Building 7 Collapsed Due to Fire on 9/11 - Syham Sunder, NIST

Agreed, but I'm not going to believe you just because you think it was more probable. You have yet to provide anything but assumptions backed by no evidence at all. Not one whitepaper from your truther group to lend any credence to what you are claiming.

Where are these models showing that controlled demolition could have caused this? Not one model or paper explaining this in almost 13 years from any truther. Very telling. I can see why you can only provide "odds" as your only argument for controlled demolition.

 

so you personally do not see that among the least probable scenarios
being the "collapse" down to ground level of two 110 story skyscrapers?

Why should there have even been "collapse initiation"
the idea of total structural failure is rather remote given
the fact that there were fires in the WTC prior to 9/11
and said fires did not compromise the structure.
and the alleged airliner crash, produced asymmetrical
damage, so then, why the straight down "collapse" event?

 

Why is it the least genericBob? What information are you using to make this claim? Have you examined the structural design of the towers and come to that conclusion? Has anyone provided you with a detailed analysis of how explosives could have done it or do you just believe that they can do ANYTHING they want with explosives and make a building fall however they want?

Because it was fire AND impact damage. Why do did you leave that part out?

As stated before, asymmetrical damage still affects the structure as a whole because everything is connected together to perform as a whole. What about this is so difficult to understand?

 

Which one is that, amicul meu?

 

So by that standard, the South Tower should not have had the observed tip to the upper part of the tower because everything is interconnected and works together..... no?

 

This has been explained to you countless times in this forum by me and others. I suggest you search the forum to find your answers. I refuse to keep this dance up when you blatantly ignore what;s already been said.

 

If this was a court case, I'd be asking the Judge to rule
INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE and have done with it.

 

In this case you would be denied because the evidence is, in fact, overwhelming.

 

Oh yes... ''which one''. As if there are thousands...

 

I haven't seen it, so I don't know what you mean. I was hoping you would link it.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwzT0QnwtTE

 

in an attempt to address the topic,
may I ask why it is considered even plausible at all, that fire,
that is fire that had no specific direction from any intelligent design,
should burn in such a manner as to produce the result as was alleged to have happened on 9/11/2001?

Even if Column 79 had somehow failed in the manner alleged by the NIST, what magic would cause the "collapse" event as observed, to be a product of that failure?

I cite the fact that if a lumberjack wanted a tree to fall in a specific way, that fall is NOT to be accomplished by making random cuts around the trunk, but must be precision planned to do it right, why should WTC7 exhibit all of the markings of a well planned & executed operation, as a result of chaotic forces?

 

WTC7 did not exhibit the markings of aa controlled demolition. Quite the opposite, in fact.

 

> complete destruction of the structure
> rapid on-set of "collapse"
> uniform descent for a significant part of the fall, followed by deceleration caused by the falling part crushing the structure of the building.

 

Rapid? It took hours.

Sorry, try again.

 

The fires may have burned for hours, but the "collapse" event started when the building actually started to fall. Some people want to start the timing when the penthouse disappeared, however, the collapse event starts when the major structural movement happens and that is the visible motion of the North and West walls of the skyscraper. The 2.25 sec of free fall that follows is the smoking gun, and some people will attempt to negate this factor, but its real, its already agreed to by the major factions in this debate that is AE911TRUTH + NIST, both agree upon the 2.25 sec of free fall. Producing a graph drawn by "FEMR2" that alleges to contradict the findings of both AE911TRUTH & NIST. Who is this character, and how was that graph generated?

The evidence clearly points to controlled demolition of all three,
WTC1, 2 & 7.

 

No, the collapse started when the interior of WTC7 began collapsing. A moment later the penthouse dropped inside and finally the outer walls.

There remains no evidence presented for controlled demolition.

 

So, The fact that the North & West walls are seen descending at free fall acceleration, means nothing to you, right?

 

Link to where I said this, or retract your statement.

 

It's physically impossible for the lower part of the asymmetrically damaged building to have progressively/naturally collapsed in any way that could result in the upper part of the building symmetrically descending straight down through itself, through the path of greatest resistance, at anything near gravitational acceleration for any period of time, and there is absolutely no mode or combination of modes of progressive/natural 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 its descent....

​

....and anyone who believes otherwise (below) belongs in a lunatic asylum.

​

After all, at what point during the proposed progressive gravity driven collapse could one say....

"Hold it.... Right there! That's the point where all the columns
will undoubtedly be found behaving in a manner very
much like air (left).... it will take very careful calculation
to tell the fall times apart during this period of
the ongoing progressive structural failure (right)."

​

How could anyone who got past third grade believe that it's not only possible but probable that the lower asymetrically damaged part of the building progressively/naturally 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 also, incredibly, 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....

​

So far, 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....

​

Judging by the undisputed confirmed observation of a significant period of gravitational acceleration, an explosion or other type of event must have occurred that was powerful enough to quickly remove the 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....

​

That's just the way it is.

 

Thank U ever so much!
Picture is worth a thousand words,
and a bit of text along with it doesn't hurt either....

 

No explosion was needed,nor found to have occured..

THAT'S just the way it is.

 

for the "nor found to have occurred.." part of this, Please support this with documentation, I'm sure that if the documents exist, the faction supporting the official story must have a ready pointer to the source for this claim. What supports the allegation that no explosive or explosive residue was ever found at ground zero?

 

You need to prove there was explosives,that's the way it works
Your incredulity isn't enough

 

First and foremost the MSM & our "Leaders" were the first to assert that the WTC buildings "collapsed" and so it is up to them to support the allegation.

Please see post #45 of this thread and also the first post to "Demolition of WTC7 confirmed" for overwhelming evidence that the "collapse" of WTC7 could not have happened as observed without the aid of an additional source of energy, ( that is explosives ..... or black magic )