Correct. WTC 7 was brought down by gravity. All buildings rely on structural strength to resist the force of gravity. The question, therefore, is what caused the structural failure of building 7. Just off the top of my head I’d imagine it was probably connected with whatever caused an 18-storey high gash in the face of the building, and caused fires on 14 storeys with four of them burning out of control. Of course, there are people who claim (like in the most recent video posted up thread) that no other building has ever collapsed due to fire. But that – like many of the stories the conspiracists spin but are never willing to retract – is a lie.
To believe that we’d have to believe that building 7 was demolished just when it happened to have suffered major damage from the collapse of the adjacent towers. Controlled demolitions involve complicated arrangements of explosives and wires. Why, indeed how, on earth would you plan and execute that when the place is collapsing around your ears? Why would you wait until the building has been on fire for over seven hours?
There’s also nothing consistent with a controlled demolition in the collapse – no explosion sounds, no explanation for the visible bulges across four floors of the building during the afternoon, or the cracks spreading around the periphery just before collapse. Those are explained by the NIST report.
The demolition theory is crackers. And please note, even if you could demonstrate the implausibility of one theory, it doesn’t add in any way to the plausibility of another. Just because you don’t believe the NIST report it doesn’t add the slightest bit of support for the demolition theory which is still utterly inconsistent with the evidence.
Please note that the official narrative is evidence-based and supported by expert peer-reviewed analysis. Providing evidence is not “shutting down dissenting opinions”, it is calling them out for the moronic lies that they generally are.
That last video you posted repeats lie after lie, all stuff that was debunked years ago. It’s not even consistent – he talks about thermite and explosives, hedging his bets so that when one theory turns out to be hogwash the other can be slid into place with, of course, no acknowledgement that the needed evidence has totally changed. So he trots out the usual stuff about iron nano-particles, which has been well debunked by reports seven years ago that say there is no evidence of the aluminium needed for thermite and the iron is easily produced from other sources. But then he also says there were explosions, which is complete horseshit. Have a look at the explosives needed to bring down a building half the size of of WTC 7 and tell me if people wouldn’t have noticed noise on this scale:
Then there’s the comparison to Las Vegas casino demolitions which show a few carefully selected shots. Have a look at more extensive footage – WTC 7 isn’t remotely like these:
And this is all ignoring the fact that a skyscraper demolition can take six months to plan and needs structural modifications before the demolition is carried out. The whole conspiracy nonsense is one non-stop gish gallop that never pauses to address the fatal holes in the moronic theories.
Can you post evidence of another steel and concrete framed skyscraper that collapsed solely due to fire? I think not.
I’m also eagerly awaiting a video clip from yogamammy (sp?) showing a clearly marked United Airlines jet hitting the south tower. Should be all over YouTube if he watched it live on CNN on Sept. 11 2001. Or is your memory playing tricks on you?
Silverstein made 4.5 billion from a 2.5m insurance premium.
Bush got to invade Iraq.
At least 20 trillion to military industrial complex.
Three years of low interest rates by Greenspan which led to the biggest credit bubble in history.
Clear insider trading. Last two trading days before 9/11 287 times the average trading volume on American Airlines.
The kamikaze aeroplanes were also pretty much only a third of their capacity.
Also interesting they started the attack just before the markets opened…they would have done a lot more damage if they had attacked in mid morning both to the stock market and as there would’ve been more people at work. Lots of people never showed up to work that day…
First of all, you don’t get to demand answers to rhetorical questions and ignore the questions that have been asked of you. (Or rather, you do, but don’t expect me to keep on answering them beyond this post). So I’m still waiting for an answer as to why you posted a video talking about the second plane being unmarked and of unknown type, when there’s a clear photo of it with the United Airlines livery.
As to your latest questions above:
All the supporting structures did NOT fail simultaneously. The NIST report is clear that that it was a progressive collapse, i.e. progressing from one structural element to another.
It did not collapse at free fall speed. Again the NIST report and Q&A give precise timing for phases of the collapse. It is not at free fall.
A side note here: it’s implausible for a building to collapse at free fall speed as it would imply a total lack of support. However, the collapse can be very close to free fall speed and we saw two different examples on 9/11 – the pancaking of the twin towers floors caused by the weight of 14 intact upper storeys of WTC1 and 29 storeys of WTC2, and the collapse of the exterior of WTC 7 once mostly separated from the inner structure (whose progressive collapse begins earlier, as noted). But this raises an important point about conspiracist shit-flinging. So what, if it collapsed at free fall speed? All you’ve done is increase the burden of proof on your own moronic demolition theory. Controlled demolitions don’t produce free fall speeds either. If the law of physics took a day off on 9/11, the laws of logic are on permanent leave of absence in your brain. Free fall doesn’t improve your scatterbrained theory’s chances. It reduces it. You’d be much better off accepting the actual facts of the matter – FREE FALL DIDN’T HAPPEN.
Ah, banging on about the same thing again. Why would I bother? You undoubtedly already know about Edificio Wilton Paes de Aleimda in Sao Paulo and the Plasco building in Tehran. (In the latter example the 9/11 conspiracy nutcases even wrote to Tehran advising them to look for explosives as the cause). But then you will just narrow the criteria to insist on something else. Can you post details of another similar long girder construction subject to the exact same thermal expansion stresses as WTC 7 ? I think not.
Ah yes, more narrowing of criteria. There’s a clear enough photo, but now it has to be video. No problem, here you go:
I can see traces of the UA livery in six of those eighteen views. The most notable is number 14 by “Park Foreman”. Here is a clearer version of it. The tail insignia and the blue engine cowling are clearly visible at 0:01 before plane enters a shadow. They’re a bit less so at 0:05, but this view is significant as it is very similar in angle and appearance to the photo posted earlier.
And once again, it should be pointed out that if this is not convincing enough, it augurs even less well for the conspiracists. What happened to the “real” UA175? What happened to the poor souls we know got on that flight? How did their mortal remains and their passports end up at the crash site? Where were the distressed phone calls really coming from, describing injuries to the passengers and crew during the hijacking? Those questions are unanswerable but, even if they were, it requires a level of conspiratorial thinking that could only be entertained by morons.
And now, please stop wasting my time. We know you’re not going to address any of this stuff, just fling more shit. We know that if you actually wrote down the complete conspiracy theory in one place, you’d be laughed out of court. You know: how entire planeloads of people were made to disappear, how FBI agents crawled across the rubble planting the DNA of people they had spirited away earlier that morning hundreds of miles away, how demolition experts did six months of structural preparation without being noticed, and then carried out their plan while massive fires were raging out of control. Or how they broke in that day, stripped the fire proofing off girders and managed to contain a 100 pounds of thermite in place while it cut through structures (while the same raging fires were burning). And after all that, they roped tens of thousands more people into the same lies over nearly two decades, and photoshopped all the corroborating videos and photos on the internet. It really makes my brain hurt how people can be this stupid.
We should be careful about calling others stupid, there are a great many questions about 9/11 that have not been answered satisfactorily, or indeed at all. Relentlessly parroting official answers makes contributors such as ps2000306 appear completely unable to think for themselves, indeed make themselves appear the stupid ones. Of course professionally very few people will voice alternative ideas of what really happened on 9/11, until a day comes when they will all rush to tell us but we knew the 9/11 Report was a whitewash all along.
“Though the official story regarding the collapse of WTC 7 cites “uncontrolled building fires” as leading to the building’s destruction, a majority of Americans who have seen the footage of the 47-story tower come down from four different angles overwhelmingly reject the official story, based on a new poll conducted by YouGov on behalf of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and released on Monday.”
Believe it or not, and in spite of what I wrote, I do actually take that point to heart.
There are aspects of any elaborate subterfuge that will remain unknowable forever. It doesn’t stop the substantive issues from being addressed, as practically all of them have been. Picking small holes in the official narrative does not make a credible alternative hypothesis. Indeed, the very term “official narrative” is designed to reduce it to a mere “story”, one among many supposedly possible ones. But it is based on the best evidence available. To suggest otherwise is to believe that a gargantuan conspiracy is in place to gag all the actors. That is fantastically implausible (and would be even more so if the conspiracists spelled out their own complete hypothesis instead of just nitpicking).
Most of the time, the simplest account is the correct one. This lex parsimoniae has served us well in both science and law. The conspiracists are like teenagers convinced of their own brave non-conformity, and failing to see that they are the ones following the herd and acting goofily.
LOL. Yes, because a poll of lay people is the best way to determine if a building’s supports were knocked out by fire or controlled demolition (or whatever alternative hypothesis is being peddled by AE 9/11, the same people that wrote to the Iranians about the Tehran building). It’s in the nature of a conspiracy theory to capture more minds over time. People are fooled into believing that weight of numbers adds credibility to what was a batshit crazy hypothesis from the beginning. And still, they are only “questioning the official story”. Where’s the detailed alternative hypothesis for us to use as a punchbag?
And where is the acknowledgement that most of the nitpicks raised by the conspiracists over time have been completely refuted. That’s the other hallmark of this craziness that we’ve seen time and time again, including the last few days on this thread. The same already refuted crazy points are brought up again. An unmarked plane flew into the south tower? What, are you blind?
Yes. Yes, it’s completely reasonable to ask whether an Irish bloke on an Irish property forum in Ireland, writing software to analyse house prices, and indulging a fondness for astrophysics, is here to spread disinformation on behalf of the American government. Because even after eighteen years and two changes of adminstration that’s exactly what the American government would do in order to carry out its devilish plan to … well, you’ll have to fill in your own batshit crazy theory here because I can’t even think of one. But anyone can see how reasonable that is, right?
Did I mention that paranoia is the hallmark of conspiracy theorists too? Anyone who disagrees with their wacky theories are by definition some sort of stooge and out to discredit them and their ideas. Studies show that conspiracy theorists are likely to believe in more than one conspiracy, to accept unsubstantiated hypotheses more easily, and generally to have poorer education and a deficit of analytical thinking. They are also more likely to be superstitious and believe in the paranormal. On the other hand, half the American public believe in one sort of conspiracy or another, and it’s a sign of mistrust in institutions in addition to the other factors. [1, 2]
By the way, just to really set the alarm bells clanging at a thousand decibels, I really did work with the American government around 9/11. I was part of a private Irish pro bono initiative to develop software systems for administering disaster emergency relief in New York state. I flew in over the WTC while it was still a smoking pile of rubble and sat in a government office in Albany for a month. That’s where the brainwashing happened. Eh no, scratch that, that’s where I saw ordinary Americans, from government employees to street buskers coming to terms with a horrible national tragedy as best they could manage. If it has had any lasting effect on me, I admit it’s that I get irked at people making up conspiratorial shit about such horrors for their own mental titillation.
I rest my case.
And by the way, the lasting effect on any reasonable person should be a fierce determination to figure out what the hell just happened, something that ps200306 seems remarkably determined not to do.
Any reasonable person has by now looked at the huge amount of evidence and testimony as to what happened and decided that the WTC, built to a 1950s design, could not survive a plane and the resultant fire taking out its central supports and that the buildings around it didn’t survive burning out of control.
That’s what reasonable people think.
That’s why it’s the official narrative.
AND … just to stir the pot a little more, I used to work at a site 20 miles north of Albany that was once used by the US Military for testing rockets and missiles, derived from captured German V2’s from WW2 !!
We’re not here to debate user accounts etc. etc. stay on topic.
Extra Note: Remember folks, any and all moderation events incur temp reduction in access to the forum for a period of time for a minimum of 30 mins and potentially greater and in some rare cases with permanent bans applied. It may also include all involved in any spiralling spats of the ad-hominem variety, for the purposes of moderation duties etc. etc.
A helicopter appears to fly through the massive smoke plumb of the WTC’s 1 & 2 moments before the first collapse. The flashing could be it’s tail strobe. Did it actually lift off after taking passengers or fly through. It’s hard to see. Incredible.