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

So, no ... you aren't able to back up that claim, either. Okay, just checking.

I encourage everyone who is interested in this topic to read the PENTTBOM report from the FBI. Here's a link, because I can back up my claims:
http://www.911myths.com/images/f/fd/FBI-Summary-PENTTBOMB.pdf

 

We were discussing the investigation of aircraft wreckage to allegedly prove the validity of "FLT11" "FLT175" "FLT77" & "FLT93" however, in all of the 52 pages of the document you linked, where is there a single mention of examining aircraft wreckage?

 

The Destruction of the World Trade Center:
Why the Official Account Cannot Be True
David Ray Griffin


Jones, Steven E., 2006. "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?" In Griffin and Scott, eds., 2006.

Heller, David, 2005. "Taking a Closer Look: Hard Science and the Collapse of the World Trade Center," Garlic and Grass, Issue 6, November 24 (http://www.garlicandgrass.org/issue6/Dave_Heller.cfm).

Hoffman, Jim, 2003. “The North Tower's Dust Cloud: Analysis of Energy Requirements for the Expansion of the Dust Cloud Following the Collapse of 1 World Trade Center,” Version 3, 9-11 Research.wtc7.net, October 16 (http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/volume.html).

_____, 2004. “Your Eyes Don’t Lie: Common Sense, Physics, and the World Trade Center Collapses,” 9-11 Research.wtc7.net (http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/radio/youreyesdontlie/index.html).

_____, 2005. “Building a Better Mirage: NIST's 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up of the Crime of the Century,” 911 Research, August 21 (http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html).

Hufschmid, Eric, 2002. Painful Questions: An Analysis of the September 11thAttack. Goleta, CA: Endpoint Software.

Killough-Miller, Joan, 2002. “The ‘Deep Mystery’ of Melted Steel,” WPI Transformations, Spring (http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html).
King, Jeff, 2003. “The WTC Collapse: What the Videos Show,” Indymedia Webcast News, November 12 (http://ontario.indymedia.org/display.php3?article_id=7342&group=webcast).
Lavello, Randy, n.d. “Bombs in the Building,” Prison Planet.com (http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_lavello_050503_bombs.html).

Meyer, Peter, n.d. “Did the Twin Towers Collapse on Demand?”, Section 3 of “The World Trade Center Demolition and the so-Called War on Terrorism,” Serendipity (www.serendipity.li/wtc.html).
_____, 2005b. “WTC Basement Blast and Injured Burn Victim Blows 'Official 9/11 Story' Sky High,” Arctic Beacon, June 24 (http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/article/1518131/28031.htm).
Griffin, David Ray, 2004. The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about 9/11 and the Bush Administration. Northampton, MA: Olive Branch (Interlink).
Glanz, James. 2001. “Engineers Are Baffled over the Collapse of 7 WTC; Steel Members Have Been Partly Evaporated,” New York Times, November 29.
Bollyn, Christopher, 2001. “Some Survivors Say ‘Bombs Exploded Inside WTC,’” American Free Press, October 22 (http://www.americanfreepress.net/10_22_01/ Some_Survivors_Say__Bombs_Expl/some_survivors_say__bombs_expl.html).

Baker, Jeremy, n.d. “PBS Documentary: Silverstein, FDNY Razed WTC 7,” Infowars.com (http://www.infowars.com/print/Sept11/FDNY.htm).

 

Is there any substance in all of that? What is it that makes the "official account" untrue?

 

No. Give us a summary, or maybe copy in some relevant portion(s). I'm not bothering with a wall of links.

 

In a nutshell ..... WTC7 dropped for 2.25 sec at free fall acceleration and kept its shape while doing so. That is INFORMATION, and truly critical information proving beyond any doubt that the destruction of WTC7 was an engineered event, somebody planned for it to happen exactly as it did.

 

That is FALSE INFORMATION.

Repeating that lie won't make it come true, bob.

 

You allege that its false info, ......... that is the 2.25 sec of free fall acceleration ( when in fact its documented by the NIST )
What did happen then?

 

You said the building dropped at FFA, when only a portion of it descended at an average of that. Why do you feel the need to exaggerate if the facts are on your side?

Why can't 'truthers' just tell the truth?

 

The basic problem I see here is a tendency on the part of hoax/conspiracy proponents to over-simplify events and gloss over all sorts of inconvenient information (some of which at least apparently flies right over their heads) in order to maintain an emotionally driven belief. Add to this the complication of now having to admit fault to self and others after having been on the conspiracy bandwagon, bringing wounded pride into the equation.

It's funny how all sorts of people become experts in complicated matters when they think there's a conspiracy afoot, isn't it? It's even funnier with the moon landing hoax crowd.

 

False on two counts. First, part of the structure fell for this timeframe, not the entire building. Second, it did not fall at freefall acceleration, but an AVERAGE derived from many data points.

False yet again. There was a kink that formed in the roofline.

 

To address the madness of alleging the 2.25 sec of free fall was an average, note that in most scientific data acquisition and analysis, there are going to be data points that do not perfectly align with the mathematically defined lines or curves, in most cases these bits can be attributed to errors in data collection and are not considered significant unless the odd points are very much outside of the pattern, that is something that deviates by say 20% or? However the data points in the graph used by David Chandler are a few % out of line, certainly not more than 5% off the norm.

The "crimp" in the middle of the north wall is standard procedure for a controlled demolition, note that after the initial deformation, the building maintains its shape for the remainder of the 2.25 sec.
and dropping for 8 stories at free fall acceleration clearly indicates that there was NO resistance under the falling bit, if that bit happened to be exclusively the North & West walls, or the entire building, it is still a function of removing all of the resistance out from under the falling mass.

 

What part of 2.25 sec drop at free fall acceleration do you have a problem with? Do you get what it means?

Lets look at another "over simplification" shall we?
at the Pentagon, there was allegedly an airliner crashed into the building, however said airliner would contain at least 50 tons of aluminum, and to make an excuse for the disappearance of all that metal, the supporters of the hijacked airliner fiasco cite the fire at the Pentagon and allege that the airliner simply burned up and that is why you don't find the airplane in the wreckage. Picture this, 50 tons of aluminum melted at the Pentagon, and then needing to be removed.... or for that matter, if it really did "burn up" then what are you going to do to hide 50 tons of Aluminum Oxide?
The official story is a LIE! wake up people!

 

prove it.

 

The NIST already admitted to the 2.25 sec of free fall in their report.
and the video of the event shows clearly a controlled demolition of
WTC7.

This is all the proof that is necessary.

 

NIST says it fell at free-fall acceleration in 2.5 seconds?

prove it

 

Were you there? Do you know anything about plane crashes beyond what you read online?

Here's some info about this particular matter: http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/nodebris.html

The lack of apparent aircraft debris in photographs showing the Pentagon's west face shortly after the attack is a remarkable feature of the Pentagon attack. Several eyewitnesses who said they saw the jetliner crash into the Pentagon, also marveled at how the jetliner seemed to completely disappear.

The absence of large pieces of aircraft debris in post-crash photographs is not so difficult to reconcile with the crash of a 757 when one considers:

High-speed crashes tend to shred aircraft into small pieces.
Most early photographs of the Pentagon crash site hide regions of the ground adjacent to the Pentagon.
The extensive breaches in the Pentagon's facade would have admitted most of of 757's airframe.

...

Is there something here that you feel is somehow "impossible"? I don't have enough factual information on hand to counter these claims. Do you?

Rim photographed in the Pentagon wreckage. You can clearly see it is a double bead design as required by the NTSB, and you can also see it has had 90% of the rim edge smashed off in the crash.



So what, will you just declare this bit of evidence faked and continue on with your conspiracy belief? Again, neither of us was on-site after the crash to evaluate the wreckage, were we? We have only secondary evidence and claims to evaluate. Considering what there is, though, and who's saying what precisely, I see no reason to disbelieve the claim that a 757 hit the Pentagon. I see sufficient evidence to accept this, especially since plenty of people who were there at the time or in the aftermath could have blown the whistle easily enough had it been otherwise than has been claimed.

I don't think you take an honest skeptical approach to this. I think you're biased against the government. I'm no fan of the government myself, but good grief, that doesn't mean I'm going to cling to a ridiculous hoax/conspiracy claim like the no plane hit the Pentagon "theory".

 

Don't you consider it rather odd, that in terms of the aircraft wreckage, there isn't any record of exactly how much of what was ever recovered and identified as actual airliner bits? Where is the accounting for the aircraft?
in other high profile cases like Pan Am 103 (etc...) there are lots of pix of the aircraft being reconstructed in a hanger, and they accounted for most of the aircraft. in the case of 4 alleged airliner crashes on 9/11/2001, the aircraft bits were simply scooped up and disposed of? or?

 

You can try and hand wave this away as much as you want. The fact remains is that it is an average and there were points BELOW free fall acceleration. This means resistance. Period.

I also asked you another quesiton a few times before that you refuse to answer.

Why was there about 1 sec of no free fall acceleration when the roof line began to descend? If the support was cut all at the same time like you claim, free fall acceleration should have started immediately.

This mistake has been pointed out to you time and time again. It was not the "building". It was a portion of the building. Why do you keep making this mistake?

 

This means anomalies in the data caused by bits that are not under total control such as but not limited to camera vibration. The facts of actual scientific data collection & interpretation have been explained here many times, why can't you get it?