A Few Questions I Still Need Answered

[A.D. Mocony]

I've been looking around this forum for a while, and recently made an account because I have a few questions I still haven't had answered. These are the only things that I can't really answer when speaking to a theorist, and hope to get some help from you all here.

1) How did tower 7 fall?
2) How did BBC report said tower falling 20-something minutes before it did?
3) What about the claims that the FBI has admitted that there's no link between bin Laden & 9/11?
4) This final question involves a video, but it's one of the main arguments a friend of mine uses against me when we inevitably get into this debate. First is a lot of the videos that show the plane sticking out of the other side of the two main towers, but I can usually explain this. However, there is one video (whose link I can't yet provide due to post count but it's 9/11 Fake: The Incredible Moving Bridge on youtube--not the most reliable source, I know) that I can't explain myself to this friend.

Thanks in advance for any of the answers you guys can give me.

[240-185]

Welcome to the forum.

1°) It fell downwards. :p

2°) They had received some FDNY reports indicating that the WTC7 was about to collapse. Just a mistake.

3°) Read this thread: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=137293

4°) Do not waste your time on this. Your friend wants you to believe his crap on the basis of one detail. Take the problem globally. Ask him, why that bridge would be a very "smoking gun". [edit after watching] Ask your friend about his mental health. Learn him what "perspective" means. Show him some movies with general view, where there are scenes of high things filmed by turning around it.

Like this:

a-7toHrfL3c

or this:

gsmwbdsa58M

[orphia nay]

Welcome to the forum!

I'll jump in on number 2) to start with.

Everyone at the site knew WTC7 was about to collapse, because of fires and damage.

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/eyewitnessaccountsofwtc7fires
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/accountsofwtc7damage
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/eyewitnessaccountsofthewithdrawalfromwtc

The BBC just went to press a bit too early with their story. Media outlets routinely prepare stories in advance so they can broadcast/publish them as soon as the event happens. This happens sometimes with obituaries, which are prepared well in advance and kept updated with events as they come to hand. Occasionally they are published in error, to much embarassment. :rule10 happens.

[AJM8125]

You can find what you're looking for by googling your subject + JREF; Example, BBC JREF, FBI bin LAden JREF and so on. You'll find these answers you need that way.

[boloboffin]

Building 7 fell because a local collapse (caused by thermal expansion of long floor beams knocking a key truss loose) left a critical column unsupported over seven or eight floors. The failure of this column (column 79) began a progressive collapse that went through the entire structure in several stages. The only part of this collapse the CD advocates like to look at is the final one, when the exterior columns of the building followed the interior down.

[R.Mackey]

Welcome to the Forum.

1) How did tower 7 fall?

Fires over a long period of time caused long floor spans to fail, which fell on other floors and knocked them loose as well. This loss of side bracing destabilized an important column in the core. This then failed, triggering a cascading failure as the rest of the core came apart from there to the other side, followed rapidly by failure of the entire exterior. See here (http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc082108.html) for the short summary, and here (http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/techbeat/tbx2008_1120_wtc7.htm) for the details.

2) How did BBC report said tower falling 20-something minutes before it did?

Everyone in town had been expecting WTC 7 to come down at some point. They misheard a radio or something that suggested not that it "could" come down, but "had" come down, and since hardly anyone could identify the structure from a distance -- which is where they all were, being evacuated since the collapse was expected -- didn't realize it wasn't true. The BBC has commented on this mistake in reporting. Mistakes in the heat of the moment happen all the time.

3) What about the claims that the FBI has admitted that there's no link between bin Laden & 9/11?

Watch the semantics. There's no hard evidence, perhaps, but there's surely a link. We don't have bin Laden's fingerprints on the boxcutters, but we have plenty of confessions, including bin Laden's own words. You are welcome to follow up with the FBI, who I'm sure will disabuse you of the notion that he is not wanted for the crime.

4) This final question involves a video, but it's one of the main arguments a friend of mine uses against me when we inevitably get into this debate. First is a lot of the videos that show the plane sticking out of the other side of the two main towers, but I can usually explain this. However, there is one video (whose link I can't yet provide due to post count but it's 9/11 Fake: The Incredible Moving Bridge on youtube--not the most reliable source, I know) that I can't explain myself to this friend.

Never heard of that video, don't care, but anyone who thinks no aircraft hit the Towers needs to come to terms with the fact that a rather enormous number of people saw them with their own eyes, particularly the second impact. End of story.

Also see http://www.911myths.com for these and numerous other, familiar, endlessly repeated debunkings.

[A.D. Mocony]

Thanks for the help. The bin Laden thing and the video were his primary arguments, so when I see him next I get to slap him with facts.

[UNLoVedRebel]

Truthers remind me of Stuttering John from the Howard Stern show. You know, the guy who used to ask a bunch of stupid questions to annoy people.

1) Why are there so few Jewish Boxers?
2) How many dates do you go on before you introduce anal sex?
3) (to an old person) How many times have you seen Haley's Comet?

[Heiwa]

I've been looking around this forum for a while, and recently made an account because I have a few questions I still haven't had answered. These are the only things that I can't really answer when speaking to a theorist, and hope to get some help from you all here.

1) How did tower 7 fall?


According NIST the upper, complete assembly of WTC 7, floors 18-47, apparently displaced downwards >30 m with acceleration 9.82 m/s² for 2.25 seconds. During such displacement no loads act on any elements in the assembly, i.e. all stresses inside the assembly is zero. It means that it will not deform or fail and that no element can drop on any other element during this time, &c.

Strangeley enough NIST suggest that at same time the east corner of the structure was falling apart (down) and that 24 core columns failed due to a lateral progression of failures inside the structure below floor 18.

One explanation for the 2.25 seconds free fall of the big upper assembly is that essential supports, e.g. all core columns at floors 6 and 13, were suddenly, simultaneosuly removed allowing the upper assembly to displace as verified by NIST. How 24 core columns can fail simultaneously, each in two locations, is not clear. I would opt for controlled demolition. See http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist7.htm .

[UNLoVedRebel]

Hey bjorkman. Do you consider column 79 to be an intimate object?

[Heiwa]

Hey bjorkman. Do you consider column 79 to be an intimate object?

Inanimate objects have a dull life.

[TexasJack]

2) How did BBC report said tower falling 20-something minutes before it did?

This is one of the more moronic arguments from the truthers. Do you honestly think the perps would send out a press release in advance of their evil plan being executed?

[VespaGuy]

4) This final question involves a video, but it's one of the main arguments a friend of mine uses against me when we inevitably get into this debate. First is a lot of the videos that show the plane sticking out of the other side of the two main towers, but I can usually explain this. However, there is one video (whose link I can't yet provide due to post count but it's 9/11 Fake: The Incredible Moving Bridge on youtube--not the most reliable source, I know) that I can't explain myself to this friend.

Here is one of those ridiculous truther 'arguments' that blurs the line between a crazy truther "smoking gun" and brilliant satire. I have a hard time believing that this is an honest truther video, and I have an even harder time believing that their are people too stupid to understand why the bridge "moves". But, the idiocy of the truth movement really does know no bounds, so it is possible that the video isn't satire.

The explanation is frighteningly simple. You can duplicate this effect with two or three stationary objects in about 10 seconds.

Of course, an even easier solution to this problem is to find new friends. I wouldn't want to associate with anyone too stupid to understand what's going on in that video.

[dtugg]

Here is one of those ridiculous truther 'arguments' that blurs the line between a crazy truther "smoking gun" and brilliant satire. I have a hard time believing that this is an honest truther video, and I have an even harder time believing that their are people too stupid to understand why the bridge "moves". But, the idiocy of the truth movement really does know no bounds, so it is possible that the video isn't satire.

The explanation is frighteningly simple. You can duplicate this effect with two or three stationary objects in about 10 seconds.

Of course, an even easier solution to this problem is to find new friends. I wouldn't want to associate with anyone too stupid to understand what's going on in that video.

Oh man. A while ago on another message board, I had some idiot twoofer bring that video up. I could hardly believe that somebody was that stupid and crazy. I took the time to explain to him what was happening and how to duplicate the effect. He still didn't believe me! I tried to talk some sense into him by asking why they would fake footage like that. He made up something about how they needed all the footage to be the same resolution or something then called me a shill and said I was lying about seeing the first plane hit which I had told him about previously. Craziest twoofer I have ever encountered. Even more so that Craig Ranke or Ace Baker.

[WildCat]

You can find what you're looking for by googling your subject + JREF; Example, BBC JREF, FBI bin LAden JREF and so on. You'll find these answers you need that way.
Even better to just search the JREF forum with Google. You do this by including "site:http://forums.randi.org" (without the quotes) to the search. 100% of the results will be to this site.

[mark4mark]

3) What about the claims that the FBI has admitted that there's no link between bin Laden & 9/11?



The quote by Rex Tomb was "there is no hard evidence..."


He also said it is a "no-brainer"

[parky76]

I've been looking around this forum for a while, and recently made an account because I have a few questions I still haven't had answered. These are the only things that I can't really answer when speaking to a theorist, and hope to get some help from you all here.

1) How did tower 7 fall?
2) How did BBC report said tower falling 20-something minutes before it did?
3) What about the claims that the FBI has admitted that there's no link between bin Laden & 9/11?
4) This final question involves a video, but it's one of the main arguments a friend of mine uses against me when we inevitably get into this debate. First is a lot of the videos that show the plane sticking out of the other side of the two main towers, but I can usually explain this. However, there is one video (whose link I can't yet provide due to post count but it's 9/11 Fake: The Incredible Moving Bridge on youtube--not the most reliable source, I know) that I can't explain myself to this friend.

Thanks in advance for any of the answers you guys can give me.

Because you are a fellow New Yorker (I live in Queens), I will be gentle with you.

All of your questions, literally all of them, have been answered in this section, time and time again. Just do a search for the relevant subject matter and you will find 10 different threads for each mentioned topic, which covers the issue ad nauseum.

Asking us to revisit these issues, which we have dealt with time and time again, is a little much. Every month we get a new truther or newbe here who asks us to answer "new questions" that are actually old.

If you are not a devious crypto-truther just looking to argue and call names, but are seriously seeking knowledge, use the search function, or PM someone of the more knowledgeable folks here.

But, if you are just hear to call names and argue and play devil's advocate cause you are really a truther, (which I hope you are not), then you are really not welcome.

[Lennart Hyland]

Welcome A.D. Mocony!

As you can tell the JREF forum is an excellent source for answers to 9/11 issues! Alot of them have been widely discussed in major threads and can easily be found using the search button.

Have a nice read! :)

[A.D. Mocony]

Thanks again for the help, all. Even when I brought all this up to my friend, on top of the scientific answers, he still thinks it's a conspiracy. Oh well. It was worth trying.

[leftysergeant]

However, there is one video (whose link I can't yet provide due to post count but it's 9/11 Fake: The Incredible Moving Bridge on youtube--not the most reliable source, I know)...

The video was first put up by a known sociopath who claims that the two photos he uses were taken from the same place by the same people. They weren't.

His evidence is worthless.

[ozeco41]

Thanks again for the help, all. Even when I brought all this up to my friend, on top of the scientific answers, he still thinks it's a conspiracy. Oh well. It was worth trying.

I'm new here too and it is not the easiest forum to research for technical answers.

A hint from experience. Separate the "Conspiracy" stuff from the technical.

For example on the WTC Towers collapses the technical issue is demolition.

And that question "demolition or not?" can be answered without reference to any conspiracy issues.

You may see that easily you may not. Think hard about it if you don't see it automatically. The bottom line is that explosives or incendiaries used to cut steel members don't know or care: who thought of the idea; who came up with the money; who planned the exercise; who rigged the demolition; OR who pressed the tit.

The technical side of the explanation will be "cutting [this/these] member/members] [here/and here] will produce this effect which will cause (......a series of consequences leading to....) the building fell down.

Notice - pure technical! No mention of a conspiracy.

Just for fun - think that through then re read a Stephen Jones presentation OR the front page linked(By whoever??? Gage???) on AE911Truth

They ALL soften up with a mix of conspiracy AND "it has never happened before and doesn't it look like" nonsense then make quantum leap assumptions to "therefore demolition".

Don't fall for it.