Who What Where When Why: Official WTC 7 Destruction Makes No Sense

[MediaGuy]

Forget getting into who did what - why is this aspect completely ignored? There's no back up evidence for this building collapsing because of damage or carpet fires... but there is other evidence not addressed... including evidence the government (NIST) admits but doesn't follow up on (freefall for example).

[L-Pink]

Until #7 is adequately explained I view the entire 9/11 episode with suspicion.


.

[porno jew]

it has been explained ad nauseum, but those who just search out youtube videos to buffer their preconceptions will never see that.

[Failed]

Originally Posted by porno jew

it has been explained ad nauseum, but those who just search out youtube videos to buffer their preconceptions will never see that.

Post the explanation.

[MrMaxwell]

The time for debate has long passed.
Or to put it into GFY Speak "Time for teh debating has past long."

[MediaGuy]

Originally Posted by porno jew

it has been explained ad nauseum, but those who just search out youtube videos to buffer their preconceptions will never see that.

Oh no no no it has NOT been explained - not in the very least.

Show me.

.

[WarChild]

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

Forget getting into who did what - why is this aspect completely ignored? There's no back up evidence for this building collapsing because of damage or carpet fires... but there is other evidence not addressed... including evidence the government (NIST) admits but doesn't follow up on (freefall for example).

You might start by actually reading the NIST report, because it absolutely does NOT say the building fell at freefall speed.

As for a the very few vocal minority of Engineers et all saying it wasn't explained, you have to dismiss the vast majority that don't agree with that position.

I'm not going to argue with you about it there's no sense. Believe what you want, it really makes no difference.

[MrCain]

I always thought those 911truthers were crazy until I started reading up on building 7.

[ottopottomouse]

Worse than arguing about religion.

[MediaGuy]

Originally Posted by MrCain

I always thought those 911truthers were crazy until I started reading up on building 7.

Unbelievably, so did Geraldo Rivera...


:D

[porno jew]

google it. i'm not your bitch. plenty of debunking sites out there. of course you wont read them as the are just cia front operations.

[seeandsee]

Originally Posted by porno jew

google it. i'm not your bitch. plenty of debunking sites out there. of course you wont read them as the are just cia front operations.

then fucking post your explanation, if you already know it, dont go now, post it!

[Failed]

Originally Posted by porno jew

google it. i'm not your bitch. plenty of debunking sites out there. of course you wont read them as the are just cia front operations.

"I'm right because I say so. I won't post proof. Prove me wrong."

I like your argument sir

[MediaGuy]

Originally Posted by WarChild

You might start by actually reading the NIST report, because it absolutely does NOT say the building fell at freefall speed.

You might have read one of the NIST reports, whose version of events changed a few times btw - but apparently you didn't read the final report - which was prompted by NIST frontman Shyan Sunder being publically confronted by a high school physics teacher on the matter.

Final Report:
http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610
Goto page 45

NIST announces stage 2 as gravitational acceleration. It's couched in all this sciencespeak so they don't have to make any conclusions from the fact, but there it is.

On http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/f..._qa_082108.cfm NIST defines or "simplifies" gravitional acceleration as "free fall".

Originally Posted by WarChild

As for a the very few vocal minority of Engineers et all saying it wasn't explained, you have to dismiss the vast majority that don't agree with that position.

Problem is that the majority of these people have simply not looked at the evidence, from not believing the possibility.

Most of those who are vocal in demanding at least an investigation (which was never actually conductied) were once in denial until they were presented with the facts.

Originally Posted by WarChild

I'm not going to argue with you about it there's no sense. Believe what you want, it really makes no difference.

You can't really believe it makes no difference whether the building/s was/were destroyed "naturally" or if they were demolished...

:D

[WarChild]

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

You might have read one of the NIST reports, whose version of events changed a few times btw - but apparently you didn't read the final report - which was prompted by NIST frontman Shyan Sunder being publically confronted by a high school physics teacher on the matter.

Final Report:
http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610
Goto page 45

NIST announces stage 2 as gravitational acceleration. It's couched in all this sciencespeak so they don't have to make any conclusions from the fact, but there it is.

On http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/f..._qa_082108.cfm NIST defines or "simplifies" gravitional acceleration as "free fall".



Problem is that the majority of these people have simply not looked at the evidence, from not believing the possibility.

Most of those who are vocal in demanding at least an investigation (which was never actually conductied) were once in denial until they were presented with the facts.



You can't really believe it makes no difference whether the building/s was/were destroyed "naturally" or if they were demolished...

:D

It's right there on the page you quoted. You can't just take one stage of the building falling and ignore the remaining two.

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.

The building did not fall at free fall speeds. It fell 40% slower.

[MediaGuy]

Originally Posted by WarChild

It's right there on the page you quoted. You can't just take one stage of the building falling and ignore the remaining two.



The building did not fall at free fall speeds. It fell 40% slower.

It fell fell 40% slower than gravity only during stage 1 - in stage 2 it fell at free fall speed. Thus, NIST finally admitted in 2010 that yes there was free fall.

Free fall can't happen during gravitational collapse - and NIST never explains why this occurred during a "normal" collapse.

[Scott McD]

So, can i ask who knocked it down and why then?

I never get these arguments at all.

[WarChild]

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

It fell fell 40% slower than gravity only during stage 1 - in stage 2 it fell at free fall speed. Thus, NIST finally admitted in 2010 that yes there was free fall.

Free fall can't happen during gravitational collapse - and NIST never explains why this occurred during a "normal" collapse.

Okay you're totally right you blew the whole thing wide open here on GFY. Congrats man, you're super smart. I'm done arguing with you, there's no point.

[Emil]

It's so obvious that it was a controlled demolition, just look at the video...

[Failed]

Originally Posted by Scott McD

So, can i ask who knocked it down and why then?

I never get these arguments at all.

Our own government. Sounds crazy right? Read this article...

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662&page=1

They've planned to do it before.

[bronco67]

It's 10 years later...

[Failed]

Originally Posted by bronco67

It's 10 years later...

Read the article of what we found out 40 years later.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662&page=1

When people stop asking questions, then we're all in trouble.

[MediaGuy]

Originally Posted by Scott McD

So, can i ask who knocked it down and why then?

I never get these arguments at all.

You can ask but "proof" isn't so obvious... just follow the facts, and follow the money... but an investigation is what's needed, really.

Originally Posted by WarChild

Okay you're totally right you blew the whole thing wide open here on GFY. Congrats man, you're super smart.

Uh... no. Apparently there's many others who first "blew the whole thing wide open" though you won't hear about it on NBC - I just posted a vid.

Originally Posted by WarChild

I'm done arguing with you, there's no point.

So why start?? If you don't look at the facts, and tell me I'm an idiot for not believing the non-facts you believe in, why bother?

This is like this intelligent design anti-evolution bullshit they're pushing in US schools lately.

:D

[theking]

Originally Posted by porno jew

it has been explained ad nauseum, but those who just search out youtube videos to buffer their preconceptions will never see that.

You are correct..yes it has. For whatever their reason/reasons some people prefer to believe otherwise.

[porno jew]

Originally Posted by Failed

"I'm right because I say so. I won't post proof. Prove me wrong."

I like your argument sir

no you are part of an online cult and is pointless as arguing with a moonie passing out flyers on the street.

if you want to leave the cult and need to talk about it you can email me however.

[MediaGuy]

Originally Posted by theking

You are correct..yes it has. For whatever their reason/reasons some people prefer to believe otherwise.

Originally Posted by porno jew

no you are part of an online cult and is pointless as arguing with a moonie passing out flyers on the street.

if you want to leave the cult and need to talk about it you can email me however.

See... this is funny. Guys like you absolutely refuse to argue with facts.... you accuse people who would like to see an investigation of the worst criminal act in US history of being crazy and pointless to argue with, but you provide no facts of your own.

This is serious stuff... but you just won't consider it. Why?

:D

[Failed]

Originally Posted by porno jew

no you are part of an online cult and is pointless as arguing with a moonie passing out flyers on the street.

if you want to leave the cult and need to talk about it you can email me however.

It's impossible to argue with someone who doesn't present any facts to argue about.

[MediaGuy]

Anothier thing: why have we never ever revised everything we knew about building design after 9/11:

;D

[PornoStar69]

google false flag terrorism

google 1993 wtc bombing Emad Salem tape

google operation northwoods

google New World Order

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

Forget getting into who did what - why is this aspect completely ignored? There's no back up evidence for this building collapsing because of damage or carpet fires... but there is other evidence not addressed... including evidence the government (NIST) admits but doesn't follow up on (freefall for example).

i'm all for investigating, check it out till the end of time.

but to say the nist explanation is bunk & stating it was a nano-thermite controlled demo?

pfft.

[theking]

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

Anothier thing: why have we never ever revised everything we knew about building design after 9/11:

;D

The towers were a new structural design when they were built...and my confidence level is high that the current tower being built will not be built with the same structural design...but of course the structural designs to build a high rise are not infinite...so I seriously doubt that "everything" can be revised.

[porno jew]

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

See... this is funny. Guys like you absolutely refuse to argue with facts.... you accuse people who would like to see an investigation of the worst criminal act in US history of being crazy and pointless to argue with, but you provide no facts of your own.

This is serious stuff... but you just won't consider it. Why?

:D

i have done it hundreds of time but it doesn't matter.

basically anything i post wont be read. and if read not understood. usually just say it's government black-ops propaganda.

you can use google. any of the so-called conspiracy facts have been debunked on dozens of sites and articles.

you are part of an online cult. nothing i say will sway you until you decide to leave it.

[PornoStar69]

Go on Youtube search for ''WTC FLASHES''

You clearly see the demolition flashes


When will you Americans wake up to the grand conspiracy

illuminati must be partying 24/7

[DBS.US]

Originally Posted by Emil

It's so obvious that it was a controlled demolition, just look at the video...

Sheep don't watch videos

[MediaGuy]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

i'm all for investigating, check it out till the end of time.

but to say the nist explanation is bunk & stating it was a nano-thermite controlled demo?

pfft.

Who here said nano-thermite? Certainly it makes more sense than gasoline-ignited office fires, but I didn't saiy that...

NIST lied, the first few times, eventually incorporating free fall, without ever explaining the fall of building 7.

Why is it more or less bunk than any other dubious statements?

Originally Posted by theking

The towers were a new structural design when they were built...and my confidence level is high that the current tower being built will not be built with the same structural design...but of course the structural designs to build a high rise are not infinite...so I seriously doubt that "everything" can be revised.

The towers weren't new, and were in fact an improvement of past steel buildings - basically being a new standard in their class.

Post-industrial building design has been based on their same standards since the beginning, and all skyscrapers have maintained the standard - whether there were earthquakes, plane crashes, fires, etc... none have collapsed.

Suddenly for the first time, this one does... and no one has investestigated why...

Weird.

Originally Posted by porno jew

i have done it hundreds of time but it doesn't matter.

basically anything i post wont be read. and if read not understood. usually just say it's government black-ops propaganda.

you can use google. any of the so-called conspiracy facts have been debunked on dozens of sites and articles.

you are part of an online cult. nothing i say will sway you until you decide to leave it.

Really...

So you like a million conspiracy freaks believe anything you google?

Nothing's been debunked. Popular Mechanics has especially been de-bunked, and with hilarity.

Instead of taking the time to post all that, why didn't you just state some facts? Post some links to what you think is "true"?

Anything you post will be read by me; if factual, certainly understood; absolutely not referred to anything "black ops" oriented... unless it verifiably is.

Everybody I know who says they've argued all this in the past, and researched all the google debunking links, have invariably been wrong or found to be unfounded - in other words, they saw the links, headlines, and believe whatever they were proclaiming without actually reading the articles or following the facts... just going on "faith" (in the media?) in other words...

Most people I know who disbelieve the 9/11 government story have at least done some actual research...

:D

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

Who here said nano-thermite? Certainly it makes more sense than gasoline-ignited office fires, but I didn't saiy that...

then you did not even watch your own video that you posted.


a large section in the video was about nano-thermite being the explosive compound used in wtc7

[Ron Bennett]

Did people see explosives being placed all throughout the lower levels of the building? Surely some credible witnesses would have seen something and spoken up by now? ... have any?

Not to say it didn't happen, because there some are some plausible reasons for the government to blowup the building to better conceal what it contained; as a cover to sneak out sensitive materials.

But often the simplest explanation is the correct one ... many people put more faith into modern construction than they should - buildings in recent times are built with the strictest economy leading to minimal structural tolerances compared to older ones...

Back in the old days (prior to the mid 20th century; ie. Empire State Building), due to lack of time to calculate every possible load distribution along with far more reliance on empirical knowledge, buildings tended to be over-engineered (though not always, but often more than not) - among the best examples are many railroad structures, that with minimal maintenance, are still in use, and in excellent shape, 100+ years later.

I don't recall whether #7 was box construction or tube construction ... if it was tube, that alone explains much of the reason it fell. However, if it was box construction, then it would be highly helpful to know the number of columns and their thicknesses, and type, of the steel used, plus the types of connections used, in making a determination whether fire and damage from flying debris alone brought it down or if there was something more involved.

Ron

[MediaGuy]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

then you did not even watch your own video that you posted.


a large section in the video was about nano-thermite being the explosive compound used in wtc7

I wasn't addressing that at all, and didn't state anything about what was actually found in the dust samples... or what the evidence pointed to.

I did say that importance evidence was ignored (nano-thermite included I guess) and that free fall was a basic fact denied and finally admitted by NIST.

[porno jew]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

then you did not even watch your own video that you posted.

pretty much why i said above it is pointless to even enter these discussions. they don't even correctly watch their own articles and videos so the chance they will review your facts is pretty much nil.

[porno jew]

i have researched it inside and out from day one and wanted to believe. i found the evidence of a conspiracy very lacking.

basically the whole world view is a bricolage of half-truths, misunderstood facts, distorted facts, misreported facts, bias, disinformation, and outright lies generally pushed by people who stand to cash in from it, are ex-cops, military, cia or fbi or just have a history of mental issues. some are just very slow individuals.

not really worth ones time in the end.

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

Who here said nano-thermite? Certainly it makes more sense than gasoline-ignited office fires, but I didn't saiy that...

NIST lied, the first few times, eventually incorporating free fall, without ever explaining the fall of building 7.

Why is it more or less bunk than any other dubious statements?



The towers weren't new, and were in fact an improvement of past steel buildings - basically being a new standard in their class.

Post-industrial building design has been based on their same standards since the beginning, and all skyscrapers have maintained the standard - whether there were earthquakes, plane crashes, fires, etc... none have collapsed.

Suddenly for the first time, this one does... and no one has investestigated why...

Weird.



Really...

So you like a million conspiracy freaks believe anything you google?

Nothing's been debunked. Popular Mechanics has especially been de-bunked, and with hilarity.

Instead of taking the time to post all that, why didn't you just state some facts? Post some links to what you think is "true"?

Anything you post will be read by me; if factual, certainly understood; absolutely not referred to anything "black ops" oriented... unless it verifiably is.

Everybody I know who says they've argued all this in the past, and researched all the google debunking links, have invariably been wrong or found to be unfounded - in other words, they saw the links, headlines, and believe whatever they were proclaiming without actually reading the articles or following the facts... just going on "faith" (in the media?) in other words...

Most people I know who disbelieve the 9/11 government story have at least done some actual research...

:D

[dyna mo]

much physics involved in explaining the effects of flying airplanes full of jet fuel into towers at 500mph. i won't claim to understand it all, so i am all for investigating and such. wtc7 was close enough to be impacted by the collapseS in ways we will never know.

whether or not wtc7 free fell for a few seconds at first is pretty much a non-issue for me until there's a lot more to justify the import of that *smoking gun*

but nano-thermite? no. i do understand enough re: that compound to conclude for myself it was not used.

[Freaky_Akula]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

Operation Northwoods was a series of false-flag proposals that originated within the United States government in 1962. The proposals called for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or other operatives, to commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities and elsewhere. These acts of terrorism were to be blamed on Cuba in order to create public support for a war against that nation, which had recently become communist under Fidel Castro.[2] One part of Operation Northwoods was to "develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington." Operation Northwoods proposals included hijackings and bombings followed by the introduction of phony evidence that would implicate the Cuban government.

[Matt 26z]

This image is interesting.

Notice how the only properties destroyed are those owned by the WTC. The position of WTC 7 and its damage compared to every other building on the perimeter sure is odd.



This photo of the Bankers Trust Building (the closest building to WTC falling debris) illustrates the worse case scenario damage along the perimeter. It appears as though 80% of the offices could have been used the next day.



Now go back and look at the top photo. Should WTC 7, with it's large buffer zone between WTC 1 and itself, have been damaged to the point of total collapse? Why didn't the Bankers Trust Building suffer devastating damage since it was right across the street?

Originally Posted by Scott McD

So, can i ask who knocked it down and why then?

I never get these arguments at all.

Look around. Everything happening in the world right now is the result of 9/11. While most of us are upset over the events of the past decade, the world's most powerful people have benefited greatly in this time span.

[Rochard]

Why does this have to be explained?

Two very large jet planes full of jet fuel crashed into the two towers. WTC was by flaming debris and the building caught fire. Within hours both of the two towers fell, dropping millions of tons of concrete, steel, and debris at the foot of WTC7. So at this point we have a large building with an out of control fire, no water water pressure to put the fire out, and two very tall towers that feel at the foot of the building....

And you have to ask why the building fell? Really?

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by Matt 26z

Notice how the only properties destroyed are those owned by the WTC. The position of WTC 7 and its damage compared to every other building on the perimeter sure is odd.

The towers were in the WTC complex itself, surrounded by the other buildings of the WTC complex. Being as those buildings surrounded the towers, it's obviously logical that the surrounding buildings would have suffered the most damage.

Originally Posted by Matt 26z

Now go back and look at the top photo. Should WTC 7, with it's large buffer zone between WTC 1 and itself, have been damaged to the point of total collapse? Why didn't the Bankers Trust Building suffer devastating damage since it was right across the street

Why are you comparing WTC7 with the Bankers Trust Building? These two buildings were nearly a city block apart. When I say "city block" I mean the distance between WTC7 and the Bankers Trust Building was FULL city block, which including both towers and multiple other buildings.

Why did WTC7 fall and not this other building? Gee, I wonder why. Why don't you question why the buildings next to WTC7 didn't fall? All of the buildings suffered various degrees of damage that day, some more than others.

Originally Posted by Matt 26z

Look around. Everything happening in the world right now is the result of 9/11. While most of us are upset over the events of the past decade, the world's most powerful people have benefited greatly in this time span.

What do you mean "everything happening in the world right now"? Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. The economic issues we are having isn't because of 9/11, or Afghanistan, but because of the US housing market. What's happening in Libya has nothing to do with 9/11, nor does what's happened in Egypt have anything to do with 9/11. The only thing that 9/11 caused was tight security at airports (and tighter security over all), we invaded Afghanistan, and we are now hunting down terrorists.

[Quagmire]

Originally Posted by Rochard

Why does this have to be explained?

Two very large jet planes full of jet fuel crashed into the two towers. WTC was by flaming debris and the building caught fire. Within hours both of the two towers fell, dropping millions of tons of concrete, steel, and debris at the foot of WTC7. So at this point we have a large building with an out of control fire, no water water pressure to put the fire out, and two very tall towers that feel at the foot of the building....

And you have to ask why the building fell? Really?

WTC7 falling in to its own footprint all on its own due to the 9/11 attacks requires the same level of faith/belief as Jesus being the son of god.

And of course in your post to Matt26oz you fall back on the typical smarmy response of 'gee i wonder why'. Yeah, so do a lot of other people which is why a proper investigation should have been done. And if you think that a proper investigation was done then, this right here is what we call the successful indoctrination into the cult/religion of America. God bless you, sir.

[biskoppen]

This isn't exactly a bunch of idiots questioning the issue

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by Quagmire

WTC7 falling in to its own footprint all on its own due to the 9/11 attacks requires the same level of faith/belief as Jesus being the son of god.

No, it doesn't require any faith at all. When tall buildings come down they don't tip over - they collapse.

Originally Posted by Quagmire

And of course in your post to Matt26oz you fall back on the typical smarmy response of 'gee i wonder why'. Yeah, so do a lot of other people which is why a proper investigation should have been done. And if you think that a proper investigation was done then, this right here is what we call the successful indoctrination into the cult/religion of America. God bless you, sir.

What do you mean a proper investigation wasn't done? Did you not hear about the 9/11 commission report? Funny, because not only did it document 9/11 pretty well, but it was also released as a book - which I have.

(I've also read "Debunking 9/11" and even "Debunking debunking 9/11". )

In fact, there was an investigation into WTC7 - multiple investigations:

The bulk of the investigation of 7 World Trade Center was delayed until after reports were completed on the collapse of the World Trade Center twin towers.In the meantime, NIST provided a preliminary report about 7 World Trade Center in June 2004, and after that released occasional updates on the investigation.According to NIST, the investigation of 7 World Trade Center was delayed for a number of reasons, including that NIST staff who had been working on 7 World Trade Center were assigned full-time from June 2004 to September 2005 to work on the investigation of the collapse of the twin towers. In June 2007, Shyam Sunder explained, "We are proceeding as quickly as possible while rigorously testing and evaluating a wide range of scenarios to reach the most definitive conclusion possible. The 7 WTC investigation is in some respects just as challenging, if not more so, than the study of the towers. However, the current study does benefit greatly from the significant technological advances achieved and lessons learned from our work on the towers."


In November, 2008, NIST released its final report on the causes of the collapse of 7 World Trade Center.[28] This followed their August 21, 2008 draft report which included a period for public comments.[34] In its investigation, NIST utilized ANSYS to model events leading up to collapse initiation and LS-DYNA models to simulate the global response to the initiating events.[43] NIST determined that diesel fuel did not play an important role, nor did the structural damage from the collapse of the twin towers, nor did the transfer elements (trusses, girders, and cantilever overhangs). But the lack of water to fight the fire was an important factor. The fires burned out of control during the afternoon, causing floor beams near Column 79 to expand and push a key girder off its seat, triggering the floors to fail around column 79 on Floors 8 to 14. With a loss of lateral support across nine floors, Column 79 soon buckled - pulling the East penthouse and nearby columns down with it. With the buckling of these critical columns, the collapse then progressed east-to-west across the core, ultimately overloading the perimeter support, which buckled between Floors 7 and 17, causing the entire building above to fall downward as a single unit. The fires, fueled by office contents, along with the lack of water, were the key reasons for the collapse.

<<source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center>>

So don't imply there wasn't an investigation into why WTC7 fell - there was.

[moeloubani]

Rochard I like you because you are naive. I think you just want to believe that the US government isn't evil and that there is no such thing as conspiracies and I'm afraid one day the truth is going to ruin your innocence. I want to be your friend so I can live in your fantasy world with you because quite honestly, it sounds a lot better than the truth.

[porno jew]

it's not either or. you can not trust the government and also not believe every crackpot theory that pollutes the internet. don't be a knee jerk simpleton.