestionably controlled demo and everybody knows it. These idiots here who say otherwise are obvious paid govt shills.  If the govt was smart they'd have admitted the truth about 7 right from the start. Now it's too late.


----------



## ShootSpeeders (Jun 30, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> If so, Americans will have a spiritual awakening unlike any other we've experienced so far. It's hard for me to wrap my mind around the level of anger and hatred that will sweep this republic if a majority of its citizens ever become convinced their government facilitated the terror attacks of 911.



A majority of the citizens came to that conclusion long ago.  But nothing has happened and nothing will happen. 

 What happened after Bush's invasion of iraq was exposed as a based on a huge lie.? That was far worse than 911 but americans said hell with it.


----------



## daws101 (Jun 30, 2014)

ShootSpeeders said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > If so, Americans will have a spiritual awakening unlike any other we've experienced so far. It's hard for me to wrap my mind around the level of anger and hatred that will sweep this republic if a majority of its citizens ever become convinced their government facilitated the terror attacks of 911.
> ...


you should amend that to: "a majority of ill-informed, semiliterate paranoids came to that conclusion long ago."


----------



## Faun (Jun 30, 2014)

ShootSpeeders said:


> Building 7 is the smokiest gun in history and proves beyond a doubt that 911 was an inside job. The govt and  media can censor all they want but thanks to the internet, everybody knows about Bldg 7.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Bullshit.

Here's the museum's timeline of events online. It's at the 5:20pm mark

9/11 Memorial Timeline


----------



## Faun (Jun 30, 2014)

ShootSpeeders said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > There are so many "anomalies"to the 'Official Conspiracy Theory' which have gone unexplained as to prove the point that the OCT is nothing but a lie. I do not offer a theory, only a real investigation by a special prosecutor with subpoena power can test the evidence to determine all the facts. But one fact is clear, Building Seven was brought down by controlled demolition. The NIST admitted that it fell at free fall acceleration  which can not possibly occur as a result of accidental collapse due to "normal office fires". It is IMPOSSIBLE!
> ...


----------



## georgephillip (Jun 30, 2014)

ShootSpeeders said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > If so, Americans will have a spiritual awakening unlike any other we've experienced so far. It's hard for me to wrap my mind around the level of anger and hatred that will sweep this republic if a majority of its citizens ever become convinced their government facilitated the terror attacks of 911.
> ...


*Here's a 2013 poll that indicated millions of Americans don't remember/know anything about WTC7:*

"46%, nearly one in two, are not aware that a third tower collapsed on 9/11. 

"Of those who are aware of Building 7s collapse, only 19% know the buildings name;

"After seeing video footage of Building 7&#8242;s collapse:

"46% are sure or suspect it was caused by controlled demolition, compared to 28% who are sure or suspect fires caused it, and 27% who dont know;

"By a margin of nearly two to one, 41% support a new investigation of Building 7&#8242;s collapse, compared to 21% who oppose it."

New Poll Finds Most Americans Open to Alternative 9/11 Theories ? ReThink911.org | Sign the Petition for a new 9/11 investigation

*Should 90% of Americans become convinced Bush facilitated the attacks of 911, people will be far more critical of the lies he spun to invade Iraq (and Afghanistan)*


----------



## ShootSpeeders (Jun 30, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> *Here's a 2013 poll that indicated millions of Americans don't remember/know anything about WTC7:*
> 
> "46%, nearly one in two, are not aware that a third tower collapsed on 9/11.



Poll???  It's rigged you simpleton.  You really think obama will let a poll admit that 90% of americans know the official conspiracy theory on 911 is a lie.??


----------



## wihosa (Jul 1, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > Let the chips fall where they may. If we, the American public demand this investigation and carry it through to its conclusion we will prove our country the greatest in history.
> ...



You got that right, but what, should we all just pretend? What of our posterity? They will look at the video of B7 and all the hundreds of obvious signs of fraud and think us fools or cowards! Previous generations of Americans had their cross to bear, this is ours. Should we not point out the obvious for fear of ridicule, "oh dear they might call me a conspiracy theorist!, accuse me of wearing a tin foil hat!" Mean while the criminals count their loot. And make no mistake, it was about money, it's always about the money....if there is anything that could lead people to mass murder , it's money.


----------



## wihosa (Jul 1, 2014)

Faun said:


> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...


----------



## wihosa (Jul 1, 2014)

daws101 said:


> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



All you got is calling names. Weak.


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 1, 2014)

ShootSpeeders said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > *Here's a 2013 poll that indicated millions of Americans don't remember/know anything about WTC7:*
> ...


Rigged, really?
A&E 911 is in conspiracy with Obama?
Prove it, Troll.

http://rethink911.org/docs/ReThink911Survey_Results_PressRelease.pdf


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 1, 2014)

wihosa said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...


I think you've put your finger on the question of our time. There's no doubt in my mind a generation of Americans is coming that will see the lies of 911 and ask why those who were alive in September 2001 didn't demand answers. Those answers would be much easier to find before all the principals die of old age; however, that isn't how History has been written, at least until now. If there's one key demographic in this struggle, I think it is probably the US Military and police agencies; if a majority of those with the guns start demanding answers, elites in the US will face a problem they have never seen before...just in time for the next Major Economic Collapse, maybe?


----------



## ShootSpeeders (Jul 1, 2014)

wihosa said:


> []
> They couldn't do that because it is obvious that B7 was part of 911, admit controlled demolition of B7 means admitting controlled demo of the TwinTowers, the missile that hit the Pentagon, no plane crash in Shanksville... Better to try and cover it up, don't show B7 on TV, don't mention it in the 911 Commission Report. But they didn't think about the fact that video of it would end up on the internet forever!



The internet was fairly new in 2001 and the perps didn't appreciate what it could do.  Without the internet no one would have questioned the govt story on 911.


----------



## ShootSpeeders (Jul 1, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> A&E 911 is in conspiracy with Obama?
> Prove it, Troll.



Wouldn't surprise me at all.  Governments do that all the time.  They hire people to be their critics and do a deliberately bad job of it. Controlled opposition.


----------



## wihosa (Jul 1, 2014)

ShootSpeeders said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > []
> ...



Exactly, without the video of B7 there would be no smoking gun evidence. All the other anomalies would have been explained away. And of course coupled with the fact that no one wants to be ridiculed as a conspiracy theorist people would have just given up.
But every time I show Building Seven to people who have never heard of it they do the same thing I did. first they can't believe it, then they won't believe it, then finally, usually after a lot of time they accept it and start showing others.
Sometimes I'm still shocked by it, I hadn't heard about, I just stumbled upon it back in '09 by accident. I'm a contractor and was researching something to do with building and then there is was! I'm like "what?! This happened on 911?! Why didn't I hear about this?!" I spent a few weeks in shock and disbelief, but I kept looking at it. I've done enough construction with steel to know the basics which is enough to know that only controlled demo explains B7.


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 1, 2014)

wihosa said:


> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...


There's a similar experience that Richard Gage had when he took a video of WTC7 to Scandinavia and showed it to a mechanical engineer who was under the impression only two towers fell in New York on 911. When the engineer first watches the video, there's no hesitation when he's asked what he's just seen: "controlled demolition." That's when Richard tells him the full story, and the look on the engineer's face says it all. If Americans ever have an opportunity to watch WTC7's collapse as often as they've seen the other two towers fall, most will come to the same conclusion as that Scandinavian engineer did.

http://www.ae911truth.org/


----------



## Mad Scientist (Jul 1, 2014)

The US lets in massive numbers of Illegal Aliens but you all think that they would NEVER let in Terrorists? You mean like the ones they fund in the Middle East? (ISIS)?


----------



## Faun (Jul 1, 2014)

wihosa said:


> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> > Of course. Bldg 7 was unquestionably controlled demo and everybody knows it. These idiots here who say otherwise are obvious paid govt shills.  If the govt was smart they'd have admitted the truth about 7 right from the start. Now it's too late.
> ...



Ummm .... the video on the Internet proves it wasn't a controlled demolition.


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 1, 2014)

Faun said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > ShootSpeeders said:
> ...


Got a link?


----------



## Faun (Jul 1, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...



Yeah ... the video on the Internet ...


No explosions to bring building 7 down as are visible and audible in an actual controlled demolition. Compare the video above with the one below. 

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eem7d58gjno#t=24[/ame]

Plus, the inside of building 7 collapsed before the outside. Something else which doesn't occur in an actual controlled demolition.

And the last piece of evidence is that truthers are imbeciles.


----------



## ShootSpeeders (Jul 1, 2014)

wihosa said:


> [
> 
> Exactly, without the video of B7 there would be no smoking gun evidence. All the other anomalies would have been explained away. And of course coupled with the fact that no one wants to be ridiculed as a conspiracy theorist people would have just given up.
> But every time I show Building Seven to people who have never heard of it they do the same thing I did. first they can't believe it, then they won't believe it, then finally, usually after a lot of time they accept it and start showing others.
> Sometimes I'm still shocked by it, I hadn't heard about, I just stumbled upon it back in '09 by accident. I'm a contractor and was researching something to do with building and then there is was! I'm like "what?! This happened on 911?! Why didn't I hear about this?!" I spent a few weeks in shock and disbelief, but I kept looking at it. I've done enough construction with steel to know the basics which is enough to know that only controlled demo explains B7.



I had the same reaction when i found out about bldg7.  I about fell out of my chair and said to myself "you mean there was a THIRD skyscraper that collapsed on that day and it WASN'T hit by a plane? Why aren't we talking about this?"


----------



## ShootSpeeders (Jul 1, 2014)

Faun said:


> [
> 
> Plus, the inside of building 7 collapsed before the outside. Something else which doesn't occur in an actual controlled demolition.
> 
> .




Really?  HAHAHA.  You paid govt shills are too obvious.


----------



## Faun (Jul 2, 2014)

ShootSpeeders said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Imbecile, you can see it yourself in some of the videos. The roof collapsed into the inside of the building before the building itself came down. I also note you completely ignored my point about the sounds and sights of actual controlled demolitions and how different they are from building 7.

Truthers are such idiots.


----------



## Politico (Jul 2, 2014)

ShootSpeeders said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > []
> ...



No the internet allowed everyone living in their grandmas basements to spread their lunacy.


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 2, 2014)

ShootSpeeders said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > A&E 911 is in conspiracy with Obama?
> ...


What does that have to do with A&E 911?


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 2, 2014)

Faun said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Your first video shows WTC7  collapsing into its own footprint in about eight seconds, which couldn't happen without controlled demolition. As far as your amateurish comparison with the second video, it tells us nothing about how each of the examples were wired or where the microphones were placed to record the demolitions. WTC7 came down from controlled demolition as an independent investigation into its demise will prove. Maybe you should stop being afraid?


----------



## Faun (Jul 2, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



My only fear is being as stupid as those who believe a building was brought down in a controlled demolition despite the lack of explosions which are plainly visible and audible in an actual controlled demolition.

Again, no explosions are heard. You don't need microphones positioned strategically to hear a series of explosions. Had there been any, they would have been clearly heard. You also don't see any. Again, that's why I posted the second video, to compare building 7 against actual controlled demolitions.

And again, in an actual controlled demolition, *the entire* building collapses in the area where the explosives are detonated. In stark contrast with building 7, the interior of the building began collapsing about 7 seconds before the exterior.  That doesn't happen 8 a controlled demolition. 

But the biggest piece of evidence against a controlled demolition is plain old common sense. To bring down a building of that size would have required a lot of explosives. Those explosives would  have had to be installed prior to 9.11 since no one is going to enter a burning building with explosives, plus it would have required time to properly place them. So the conspiracy goes, I imagine, that someone was planning on bringing building 7 down before 9.11 and used 9.11 as the excuse. That would mean whomever was involved in planting the explosives in building 7 were also involved in the planes hitting the Twin Towers. Well there would have been nothing to gain in bringing down building 7 that wasn't already gained by bringing down the Twin Towers. But that's not where the conspiracy falls apart. The part which fails all common sense is that building 7 burned uncontrollably for about seven hours. The sprinklers failed and fire departments gave up trying to extinguish the blaze at some point. This is where your conspiracy falls apart .... since the explosives would have been placed in the building before 9.11, there's no way in hell those explosives wouldn't have been going off throughout the 7 hours that building burned. In a controlled demolition, all of the explosives used to bring down buildings are done at the same time in order to weaken the structure so the building collapses into its own footprint. If building 7 was loaded with explosives, they would have been going off sporadically throughout the day and pieces of the building would have been collapsing with them. That didn't happen.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 2, 2014)

wihosa said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > ShootSpeeders said:
> ...


false all you've got is the same twoofer bullshit you ass hats have been regurgitating...for 13 years...


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 3, 2014)

Faun said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


EXPLOSIONS were heard and recorded on 911. NIST contrived its study to exclude the possibility of all explosives except for the very loudest. The simple fact of this matter is steel framed skyscrapers don't drop in their footprints without incendiaries being used. Maybe you should stop being afraid of what you don't understand?

https://archive.org/details/AudioEvidenceOfWtcBuilding7Explosion


----------



## Faun (Jul 3, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



The explosions were not from planted explosives. Had they been, the building would have been coming down in stages throughout the day as those explosions were heard. The building was burning uncontrollably for 7 hours. Had there been planted explosives, the building would have been falling sporadically and not have remained standing after 7 hours.


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 3, 2014)

Faun said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


The building wasn't burning uncontrollably at any point during that day.
Fires were isolated and their temperatures were too low to affect steel in the ways nanothermite would. Why don't you tell us how nanothermite turned up in WTC7 dust samples?


----------



## ShootSpeeders (Jul 3, 2014)

Faun said:


> [
> 
> And again, in an actual controlled demolition, *the entire* building collapses in the area where the explosives are detonated. In stark contrast with building 7, the interior of the building began collapsing about 7 seconds before the exterior.  That doesn't happen 8 a controlled demolition.
> .



  The interior collapsed first?  Yes of course - that's how controlled demo always works.  They want the building falling in on itself.


----------



## ShootSpeeders (Jul 3, 2014)

Faun said:


> [
> 
> The explosions were not from planted explosives. Had they been, the building would have been coming down in stages throughout the day as those explosions were heard. The building was burning uncontrollably for 7 hours. Had there been planted explosives, the building would have been falling sporadically and not have remained standing after 7 hours.



???   Has anyone here ever seen controlled demo bring down a building sporadically like this loony is saying?


----------



## ShootSpeeders (Jul 3, 2014)

daws101 said:


> ]false all you've got is the same twoofer bullshit you ass hats have been regurgitating...for 13 years...



And that's all we need.    The 13 year old video of bldg 7 collapsing is the smokiest gun in history.  Only the paid govt shills say otherwise.


----------



## whitehall (Jul 3, 2014)

I went to the 9-11 memorial recently. The line was too long to get into the museum. The big hole in the ground with the waterfall on all four sides didn't impress me too much but a simple gesture of a single flower placed on the name of a victim engraved in the brass nameplates surrounding the memorial was moving to me. Strangely I didn't see a single sign or plaque to explain what it was all about.


----------



## Faun (Jul 3, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



You suffer from some serious delusions. Possibly explains why you think building 7 was intentionally brought down.

At some point, firefighters determined the building was destroyed and too dangerous to enter, so they stopped trying top put out the fires. Also, the sprinkler system was damaged when the towers fell on building 7. Here's some video of building 7 burning out of control.

Here, there's smoke pouring out of most of the 50 stories on south side of the building as firemen can be heard saying that's why they pulled everyone out of there.:

at 2:38, there are fires raging out of control

at 3:37 the fire shown seconds earlier is now seen spreading to multiple floors.


at the 1:33 mark, you can hear: _"look at the hole in that building ... that's gonna come down."_

Here's a video showing the 20 story hole observed in the previous video


More fires:


More fires (at the 1:30 mark, you can see a fire burning out of control and no firemen anywhere around)


----------



## Faun (Jul 3, 2014)

ShootSpeeders said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



        

You're too funny.

When I pointed out earlier how the interior collapsed before the exterior, your reply was, _*"Really? HAHAHA. You paid govt shills are too obvious."*_

Now that you've taken a closer look and see I'm actually right, you try to explain it away with your fantasy about that's how controlled demolitions work.

No, idiot, that's not how they work. No controlled demolition would ever try to bring the interior of a building down first. 

Here's a video of a bunch of videos of actual controlled demolitions ... not one brings the interior down before the exterior ...

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eem7d58gjno#t=24[/ame]


@1:10 is a great shot looking down so you can see the roof. You can see the whole building falling, not just the interior. Now compare that to building 7 where you can see the roof collapse about 7 seconds before the exterior collapses ....


At 0:03, the east penthouse can be seen collapsing into the building ... at 0:10, the rest of the building comes down ...

.... insert your delusions here -->


----------



## Faun (Jul 4, 2014)

ShootSpeeders said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Thanks for making my point. No, controlled demolitions don't come down sporadically. Nor did I say they do. It's your dementia which seems to be leading you to think that I did.

What I did say was had there been explosives planted in building 7, they would have been detonated sporadically and the building would have come down sporadically with the random detonations. The building would not have remained standing for 7 hours and then fallen straight down since the structure would have been weakened unevenly.


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 4, 2014)

Faun said:


> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Once the roofline begins its descent, the building comes straight down through the path of greatest resistance into its own foot print in eight seconds and your delusion is sporadic office fires, right?


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 4, 2014)

"Although Building 7 was never hit by an airplane and had only isolated pockets of fires on about 10 floors, it suddenly imploded  coming down neatly, symmetrically, and completely at 5:20 p.m. 

"The official story, according to NIST, is that WTC 7 collapsed due to 'normal office fires' which created a 'new phenomenon' in high-rise fires: destruction due to thermal expansion of steel beams, leading to the progressive collapse of nine floors. 

"This ultimately caused the failure of column #79  which was followed within seconds by all the rest.

"Some observers had speculated that stores of diesel fuel inside the building might have produced exceptionally intense fires leading to the unusual collapse. However, NIST has officially acknowledged that diesel fuel was not involved. 

"NIST also ultimately concluded that the impact of debris from the North Tower was not a significant contributor to the collapse, although it was blamed for starting the fires. 

"What NISTs top engineers failed to explain  and often even to acknowledge  in their Final Report were the many features of the buildings destruction that are normally seen only in explosive controlled demolitions."

Building 7 Implosion: The Smoking Gun of 9/11


----------



## Faun (Jul 4, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> "Although Building 7 was never hit by an airplane and had only isolated pockets of fires on about 10 floors, it suddenly imploded &#8211; coming down neatly, symmetrically, and completely at 5:20 p.m.
> 
> "The official story, according to NIST, is that WTC 7 collapsed due to 'normal office fires' which created a 'new phenomenon' in high-rise fires: destruction due to thermal expansion of steel beams, leading to the progressive collapse of nine floors.
> 
> ...



I hope you don't mind, but I took the liberty to highlight the bullshit in your post ... While there was *one feature* normally seen in a controlled demolition (that the building fell into its own footprint), you can't ignore the fact that there were also some *required elements* of a controlled demolition obviously missing from building 7's demise -- notably the absence of explosives being set off throughout the building in the seconds before it collapsed.

And again, you can't ignore the fact that there would have been explosions throughout the day, bringing parts of the building down sporadically, had there been explosives planted strategically with the intent of bringing the building down, due to the fires that were burning uncontrollably.


----------



## Faun (Jul 4, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > ShootSpeeders said:
> ...



First of all, the roof collapses about 7 seconds before the rest of the building. By design, that does not happen in a controlled demolition. That alone is a good indication that it was not a controlled demolition which brought down building 7. 

Secondly, I do not maintain it was the fires alone which brought building 7 down ... contributing greatly to its collapse was the fact that a 110 story building next to it fell, pounding it with debris along the way down. That left a hole about 20 stories tall in the building, severely compromising  the structure. Add fires burning out of control (no sprinklers, little to no effort by firefighters to extinguish the blazes), and it's not a shock that a building of that size collapsed because the weight was too much for the lower floors to sustain after that much damage was incurred.


----------



## Faun (Jul 4, 2014)

For a good laugh, check this dialog out ...

*Faun:* _"Plus, *the inside of building 7 collapsed before the outside*. Something else which doesn't occur in an actual controlled demolition."_

*ShootSpeeders:* _"*Really? HAHAHA.* You paid govt shills are too obvious."_

*Faun:* _"And again, in an actual controlled demolition, the entire building collapses in the area where the explosives are detonated. In stark contrast with building 7, *the interior of the building began collapsing about 7 seconds before the exterior*. That doesn't happen 8 a controlled demolition."_

*ShootSpeeders:* _"The interior collapsed first? *Yes of course - that's how controlled demo always works.* They want the building falling in on itself."_​
Too funny!

After first laughing at me for pointing out how the interior of building 7 collapsed before the exterior, and calling me a "paid government shill" for doing so, *shootspeeders then agrees with me that the interior did in fact fall before the exterior.* And then takes it one step further by [falsely] claiming that that is how contolled demolitions are done, evern though there's no evidence that there's ever been a controlled demolition done where the interior of a building was brought down 7 seconds before the exterior.

       

Hey, shootspeeders, now that you agree with me that the interior came down first, doesn't that make YOU a paid government shill???


----------



## ShootSpeeders (Jul 5, 2014)

Faun said:


> First of all, the roof collapses about 7 seconds before the rest of the building. By design, that does not happen in a controlled demolition. That alone is a good indication that it was not a controlled demolition which brought down building 7.
> 
> .



7 seconds!!!!  HAHAHA.  More like 1/2 second.  What outrageous lies you govt shills tell.  But then, you have no choice since your position is so contrary to the facts.


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 5, 2014)

Faun said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > "Although Building 7 was never hit by an airplane and had only isolated pockets of fires on about 10 floors, it suddenly imploded  coming down neatly, symmetrically, and completely at 5:20 p.m.
> ...


There were numerous explosions reported by first responders, and recorded by the media.
There were multiple indications of controlled demolition like the crimp in the middle of the roof line as it begins its descent, and the lateral ejections of steel beams during collapse. I don't see why you think there would have been explosions going off during the time before collapse from isolated office fires on random floors. All the controversy we discuss tells me there are good reasons for an independent investigation into WTC7, but I suspect you don't want that. Why not?


----------



## Faun (Jul 5, 2014)

ShootSpeeders said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > First of all, the roof collapses about 7 seconds before the rest of the building. By design, that does not happen in a controlled demolition. That alone is a good indication that it was not a controlled demolition which brought down building 7.
> ...


Only an insane person would deny obvious visual evidence. Seems shootspeeders is a nutcase.

Here, nutcase ... again, look at the video I posted earlier. It is clearly obvious the roof begins to collapse at the 0:03 second mark while the rest of the building begins to collapse at the 10 second mark. On planet reality, 10 seconds minus 3 seconds is 7 seconds, not half a second.


So let's tally up the damage ...

a) you're a truther

b) you first denied the interior fell first, then said it did, but by design

c) now you're claiming a 7 second delay is only a half second delay

yup, more than enough evidence to dismiss shootspeeders as batshit bonkers.


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 5, 2014)

Faun said:


> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Are you deliberately conflating the east penthouse with the collapse of WTC7's roof-line?
How can you look at the video you just posted and not see a controlled demolition?


----------



## Faun (Jul 5, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



The part which baffles me is why you and I keep going in circles in regards to the explosions. Again, I posted a video with numerous actual controlled demolitions. Presumably, you watched at least some of it. It clearly demonstrates the hallmark of a controlled demolition are the series of [big] explosions a second or two before the building comes down. There were no such explosions seen or heard coming from building 7 a second or two before it collapsed. The explosions you're talking about, the ones picked up by the media, occurred sporadically throughout the 7 hours from when the tower first pounded it with debris until it finally fell.

Also, regarding the part of your post which I highlighted ... if you don't think it was fires which set off those sporadic explosions throughout that 7 hour period, what do you think it was that set them off?

And lastly, your suspicions are wrong. I don't care if it's investigated another 100 times. I have complete confidence that every investigation will result with the same rational conclusions ... a plane was flown into the north tower, a second plane was flown into the south  tower, a third plane was flown into the Pentagon, a 4th plane  was heroically crashed in PA by the efforts of the passengers, and building #7 collapsed due to the extensive damage caused by being pounded by debris from a falling 110 story building combined with fires raging uncontrollably for 7 hours.


----------



## Faun (Jul 5, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > ShootSpeeders said:
> ...


Not conflating, pointing out those 2 events occurred 7 seconds apart. Something not seen in a controlled demolition.


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 5, 2014)

Faun said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Let's concentrate on your video of controlled demolitions.
There are a few facts we would have to know before we could reasonably compare your examples with WTC7:

What were the amounts and what type of explosives were used in the video you supplied?
Where were the microphones that recorded those explosions placed?
Were your demolitions top down, bottom up, or otherwise?


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 5, 2014)

Faun said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...


Why is that?
Do you have a credible source to verify that claim?


----------



## wihosa (Jul 5, 2014)

Faun said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Your argument is weak. It is obvious that the planners of 911 would want to make the collapse look plausibly like a natural collapse, after all they are involved in the worst crime in our history. They would of course endeavor to limit the visible and audible evidence of explosions. The evidence of nano thermite is all through the dust. Nano thermite, a military grade incendiary/explosive, which couldn't have been made in a cave in Afghanistan, has the characteristics to allow the controlled demolition of B7 while limiting witnessed evidence.
As for when the penthouse collapsed, so what if it was seven seconds before the rest of the building. What would it prove?

Let's deal with the known indisputable facts, no plane hit B7, no modern steel framed high rise building in the world has ever collapsed due to fire, B7 did collapse, it collapsed suddenly, straight down, through the path of greatest resistance and at free fall a acceleration. The only explanation which fits the facts is controlled demolition. In order for a building to collapse like B7 hundreds of structural steel connections must fail at precisely the same moment, it is impossible for that to happen by accident.

Therefore your theory (the Official Conspiracy Theory) is impossible, leaving controlled demolition the only explanation.

When you remove the impossible what remains no matter how improbable must be the truth.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 6, 2014)

wihosa said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


bullshit!


----------



## wihosa (Jul 6, 2014)

daws101 said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Ah, there's what passes for a well reasoned rebuttle by the defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory!
Next I suppose you'll be calling me names.

It's time for all to admit the obvious truth. The OCT is a lie. Now let's get on with a real investigation. Let's let the chips fall where they may!


----------



## Skylar (Jul 6, 2014)

> Building 7 is the smokiest gun in history and proves beyond a doubt that 911 was an inside job.



Except of course, that it doesn't. While WTC 7 wasn't hit by a plane, it was hit by huge chunks of the towers as they fell. The FDNY anticipated its collapse due to fire and structural damage by about 3 hours and evacuated the area.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 6, 2014)

> It is obvious that the planners of 911 would want to make the collapse look plausibly like a natural collapse, after all they are involved in the worst crime in our history. They would of course endeavor to limit the visible and audible evidence of explosions. The evidence of nano thermite is all through the dust. Nano thermite, a military grade incendiary/explosive, which couldn't have been made in a cave in Afghanistan, has the characteristics to allow the controlled demolition of B7 while limiting witnessed evidence.
> As for when the penthouse collapsed, so what if it was seven seconds before the rest of the building. What would it prove?



Nanothermite detonates with the explosive velocity of gun powder. Roughly 1/10th that of TNT. Making it sorely unsuited for explosive demolition.

Worse, an explosion, regardless of the cause, would be ludicrously audible. A fire cracker makes more noise than your imaginary 'nanothermite charges'. Actual explosive demolition is obtusely, obviously, ear jarringly loud. The initiation of the collapse of WTC 7 occurred in virtual silence. 

That's not explosive demolition. 

Which the FDNY makes ridiculously clear when they assessed the massive holes in the building torn by falling debris from the towers, and the huge fires burning uncontrolled in the WTC 7. The FDNY attached a transit to the side of the building earlier in the day and measured WTC 7 slow structural failure, its leaning, its buckling. And determined at around 2 or 3 oclock that the building would collapse due to fire and structural damage in only a few hours.

The FDNY was right, of course. No imaginary super secret, ninja silent explosives required.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 6, 2014)

Faun said:


> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...





> That's way, way more than half a second.


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 6, 2014)

Skylar said:


> > Building 7 is the smokiest gun in history and proves beyond a doubt that 911 was an inside job.
> 
> 
> 
> Except of course, that it doesn't. While WTC 7 wasn't hit by a plane, it was hit by huge chunks of the towers as they fell. The FDNY anticipated its collapse due to fire and structural damage by about 3 hours and evacuated the area.


Did the FDNY anticipate the 2.25 seconds of free fall WTC7 exhibited over 8 floors?
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVCDpL4Ax7I]WTC7 in Freefall: No Longer Controversial - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Skylar (Jul 6, 2014)

> Did the FDNY anticipate the 2.25 seconds of free fall WTC7 exhibited over 8 floors?



2.25 seconds of free fall exhibited over 8 floors....according to who? And remember, the collapse of the WTC initiated as the penthouse caved into the center of the building.

And can I take it from your reply that you acknowledge that the FDNY anticipated the collapse of WTC 7 due to fire and structural damage hours before the building came down? That they had measured the WTC 7's leaning and buckling, watched its massive fires, saw the enormous structural damage caused by falling debris from the towers, and concluded that the WTC 7 was going to collapse?

Why then would I ignore the FDNY, who were actually there and correctly predicted the building's collapse by hours....and instead believe a youtube video posted _a decade later _which claims to 'know better'?


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 6, 2014)

Skylar said:


> > Did the FDNY anticipate the 2.25 seconds of free fall WTC7 exhibited over 8 floors?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Are you disputing the fact WTC7 experienced free fall acceleration for 2.25 seconds?
FDNY didn't predict the free fall because they knew it was physically impossible. If you have their data on the leaning and buckling or the size of the enormous structural damage cased by falling debris, link to it
What temperatures were produced by your alleged "massive (office) fires?"
How many entire floors were fully engulfed over how many hours?
Why would you ignore the members of FDNY who currently know more than they did 13 years ago about the controlled demolition of WTC7 and aren't afraid to say so?


----------



## Skylar (Jul 6, 2014)

> Are you disputing the fact WTC7 experienced free fall acceleration for 2.25 seconds?



Obviously. As the collapse of the penthouse is the beginning of the building's collapse. And the initiation of the penthouse collapse to the point where you  acknowledges the collapse began is far, far more than 2.25 seconds.
The penthouse falling into the center of WTC 7 unambiguously demonstrated that the structure's interior was already failing long before you admit it began to fail. 



> If you have their data on the leaning and buckling or the size of the enormous structural damage cased by falling debris, link to it


If you can provide any reason I should ignore the FDNY's assessment of the building's structural failure over hours due to catastrophic structural damage and fire....by all means present it. They measured the building's structural failure over hours by use of a transit. And accurately anticipated its collapse.
What makes your assessment more credible than theirs?

And then explain how any system of controlled demolition could operate while on fire. 

And why no explosive or apparatus of explosive was ever found before, during or after the collapse. Not one inch of blasting wire, not one charge, not one detonator.  Nothing.

Then explain how why the collapse occurred in virtual silence. Explosive demolition is fantastically loud. Yet there were no explosions preceding the WTC 7 collapse. Not one.

Then explain how the Port Authority bomb squad missed the thousands upon thousands of bombs in the WTC 7....despite having gone through the entire WTC plaza with bomb sniffing dogs only a week before 911.

Then explain why there were no girders cut in a manner consistent with explosive demolition, despite the 'explosive demolition' theory requiring thousands of such cuts. 

Your theory is not only contradicted by the evidence, void of supporting evidence and virtually fact free.....its pointlessly complicated and fantastically elaborate. While structural failure due to structural damage and fire is consistent with the evidence, the FDNY's assessment.....and far simpler. As we can affirm both fire and structural  damage. While nothing your theory mandates was ever found to exist.

Occam's Razor. Try it.



> What temperatures were produced by your alleged "massive (office) fires?"


It's not me that alleges it. But the FDNY who reported 'massive fires'. You'll need to give us a good reason to ignore them. And so far, you have none.



> Why would you ignore the members of FDNY who currently know more than they did 13 years ago about the controlled demolition of WTC7 and aren't afraid to say so?



Cite them rather than paraphrase them, and we'll discuss it. I'm more than happy to show you the direct quotes from fire fighter after fire fighter, fire chiefs and captains talking of the massive fires, enormous structural damage, or their assessment of the building's imminent collapse.

Would you like such quotes? Or will you immediately ignore them?


----------



## jillian (Jul 6, 2014)

Skylar said:


> > Did the FDNY anticipate the 2.25 seconds of free fall WTC7 exhibited over 8 floors?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



troofers always think they know better, but know nothing.


----------



## ShootSpeeders (Jul 6, 2014)

Skylar said:


> Except of course, that it doesn't. While WTC 7 wasn't hit by a plane, it was hit by huge chunks of the towers as they fell. The FDNY anticipated its collapse due to fire and structural damage by about 3 hours and evacuated the area.



Hit by huge chunks???  Then why didn't it fall immediately?.  Fact is there was just small damage to 7 and that was all on one side.  No way that can cause a unitary collapse. THINK


----------



## Skylar (Jul 7, 2014)

ShootSpeeders said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Except of course, that it doesn't. While WTC 7 wasn't hit by a plane, it was hit by huge chunks of the towers as they fell. The FDNY anticipated its collapse due to fire and structural damage by about 3 hours and evacuated the area.
> ...



Reread what you just responded to, this time not ignoring the word 'fire' in 'fire and structural damage. 

And 'thinking', why were there no explosions preceding the collapse of the WTC 7? Explosive demolition is enormously loud. Yet the initiation of the collapse of the WTC 7 was almost entirely silent. How is this possible?

_You deal with this massive inconsistency in the conspiracy narrative by choosing not to think about it. _

'Thinking', what system of explosives works while on fire? Detonators would have detonated, blasting wire would have blasted and timers/receivers would been reduced to bubbling pools of plastic. There's a reason why we don't explosively demolish a building while its on fire.

_You again deal with this massive hole in the conspiracy narrative by choosing not to think about it._

'Thinking', where were all the girders cut by explosive demolition? There would have had to been thousands of them. Yet we saw twisted girders. We saw deformed girders. We saw loose girders. But no cut girders. 

_How do you deal with this theory killing hole in the truther narrative? Again, you choose not to think about it._

'Thinking', why where there no explosives or apparatus of explosives found before, during or after the collapse of any building on 911? The Port Authority Bomb squad went through the entire WTC plaza with bomb sniffing dogs only a week before 911 and found nothing. 

_Still not thinking about it, huh?_

'Thinking', why is there no residue of explosives in any of the dust samples from 911? There's sheet rock, theirs rock wool, there's wood ash. The analysis was so precise it even detected medication from the WTC pharmacy. But no residue of any kind of explosive. This despite 10s of thousands of 'bombs' per the conspiracy narrative.
_
You're still not going to think about it, are you?_

I choose not to ignore what you do, instead choosing to think about how awful the 'bomb' theory is as an explanation of 911. How void of evidence it is, how many holes it has, how ludicrously complicated and fantastically complex the theory is.

While 'fire and structural damage' is simple, plausible, and the exact conclusion the FDNY came to on the scene as they measured WTC 7's slow structural failure over hours.


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 7, 2014)

Skylar said:


> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...


Now prove how "WTC7's slow structural failure over hours" resulted in an eight second collapse through the path of greatest resistance with 2.25 seconds of that collapse occurring at free fall?

Please note the word "prove."


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 7, 2014)

"After the east penthouse collapsed, several seconds elapsed, then the west penthouse began to collapse, at nearly the same time the roofline of the building developed a kink near the center, then all support across the entire width of the building was suddenly removed, a vertical swath of windows under the west penthouse were simultaneously blown out, the building suddenly went limp, and (within a fraction of a second) it transitioned from full support to freefall. 

"I am not using the term 'freefall' loosely here. 

"I used a video analysis tool to carefully measure the velocity profile of the falling building using CBS video footage from a fixed camera aimed almost squarely at the north wall. 

"A video detailing this measurement is available at YouTube/user/ae911truth. I calibrated my measurements with the heights of two points in the building provided in the NIST Building 7 report released in August 2008, so I know the picture scale is good. 

"My measurements indicate that with sudden onset the building underwent approximately 2.5 seconds of literal freefall. 

"This is equivalent to approximately 8 stories of fall in which the falling section of the building encountered zero resistance. 

"For an additional 8 stories it encountered minimal resistance, during which it continued to accelerate, but at a rate less than freefall. 

"Only beyond those 16 stories of drop did the falling section of the building interact significantly with the underlying structure and decelerate."

Freefall and Building 7 on 9/11

911SpeakOut.org | The World Needs Truth


----------



## daws101 (Jul 7, 2014)

wihosa said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...


first you have to have an argument (you don't) also you've misrepresented  Conan Doyle's axiom.
when the impossible is removed  I.E. all the specious non evidence backed shit you twoofers have been wallowing in for better than a decade, what's left is 13 guys 4 jet liners
nearly 3000 dead.
now grow the fuck up.. and face reality...


----------



## daws101 (Jul 7, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > > Building 7 is the smokiest gun in history and proves beyond a doubt that 911 was an inside job.
> ...


no 



Some people have said that a failure at one column should not have produced a symmetrical fall like this one. What's your answer to those assertions?

WTC 7's collapse, viewed from the exterior (most videos were taken from the north), did appear to fall almost uniformly as a single unit. This occurred because the interior failures that took place did not cause the exterior framing to fail until the final stages of the building collapse. The interior floor framing and columns collapsed downward and pulled away from the exterior frame. There were clues that internal damage was taking place, prior to the downward movement of the exterior frame, such as when the east penthouse fell downward into the building and windows broke out on the north face at the ends of the building core. The symmetric appearance of the downward fall of the WTC 7 was primarily due to the greater stiffness and strength of its exterior frame relative to the interior framing.

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 Disaster Study), 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 Disaster Study) and detailed in Section 12.5.3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (available at WTC Disaster Study).

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:
&#8226;Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
&#8226;Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
&#8226;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&#8212;compared to the 3.9 second free fall time&#8212;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.
Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation


btw A&e for toof  is not a  scientifically reliable source of information....far too bias...


----------



## daws101 (Jul 7, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> "After the east penthouse collapsed, several seconds elapsed, then the west penthouse began to collapse, at nearly the same time the roofline of the building developed a kink near the center, then all support across the entire width of the building was suddenly removed, a vertical swath of windows under the west penthouse were simultaneously blown out, the building suddenly went limp, and (within a fraction of a second) it transitioned from full support to freefall.
> 
> "I am not using the term 'freefall' loosely here.
> 
> ...


lets see, a non credible faux engineering site and a twoofer blog.....is it just me or do the so called expert sources lack something ......?


----------



## Skylar (Jul 7, 2014)

> Now prove how "WTC7's slow structural failure over hours" resulted in an eight second collapse through the path of greatest resistance with 2.25 seconds of that collapse occurring at free fall?
> 
> Please note the word "prove."



The 'path of greatest resistance'. Um, what direction was the WTC 7 supposed to fall? Sideways? Up? Diagonally?

How far down the tinfoil rabbit hole do you have to be to conclude that falling *down* in the direction of gravity means it must have been a conspiracy?

And of course, the '2.25 second free fall' claims don't work. As the building began its collapse long before you admit it did. With the penthouse caving into the center of the building more than 7 seconds before the facade began to fall. You can choose to ignore this fact. But its not like physics just magically changes because its inconvenient to your argument. 

And I noticed you didn't even bother to try to explain the massive, theory killing holes in the 'bomb' theory. If I was saddled with the nonsensical 'silent explosives that work while on fire and leave no trace, bringing down the building while cutting no girders' theory.....I'd probably avoid talking about it too.

The bomb theory just doesn't work. It's a pointlessly complicated explanation with too many holes, too little evidence that is contradicted by far too much. Rendering it an awful explanation for the collapse of WTC 7.

So what else have you got?


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 7, 2014)

daws101 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > "After the east penthouse collapsed, several seconds elapsed, then the west penthouse began to collapse, at nearly the same time the roofline of the building developed a kink near the center, then all support across the entire width of the building was suddenly removed, a vertical swath of windows under the west penthouse were simultaneously blown out, the building suddenly went limp, and (within a fraction of a second) it transitioned from full support to freefall.
> ...


It's you, as always.
What do you imagine you know about Physics that hundreds of professionals at A&E 911 Truth don't? Tell us how gravity alone produced free fall acceleration during Stage 2 (1.74 to 4.0 seconds) of WTC7's collapse through the path of greatest resistance?


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 7, 2014)

Skylar said:


> > Now prove how "WTC7's slow structural failure over hours" resulted in an eight second collapse through the path of greatest resistance with 2.25 seconds of that collapse occurring at free fall?
> >
> > Please note the word "prove."
> 
> ...


Gravity makes things fall to the ground; is that your best shot?
If your head isn't lodged too far up the government's golden ass hole, tell us how many tons of steel comprised the path of greatest resistance that we both agree WTC7 fell through?


----------



## ShootSpeeders (Jul 7, 2014)

Skylar said:


> [
> 'Thinking', where were all the girders cut by explosive demolition? There would have had to been thousands of them. Yet we saw twisted girders. We saw deformed girders. We saw loose girders. But no cut girders.
> 
> .



Where are they?  They're gone.  Bush had all the criminal evidence shipped out of the country immediately.


----------



## ShootSpeeders (Jul 7, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> [Gravity makes things fall to the ground; is that your best shot?



That's SOP for the govt shills. When asjed to explain the unitary collapse at free fall speed of a skyscraper NOT hit by a plane, they say "there were fires and then gravity took over."


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 7, 2014)

ShootSpeeders said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > [Gravity makes things fall to the ground; is that your best shot?
> ...


"'As documented by video footage, Building 7 collapsed at free-fall acceleration for a distance of more than 100 feet  equal to at least eight stories.' 

'The overall building mass fell suddenly, uniformly, and nearly symmetrical through what should have been the path of greatest resistance  *some 40,000 tons of structural steel.* 

"'According to structural engineer Kamal Obeid, PE, this requires a precisely-timed, patterned removal of critical steel columns  which office fires, a gradual chaotic, organic process, simply cannot achieve. 

"Only a carefully engineered series of explosions (or incendiaries) could cause a steel-framed skyscraper to collapse in on itself  and land mostly within its own footprint.' Building 7 Implosion: The Smoking Gun of 9/11'"

Alex Jones InfoBombed Tucker Carlson with WTC 7, one of the Smoking Guns of 9/11 | Planet Infowars

*I think 90% of Americans could be convinced of the Physics that toppled all three towers, but I seriously doubt the same percentage would ever be able to digest the Politics.

Even so, we should do everything possible to establish the proof while the principals are still breathing.*


----------



## Skylar (Jul 7, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > > Now prove how "WTC7's slow structural failure over hours" resulted in an eight second collapse through the path of greatest resistance with 2.25 seconds of that collapse occurring at free fall?
> ...



For why the WTC 7 fell down instead of say, sideways? If you can provide us with a compelling reason why the WTC 7 should have fallen in any other direction but down, I'm all ears.

Smiling....but you don't.

Nor can you shore up any of the conspiracy killing holes in the bomb theory. No explosions, no explosives, friend. And its a physical impossibility for an explosion sufficient to cut a structural steel I beam in a sky scraper to make no noise doing it. Let alone hundreds or thousands of such explosions, as the bomb theory demands.

Or how any system of explosives could demolish a building while on fire.

Or how no apparatus of explosions were every found, before, during or after the collapse.

Or why the Port Authority Bomb Squad (and their bomb sniffing dogs) found no bombs only a week before 911.

Or why there was no residue of explosives in the dust samples.

Or why there was no girders cut in a manner consistent with explosive demolition.

How do you deal with this army of comic, laughably inconsistencies between your beliefs and reality? 

*You ignore them all and pretend none exist. *A rational person never would.

Laughing....and I'm still waiting for you to give me a good reason why we should ignore the FDNY and their accurate prediction of a collapse due to fire and structural damage....._and instead believe you. _I won't hold my breath.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 7, 2014)

ShootSpeeders said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > [Gravity makes things fall to the ground; is that your best shot?
> ...



A 'govt shill' being anyone who won't drink the conspiracy Kool-aid, huh? For one who offers such lip service to 'thinking', you seem very unwilling to question your own beliefs. Or think about them, for that matter.

I do question the bomb theory. I do think about it. And it can't survive an even passing review of the evidence. 

Oh, and are you claiming that no one had an opportunity to look at the debris before it was removed from the scene? Because you certainly can't show us a single girder cut in a manner consistent with explosive demolition.

And your silly theory requires tens of thousands of them.


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 8, 2014)

Skylar said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...


*How many tons of structural steel comprised the path of greatest resistance in WTC7, Chuckles?*


----------



## daws101 (Jul 8, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


most of them are not at all trained in physics 
to answer you second non question..it didn't for 2.5 sec or there about the north façade met no obstructions so it was no longer the path of most resistance.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 8, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


info wars another NON CREDIBLE SITE..
the principles are dead or locked up..


----------



## daws101 (Jul 8, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


none numbnuts.....


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 8, 2014)

daws101 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


*David Chandler is trained in Physics, are you?*

"After the east penthouse collapsed, several seconds elapsed, then the west penthouse began to collapse, at nearly the same time the roofline of the building developed a kink near the center, then all support across the entire width of the building was suddenly removed, a vertical swath of windows under the west penthouse were simultaneously blown out, the building suddenly went limp, and (within a fraction of a second) it transitioned from full support to freefall. 

"I am not using the term 'freefall' loosely here. 

"I used a video analysis tool to carefully measure the velocity profile of the falling building using CBS video footage from a fixed camera aimed almost squarely at the north wall. A video detailing this measurement is available at YouTube/user/ae911truth. I calibrated my measurements with the heights of two points in the building provided in the NIST Building 7 report released in August 2008, so I know the picture scale is good. 

"My measurements indicate that with sudden onset the building underwent approximately 2.5 seconds of literal freefall. This is equivalent to approximately 8 stories of fall in which the falling section of the building encountered zero resistance. 

"For an additional 8 stories it encountered minimal resistance, during which it continued to accelerate, but at a rate less than freefall."

Freefall and Building 7 on 9/11

*When you say "...for 2.5 sec or there about the north facade met no obstructions..." what do you imagine caused that?

What obstructions was the south facade meeting over those same eight floors?*


----------



## ShootSpeeders (Jul 8, 2014)

daws101 said:


> [info wars another NON CREDIBLE SITE..
> the principles are dead or locked up..



But the US govt is credible?  HAHAHA.  You paid govt shills crack everybody up.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 9, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


David Chandler is a physics teacher, a Quaker peace activist...not physics professor with a phd..  
that is what you need to even be considered as trained in physic and he's not an engineer, designer  of any kind.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 9, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



[ame=http://youtu.be/G8yfNLSp_Pw]Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth: Lies and Distortions - YouTube[/ame]

david chandler is a physics teacher not an engineer or designer .


----------



## daws101 (Jul 9, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


answer #1 the whole south side of wtc7 was peeling away no imagining needed 

answer#2 since the whole south side was falling away the resistance was  negligible.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 9, 2014)

ShootSpeeders said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > [info wars another NON CREDIBLE SITE..
> ...


who's EVERYBODY? 
you and your invisible friend?


----------



## Skylar (Jul 9, 2014)

> "'As documented by video footage, Building 7 collapsed at free-fall acceleration for a distance of more than 100 feet  equal to at least eight stories.'



Nope. The collapse initiated when the penthouse caved into the center of the building. Demonstrating that the structural steel inside the building was already failing. 

You ignore that entirely. A rational person never would.



> How many tons of structural steel comprised the path of greatest resistance in WTC7, Chuckles?
> Reply With Quote



The 'path of greatest resistance'? What direction was the building *supposed* to collapse? Sideways? Diagonally? Up perhaps? 

You know you've reached the end of your rope when you conclude that gravity pulling things down must mean its a conspiracy. 

Shrugs....you're hopelessly stuck, buddy. You can't explain any of the theory killing holes in your claims.

1) No explosions, no explosives. And the initiation of the collapse of the WTC was virtually silent. That's physically impossible if bombs brought it down.

2) No system of explosives can operate while on fire.

3) There were no beams cut in a manner consistent with explosive demolition.

4) There were no explosives or any apparatus of explosives found before, during or after the collapse. Despite your theory requiring thousands. 

5) There was no residue of explosives in the dust samples.

6) The port authority bomb squad went through the entire WTC plaza and found no bombs only a week before 911. And that's with bomb sniffing dogs.

7) The FDNY accurately predicted WTC 7 would collapse due to fire and structural damage 3 HOURS before it came down. Why would I ignore them, and believe you?

Any one of which renders your account a ludicrous piece of obtuse fiction. With all of them rendering it more than than a little silly. Your theory is garbage...and even you can explain how it could possible work. 

Try again. This time try it without the tin foil.


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 10, 2014)

Skylar said:


> > "'As documented by video footage, Building 7 collapsed at free-fall acceleration for a distance of more than 100 feet  equal to at least eight stories.'
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Why do you (pretend) to be confused about the direction "down?"
For the third time:
How many tons of structural steel comprised the path of greatest resistance through which WTC7 descended (that means down) at free fall acceleration for 2.25 seconds across eight floors and for which over 400 structural steel connections failed evenly every second across all eight floors? Maybe you should try some remedial reading classes before embarrassing yourself any further.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 10, 2014)

> Why do you (pretend) to be confused about the direction "down?"



Can I take it from your response that you're *finally* getting that down is the direction gravity pulls things? There's no direction but down that the building could have collapsed. Making your conspiracy more than a little silly.

And I noticed you still refuse to think about, discuss or even acknowledge the existence of the litany of conspiracy killing holes in the 'bomb' theory.  You do realize that these issues still kill your silly conspiracy, even if you close your eyes and pretend they don't exist, right?

Silent explosive demolition is still a physical impossibility despite the fact that you pretend otherwise.

No system of explosive can operate while on fire, even when you screw your eyes shut and refuse to acknowledge it.

No beams were cut in a manner consistent with explosive demolition, even when pretend otherwise.

There was no residue of explosives in the dust samples, even when you ignore the dust samples.

There were no explosives or apparatus of explosives ever found...before, during or after the collapse. Not one. Not ever. Even when you desperately ignore this theory killing hole.

The Port Authority Bomb Squad *still* found no bombs, nor did their bomb sniffing dogs....even when you try and pretend that the bomb squad never existed.

The FDNY still accurately predicted the collapse of the WTC 7 hours before it came down, even when you're determined to ignore the FDNY.

You can ignore all these fatal flaws in your debunked conspiracy. But you can't make anyone else ignore them. Which is why the truther argument fails so consistently.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 10, 2014)

> How many tons of structural steel comprised the path of greatest resistance through which WTC7 descended (that means down) at free fall acceleration for 2.25 seconds across eight floors and for which over 400 structural steel connections failed evenly every second across all eight floors? Maybe you should try some remedial reading classes before embarrassing yourself any further.


For the third time, the collapse took far longer than  2.25 seconds. It initiated when the penthouse collapsed into the middle of WTC 7. Demonstrating elegantly that the building's internal structure was collapsing LONG before the facade fell. 

How do you deal with this simple fact?  Like all the other holes in your conspiracy, you ignore it and pretend none of it exists. 

Its not like anyone reading this thread is simply obligated to ignore these facts just because they're inconvenient to your argument. 

Keep running.


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 10, 2014)

daws101 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


What is the rate of acceleration for "peeling"
Did the south face of WTC7 fall at the same rate of acceleration as the north face?
Do you really believe someone who uses the word "peeling" to explain the observed free fall collapse of WTC7 doesn't need the word imagination?


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 10, 2014)

Skylar said:


> > How many tons of structural steel comprised the path of greatest resistance through which WTC7 descended (that means down) at free fall acceleration for 2.25 seconds across eight floors and for which over 400 structural steel connections failed evenly every second across all eight floors? Maybe you should try some remedial reading classes before embarrassing yourself any further.
> 
> 
> For the third time, the collapse took far longer than  2.25 seconds. It initiated when the penthouse collapsed into the middle of WTC 7. Demonstrating elegantly that the building's internal structure was collapsing LONG before the facade fell.
> ...


2.25 seconds over eight floors.
Is English your first language?
How many tons of structural steel made up the path of greatest resistance through which WTC7 collapsed in about eight seconds?


----------



## Skylar (Jul 10, 2014)

> 2.25 seconds over eight floors.



Nope. The collapse began when the penthouse collapsed into the center of the building. Demonstrating undeniably that the* structure was already falling apart. *The collapse began long before the facade finally fell. Increasing your '2.25 seconds' to closer to 10 seconds.

You still pretend that never happened. And of course, are still running with your tail between your legs from the legion of theory killing holes that obliterate your brain dead conspiracy.

Face it, friend. *The bomb theory is just an awful explanation that doesn't match the facts.* There are no silent explosive demolitions, or bombs that work while on fire, or that don't cut girders, or that leave no residue. Your theory is just garbage. 

Which is why you run. Shrugs....keep running. I'll be here when you muster up the courage to address the enormous holes in your claims.


----------



## ShootSpeeders (Jul 10, 2014)

Skylar said:


> [
> 
> Face it, friend. *The bomb theory is just an awful explanation that doesn't match the facts.* There are no silent explosive demolitions, or bombs that work while on fire, or that don't cut girders, or that leave no residue. Your theory is just garbage.



Everything you said is false. No surprise since lies are all you paid govt shills have.  Everyone who has seen the video of 7 collapsing and knows it was not hit by a plane and was on a separate block from where the twin towers were, knows it was controlled demo.  Nothing could be more obvious.

You're making a fool of yourself.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 11, 2014)

> Everything you said is false. No surprise since lies are all you paid govt shills have.



Everything I said is true. And a 'shill' is just a person who doesn't swallow your silly conspiracy without thought or question. If you had ever bothered to fact check your own claims, you'd realize rather quickly that they just don't work. 

Luckily, you've got me to spoon feed you the research that you never bothered to do for yourself. First, you imaginary 'silent explosives'. Here's a video of *actual* controlled demolition. 

They show it far away, they show it close up, they show it from the left, they show it from the right. And in *every* instance, the charges are ludicrously loud. 

Yet here's the WTC 7 collapse:


Its so quiet that the facade is already falling before anyone even noticed. No explosions, no explosives. 

As for the dust, it was checked. And there was no residue of explosives:



> 45.1% Fiberglass, rock wool (insulation, fireproofing)
> 31.8% Plaster (gypsum), concrete products (calcium sulfate, selenite, muscodite)
> 7.1% Charred wood and debris
> 2.1% Paper fibers
> ...



Sorry, buddy.....but your conspiracy is just an awful explanation. 



> Everyone who has seen the video of 7 collapsing and knows it was not hit by a plane and was on a separate block from where the twin towers were, knows it was controlled demo.  Nothing could be more obvious.



What you keep failing to mention is that the WTC 7 was hit by massive debris from the World Trade Center collapse, had substained catostrophic structural damage and had massive fires blazing in it. You know this, but you really hope we don't. 

The FDNY didn't miss any of those details. 



> The major concern at that time at that particular location was number Seven, building number seven, which had taken a big hit from the north tower. When it fell,
> it ripped steel out from between the third and sixth floors across the facade on Vesey Street. We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing.
> 
> So for the next five or six hours we kept firefighters from working anywhere near that building, which included the whole north side of the World Trade Center
> ...



Odd that your account wouldn't include those details. If your argument has merit, why omit *vital* details , like the fact that WTC 7 had taken massive hits from the falling towers, that chucks of WTC 7 had been ripped away and that there fires raging in the building?

Its almost like you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Or knew, and intentionally withheld that information. Ignorant or dishonest. Have fun picking which.

Now that you've been educated, riddle me this, batman. Why would any rational person ignore the FDNY  and believe you? 

Smiling...because you saw a youtube video? Try again.


----------



## KissMy (Jul 11, 2014)

Capstone said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > [youtube]TH3gRwf4XIA[/youtube]
> ...



You have the facts all wrong. There was more fuel in building 7 than in WTC 1 & 2. 4 tanker truck loads, 20,000 gallons of that fuel burnt inside WTC-7. Your collapse time & distance is wrong.

Also steel will sag in a regular building fire. My barn burnt & most of the steel inside was deformed. Glass melted meaning the temp exceeded 1550 degrees. Pictures from my barn fire below.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 11, 2014)

> Disregarding the absence of fuel or fuel-oil fires in the case of building 7, the design and construction of freeway overpasses aren't remotely analogous to those of steel-framed skyscrapers. Sections of that overpass collapsed onto the road below, mainly because of the lack of physical resistance from below in the spaces between the vertical supports, once the horizontal supports had given way. Building 7, on the other hand, fell straight through what the laws of physics tell us should have been the path of greatest resistance, as if it had been transformed by magic into the path of least resistance.



Um, you're aware that gravity pulls downward, yes? Then how is it 'magical' that the building fell in the direction that gravity pulled? What direction was it 'supposed' to fall?

Smiling...sideways? Up? Perhaps diagonally?

You know you've gone a tad too far down the conspiracy rabbit hole when you consider *gravity* to be in on the plot.


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 12, 2014)

Skylar said:


> > 2.25 seconds over eight floors.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


2.25 seconds of free fall acceleration across eight floors tells you what about the total collapse time of all 47 stories, Sherlock? WTC7 fell straight down through the path of greatest resistance which necessitated that all of the load-bearing columns be broken at the same moment. Had this not happened, WTC7 would have toppled over, damaging adjacent buildings; this, of course, is what the science of controlled demolition is all about since random events like minor structural damage and low intensity fires are incapable of bringing down a 47 story edifice in under seven seconds or about one second slower than a brick dropped from its roof would take to reach the ground in a vacuum.

Like the one between your ears

Friend.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 12, 2014)

> 2.25 seconds of free fall acceleration across eight floors tells you what about the total collapse time of all 47 stories, Sherlock?



Once again, for maybe the 10th time.......the collapse initiated with the penthouse caving into the center of the building. It demonstrated, undeniably, that the building's interior was already collapsing. And that occured *long* before the facade finally fell. 

You ignore the collapse of the interior of the building, the caving in of the penthouse, all of it....because it throws off your time line. But why would a rational person ignore this amazingly relevant detail just brecause its inconvenient to your argument?

They wouldn't. 

Just as they wouldn't ignore the legion of conspiracy shattering holes in your claims. Holes, like the collapsing penthouse, you refuse to acknowledge even exist. Refuse to discuss. And can't possibly explain away.....as they render your conspiracy a physical impossibility.

1) *There were no explosions in your 'explosive demolition'.* The building fell so silently that the facade was well on its way down when people even noticed. Where in actual controlled demolition, the charges are ludicriously loud. Yet the WTC 7 fell in virtual silence. But don't take my word for it...here's a video. How far down is the building before people even noticed?


Silent explosives don't exist. That's physically impossible if it were bombs. Your theory doesn't work.

2) *There were no girders cut in a manner consistent with explosive demolition.* There were twisted girders, there deformed girders, there girders stacked on top of each other. But there were no CUT girders. And that's how explosive demolition works: by cutting the girders with a shaped explosive charge.

Demonstrating rather elegantly, that it wasn't explosive demolition. It couldn't have been. Want another reason why it was physically impossible?

3) *The building was on fire.*



> We walked over by number Seven World Trade Center
> as it was burning and saw this 40-plus story building with fire
> on nearly all floors.
> 
> ...



That means that your theory requires that the *explosives* would have been on fire. And there's no system of explosives that handled buiding fires. Even the most chemically stable explosives would have melted. TNT would have exploded. Detonators would have detonated, any timers or receivers would have been reduced to bubbling pools of plastic.

There's a reason why no building in the history of the world has ever been explosively demolished while ON FIRE. It can't be done. As the materials necessary to conduct an explosive demolition are themselves, ridiculously flammable and susceptible to heat.

Your conspiracy explanation fails yet again. And it gets even worse.

4) *There were no explosives or apparatus of explosives ever found.* Not before, not during, not after the collapse. The WTC 7 wasn't a museum. It was used daily by its tenants. It was maintained by its resident staff. It was inspected, remodelled, and cleaned. And no where was anything your theory mandates by the thousands up on thousands ever found.

Not one inch of blasting wire. Not one foot of det cord. Not a single transmitter. Not a single timer. Not a single girder cut in a manner consistent with explosive demolition. Not one charge.

Ever. Despite your theory requiring thousands and thousands of each. That strains credulity to the point of ridiculousness. All the more so when we get to the fact that.....

5) *The Port Authority Bomb Squad went through the entire WTC plaza with bomb sniffing dogs....and found nothing. *Not one bomb. Not a single apparatus of explosive. Nothing. 

These are men and women *trained* to find these explosives. And its not like the dogs would miss them. And yet they found exactly nothing. Which is exactly what you've got to back your theory: nothing.

And astonishingly, it still gets worse:

6)* There was no residue of explosives in dust samples. *Despite these dust samples being so precise that they could detect medication from the WTC pharmacy, they found no residue of explosives. 

And finally;

7) *The FDNY already determined what the cause of the collapse would be: fire and structural damage* from the impact with debris from the north tower:



> The major concern at that time at that particular location was number Seven, building number seven, which had taken a big hit from the north tower. When it fell,
> it ripped steel out from between the third and sixth floors across the facade on Vesey Street. We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing.
> 
> So for the next five or six hours we kept firefighters from working anywhere near that building, which included the whole north side of the World Trade Center
> ...



They predicted its collapse due to fire and structural damage pretty accurately. How did they do this? The measured its slow structural failure over hours:



> ...also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o&#8217;clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o&#8217;clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.
> 
> Deputy Chief Peter Hayden
> http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html


A transit is a vertical level, used to measure angles. Here's an example of how its used:


They measured the bulging, the buckling, the leaning of the WTC 7. They knew, hours before its collapse, that it was coming down. Now why would we ignore the FDNY, who was there, who saw the catastrophic damage, who witnessed the enormous fires, who put a transit on the building and measured it structural failure.....

....and instead believe you? There is no reason. 

The contradiction of the 'controlled demolition' theory is layered, overlapping, and overwhelming. Its an overly complicated, fantastically elaborate, wildly complex, and physically impossible explanation that is contradicted by just mountains of evidence.

So overwhelming in fact......that you refuse to even acknowledge any exist. You can't ignore these holes in your claims away. Even if you close your eyes, we can still see them. And they devastate your absurd theory.


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 12, 2014)

The collapse of WTC7 initiated with the north west corner of the roof line, and the building collapsed straight down through the path of greatest resistance into its own footprint in about seven seconds.

As many in the FDNY noted:

*"Fellow Firefighters, A great tragedy befell our community on September 11, 2001, an unprecedented 343 deaths in the line of duty. As horrible as that toll is, if there were a rational explanation for it, we could accept it and mourn. 

"We all understood the risk we accepted when we took the oath of office, that chance might cut short our lives when we placed ourselves in harms way in the publics service. 

"This is what we are paid for and it is our honor. 

"However, in short, the official explanation of the events of that day are not only insufficient, they are fantastic and cannot bear rational examination. 

"We are asked to believe that on that day three structural steel buildings, which have never before in history collapsed because of fire, fell neatly into their basements at the speed of gravity, their concrete reduced to dust. 

"We are asked to believe that jet fuel (kerosene) can melt steel. 

"We are asked to believe that the most sophisticated air defense system in the world, that responded to sixty-eight emergencies in the year prior to 9-11 in less than twenty minutes allowed aircraft to wander about for up to an hour and a half. 

"We are asked to believe that the steel and titanium components of an aircraft that supposedly hit the Pentagon 'evaporated'. 

"There is much, much more if anyone cares to look into it. Trade Tower #7 by itself is the 'smoking gun'. Not hit by an aircraft, with only a few relatively small fires, it came down in a classic crimp and implosion, going straight into its basement, something only very precise demolition can accomplish, which takes days if not weeks to prepare. 

"The 9-11 Commission didnt even mention it, and F.E.M.A. actually stated they DIDNT KNOW WHY IT COLLAPSED AND LEFT IT AT THAT.*

Fire Fighters For 9-11 Truth » FF 911 Truth


----------



## Skylar (Jul 12, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> The collapse of WTC7 initiated with the north west corner of the roof line, and the building collapsed straight down through the path of greatest resistance into its own footprint in about seven seconds.
> 
> As many in the FDNY noted:



Many, huh? Because so far, you've cited only Anton Vodvarka, Lt. FDNY (ret). And he wasn't at ground zero on 911. In 2008...he's been retired '15 years +' according to your own site.

While the FDNY that *were* there have a very, very different story. Anton says that there were only small fires. The fire fighters who were there say this:



> We walked over by number Seven World Trade Center
> as it was burning and saw this 40-plus story building with fire
> on nearly all floors.
> 
> ...



Now why would I ignore a guy who was *there* as a professional fire fighter, who looked on the building burning with fire on nearly all floors? 

And instead believe retired Anton, who wasn't there, who hadn't fought a fire for *at least* a decade when 911 happened? 

There's no reason. You're ignoring the FDNY fire fighters who were there because you don't like what they have to say. Where if your actual goal were truth, you'd be eager to listen to their accounts. 

Yet you'll gladly accept a man who wasn't there who didn't fight any fire on 911 over a FDNY officer who was and did......if that man says what you want to believe. Your sole basis of credibility is whether or not a source agrees with you. If they do, theyn even if they weren't there, you accept their account. If they don't, then you'll ignore even direct, expert, eye witness testimony. 

And why does Anton not mention the massage damage to WTC 7 from falling debris? Easy....he wasn't there and doesn't know what he's talking about. But Captain Chris Boyle was there. And does know what he's talking about:



> Boyle: ...on the north and east side of 7 it didnt look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didnt look good.
> 
> Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?
> 
> ...



Huge, gaping holes in the building from an FDNY eye witness.* Whom you will completely ignore. *When you babble about WTC 7 again later, you'll use the same 'it was never hit by an airplane' schtick, ignoring the massive damage caused by the falling north tower. You don't want the truth. You want your conspriacy....even when the evidence contradicts it.

And again....



> ....Captain Varriale told Chief Coloe and myself that 7 World Trade Center was badly damaged on the south side and definitely in danger of collapse. Chief Coloe said we were going to evacuate the collapse zone around 7 World Trade Center, which we did.
> 
> FDNYLieutenant Rudy Weindler of Ladder Company 40
> 
> http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110462.PDF



But you'll ignore LT Weindler, because he was there. And if he was there, he knows your narrative is completely full of shit.....as he explicitly contradicts it.



> also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 oclock in the afternoon, but by about 2 oclock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.
> 
> Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
> Hayden: No, not right away, and thats probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didnt make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.
> ...



But Anton said there were only small fires. Its like he wasn't there and doesn't know what he's talking about.

But he says what you want to hear. So you ignore the FDNY who were there. And accept a guy who'd been retired a decade before 911 ever happened, and never saw anything he's talking about.

Again, you want your conspiracy more than you want the truth. And that's why you fail.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jul 12, 2014)

I really need to check in here more often...George, give it up...

As for the OP "New 9-11 museum never mentions WTC-7!"

I have a question.......Do they mention WTC 6? WTC 3? WTC 4? All of these were destroyed that day, they simply didn't totally collapse....And they had to be demolished or "Pulled" at a later date. Yes WTC 6 was pulled....But it was the only one...


----------



## Skylar (Jul 12, 2014)

> Yes WTC 6 was pulled....But it was the only one...



Depends on what you mean by 'pulled'. In demolition parlance, that means to attach cables to the structure and literally pull it over with a bulldozer. In fire fighting lingo, it means to end your fire fighting effort and evacuate.


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 12, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> I really need to check in here more often...George, give it up...
> 
> As for the OP "New 9-11 museum never mentions WTC-7!"
> 
> I have a question.......Do they mention WTC 6? WTC 3? WTC 4? All of these were destroyed that day, they simply didn't totally collapse....And they had to be demolished or "Pulled" at a later date. Yes WTC 6 was pulled....But it was the only one...


*I thought you might be on vacation, Ollie.
I didn't write the OP.
Apparently, it isn't literally correct as WTC7 is mentioned in its timeline of events.
As far as "pulling" is concerned, Larry Silverstein used the term:
*

"As noted above, when Mr. Silverstein was recounting these events for a television documentary he stated, 'I said, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it.' Mr. McQuillan has stated that by 'it,' Mr. Silverstein meant the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building. [US Department of State]

"There is a problem with the above statement, namely there were no firefighters in WTC 7:

"No manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY." [Fema Report]

"There was no firefighting in WTC 7." [Popular Mechanics]"

WTC 7 - Silverstein's 'Pull It' Explanation Examined


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 12, 2014)

Skylar said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > The collapse of WTC7 initiated with the north west corner of the roof line, and the building collapsed straight down through the path of greatest resistance into its own footprint in about seven seconds.
> ...


*You wouldn't know the truth if it went BOOM BOOM BOOM on your head:*

"CRAIG BARTMER NYPD: "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 shit'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.."

WTC 7 - Silverstein's 'Pull It' Explanation Examined


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jul 12, 2014)

Skylar said:


> > Yes WTC 6 was pulled....But it was the only one...
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on what you mean by 'pulled'. In demolition parlance, that means to attach cables to the structure and literally pull it over with a bulldozer. In fire fighting lingo, it means to end your fire fighting effort and evacuate.



It was pulled. Cables and all......


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jul 12, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Pull it as in yes pull the fire fighters out of there...

And there were no recorded explosions, Hundreds of video and sound recordings and no  Boom Boom boom Boom....

West penthouse went down then about 8 seconds later the east penthouse caved in, followed by the rest of the building and the facade which by that time had nothing behind it to hold it up...It's rather obvious just looking at the full video. not that half video that most truther sites show...Where you never see the west Penthouse cave into the building...


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 12, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...


The penthouses are immaterial.
When the roof line began to crimp in the middle and descend straight down through 40,000 tons of structural steel, it fell at free fall acceleration for about 100 feet. That's physically impossible with or without penthouse distractions.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jul 12, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Immaterial?
The west penthouse fell into the core of the building 8 seconds before a single point on the front facade roofline moved. Now just what do you think was going on during those 8 seconds besides some windows breaking? How many tons of supports gave way in the center of that building for that penthouse to fall into it? And then the east 0penthouse went before the facade also.... If you accept what your eyes see then you got some splainin to do....


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 12, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...


My explanation doesn't require "office fires"; how about yours?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jul 12, 2014)

Your explanation requires explosions that no one could record.


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 13, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> Your explanation requires explosions that no one could record.


There are numerous recordings of actual explosions and eyewitness testimony of hearing explosions prior to WTC7 being "pulled." 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERhoNYj9_fg]WTC 7: Sound Evidence for Explosions - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Dot Com (Jul 13, 2014)

ShootSpeeders said:


> Building 7 is the smokiest gun in history and proves beyond a doubt that 911 was an inside job. The govt and  media can censor all they want but thanks to the internet, everybody knows about Bldg 7.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Its a whitewash for sure. Look who profited from it- connected defense contractors who provide cushy jobs to politicians, likewise for the intel industrial complex, & real estate moguls. Follow the money


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jul 13, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Your explanation requires explosions that no one could record.
> ...



You must understand that the explosions that take a building down do not happen 2 hours before the building falls......


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jul 13, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> > Building 7 is the smokiest gun in history and proves beyond a doubt that 911 was an inside job. The govt and  media can censor all they want but thanks to the internet, everybody knows about Bldg 7.
> ...



You mean the insurance monies that would be used to rebuild the complex and in the mean time the owners do without collecting the rent for all that office space that they had been collecting?


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 13, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...


Did you watch the ten minute video with recordings of explosions that took place seconds before WTC7's roof-line began its descent?


----------



## ShootSpeeders (Jul 13, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> "There is much, much more if anyone cares to look into it. Trade Tower #7 by itself is the 'smoking gun'. Not hit by an aircraft, with only a few relatively small fires, it came down in a classic crimp and implosion, going straight into its basement, something only very precise demolition can accomplish, which takes days if not weeks to prepare.



Yes it really is the most obvious thing in the world. Another disturbing thing about 7 is how the media blacked out the story of its collapse.  They were in on the coverup from the start.


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 13, 2014)

ShootSpeeders said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > "There is much, much more if anyone cares to look into it. Trade Tower #7 by itself is the 'smoking gun'. Not hit by an aircraft, with only a few relatively small fires, it came down in a classic crimp and implosion, going straight into its basement, something only very precise demolition can accomplish, which takes days if not weeks to prepare.
> ...


MSM isn't paid the big bucks to question the government.
Besides, the truth about the biggest crime in US History isn't nearly as important as celebrity gossip.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jul 13, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



I must be death and blind, the sound graph didn't show any explosions, and I didn't hear any....
Now what was going on during those 8 seconds that you don't want to talk about?


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 14, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...


You mean the eight seconds before a 47 story building collapsed into its footprint in less than eight seconds with 2.25 seconds at free-fall acceleration? Why do you think what happened to the penthouses had any affect on the observed free-fall period which would have required 400 structural steel connections over all eight floors to fail simultaneously?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jul 14, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



I mean the 8 seconds that you don't want to count as part of the collapse because it destroys your BS theory.


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 14, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...


The collapse of the penthouses doesn't change the amount of time required for WTC7's roof-line to collapse vertically through the path of greatest resistance in less than seven seconds.
The penthouses are likely distractions designed to confuse rather than illuminate what actually happened.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jul 14, 2014)

LOL now the collapse of the penthouses means nothing? You can't possibly think they simply fell onto the roof?

The penthouses collapsed because the steel supporting them had given way and they fell into the center of the building taking out the support that was holding up the facade, and that little facade roofline that means nothing.


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 14, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> LOL now the collapse of the penthouses means nothing? You can't possibly think they simply fell onto the roof?
> 
> The penthouses collapsed because the steel supporting them had given way and they fell into the center of the building taking out the support that was holding up the facade, and that little facade roofline that means nothing.


What caused the steel supporting the penthouses to give way, office fires?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jul 14, 2014)

Sure wasn't invisible silent explosions.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 14, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


you just keep going with that line of bullshit if it makes you happy ...every thing that happened to wtc7 from the second the first debris struck it till the dust settled are part of the causation.

Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?

Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.

In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses. According to calculations by the investigation team, the smallest blast capable of failing the building's critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile, if unobstructed by surrounding buildings. This sound level is consistent with a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine, and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert.

For the building to have been prepared for intentional demolition, walls and/or column enclosures and fireproofing would have to be removed and replaced without being detected. Preparing a column includes steps such as cutting sections with torches, which produces noxious and odorous fumes. Intentional demolition usually requires applying explosive charges to most, if not all, interior columns, not just one or a limited set of columns in a building.

Is it possible that thermite or thermate contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?

NIST has looked at the application and use of thermite and has determined that its use to sever columns in WTC 7 on 9/11/01 was unlikely.

Thermite is a combination of aluminum powder and a metal oxide that releases a tremendous amount of heat when ignited. It is typically used to weld railroad rails together by melting a small quantity of steel and pouring the melted steel into a form between the two rails.

To apply thermite to a large steel column, approximately 0.13 lb of thermite would be needed to heat and melt each pound of steel. For a steel column that weighs approximately 1,000 lbs. per foot, at least 100 lbs. of thermite would need to be placed around the column, ignited, and remain in contact with the vertical steel surface as the thermite reaction took place. This is for one column . presumably, more than one column would have been prepared with thermite, if this approach were to be used.

It is unlikely that 100 lbs. of thermite, or more, could have been carried into WTC 7 and placed around columns without being detected, either prior to Sept. 11 or during that day.

Given the fires that were observed that day, and the demonstrated structural response to the fires, NIST does not believe that thermite was used to fail any columns in WTC 7.

Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC buildings, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard used for interior partitions.

An emergency responder caught in the building between the 6th and 8th floors says he heard two loud booms. Isn't that evidence that there was an explosion?

The sound levels reported by all witnesses do not match the sound level of an explosion that would have been required to cause the collapse of the building. If the two loud booms were due to explosions that were responsible for the collapse of WTC 7, the emergency responder-located somewhere between the 6th and 8th floors in WTC 7-would not have been able to survive the near immediate collapse and provide this witness account.

In June 2009, NIST began releasing documents in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request from the International Center for 9/11 Studies for "all of the photographs and videos collected, reviewed, cited or in any other way used by NIST during its investigation of the World Trade Center building collapses." One of the items released, a video obtained from NBC News , shows World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7) in the moments before it collapsed, then cuts to the collapse already in progress, with the building's east penthouse "disappearing" from the scene (as it had already fallen in the intervening time). Other videos of the WTC 7 collapse show the penthouse falling first, followed by the rest of the building. Did NIST edit the NBC News video to remove the collapse of the penthouse?

The video footage released under the FOIA request was copied from the original video exactly as it was received from NBC News, with video documentation of the WTC 7 east penthouse collapse missing. The footage was not edited in any way by NIST. 

Did fuel oil systems in WTC 7 contribute to its collapse?

No. The building had three separate emergency power systems, all of which ran on diesel fuel. The worst-case scenarios associated with fires being fed by ruptured fuel lines-or from fuel stored in day tanks on the lower floors-could not have been sustained long enough, could not have generated sufficient heat to weaken critical interior columns, and/or would have produced large amounts of visible smoke from the lower floors, which were not observed.

As background information, the three systems contained two 12,000 gallon fuel tanks, and two 6,000 gallon tanks beneath the building's loading docks, and a single 6,000 gallon tank on the 1st floor. In addition one system used a 275 gallon tank on the 5th floor, a 275 gallon tank on the 8th floor, and a 50 gallon tank on the 9th floor. Another system used a 275 gallon day tank on the 7th floor.

Several months after the WTC 7 collapse, a contractor recovered an estimated 23,000 gallons of fuel from these tanks. NIST estimated that the unaccounted fuel totaled 1,000 ±1,000 gallons of fuel (in other words, somewhere between 0 and 2,000 gallons, with 1,000 gallons the most likely figure). The fate of the fuel in the day tanks was unknown, so NIST assumed the worst-case scenario, namely that they were full on Sept. 11, 2001. The fate of the fuel of two 6,000 gallon tanks was also unknown. Therefore, NIST also assumed the worst-case scenario for these tanks, namely that all of the fuel would have been available to feed fires either at ground level or on the 5th floor.


Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 14, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> Sure wasn't invisible silent explosions.


The explosions were neither silent nor invisible.
Did you notice the pulverized concrete?


----------



## daws101 (Jul 15, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Sure wasn't invisible silent explosions.
> ...


only in your fevered brain.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jul 15, 2014)

at 11:44 am today someone farted in here.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jul 15, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Sure wasn't invisible silent explosions.
> ...



gomers handlers along with dawgshits sure pay him a lot of money for the ass beatings he has been getting here evryday the last several years. no way in hell woulf they keep coming back for them for free.no way not happening. they of course deny reality that they get ass beatings here everyday on this topic.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jul 15, 2014)

ShootSpeeders said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > "There is much, much more if anyone cares to look into it. Trade Tower #7 by itself is the 'smoking gun'. Not hit by an aircraft, with only a few relatively small fires, it came down in a classic crimp and implosion, going straight into its basement, something only very precise demolition can accomplish, which takes days if not weeks to prepare.
> ...



yep,thats that CIA media at work there.according to gomer ollie and dawgshit though,the mainstream media is not controlled by the CIA even though congress found in the 1970's after doing investigations into the CIA's activities,documents that they forgot to black out,showing the CIA has plants in the mainstream media everywhere an in government buildings.but according to them,that never happened in the 70's.

no surprise they dont mention bld 7 since its the crux of the 9/11 coverup the media and government cant get around and just like dawgshit and gomer ollie,have failed miserably everytime to try and explain it.


----------



## Penelope (Jul 15, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> When the towers collapsed, FDNY lost 343 Firefighters
> 
> At that point they were not going to risk another firefighter. Especially in an evacuated WTC 7. The fires were allowed to burn unabated and nobody was going to do a thing about it. Intense fire weakens steel and a weakened structure collapses. That is what happened to WTC 7



Not like that.


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 15, 2014)

Penelope said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > When the towers collapsed, FDNY lost 343 Firefighters
> ...


"As one can observe from the videos of WTC 7's collapse, after the roofline began its smooth descent, the building fell to the ground in approximately 6.5 seconds. 

"This is a phenomenally short time: a stone dropped from the top of the building would have reached the ground (covering a distance of 174 meters) in 5.95 seconds  if there were no air resistance! 

"However, in principle the distance analyzed should be that from the top of the building to the top of the debris pile, not to the ground. 

"As the exact height of the debris pile is not documented, it is more useful to examine the early stages of the collapse, during which the debris pile does not need to be taken into account.

*"According to the video analysis presented in the 9-11 Eyewitness documentary, starting from the state of rest, WTC 7 fell 100 meters in 4.5 seconds. This results in an acceleration of 9.8 m/s2, corresponding to a free fall.*

"To verify this, I examined the fall of a corner of the building in one collapse video using Blaze Media Pro video editing software. The corner fell 56 meters (=the distance between the Start and End lines in the animation below) in 3.47 seconds. 

"This results in an acceleration of 9.3 m/s2, which corresponds to a very low resistance factor of the structural supports: only 5 percent of the force of gravity of the building's falling upper section."

The Destruction of WTC 7: The Destruction of WTC 7


----------



## Skylar (Jul 15, 2014)

> "No manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY." [Fema Report]


Almost. You had to cut the quote in half, omit amazingly relevant details and reimagine the punctuation. But you almost got it. Here's the actual quote, without your creative reimagining, with the bolded portions the parts you removed:



> WTC 7 collapsed approximately 7 hours after the collapse of WTC 1. *Preliminary indications were that, due to lack of water, *no manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY."
> 
> http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf



*Preliminary indications*....which you so conveniently chose to omit. And when you look at the later NIST report, which is much more detailed, they give repeated reference to the FDNY in an around WTC 7_ into the late afternoon:_



> At approximately, 2:30 p.m., FDNY officers decided to completely abandon WTC 7, and the final order was given to evacuate the site around the building. 395, 396 The order terminated the ongoing rescue operations at WTC 6 and on the rubble pile of WTC 1. Firefighters and other emergency responders were withdrawn from the WTC 7 area, and the building continued to burn. At approximately 5:20 p.m., some three hours after WTC 7 was abandoned the building experienced a catastrophic failure and collapsed.
> 
> WTC Disaster Study




An account backed up the FDNY fire chiefs and fire fighters who were actually there:



> Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7 did you have to get all of those people out?
> 
> Hayden: Yeah*, we had to pull everybody back.* It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didnt want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasnt even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didnt know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. I*t came down about 5 oclock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then.*
> 
> ...



Pulled, huh? So much for your insinuation that it meant controlled demolition. Clearly, you  need to inform the FDNY. As they use the term very differently.

And again....



> The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and *I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we wouldnít lose any more people.*
> 
> FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro
> http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Nigro_Daniel.txt



But they didn't pull their people back, huh? The tragic part? You're gonna ignore the FDNY on their own fire fighting effort and cling to your batshyte conspiracy. And it still gets worse for your claims:



> Then we found out, I guess around 3:00 o' clock, that they thought 7 was going to collapse. So, of course, we've got guys all in this pile over here and the main concern was get everybody out,* and I guess it took us over an hour and a half, two hours to get everybody out of there...*
> 
> This whole pile was burning like crazy. Just the heat and the smoke from all the other buildings on fire, you couldn't see anything. So it took us a while and we ended up backing everybody out, and that is when 7 collapsed.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Ryan_William.txt



You say the FDNY meant one thing. The FDNY says they meant another. 

The FDNY wins that contest.


> > WTC 7 - Silverstein's 'Pull It' Explanation Examined


Here's the problem with your narrative: the conversation was between Silverstein and the FDNY. Silverstein obviously didn't 'pull' the WTC 7 per your narrative. That leaves only the FDNY.

Now riddle me this, batman: how many buildings have the FDNY demolished in the history of their organization? Say it with me......exactly zero.

Worse, despite 343 of their own number persishing on 911, *you're accusing the FDNY of being a direct party to the cover up of the murder of their own numbers.*

I double dog dare you to walk up to any FDNY member who was there.....and say that to their face. Its the kind of loathsome, gutless accusation your ilk only make anonymously. And only online. 

Back in reality, Silverstein told them to pull the fire fighting effort. With the FDNY folks on the scene making numerous mention of their effort being 'pulled'. 



> Finally* they pulled us out. *They said all right,
> get out of that building because that 7, they were really
> worried about. *They pulled us out of there* and then they
> regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and
> ...



"They pulled us out." Huh. Seems you may need to do more research. While you're at it, research what 'pull' means in demolision parlance. It means to attach cables to the side of a building, usually no more than 6 to 8 stories high, and literally pull it over with bulldozers. 



> Worker #1: Oh, were getting ready to pull building six.
> 
> Luis Mendes: We have to be very careful how we demolish building six. We were worried about the building six coming down and demolishing the slurry wall, so we wanted that particular building to fall within a certain area.
> 
> ...



WTC 7 was 47 stories high. It couldn't be pulled over with bulldozers and cables. Making the term irrelevant to a structure that large. They're obviously referring to the fire fighting effort. A point underscored by the fact that the conversation was occurring between Silverstein....and the FDNY. And the FDNY chiefs. And the FDNY fire fighters.

Smiling....but you know better than all of them, huh? Remember, and I can't stress this point enough.....you guys don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 15, 2014)

> *You wouldn't know the truth if it went BOOM BOOM BOOM on your head:*
> 
> "CRAIG BARTMER NYPD: "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, here's the problem: in actual controlled demolition, the charges *precede* the collapse. They don't come after it. See, if bombs took the building down, then it wouldn't start falling until the bombs had gone off. Cause and *then* effect. In your scenario, its effect and THEN cause. Exactly opposite of the way reality works. Worse, there are half a dozen videos of the collapse of WTC 7. Not one records any bomb sounds preceding the collapse.

No explosions, no explosives. Its that simple. 

Second, the area had already been cleared. There was no one 'running' from the falling debris of WTC 7. The area had been completely evacuated at least half an hour before the building collapsed. 

And of course, it wasn't Craig's job to assess the building's damage. It was the FDNY's. And there are numerous matching and overlapping accounts on the catastrophic structural damage and massive fires in WTC 7 from the FDNY. 



> ...also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 oclock in the afternoon, but by about 2 oclock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.
> 
> Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
> 
> ...



And again....



> I walked out and I got to Vesey and West, where I reported to Frank. He said, were moving the command post over this way, that buildings coming down. At *this point, the fire was going virtually on every floor, heavy fire* and smoke that really wasnt bothering us when we were searching because it was being pushed southeast and we were a little bit west of that. I remember standing just where West and Vesey start to rise toward the entrance we were using in the World Financial Center. There were a couple of guys standing with me and a couple of guys right at the intersection, and we were trying to back them up  and here goes 7. It started to come down and now people were starting to run.
> 
> FDNY Deputy Chief Nick Visconti
> Deputy Chief Nick Visconti - Firehouse




And again....



> Boyle: ...on the north and east side of 7 it didnt look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didnt look good.
> 
> Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?
> 
> ...



And again...



> ....Captain Varriale told Chief Coloe and myself that 7 World Trade Center was badly damaged on the south side and definitely in danger of collapse. Chief Coloe said we were going to evacuate the collapse zone around 7 World Trade Center, which we did.
> 
> FDNY Lieutenant Rudy Weindler
> 
> http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110462.PDF



And again....



> The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged [WTC Building 7]. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt
> 
> FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro
> http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?id=1521846767-634



And again...



> From there, we looked out at 7 World Trade Center again. You could see smoke, but no visible fire, and some damage to the south face. You couldnt really see from where we were on the west face of the building, but at the edge of the south face you could see that it was very heavily damaged.
> 
> FDNY Battalion Chief John Norman
> http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/norman.html



I'll go with half a dozen FDNY Fire Chiefs whose job it was to assess the the structural integrity of the building, who spent hours doing exactly that.....over one NYPD officer who claims to have 'walked around the building'.

As would any rational person.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 15, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...




Same problems as last time....which you ignore. And then ignoring, pretend don't exist.

*1) There were no explosions in your 'explosive demolition'. *The building fell so silently that the facade was well on its way down when people even noticed. Where in actual controlled demolition, the charges are ludicriously loud. Yet the WTC 7 fell in virtual silence. But don't take my word for it...here's a video. How far down is the building before people even noticed?


Silent explosives don't exist. That's physically impossible if it were bombs. Your theory doesn't work.

*2) There were no girders cut in a manner consistent with explosive demolition.* There were twisted girders, there deformed girders, there girders stacked on top of each other. But there were no CUT girders. And that's how explosive demolition works: by cutting the girders with a shaped explosive charge.

Demonstrating rather elegantly, that it wasn't explosive demolition. It couldn't have been. Want another reason why it was physically impossible?

*3) The building was on fire.*



> We walked over by number Seven World Trade Center
> as it was burning and saw this 40-plus story building with fire
> on nearly all floors.
> 
> Lt. Robert Larocco



That means that your theory requires that the *explosives* would have been on fire. And there's no system of explosives that handled buiding fires. Even the most chemically stable explosives would have melted. TNT would have exploded. Detonators would have detonated, any timers or receivers would have been reduced to bubbling pools of plastic.

There's a reason why no building in the history of the world has ever been explosively demolished while ON FIRE. It can't be done. As the materials necessary to conduct an explosive demolition are themselves, ridiculously flammable and susceptible to heat.

Your conspiracy explanation fails yet again. And it gets even worse.

*4) There were no explosives or apparatus of explosives ever found.* Not before, not during, not after the collapse. The WTC 7 wasn't a museum. It was used daily by its tenants. It was maintained by its resident staff. It was inspected, remodelled, and cleaned. And no where was anything your theory mandates by the thousands up on thousands ever found.

Not one inch of blasting wire. Not one foot of det cord. Not a single transmitter. Not a single timer. Not a single girder cut in a manner consistent with explosive demolition. Not one charge.

Ever. Despite your theory requiring thousands and thousands of each. That strains credulity to the point of ridiculousness. All the more so when we get to the fact that.....

*5) The Port Authority Bomb Squad went through the entire WTC plaza with bomb sniffing dogs....and found nothing. *Not one bomb. Not a single apparatus of explosive. Nothing.

These are men and women *trained* to find these explosives. And its not like the dogs would miss them. And yet they found exactly nothing. Which is exactly what you've got to back your theory: nothing.

And astonishingly, it still gets worse:

*6) There was no residue of explosives in dust samples. *Despite these dust samples being so precise that they could detect medication from the WTC pharmacy, they found no residue of explosives.

And finally;

*7) The FDNY already determined what the cause of the collapse would be: fire and structural damage from the impact with debris from the north tower:*



> The major concern at that time at that particular location was number Seven, building number seven, which had taken a big hit from the north tower. When it fell,
> it ripped steel out from between the third and sixth floors across the facade on Vesey Street. We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing.
> 
> So for the next five or six hours we kept firefighters from working anywhere near that building, which included the whole north side of the World Trade Center
> ...



They predicted its collapse due to fire and structural damage pretty accurately. How did they do this? The measured its slow structural failure over hours:



> ...also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 oclock in the afternoon, but by about 2 oclock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.
> 
> Deputy Chief Peter Hayden



A transit is a vertical level, used to measure angles. Here's an example of how its used:


They measured the bulging, the buckling, the leaning of the WTC 7. They knew, hours before its collapse, that it was coming down. Now why would we ignore the FDNY, who was there, who saw the catastrophic damage, who witnessed the enormous fires, who put a transit on the building and measured it structural failure.....

....and instead believe you? There is no reason.

The contradiction of the 'controlled demolition' theory is layered, overlapping, and overwhelming. Its an overly complicated, fantastically elaborate, wildly complex, and physically impossible explanation that is contradicted by just mountains of evidence.

So overwhelming in fact......that you refuse to even acknowledge any exist. You can't ignore these holes in your claims away. Even if you close your eyes, we can still see them. And they devastate your absurd theory.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jul 16, 2014)

So overwhelming in fact......that you refuse to even acknowledge any exist. You can't ignore these holes in your claims away. Even if you close your eyes, we can still see them. And they devastate your absurd theory. 

sure was fun watching you hand agent rightwinger his ass to him on a platter.simple as pie to do.welcome to the fairy tale land agent rightwinger lives in.a troll that refuses to acknowledge facts that exist,ignores holes that shoot through the 9/11 coverups commission,and closes his eyes to those holes.  

Believe me it would be most constructive talking to people about this who will actually listen and acknowledge the facts.you might as well be talking to a wall when you talk to agent right winger about this.same with gomer pyle ollie and dawgshit.its so obvious those guys are paid by their handlers to come and troll these threads.

they kind of give that away in the fact that they all still endorce the lies of the warren commission that oswald was the lone assassin. seriously,they actually defend THAT version as well even though 80% of americans no longer believe that fairy tale anymore.

do you really expect to get anywhere with a troll like that who actually believes in magic bullets?  they defend ANY government version such as 9/11 or JFK no matter how absurd the government and medias version is,that tells you something right there what a bunch of trolls they are.

their arrogant attitide is they're right and everybody else is wrong,if our corrupt government institutions and CIA media said it happened such and such way,that makes it automatically true.high qualified experts views who dont accept the official version means nothing to them.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 16, 2014)

> sure was fun watching you hand agent rightwinger his ass to him on a platter.simple as pie to do.welcome to the fairy tale land agent rightwinger lives in.a troll that refuses to acknowledge facts that exist,ignores holes that shoot through the 9/11 coverups commission,and closes his eyes to those holes.



You're clearly not reading my posts. Try again, this time not skimping over the FDNY's assessment that the WTC 7 collapsed due to fire and structural damage. 

Or the fact that the WTC 7 began falling in virtual silence. No explosions, no explosives after all!

Or that the Port authority bomb squad went through the entire WTC  plaza with bomb sniffing dogs and found nothing only a week before the collapse....

Or that no residue of explosives was found in the dust samples.....

Or that no girders were cut in a manner consistent with explosive demolition....

Or that no explosives or apparatus of explosives were ever found before, during or after the collapse.....

Or that the WTC 7 was on fire, meaning that any system of explosives you make up was also on fire. And explosives and fire don't play well together.

Any one of which demonstrates the absurdity of the truther conspiracy. And you can't explain any of them.


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 16, 2014)

Skylar said:


> > sure was fun watching you hand agent rightwinger his ass to him on a platter.simple as pie to do.welcome to the fairy tale land agent rightwinger lives in.a troll that refuses to acknowledge facts that exist,ignores holes that shoot through the 9/11 coverups commission,and closes his eyes to those holes.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And you can't link to any official FDNY document claiming that WTC7 collapsed through its path of greatest resistance in less than seven seconds because of office fires. Apparently, you're ignorant of how many tons of structural steel made up the path of greatest resistance. Why would anyone waste time on what you don't know?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jul 16, 2014)

Skylar said:


> > sure was fun watching you hand agent rightwinger his ass to him on a platter.simple as pie to do.welcome to the fairy tale land agent rightwinger lives in.a troll that refuses to acknowledge facts that exist,ignores holes that shoot through the 9/11 coverups commission,and closes his eyes to those holes.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



rightwingers name was listed there and it looked like you told him he was nuts so i just assumed you were arguing with him.well now that i know you are the newest government disinformation paid  trolls to penetrate this site now so that makes you the newest one to add to my ignore list.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jul 16, 2014)

like fellow government disinfo agents dawgshit,rightwinger,and gomer pyle ollie,you obviously believe in magic bullets as well the fact just like them,you dont know anything at all about the laws of physics which were violated in BOTH cases.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 20, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...




The collapsing penthouse proves that the internal structure of the building was already failing. Remember, the penthouse collapsed INTO WTC 7. And in all likelyhood, the collapse began far before the penthouse collapse. The FDNY had been measuring the building's leaning, buckling and slow structural failure_ over hours.
_
You're only acknowledging the final collapse of the building's facade, and ignoring everything that lead up to it. No person actually interested in the building's collapse would do this. You're fronting a conspiracy that doesn't work. And when confronted with theory killing holes in your conspiracy....

....you ignore them all and keep pretending none exist.

Most folks aren't inclined to pretend with you.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 20, 2014)

9/11 inside job said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > > sure was fun watching you hand agent rightwinger his ass to him on a platter.simple as pie to do.welcome to the fairy tale land agent rightwinger lives in.a troll that refuses to acknowledge facts that exist,ignores holes that shoot through the 9/11 coverups commission,and closes his eyes to those holes.
> ...



A 'paid troll' being anyone who doesn't ape your conspiracy? C'mon guy......I'll gladly shred your nonsense conspiracy for free. You'd be surprised how little effort it requires.

And notice you don't actually shore up any of the theory killing holes in your claims. You can't. All you can do is fling pointless, childish insults at anyone who thinks, or questions, or points out that your theory just doesn't work.

If your claims had merit, you wouldn't need to.


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 20, 2014)

Skylar said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...


You're ignoring the fact that scattered office fires can't collapse a 47 story building in less than seven seconds through its path of greatest resistance. Have you discovered how many tons of structural steel comprised WTC7's path of greatest resistance? You also ignore the documented free-fall acceleration of WTC7 over 2.25 seconds and 100 feet. What does the FDNY say about that?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jul 20, 2014)

I would love to see where WTC 7 went down in only 7 seconds....

The only way that works is if you do not count the penthouses as part of the building, and it is obvious to anyone that they were the beginning of the visible collapse a full 8 seconds before your 7 seconds of facade falling.

So there's at least 15 seconds and lord knows how long before the penthouses went that it started....


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 20, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> I would love to see where WTC 7 went down in only 7 seconds....
> 
> The only way that works is if you do not count the penthouses as part of the building, and it is obvious to anyone that they were the beginning of the visible collapse a full 8 seconds before your 7 seconds of facade falling.
> 
> So there's at least 15 seconds and lord knows how long before the penthouses went that it started....


A full eight seconds before the 2.25 seconds of free-fall acceleration that could only have happened if 400 structural steel connections failed evenly every second across all eight floors.
Maybe the collapsing penthouses are part of those 2.25 seconds of free-fall?


----------



## ShootSpeeders (Jul 20, 2014)

Skylar said:


> The collapsing penthouse proves that the internal structure of the building was already failing. Remember, the penthouse collapsed INTO WTC 7. And in all likelyhood, the collapse began far before the penthouse collapse. The FDNY had been measuring the building's leaning, buckling and slow structural failure_ over hours.
> _
> .



Making stuff up again. No one had been measuring the building's buckling for hours.!!!  You paid govt shills are hilarious.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jul 20, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > I would love to see where WTC 7 went down in only 7 seconds....
> ...



But it didn't fall evenly, anyone looking at the full videos can see the east penthouse fall and windows breaking form stuff failing from east to west, then the west penthouse falling just before the facade roofline finally has to go because there is nothing left to hold it up...


----------



## Skylar (Jul 20, 2014)

ShootSpeeders said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > The collapsing penthouse proves that the internal structure of the building was already failing. Remember, the penthouse collapsed INTO WTC 7. And in all likelyhood, the collapse began far before the penthouse collapse. The FDNY had been measuring the building's leaning, buckling and slow structural failure_ over hours.
> ...



No, just not ignoring the overwhelming evidence that contradicts your silly conspiracy. 



> ...also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. *Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. *You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 oclock in the afternoon, but by about 2 oclock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.
> 
> Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
> 
> ...



With the building's lack of structural integrity confirmed by others:



> The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged [WTC Building 7]. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt
> 
> FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro
> http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/e...1521846767-634



There are many, many more accounts of damage, massive fire, and the lack of structural integrity. And in a couple more days, when you hope everyone has forgotten.....you'll pretend you've never read it, the FDNY never said it, and start repeated the same tired shyte.

Which is why I'm not posting this for you. You're a hapless shill so married to his conspiracy that he's committed to ignore anything anything to keep polishing his little turd of a conspiracy. I'm posting for those folks who are interested in what actually happened. 

And the FDNY lays it out pretty clearly: fire and structural damage brought down the building.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 20, 2014)

> You're ignoring the fact that scattered office fires can't collapse a 47 story building in less than seven seconds through its path of greatest resistance. Have you discovered how many tons of structural steel comprised WTC7's path of greatest resistance? You also ignore the documented free-fall acceleration of WTC7 over 2.25 seconds and 100 feet. What does the FDNY say about that?



Same problem as always: you ignore when the building's collapse actually began. *With the penthouse falling into the middle of WTC 7. *Unambiguous and irrefutable evidence that the structure of WTC 7 was already collapsing BEFORE the facade fell.

And you ignore it entirely. Why? Because it obliterates your entire time line. 

Just like you completely ignore the virtual silence of the initiation of WTC 7's collapse. Not explosions, no explosives.

Just like you ignore the FDNY who determined the building would collapse from fire and structural damage.....and accurately predicted its collapse within about an hour. 

Just like you ignore the Port Authority bomb squad and their bomb sniffing dogs that found no bombs in the entire WTC plaza only a week before the collapse. 

Just like you ignore the fact that there were no girders cut in a manner consistent with explosive demolition. 

Just like you ignore the fact that there was no residue of explosives found in dust samples. 

Just like you ignore the fact that the building was ON FIRE when it collapsed. Which means that your 'explosives' would have been on fire. Yet another deal breaker.

Keep pretending, buddy. But just because you close your eyes doesn't mean the world disappears.


----------



## Faun (Jul 21, 2014)

wihosa said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


Complete and utter nonsense ... while it's true that no modern day steel framed high rise  ever collapsed due to fire; it's also true that until 9.11, no modern day steel framed high rise ever had a 110 story building collapse next to it and rain debris on it along the way down.

That you conspiracy nutcases so casually dismiss that catastrophic element of building seven's demise goes a long way in revealing your pathology.


----------



## Faun (Jul 21, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> The collapse of WTC7 initiated with the north west corner of the roof line, and the building collapsed straight down through the path of greatest resistance...


Pure insanity. The *east * end of the building can be seen collapsing with the east penthouse crumbling into the interior of the building. *That * was the initial collapse, not the northwest corner of the roofline.

That alone renders your benign position as either an intentional lie or a massive delusion. Either way, it completely undermines your nonsensical conspiracy.


----------



## Faun (Jul 21, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


Sorry, but you don't get to dismiss the evidence which destroys your conspiracy. Since the interior of the building was already compromised and collapsing, as evidenced by the many videos posted on the Internet, you have absolutely no idea how much resistance the remainder of the building faced when the rest of it succumbed to gravity.


----------



## Faun (Jul 21, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...


Umm ... those sounds of _"explosions"_ were the sound of the interior of the building collapsing.


----------



## Faun (Jul 21, 2014)

Skylar said:


> > "No manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY." [Fema Report]
> 
> 
> Almost. You had to cut the quote in half, omit amazingly relevant details and reimagine the punctuation. But you almost got it. Here's the actual quote, without your creative reimagining, with the bolded portions the parts you removed:
> ...



Merciless.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 21, 2014)

GP and his minions must really enjoy a good ass whippin!


----------

