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

[n0spam4me]

You really don't get it, the compelling evidence in the video of "FLT175" striking the south wall of the south tower and penetrating like a hot knife through butter.... the "collapse" of WTC1,2 & 7, the whole Pentagon fiasco, ( where is the airliner? ) the total fraud that is the "FLT93" story .... and of course people have to demand speculation in the form of "WHERE ARE ALL THE PEOPLE" when faced with evidence that if you simply stop and consider the evidence we have, you would see that speculating about the alleged passengers of alleged airliner flights is simply a tangent and we need not waste energy on it.

 

[Skylar]

You really don't get it, the compelling evidence in the video of "FLT175" striking the south wall of the south tower and penetrating like a hot knife through butter.... the "collapse" of WTC1,2 & 7, the whole Pentagon fiasco, ( where is the airliner? ) the total fraud that is the "FLT93" story .... and of course people have to demand speculation in the form of "WHERE ARE ALL THE PEOPLE" when faced with evidence that if you simply stop and consider the evidence we have, you would see that speculating about the alleged passengers of alleged airliner flights is simply a tangent and we need not waste energy on it.

If you had the evidence, you'd present it. Instead you make vague allusion to evidence you don't have. If you can't back your conspiracy with evidence......why cling to it?

There were thousands of witnesses and literally dozens of videos of the south tower being hit. Folks with camcorders, live feeds from every major network. You insist they are all fake.

How insanely complicated is that? I mean, every major network would have to be in on it. They'd have to have confiscated *every* video of the South Tower impact from everyone and replaced it with the your imaginary 'CG' footage....that just happened to match the angle to folks were standing in. And of course, do so in such a way that none of those folks with the camcorders noticed. They'd have to plant EVERY witness who saw the plane. There were thousands, literally thousands of people. They'd have to spontaneously silence every person who saw the building just explode.

You're literally talking about thousands and thousands of impromptu co-conspirators.....regular folks watching the disaster unfold that for no particular reason decided to help cover up mass murder. And......maintain absolute and perfect secrecy for 13 years.

Dude, we couldn't maintain absolute secrecy of the nuclear bomb for more than 7 years. And that was on a secure facility where we got to pick and choose who witnessed it. This happened in the downtown of one of the most heavily populated cities on earth, with virtually the whole world watching. And you insist its all faked?

That's just stupidly complicated and ridiculously implausible. Its an awful, awful explanation. One you can't possibly back up with evidence. And an explanation just torn to ribbons by Occam's Razor.

 

[n0spam4me]

I have presented it, and people say NO, there would have to have been too many people involved, somebody would have talked...... ok, have it your way .... whatever ....

However, don't you wonder about the aluminum airliner that cuts through a skyscraper like a hot knife through butter? don't you question at all the fact that there is so little documentation of Ground Zero? ( oh ya, looky here, whole books full of pix .... as if that constitutes DOCUMENTATION .... ) and as for questions .... QUESTION EVERYTHING
like why did the worlds greatest military power fail to defend even its own HQ?

AMERICA has been flim-flamed, screwed, ripped off, lied to, and WE THE PEOPLE
need to wake up to what is going on and bust the real criminals in this case.

 

[SAYIT]

"WTC 1 & 2 were destroyed by the planes that slammed into them and the ensuing fire damage but claiming WTC 7 was felled by silent explosives that no one planted, that survived hours of raging fires in order to be triggered by some shadowy figure and which left no evidence? Yeah ... I'm the dope."

do try to think about the real scene, the alleged scene has WTC7 a raging inferno, when in fact less than a quarter of the floors were showing fire and that fire was most probably a bit of theater, that is fires that had been intentionally set up in advance to look like the whole floor was on fire however only the part near the windows was involved...

Before I waste my time reading the rest of your silliness, please post some proof of what you have said so far. Your failure to do should prove once again to all rational peeps (relax ... I'm not referring to you, Spammy) that the "Truther" Movement is just like the Bowel Movement ... flushable.

Also, note that getting the exact same result as a carefully planned and executed controlled demolition ( 3X ) is a good trick with fire and asymmetrical damage.

Please post any info you have on any 100 story buildings - other than the WTC - which have been felled by a controlled demo initiated from the upper middle floors after hours of "chaotic fires."
When the attack was viewed by the most experienced demo guys on the planet the thought occurred to one that they would be called upon to demo what was left after the fires. One admitted to having "no idea how" they were going to do it. As it turned out, they didn't have to worry about it but you would have us believe that GWB (or Cheney or Silverstein) and a troop of Girl Scouts wired those buildings on a long weekend.
Silliness ... just plain "Truther" silliness.

So days later

"WTC 1 & 2 were destroyed by the planes that slammed into them and the ensuing fire damage but claiming WTC 7 was felled by silent explosives that no one planted, that survived hours of raging fires in order to be triggered by some shadowy figure and which left no evidence? Yeah ... I'm the dope."

do try to think about the real scene, the alleged scene has WTC7 a raging inferno, when in fact less than a quarter of the floors were showing fire and that fire was most probably a bit of theater, that is fires that had been intentionally set up in advance to look like the whole floor was on fire however only the part near the windows was involved...

Before I waste my time reading the rest of your silliness, please post some proof of what you have said so far. Your failure to do should prove once again to all rational peeps (relax ... I'm not referring to you, Spammy) that the "Truther" Movement is just like the Bowel Movement ... flushable.

So here we are once again DAYS LATER and you have failed (as expected) to produce a shred of evidence - other than your baseless opinions - which support your latest shrill and desperate claims (in bold above) proving, once again that you, like most "Truthers" really have NOTHING with which to support your silliness. Flushable.

 

[n0spam4me]

The fact that WTC7 can be seen descending for 2.25 sec at 9.8m/s^2
and so few people are alarmed by this.... that is sooooo MAD!
There are all sorts of anomalies with this scene, ( see post 383 )
and people still insist on holding to the "19 radical hijackers" story.....
truly sad!

 

[SAYIT]

The fact that WTC7 can be seen descending for 2.25 sec at 9.8m/s^2
and so few people are alarmed by this.... that is sooooo MAD!
There are all sorts of anomalies with this scene, ( see post 383 )
and people still insist on holding to the "19 radical hijackers" story.....
truly sad!

You obviously are still deflecting (and lamely I might add). Before sliding to your next absurd claim please post some support for that which you have already made:
"...in fact less than a quarter of the floors were showing fire and that fire was most probably a bit of theater, that is fires that had been intentionally set up in advance to look like the whole floor was on fire however only the part near the windows was involved..." - NoSpammy

 

[Pennywise]

I'm not going to read this entire thread and I'm no expert on the subject of #7, so can one of you brain-trusts tell me why this building was flattened? Why did it need to be taken down?

 

[SAYIT]

I'm not going to read this entire thread and I'm no expert on the subject of #7, so can one of you brain-trusts tell me why this building was flattened? Why did it need to be taken down?

A legit question which no rational person can answer because no rational person believes WTC 7 needed "to be taken down." You will, however, find a myriad of "reasons" offered by the 9/11 "Truthers," none of which is supported by evidence and, to the rational mind, makes any sense. If nothing else this thread is dedicated to exposing the irrationality of the "Truther" Movement.

 

[Faun]

I have presented it, and people say NO, there would have to have been too many people involved, somebody would have talked...... ok, have it your way .... whatever ....

However, don't you wonder about the aluminum airliner that cuts through a skyscraper like a hot knife through butter? don't you question at all the fact that there is so little documentation of Ground Zero? ( oh ya, looky here, whole books full of pix .... as if that constitutes DOCUMENTATION .... ) and as for questions .... QUESTION EVERYTHING
like why did the worlds greatest military power fail to defend even its own HQ?

AMERICA has been flim-flamed, screwed, ripped off, lied to, and WE THE PEOPLE
need to wake up to what is going on and bust the real criminals in this case.

Ok, so I watched that video. It was well produced and interesting, however, there is a gaping head wound from which it cannot survive ...

As I pointed out earlier, there are 100 different videos from 100 different angles by 100 different people. The government would had to have confiscated every single one and edited in the image of a plane striking the south tower. As improbable as that is, it becomes impossible once you understand the government would have had to retrieve EVERY video; as in 100% of the videos, since if even one was missed, it would have surfaced, exposing such a hoax. And again, such a scam would also require 100% of the photographers to not notice their video was edited; or hope none would expose such a hoax. So there's absolutely no way that occurred.

... however ... there is another way the government could have gone about attempting this ... they could have prepared 100 different videos from 100 different angles in advance and released them, purporting them to be from 100 different people. That would mean, of course, that they had to wait until the weather matched the weather in their supposedly fake videos, but that in itself could be possible. But here's where this hypothesis falls apart ... there still would have been 100 videos at 100 different angles by 100 different people -- but ALL depicting the tower exploding with NO plane hitting it . Yet there are none.

Not one.

Nor are there any people claiming they recorded that but that their video mysteriously disappeared.

Not one.

That is simply not possible. With all those people recording that event, someone would have come forward with a video with no planes. The only way one can believe that no planes struck the WTC is to be batshit insane. Even batshit insane doesn't fully do justice in describing how insane one must be to believe no planes were involved.

 

[daws101]

The acceleration of gravity that is 9.8m/s^2 is an indication of no resistance under the falling bit. Other rates of acceleration are possible ( with or without explosives) however the very fact that anything spent 2.25 sec accelerating at a rate indistinguishable from the acceleration of gravity is very significant.

Right you are.... and It's particularly significant when it comes to WTC7, which wasn't even hit by a plane. It's really pretty worthless to bother with science in this forum though, these guys don't seem interested in solutions or getting to the bottom of anything, it seems to be more about agitation, distraction and fabrication.

Though the possible composition and placement of the explosives can be endlessly debated, but the fact that they were indeed composed and placed cannot....

The conditions required for gravitational acceleration to occur have been known for centuries - "The condition under which a body is, literally, free to fall under the influence of the local gravitational field with no resistance to its acceleration."....

....and the progressive collapse of the building (starting with column 79 on the left)....

....that essentially happens all at once....

....is clearly inconsistent with what we empirically know of natural progressive structural failure (defined as a time consuming process of individual/sequential/simultaneous failures involving a number of related structural components).

It's a matter of empirical fact that, even if a giant laser beam were to suddenly vaporize all but the North Face of the building, resulting in the remaining exterior columns immediately beginning to buckle all at once, free fall still would not occur.

The strength of buckled columns, whether one or a thousand, whether one at a time or all at once (or any combination thereof) won't just go from 100% to 0% when they buckle, they'll go from 100% to 0% while they buckle and that takes time.

The mechanism of buckling (a mode of natural progressive structural failure), whether caused by heat....

Control on the right, details....
http://picasion.com/pic76/ef2992a1bed34a1ad9d2e8f520c5ad7e.gif​

....or by overloading....

Control on the right, details....
http://picasion.com/pic76/ef2992a1bed34a1ad9d2e8f520c5ad7e.gif​

....absolutely cannot create the conditions required for gravitational acceleration to occur, it's literally impossible. Some force must be introduced to quickly remove all support from beneath the literally falling visible upper part of the building seen in the video....

It's a physical impossibility for the lower part of the asymmetrically damaged building (reportedly three core columns and nine perimeter columns) to have naturally progressively collapsed in any way that could result in the upper part of the building symmetrically descending straight down through itself at gravitational acceleration (NIST probable collapse sequence starting with column 79 circled below) for any period of time....

....and there is absolutely no mode or combination of modes of natural progressive structural failure driven solely by gravity that can ever give rise to the conditions required (below) for free fall to have occurred at any point during it's descent....

The scenario (below) is an absolute physical impossibility....

There is simply no point during a natural progressive gravity driven collapse of a steel frame skyscraper like this where one could say....

"Hold it.... right there! That's the point where all the steel columns and structural components that were supporting the building just a moment ago (with an area greater than that of a football field) will undoubtedly be found to be behaving in a manner very much like air (below left). It will take very careful calculation to tell the fall times apart during this free fall period of the ongoing progressive structural failure (below right)"....

Not only is it improbable, it's impossible that the lower asymmetrically damaged part of the building could have naturally progressively collapsed in a way that resulted in the upper part of the building actually accelerating as it descended symmetrically straight down through itself, through the path of greatest resistance (below right), and that driven on solely by gravity, it actually continued to accelerate so nearly to gravitational acceleration (below left) as to require very careful calculation for any difference between the two to be detected....

For the 2.25 seconds (eight stories, approximately 105 feet) that we know the upper part of the building literally fell at gravitational acceleration it cannot have been using any of it's potential energy to crush the building contents, columns and other structural components beneath it and undergo free fall at the same time....

Control on the right, details....
http://picasion.com/pic76/ef2992a1bed34a1ad9d2e8f520c5ad7e.gif​

Some other force powerful enough to quickly remove all support from beneath the upper part of the building as it descended must be introduced to explain the observed rate of descent during the 2.25 second period of gravitational acceleration.

For the 2.25 seconds that the building iliterally fell at gravitational acceleration, no other force powerful enough to quickly remove all support from beneath the upper part of the building was seen to be introduced from outside the building, and no other force powerful enough to quickly remove all support from beneath the upper part of the building is known to have existed inside the building as an element or normal function of it's infrastructure.

For a load supported by a column to descend at gravitational acceleration, all support must be quickly removed, there's absolutely no other way. It must be knocked out, pulled out, blown out, vaporized, etc.

Since no eight story tall boulders were seen rumbling through Manhatten that day that could have quickly knocked out all support....

Control on the right, details....
http://picasion.com/pic76/ef2992a1bed34a1a...8f520c5ad7e.gif​

....and no suspicious looking Frenchmen were spotted rigging for verinage (another form of controlled demolition) the night before that could have quickly pulled out the support....

Control on the right, details....
http://picasion.com/pic76/ef2992a1bed34a1a...8f520c5ad7e.gif]​

....and no bombs or rockets were seen to be dropped on/fired at it that could have quickly blown out all support....

Control on the right, details....
http://picasion.com/pic76/ef2992a1bed34a1a...8f520c5ad7e.gif​

....and no giant laser beams or other secret weapons were being tested in the area that could have quickly vaporized all support....

Control on the right, details....
http://picasion.com/pic76/ef2992a1bed34a1a...8f520c5ad7e.gif​

....and no other force capable of quickly removing all support from beneath the upper part of the building existed in the building as a normal function of it's infrastructure (blue below)....

....it naturally follows that whatever the other force was that must be introduced to explain the observed 2.25 seconds of descent at gravitional acceleration, it must have been introduced some time before the event, and unless someone can show how the other force that must be introduced either during or just before the collapse of the building was introduced from outside the building, or that it was already existing inside the building as a normal function of it's infrastructure, the process of elimination really leaves only one possible explanation for the building's behaviour.

Some energetic material powerful enough to quickly remove all support from beneath the upper part of the building during the 2.25 second period of gravitational acceleration must have been physically transported inside the building some time before the event, it had to be brought in.

The explosion model (below) is the only one....

....that can realistically match and empirically be expected to create the conditions (below) that we know must have existed....

....beneath the literally falling visible upper part of the building (below) during its observed largely symmetrical descent at gravitational acceleration for approximately 105 feet in 2.25 seconds....

The undisputed (both the NIST and independent researchers alike agree) confirmed observation of a significant period of gravitational acceleration....

....means an explosion, or a number of explosions, must have occurred that was powerful enough to quickly remove all support from beneath the upper part of the building (below right), either all at once or incrementally in advance of its descent, permitting it to descend at gravitational acceleration for the observed period and under the conditions required (below left) for free fall to occur....

The building was brought down by explosives.

oh no it's back!

 

[daws101]

Michael Hezarkhani Video CNN Best Angle - The WTC 2 Media Hoax

Sorry about misspelling the name the first time..... This and many other links
have INFORMATION about the totally fake "FLT175".

Ace Baker on YOUTUBE "THE KEY"

911 research !

About 9-11 Research
9-11 Research is an ongoing effort to discover the truth about the attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C. on September 11th, 2001. To that end we provide a growing hypertext documentary of the attack and its aftermath, easily browsed archives of evidence, and a body of original analysis based on that evidence. We maintain the website as a public service.

Contents

• Mission
• Disclaimer
• Who We Are
• Research History
• Website History
• Images and Videos
• Terms of Service
• Corrections
• Language Translation
• Acknowledgments

Frequently Asked Questions.)

If the attack was indeed a "black-op", then we can expect that the operatives will have hidden their identities behind layer upon layer of cover story. Only a genuine investigation with meaningful powers will be able to peel away the layers of deception to expose the true perpetrators. We hope to facilitate such an investigation by first exposing the falsity of the outermost cover story: the official myth of 9/11/01.

We intend for our work to honor the many victims of this horrendous attack. Many people will find it difficult and traumatic to confront the idea that the attack was the work, not of a religious extremist living in caves in Central Asia, but of people within the U.S. government. Apologists for the official story ridicule such ideas, and attempt to confuse compassion for the victims with certainty that bin Laden was the perpetrator. In fact, genuine compassion consists of learning and spreading the truth in order that future repetitions of such murderous frauds may be prevented.

USA PATRIOT Act places restrictions on freedoms of expression guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution -- restrictions that have yet to be tested in the courts. It allows individuals to be placed under electronic surveillance without their knowledge or consent, and without a court order. We have no way of knowing whether people visiting this site are being monitored, and if we did know, it would be illegal under the USA PATRIOT Act for us to share that knowledge with our visitors.

We have received several complaints of graffiti-like postings of the URLs for 9-11 Research and its companion websites in public places. We discourage and disavow such intrusive campaigning methods, which tend to be counterproductive to our mission of public education.

Jim Hoffman created the website and wrote the vast majority of its original content. Hoffman has a background in software engineering, mechanical engineering, and scientific visualization. Hoffman also created the Web publishing system used to maintain the 9-11 Research website.

Gregg Roberts has been investigating the September 11 attack since December 2003 and has provided extensive editorial assistance to 911Research. He authored the essay Where Are the 9/11 Whistleblowers?, and is working with Hoffman to produce a book based on the site. Roberts is a technical writer and business analyst with a bachelor's degree in psychology, master's-level study in social work, and earlier education in the "hard" sciences.

Jan Hoyer is a former founding board member and graphic designer for the National 9/11 Visibilty Project, 911Truth.org and the D.C Emergency Truth Convergence. Hoyer has a degree in graphic design and experience in online multimedia.

note: not one of the founders or editors of 911 "research" has any engineering or science education or experience.

 

[n0spam4me]

I'm not going to read this entire thread and I'm no expert on the subject of #7, so can one of you brain-trusts tell me why this building was flattened? Why did it need to be taken down?

There is a LOT of speculation as to why WTC7 was destroyed, and I really do not want to entertain a speculative tangent. What I do have for you is the LOGIC that clearly indicates the destruction of WTC7 was an engineered event. Note that the structure, or at least the North & West walls, are seen descending at 9.8 m/s^2 for 2.25 sec, this is VERY significant and if you really can't get your head around this, please do consult your friendly local physics professor, or lacking that check out the Videos on youtube where any number of people discuss the physics of the "collapse" event.

also please do have a look at this WTC7.net the hidden story of Building 7 Videos Show Building 7 s Vertical Collapse


Given the logic & physical reality of this whole bit, it is obvious that WTC1,2 & 7
were intentionally destroyed. ( the WHY is quite another subject and I for one do not want to engage in that discussion )

 

[Skylar]

What I do have for you is the LOGIC that clearly indicates the destruction of WTC7 was an engineered event.

Logic has nothing to do with your process. Otherwise, you wouldn't ignore the theory crippling holes in your beliefs. For example, the WTC 7 collapse initiated in silence. Controlled demolition is ludicrously loud. And there are no such thing as silent explosives.

That just kills your 'bomb' theory. You can't resolve it. You can't explain it. You simply ignore it. That's both illogical and irrational.

You also ignore the fact that there wasn't a single cut found on any girder (you know, the 'demolition' in controlled demolition'), the building was on fire (negating any system of controlled demolition, as it would have also been on fire), or the fact that the FDNY anticipated the collapse of the WTC 7 by hours due to fire and structural damage. They measured its bulging, its buckling, its leaning......for hours.

You ignore it all. No rational person ever would.

 

[n0spam4me]

What I do have for you is the LOGIC that clearly indicates the destruction of WTC7 was an engineered event.

Logic has nothing to do with your process. Otherwise, you wouldn't ignore the theory crippling holes in your beliefs. For example, the WTC 7 collapse initiated in silence. Controlled demolition is ludicrously loud. And there are no such thing as silent explosives.

That just kills your 'bomb' theory. You can't resolve it. You can't explain it. You simply ignore it. That's both illogical and irrational.

You also ignore the fact that there wasn't a single cut found on any girder (you know, the 'demolition' in controlled demolition'), the building was on fire (negating any system of controlled demolition, as it would have also been on fire), or the fact that the FDNY anticipated the collapse of the WTC 7 by hours due to fire and structural damage. They measured its bulging, its buckling, its leaning......for hours.

You ignore it all. No rational person ever would.

Funny thing that, when I point to obviously cut steel, people tell me that but bit in question was cut during the clean-up process and so my claim must be totally invalid. ( What, no pix of ground zero right after the "collapse"? ) anyhow there are news videos full of people who report hearing explosions and also video sound-tracks that contain sounds of explosions. But then again to the nay-sayers its all misinterpreted sounds and really there were no explosions..... oh my ..... get a grip!

 

[daws101]

What I do have for you is the LOGIC that clearly indicates the destruction of WTC7 was an engineered event.

Logic has nothing to do with your process. Otherwise, you wouldn't ignore the theory crippling holes in your beliefs. For example, the WTC 7 collapse initiated in silence. Controlled demolition is ludicrously loud. And there are no such thing as silent explosives.

That just kills your 'bomb' theory. You can't resolve it. You can't explain it. You simply ignore it. That's both illogical and irrational.

You also ignore the fact that there wasn't a single cut found on any girder (you know, the 'demolition' in controlled demolition'), the building was on fire (negating any system of controlled demolition, as it would have also been on fire), or the fact that the FDNY anticipated the collapse of the WTC 7 by hours due to fire and structural damage. They measured its bulging, its buckling, its leaning......for hours.

You ignore it all. No rational person ever would.

Funny thing that, when I point to obviously cut steel, people tell me that but bit in question was cut during the clean-up process and so my claim must be totally invalid. ( What, no pix of ground zero right after the "collapse"? ) anyhow there are news videos full of people who report hearing explosions and also video sound-tracks that contain sounds of explosions. But then again to the nay-sayers its all misinterpreted sounds and really there were no explosions..... oh my ..... get a grip!

of course people heard sounds of explosions burning causes lots of non explosives to explode.
and the naysayers are right. most people not under stress cannot tell the difference between a blowout and back fire.
under stress it gets a lot worse.

 

[n0spam4me]

What I do have for you is the LOGIC that clearly indicates the destruction of WTC7 was an engineered event.

Logic has nothing to do with your process. Otherwise, you wouldn't ignore the theory crippling holes in your beliefs. For example, the WTC 7 collapse initiated in silence. Controlled demolition is ludicrously loud. And there are no such thing as silent explosives.

That just kills your 'bomb' theory. You can't resolve it. You can't explain it. You simply ignore it. That's both illogical and irrational.

You also ignore the fact that there wasn't a single cut found on any girder (you know, the 'demolition' in controlled demolition'), the building was on fire (negating any system of controlled demolition, as it would have also been on fire), or the fact that the FDNY anticipated the collapse of the WTC 7 by hours due to fire and structural damage. They measured its bulging, its buckling, its leaning......for hours.

You ignore it all. No rational person ever would.

Funny thing that, when I point to obviously cut steel, people tell me that but bit in question was cut during the clean-up process and so my claim must be totally invalid. ( What, no pix of ground zero right after the "collapse"? ) anyhow there are news videos full of people who report hearing explosions and also video sound-tracks that contain sounds of explosions. But then again to the nay-sayers its all misinterpreted sounds and really there were no explosions..... oh my ..... get a grip!

of course people heard sounds of explosions burning causes lots of non explosives to explode.
and the naysayers are right. most people not under stress cannot tell the difference between a blowout and back fire.
under stress it gets a lot worse.

so in another post, you were willing to assert that the "collapse" happened in silence
and now we know that there were sounds, however the interpretation of said sounds is the question.
The fact that the building ( or at least a significant part of it ) was seen descending at 9.8 m/s^2 for 2.25 sec and people are still debating the issue, is a wonder to me. as far as I'm concerned, its controlled demolition, case closed!

 

[daws101]

What I do have for you is the LOGIC that clearly indicates the destruction of WTC7 was an engineered event.

Logic has nothing to do with your process. Otherwise, you wouldn't ignore the theory crippling holes in your beliefs. For example, the WTC 7 collapse initiated in silence. Controlled demolition is ludicrously loud. And there are no such thing as silent explosives.

That just kills your 'bomb' theory. You can't resolve it. You can't explain it. You simply ignore it. That's both illogical and irrational.

You also ignore the fact that there wasn't a single cut found on any girder (you know, the 'demolition' in controlled demolition'), the building was on fire (negating any system of controlled demolition, as it would have also been on fire), or the fact that the FDNY anticipated the collapse of the WTC 7 by hours due to fire and structural damage. They measured its bulging, its buckling, its leaning......for hours.

You ignore it all. No rational person ever would.

Funny thing that, when I point to obviously cut steel, people tell me that but bit in question was cut during the clean-up process and so my claim must be totally invalid. ( What, no pix of ground zero right after the "collapse"? ) anyhow there are news videos full of people who report hearing explosions and also video sound-tracks that contain sounds of explosions. But then again to the nay-sayers its all misinterpreted sounds and really there were no explosions..... oh my ..... get a grip!

of course people heard sounds of explosions burning causes lots of non explosives to explode.
and the naysayers are right. most people not under stress cannot tell the difference between a blowout and back fire.
under stress it gets a lot worse.

so in another post, you were willing to assert that the "collapse" happened in silence
and now we know that there were sounds, however the interpretation of said sounds is the question.
The fact that the building ( or at least a significant part of it ) was seen descending at 9.8 m/s^2 for 2.25 sec and people are still debating the issue, is a wonder to me. as far as I'm concerned, its controlled demolition, case closed!

false! I never said or asserted anything of the kind.
you in your delusional state are making false connections as to who said what.

 

[Skylar]

What I do have for you is the LOGIC that clearly indicates the destruction of WTC7 was an engineered event.

Logic has nothing to do with your process. Otherwise, you wouldn't ignore the theory crippling holes in your beliefs. For example, the WTC 7 collapse initiated in silence. Controlled demolition is ludicrously loud. And there are no such thing as silent explosives.

That just kills your 'bomb' theory. You can't resolve it. You can't explain it. You simply ignore it. That's both illogical and irrational.

You also ignore the fact that there wasn't a single cut found on any girder (you know, the 'demolition' in controlled demolition'), the building was on fire (negating any system of controlled demolition, as it would have also been on fire), or the fact that the FDNY anticipated the collapse of the WTC 7 by hours due to fire and structural damage. They measured its bulging, its buckling, its leaning......for hours.

You ignore it all. No rational person ever would.

Funny thing that, when I point to obviously cut steel, people tell me that but bit in question was cut during the clean-up process and so my claim must be totally invalid.

Funny thing is, you're not actually pointing to anything. You're alluding. You're insinuating. Remember, almost every girder would have to be cut per your silly conspiracy. With 50,000 cuts in the WTC 1 and 2 alone. With more than 80% of them on the outside of the building. And yet......all you have is innuendo.

......And of course, there's no such thing as silent explosives. Killing your conspiracy again. Here's the collapse of WTC 7:



Um, what explosions? The collapse initiated so quietly it didn't even interrupt the conversation of those nearby. Where actual controlled demolition is ridiculously loud:



No explosions, no explosives. Your theory doesn't work. But lets beat a dead horse, shall we?

.......There's also no residue of explosives found in dust samples. Killing your conspiracy yet again.

.......And the Port Authority bomb squad went through the WTC plaza only a week before the attack. And no bomb was ever found. And poof, your conspiracy dies yet again.

.......And not a single charge or any apparatus of explosive was ever found, before during or after the collapse. Not an inch of blasting wire. Not a single receiver, control board, or a single piece of det cord. Despite your conspiracy requiring tens of thousands of such charges, dozens of miles of wiring, and elaborate system of timers or signal receivers.

Yet...nothing. Absolutely nothing.

......And the buildings were on fire, with the largest fires being the location of the initiation of each collapse. Meaning any system of 'explosives' would have been on fire. Nixing your silly theory yet again.

But keep ignoring. Willful ignorance is really the only refuge for the truther. As their theory is insanely complicated, fact free, and just a stupidly awful explanation.

 

[n0spam4me]

"almost every girder would have to be cut per your silly conspiracy. With 50,000 cuts in the WTC 1 and 2 alone. With more than 80% of them on the outside of the building. And yet......all you have is innuendo."

No, not "innuendo" ..... look at what happened, the result that was observed required that all the structural bits be cut, or fail because of fire and do so on a schedule. Think about this, with the damage from the alleged airliner crash having already compromised some of the structure, the descending mass from above would have had an easy time of traversing that space ( having already been damaged ) and more resistance from other parts of the structure horizontally parallel to the "crash site" ... so then, with that said, why the uniformity of the "collapse" event?

 

[Skylar]

o, not "innuendo" ..... look at what happened, the result that was observed required that all the structural bits be cut, or fail because of fire and do so on a schedule.

Then show us the thousands up thousands of cut girders. They would be *everywhere* if your theory were valid. That's 50,000 cuts in the WTC 1 and 2 alone. Remember, roughly 250 outer panels and 47 core columns per floor. With roughly 90 floors in one tower and 80 floors in the other from the impact site to the ground.

That's 50,490 cuts in girders....which we'll round down to 50,000 for the sake of brevity.

That's more cuts than there are girders in the building. Every single girder should not only be cut, but cut multiple times. There should be thousand up thousands of such cuts. And yet when challenged to SHOW US, not allude to them or insinuate them.......we get excuses.

You can't show us....because the cuts your theory requires simply don't exist. Killing your conspiracy yet again.