"Rare" WTC 7 video shortly before collapse.

I say rare, because the video isn't part of the 9/11 Truth Industry's marketing scheme, thus it only has a few thousand views on YouTube.

Clearly shows intense and unfought fires.
Shows burned and destroyed cars on the street from the collapse of 1 & 2.
Shows the collapse beginning with the penthouse.
Plenty of noise is heard before the collapse, but nothing sounds like a controlled demolition.
The reporter was right next to the building and speculated that 7 would collapse, based on the damage and fires he was looking at first-hand.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0CU-teE0bQ&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fforums.randi.org%2Fshowthread.php%3Ft%3D147528&feature=player_embedded

"moments after Vince and his crew left the scene, this happened"

Do you deny the fires and damage? or are you denying the building collapsed?

I guess a week or a month was waaaaaaaay to optimistic of me.

makes little sense.

People might think microphones or cams are near WTC 7 and didn't record any sounds, but the pictures are taken from very far away.


Sounds like the NIST nonsense to me





Fire, Not Explosives, Felled 3rd Tower on 9/11, Report Says
..

These fires might have been fed partly by the diesel from tanks and a pressurized fuel line, which were on the fifth to the ninth floors, Dr. Sunder said. But the analysis showed that even in the worst case, the diesel fuel-fed fire would not have burned hot enough or long enough to have played a major role in weakening the structure. The investigators determined that the fire that day was fed mainly by office paper and furnishings.
...
Dr. Sunder said the investigators considered the possibility that explosives were used, but ruled it out because the noise associated with such an explosion would have been 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert, he said, and detectable from as far as a half a mile away. He said that interviews with eyewitnesses and a review of video taken that day provided no evidence of a sound that loud just before the collapse.
....

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/22/nyregion/22wtccnd.html

Does it sound like CD to you? Please give a link to a CD that sounds like it.

It would be like saying the person wasn't shot because nobody heard something.

What is loud enough, isn't this subjective ? Why not just examine the body and look everywhere, maybe he was stabbed or killed with a silencer, it's still murder.



WTC 7 Explosion on Audio (heard by firemen)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YvrKfWkxdw

"sounds like" does not mean is. Also looks like the article you quoted earlier says they did consider explosives but ruled them out based on science and facts.

"He said that interviews with eyewitnesses and a review of video taken that day provided no evidence of a sound that loud just before the collapse."


What is just before the collapse ?

We know that hours before one eyewitness felt and witnessed explosions inside WTC 7

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbbZE7c3a8Q


I always thought the scientific method consisted of collecting data and looking at the evidence, apparently it's NIST worship here in the dungeon.

are you seriously suggesting the "explosion" heard hours before could have possibly been part of a controlled demolition? Could you explain how that possibly would work?

The theory by NIST centers around column 79 and office fires, what if column 79 was destroyed by explosives?

Does that make sense? Also, as I have stated previously, there were recovery personnel with controlled demolition backgrounds who reported ZERO evidence of controlled demolition. If the claim of controlled demolition of any of the buildings were, in fact, true, why are no CD experts coming forward?

We had only CD experts comment on it from TV, saying it looked like CD.

who was manipulated with a video of WTC 7 by the "truth movement" and felt that it was controlled demolition. If I have to tell you what's wrong with that, I can't help you. It's also worth noting that Jowenko does not believe WTC 1 & 2 were CD.

In the meantime, look up Mark Loiseaux and Brent Blanchard. They think the controlled demo claim is goofy. BTW, in the same way the "Lared Rule" is invoked to avoid wasting time on "no-planers", I am announcing the "Dude Rule" and invoking it to avoid wasting time on goofy controlled demolition theories.

And I think the FBI started an investigation for basement bombs/car bombs.

he's not a proponent of CD at all and, in fact, is ticked that the "truth movement" is twisting what he said.

http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/2007/04/van-romero.html

Explosives Planted In Towers, N.M. Tech Expert Says
By Olivier Uyttebrouck
Journal Staff Writer

Televised images of the attacks on the World Trade Center suggest that explosives devices caused the collapse of both towers, a New Mexico Tech explosion expert said Tuesday.

The collapse of the buildings appears "too methodical" to be a chance result of airplanes colliding with the structures, said Van Romero, vice president for research at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology.

"My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse," Romero said.

''Where possible, always cite the initial statements of sources, especially when they later clarify or retract what they initially said on the basis of better information and hope no one can produce the later statement''.

Typical '''truther'' deception...

Romero supports other experts, who have said the intense heat of the jet fuel fires weakened the skyscrapers' steel structural beams to the point that they gave way under the weight of the floors above.

That set off a chain reaction, as upper floors pancaked onto lower ones.

Romero said he believes still it is possible that the final collapse of each building was triggered by a sudden pressure pulse caused when the fire reached an electrical transformer or other source of combustion within the building.

But he said he now believes explosives would not have been needed to create the collapse seen in video images.

http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/2007/04/van-romero.html



Do you honestly think that everybody will say the truth if his position or money is on the line?




The Wall Street Journal this month listed Tech as one of 16 universities likely to attract renewed interest as a result of the Sept. 11 attacks because of the school's extensive anti-terrorist research.

"That stereotype as a nerd is not as harsh anymore," Kloeppel said.

Tech gets about $60 million a year in research grants and contracts half the university's $120 million annual budget, said Van Romero, vice president for research.

"For a university with about 1,600 students, that's a lot of research," he said.

By comparison, the University of New Mexico, the state's largest research university with an enrollment of 23,659, received $140 million last year in nonmedical grants and contracts.

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-2016604_ITM

and if, as you claim, Romero had to toe the line to maintain his livelihood, why would he have even made the initial statement he made? Do you think these things through?

"It could have been a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points," Romero said. The explosives likely would have been put in more than two points in each of the towers, he said.

The detonation of bombs within the towers is consistent with a common terrorist strategy, Romero said.

"One of the things terrorist events are noted for is a diversionary attack and secondary device," Romero said.

Attackers detonate an initial, diversionary explosion that attracts emergency personnel to the scene, then detonate a second explosion, he said.

Romero said that if his scenario is correct, the diversionary attack would have been the collision of the planes into the towers.



It looked like explosives to him and he stated his theory consistent with his experience on past events.

""Romero had to toe the line to maintain his livelihood""

and his life, like the horse's head in the bed

""why would he have even made the initial statement he made?""

because just like so many others it was his initial gut reaction

please produce it. Let's say, for the purposes of discussion, he WAS intimidated. Now, with a Democratic House, Senate and White House, why not come forward now?

D's and R's at the upper levels are just two sides of the same coin.

It's a duopoly.

The fact that the guy who got the horses head in the bed couldn't prove where it came from doesn't mean that's not where it came from.

No, you don't. And you seem to be subtly accusing the Obama administration of complicity.

""Do you have any evidence that Romero was intimidated?""

other than the fact that he did an immediate and complete 180 on his story without a justifiable explanation?

Why do you ask for something you know can't be supplied? Are you saying because there's no evidence it's not possible?

""And you seem to be subtly accusing the Obama administration of complicity.""

Obama may or may not have good intentions, regardless his hands are tied by those that paid for him to play. He's dancing with those that brung him.

Do you have any evidence at all of your wild assertions? Hint: you don't yet you chide us for daring not to believe you. Silly.

"Do you have any evidence at all of your wild assertions?"

I already answered, you know I don't that's the only reason you asked for it, hoping you could "win" the point you brought up in the first place.

How is a demo expert saying that something that looked like a demo was probably a demo a "wild assertion"?

And if he suddenly went 180 without a credible explanation, how is thinking someone got to him a "wild assertion"

I've answered your questions numerous times, how come you keep dodging mine?

what else does he have to say?

the horses head in the bed?

then produce it. You can't seem to provide any reason if your claim was true that Romero wouldn't come forward now. This is just more of your bullshit. I'm done.

and having flaming debris from two of the largest buildings in the world collapsing.

See the OP and post #6 for video and photographic documentation.

""Yes, weaken the structure with 7 hours worth of virtually unfought fires.""

Don't most office fires last about 20 minutes and then move on? Wouldn't one whole floor have to be burning to weaken the columns enough to cause sudden collapse? None of the vids or pictures show this, they only show spot fires, not even one whole floor on fire.


""and having flaming debris from two of the largest buildings in the world collapsing.""

which did minor damage, mostly to the facade.


""See the OP and post #6 for video and photographic documentation.""

that's funny, I didn't see anything there that shows evidence of sudden collapse initiated by fire.

In fact there's other video's of other buildings totally engulfed in flames, unlike the spot fires of 7, that didn't suddenly collapse.

The ONLY videos that look a lot like building 7 are controlled demolition videos. Why is that?

Why did a lot of people spontaneously say on 911 that 7 looked like a controlled demolition?

"""sounds like" does not mean is.""

so just because it doesn't sound like a demolition on videos zoomed from far away does not mean it is not demolition?

""the article you quoted earlier says they did consider explosives but ruled them out based on science and facts.""

why not rule them out with testing? After all it looked more like a controlled demolition than anything else

why not test for the evidence of a controlled demolition?

What is the "science and facts" they used to rule out explosives? Was it actual science like TESTING, or was it skeptic conspiracy theory?

Forgive me, but this is just plain silly. If the towers had been brought down by a controlled demolition by conventional means, there would have been a very distinct, unmistakable sound that EVERYONE within relatively close proximity would have heard. Given the size of the towers, look and listen to the controlled demolition of a smaller building, then try to imagine what it would've had to sound like for buildings several (being conservative) orders of magnitude larger. More importantly, the cleanup operations were crawling with people with controlled demolition backgrounds, yet none of them reported a single blasting cap, piece of det cord, etc. Beyond that, if you've ever seen the extensive preparation that is required (including the cutting of columns), you'd have to ask yourself how the towers could have possibly been prepped and not ONE person noticed?
Beyond that, if we're going to go down the thermite/thermite/nano-thermite path, someone first has to demonstrate how it would be remotely possible: show a working model of a device designed to laterally cut columns, then calculate the amount of thermite needed to bring down the towers (which NIST did) and explain why NO ONE saw anyone entering the WTC with the necessary materials.

If it was "nano-thermites", why did NONE of the clean-up crew, engineers or scientists note any suspicious cuts in the steel? Forgive me, but no one but a few hardcore "truthers" with limited understanding of the science and engineering required to pull this off is concerned about this. I hardly think the expenditure is justified to disprove such a goofy theory.

"The buckling of Column 79 was the initiating event that led to the collapse of WTC 7."

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc082108.html

the same points stand. There is ZERO evidence of controlled demolition and the way the building fell may "look" like controlled demolition, but certain things basically rule that out, namely the fact that the penthouses fell way ahead of the rest of the building and the lack of ANY suspicious cuts made to any of the beams. While it is true that NIST and others were unable to unambiguously identify steel from WTC 7, it is also true that no steel from the site showed any sort of evidence of controlled demolition. The "controlled demolition" claim is only slightly less goofy than the "no-planes" nonsense.

This will be either ignored or declared fakery (maybe even by the expert douchebag Ace!) and claims will be made AGAIN that there were only minor damages and fires in WTC7 in what... a week? A month? Can we start a pool?

Etc, etc.

but don't forget that the steel portions of the Madrid building did collapse.

And I don't see any examples of buildings being hit by 767s first and suffering massive structural damage - are you arguing that the WTC were unique in history.

as attested by the FDNY. Funny what happens when two fucking huge towers collapse right across the street. My point still stands - but then you knew that already.

1 and 2 but the planes aren't required for fire to bring down 7.

Whatever, dude. Jesus Christ. You guys are an embarrassment.

they would have to admit that 911 was truly unique. Do you really think that the structural integrity of a building is completely irrelevant to it's ability to withstand fire damage? Really?

The structural damage is the issue - not what caused it. We know for a fact that WTC 1, 2 and 7 suffered severe structural damage. Deal with it.

YOU'RE the embarrassment, along with other posters here who focus on a tiny subser of the picture, ignoring all the contradictory evidence and clinging desperately to your goofy claims.

I sincerely beg you to quit embarrassing DU with this CD nonsense.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

"Truther logic": If you disagree with me on the facts, you're complicit in the cover-up of a crime.

I sincerely beg you to quit embarrassing DU with your CD nonsense.

both here and in the real world, I don't really think I have much to be embarrassed about. If I was a Truther, I would be somewhat embarrassed that after 8 years I haven't come up with any new "facts" and have to repeat the same nonsense over and over again.

pressed for facts they don't have, "truthers" resort to accusing skeptics of "supporting Bushco" or "enabling the cover-up of a crime", etc. I almost forgot my favorite one, that is, if you don't agree with them, you'll usually get accused of either not being a Democrat or a progressive, usually in some comically indirect way like, "Need I remind you that this is DEMOCRATICunderground?". I have yet to see one skeptic accuse a "truther" of supporting al Qaeda or the hijackers. Why is it the "truthers" can't stay on the moral high ground?

All the more reason to invoke "Dude's Rule" whenever necessary. If you would prefer it be named after you, I have no problem with that, "hacker". Just kidding.

Really with those system analysis skills? "Blah, blah, blah"

did you ever think of this? If the various "truther" claims are true, why wouldn't the scientific community be joining in droves? Since WTC 1 & 2 were designed differently than WTC 7, why would you
expect them to behave the same way?

But, back to my original question. Why isn't the scientific community flocking to the "truth movement"? I think the answer is rather obvious.

have time to deal with your non-sense. Good day.

vigorous debate is intimidation.

stupidity on your part with your silly and goofy belief that 9/11 wasn't enabled by dick cheeney and company.

Ok, that's it. I don't want to get TSed for daring to challenge you. Good day........sir.

won't, dude. I know civility is not your strong suit, but it's not that hard. I despise Dick Cheney and sincerely hope he is indicted, prosecuted and convicted for multiple crimes. However, "enabling 9/11" isn't one of them. Where's the smoking gun, dude?

I am finished? Can you not comprehend a simple statement?

Perhaps the evidence for cheeney's involvement is in this truck:

http://wonkette.com/211028/shreddin-with-dick

Or, in this building:




Now, I'll say again...Good day, sir!

dude.

dude.

I am going to basically warn you politely one time about...
From: SDuderstadt
Date: Jul-09-09 03:12 PM
twisting what I say in the forum. I never called the Saudis stupid one time and you know it. I never ever defended terrorists one time and you know it. Claiming I am complicit in a cover-up is WAY over the top. If you cannot debate on the facts, you ought to consider getting a coach.

n/t

challenge your bullshit that I have some reason to feel threatened. So, what gives you the power to warn me and what are the consequences if I don't heed YOUR warning?

Did I specify some consequence? Hint: no. Did I imply some consequence? No. I simply called you on twisting what I actually say to make it appear I am saying something else.

I'll help you here:





You seem to have difficulty with nuance, dude.

please be specific.

Whether that troubles you is for you to decide. (And let's be clear: it's easy for people to twist each other's words without even intending to. Miscommunication seems to be the default.)

"Showing a picture of a truck from a commercial shredding service shows that Dick Cheney enabled 9/11"

nonsense.

"truth movement". However, embarrassing DU is an entirely different matter.

then producing a cap pistol, dude.

Again, if your claims are true, why isn't the scientific community flocking to the "truth movement"?

has been withheld or destroyed. And lots of people who were in the know are now dead.

in the know are now dead".

I see....falling back on the old standby, "all the evidence has been withheld or destroyed". Kinda reminds me of Clinton's detractors who claimed, "The lack of evidence against Clinton just shows how sneaky he is".

So, if you have no smoking gun, please tell me how you drew the conclusions you drew? Do you usually draw conclusions bereft of evidence?

Really? You think that people consult Democratic Underground before choosing their research topics or conclusions? Or do you think that people like SD have exercised this chilling effect in some other venue?

Really, I would encourage you to give this closer consideration.

"Truthers" are so funny.

This idea, I find funny. I would be happier if Subdivisions came to understand why.

For instance, WTC 3 was hammered with huge pieces of the collapsing towers. Fires raged through it.

Even split nearly in two it did not fall.

you forgot to include that. In fact, differences in design and how that impacts building performance seems to be totally lost on the "truth movement".

Building performance?

Nothing was designed like WTC7, right? It was the most unique steel structure in the world.

We have design requirements for steel structures. Both WTC3 and WTC7 met those requirements. Both sustained damage, WTC3 much more heavily. WTC7 collapsed completely; WTC3 didn't.

By what magic did the floors in WTC3 not undergo the same sort of collapse after the removal of a greater amount of structure? Do you wish for me to believe that there was a special support structure (just one) in WTC7 that, when compromised, caused the total collapse of the building?

Was WTC 3 a "tube in a tube" design?

Was WTC 3 constructed over an electrical substation?

Was WTC 3 47 stories tall?

Did WTC 3 take up an entire city block?

Did WTC 3 suffer substantial unfought fires for 7+ hours?

This is getting absolutely silly and is why the "truth movement" is having trouble attracting more that a relative handful of architects and engineers to their cause.

Was WTC 3 a "tube in a tube" design?

That doesn't matter at all. WTC7 had to meet all building codes for a structural steel building.

Was WTC 3 constructed over an electrical substation?

That doesn't matter at all. WTC7 had to meet all building codes for a structural steel building.

Was WTC 3 47 stories tall?

The height doesn't matter. WTC7 had to meet all building codes for a structural steel building.

Did WTC 3 take up an entire city block?

The width doesn't matter. WTC7 had to meet all building codes for a structural steel building.

Did WTC 3 suffer substantial unfought fires for 7+ hours?

Many other buildings had "substantial unfought fires" and didn't collapse. WTC7 had to meet all building codes for a structural steel building.

What's silly is the time you spend in these forums carefully defending the official theory. Instead of letting us "nutcases", "whackos", "crazy-eyed loons" and the oft-said "truthers" (or "troothers" if you really want to get juvenille) sit in the "dungeon" and discuss our "completely whacked out" and "irrational" theories of the events of 9/11, you feel it's necessary to confront every statement with your "truth" and add a few insults.

Look, I'm a hardcore atheist and I don't spend time in a religious forum trying to convince the believers that they are wrong. It's a waste of my time and it won't stop them from believing.

Why don't you take a break and just let us "crazy, irrational, scientifically illiterate" 9/11 "truthers" enjoy our delusions?

We sure as hell don't believe the official story (or many of the other Bush administration lies) and we aren't going to believe your regurgitated so-called "debunking" information either.

I guess there's really no point in trying to explain this, since your mind appears to be made up, but you haven't established the relevance of "building codes for a structural steel building."

So that, apparently, leaves you arguing by analogy to WTC 3 -- and the analogy is flawed.

If you have some actual structural analysis of WTC 7, you can present that at any time. In the meantime, I don't see how an honest observer could be convinced, or even impressed, by your repetition of talking points.

I don't frequent the dungeon too much because rather than argue substantive points, people tend to hurl invectives.

Your labeling of my repetitive statements as "talking points" is misguided at best. Since I work for no one, lobby for no organization, have membership in no organizations/fraternities/clubs my points were strictly my own. I copied them from no one else and created them extemporaneously. Hence they are not "talking points."

Although others (and perhaps yourself, but since I don't know you I can't say) disparage the grassroot efforts of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, the fact that over 700 architects and engineers have allied to push for a renewed investigation is noteworthy. (And saying it's "only" 700 out many thousands and therefore meaningless is like saying we can ignore any problem until a majority of people agree that there's a problem. That would instantly be the death-knell of whistleblowers.)

Look, there are two basic groups of people: One group believes the official theory and is completely satisfied with the government's explanation; the other group believes that we were not told the full truth, there are many questionable aspects to the events of 9/11 and would like to see an independent investigation opened.

If you belong to the first group, why not relax and post elsewhere? You take comfort in believing the official story. You see no "mysteries" or anything objectionable. Fine.

There are, however, many of us who would like to see a new investigation. Some of us lost loved ones during 9/11; others of us are well-educated but not credulous people who don't believe what we've been told.

I don't think it matters whether you consider them original or not. I'll grant that the unexplained emphasis on building codes is less familiar to me than most of the content of this thread.

In reality, it is irrelevant how many architects and engineers call for "renewed investigation." Anyone can support investigation: that is pretty much the ultimate in cheap talk. (It doesn't even require actual curiosity about the events of 9/11, which may explain why so many Truth Movement adherents seem to know so little and to care so little about what they don't know.) What matters is how many, if any, can muster substantive arguments.


Sorry, but that's bullshit, and it is consequential bullshit to the extent that it prevents you and others from learning things. If we need to divide the world into two groups of people, I see people who insist that the towers were blown up, and people who think the evidence indicates otherwise. I find it sometimes amusing, sometimes maddening, that folks who poke holes in extremely poor CD arguments are so often cast as "completely satisfied with the government's explanation." It seems very closely analogous to how creationists characterize mainstream biologists.*

Now, if you want to take this even further ad hominem, you can, but in the meantime, you still could use an argument.

*ETA: By the way, this part is a simple observation. If you have a substantive critique of the analogy, I'd be interested to know what it is.

AND UNDERSTAND the NIST report on building 7. It consists of analysis from some of the best engineers in the biz.

It's hard to know where to begin.

First, taking issue with goofy CD theories is NOT "defending the official story", whatever that means. If I have to explain that to you, then you need more help than I can possibly provide.

Secondly, do you know anything at all about architecture and structural engineering? Are you honestly claiming that two buildings of different design must perform identically when subjected to the same stress, simply because they both "had to meet all building codes for a structural steel building"? Really?

First off, you committed the "fallacy of division" by claiming such. Simply because two buildings, even if constructed of identical materials, had to "meet all building codes" doesn't mean that both have to or will perform the same when subjected to the same stress. Would you claim that buildings employing bearing-wall construction, long-span construction, combination steel and concrete framing, and skeleton construction would all behave the same when subjected to the same stress? If you can find a single architect or structural engineer who would make that stupid claim, they should have their licensure revoked.

Ironically (and unfortunately for you), my first job out of college was as an assistant building official for a county and, as such, I oversaw building code enforcement, plan-checking and approval, permit issuance, field inspection, certificate of occupancy issuance, etc. In addition, I was at the ICBO Conference in Monterey, CA in 1975 in full voting capacity where we considered and adopted changes to sprinkling requirements after disasterous and deadly hotel fires. To put it mildly, your arguments are utter bullshit.

You don't think the height of a building has anything to do with its performance? You don't think the area/sq. footage of a building has anything to do with its performance? You don't think being built over an electrical substation, thus having considerably long spans has anything to do with a buildings performance? Your position is that, because the building had to "meet all building codes" that is some sort of maguffin that renders all structural steel building identical in performance despite the individual design? Fucking unbelievable.

As far as your plea to "just let us "crazy, irrational, scientifically illiterate" 9/11 "truthers" enjoy our delusions", maybe you don't understand the function of a public discussion board. You're entitled to believe whatever nonsense you want but you don't have the right to misinform others with your nonsense and, more importantly, you can't simply dismiss those of us who disagree with you on the facts by trying to lump us all together as "defending the official story". I have never dfefended the Bush administration and I'd love for you to show me where I have.

only a small section was left standing.

Your picture shows WTC 3 after the first tower fell. Here's what it looked like after the second.

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=&imgrefurl=http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc3des1.html&usg=__1CkIUqRe3YKP_Xh8ilwtbdY40hE=&h=450&w=600&sz=64&hl=en&start=1&um=1&tbnid=I0lbKxn44QKBmM:&tbnh=101&tbnw=135&prev=/images%3Fq%3DWTC%2B3%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN%26um%3D1?click

We've seen buildings entirely engulfed in flames for days that didn't collapse like wtc7. The OCT think it's completely obvious what caused this building to collapse. Yet, I'm still waiting for them to present a video of any other building collapsing in this manner, that *wasn't a demo*. I won't hold my breath...

buildings designed differently and constructed of different materials should, nonetheless, behave precisely the same.

I'll pose the same question to you that I posed to Subdivisions. Why isn't the scientific community flocking to the "truth movement"?

9/11 was accomplished by cavemen.

incapable of something so sophisticated? Really?

"Truther Logic": "Saudis are too stupid to have pulled off 9/11!"

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

is just ignorant on so many levels.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I think numerous architects and engineers would beg to differ with you. Have you even studied its design? Did you know that WTC 7 was built over an electrical substation? Do you have any idea what unique design elements that entailed? Do you think all buildings are designed the same?

it's your convenient, catch-all, bullshit, excuse. Dude.

Do you even know how the building was designed???

It doesn't how pissy and loud OCTools get, unless it was "uniquely designed" to do that, it was demoed. Period.

It didn't "fall at free fall velocity", dude. That canard was started by "truthers" who dishonestly start measuring the time it took WTC 7 to fall well AFTER the penthouses have already collapsed. Also, if you are looking at the video in which the bottom third of WTC 7 is obscured by other buildings, please tell me how the "timer" knew when to stop the clock.

I'll extend the same challenge to you that I do to others. I sincerely beg you to quit embarrassing DU with your goofy CD claims.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

and you know it. I see you don't want to describe the facts of the building's design. I wonder why that is.

Don't you think it's kinda pathetic when you can't debate the facts so you try, instead, to tie your opponent to the Bush administration and, in this case, make stupid accusations that your opponent is supporting crimes?

I believe you dislike Bush, but from my perspective, you are unwittingly helping them get away with it by supporting and spreading the cover up.

for you to parlay that into me somehow "helping them get away with it" is beyond belief and civility. By the way, I know precisely what I am doing. I doubt very seriously if possible adherents to the "truth movement" check here first, then say, "Hey, we'd better not support the 'truth movement'.".

I am going to ask you politely one time to quit impugning my motivation and quit trying to tie me to the Bush administration. Have you ever seen me try to tie you to the hijackers? It's an unfair debate tactic, to say the least. Even if it were remotely true (which it isn't), how in the world am I am impeding you or anyone else from blowing the lid off this thing. It's been nearly 8 years since the attacks. What are you waiting for?

By the way, with that I am invoking "Dude's Rule". In the same way that invoking "Lared's Rule" keeps one from wasting time with "no-planers", "Dude's Rule" keeps one from wasting time with "CD CT's". Adios.

Yours and mine. Later.

How long did it take the roof of WTC7 get to street level?

If the building fell at free fall how long would it take?

What makes you thin that "demoed" buildings fall at free fall velocities?

Without answering those questions your claim is baseless.

and Bldg 7 would still be standing if a fucking sky scraper hadn't collapsed into it!!!

Buildings designed differently and constructed of different materials behave according to the forces acting on them. We can recognize the destructive force by its pattern of destruction. A building that is struck by a tornado is destroyed asymmetrically and pieces of it are strewn about randomly, regardless of differing design and materials. Arriving at the scene, one would know it wasn't destroyed by fire or flooding.

It is easily determined if a building has been destroyed by flooding. Its contents will be mud-covered or washed away. Depending on the severity of the flooding, the building itself may remain standing or partially standing, or the entire structure could be ripped from its foundation, and carried by the current, pieces of it coming to rest along the way. The damage would be asymmetrical and easily recognizable as the result of flooding, regardless of building design or type of building materials.

An earthquake damaged building may be cracked, broken into pieces, or toppled over. The damage is asymmetrical and easily extinguishable from fire, flood, or tornado damaged buildings, regardless of building design or materials.

Fire causes buildings to collapse asymmetrically following the path of least resistance. Natural forces cause asymmetrical damage leading to asymmetrical collapse. No building anywhere in the world has ever before totally collapsed nearly symmetrically and at near free-fall speed except by controlled demolition.

you might just have something.

For example, what does the "path of least resistance" mean for a building?

Building 7 started out as a asymmetrical collapse. The failure of a single column (79) transfered that local collapse to a truss system on floors 5-7 which then failed. Since that truss system spanned the width of the building gthe failure of that truss translated into what appeared to be a symmetrical collapse, even though in actuality the collapse started prior to that truss's failure.

before the fires were started - correct? Are you really saying that the structural integrity of a building is irrelevant to how well it will withstand fire damage? You really believe that?

And don't you think it funny that those examples in post 5 were all concrete building?

start invoking the equivalent of "Lared's Rule" (declining to waste time with "no-planers") with respect to 9/11 CD nonsense. We could call it "Dude's Rule" or "Hack's Rule" or even "Brent's Rule" (after Brent Blanchard of Implosion World who has skewered CD theories.

No we need a catchy slogan, much like "no planes - no brains".

Shows that a controlled demo would have been almost impossible.