Called "In plane sight" that opened my mind to it.
Before I watched it I just assumed it was planes flown into buldings by Islamic terrorist...they convinced me that it was not the case.
But the strongest evedence is the Pentagon...it is clear to me that it was not a plane that hit it...

First, I know a few eyewitnesses who saw a plane.

But besides that, the "not a plane theory" makes no sense. Why would anyone use a missle and claim it was a plane? Why not just use a missle and call it a missle. Or why not just use a plane instead of faking a plane? And what happened to Flight 77 and its passnegers? Using a missle and pretending it's a plane makes no sense, serrves no purpose, and is overly complicated.

Why would anyone use a missle and claim it was a plane?
Becaise they can and no one will question it....and they did not want to do that much damage.
Can you imagin a big plane like that with full fule tanks what a firball that would have been if the pilot was just a little off and hit the top of the bulding instead of the bottom?...and Al Queda does not have missle...
And there is nothing more simple than sending in a cruz missle...just program it and it does all the rest....no piolet struggling to manuver a hugh plane to hit a very small spot....and that is not an easy thing even for an experenced pilot...
Now my question...
Why is there no viedo of the plane...the Pentagon is the most secure bulding in the nation with cameras everywhere on that bulding and survalance all around...yet no videos of it except the one they that has no frame with the plane in it...that is unbelievable to me.
And why did a CNN reporter who was first one there say he saw no plane parts at the site? and the hole that was created was too small for such a big plane?

"Because they can and no one will question it?" Really? And how does that explain why they wouldn't just say it was a missle?
"They didn't want to do that much damage." Why not? Where are you getting that idea from? And the families of the victims will disagree with you that there wasn't that much damage.
Al Queda certainly does have missles or could get them.

But it's still too convoluted to use a missle and say it's a plane. It would make zero sense to do so. Use a missle and claim it's a missle. Use a plane and call it a plane. "less damage" doesn't make any sense considering the amount of damage done that day.


"Why is there no video of the plane?" There are at least 2 that I've seen. Of course, since the amount of time the plane is on camera is very short and it's a side angle, truthers deny that it's a plane because you can't see wings very well from a side angle.

The CNN reporter (and I just watched the video) said that there was no sign of the plane except the hole and that all the pieces left were small. That's not the same thing as saying there was no plane. The Pentagon is a pretty solid building, and planes are not particularly tough.

And tell me again what actually happned to Flight 77 and why that doesn't make the plan even more convoluted and less feasible.

Osama does not have anything more powerfull than a stinger missil....and that is tiny and would have just left a black mark on the wall...but lets say that they did get their hands on one...where did they launch if from?..
The pentagon has cameras all around that building...and there were other ones at various places...and they are not in the dark ages of hi teck...there should have been plenty of fotage that they could show it was flight 77
But you are quite wrong about plains not bieng tough...they are very tough especialy sense they are light weight...and lighter weight means less force on impact....the wing peices should have been all over the place and not in tiny peices.
But I don't have an answer to where is filght 77.
It maybe never existed or it might be deep in the sea for all I know...that does not negate the above evedence.

do you believe that Al-Qaeda has missiles?
how could they blame the Taliban and AQ and UBL if it was known that a missile hit the pentagon?
They couldn't! That's why there are no available pics of anything hitting the Pentagon IMHOOC.

Plenty of people saw the American Airline jet that hit the Pentagon. All of the pieces of the device that hit the Pentagon that could be identified came from Flight 77.

And then there are the remains of Flight 77's passengers that were recovered as well.

Near the beginning the commentator said that there is no picture evidence that a plane hit the pentagon. Well that should show you all you need to know about the quality of that stupid video:

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=322292&mesg_id=322362

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=322292&mesg_id=322379

I guess the maker of that video sucks at the Google. Of course he couldn't be lying.

When there were and are camera's everywhere? but not one that shows a plane.
Photos can be photoshoped easly but it is much harder to do with viedo...
But to me it seems you were looking for a reason not to look at the evedence they presented....but if you did your questions would be answered and then you would have to question...which for some is hard to do.

And don't start by telling me what an evil person Barbara Olsen was. I know that already. Start by telling about what happened to the National Geographic field trip aboard that plane. Because a lot of families got back human remains.

But if they have the power to pull this off don't you think they would have the power to make this up?
Think about it...if it was an inside job and they used demolition to bring down the buldings that means they planed for this way ahead of time...and it would be easy for them to creat this too....
By the way do you know anyone on those planes?

But these people did.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/09/0912_disasterngs.html

If you ascribe omnipotence then omnipotence is what they will have.

You just need to understand human nature and use the fear of bieng tagged as a nut or a CTer.
And it will work for you every time.

You claim the PTB have done X and as proof of that you hold up as evidence that they have the power to do X.

There is also a perfectly reasonable explanation why CTers are dismissed as nonsensical: they're nonsensical. Dismissing something absurd and unproven does not serve as logic and proof of its veracity.

someone has a CT and then someone points out that someone else has one that is like saying it was the aleins that did it and so all CTs must be nuts.
And so with that inviroment how long would you last as a journalist if you questioned the official story?
And some things defy physical explaination....like the building 7 collaps....which must be ignored if you want to believe the official story.

Your example would be more along the lines of "guilt by association."

The problem with 9/11 CTs isn't that they're CTs in and of themselves, its that there is ZERO evidence that any 1 of the CTs prevails over the others. You can't just say, "The official story is false." You have to say, "we have proof that X happened."

Yet, nobody can define X. There are so many competing theories that negate each other and each proponent of a CT says his CT prevails over its competitors. We don't need a CT to explain what happened to Hiroshima in 1945, the evidence is overwhelming. Likewise, if a suitcase nuke or sci-fi weapon or whatever were the cause the CTers would be converging on a common theory.

But they aren't. Heck, CTers can't even decide between whether Bush did it himself or ignored warnings of a foreign threat. If so fundamental an issue as that cannot be decided how do you hope to provide a body of argument that says, "This, not that."? People can feel free to stop lobbing "evidence" at me at any time. They should now tell me why their theory takes primacy over the others.

A good theory must also be falsifiable. If every counter point is met by, "That's just the Shadowy Cabal of Amalgamated Tyranny hiding/disinforming/muddying the evidence" then there is no discussion of fact, just rationalization.

But we have footage of WTC7 in freefall....what then is that?
What you are saying is "Who do you believe the official story or your lieing eyes"
And I define X as the building in free fall...And there is no compeating evedence to sugest it is otherwise.
You are confusing evedence with theroy of what caused the evedence.
And the Pentagon is the same....the evedence there ....hole not big enough for a 757....lack of footage in a place that dozens of cameras...lack of large peices of evedence of a plane in the initial photos....and other things.
And your saying that some CTs says it was a nuke proves that this is wrong?
It is my Therory that it was a false flag operation....and that therory is based on the above evedence...the theroy could be wrong but the evedence is not.

"WTC7 in freefall"-no it wasn't.
"hole not big enough for a 757"-yes the damage is consistent to what would happen if a 757 hit a building.
"lack of footage in a place that dozens of cameras"-there is footage. Why do you ignore it?
"lack of large peices of evedence of a plane in the initial photos"-not true. There are plenty of photos showing large pieces of the plane. Why do you ignore it?
"and other things"-LOL

No matter what i say or what I present as evedence it will not be enough or it will not be right. And you will always use the hyperbole that it is Zero.
You can see the same viedo of the building collaps that I see freefall and you just denie it....though it took only 6.5 seconds and a little math would show you that it was indeed in freefall.
So you then resort to redicule which allways works....at least for some.

But you keep on pushing that BS that it didn't if you want to.

... that in view of that additional information, they cannot find a single example of a controlled demolition that really resembled WTC7's collapse, with 8 stories of freefall starting 1.75 seconds after the building was already falling, nor can they produce any rational explanation for why such a thing would be done.

No, wait -- they haven't admitted that, have they. Not that it matters, of course. Instead, they persist in claiming that something that doesn't really look like a controlled demolition is irrefutable evidence of a controlled demolition, while blithely hand-waving away the total absence of other effects of real controlled demolitions such as high-explosive sounds and seismic spikes. In Trutherland, this is known as a "smoking gun."

Basically it's "trust us, we know".

Also, it seems you do not consider the NIST-hypothesized collapse of the interior of the building (which took considerably longer than 1.75 seconds) part of the building falling. Strange.

It looks exactly like a controlled demolition, as Danny Jowenko pointed out.

How do you know there were no sounds? Have you ever heard the sounds of the hypothesized interior collapse? Would you be open to the claim that there was no such collapse, because it would have made noise, and we don't have any audio of that noise?

David Chandler measured it from the videos, and NIST confirmed it in their report.

The ASCE report said the Pentagon hole was 90 feet wide, and noted that the facade damage was too narrow to reflect the projected wingspan of a 757. They thus had to suppose that both wingtips were somehow sheared off before impact. It would be kind of nice to see the videos that might show that happening, eh wot?

And completely ignore the overwhelming evidence we have presented supporting a plane hitting the Pentagon.

You've made too many claims here to respond properly. Please first address the evidence we already presented supporting a plane hitting the Pentagon. So far you have refused to do so. Perhaps we could address more claims after that.

Sense you have presented evence with no suporting evedence that they are real or even taken on the same day or in the same place....How can I answer that?
And that evedence is far form overwhelming, though you present it as such and perhaps believe that it is.
So why don't we stick to one thing...the smoking gun of WTC7....because if that building was taken down by demoliton then all the other evedence you present is in question.
To me it is a great mystry why people are so willing to believe the official report when the evedence is right before your eyes...but it is this human tendincy to believe the athorities that is used to cover up even the most obvious things...well I gues it is only obvious to me and others willing to see it.

Last edited Wed Dec 21, 2011, 11:35 PM - Edit history (2)

Your beliefs are faith based.

So you think the TV stations are in on the conspiracy:

Yours is based on faith too...your faith is in the official storym, and I have no faith in the official story because I have seen too many times in my life where that story is wrong...and not just things like JFK RFK and MLK being killed by a lone assasin but other things which I will not confuse this topic with....perhaps some day I will tell you of other things that I know are factual and witnessed myself...
The PTB ARE capable of this kind of shit....I know it and you don't....or don't want to believe it.

An absolute structural failure would do just that. After the debris and fire raining down from hundreds of feet in the air to expect the surrounding buildings to NOT catch fire and be severely damaged would seem even more counter-intuitive.

"OMG! A completely natural and wholly expected phenomenon occurred!" doesn't really say much.

At the same time....now explain to me how that is possable with a fire no matter how big.
In demolitions that don't go as pland the building does not collaps like that....it has to be precise.
There was noting natural about that...Can you show me an example of any building in the world at any time collapsing like that without demoliton charges?

Your telling us there has never been a non-demolition structural failure?

And it's not just a matter of a simple fire. There is debris from the towers raining down from hundreds of feet for 2 hours. That's a sustained pummeling. Structural failures have happened under less dramatic circumstances. Why wouldn't the building collapse?

Of course, what I would like to know is --

-- if Shadowy Cabal for Amalgamated Tyranny went through the time, manpower, money, expense and secretiveness to demolish WTC in the wake of their nefarious scheme why not use the time and resources to just box-up their evil plan documents and cart them off to a new, more secure location? Or just shred/delete them? This just compounds the entire sordid mess.

-- if hiding nefarious schemes were the objective wouldn't incendiaries make more sense than mere explosives?

-- if your plan includes other structures raining flaming debris upon your target from hundreds of feet high for hours at a time leaving the target building a raging inferno how do you know your explosive charges will still be functional?

-- why didn't they just keep their nefarious plans at a location that would not have to be destroyed, like CIA headquarters in DC, so they could spare themselves the hassle and risk?

The theory doesn't even make sense in its own terms.

But you are saying that all the suporting structur which comprised of many collums all failed at the exact same time....because had they not the building would not have all came down at the same time or some parts not at all...that is so unlikely as to be not even reasonable.
The objectiv of this in my opnion was just what we got...a state of permanent war and a state of permant fear...and they were very sucessfull at it...we were willing to give up our constitutional rights as well as trillions of dollars to protect us from this threat that was manufactured.
And they are allso sucessfull in covering it up because they knew that institution can be controled by the CT tool....no reporter, scientist, or most avrage citizen would survive the ridicule that comes with being labled a CTer...If you were in the media you would never work again if you even sugested that something was not right with the story...and they know that people especialy now are job scared.
Just look here at this topic...by now you are convinced that I am nuts because I don't believe the story...why is that?

Debris was ejected far from the towers only during the actual collapse.

There were some rather fanciful claims made of damage, including one that the south side of WTC7 was "scooped out" to a depth of 1/4 of the width of the building. NIST determined that structural damage from flying debris played no part in the initiation of collapse.

There was no raging inferno. Fires persisted on only 6 floors. They were quite wimpy as highrise fires go. Nothing like what we've seen in subsequent highrise fires in Dubai, Grozny, Moscow, Shanghai, and Beijing.

You couldn't just shred documents. The office workers would notice that their files were gone.

Last edited Wed Dec 21, 2011, 10:15 AM - Edit history (1)

Large buildings don't tip over (I should have written that it is much more difficult for large buildings to tip over, since the definition of "large buildings" is vague). They fall more or less in the direction of gravity. But WTC7 didn't fall straight down like a controlled demolition. It collapsed across the street causing severe damage to the neighboring buildings. The precision in controlled demolitions is to prevent this from happening.

It requires huge forces to push large buildings horizontally. Those forces don't exist once a large building starts to collapse. There is already a large force pulling large buildings vertically in the direction of gravity: gravity.

Unlike the Twin Towers, WTC7 collapsed starting from its lower floors. So the collapse was much less messy. Plus the collapse started with its internal structure failing first, which was mostly out of view. Then after the internal structure collapsed, the outer shell fell quickly. It was a rather unusual sight. Buildings like this don't normally collapse. But large buildings don't normally have very large structures strike them, and large fires that can't be fought.

And in fact sometimes the demoliton experts want them fo fallover one way the other....sometimes they want them to fall twords the center....and the can do that simply by timeing the charges ...you want it to fall to the south you set off the shape charges on the south suporting structurs before the ones on the north...want it to fall twords the middle you blow the center suports first
And on steel building it takes very little explosives to do the job because the shape charge is basicly a gun that shoots a bullet of molten metal that will cut right through a steel beam....and that is why a small amount of explosives in a shape chargel can penatrait the armor of a tank

where did you get said evidence?
You have nothing but what was given to you by others! You weren't there and you haven't personally checked the evidence! You accept the word of others!
You accept authority as truth over truth as the authority.

Your hand waving doesn't count.

You're just another truther that refuses to address the evidence we've presented for a plane hitting the Pentagon.

What kind of evidence do you want? What evidence would convince you that you are wrong?

... demands that the energy necessary to do the work of tearing apart the structural connections and bending and crushing the steel must come out of the kinetic energy available. This will slow the collapse down.

Imagine falling off a cliff, straight down through the air. That's freefall.

Imagine falling off a tall pine tree, bouncing off tree branches, bending some, breaking some. All of the energy you give to the tree slows you down.

Last edited Wed Dec 21, 2011, 11:37 PM - Edit history (2)

It's difficult for a low speed camera to pick up an aircraft flying at 500mph. From the direction that the cameras were facing they cannot do any more than pick up one frame - if they get lucky. It's as simple as that.

You're anomaly hunting, while you seem to ignore the massive evidence that a plane hit the Pentagon.

Here's are a few of the hundreds of eyewitness written and video accounts of the plane that hit the Pentagon. Many off the witnesses worked at the Pentagon, the very same people that were the target for the plane! No way they would ALL lie.:

William Lagasse:

Sgt. William Lagasse, a Pentagon police dog handler, the son of an aviation instructor, was filling up his patrol car at a gas station near the Pentagon when he noticed a jet fly in low. He watched as the plane plowed into the Pentagon. Initially, he thought the plane was about to drop on top of him -- it was that close. Lagasse knew something was wrong. The 757's flaps were not deployed and the landing gear was retracted.

Lincoln Liebner:

As he ran to an entrance, he heard jet engines and turned in time to see the American Airlines plane diving toward the building. "I was close enough that I could see through the windows of the airplane, and watch as it as it hit," he said. "There was no doubt in my mind what I was watching. Not for a second. It was accelerating," he said. "It was wheels up, flaps up, engines full throttle."

Mary Lyman:

"'I saw a plane coming what I thought was toward National Airport, which is very close. You see that all the time. But this one looked different. It was at a very steep angle, and going very fast. I had been hearing about the World Trade Center before I left, and wondered, is this part of that? Then the plane disappeared, smoke started coming up, and traffic came to a complete stop," Lyman said. "We all got out of our cars. We heard another couple of explosions, and I ran and got back in my car."

And by the way I have seen most of what is in your debunking ....I have looked at bouth sides of this issue...and at first I was of the opnion that it was done by terrorist but that Bush new aobut and let it happen...but after looking at bouth sides I am convinced that the whole thing was manufactured....You can take just one visual thing that cannot be explained like the building 7 collaps and know dam well it was planed in advanc and could not have phyisicaly collapsed like it did with out a controled demoliton....if you can see that one thing it blows to hell the whole dam story....and so it must ALL be questioned.

So I can't respond properly.

Now you are changing the subject and making assertions without evidence about WTC7.

It was what caused me to look further into it...then I watched the documentry about the rest...
And evedence can and often is manipulated...but when you see something that you know full well is not right then all the evedence must be questioned.

I'm not quite sure how we want to handle this before we have Hosts for this group, so I thought I'd just ask politely.

Posts containing links to WRH were deleted on DU2. Here is an example that has a follow up post by a moderator with an explanation:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=176459#176463

Based on the following excerpt from the Terms of Service of DU3...

But I did note that it was a truther site. Strangely, it seems to be the best site with evidence for a plane striking the Pentagon!

I'm working to find different links the best I can.

I started a thread with an excerpt from a website I wasn't familiar with and didn't scroll down all the way to notice there was a link to WRH on it. Greyl pointed it out but I thought all the posts during the testing period were going to be erased so I never bothered editing my post. So I guess your reply was beneficial in that it reminded me to go back and edit my own thread.

Dave Van Kleist, Killtown, and WebFairy.

It's like 2002-2005 all over again.

Guess I am out of touch with pop culture.

Unfortunately I said the names and we may soon be visited in this brave new DU.

But it's OK...no need to explain.

There was nothing left of an airplane that contained titanium parts? So the fuselage went throgh the hole in the building but the wings just disintegrated?

Not saying I see any conspiracy as an inside job, but the pentagon hit just looked strange.

Last edited Wed Dec 21, 2011, 11:39 PM - Edit history (1)

the key is to look further than 911 CT sites.

Some say it was Israeli agents. Other say it was Bush/Cheney on a nationalist bent. Others say it was a shadowy cabal seeking global domination.

Some say it was a missile. Others say it was a suitcase nuke. Still others claim demolitions from inside the building. Others claim it was some sort of sci-fi weapon. Others say it was terrorists but Bush allowed the attack to happen.

Meanwhile, Obama has become president and is in charge of the very people who would have had to carry out the orders. That makes Obama either a total buffoom who doesn't kow what goes on in his own government or he's a willing accomplice and we're total buffoons for voting him in. Although 4 years ago the CTers would have sworn up and down that Bush/Cheney were going to declare martial law before they ever allowed an outsider to ruin their scheme.

All this swirls around and around. For a thing to be so "scientifically" provable that people should throw-away what was plainly seen by millions the CTers seem to have a hard time settling on any one "scientifically" provable explanation. The only thing they can agree on is they're angry at the US -- but then again, so was Tim McVeigh.

But like always it is covered up by a tone of disinformation and as many wild CTs as they can manufacture...
The reason for that should be obvious...most people will not dig through the big pile to find the truth.

Got it.

I would love to see every CTer denounce every other competing CTer as an agent of disinformation for the Shadowy Cabal for Amalgamated Tyranny, LLC.

And the tactic of divide and conquere applies here as well...and yes those that did this would like to see us all fighitng one another and they fuel it all the time.
All disinformation serves to cover the truth no matter how rediculious it may be...in fact the more ridicule you can cause the better.

If the evidence poits convincingly in one direction it should be easy enough to debunk the false CTs.

Which CTs are false?

This should be good.

And I don't have the time or resources to do that...and you probably don't eather...and that is why it works...
And if one peice of evedence is convincing then the whole of it must be questioned...and the WTC#7 is that...I know enough about physics to know that building was a controled demoliton...And that is a big smoking gun.

You don't know which CT is correct but all the others are false but you believe what you believe despite the utter absence of genuine evidence and are impervious to all counter arguments because they're obviously part of the cover-up -- though we're just not sure which cover-up or what exactly they are covering-up.

How could I NOT sign-on to such a statement?

Is that what you are saying after I show you that there is plenty of it?
And you then tell me that because all the CTs don't agree that it proves something?...to witt
that they All are wrong?
Just where is the logic in that?
What that is is a catch 22...no matter how convincing the evedence is if you can fine one that is not convinceing then they are all wrong...hence the reason for creating the crazyest CT you can think of....the straw man or false flag.

How can there be plenty of compelling evidence when there are so many competing theories all claiming they are the real truth?

You might be one of the false CTs trying to obfuscate the real truth.

Evedence are not theroys...the WTC7 collaps is not a theroy....you can see it for yourself....the fotage is the evedence not a theroy.

Beyond that is merely wild, baseless speculation.

If you totaly ignore the laws of phisics...

And explain how those laws apply.

Gravity acts on all mater equaly...and so for everythign to come down at the same time then the suport for that object must fail at the same time....if the suport stucture was damaged by fire then in order for that to cause the collaps to bring the building down at the same time then the fire would have to had been the exact same tempature for the same amout of time to fail the colloms at the same time....tell me how that is possable?
If there is random damage and random fire then there would have been random collaps...which is how all buildings collaps except those done with carfuly placed explosive charges that are carefuly timed to fail the suporting colloms...

The outer shell has suports too and gravity pulls on them evenly allso...so what force made the suports all fail at the same time?
I know that someone can allways invent a reason and invent a theroy but they don't make any sense to me when there is no explanation that is consistant with common sense....and what I heard was that the team that investagated it did not get to see the site before May of 2002...that alown should make you think. and the believe that the center flors had collapsed first from a fire caused by office material just is unbelievable to me....how could office material get hot enough to make steel fail?...and remember that is just a theroy to explain why the building collapest in the first place....because such a thing has never happened before.

The buillding certainly got much hotter than this railroad track which was warped by thermal expansion:

That certainly explains the collapse far better than silent explosions and an invisible demolition team.

Your demolition team sure must have been besides themselves when they discovered that the collapsing North Tower hit WTC7 and started it on fire. They must have thought that their controlled demolition was ruined. But magically their silent explosives weren't ruined by the huge fire.

I have a hard time with random fire distribution causing uniforme failure of the structure....that just not jive with reallity.

Really, it's time to actually find out what it is you're protesting.

And you think it is protesting to question them.
And if there is no uniform damage to the suport structure then there can be no uniform collaps.

But as long as you listen to grifters like AE911Truth, you never will find out what NIST actually says happened, because AE911Truth can't let you know the real story. As long as they can keep you focused on their straw men, you'll never find out how rational and scientific the actual story is.

And it does not jive with what my eyes see and what logic tells me.
It might suprise you but I allways look at both sides and question them both....and that is how you get to truth.
But I will not be bamboozeled by distortions and misinformation...nor will I be intimidated by sugestions that I am nuts if I question the official storys...

ETA: There's been no suggestion that you're nuts from me. Please stop saying that.

If I would only accept as absolut truth of the official story then I would be converted to what ever delusion you have subscribed to....talk about blind faith...
But if you can explain how a randomly distributed fire could produce equaly distributed thermal expansion I am listening...but basic physics cannot tell me that.

It misrepresents me and the NIST explanation. I don't know which one gets the shorter shrift.

"equally distributed thermal expansion" -- Let's start there.

Locate that phrase or that concept in the Final Report on Building 7 from NIST. If you can, I'll admit it's a part of the "official story." But that's something I'll never have to do, because it's not.

Did you hear that? It's not. You have no understanding of what the actual explanation for the collapse of Building 7 is. And until you do, you can't accept it OR reject it. Until then, you are the one operating on faith.

Then it don't exist?
If there are 100 suport structurs in the outer structure made of steel in the building and they all
failed at the same time then the heat that caused it must have allso been uniform...does the official report explain that?
And if it was the weight of the iner structure that caused them to fail how could that be uniform unless the forces of the weight was uniform?
There has never been a collaps of a building where that has happened yet no explaination of the above problems with the story.

By the way look at some picures of building 6 that suffered more sever damage form fire and was closer to the towers and did not collaps.

"Equally distributed thermal expansion."

You just repeated the concept:

"If there are 100 suport structurs in the outer structure made of steel in the building and they all
failed at the same time then the heat that caused it must have allso been uniform.."

They did not fail all at the same time. The thermal expansion was not uniform. Uniform thermal expansion is not a part of the NIST explanation. As soon as you start dealing with the actual report, we can see about rejecting it or accepting it.

Stop changing the subject to building 6. Find that concept of uniform thermal expansion in the NIST report or find out what the NIST report actually says.

SUniforo we then have estalished that the collaps was not caused by thermal expansion ...then what was the cause?
uniform pressure caused by the weight of the inner floors?
That has the same problems as the thermal expansion therory...there has never been a case of random forces acting uniformly....and that is my point...and I expect you will ignore it for the principle that the official report ignores it.

It really is time to go consult the actual report and find out what it actually says - past time, in fact.

And stop telling me to "read the constitution"
I will promis to listen and consider any evedence that you present....and hope you will give me the same considerations.

And noted that it admited it had never happened before and that this proves it can happen....which is kind of commical because it automaticly excludes a deliberate demolition as the cause...and asks you to accept that as fact.
Then it never explains just how the shell of the building collaps strait down....the shellis suported by steel beams too and in order for that to happen all of the suports must fail at the same time....the work of gravity is no mystery and you can prove it by balanceing a broomstick on your finger and then try to make it fall strait down...it ain't easy....you must remove your finger suddenly or it will tilt to one side and fall that way...same is true for the suports of a building.

the cause of "all supports failing at once"?

How could you do that?

And ended it with "then the shell fell" which implys that the thermal expansion was the cause of the shell to fall....but never explained how that was possable

Try balancing a toothpick on your finger. I find it impossible. Its very low mass, and therefore its very low inertia, gives it a very low resistance to falling over. Plus the distance it has to move to fall over is very small.

Try doing the same with a broomstick. It is easy to balance, though it is also easy to tip over. Unlike a large building the broomstick is built solid, and is proportionally very strong. The broomstick also has much less mass and is far shorter than a large building. The larger the object the more the tendency for it to maintain its verticle orientation. Plus the less solid, and less proportionally strong (like a building), an object the less likely it is to maintain its structural integrity as it falls.

A tall object must accelerate much faster to tip over, which requires a greater force. A tall object must move farther horizontally to tip over, which requires a greater force. A heavy object has more mass which requires more force to tip over.

A less solid, and less proportionally strong (like a building), object has less ability to apply horizontal force on itself when falling. An object that is already breaking apart has less ability to apply a horizontal force on itself when falling. But gravity is always present, and gravity pulls straight down. Gravity wins.

WTC7 did fall across the street causing great damage to adjacent buildings. So it wasn't straight down.

But the suport colloms in a building are like the broomstick not the broomstick like the building....connect a bunch of broomsticks togather and you then must make them all fail at near the same time to get the structure to come strait down.

From the video, the building started collapsing at least a half dozen seconds before the shell started collapsing. Those are the facts. From the design of the building, the shell contained the initial collapse on the inside of the building. The shell came down when it lost its support, a split second after the west penthouse start collapsing.

If not then what caused the suports for the shell to suddenly fail all at the same time?...that is the explaintion I am looking for and has not been addressed

The entire visible part of the WTC7 building, with the exception of the penthouses, fell down symmetrically and simultaneously.

You seem to have missed that part.

And therefore there wasn't uniform damage. You responded on comment 60, so you must know that your aren't telling the truth here.

Because i don't want to be accused of bieng a lier...or are you saying that my talking aobut this makes me a lier?
Or questioning the official story makes me a lier?
And I would point out that even controled demolions do not come down perfictly uniformly...and in fact they use that to control damage by making the bulding lean sligtly one way or the other or makding the center colaps slightly before the rest....it is impossable to make such a large building react perfictly uniformely collaps....the odds of it are tremendous.

All I am saying is that you have the wrong idea about what the NIST report says, something that's easily corrected by going to the NIST report and finding out what it does actually say. Your reluctance to do so doesn't say that you're a liar, either. Nobody likes to be had by grifters.

And am not likely to do so because I have evedence that meats the test of reasonable doubt even in the leagal sense of bouth the conspericy AND the coverup...
But i have watched several viedos that debunked it and they did not convince me at all....in fact some of the explanaintions comical unless you were uneducated in science at all.
So there is reasonable doubt to me that this report is based on the truth and not just part of the coverup...

Last edited Fri Dec 6, 2013, 09:21 PM - Edit history (2)

They would have simply sagged. No, in WTC7 these beams had to remain absolutely unwarped in order to push with full virility against the yielding girder.

It looks like a split second after the internal structure completely collapsed (when the west penthouse collapsed) the outer shell came down. I see nothing to build some conspiracy around here. Once the internal structure was gone, the whole shell had no ability to support itself. So it came down more or less as a unit.

Of course part of the shell could have failed first, taking the rest down with it. This made it look like it all came down precisly at once. That's just speculation on my part. Certainly the shell wasn't built to stand on its own, so once the internal structure was gone the shell inevitably followed.