Quote:

---

It's clearly evident that a significant number of people in this thread haven't taken a class in physics at all, or if they have, they failed spectacularly at it.

---

You mean like the people who keep claiming that WTC7 was wired with imaginary explosives, the ones that won't acknowledge that 8 hours of uncontrolled fire will weaken steel, or the ones who keep claiming that WTC7 fell at "free fall" when that is provably untrue?

AggiEE said:

---

Ed Harley said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

agracer said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

Yes

That a building was wired for explosion and no one noticed the equipment

---

This.

The people claiming the building was wired for demo have no clue what it takes to demo a building with explosives. You don't just set explosives and hit the trigger. The building structure is partially demolished to the point where it's barely standing on its own anymore then it goes boom.

---

If all it takes to bring a building down At freefall speed is some office fires, it's a lot cheaper to simply do that than hire a demolition company

So why don't we do that?

---

I can't believe a college grad typed this. Unreal.

---

Cognitive dissonance at its finest. Resorting to personal attacks when faced with compelling evidence that doesn't fit your world view. Either choose to accept in the idea of controlled demolition, or hold onto the lie that all aspects of our government are noble and good.

---

Nothing "compelling" about anything you've posted. As someone who went to school for EE, that took LOTS of physics and science courses, I find it saddening that these idiotic videos convince so many of the absurd. And I don't trust "the govt" to count its tits twice and arrive at the correct answer.

This thread is still going??? SMH

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quote:

---

It's clearly evident that a significant number of people in this thread haven't taken a class in physics at all, or if they have, they failed spectacularly at it.

---

You mean like the people who keep claiming that WTC7 was wired with imaginary explosives, the ones that won't acknowledge that 8 hours of uncontrolled fire will weaken steel, or the ones who keep claiming that WTC7 fell at "free fall" when that is provably untrue?

---

I again introduce you to Barry Jennings. He was trapped in tower 7 before any tower fell by an EXPLOSION in tower 7.

He was trapped on an 8th floor stairwell for hours. He claims he heard many explosions while he was trapped.

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quote:

---

It's clearly evident that a significant number of people in this thread haven't taken a class in physics at all, or if they have, they failed spectacularly at it.

---

You mean like the people who keep claiming that WTC7 was wired with imaginary explosives, the ones that won't acknowledge that 8 hours of uncontrolled fire will weaken steel, or the ones who keep claiming that WTC7 fell at "free fall" when that is provably untrue?

---

8 hours of uncontrolled but limited fires does not result in a total symmetrical collapse at freefall speed of a modern steel building. It can't even bring down one designed by the Chinese.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/mandarin.html

The fires were not symmetrical. They were minor in comparison to many other examples of raging infernos that left the buildings significantly damaged by fire, but structurally still sound,

The fires at WCT7 would not have been hot enough to significantly weaken steel, and even they were the heat load would not be evenly distributed to allow for the entire structure to come down the way that it did.

The first step is to come to realize that controlled demolition is the only plausible explanation for the collapse. It naturally follows that, yes, it must have been "wired with explosives" to bring the structure down. That's what a controlled demolition is.

(Coppellag93)

Ahh, forensics of any kind is usually fascinating and worth playing with. We need a Science board.

Even the better tinfoil theories are those that use science to try to make their case. They are at least testable.

Do those physics classes involve the differences in structural support between buildings vs trees?

Is "free fall speed" a technical term? I'm only a hobby physicist so I want to make sure I understand all these sciencey nuances.

Quote:

---

The fires at WCT7 would not have been hot enough to significantly weaken steel, and even they were the heat load would not be evenly distributed to allow for the entire structure to come down the way that it did.

The first step is to come to realize that controlled demolition is the only plausible explanation for the collapse. It naturally follows that, yes, it must have been "wired with explosives" to bring the structure down. That's what a controlled demolition is.

---

That only works if you go with the `nutty' suggestion made that as an important HQ and even with spook officers, the building had been built and designed with a "self-destruct" capabilty already.

Otherwise, you really do have to explain how it was set up for demolition in the time before, and probably should the approximate date it began. (Correspondence with outside events or who in control might matter)

JJxvi said:

---

Is "free fall speed" a technical term? I'm only a hobby physicist so I want to make sure I understand all these sciencey nuances.

---

It relates to the conservation of energy. Free fall is the unobstructed fall, no force pushing against it --- the analogy they used is if you dropped the top couple of floors of the WTC to the street they definitely should impact before the same top couple of floors on a whole building having to collapse on and through itself reaches the street. Hope that makes sense.

A free fall taking about 10-12 seconds.

AggiEE said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

RWWilson said:

---

double aught said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

agracer said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

Yes

That a building was wired for explosion and no one noticed the equipment

---

This.

The people claiming the building was wired for demo have no clue what it takes to demo a building with explosives. You don't just set explosives and hit the trigger. The building structure is partially demolished to the point where it's barely standing on its own anymore then it goes boom.

---

If all it takes to bring a building down At freefall speed is some office fires, it's a lot cheaper to simply do that than hire a demolition company

So why don't we do that?

---

Are you an engineer?

---

What makes you think that a guy who is incapable of basic reasoning is an engineer? He's clearly not very intelligent.

---

His username implies Electrical Engineer.

He could be a whiz at designing circuits, and still be a complete idiot at physics, construction, politics, etc.

---

You're not going very far as an engineer if you're an idiot at physics. It's clearly evident that a significant number of people in this thread haven't taken a class in physics at all, or if they have, they failed spectacularly at it.

---

what were you saying about personal attacks?

if you are an EE as your username suggests maybe you should just stay in that lane. civil structural is not your thing.

titan said:

---

Quote:

---

The fires at WCT7 would not have been hot enough to significantly weaken steel, and even they were the heat load would not be evenly distributed to allow for the entire structure to come down the way that it did.

The first step is to come to realize that controlled demolition is the only plausible explanation for the collapse. It naturally follows that, yes, it must have been "wired with explosives" to bring the structure down. That's what a controlled demolition is.

---

That only works if you go with the `nutty' suggestion made that as an important HQ and even with spook officers, the building had been built and designed with a "self-destruct" capabilty already.

Otherwise, you really do have to explain how it was set up for demolition in the time before, and probably should the approximate date it began. (Correspondence with outside events or who in control might matter)

---

This is speculation into the question of "how" it was accomplished. I agree it should be investigated, and it's sad that there never was a proper investigation. NIST never tested for explosives. They never did any forensic analysis on the collapse. They started their investigation with a pre-determined known outcome, that office fires must have brought it down.

But we're never going to have that information, over twenty years have passed. We can reasonably conclude "what" happened though, as NIST's explanation is completely inconsistent with the facts.

sts7049 said:

---

if you are an EE as your username suggests maybe you should just stay in that lane. civil structural is not your thing.

---

Since you are not an engineer, you shouldn't be in this thread at all then? Using your arguments, of course.

If you want to play the appeal to authority game, simply watch this video that is filled with strucural engineers, civil engineers, architects, explosives experts, etc.



Are these people that sound like lunatic conspiracy nutjobs to you? Or are these just people that, with their vast technical experience, believe what they find to be technically true rather than what the media and government has led us all to believe is true?

None of you will watch it because your cognitive dissonance has already tuned out the possibility and instantly dismissed anything that's not the official story as if conspiracies never happen and everything the media tells you is true.

Let me rephrase. You must at least, have an alternate scenario which is researched which shows it could have been done. If it is beyond the technical means of 2001 and the logistics of the site and its use, that is a big obstacle and a basic one.

You should also decide are you assuming all three were set to self-destruct, or just the special HQ that was Building 7?

I am not saying you have to prove anything at all --but you should have a physically possible scenario where it could be set up that way in such and such time frame.

titan said:

---

I am not sure what the significance of that would be. I think you are seeing a portion that was not visible before some of the fall apart got further, and is in fact behind or previously occulted by what still standing, but you see as it begins to `go'.

---

Where does the 10 story spire go? Does it fall almost straight dpwn into a huge hole? There is no force above it pushing it down. What is the dust forming and growing around it as it falls?

Quote:

---

your cognitive dissonance

---

That's what I think of the hare-brained theories you espouse. I'm amazed that anyone with a halfway decent education is so susceptible to lies from conspiracy nuts.

titan said:

---

Let me rephrase. You must at least, have an alternate scenario which is researched which shows it could have been done. If it is beyond the technical means of 2001 and the logistics of the site and its use, that is a big obstacle and a basic one.

You should also decide are you assuming all three were set to self-destruct, or just the special HQ that was Building 7?

I am not saying you have to prove anything at all --but you should have a physically possible scenario where it could be set up that way in such and such time frame.

---

We know that the buildings were all undergoing significant maintenance / modernization for 9 months preceding the event. If the right key people had access for a long enough duration it is certainly quite possible for this to have been accomplished.

I did watch that. Its one of the reasons don't just fling the whole thing away. And similar ones. For example the questions of the damage dimensions of the Pentagon strike and size of plane. And some of the real archictectural obstacles and evidence involved.

i am an engineer. with experience in causal reasoning. which, you are not using.

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quote:

---

your cognitive dissonance

---

That's what I think of the hare-brained theories you espouse. I'm amazed that anyone with a halfway decent education is so susceptible to lies from conspiracy nuts.

---

Watch the video instead of posting memes and making personal attacks. I don't see any "lies" or "conspiracy nuts" in there. I see normal people that are well accomplished in their field with strong technical acumen.

But you never will, because the truth flies in the face of your per-conceived world view. You have completely closed off anything that dissents from the official narrative, because accepting the alternative shatters the sense of self, who we are, and how we fit into the makeup of the world we were born into.

AggiEE said:

---

sts7049 said:

---

if you are an EE as your username suggests maybe you should just stay in that lane. civil structural is not your thing.

---

Since you are not an engineer, you shouldn't be in this thread at all then? Using your arguments, of course.

If you want to play the appeal to authority game, simply watch this video that is filled with strucural engineers, civil engineers, architects, explosives experts, etc.



Are these people that sound like lunatic conspiracy nutjobs to you? Or are these just people that, with their vast technical experience, believe what they find to be technically true rather than what the media and government has led us all to believe is true?

None of you will watch it because your cognitive dissonance has already tuned out the possibility and instantly dismissed anything that's not the official story as if conspiracies never happen and everything the media tells you is true.

---

Your video will not be watched by most, just as nobody will face the conundrum of Barry Jennings.

AggiEE said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quote:

---

your cognitive dissonance

---

That's what I think of the hare-brained theories you espouse. I'm amazed that anyone with a halfway decent education is so susceptible to lies from conspiracy nuts.

---

Watch the video instead of posting memes and making personal attacks. I don't see any "lies" or "conspiracy nuts" in there. I see normal people that are well accomplished in their field with strong technical acumen.

But you never will, because the truth flies in the face of your per-conceived world view. You have completely closed off anything that dissents from the official narrative, because accepting the alternative shatters the sense of self, who we are, and how we fit into the makeup of the world we were born into.

---

Again, your assertions have more relevance to your position than mine.

You accuse me of having the same closed mind that you possess.

AggiEE said:

---

titan said:

---

Let me rephrase. You must at least, have an alternate scenario which is researched which shows it could have been done. If it is beyond the technical means of 2001 and the logistics of the site and its use, that is a big obstacle and a basic one.

You should also decide are you assuming all three were set to self-destruct, or just the special HQ that was Building 7?

I am not saying you have to prove anything at all --but you should have a physically possible scenario where it could be set up that way in such and such time frame.

---

We know that the buildings were all undergoing significant maintenance / modernization for 9 months preceding the event. If the right key people had access for a long enough duration it is certainly quite possible for this to have been accomplished.

---

9 months -- Are you saying it coincides very closely with the Inauguration?

snowdog90 said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

sts7049 said:

---

if you are an EE as your username suggests maybe you should just stay in that lane. civil structural is not your thing.

---

Since you are not an engineer, you shouldn't be in this thread at all then? Using your arguments, of course.

If you want to play the appeal to authority game, simply watch this video that is filled with strucural engineers, civil engineers, architects, explosives experts, etc.



Are these people that sound like lunatic conspiracy nutjobs to you? Or are these just people that, with their vast technical experience, believe what they find to be technically true rather than what the media and government has led us all to believe is true?

None of you will watch it because your cognitive dissonance has already tuned out the possibility and instantly dismissed anything that's not the official story as if conspiracies never happen and everything the media tells you is true.

---

Your video will not be watched by most, just as nobody will face the conundrum of Barry Jennings.

---

It's amazing to me that people dismiss Barry Jennings and even started attacking him as some nutjob just because he is describing things they deem to be impossible. He was just a high ranking worker at WTC7 with a family that had nothing to gain from any of his testimony.

titan said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

titan said:

---

Let me rephrase. You must at least, have an alternate scenario which is researched which shows it could have been done. If it is beyond the technical means of 2001 and the logistics of the site and its use, that is a big obstacle and a basic one.

You should also decide are you assuming all three were set to self-destruct, or just the special HQ that was Building 7?

I am not saying you have to prove anything at all --but you should have a physically possible scenario where it could be set up that way in such and such time frame.

---

We know that the buildings were all undergoing significant maintenance / modernization for 9 months preceding the event. If the right key people had access for a long enough duration it is certainly quite possible for this to have been accomplished.

---

9 months -- Are you saying it coincides very closely with the Inauguration?

---

I am just making the claim that the buildings were open and accessible for maintenance workers throughout this time. The fact that it closely aligns with the inauguration may just be a coincidence, I am not making any claims of specific people/administrations. I believe the event would have probably been in the planning stages for much longer than that.

Watch all the videos of UA175 slamming into the south tower. 85+ ton aircraft, 9000+ gallons of jet fuel, going well over 500 mph. Yet "truthers" say nah man, that alone wouldn't cause the collapse, it was all rigged! The best view, IMO, is the Evan Fairbanks video @ 2:02 from ground level not far from the base.

snowdog90 said:

---

titan said:

---

I am not sure what the significance of that would be. I think you are seeing a portion that was not visible before some of the fall apart got further, and is in fact behind or previously occulted by what still standing, but you see as it begins to `go'.

---

Where does the 10 story spire go? Does it fall almost straight dpwn into a huge hole? There is no force above it pushing it down. What is the dust forming and growing around it as it falls?

---

In forensic analysis terms, our visual evidence is insufficient to be conclusive. Ther is no grounds for presuming a hole, or even that it continued to fall straight down. At last look its leaning left. I bet the uncropped version likely around may show that at least.

The dust forming "base surge" could be from the ongoing fall of the prior part of WTC-1 itself --- still falling debris (alot of it even in his video is photographed) can easily be generating that. If you are saying that base surge is a direct product of the remant falling only, would respectfully disagree. It has too many possible sources all out of sight at street level because of the vast scale of these structures.

.

New World Ag said:

---

Watch all the videos of UA175 slamming into the south tower. 85+ ton aircraft, 9000+ gallons of jet fuel, going well over 500 mph. Yet "truthers" say nah man, that alone wouldn't cause the collapse, it was all rigged!

---

This doesn't explain WTC7

People get so wrapped up in the hollywood spectacle of WTC1 and 2 being hit by planes, but the buildings aren't made of paper. The amount of structural support in the buildings is immense that even being hit by planes, the buildings were still structurally sound. They were infact made to withstand a boeing 707 at the time, and each section the ability to support over 5x its own weight above

There's no reason for the buildings to have collapsed in the manner that they did as a result of the planes hitting them. There was no reason for ground zero to have molten metal flowing down the channel rails "like lava" according to firefighters.

Videos of the collapse are more interesting to me than the impact of the planes:

A 707 (basically, the same cabin cross section as a 737 but longer and with 4 jet engines) flying at landing approach speed (well under 200 mph) with not even close to the amount of jet fuel. Yeah, not the same, buddy.

85 tons of mostly aluminum in those jets. What do you suppose any molten metal is? Also consider the heat generated from the collapsing material.

No, you want to believe the Rube Goldbergish, Bond villainesque, incredibly complicated and logically deficient theory that explosives were added to bring all 3 buildings down.

New World Ag said:

---

A 707 (basically, the same cabin cross section as a 737 but longer and with 4 jet engines) flying at landing approach speed (well under 200 mph) with not even close to the amount of jet fuel. Yeah, not the same, buddy.

85 tons of mostly aluminum in those jets. What do you suppose any molten metal is?

No, you want to believe the Rube Goldbergish, Bond villainesque, incredibly complicated and logically deficient theory that explosives were added to bring all 3 buildings down.

---

85 tons of aluminum you say? Both towers were built out of steel frames, glass, and concrete slabs on steel truss joists. A single tower consists of 90,000,000 kg (100,000 tons) of steel, 160,000 cubic meters (212,500 cubic yards) of concrete and 21,800 windows.

The jet fuel is mostly burned up in the initial blast but then quickly becomes oxygen starved.

The molten metal was on the steel columns glowing red like lava (molten aluminum doesn't resemble that), it was not molten aluminum.

I choose to believe the designers of the WTC who compared a plane hitting them to a mosquito slamming into a massive 3D web of immense structure.

Did you take a course in statics?

AggiEE said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

RWWilson said:

---

double aught said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

agracer said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

Yes

That a building was wired for explosion and no one noticed the equipment

---

This.

The people claiming the building was wired for demo have no clue what it takes to demo a building with explosives. You don't just set explosives and hit the trigger. The building structure is partially demolished to the point where it's barely standing on its own anymore then it goes boom.

---

If all it takes to bring a building down At freefall speed is some office fires, it's a lot cheaper to simply do that than hire a demolition company

So why don't we do that?

---

Are you an engineer?

---

What makes you think that a guy who is incapable of basic reasoning is an engineer? He's clearly not very intelligent.

---

His username implies Electrical Engineer.

He could be a whiz at designing circuits, and still be a complete idiot at physics, construction, politics, etc.

---

You're not going very far as an engineer if you're an idiot at physics. It's clearly evident that a significant number of people in this thread haven't taken a class in physics at all, or if they have, they failed spectacularly at it.

---

I know one person who didn't take Logic.

AggiEE said:

---

New World Ag said:

---

A 707 (basically, the same cabin cross section as a 737 but longer and with 4 jet engines) flying at landing approach speed (well under 200 mph) with not even close to the amount of jet fuel. Yeah, not the same, buddy.

85 tons of mostly aluminum in those jets. What do you suppose any molten metal is?

No, you want to believe the Rube Goldbergish, Bond villainesque, incredibly complicated and logically deficient theory that explosives were added to bring all 3 buildings down.

---

85 tons of aluminum you say? Both towers were built out of steel frames, glass, and concrete slabs on steel truss joists. A single tower consists of 90,000,000 kg (100,000 tons) of steel, 160,000 cubic meters (212,500 cubic yards) of concrete and 21,800 windows.

The jet fuel is mostly burned up in the initial blast but then quickly becomes oxygen starved.

The molten metal was on the steel columns glowing red like lava (molten aluminum doesn't resemble that), it was not molten aluminum.

I choose to believe the designers of the WTC who compared a plane hitting them to a mosquito slamming into a massive 3D web of immense structure.

---

Have asked this to most of the conspiracy lunatics on this site and can never seem to get an answer - what, exactly, is your theory of what happened that day?