CD and free-fall revisited

[ArmillarySphere]

A co-worker seems to have bought into the MIHOP scenarios, and he had a new take on the "OMGzors the buildings fell faster than free-fall" issue.

Put simply, he said that the wave of destruction travels downwards faster than free-fall, and that this is the controlled demolition being triggered in sequence.

He also said something about the buildings being closed off floor-by-floor, giving an opportunity to install demolitions.

Aside from 1) not making sense if they wished to hide it, 2) not resembling a CD in the slightest and all the OTHER arguments against having CD in the first place, has anyone actually timed this wave of destruction? How quickly does it move?

I could do it, but I don't have that big of an interest in the whole 9/11 thing. He had the usual BS about Silverstein, but I had enough facts to debate him on that. He doesn't seem to be a die-hard CT, just someone who has watched some video and was predisposed against the Bush administration. Funny, I participated in an anti-Bush demonstration over a year before 9/11, and I don't buy into those theories...

[Architect]

The simple killer is the fact that they didn't fall faster than free-fall. After that, most folk change their mind.

Anyway, how could it fall faster? Wee rockets attached to the debris?

[einsteen]

One of the best videos is that of the fire rescue workers that suddenly see it coming down. You see obviously a demolition wave independent of the collapsing mass, it is fast in the beginning but of course its acceleratation is timed a<g, at the end you see the falling ejected debris reaches the ground earlier.

happy New Year everyone.

[Mancman]

One of the best videos is that of the fire rescue workers that suddenly see it coming down. You see obviously a demolition wave independent of the collapsing mass, it is fast in the beginning but of course its acceleratation is timed a<g, at the end you see the falling ejected debris reaches the ground earlier.

happy New Year everyone.

You are wrong.

[Architect]

You are wrong.

Break it to him gently, eh? ;)

[ArmillarySphere]

Anyway, how could it fall faster? Wee rockets attached to the debris?
That's what I said, so he clarified/backtracked to this thing with the demolition wave.

<rant mode=CT>It's so OBVIOUS! Light pressure from the orbital beam weapons!</rant>

:D

[einsteen]

a<g is sure isn't it ?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

A co-worker seems to have bought into the MIHOP scenarios, and he had a new take on the "OMGzors the buildings fell faster than free-fall" issue.

Put simply, he said that the wave of destruction travels downwards faster than free-fall, and that this is the controlled demolition being triggered in sequence.

He also said something about the buildings being closed off floor-by-floor, giving an opportunity to install demolitions.

Aside from 1) not making sense if they wished to hide it, 2) not resembling a CD in the slightest and all the OTHER arguments against having CD in the first place, has anyone actually timed this wave of destruction? How quickly does it move?

I could do it, but I don't have that big of an interest in the whole 9/11 thing. He had the usual BS about Silverstein, but I had enough facts to debate him on that. He doesn't seem to be a die-hard CT, just someone who has watched some video and was predisposed against the Bush administration. Funny, I participated in an anti-Bush demonstration over a year before 9/11, and I don't buy into those theories...

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2207994#post2207994

[ArmillarySphere]

That's what I was asking. Is it? Graphing "floor #" vs time from some video should do the trick.

[einsteen]

Someone might have done it, but you will need a raw video (ntsf in the USA I assume) then open it with a program like Virtualdub and do a frame per frame analysis, the height of the storeys is a known value. In the beginning you can plot the function distance(time), the double time derivative is a(t)<g

[ArmillarySphere]

The acceleration is not necessarily constant. I would start by plotting floor by time, then the derivative. By looking at the derivative, you've disconnected yourself from problems of picking "start" and "end" times for the collapse, and can study any part of the the process as it was happening.

[roger]

The simple killer is the fact that they didn't fall faster than free-fall. After that, most folk change their mind.

Anyway, how could it fall faster? Wee rockets attached to the debris?No, they didn't fall faster than free fall.

I think what some of the CDers are getting at, however, is this:

Assume there is a 100 story building (not the WTC) where a top story falls on a subsequent floor, and collapse ensues. Suppose also that 0.3 seconds after the top story falls, we witness the first story collapsing. Since the floors themselves can only fall at free fall speed (and realistically, somewhat less), this is proof that the first floor collapsed due to something other than the collapse of the top story. Therefore, the collapse of the first floor must have been due to some other mechanism, such as CD.

As we know, this was not observed at 9/11. Also, the phsics is somewhat wrong. The forces are not distributed at the speed of free fall, but the speed of sound in the materials, which is significantly faster than free fall speed.

Anyway, although the CTers are wrong, I don't think we can fault them too badly for the free fall argument. If bombs were set off simultaneously on every floor, destruction would be initiated at faster than free fall, though of course the collapse itself would proceed at free fall (or less) speeds. Conversely, if we witness a building whose destruction occurs faster than the transmission of forces in materials (the speed of sound), we can conclude the destruction was not due to global collapse a la the WTC.

[CurtC]

Put simply, he said that the wave of destruction travels downwards faster than free-fall, and that this is the controlled demolition being triggered in sequence.Yes, I first heard this argument from Judy Wood, back before her Battlestar Gallactica Beam Weapon hypothesis.

But there is an easy way to refute the idea: the chunks of perimeter wall, which are falling through the air next to the towers, fall faster than the wave of destruction going down the buildings. QED.

[einsteen]

virtualdub has also the option to crop an area and to save the video to .bmp files. Assuming symmetry, if you have a video of the collapse from a fixed camera you can crop it to an 1x388 area (for example) and save them as bitmaps. If you then merge for example 297 bitmaps as a 297x388 bitmap you have in fact the distance as function of time. I'm not sure what kind of program can do that automatically.

Oh, if you take those plums that you see into account I'm sure you will find some t for which a(t)>g, but since those are believed to be compressed air/whatever that doesn't count. It will be a hard job. I wish you all the luck.

[Loss Leader]

Remember that we have almost no information about what happens below, say, the fortieth floor. The dust, smoke and debris in the air utterly obscure everything. Any CTer who claims to be able to time the fall of the towers is self-deluded; it cannot be done with any accuracy.

[Anti-sophist]

Allow me to invoke one of the great minds of our time. Judy Wood. When you use billard balls to model the collapse (and you do it correctly, mind you, which is something she fails horribly at), the "collapse" wave proceeds exactly at freefall. If we use a perfectly inelastic collapse mechanism, it's slower then freefall. The truth, of course, lies somewhere in between.

People who claim ridiculous things like "faster then freefall" require obstinate fact-nazi'ing. Just ask them for proof. When they try to change the subject, re-ask them for proof. Ask them again the next day. Ask them why they keep trying to change the subject. Ask them if they found their proof yet.

Also it helps to ask them to define "freefall". You'd be surprised the hilarious answers you get. When you mention that freefall is technically an acceleration, watch that confused look in their eyes. The really delusional ones will start to argue with you over that. Many also believe that "freefall" speeds include air resistance -- such that falling like you would in a vacuum is actually faster than freefall.

[Gravy]

Photos can be helpful in this regard. Note how the debris from the initial collapse zone is traveling much faster than the bulk of the collapsing building. This "free-falling" (in air) debris hits the ground hundreds of feet before the rest of the building does. The difference in speed is accounted for by the resistance of the building.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_8790459a74d45d1d9.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=3443)

[einsteen]

If you would pull a building as wtc1 from the first storey then it would take 9.2 seconds for the building to come down if you assume the kinetic energy is sufficient enough to break all storeys. Greening's first stage of collapse then is simply the whole building falling one storey (0.88 seconds) the 2nd stage of collapse is the top reaching ground zero, because of the kinetic energy (which is dramatic then) that would be freefall speed. I have no problems with the fact that failed CDs result in a whole stack of intact storeys, even for some weak buildings because in that case energy is transferred to other storeys and in fact absorbed, but I have problems to understand why this didn't happen for the wtcs...

[Bell]

I don't think it is possible to pull a building as tall and big as WTC1.

[A W Smith]

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2195537&postcount=236

[T.A.M.]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_10761455202155aceb.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=2493)

As you can see above, depending on where you consider to be the distance of fall, you get three different times for "freefall" collapse. I prefer the one where the distance is from the vertical center of the chunk above the impact zone, to the ground. this one seems to me to be the most obvious one, as we are talking about the "free fall" of this chunk down to earth.

TAM

[ArmillarySphere]

I don't think it is possible to pull a building as tall and big as WTC1.
You'd need a lot of cables.

[einsteen]

Assuming Greening is right, then the sum of his first and second stages of collapse give a collapse time that is proportional with the height of the storey that first fails. At the bottom you get the fastest collapse. If you pull it at a higher level the collapse time will be greater, but if you pull it too high there is not enough kinetic energy and it will stop.

And Bell, why is it impossible to pull a building as large as the wtc ? if you believe the official story the failure of one storey initiates a global collapse.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

...
And Bell, why is it impossible to pull a building as large as the wtc ? if you believe the official story the failure of one storey initiates a global collapse.
Because the generally accepted building demolitions use of the term "pull" is to demolish by use of cables.

[Bell]

And Bell, why is it impossible to pull a building as large as the wtc ? if you believe the official story the failure of one storey initiates a global collapse.

I didn't say it is impossible, I said I think it is impossible. Emphasis added.

If you want to pull a building as tall and as big as WTC1, you need very, very big and heavy cranes and big cables. And then there is no way to tell how it will collapse. Will it come straight down, or fall sideways? That's when you pull it from the bottom. And pulling a building from the - let's say - 90th floor? In my opinion not possible.

I'll gladly admit I'm wrong if someone with CD expertise can show me how it CAN be done.

[T.A.M.]

Assuming Greening is right, then the sum of his first and second stages of collapse give a collapse time that is proportional with the height of the storey that first fails. At the bottom you get the fastest collapse. If you pull it at a higher level the collapse time will be greater, but if you pull it too high there is not enough kinetic energy and it will stop.

And Bell, why is it impossible to pull a building as large as the wtc ? if you believe the official story the failure of one storey initiates a global collapse.

I do not think that one can really chose which height the laws of physics will use. I mean, it seems to me, logically, that the height used in the equations must be the one I have in the third diagram in my post above. I was taught that you use the center of gravity to perform such calculations.

A ball falling is different, as we assume the ball will be intact when it reaches the earth, and hence calculating the height from bottom of ball to the earth, as the fall height is appropriate, as the bottom of the ball is what first hits the earth.

However, in the case of the WTCs, There is a great chance that the 18-30 storey chunk that we use for the free fall calculation, will not be intact when it reaches the earth, and hence, the center of the chunk is the better choice, is it not...

Can someone examine this, tell me if it even matters?

TAM

[Gravy]

I have no problems with the fact that failed CDs result in a whole stack of intact storeys, even for some weak buildings because in that case energy is transferred to other storeys and in fact absorbed, but I have problems to understand why this didn't happen for the wtcs...Please point me to demolitions of 415-meter-tall buildings for comparison. I'd like to see those "intact stories" you speak of.

Seriously, einsteen, I know that you know what acceleration is. It's up to you to explain this amazing "intact story" hypothesis.

[einsteen]

Gravy, I'm no CD expert of course, I remember a small tower that was pulled and stayed intact. Will probably not happen for such a dramatic high building.

Bell, I mean if the failure of one storey is the reason then why would it not be possible to reproduce it by pulling that storey ? If gravity does all the work then it also does it then. On the LC forum someone posted the world record for a CD, that was a building with a height less than wtc7. It is very interesting that this near symmetrical collapse was possible with some fire. As a lay-man I would say that if random fire and damage can do it humans certainly could do it because if humans do it they will do it even more symmetrically.

Assume they wanted to get rid of the twin towers in the year 2000, what would be the current technical way to do that ? I have no idea, drilling floor by floor would take years. Pulling floor 14 would give a lot of ejected debris, you have some luck that if there is a surrounding building that you would like to collapse there might be some debris that does the job for you but I wouldn't rely on it.

[A W Smith]

I think the "intact stories" hes talking about are the ones from that implosion failure (http://www.compfused.com/directlink/1070/)of a steel reinforced concrete grain elevator used I think in Jones article. Not understanding that a grain elevator is heavily reinforced to withstand the possibility of an explosion from grain dust ignition.

You just have to understand where CTers get their Tinformation (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tinformation) from:)

[T.A.M.]

Gravy, I'm no CD expert of course, I remember a small tower that was pulled and stayed intact. Will probably not happen for such a dramatic high building.

Bell, I mean if the failure of one storey is the reason then why would it not be possible to reproduce it by pulling that storey ? If gravity does all the work then it also does it then. On the LC forum someone posted the world record for a CD, that was a building with a height less than wtc7. It is very interesting that this near symmetrical collapse was possible with some fire. As a lay-man I would say that if random fire and damage can do it humans certainly could do it because if humans do it they will do it even more symmetrically.

Assume they wanted to get rid of the twin towers in the year 2000, what would be the current technical way to do that ? I have no idea, drilling floor by floor would take years. Pulling floor 14 would give a lot of ejected debris, you have some luck that if there is a surrounding building that you would like to collapse there might be some debris that does the job for you but I wouldn't rely on it.


JHC, why oh why.

Listen Einsteen, I do not think anyone here is saying that humans, through Demolition procedures could not produce the collapse of WTC 1/2/7. What they are saying, is that there is NO PROOF that this is how it was done, and there is a PLETHORA of proof that it occured from the combination of impact damage to columns, removal of fireproofing, and uncontrolled fires.

TAM

[Bell]

Gravy, I'm no CD expert of course, I remember a small tower that was pulled and stayed intact. Will probably not happen for such a dramatic high building.

Bell, I mean if the failure of one storey is the reason then why would it not be possible to reproduce it by pulling that storey ? If gravity does all the work then it also does it then. On the LC forum someone posted the world record for a CD, that was a building with a height less than wtc7. It is very interesting that this near symmetrical collapse was possible with some fire. As a lay-man I would say that if random fire and damage can do it humans certainly could do it because if humans do it they will do it even more symmetrically.

Assume they wanted to get rid of the twin towers in the year 2000, what would be the current technical way to do that ? I have no idea, drilling floor by floor would take years. Pulling floor 14 would give a lot of ejected debris, you have some luck that if there is a surrounding building that you would like to collapse there might be some debris that does the job for you but I wouldn't rely on it.

First let's be clear about what 'pulling a building' means. I think it means litteraly pulling a building down by means of heavy machines and long cables. What do you think 'pulling a building' means?

[einsteen]

yeah, we are far away from the original subject...

With failed CD I mean something like this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwGE92upfQM

[A W Smith]

Assume they wanted to get rid of the twin towers in the year 2000, what would be the current technical way to do that

First you strip out the interior partitions and ceiling grid and tile. starting from the top. Recycle just about everything. yes they even recycle drywall and ceiling tile now. they didn't in 2000. Recycle all steel studs and ceiling grid. recycle all coper wire or BX armored cable. Recycle all copper plumbing as well as no hub steel waste pipe (pvc or abs DWV plastic pipe not legal then or now in NYC ) Dismantle and remove all heat plants, air conditioning, lift and pump machinery and recycle. when interior and fireproofing is all stripped out start concrete cutting of floors
and removal of exterior glazing and aluminum (from the inside) assemble self climbing tower cranes of top of building to lift steel over the side when cut with torches. you can leap frog the tower crane climbing sections down abandoned elevator shafts as the dismantling progresses. You can even recycle the concrete with on site rock crushers. with a crew of about 700 (350 per tower) you can probably have both towers down in four months. thats only just over two and a half stories a day in dismantling.

[A W Smith]

yeah, we are far away from the original subject...

With failed CD I mean something like this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwGE92upfQM

Which is exactly why I posted THIS below (same implosion)

I think the "intact stories" hes talking about are the ones from that implosion failure (http://www.compfused.com/directlink/1070/)of a steel reinforced concrete grain elevator used I think in Jones article. Not understanding that a grain elevator is heavily reinforced to withstand the possibility of an explosion from grain dust ignition.

You just have to understand where CTers get their Tinformation (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tinformation) from:)

[Dog Town]

"Tinformation"
Now there's a word, I might be interested in! Good one!

[ArmillarySphere]

It's pretty important to note that one reason for using *controlled* demolitions rather than just parking a truck of blow-it-up stuff in the basement is to stop the building from collapsing all over the surrounding area. Which is more or less what these three buildings did. If a company had produced the kind of results we're looking at post-911, they'd now be looking at lawsuits with some fantastic damages attached.

What about the second claim, about the buildings being sectioned off over the time before? Ostensibly to remove asbestos, I assume.. but wait, wasn't that one of the chief savings that Silverstein would have gotten, i.e. not having to do that removal?

I'm curious where he got it from. I started looking, but only found the stuff about security evacuations and drills (which wouldn't have given nearly enough time to install charges). And did those really cover *all* of the building below the point where the aircraft struck?

[The Doc]

Einstein,

If you wish to claim that CD was responsible for the collapse initiation I would like for you to:

a) Show me evidence of explosives
b) Explain how they survived the aircraft impact - due to the fact that collapse initiated from the impact zone.
c) Debunk the NIST report that clearly explains what initiated the collapse.

Thankyou.

[einsteen]

what a honor to change steen in stein...

Neu-Fonze didn't reply but as far as I understood the NIST simulation resulted in a block falling 30cm transferring its kinetic energy to strain energy.

[GlennB]

Photos can be helpful in this regard. Note how the debris from the initial collapse zone is traveling much faster than the bulk of the collapsing building. This "free-falling" (in air) debris hits the ground hundreds of feet before the rest of the building does. The difference in speed is accounted for by the resistance of the building.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_8790459a74d45d1d9.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=3443)


True, but they will then use this as "proof" that the debris must have been propelled downwards extra-fast by explosives.

Then your own head explodes.

[GlennB]

....
Assume they wanted to get rid of the twin towers in the year 2000, what would be the current technical way to do that ?

Wild guess -they would have to be dismantled from the top.
CD of such tall buildings could wreck many of the surrounding ones.

[ArmillarySphere]

And how long did the cleanup work after 9/11 take? Who paid for it?
Sure doesn't seem like Silverstein profited...

[Bell]

Einsteen, care to address this question?

First let's be clear about what 'pulling a building' means. I think it means litteraly pulling a building down by means of heavy machines and long cables. What do you think 'pulling a building' means?

[A W Smith]

First let's be clear about what 'pulling a building' means. I think it means litteraly pulling a building down by means of heavy machines and long cables. What do you think 'pulling a building' means?


It means getting a guy in a red suit (spider man?) to attach all kinds of web things to #7 and then attach them to tug boats in the harbor. Of course you couldn't see him as he was obscured with all that smoke the NWO generated. And then getting the Tugs to head south with a blast from one of them aerosol air horns.

[einsteen]

Einsteen, care to address this question?
vergeten, gelukkig nieuwjaar nog he trouwens.

Well in the famous Silverstein context it had to do with pulling the people out from the building. It's strange that Jowenko used that quote in his long interview, he said "pull it down", although he knew not muh about wtc7 he has heard that via third parties or also saw one of those videos. Maybe wisest thing is to freeze the wtc7 discussion until NIST is finished but that will not happen... I always thought that pull just means to blow up some columns and I sometimes use it in that way. I have no idea about the amount of cables. The blocked PDoherty (why?) once said that if the collapses are purely the result of damaged columns and you need no explosives then you have to admit that you will also not need a lot of it to initiate it. I think he has a point with that.

Hell, I see Steven Jones on regular TV now, although a local Amsterdam channel. Archie Bunker would classify it as an atheistic pinko lefty meatheads channel


http://i13.tinypic.com/2d978g8.jpg

http://i16.tinypic.com/2qcmqs6.jpg

[Bell]

vergeten, gelukkig nieuwjaar nog he trouwens.

Van hetzelfde :)

Well in the famous Silverstein context it had to do with pulling the people out from the building. It's strange that Jowenko used that quote in his long interview, he said "pull it down", although he knew not muh about wtc7 he has heard that via third parties or also saw one of those videos. Maybe wisest thing is to freeze the wtc7 discussion until NIST is finished but that will not happen... I always thought that pull just means to blow up some columns and I sometimes use it in that way. I have no idea about the amount of cables.

I think it is safest to use the term pull only in regards to really pulling a building down, not blowing it up, to avoid confussion.

The blocked PDoherty (why?)

He was suspended, but tried to circumvent his suspension by using a different account.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=66667
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=66727

once said that if the collapses are purely the result of damaged columns and you need no explosives then you have to admit that you will also not need a lot of it to initiate it. I think he has a point with that.

Which by itself would support the official explaination of the collapse, rather than a controlled demolition, since it would support that a local collapse could lead to a global collapse.

Hell, I see Steven Jones on regular TV now, although a local Amsterdam channel. Archie Bunker would classify it as an atheistic pinko lefty meatheads channel

http://i13.tinypic.com/2d978g8.jpg

http://i16.tinypic.com/2qcmqs6.jpg

I'm glad I can't view that channel ;)

[Dog Town]

he said "pull it down",

Was he speaking english, or is that the translation?

[hellaeon]

yeah, we are far away from the original subject...

With failed CD I mean something like this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwGE92upfQM

Perhaps you may have heard why bother with the airplanes. Why not just the 'explosives' in the towers? Why the mass evac? More people would die and it would be worse and even more cause for the war on terror.

When and where would the explosives be placed. Why would no one notice. How come there is no physical explosives evidence. There is anecdotal 'I heard explosions' but that is not physical evidence of specifically placed detonators.

Ok lets assume they did all this. That some rogue elite squad placed all the explosives without no one noticing. How did the planes fly exactly into the building and the random ejection of debree and fire and carnage was perfectly done so as to miss all the pre placed detonators. how did they* know that the building would come down successfully without ever bringing a building of this size down with explosives. Why waste detonators on every floor? why not a few at the bottom so it actually has 100+ floors fall down into the ground in one hit. Your theory would have some merit if it could explain away some of these anti CD observations.

Ok lets presume there was explosives. There is no evidence of explosive devices including timers found at any of the sites. Why is there no evidence.

Lets presume even further that this was all planned and yes the evidence was incredibly removed. When was it removed. Who removed it. Why not just leave it and say that the terrorists did it. I dont get it why there has to be a layer of conspiracy for every single step in a conspiracy theory.
Strangely I would have thought CTers would go with a LIHOP scenario because it would be easier to speculate, but they perfer to actually argue against rules of science, multitudes of data and physical evidence which is present in the MIHOP.

Hmm I think i have gotten confused in LIHOPs and MIHOPs and BIOPS and PSYOPs and all the abbreviated paranoia.

I think CTers should explain some of these things im asking before delving into freefall and controlled demo's, technology that does not exist etc. If they cant explain the basic observed discrepancies in their theories, how can they expect to be taken seriously when trying to argue the complex issues. Not that they would.

* they : some secret group so secret only a few nerds can expose them.

[T.A.M.]

So many threads lately, but this seems the most appropriate one:

A CTer here a while ago, I believe RB, was commenting on the imposed delays the govt etc..placed on the investigative bodies.

In response to this, at least in part, please read the following exerpt from the testimony of the lead engineer of the FEMA team, Gene Corley, full article is available here...

http://www.asce.org/pdf/3-6-02wtc_testimony.pdf

...On September 29th, the City of New York granted the team access to the World Trade Center site and from October 7th to the 12th, the entire team was on site. The team was provided with unrestricted access to all areas of the site except for areas where their presence might have impeded the ongoing rescue and recovery efforts and areas which were determined to be extremely hazardous. To aid the team in this intense 6-day effort, FEMA made its Regional Operation Center (less that 8 blocks form the WTC site) available for use by the team on a 24-7 basis.

Bolding mine.

TAM

[einsteen]

Jowenko said that part in English.

Indeed if there is no proof of other energy sources there is no proof, that's true. But I still think that it's strange what happened. wtc1 stands for an hour, looks very intact and suddenly you see one perimeter column failing and at that moment it looks like the whole strong steel building is made of butter, sorry can't help it. Assume now that NIST cannot explain wtc7 without the help of thermite cutters/whatever, what is the conclusion then ? Although you then have no direct proof but only indirect proofs does that matter ?

[Curnir]

Jowenko said that part in English.

Indeed if there is no proof of other energy sources there is no proof, that's true. But I still think that it's strange what happened. wtc1 stands for an hour, looks very intact and suddenly you see one perimeter column failing What is so strange with that?
and at that moment it looks like the whole strong steel building is made of butter, sorry can't help it.Dude... you seriously need to throw out your butter, something is seriously wrong with it. Assume now that NIST cannot explain wtc7 without the help of thermite cutters/whatever, what is the conclusion then ? Although you then have no direct proof but only indirect proofs does that matter ?
Why oh why would I want to assume something rule8ing silly as that?

[Larry Lovage]

wtc1 stands for an hour, looks very intact and suddenly you see one perimeter column failing and at that moment it looks like the whole strong steel building is made of butter, sorry can't help it.That's not my memory of it. I remember thinking how un-intact it looked. Either way, video evidence from hundreds of yards away is scarcely conclusive. I have seen an eyewitness testimony (a comment on the screw loose change blog some months ago) from a guy who was in the building and came out of it, looked up and determined from the size of the hole that nothing was built to withstand that amount of damage. When the building collapsed, therefore, he was not surprised at all. Conversely, if the building had stood up to the damage he would have been surprised and probably very impressed with the design of the building. This is the thing about the CT assertion that the building was "designed to withstand" this and that. Sadly, building engineers can sometimes be wrong, and design specifications can be undermined by budgetary considerations, and some events are too extreme to foresee.

[Mancman]

Jowenko said that part in English.

Indeed if there is no proof of other energy sources there is no proof, that's true. But I still think that it's strange what happened. wtc1 stands for an hour, looks very intact and suddenly you see one perimeter column failing and at that moment it looks like the whole strong steel building is made of butter, sorry can't help it.

Except we saw columns beginning to bow inwards, getting progressively worse until the point of failure. It was not 100% solid one second and failing the next.

[LashL]

bump

[jhunter1163]

Bumpez-vous

[Bell]

Bumper sticker

*honk when you're gay*

[volatile]

Do we really have to go over all this stuff AGAIN? So soon after we already did it to death with 28thK last week?

Can't we just all give these nutters the silent treatment they merit?

[LashL]

Good point, matt. (we really don't want to go over it all again; there is a method to our madness ;) )

[ConspiRaider]

It means getting a guy in a red suit (spider man?) to attach all kinds of web things to #7 and then attach them to tug boats in the harbor. Of course you couldn't see him as he was obscured with all that smoke the NWO generated. And then getting the Tugs to head south with a blast from one of them aerosol air horns.
Yep. Then they did a hologram of Spidey's girlfriend, Kirsten Dunst, in her rain-wettened outfit way up in the sky so everyone would be even further distracted. Man, those "pullers" think of everything!

[ArmillarySphere]

Is there an actual debate going on in this thread? I originally posted because I needed a counter to these two arguments:

"The wave of destructions travels faster than free-fall (even though the buildings themselves don't.)" - I believe I have enough to counter him on that one, and if he starts talking about squibs then I know enough to bitch-slap some sense into him.

"The buildings were cordoned off in sections and that's when they installed explosives" - I think this one is a 'net exaggeration. I found a little stuff about fire drills in WCT7 and the 911 myths page on power down (http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_power_down.html). I'll have to ask him about details to that claim if it comes up again.

To recap the "Silverstein insurance fraud" issue:

Costs:
$3.2 billion initial bid to get the 99-year lease - was this intended to be paid? Noone has mentioned it. Or are we talking $32 million/year "lease fee" ?
$616 million down payment
$120 million/year rent to Port Authority while the site is unoccupied
Insurance fees - not too many since the deals were still being negotiated at 9/11. Add legal fees to that.
Cleanup costs - how much? And who paid?

Benefits:
"about $200 million a year" income - well, guess he won't be getting any of that. Let's be generous and give him the rents from 3 months; this still only yields something like $50 million.
About $200 million in avoided costs to renovate the buildings. A pittance in these circumstances, and we're not even talking about a profit, just an avoided expense.
"Nearly $5 billion" insurance awards. I hear the figure $4.6 billion as well. I suppose the final outcome will depend on which court cases he wins - still, if *I* ran the show I would've made a little more effort to ensure this than to hand over the negotiations to a contractor... This article from The American Lawyer (http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1030343783307) has details, and so does this page from 911myths (http://www.911myths.com/html/windfall.html)
And how much of this is contingent on him rebuilding?