WTC7 is probably the biggest and most obvious example of controlled demolition in the whole 9/11 fiasco. The video contained in the link seems to go against what is heard here daily IMO. http://rememberbuilding7.org/10/ Sounds reasonable enough, doesn't it? Intelligent reader?
It's total crap, actually. Steel structures are prone to collapse in fires. Fire Science 101. Usually covered in the first week of fire fighting school. You can do things to delay it, but it is best to get the fires extinguished quickly. The engineers on AE911T are not among the sharpest tools in the shed. One of them even advanced a theory that there were mini-nukes involved. Their leader is a total whack job. Little Dickie once dropped a small cardboard box on top of another and called himself proving that the towers could not have come down the way they did. The idiot didn't realize that he had just presented proof that verinage is impossible. What a hopeless dork. Fact remains that there exists no proof that there were explosive charges of any sort in the building. AE911T is a massive joke, and a sick joke at that.
There is a group that claims to have 1500 architects and engineers. Here's the rub. Architects aren't qualified to make that determination and most of their "engineers" are not structural engineers. True experts in the field know it wasn't a controlled demolition. Here is an excellent paper written on the subject by a true professional in the field of controlled demolitions with first hand knowledge of 9/11 and the aftermath. On another note, there are hundreds of thousands of structural engineers in the world. Why is it only a minute fraction would bother to claim it was a controlled demolition? Why is it not one of those supposed architects and engineers can provide actual proof that it was a controlled demolition and instead have to rely on their opinion? Opinion is not evidence. Engineering is based on math. Why can't they show mathematically that a collapse can't occur on its own just from fire? Then other professionals in the field can either validate or refute their findings. Yet they haven't even tried. Why? They know they can't and that they would be exposed to everyone as the frauds they are. Better to just give opinions and fool the idiots willing to believe their crap.
yep,the shills that have penetrated this site cant and have never been able to get around this one.They can only sling crap in defeat like the monkeys they are. they cant get around the coincidence that there were other buildings much closer to the towers damaaged far worse and had worse fires yet they did not collapse.you got to love their logic.according to their logic,if that building collapsed,then the others should have as well but they never did. they are funny coincidence theorists in the fact that the only three buildings that collapsed happened to be owned by Silverstein.kills me to no end.lol.
Bull flops. Buildings 5 and 6 had columns spaced more or less evenly from one side to the other. This gives the the advantage of "redundancy." This means that if one column is crushed from above or broken near the bottom, there will be another nearby to hold up the floors above it. This condition is not found in buildings like the twins or WTC7. They employed great stretches of what are called "free span" floors. The floor trusses were only supported at two places, both on the ends. Do learn how buildings are put together before you try to describe how they should have failed. Are you going to accuse old Larry S. of blowing up his own buildings without presenting some kind of evidence? That is really low-class.
Here's something the intelligent reader may find interesting. https://sites.google.com/site/911guide/ryanmackey
Name one structural engineer in the signers of the petition. The question was about what they believe ... have any of the signers stepped forward with mathematical evidence to show this belief? Or did they simply sign their names and forget about it? See also ae911truth.info for a more complete picture.
Do you think maybe they should have listed an email address and forgot about it instead? Your link is biased disinformation and not relevant.
He asked you some pretty straight forward questions. Are any of the signers of the petition structural engineers? Can they back up any of their claims or the claims that they state they believe?
Some people need to believe that there are no such thing called physics but that only evil men can bring down buildings. It is kind of funny and sad to see the lengths some will go to prove to others their own conspiracy theories.
One hears this all the time from truthers, yet when you get into it, you find out your average truther couldn't do first grade physics as proven by their posts. And, as Hannibal points out, not one truther has been able to actually PRESENT the physics they claim is so easy. Physics are easy to prove. It isn't open to interpretation, which is why truthers make claims, but run like scared little children when asked to actually present their proof in the form of physics. How hard can it be to present 7th grade physics? Apparently far harder than the average truther can manage if their claims are true. Impossible if their claims are false. Doesn't take a genius to figure out truthers are completely full of crap.
You don't even need a massive understanding of physics to realize that when a building falls to the ground almost as fast as the same weight would in a vacuum, in perfectly controlled conditions, something's fishy. The buildings that fell on 9/11 fell at such a speed repeatedly. That's not rocket science.
You mean you don't need any understanding of physics to believe in any foolishness you wish to believe in.
Apparently you missed the word ALMOST in your own post. Again, physics is a SCIENCE, not a bunch of retards sitting around pretending their "realizations" are somehow relevant. No. It is physics. The collapse is perfectly explained by physics. The amount of energy released by the moving mass in the collapse was WAY more than the building could support. Are you now supporting the Judy Wood bull(*)(*)(*)(*) of the collapse should have come to a complete halt on every floor?
Well see, I agree. Physics DOES explain it. The speed of something falling (when encountering resistance and outside a vacuum, SHOULD be reasonably slower in its rate of descent). It's the duplication of these "vacuum" conditions and encountered resistance the structures SHOULD HAVE encountered that truthers find a tad puzzling.
The collapse DID encounter resistance or the collapse would have happened in the exact same amount of time plus a bare fraction of a second more for resistance from air. The fact that each floor could only offer up minimal resistance to the collapse is a fact truthers routinely ignore. Why? Oh right. Their bull(*)(*)(*)(*) theories fall apart if they acknowledge the truth.
No vacuum required to duplicate what happened the #7. The collapse of internal structures creat a "waist" in the falling building, pulling perimeter columns inward. When that waist got pronounced enough, columns snapped over about eight floors and dropped the weight bearing down on them. The top portion of the building dropped at a little less that g excelleration, but only for eight floors. When it met resistance, it slowed again. That you have less-than-g acceleration at the outset of collapse, g acceleration part way through, then less-than-g acclleration supports progressive collapse and rules out CD.
I'm curious. Why didn't they put that fantastic explanation of what happened to WTC7 in the "official" report? Seems like that would be important.
