yep no controlled demolition of bld 7 or lost libertys since 9/11 alright

[georgephillip]

The obvious place to start would be GOOGLE. Just punch in "why did building 7 collapse on 9 11" and you will get both factual theories (Structure Mag, POP Mechs, NIST Report) and all the CTs you can handle. There's even an independent study by some Chinese University. Have fun!

Including 2.25 seconds of free fall acceleration over eight stories.

Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - Free Fall

Your link made no reference to WTC7; why is that?
Here's one for you...convince me you're smarter than David Chandler.

 

[candycorn]

You have no idea what costs Silverstein has incurred. For instance, he ceded some of his right to rebuild along with some of the insurance money to the Port Authority.
Any idea what that cost him?
You have no idea what remains of the insurance settlement, no idea what it will cost him to rebuild and no evidence that Congress has ever or will ever write "Larry" a check.
It seems you are slowly oozing out of the closet, Bubba, and I'm not a bit surprised by what is oozing out.

Speaking of 'oozing', you might want to wipe your chin and tone down the hysterics a notch or two.

You claim I 'have no idea', but the fact is I have some facts to go on.

Fact 1.) Larry collected several billion dollars insurance money from the attacks of 9/11.

Fact 2.) The government set up several different recovery funds with several billion dollars of both public money and private donations.

Fact 3.) Your stated expenses so far have totaled approximately $1 billion.

Fact 4.) Construction costs so far are estimated to be $3 billion.

Fact 5.) Congress will HAPPILY write Larry a check should he need it. You think that ANY of the 535 worms on Capitol Hill would say 'No'?

It has been 138 months since 9/11 ($10 rent mil x 138 = $1.38 bil). Add in the costs incurred by Silverstein on 9/11 (any thoughts what they were?) and all costs since. I don't know what they are and neither do you but I do know these props have not run themselves for 136 months. Silverstein relinquished his rights and obligation to rebuild bldg 7 along with some of the insurance money. Any idea how much, Princess? It is obvious that whatever is left of the money isn't going to be enough to cover the rebuilding costs whatever the final number is. If this is the basis of your 9/11 CT you may as well retire from the loony tune biz right now.

Did you all go over why in the world a guy waould want to blow up his own buildings yet?

 

[Mr. Jones]

So can someone answer my question? Could the force from the airplane cause the other tower to fall by itself?

Are you asking if the force of the planes hitting towers 1 & 2 caused 7 to collapse?

Yes. The best result I have ever been able to find is "natural causes"

There was nothing natural about the WTC destruction.
It was assumed that the structural damage to WTC 7 may have played a part in its demise, but upon further review it was determined that the debris of the falling towers, did not contribute to it, despite a few on here posting shit like "110 stories fell on WTC 7".

The point of contention is that the majority of the mass of the towers, ie; the parts that were not affected by plane impact, or fires, could not have physically been overcome by the collapsing front, in such a short amount of time.
Facts to consider are, much of the collapsing debris was forcibly elected away from the buildings, and therefore could not contribute to the "crush down" or "pancake" theory, in the short amount of time we witnessed them both "collapse".
Any video of the collapses will readily show what are seemingly explosive ejections of massive material, and NOT a gradual deterioration of the buildings, caused by fires.
No partial collapses, no sustained toppling over of debris in which the main more robust lower structure remains standing as might be expected.
The buildings just seem to explode all the way down, with no "pancaked" floors remaining.
Watch a video and take a good look at the explosive ejections. BTW,The video below is narrated by the man who forced NIST into admitting that the WTC 7 did indeed experience a period of freefall.
North Tower
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSApOavkHg8]North Tower Exploding - YouTube[/ame]


South Tower-Note the explosive material being ejected just under the collapse fronts.
Many of the objects being ejected were estimated to weigh hundreds of tons, some were
found imbedded in surrounding buildings, so this ejected material could not be included as helping to "crush" down the towers.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhyu-fZ2nRA]9/11: South Tower "Collapse" video compilation - YouTube[/ame]


Now take a look at the part of what appears to be the core/outer core just dissipate into dust?
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dWBBEtA5bI]9/11 WTC North Tower Core, HAVE YOU SEEN IT? - YouTube[/ame]

It is easy to be fascinated by the event and most of us were shocked, but by now people should be able to look at what happened to those massive buildings, and read the objections to the NIST report by credible physicists and people in the pertinent fields, and at least understand why they and many people suspect the NIST report is bogus, and further on, will understand the pressure being put on those NIST people to conclude an outcome that was in line with the OCT.

The point in all of this is, that the lower unmolested parts of the buildings, should have provided more then just "minimal resistance" as NIST has claimed without even explaining. Much like they tried to keep the fact that WTC 7 had experienced FF for 2.25 secs. for 8 stories.

 

[Toro]

Silverstein traded $124 million and 6 months for over $4 BILLION.

I think he made out quite well.

No he didn't, you idiot.

 

[SAYIT]

Speaking of 'oozing', you might want to wipe your chin and tone down the hysterics a notch or two.

You claim I 'have no idea', but the fact is I have some facts to go on.

Fact 1.) Larry collected several billion dollars insurance money from the attacks of 9/11.

Fact 2.) The government set up several different recovery funds with several billion dollars of both public money and private donations.

Fact 3.) Your stated expenses so far have totaled approximately $1 billion.

Fact 4.) Construction costs so far are estimated to be $3 billion.

Fact 5.) Congress will HAPPILY write Larry a check should he need it. You think that ANY of the 535 worms on Capitol Hill would say 'No'?

It has been 138 months since 9/11 ($10 rent mil x 138 = $1.38 bil). Add in the costs incurred by Silverstein on 9/11 (any thoughts what they were?) and all costs since. I don't know what they are and neither do you but I do know these props have not run themselves for 136 months. Silverstein relinquished his rights and obligation to rebuild bldg 7 along with some of the insurance money. Any idea how much, Princess? It is obvious that whatever is left of the money isn't going to be enough to cover the rebuilding costs whatever the final number is. If this is the basis of your 9/11 CT you may as well retire from the loony tune biz right now.

Did you all go over why in the world a guy waould want to blow up his own buildings yet?

You'll have to ask the CT loons but GuyP won't do you much good ... he just fabricates "facts" as he goes.

 

[georgephillip]

So can someone answer my question? Could the force from the airplane cause the other tower to fall by itself?

In a word, no.

The buildings were designed to withstand the impact of the largest airliner of the day, comparable in size and weight to the planes that struck the buildings.
ETA: Sorry I misunderstood your question. The planes couldn't be responsible for the destruction of WTC 1&2, let alone WTC 7...

More knowledgeable and far smarter peeps disagree with you, Guy.
For instance, Cesar Pelli, who designed the Petronas Towers in Malaysia and the World Financial Center in New York, remarked, "no building is prepared for this kind of stress."

'Magnitude Beyond Anything We'd Seen Before'

Your link:

"The end came when the fire had softened the girders so that the weight above the crash sites became unsupportable.

"The South Tower, hit lower down, fell first beneath the greater weight. The North Tower, with less weight above the explosion, held out a bit longer: 'The whole thing just imploded,' said Melvyn Blum, 55, a real estate executive who was watching through a telescope from his 44th-floor office a few miles away on Manhattan's Seventh Avenue, 'just like you see when they take buildings down with dynamite.'"

That would be dynamite laced with Thermite.

'Magnitude Beyond Anything We'd Seen Before'

 

[Mr. Jones]

It has been 138 months since 9/11 ($10 rent mil x 138 = $1.38 bil). Add in the costs incurred by Silverstein on 9/11 (any thoughts what they were?) and all costs since. I don't know what they are and neither do you but I do know these props have not run themselves for 136 months. Silverstein relinquished his rights and obligation to rebuild bldg 7 along with some of the insurance money. Any idea how much, Princess? It is obvious that whatever is left of the money isn't going to be enough to cover the rebuilding costs whatever the final number is. If this is the basis of your 9/11 CT you may as well retire from the loony tune biz right now.

Did you all go over why in the world a guy waould want to blow up his own buildings yet?

You'll have to ask the CT loons but GuyP won't do you much good ... he just fabricates "facts" as he goes.

I see that this troll has nothing to reply with to what I posted about the impossibility of the WTC buildings being destroyed by fires in such short collapse times.
Another disinfo troll exposed.
Now that the matter of the WTC being facilitated by something else other then kerosene and aluminum planes being flown by inexperienced pilots, who would have motive, financial and otherwise to participate in this "terrorist attack"?
Who would have the means to allow devices into the property?
Who stood to benefit the most from such an operation?
It couldn't have been AlQaeda, they would have been noticed right?

 

[Montrovant]

I wonder how many of you who believe the towers were brought down by controlled demolition work in the fields of demolitions, or building design perhaps, structural engineering?

I ask that because, while not being one of those things in no way negates any claims you make, it does lead a person to wonder why you accept the claims of those who have the proper background that say it was controlled demo, but dismiss the claims of those with the proper background that say it was not?

Or are there no engineers or designers or demolitions experts who accept the idea that the planes brought down the towers?

 

[Mr. Jones]

I wonder how many of you who believe the towers were brought down by controlled demolition work in the fields of demolitions, or building design perhaps, structural engineering?

I ask that because, while not being one of those things in no way negates any claims you make, it does lead a person to wonder why you accept the claims of those who have the proper background that say it was controlled demo, but dismiss the claims of those with the proper background that say it was not?

Or are there no engineers or designers or demolitions experts who accept the idea that the planes brought down the towers?

Good question. My take is that there are so many instances in the OCT about 9-11 that the government and its affiliated agencies refused to answer and in many instances refused to even acknowledge, that many people don't take their word for it and hence their explanations. They can not be trusted,and their reports are full of obfuscation and slight of hand.
When compared to what other unbiased experts have said and explained in much greater detail, and compared to the explanations and lack of details that very biased sources of the government and its agencies have delivered, it's really a no brainier.
One source has the motive to lie and the others do not
One source leaves more questions then answers in their theory and hypothesis, while others are more detailed and fact based.
One source leaves out the explanation of physics in their theory and hypothesis, while the ones I believe use them exclusively to explain theirs.
The source that delivered the OCT received a political and military objective that depended on the 19 jihadists theory with planes and are loyal to a foreign state, while the other sources mostly want the truth and justice, and provide a more real world fact based theory and hypothesis..

It should be noted that the government sources who provided their explanation ( or lack thereof) base it on theories that leave out anything that would discredit it, and provide no absolute concrete proof or evidence to support it, while depending it will be believed by the public simply because they are the US government and an authority most people are trained to believe and never question.
That should be evident by the posters on here.

 

[SAYIT]

In a word, no.

The buildings were designed to withstand the impact of the largest airliner of the day, comparable in size and weight to the planes that struck the buildings.
ETA: Sorry I misunderstood your question. The planes couldn't be responsible for the destruction of WTC 1&2, let alone WTC 7...

More knowledgeable and far smarter peeps disagree with you, Guy.
For instance, Cesar Pelli, who designed the Petronas Towers in Malaysia and the World Financial Center in New York, remarked, "no building is prepared for this kind of stress."

'Magnitude Beyond Anything We'd Seen Before'

Your link:

"The end came when the fire had softened the girders so that the weight above the crash sites became unsupportable.

"The South Tower, hit lower down, fell first beneath the greater weight. The North Tower, with less weight above the explosion, held out a bit longer: 'The whole thing just imploded,' said Melvyn Blum, 55, a real estate executive who was watching through a telescope from his 44th-floor office a few miles away on Manhattan's Seventh Avenue, 'just like you see when they take buildings down with dynamite.'"

That would be dynamite laced with Thermite.

'Magnitude Beyond Anything We'd Seen Before'

A real estate exec? There's a demo expert for you! Are you calling his comment proof the Towers were demolished by explosives? Do you have a link to the rigging of the Towers for demo? The job would have required dozens of pros, tons of materials and a dozen weeks or more. Surely someone has said something.

 

[SAYIT]

I wonder how many of you who believe the towers were brought down by controlled demolition work in the fields of demolitions, or building design perhaps, structural engineering?

I ask that because, while not being one of those things in no way negates any claims you make, it does lead a person to wonder why you accept the claims of those who have the proper background that say it was controlled demo, but dismiss the claims of those with the proper background that say it was not?

Or are there no engineers or designers or demolitions experts who accept the idea that the planes brought down the towers?

Good question. My take is that there are so many instances in the OCT about 9-11 that the government and its affiliated agencies refused to answer and in many instances refused to even acknowledge, that many people don't take their word for it and hence their explanations. They can not be trusted,and their reports are full of obfuscation and slight of hand.
When compared to what other unbiased experts have said and explained in much greater detail, and compared to the explanations and lack of details that very biased sources of the government and its agencies have delivered, it's really a no brainier.
One source has the motive to lie and the others do not.

CTs have no reason to lie? You are a very strange bird, Princess, but you have made your reason for lying perfectly clear.

 

[georgephillip]

More knowledgeable and far smarter peeps disagree with you, Guy.
For instance, Cesar Pelli, who designed the Petronas Towers in Malaysia and the World Financial Center in New York, remarked, "no building is prepared for this kind of stress."

'Magnitude Beyond Anything We'd Seen Before'

Your link:

"The end came when the fire had softened the girders so that the weight above the crash sites became unsupportable.

"The South Tower, hit lower down, fell first beneath the greater weight. The North Tower, with less weight above the explosion, held out a bit longer: 'The whole thing just imploded,' said Melvyn Blum, 55, a real estate executive who was watching through a telescope from his 44th-floor office a few miles away on Manhattan's Seventh Avenue, 'just like you see when they take buildings down with dynamite.'"

That would be dynamite laced with Thermite.

'Magnitude Beyond Anything We'd Seen Before'

A real estate exec? There's a demo expert for you! Are you calling his comment proof the Towers were demolished by explosives? Do you have a link to the rigging of the Towers for demo? The job would have required dozens of pros, tons of materials and a dozen weeks or more. Surely someone has said something.

"The Manhattan Project began modestly in 1939, but grew to employ more than 130,000 people and cost nearly US$2 billion (roughly equivalent to $25.8 billion as of 2013[1]). Over 90% of the cost was for building factories and producing the fissionable materials, with less than 10% for development and production of the weapons."

How many of those 130,000 employees said anything before Hiroshima?

Manhattan Project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[georgephillip]

I wonder how many of you who believe the towers were brought down by controlled demolition work in the fields of demolitions, or building design perhaps, structural engineering?

I ask that because, while not being one of those things in no way negates any claims you make, it does lead a person to wonder why you accept the claims of those who have the proper background that say it was controlled demo, but dismiss the claims of those with the proper background that say it was not?

Or are there no engineers or designers or demolitions experts who accept the idea that the planes brought down the towers?

I'm not an engineer or an architect, and I'm sure there are many who accept the government's explanation for what happened on 9/11/01. To my knowledge, those who support the Official Conspiracy Theory have not bothered to organize and agitate the way their opponents have.

The biggest difference I see between the two camps is simply this: 911 skeptics argue there is sufficient controversy to warrant a full public investigation by the entire US Congress with all principals required to testify in public and under oath.

Those who accept their government's explanation argue no such controversy exists.

From past experience I've found it useful to consider a hypothetical possibility: If agents of the US government had prior knowledge of the attacks on 911 and allowed them to happen, which poses the greater threat to this Republic, allowing the attacks or lying to the US public for the last decade?

Finally, I can't help believing there is a generation of Americans on the way who will look back at those of us of legal age in September '01 and see a cohort of cowards unwilling to demand a full impartial investigation of the events.

 

[Montrovant]

I wonder how many of you who believe the towers were brought down by controlled demolition work in the fields of demolitions, or building design perhaps, structural engineering?

I ask that because, while not being one of those things in no way negates any claims you make, it does lead a person to wonder why you accept the claims of those who have the proper background that say it was controlled demo, but dismiss the claims of those with the proper background that say it was not?

Or are there no engineers or designers or demolitions experts who accept the idea that the planes brought down the towers?

Good question. My take is that there are so many instances in the OCT about 9-11 that the government and its affiliated agencies refused to answer and in many instances refused to even acknowledge, that many people don't take their word for it and hence their explanations. They can not be trusted,and their reports are full of obfuscation and slight of hand.
When compared to what other unbiased experts have said and explained in much greater detail, and compared to the explanations and lack of details that very biased sources of the government and its agencies have delivered, it's really a no brainier.
One source has the motive to lie and the others do not
One source leaves more questions then answers in their theory and hypothesis, while others are more detailed and fact based.
One source leaves out the explanation of physics in their theory and hypothesis, while the ones I believe use them exclusively to explain theirs.
The source that delivered the OCT received a political and military objective that depended on the 19 jihadists theory with planes and are loyal to a foreign state, while the other sources mostly want the truth and justice, and provide a more real world fact based theory and hypothesis..

It should be noted that the government sources who provided their explanation ( or lack thereof) base it on theories that leave out anything that would discredit it, and provide no absolute concrete proof or evidence to support it, while depending it will be believed by the public simply because they are the US government and an authority most people are trained to believe and never question.
That should be evident by the posters on here.

I suppose this sounds reasonable, on it's face, but it leads me to another question : are there no unbiased experts who accept the explanation that the planes alone caused the collapses? Is it possible that you automatically consider anyone who agrees with the government's report to be affiliated with the government in some way?

I guess I just find it hard to believe that NO impartial experts have said they disagree with the idea of controlled demolition.

 

[eots]

So can someone answer my question? Could the force from the airplane cause the other tower to fall by itself?

In a word, no.

The buildings were designed to withstand the impact of the largest airliner of the day, comparable in size and weight to the planes that struck the buildings.
ETA: Sorry I misunderstood your question. The planes couldn't be responsible for the destruction of WTC 1&2, let alone WTC 7...

More knowledgeable and far smarter peeps disagree with you, Guy.
For instance, Cesar Pelli, who designed the Petronas Towers in Malaysia and the World Financial Center in New York, remarked, "no building is prepared for this kind of stress."

'Magnitude Beyond Anything We'd Seen Before'

wtc 7 had moderate random fires, all other building experiencing such fires and far worse never collapsed let alone completely in secs

 

[eots]

More knowledgeable and far smarter peeps disagree with you, Guy.
For instance, Cesar Pelli, who designed the Petronas Towers in Malaysia and the World Financial Center in New York, remarked, "no building is prepared for this kind of stress."

'Magnitude Beyond Anything We'd Seen Before'

Your link:

"The end came when the fire had softened the girders so that the weight above the crash sites became unsupportable.

"The South Tower, hit lower down, fell first beneath the greater weight. The North Tower, with less weight above the explosion, held out a bit longer: 'The whole thing just imploded,' said Melvyn Blum, 55, a real estate executive who was watching through a telescope from his 44th-floor office a few miles away on Manhattan's Seventh Avenue, 'just like you see when they take buildings down with dynamite.'"

That would be dynamite laced with Thermite.

'Magnitude Beyond Anything We'd Seen Before'

A real estate exec? There's a demo expert for you! Are you calling his comment proof the Towers were demolished by explosives? Do you have a link to the rigging of the Towers for demo? The job would have required dozens of pros, tons of materials and a dozen weeks or more. Surely someone has said something.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=877gr6xtQIc]Danny Jowenko on WTC 7 controlled demolition - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5IgqJXyLbg]Tom Sullivan - Explosives Technician - Loader - AE911Truth.org - YouTube[/ame]

 

[SAYIT]

Your link:

"The end came when the fire had softened the girders so that the weight above the crash sites became unsupportable.

"The South Tower, hit lower down, fell first beneath the greater weight. The North Tower, with less weight above the explosion, held out a bit longer: 'The whole thing just imploded,' said Melvyn Blum, 55, a real estate executive who was watching through a telescope from his 44th-floor office a few miles away on Manhattan's Seventh Avenue, 'just like you see when they take buildings down with dynamite.'"

That would be dynamite laced with Thermite.

'Magnitude Beyond Anything We'd Seen Before'

A real estate exec? There's a demo expert for you! Are you calling his comment proof the Towers were demolished by explosives? Do you have a link to the rigging of the Towers for demo? The job would have required dozens of pros, tons of materials and a dozen weeks or more. Surely someone has said something.

"The Manhattan Project began modestly in 1939, but grew to employ more than 130,000 people and cost nearly US$2 billion (roughly equivalent to $25.8 billion as of 2013[1]). Over 90% of the cost was for building factories and producing the fissionable materials, with less than 10% for development and production of the weapons."

How many of those 130,000 employees said anything before Hiroshima?

Manhattan Project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Really? That's the best you can do? Those working on the Bomb with knowledge of what was up were committed to helping America defend itself in case of war. They knew what they were researching. What would keep all those hard hat demo peeps, each of whom would have known what was up, from wondering out loud why they were rigging the Towers? Surely someone would have seen them. Surely some of them would have come forward on 9/12 if only to garner their 15 minutes of fame. Game over, Princess, but if you put another dollar in the slot you can try again.

 

[SAYIT]

Did you all go over why in the world a guy waould want to blow up his own buildings yet?

You'll have to ask the CT loons but GuyP won't do you much good ... he just fabricates "facts" as he goes.

I see that this troll has nothing to reply with to what I posted about the impossibility of the WTC buildings being destroyed by fires in such short collapse times.
Another disinfo troll exposed.
Now that the matter of the WTC being facilitated by something else other then kerosene and aluminum planes being flown by inexperienced pilots, who would have motive, financial and otherwise to participate in this "terrorist attack"?
Who would have the means to allow devices into the property?
Who stood to benefit the most from such an operation?
It couldn't have been AlQaeda, they would have been noticed right?

I see the idiot Jones troll has no response to the bogus "Silverstein made a ton of money on 9/11" CT. Instead he lamely attempts to deflect the conversation. Typical.

 

[eots]

its not even relevant...whats relevant is the column 79 theory is nonsense

 

[eots]

A real estate exec? There's a demo expert for you! Are you calling his comment proof the Towers were demolished by explosives? Do you have a link to the rigging of the Towers for demo? The job would have required dozens of pros, tons of materials and a dozen weeks or more. Surely someone has said something.

"The Manhattan Project began modestly in 1939, but grew to employ more than 130,000 people and cost nearly US$2 billion (roughly equivalent to $25.8 billion as of 2013[1]). Over 90% of the cost was for building factories and producing the fissionable materials, with less than 10% for development and production of the weapons."

How many of those 130,000 employees said anything before Hiroshima?

Manhattan Project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Really? That's the best you can do? Those working on the Bomb with knowledge of what was up were committed to helping America defend itself in case of war. They knew what they were researching. What would keep all those hard hat demo peeps, each of whom would have known what was up, from wondering out loud why they were rigging the Towers? Surely someone would have seen them. Surely some of them would have come forward on 9/12 if only to garner their 15 minutes of fame. Game over, Princess, but if you put another dollar in the slot you can try again.

blah blah blah..a building does not fall in this manner from fire