911 WTC 7 Silent Thermate Demolition, Debunkers Grab Your Ankles!

[daws101]

there are tons of empty buildings in iceland now that we collapsed their economy through war of wall street. they can be hit risk free for a fee of course.

explain how this is relevant?

 

[Montrovant]

go and google building collapse by fire, and yes make it similiar structures to any of these modern buildings. plus building seven was evacutated just prior to its implosion as is evident on numerous videos showing the order to evacuate because it's gonna be pulled as is the term used for implosions. dah. go find me a building

"Pull it" is not an implosion demo term and has been amply and resoundingly proven there is no evidence of a controlled demo. No explosions, no residuals, no cut girders, no known conspirators, no site prep and nothing which could have survived hours of raging fires only to be part of a controlled demo.
As Skylar already noted, no rational person would argue that a damaged building could collapse in any direction but down an in my experience those who make such irrational claims - despite the availability of real facts and logic - are either trying to sell T-shirts and coffee mugs to not-too-brights, a consumer of these T-shirts and mugs or have a nefarious agenda. So which are you ... a seller, a buyer or a snake-in-the-grass?

I would guess that the poster means it is odd that the buildings collapsed straight down, without any particular lean to any given side. The whole 'falling into their own footprint' thing. I found it odd when it happened, that neither of the tower tops had enough extra resistance on one side to cause them to fall to the side.

I wasn't. There's no structure in the buildings capable of stopping a collapse once its initiated. And as the debris field is accelerated under gravity, the energy of impact from the debris field increases exponentially. Worse, it gains mass with each floor it destroys.

Greater velocity and greater mass translates into wildly greater energy with each impact. Meaning if the first floor couldn't catch the debris field when it was lightest and slowest....then there's nothing that could catch it until you reach the ground as each impact after is heavier and faster..

Each floor, however, has roughly the same static resistance as the first floor the debris field impacted.

Nothing needed to stop the collapse. The point is that both buildings fell straight down upon themselves, there was no topple. Once it has begun that way, sure, it's understandable. That both began that way, that neither began with a noticeable lean, is what seems strange.

Not strange enough for me to shout, "Conspiracy!". Just an oddity.

For it to 'topple', something would have had to stop it. Toppling requires that the downward momentum stop and be translated to lateral momentum. But there's nothing in the WTC to do the translating. Any floor impacted immediately collapsed and fell like a traincar dropped out of the sky. Where then could a topple occur?

It couldn't. And it didn't. Only at the initial collapse could there have been any semblance of a 'topple' where the structural failure occurred asymmetrically. And even that would only last until the first impact.

And we do actually see evidence of this. There was a noticeable pivot in the initial collapse of WTC 2. A pretty dramatic one.

The entire section of he building above the impact zone began tilting as a rigid block( all four faces; not only he bowed and uickled east face) to the east (about 7 degrees to 8 degrees) and south (about 3 degrees to 4 degrees) as colum instability progressed rapidly from the eastwall along the adjacent north and south walls.

308 of Chapter 9 of NISTSTAR 1-6

There are videos and photographs of this if you'd like to see.

I think you are missing my point.

I'm saying it seems odd that the beginning of both collapses was pretty much straight down. I would have expected at least one of the towers to begin collapsing on one or two sides of the building, causing the top portion to lean and fall toward that side, kind of like when a tree is cut down. I find it odd that in both cases, the damage was such that the collapse seemed to occur on all 4 sides of the building simultaneously.

I understand that there are a number of reasons for this, from building design to the long period of uncontrolled fires prior to the collapse. I'm not using it as a denouncement of the official investigation or a call to support some other theory. It is simply an odd way for something to fall without having been intentionally demolished. Maybe it would be common if more buildings collapsed.

 

[Skylar]

I'm saying it seems odd that the beginning of both collapses was pretty much straight down.I would have expected at least one of the towers to begin collapsing on one or two sides of the building, causing the top portion to lean and fall toward that side, kind of like when a tree is cut down.

There's huge problems with that assumption. Its premised on the side or corner that acts as a fulcum being able to support the *entire* weight of the floors above it as the upper section leans and falls to the side. Leaning and falling to the side requires a stable base capable of supporting the mass that is leaning and falling. And there's no side, corner or portion of the building capable of acting as a fulcrum in this fashion. Any portion of the building subject to that kind of force would have collapsed spectacularly and immediately.

And did.

We did see the upper portion of WTC 2 pivot slightly as it collapsed *into* the rest of the structure. With the pivot point being on the back and subject to tension rather than compression forces. And lasted until the first impacts were made with the floor below where the pivot point too failed. The problem being, when the falling corner impacted the floor below......that floor can't support the weight of the building above. That stable base that is necessary for a something to lean and fall, that fulcrum...it didn't exist. Instead the falling corner went *through* the floor below. And the floor below that. And the floor below that. All the way to the ground.

As the floors are not designed to carry the gravity load of the building. But instead the live loads of people, ficus plants, office furniture, copy machines and the like. The vertical support structures that normally transmit a gravity load AROUND the floors down to bedrock are now impacting the non-structural floors directly. And they simply can't act as the fulcrum necessary for the 'leaning and falling to the side' you're describing. There's no structure in the building that could.

So you get exactly what you saw: a slight pivoting in the instants after an asymmetrical structural failure occured but before it was torn free by the first impacts with the floor below. And then a floor by floor impact down with gravity, all the way to the ground.

A tree, which is a solid object, would provide that stable base to lean and fall off of.

I find it odd that in both cases, the damage was such that the collapse seemed to occur on all 4 sides of the building simultaneously.

It didn't. In the case of the WTC 2, the collapse occured first on one side, then on another with enough separation in time that there was a distinct pivot in the upper floors as they fell. In the case of the WTC 1, it was also an asymmetrical collapse. But it occured much more quickly, requiring a frame by frame to see the progression. And no noticeable pivot.

This is likely due to the fact that on WTC 2, the impact of the plane was grossly asymetrical, concentrated on a corner of the building. While in the WTC 1, it was much more centered. Resulting in damage that was spread more evenly.

I understand that there are a number of reasons for this, from building design to the long period of uncontrolled fires prior to the collapse. I'm not using it as a denouncement of the official investigation or a call to support some other theory. It is simply an odd way for something to fall without having been intentionally demolished. Maybe it would be common if more buildings collapsed.

I'm not saying you are, nor am I accusing you of being a conspiracy theorist. I'm simply addressing the issues you've raised and indicating where your perception is more accurate and where less. And telling you why a steel structure wouldn't act like a tree.

 

[n0spam4me]

who here wants to debate
"911 WTC 7 Silent Thermate Demolition," ?
or?
if you want to discuss something else, please start another thread.
as for the debate, has anyone seen the Johnathan Cole videos on youtube? VERY informative, anyone who intends to weigh in on this issue should watch them.

 

[haissem123]

who here wants to debate
"911 WTC 7 Silent Thermate Demolition," ?
or?
if you want to discuss something else, please start another thread.
as for the debate, has anyone seen the Johnathan Cole videos on youtube? VERY informative, anyone who intends to weigh in on this issue should watch them.

i guess you could have made it easier by linking to the video you speak of.

 

[haissem123]

I just watched the video and new most if not all of this info and in knowing came to conclusion that any smart and honest person could only come to. Those in control of our government, then and now, blew these building up and killed 3k "innocent" people to save the trillions piping our planets resources across some desert held under the control or attack of the taliban. Anybody that says different is either lieinig, denying, or too scared or stupid to see these obvious truths. shalom and this subject is dead to me.

 

[daws101]

I just watched the video and new most if not all of this info and in knowing came to conclusion that any smart and honest person could only come to. Those in control of our government, then and now, blew these building up and killed 3k "innocent" people to save the trillions piping our planets resources across some desert held under the control or attack of the taliban. Anybody that says different is either lieinig, denying, or too scared or stupid to see these obvious truths. shalom and this subject is dead to me.

three pitching a fit posts in a row ...

 

[daws101]

who here wants to debate
"911 WTC 7 Silent Thermate Demolition," ?
or?
if you want to discuss something else, please start another thread.
as for the debate, has anyone seen the Johnathan Cole videos on youtube? VERY informative, anyone who intends to weigh in on this issue should watch them.

as stated before I seen those videos and there are so many holes in them they might as well be a sieve

 

[daws101]

 

[Faun]

7 seconds for building seven. that's a total free fall straight down. are your really that stupid to believe it just totally gave out so completely rapidly and perfectly on it's own? and yes pull it is a demo term used by pros and it was evacuated as they knew it was gonna come down in a few minutes. stop with your lies and pipe dreams

7 seconds??? Why do you lie if the truth was actually on your side ... here, look for yourself ... the first [visible] sign the building was collapsing is at around the 3 second mark of this video ... the building is collapsing until about the 17 second mark ... That's about 14 seconds, not 7.


[Video]

 

[LA RAM FAN]

^someone farted in here.

the paid troll is getting desperate.

 

[SAYIT]

7 seconds for building seven. that's a total free fall straight down. are your really that stupid to believe it just totally gave out so completely rapidly and perfectly on it's own? and yes pull it is a demo term used by pros and it was evacuated as they knew it was gonna come down in a few minutes. stop with your lies and pipe dreams

7 seconds??? Why do you lie if the truth was actually on your side ... here, look for yourself ... the first [visible] sign the building was collapsing is at around the 3 second mark of this video ... the building is collapsing until about the 17 second mark ... That's about 14 seconds, not 7.


[Video]

And at the end of the day that is the point. "Truthers" must lie because the truth just doesn't support their conclusions .. thus the foil hats.
The big question is what motivates them? Why the incessant BS?

 

[Faun]

^someone farted in here.

the paid troll is getting desperate.

How ironic, eh? A troll is someone who offers nothing to the debate but only posts to distract from the debate.

 

[n0spam4me]

something very relevant to the debate, Note that WTC7 has a period of 2.25 sec of descent in free fall acceleration. This is very significant in that the building keeps its shape and drops straight down during that period of time. NOW do you get it?

 

[Faun]

something very relevant to the debate, Note that WTC7 has a period of 2.25 sec of descent in free fall acceleration. This is very significant in that the building keeps its shape and drops straight down during that period of time. NOW do you get it?

And how should a 47 story skyscraper, burning uncontrollably for 7 hours after having a 110 story skyscraper fall on it, collapse? Keep in mind, you have nothing to compare it to since it's never happened before.

 

[n0spam4me]

something very relevant to the debate, Note that WTC7 has a period of 2.25 sec of descent in free fall acceleration. This is very significant in that the building keeps its shape and drops straight down during that period of time. NOW do you get it?

And how should a 47 story skyscraper, burning uncontrollably for 7 hours after having a 110 story skyscraper fall on it, collapse? Keep in mind, you have nothing to compare it to since it's never happened before.

should it "collapse" straight down at free fall acceleration?
and in response to chaotic damage & fires that involved less than a third of the total floors of the building. Look at the pix of the tower, at no time is there fire to be seen in the whole structure, only some floors and at that, less than a third of the whole building.

 

[Faun]

something very relevant to the debate, Note that WTC7 has a period of 2.25 sec of descent in free fall acceleration. This is very significant in that the building keeps its shape and drops straight down during that period of time. NOW do you get it?

And how should a 47 story skyscraper, burning uncontrollably for 7 hours after having a 110 story skyscraper fall on it, collapse? Keep in mind, you have nothing to compare it to since it's never happened before.

should it "collapse" straight down at free fall acceleration?
and in response to chaotic damage & fires that involved less than a third of the total floors of the building. Look at the pix of the tower, at no time is there fire to be seen in the whole structure, only some floors and at that, less than a third of the whole building.

How many floors needed to burn uncontrollably to weaken the structure? And you didn't answer my question ... if it was going to fall, how should it have fallen?

 

[n0spam4me]

"How many floors needed to burn uncontrollably to weaken the structure? And you didn't answer my question ... if it was going to fall, how should it have fallen?"

The "how should it have fallen" is a speculation trap, the problem here is that the what that it allegedly fell, because of fire, is totally improbable.
The fact that WTC7 fell for 2.25 sec at free fall acceleration is quite significant in that for anything to fall at free fall acceleration it must not have any resistance under it. so how did it happen in response to chaotic fire(s) that ALL of the resistance was removed and all at the same time out from under the North & West walls of the tower?

 

[Faun]

"How many floors needed to burn uncontrollably to weaken the structure? And you didn't answer my question ... if it was going to fall, how should it have fallen?"

The "how should it have fallen" is a speculation trap, the problem here is that the what that it allegedly fell, because of fire, is totally improbable.
The fact that WTC7 fell for 2.25 sec at free fall acceleration is quite significant in that for anything to fall at free fall acceleration it must not have any resistance under it. so how did it happen in response to chaotic fire(s) that ALL of the resistance was removed and all at the same time out from under the North & West walls of the tower?

Your entire post is based on false premises. First, that it's improbable for a 47 story building with fires burning uncontrollably for 7 hours to collapse as though it's impossible. But even more to point to a 2.25 second period of free fall with no resistance as though the interior of the building hadn't already collapsed, removing said resistance.

 

[Freewill]

something very relevant to the debate, Note that WTC7 has a period of 2.25 sec of descent in free fall acceleration. This is very significant in that the building keeps its shape and drops straight down during that period of time. NOW do you get it?

It would be very significant if true. More like 13.5 sec for total collapse.

Again here is a link: wtc7videoincludingeastmechanicalpenthous - wtc7lies