Unanswered, you can go no further

[n0spam4me]

So, you think you can wash away logic and reason by simply stating "There is absolutely nothing impossible about placing explosives in a building without anyone knowing."? Sorry man, it's impossible. Once we established that a controlled demolition is impossible, we must accept the NIST's version no matter how inconsistent or contradictory.

To address this, please consider the following
the office minions are in on a Monday morning and first thing a memo circulates that states later in the week there will be trades people in to work on the { plumbing, fire suppression system, telephone wiring, etc... }
and please do try to work around their efforts, your co-operation is appreciated. ( that is under pain of being fired, don't mess with the trades people, they are paid by the hour and they are union! )

It would be simple to get the place all set for demolition using wireless detonators. Yes, lots of work, but do-able. Fact is that if the people involved were convinced in their heads that this effort was indeed for the greater good, they would be highly motivated to go along with the program.

Why do you think that people blow up stuff in the name of their GOD?
happens all the time .... religious fanatics at work all over the place,
what if from the "THIS IS AMERICA & GOD IS ON OUR SIDE" faction there was a leader who could convince people that blowing up the WTC & blaming radical Arabs for it was an act endorsed by GOD......

 

[Skylar]

the office minions are in on a Monday morning and first thing a memo circulates that states later in the week there will be trades people in to work on the { plumbing, fire suppression system, telephone wiring, etc... }
and please do try to work around their efforts, your co-operation is appreciated. ( that is under pain of being fired, don't mess with the trades people, they are paid by the hour and they are union! )

And can you factually back up this narrative? Say, show us the memo?

And of course, you still have legions of other problems. For example, the initiation of the collapse of WTC 7 was virtually silent. So silent explosives? There's no such thing.

The fact that there were no girders cut in a manner consistent with explosive demolition.

The fact that there was no residue of explosives in any of the dust samples from the WTC plaza. This despite an analysis so precise that it could detect prescription medication from the WTC pharmecy.

The fact the building was on fire. Any system of explosives installed before the collapse would have also been on fire. Detonators would have detonated, blasting cord would have melted, any wires would have become useless, any timers or transmitters/receivers would have been reduced to bubbling pools of plastic. As there was fire on virtually every floor.

The fact that no charge nor apparatus of explosives was ever found. Not before, not during, not after collapse. Not one inch of wire, not a single charge, not a single timer, nothing. Despite your theory requiring thousands upon thousands.

The fact that there were no seismic signatures of explosives recorded by any of the nearby seismic sensors preceding the collapse.

And of course, the FDNY who watched the blaze for hours and accurately predicted the collapse of the building to within about an hour....due to fire and structural damage. Why would any rational person ignore them?

The bomb theory just sucks. Its an awful, awkward explanations that doesn't match the evidence, is ridiculously complicated, insanely elaborate, and pristinely fact free.

Occam's Razor cuts the bomb conspiracy to ribbons.

 

[Skylar]

But the chances are still greater than the impossible happening and as I've pointed out repeatedly here, it is impossible for fire to have caused the collapse of B7.

You've *said* its impossible for fire to have caused the collapse of WTC 7. The NIST has a very different take on the impossibility of it. Why would I ignore them and instead believe you?

Especially when the NIST account largely matches the FDNY account of the collaspe being caused by fire and structural damage? Why would I ignore either source and instead believe you?

"When you remove the impossible what remains no matter how improbable MUST be the truth".

The obvious problem with you reasoning being that you typing the word 'impossible' doesn't actually make something impossible.

 

[Skylar]

There is the facts to be considered here and that is for both towers & 7 to have "collapsed" right down to street level, is rather improbable.

Um, the debris field at each tower was 9 stories high. I don't now about you, but I've never considered 9 stories up to be 'street level'.

exactly what magical force kept the mass of rubble centered on top of WTC 1, 2 on the way down? any getting off-center at all, would have resulted in less than complete destruction of either tower.

So its improbable that the towers fell.....down? As opposed to what direction...sideways? Perhaps diagonally? What direction does gravity pull but downward? What 'magical force' would have resulted in the tower falling any other direction?

When *gravity* is now folded into your conspiracy, you may have gone just a tad too deep into the conspiracy rabbit hole.

 

[Skylar]

Was B7 hit by a plane?
Has a modern steel framed high rise building anywhere in the world ever collapsed due to fire?
Did B7 collapse on 911?

You know quite well that the WTC 7 wasn't hit by any plane. But it was hit by massive pieces of debris from WTC 1...which caused structural damage and started heavy fires on many floors. You don't acknowledge any of this, pretending that none of it ever happened. Alas, the FDNY didn't ignore what you do:

The major concern at that time at that particular location was number Seven, building number seven, which had taken a big hit from the north tower. When it fell, it ripped steel out from between the third and sixth floors across the facade on Vesey Street. We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing.

So for the next five or six hours we kept firefighters from working anywhere near that building, which included the whole north side of the World Trade Center complex. Eventually around 5:00 or a little after, building number seven came down.

Chief Frank Fellini FDNY

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Fellini_Frank.txt

You ignore the facts. But why would a rational person interested in what actually happened ever ignore something as immediately relevant as massive structural damage and heavy fires? Chief Nigro certainly didn't:

The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we wouldn’t lose any more people.


We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was giver., at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely I continued to operate at the scene….

Chief Daniel Nigro FDNY

So we have the FDNY repeatedly citing fire and structural damage as the cause of the collapse. Which, of course, you know. Which, of course, you really hoped we didn't.

Was the collapse sudden?

Nope. The FDNY had been recording the building's slow structural failure for hours. They put a transit on the building and measured its leaning, observed its bulging and buckling.

...also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html

And when the structural failure predicted by the FDNY did happen, it started with the penthouse....with the structure collapsing *into* the WTC 7. Demonstrating undeniably that the internal structure of the WTC 7 was already failing long before the facade fell.

When the facade did fall, it began in virtual silence. Killing any 'bomb' theory.....as actual explosive demolition is ludicrously, insanely loud. The WTC facade began falling so quietly it didn't even interrupt the conversations of those filming it.

Was the collapse straight down through the path of greatest resistance?

As opposed to what direction? Gravity only pulls down. Was the building supposed to fall sideways? Diagonally perhaps? What magical force would have propelled in any other direction than down with the force of gravity?

Was the collapse at free fall speed?

Nope. The penthouse fell into the WTC 7 starting about 19 seconds before the facade fell. Demonstrating that the collapse took way, way longer than free fall speeds. And that the internal structure of the building was already falling apart long before the facade fell.

Sorry, but the WTC 7 bomb conspiracy just sucks. Its an awful explanation that doesn't match the facts. And has holes you could drive tractor trailers through.

 

[daws101]

Debunking 9 11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition Myths - Massive Conspiracy

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Well at least this is in the right section.

It's only in this section because the cowardly moderators won't allow a free and open discussion of the facts about 911

thats the understatement of the century.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

One of the most peculiar aspects to the OCT is that it is embraced most tightly by the very people who on every other issue confronting America are convinced that we can't trust the government, that they are spying on us, that they are plotting against us, that they are Jack Booted Thugs who want to control every aspect of our lives.

But on the issue of 911 , they are convinced that it is all true, that we knew in two days the entire plot, which was cooked up in a cave in Afghanistan, who the nineteen hijackers were, that somehow there was no response from the Air National Guard, that the most heavily defended building in the world (the Pentagon) didn't defend itself, that somehow in the thousands of tons of dust and through the most enormous fire balls a paper passport from one of the supposed terrorists was found in near mint condition, but not their bodies!

Who wants to bet that if the President that day had been President Obama those who now defend the OCT would have been leading the charge on a real investigation. Oh what am I saying, there would have been impeachment hearing within three months. Only the realization that their "team" was probably involved keeps them from opening their eyes.

Just for the record, I voted for President Obama but it is obvious he is willfully or perhaps unwittingly perpetuating the coverup, but I want all those involved in the greatest crime in our history to be prosecuted to the fullest, even if my own ox is gored, for I am a patriot. Let the chips fall where they may, only then can Americans shed the lie of 911 and regain our greatness as the defenders of freedom and justice.

i could have told you that was going to be a major mistake voting for Obama.its a ONE PARTY SYSTEM of demopublicans and reprocrats disguised to look like two parties so the sheople think they have a choice in who gets elected and whoever they want it,gets elected through rigged voting.voting is a complete waste of time.

as long as we have this corrupt ONE PARTY SYSTEM and we dont get an independent in office who will serve the people instead of the bankers,there is no hope for the future of our country or the world.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Controlled Demolition was impossible. There is no way that a demolition team could go through those towers and place enough explosives in the right places without anyone seeing them do it, even if they did it at night, bribing or otherwise coercing the building security into keeping quiet. The wires, the modifications in the walls and building structure, the debris left over and even the time it took to accomplish such a task would be impossible to do without being seen. Not to mention keeping the demolition team quiet.

Since there are no other alternatives, one must logically accept the official version no matter how incomplete or inconsistent it is.

So, you think you can wash away logic and reason by simply stating "There is absolutely nothing impossible about placing explosives in a building without anyone knowing."? Sorry man, it's impossible. Once we established that a controlled demolition is impossible, we must accept the NIST's version no matter how inconsistent or contradictory.

Sorry man it's not impossible, improbable I will grant you but not impossible. What is impossible is that a modern steel framed high rise building can collapse due to "normal office fires". If you think it is possible to achieve free fall acceleration without controlled demolition why don't you explain it? By the way free fall acceleration means that the building collapsed at the same rate that a rock dropped from the top would have fallen. The NIST admitted to free fall but they couldn't/didn't explain it. The 911 Commission Report doesn't even mention B7 which is a lie of omission.

I understand your reluctance to accept the truth, it changes your world view, but facts are facts.

I do not have to prove a negative. YOU are making the claim that there was some conspiracy behind this other than the terrorist conspiracy that the official version claims. It is on YOU to prove that. You can't prove your conspiracy theory by poking holes in the official version. You have to prove yours.

No you are the Conspiracy Theorist. You are insisting that the Official Conspiracy Theory is true even though B7 proves it wrong. The laws of physics were not suspended on 911, the impossible did not happen. Since the NIST can't /didn't explain it and the 911 Commission Report didn't even mention it is obvious that it was controlled demolition, that the OCT is a lie.

Have you even found the courage to watch it collapse? Can you honestly say it looks like a building that "accidentally" collapsed, that it doesn't look exactly like the controlled demolition of a building like we have all seen before?

I'm sticking to the facts, the story of B7 is an obvious lie, who, how and why are all valid questions. But these are questions to be answered by a prosecutor with subpoena power, trained to follow evidence and test it in a court of law to determine fact.

If you are so sure that the OCT is true why are you afraid of an impartial investigation? If I'm so wrong why not a trial that proves me (and the thousands of architects, engineers, scientists, firefighters,pilots and more) wrong?

America has been living a lie these past thirteen years, we will only redeem ourselves by facing the truth. If seeking the truth makes me a "Truther" so be it, better than defending a lie, which of course makes one a Lier.

this conspiracy theorist predfan is a troll.He pretends like he is interested in the truth but when you give him facts and evidence of a controlled demolition in the tower,he ignores it.

Just like all loyal Bush dupes,he has no answers for the facts that fires dont cause buildings to collapse straight down in 11 seconds which violates the laws of physics or any answers for the facts that witnesses heard explosions in the towers before the planes struck claming they made it up and crap like that.

Nor does he ever have any answers like all Bush dupes never do,that there were other buildings in the area much closer to the towers with far more extensive damage than bld 7 and fires much worse yet they did not collapse.nobody ever has any explanation for that fact.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

YouGov did a poll earlier this year, 47% of Americans had not heard of Building Seven.
The collapse of B7 was never shown on TV after 911. If that isn't suspicious I don't know what is. A 47 story modern steel framed high rise building collapses into its own footprint in under 7 seconds and it's not worthy of a news report? This would have been the tallest building in over thirty states!

If you haven't seen it, youtube it, see for yourself, there is like five different views of it collapsing. If you can convince yourself that it doesn't look like controlled demolition I guess we have nothing to talk about.

While you're at it, youtube "BBC reports collapse of Building Seven". You'll be amazed at how the reporter became clairvoyant that day and reported the collapse 20 minutes before it happened. You can see B7 still standing behind her as she reports that B7 ( also called the Solomon Building) HAS collapsed. I've heard people try to explain it away by saying "well someone probably new it was going to collapse and the reporter thought they said it had collapsed". Well since no high rise had ever collapsed anywhere in the world before that day, to predict it happening would be like someone saying that the sun was going to rise in the west. It never has happened and it never will.

Only controlled demolition explains B7 and since it takes weeks to prepare a controlled demolition we can be sure that it was planned well in advance of 911 and was no coincident that it happened on 911.

Here's a link to the poll you mentioned.
If it's accurate, there are tens of millions of US voters who are currently ignorant of the most relevant political event of their entire lives:

"On the 12th anniversary of 9/11, a new national survey by the polling firm YouGov reveals that one in two Americans have doubts about the government’s account of 9/11, and after viewing video footage of World Trade Center Building 7’s collapse, 46% suspect that it was caused by a controlled demolition.

"Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper, collapsed into its own footprint late in the afternoon on 9/11..."

"38% of Americans have some doubts about the official account of 9/11, 10% do not believe it at all, and 12% are unsure about it;

"46%, nearly one in two, are not aware that a third tower collapsed on 9/11. Of those who are aware of Building 7’s collapse, only 19% know the building’s name;
After seeing video footage of Building 7′s collapse:

"46% are sure or suspect it was caused by controlled demolition, compared to 28% who are sure or suspect fires caused it, and 27% who don’t know;

"By a margin of nearly two to one, 41% support a new investigation of Building 7′s collapse, compared to 21% who oppose it."

New Poll Finds Most Americans Open to Alternative 9/11 Theories ? ReThink911.org | Sign the Petition for a new 9/11 investigation

Meh, people are stupid. I present the election and re-election of Barack Hussein Obama as Exhibit A.

So they are all stupid? You're being evasive.p

this troll predfan ignores what architects ,engineers and demolition experts say as well as ignoring the laws of physics and only believes what the media tells him and then calls those people stupid? what a troll.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

I do not have to prove a negative. YOU are making the claim that there was some conspiracy behind this other than the terrorist conspiracy that the official version claims. It is on YOU to prove that. You can't prove your conspiracy theory by poking holes in the official version. You have to prove yours.

No you are the Conspiracy Theorist. You are insisting that the Official Conspiracy Theory is true even though B7 proves it wrong.

B7 doesn't disprove anything. That only exists in your truther mind.



I agree, they were not suspended. The impossible did not happen. And the OCT is not a lie, it is a theory based on the facts as we know them to be.



I have watched it collapse many many times. It looks like a building collapsing and no, it looks nothing like the many controlled demolitions that I've seen before. Those have multiple mini explosions that occur in a controlled pattern. The towers showed none of that.



You have no facts at all.

If you are so sure that the OCT is true why are you afraid of an impartial investigation? If I'm so wrong why not a trial that proves me (and the thousands of architects, engineers, scientists, firefighters,pilots and more) wrong?

Look, here's your problem. You either don't bother to read posts you don't write, or you skim over them formulating your response instead of paying attention to what you are reading, or you have reading comprehension problems. I never ever stated that the OCT is true. I clearly said that there are problems with it. "Holes" and "inconsistancies" I believe I said. this is because the investigators were examining the evidence after the fact. It was the best they could do with what they had as far as tools and evidence. no one has been able to come up with a different explanation.

I'm not afraid of an impartial investigation, I just don't believe it's necessary since no new evidence has come to light. It would be a waste of money because the investigators would come to the same conclusions.

America has been living a lie these past thirteen years, we will only redeem ourselves by facing the truth. If seeking the truth makes me a "Truther" so be it, better than defending a lie, which of course makes one a Lier.

Whatever man. All of this nonsense has been debunked already in at least one thread here. You bring nothing new to the table. Now, since you refuse to propose and support a theory different than the one we all know to be as close to the truth as possible, then there really isn't any point in discussing this any more. you truthers cannot and will not see reason. You think that poking holes in the official version proves something. It ONLY proves what the investigators will already admit to: that they don't have all of the answers.

You however, have no answers at all. Good luck with your conspiracy theory.

Your are the one with a theory about a conspiracy, you know the one about nineteen hijackers? It has never been tested in a court of law to determine fact.

But here are indisputable facts, B7 was not hit by a plane, no modern steel framed high rise building has ever collapsed from fire anywhere in the world, B7 did collapse suddenly, straight down, symmetrically into its own footprint in under seven seconds at free fall acceleration. Now since you're all about reason and logic, answer how it fell if it wasn't controlled demo. You can't because that is the ONLY EXPLANATION!
Hundreds of structural steel connections can't possibly fail at precisely the same moment by accident. That is impossible and you know it. At this point you're just lying to yourself.

this troll predfan covers his eyes when you post pesky facts like this he knows he cant counter as well as always refusing to watch videos that expose it as well.Thats a common denominater with all these officical conspiracy theory apologists like him.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

It's only in this section because the cowardly moderators won't allow a free and open discussion of the facts about 911

No it is in this section because it is the same tired subject that has been brought up over and over for ten years by folks like yourself who have never actually been there like I was. You have done no actual investigation of your own. You just copy and paste other people's nonsense.

If you have a theory prove it. Go to New York. Speak to the people who were there. When you do your own documented scientific tests and research we will be glad to discuss the subject with you.

This^^^

I've never copied and pasted anyone. Since you made the accusation why don't you prove it.

Same tired subject? Really? The greatest crime in our history and you're just bored with it? Or too invested in the Official Conspiracy Theory and afraid to find out you've been duped all these years.

I see you have discovered the truth about predtroll that everybody discovers who trys to have discussions with him about the lies of the 9/11 commission report and NIST.He is afraid of the truth and only sees what he WANTS to see.

 

[n0spam4me]

There is the facts to be considered here and that is for both towers & 7 to have "collapsed" right down to street level, is rather improbable.

Um, the debris field at each tower was 9 stories high. I don't now about you, but I've never considered 9 stories up to be 'street level'.

exactly what magical force kept the mass of rubble centered on top of WTC 1, 2 on the way down? any getting off-center at all, would have resulted in less than complete destruction of either tower.

So its improbable that the towers fell.....down? As opposed to what direction...sideways? Perhaps diagonally? What direction does gravity pull but downward? What 'magical force' would have resulted in the tower falling any other direction?

When *gravity* is now folded into your conspiracy, you may have gone just a tad too deep into the conspiracy rabbit hole.

Please document 9 story high rubble pile at Ground Zero.
.....

 

[Skylar]

There is the facts to be considered here and that is for both towers & 7 to have "collapsed" right down to street level, is rather improbable.

Um, the debris field at each tower was 9 stories high. I don't now about you, but I've never considered 9 stories up to be 'street level'.

exactly what magical force kept the mass of rubble centered on top of WTC 1, 2 on the way down? any getting off-center at all, would have resulted in less than complete destruction of either tower.

So its improbable that the towers fell.....down? As opposed to what direction...sideways? Perhaps diagonally? What direction does gravity pull but downward? What 'magical force' would have resulted in the tower falling any other direction?

When *gravity* is now folded into your conspiracy, you may have gone just a tad too deep into the conspiracy rabbit hole.

Please document 9 story high rubble pile at Ground Zero.
.....

Right after you document that it was at 'ground level'. Either we both have to document our statements, or neither of us do. As it stands, I've offered as much to back my claims as you've offered to back yours.

Smiling....so can you back your claims? Or is only *other* people that must do so?

I'll gladly give you a hint though: look at the interview of Fred Marsilla with the New York Times in December of 2001. I am. And its quite illuminating......and really makes a mockery of your 'ground level' claims.

 

[Skylar]

Building Seven if the proof positive of controlled demolition and that the "Official Conspiracy Theory" is a lie. This fact alone is enough to open a real investigation. If you consider your self a patriot you should support the prosecution of the greatest crime in our history. No other evidence is needed to start the investigation for if this evidence goes unanswered then we can go no further. All other parts of the "Official Conspiracy Theory" fall apart.

So you recognize uncontrolled fires within the WTC 7. This eliminates even the possibility of the use of explosive demolition.....as an system of demolition would have also been on fire. Charges would have detonated or been reduced to bubbling pools of popping goo, wires connecting the charges would have been destroyed, timers or transmitters or receivers would have been destroyed.

2) Worse, the collapse of WTC 7 initiated in virtual silence. And there are no such thing as 'silent explosives'.

3) There were no girders cut in a manner consistent with explosive demolition. Oh, there were twisted girders. There were deformed girders. But there were no cut girders. And explosive demolition would have produced thousands upon thousands of them.

4) There was no residue of explosives in dust samples taken from ground zero. This in an analysis so precise it detected medication from the WTC pharmacy. But not the thousands and thousands of charges used to bring the buildling down?

5) There was never any apparatus of explosives ever found before during or after the collapse. Not one charge, not one inch of blasting wire, not one transmitter, not one cutter, kicker, not anything. These buildings weren't museums. They were regularly used, inspected, cleaned, maintained. There is essentially zero chance that the thousands and thousands of bombs would have been missed. Especially when....

6) The WTC plaza was inspected by the port authority bomb squad only a week before the collapse. Neither they nor their bomb sniffing dogs found even one charge. Despite your theory requiring thousands and thousands.

7) The FDNY correctly predicted the collapse of WTC 7 fire and structural damage hours before it came down. They measured its slow structural failure, its leaning, bulging and buckling. They put a transit on the building and by the afternoon were reasonably certain that it was coming down from the fires. Fires which grew hotter as the day went on.

8) There was an investigation by the NIST. And they determined that the FDNY was correct: it was fire that brought the building down.

You will absolutely need more evidence of explosives if you want your theory to work. As any one of these holes make bombs ridiculously implausible. And you can't resolve any of them.

 

[n0spam4me]

"And you can't resolve any of them." The real problem here
is the fact that the 2.25 sec of free fall acceleration of WTC7 is a HUGE smoking gun. You can get into tangents of trying to explain HOW it was done, however the fact is that you can NOT have free fall acceleration without removing all of the resistance out from under the falling bit and all at the same time. I really don't care if the how it was done includes somebody borrowed Harry Potter's wand and made all the support disappear all at the same time, but the documentary video on the subject doesn't lie. The "collapse" of WTC 1, 2 & 7 constitutes an UNNATURAL ACT. that is this had to have been a carefully planned & executed operation not the result of chaotic damage & fire.

 

[daws101]

"And you can't resolve any of them." The real problem here
is the fact that the 2.25 sec of free fall acceleration of WTC7 is a HUGE smoking gun. You can get into tangents of trying to explain HOW it was done, however the fact is that you can NOT have free fall acceleration without removing all of the resistance out from under the falling bit and all at the same time. I really don't care if the how it was done includes somebody borrowed Harry Potter's wand and made all the support disappear all at the same time, but the documentary video on the subject doesn't lie. The "collapse" of WTC 1, 2 & 7 constitutes an UNNATURAL ACT. that is this had to have been a carefully planned & executed operation not the result of chaotic damage & fire.

the answer to freefall is simple, the rest of wtc 7 fell away from the north face.
that falling away says more about wtc 7's construction and materials then the thermite myth.

 

[n0spam4me]

"And you can't resolve any of them." The real problem here
is the fact that the 2.25 sec of free fall acceleration of WTC7 is a HUGE smoking gun. You can get into tangents of trying to explain HOW it was done, however the fact is that you can NOT have free fall acceleration without removing all of the resistance out from under the falling bit and all at the same time. I really don't care if the how it was done includes somebody borrowed Harry Potter's wand and made all the support disappear all at the same time, but the documentary video on the subject doesn't lie. The "collapse" of WTC 1, 2 & 7 constitutes an UNNATURAL ACT. that is this had to have been a carefully planned & executed operation not the result of chaotic damage & fire.

the answer to freefall is simple, the rest of wtc 7 fell away from the north face.
that falling away says more about wtc 7's construction and materials then the thermite myth.

You allege that the rest of WTC7 fell away, however, how do you get ALL of the resistance to go away ALL at the same time so that the North & West walls of WTC7 do as was observed?

also, I did look up the Fred Marsilla interview and yes he sez 15 stories up or more, however, where are the pix, if the rubble pile was really that tall, why wasn't it photographed? in ALL of the pix that I have seen of ground zero, the rubble pile is 4 stories or less. In cases of the pix of ground zero, the pix could always be alleged to have been taken later after a good bit of rubble removal had been done, however, I ask again were are the pix of ground zero with that 15 story ( or more ) rubble pile? Is 9/11/2001 the most poorly documented disaster ever?

 

[Skylar]

\
"And you can't resolve any of them." The real problem here
is the fact that the 2.25 sec of free fall acceleration of WTC7 is a HUGE smoking gun

The real problem with your narrative is that it doesn't work. So like a good little conspiracy theorist, you refuse question your conspiracy, don't think too hard about it, and fail miserably to resolve any of the theory killing holes in it.

As for the 'free fall', you already know why that's blithering nonsense: the penthouse. It began collapsing into the WTC 7 about 19 seconds before the facade fell. With the penthouse fully plummeting into the center of the WTC 7 about 6-7 seconds before the facade collapsed.

Demonstrating unambiguously that the structure of the WTC 7 was collapsing long before the facade finally fell. Throwing your time line off by about an order of magnitude. How do you resolve this obvious conflict between reality and your theory? You ignore it, of course. Just like you ignore every hole in your conspiracy.

But why would a rational person, intent on understanding what happened ignore what you do?

 

[Skylar]

also, I did look up the Fred Marsilla interview and yes he sez 15 stories up or more, however, where are the pix, if the rubble pile was really that tall, why wasn't it photographed?

The Fred Marsilla interview was in regards to WTC 1 and 2. Not WTC 7. Which you'd actually know if you're read the interview. Here's the interview in its entirity:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110399.PDF

Educate yourself.