700 posts on this thread. SMH

agracer said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

YellowPot_97 said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

agracer said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

agracer said:

---

How can you continue to believe that B7 was demo'd by explosives when it's been repeatedly pointed out that the installation of those demo devices simply could not happen in an occupied building (where like 99% of the occupants evacuated and survived) and not a single one noticed anything out of the ordinary?

---

There entire WTC complex was undergoing rotating rounds of maintenance where they were not occupied for almost a year

---

Not a single office worker was in any of the building for an entire year? You got a link for that to a legitimate site (not a conspiracy site)? And maintenance happens in every building in America every day.

And not a single person of the dozens who planted all these explosives has come forward?

BS.

---

That's not what I was claiming. There was an extensive maintenance contract on the WTC complex starting 9 months before the event, and areas of each building were vacated at times.

As I have explained previously, nano-thermate can essentially be painted on under the guise of something completely normal, and other explosives disguised in discrete packages unbeknownst to an installation crew. Very few would need to be intimately aware that anything nefarious was occurring

---

So you think they rigged WT7 with James Bond exploding paint while the building was empty for maintenance instead of just taking out what they wanted to hide?? Makes total sense.

---

Makes a lot more sense than office fires somehow completely leveling WTC7

---

"Hey guys - we have all of these papers showing our grand evil plan to take over the world in WTC7, should we move the file cabinets somewhere else?"

"Nope let's spend a year painting magical exploding paint so that we can hopefully hit the big red detonate button at the exact right moment when terrorists happen to crash planes into the buildings next door."

Brilliant.

---

"Hey guys we have this big building not hit by a plane with pretty minimal fires yet multiple eye witnesses for explosions and thermal imaging showing temps not consistent with office fires"

"Sounds like the freefall collapse is completely normal! Nothing to see here! "

You guys are so gullible, and our country's gullibility will just allow things like this to continue just like it did with Covid.

---

You're an embarrassment to the engineering school and everyone who graduated with an engineering degree from A&M. Every "eyewitness" you've posted has been debunked as nonsense except ONE GUY an no one can corroborate his story. NO ONE.

Oh, we've come full circle to Jennings again.

Multiple posters have shown you evidence of how the fires started and how large they were. You're single photo of a moment in time is useless without context.

I've asked mutliple times and you've refused to answer, I'll type slow so your simple mind can grasp it this time.

• Where are they construction workers who painted the nano-thermite and planted these hidden explosives without knowing it was explosive?

• Where are the construction workers who partially dismantled the building structure under the guise of 'maintenance'?

You have no answers but continue to the "the government lies all the time.

Yeah, no ***** We all know this and we've all talked about it and called it out on this board over covid.

But when shown repeatedly every argument you've come up with is ridiculously implausible, you go full circle back to "people heard explosions". You post random videos with no context or time stamps to know what is going on.

Turn in your degree.

---

You're an embarrassment to all the basket weaving degree holders from Blinn. Time to turn in your basket weaving degree.

You cannot name a single other building that collapsed like WTC7 in the entire history of modern steel buildings. We have countless examples of many fires that have raged in an uncontrolled fashion for much longer. Should be easy to find some if buildings are THAT vulnerable to routine fires, yet you CAN'T. The fact that you believe buildings are that vulnerable to office fires to the point where they can cause complete and utter collapse of massive steel columns all simultaneously shows how much of a basket weaving mouthbreather you are. Engineering designs would never be that completely fragile and exposed.

None of the eye witnesses were "debunked". It's not just Jennings either, there are countless others. It all gets hand waived as "bububu that day was really chaotic they probably weren't hearing or seeing explosives"

Complete and utter cognitive dissonance. I do not need to speculate on the mechanics of a covert complex operation to know that it has occcurred due to the physical impossibility of WTC7's "natural collapse" which is corroborated by the university studies I've previously posted yet you continue to ignore.

Sad

AggiEE said:

---

You're an embarrassment to all the basket weaving degree holders from Blinn. Time to turn in your basket weaving degree.

You cannot name a single other building that collapsed like WTC7 in the entire history of modern steel buildings. We have countless examples of many fires that have raged in an uncontrolled fashion for much longer. Should be easy to find some if buildings are THAT vulnerable to routine fires, yet you CAN'T. The fact that you believe buildings are that vulnerable to office fires to the point where they can cause complete and utter collapse of massive steel columns all simultaneously shows how much of a basket weaving mouthbreather you are. Engineering designs would never be that completely fragile and exposed.

None of the eye witnesses were "debunked". It's not just Jennings either, there are countless others. It all gets hand waived as "bububu that day was really chaotic they probably weren't hearing or seeing explosives"

Complete and utter cognitive dissonance. I do not need to speculate on the mechanics of a covert complex operation to know that it has occcurred due to the physical impossibility of WTC7's "natural collapse" which is corroborated by the university studies I've previously posted yet you continue to ignore.

---

Without resorting to degree returns and offending any true basket weaving professionals from Blinn, let me refer to the below report from the American Society of Civil Engineers on potential causes.

Significant damage in almost certain probability occurred following the collapse of WTC1. This ignited fires on several floors as well and likely led to the chimney effect also seen on WTC1 and WTC2. This type of burning can create superheated gasses quite efficiently which undermines the steel quickly. To study this, go to your local patio store and get you a chiminea.. Enjoy a nice, overbuilt fire and watch it shoot out the top like a blow torch. Not perfect, but you get the idea.

The report below also points to a potential assist from a damaged fuel oil distribution system on floor 5. You have another complicating factor with a ConEd substation in a basement.

Finally, a 20-inch water main was damaged likely resulting in little or no flow to the buildings sprinklers. It also meant no firefighting was done as no water for hoses.

The building burned for 7 hours uncontrolled before collapsing.

And to add another point of reference, the USS Bonhomme Richard burned for just 2 hours before firefighting began and it took 5 DAYS to put the fire out. On a ship made almost entirely of steel and with less combustibles than you would find in not just an office building, but keeping in mind this was a hotel and JAM PACKED with combustibles.

It just takes common sense sometimes when you remove the tin foil hat.

https://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/%28ASCE%29ST.1943-541X.0000398

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/military/story/2021-10-20/navy-failures-bonhomme-richard-fire

CoppellAg93 said:

---

700 posts on this thread. SMH

---

Mostly driven by a couple of very gullible and mentally challenged posters. Mental illness is a real thing and it is on display here. It is sad. I hope they have families to help them.

HCQ and Ivermectin always worked

fka ftc said:

---

It just takes common sense sometimes when you remove the tin foil hat.

https://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/%28ASCE%29ST.1943-541X.0000398

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/military/story/2021-10-20/navy-failures-bonhomme-richard-fire

---

Several examples of buildings falling from uncontrolled fires were posted earlier and were ignored.

I've also asked, and never gotten answered, the same few simple questions more than once.

You expect the tin foil hat guy to really read what you've posted and answer?

fka ftc said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

You're an embarrassment to all the basket weaving degree holders from Blinn. Time to turn in your basket weaving degree.

You cannot name a single other building that collapsed like WTC7 in the entire history of modern steel buildings. We have countless examples of many fires that have raged in an uncontrolled fashion for much longer. Should be easy to find some if buildings are THAT vulnerable to routine fires, yet you CAN'T. The fact that you believe buildings are that vulnerable to office fires to the point where they can cause complete and utter collapse of massive steel columns all simultaneously shows how much of a basket weaving mouthbreather you are. Engineering designs would never be that completely fragile and exposed.

None of the eye witnesses were "debunked". It's not just Jennings either, there are countless others. It all gets hand waived as "bububu that day was really chaotic they probably weren't hearing or seeing explosives"

Complete and utter cognitive dissonance. I do not need to speculate on the mechanics of a covert complex operation to know that it has occcurred due to the physical impossibility of WTC7's "natural collapse" which is corroborated by the university studies I've previously posted yet you continue to ignore.

---

Without resorting to degree returns and offending any true basket weaving professionals from Blinn, let me refer to the below report from the American Society of Civil Engineers on potential causes.

Significant damage in almost certain probability occurred following the collapse of WTC1. This ignited fires on several floors as well and likely led to the chimney effect also seen on WTC1 and WTC2. This type of burning can create superheated gasses quite efficiently which undermines the steel quickly. To study this, go to your local patio store and get you a chiminea.. Enjoy a nice, overbuilt fire and watch it shoot out the top like a blow torch. Not perfect, but you get the idea.

The report below also points to a potential assist from a damaged fuel oil distribution system on floor 5. You have another complicating factor with a ConEd substation in a basement.

Finally, a 20-inch water main was damaged likely resulting in little or no flow to the buildings sprinklers. It also meant no firefighting was done as no water for hoses.

The building burned for 7 hours uncontrolled before collapsing.

And to add another point of reference, the USS Bonhomme Richard burned for just 2 hours before firefighting began and it took 5 DAYS to put the fire out. On a ship made almost entirely of steel and with less combustibles than you would find in not just an office building, but keeping in mind this was a hotel and JAM PACKED with combustibles.

It just takes common sense sometimes when you remove the tin foil hat.

https://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/%28ASCE%29ST.1943-541X.0000398

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/military/story/2021-10-20/navy-failures-bonhomme-richard-fire

---

Appreciate the tone of this response versus others in this thread. I don't disagree with the notion that aircraft + jet fuel would have induced significant local damage. That is clearly evident. What we do disagree with is the notion that this local damage at the least important section of the towers (from load bearing standpoint) would cause catastrophic systemic and complete failure of the entire building at free fall speed from top to bottom. The USS Bonhomme may have been unsalvageable from the standpoint of getting it repaired for service again, but it DID NOT exhibit complete and utter failure of all the core supporting structure.

Buildings do not completely and utterly collapse due to office fires. They sustain significant damage, of which there is no doubt. They may even feature partial collapses. But unless every single loadbearing member is removed near simultaneously it won't result in a near free fall collapse.

There was also nothing that should have caused significant molten steel, nor the extremely high thermal readings at Ground Zero that lasted for a very long time.

If you read the reports, the center structure collapsed first, leaving the shell of WTC7 standing on its own momentarily. What you see in the videos is the shell collapsing.

I would imagine that would be easy to determine, bc the shell would be on top of all the other debris, rather than mixed up in the pile.

TexasAggie_02 said:

---

If you read the reports, the center structure collapsed first, leaving the shell of WTC7 standing on its own momentarily. What you see in the videos is the shell collapsing.

I would imagine that would be easy to determine, bc the shell would be on top of all the other debris, rather than mixed up in the pile.

---

I think it's preferable to the conspiracy theorists to focus on the dude who saw some uneaten sandwiches, not the "reports."

I'm still waiting for ONE plausible explanation of who would plan such an elaborate hoax to kill 3,000 Americans, and more importantly, why.

Just one.

Martin Cash said:

---

I'm still waiting for ONE plausible explanation of who would plan such an elaborate hoax to kill 3,000 Americans, and more importantly, why.

Just one.

---

The loonies don't answer any questions. You'll find that out. They just point to random dudes who tell a different story and call their moms mid-attack (long distance, from an office they wouldn't have the credentials to call long-distance from).

Martin Cash said:

---

I'm still waiting for ONE plausible explanation of who would plan such an elaborate hoax to kill 3,000 Americans, and more importantly, why.

Just one.

---

The loony tunes people have none. They just saw a dude who thought things didn't seem right on 9/11 (imagine that) and went with it.

Martin Cash said:

---

I'm still waiting for ONE plausible explanation of who would plan such an elaborate hoax to kill 3,000 Americans, and more importantly, why.

Just one.

---

Trump, duh.

BluHorseShu said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

You're an embarrassment to all the basket weaving degree holders from Blinn. Time to turn in your basket weaving degree.

You cannot name a single other building that collapsed like WTC7 in the entire history of modern steel buildings. We have countless examples of many fires that have raged in an uncontrolled fashion for much longer. Should be easy to find some if buildings are THAT vulnerable to routine fires, yet you CAN'T. The fact that you believe buildings are that vulnerable to office fires to the point where they can cause complete and utter collapse of massive steel columns all simultaneously shows how much of a basket weaving mouthbreather you are. Engineering designs would never be that completely fragile and exposed.

None of the eye witnesses were "debunked". It's not just Jennings either, there are countless others. It all gets hand waived as "bububu that day was really chaotic they probably weren't hearing or seeing explosives"

Complete and utter cognitive dissonance. I do not need to speculate on the mechanics of a covert complex operation to know that it has occcurred due to the physical impossibility of WTC7's "natural collapse" which is corroborated by the university studies I've previously posted yet you continue to ignore.

---

Without resorting to degree returns and offending any true basket weaving professionals from Blinn, let me refer to the below report from the American Society of Civil Engineers on potential causes.

Significant damage in almost certain probability occurred following the collapse of WTC1. This ignited fires on several floors as well and likely led to the chimney effect also seen on WTC1 and WTC2. This type of burning can create superheated gasses quite efficiently which undermines the steel quickly. To study this, go to your local patio store and get you a chiminea.. Enjoy a nice, overbuilt fire and watch it shoot out the top like a blow torch. Not perfect, but you get the idea.

The report below also points to a potential assist from a damaged fuel oil distribution system on floor 5. You have another complicating factor with a ConEd substation in a basement.

Finally, a 20-inch water main was damaged likely resulting in little or no flow to the buildings sprinklers. It also meant no firefighting was done as no water for hoses.

The building burned for 7 hours uncontrolled before collapsing.

And to add another point of reference, the USS Bonhomme Richard burned for just 2 hours before firefighting began and it took 5 DAYS to put the fire out. On a ship made almost entirely of steel and with less combustibles than you would find in not just an office building, but keeping in mind this was a hotel and JAM PACKED with combustibles.

It just takes common sense sometimes when you remove the tin foil hat.

https://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/%28ASCE%29ST.1943-541X.0000398

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/military/story/2021-10-20/navy-failures-bonhomme-richard-fire

---

Appreciate the tone of this response versus others in this thread. I don't disagree with the notion that aircraft + jet fuel would have induced significant local damage. That is clearly evident. What we do disagree with is the notion that this local damage at the least important section of the towers (from load bearing standpoint) would cause catastrophic systemic and complete failure of the entire building at free fall speed from top to bottom. The USS Bonhomme may have been unsalvageable from the standpoint of getting it repaired for service again, but it DID NOT exhibit complete and utter failure of all the core supporting structure.

Buildings do not completely and utterly collapse due to office fires. They sustain significant damage, of which there is no doubt. They may even feature partial collapses. But unless every single loadbearing member is removed near simultaneously it won't result in a near free fall collapse.

There was also nothing that should have caused significant molten steel, nor the extremely high thermal readings at Ground Zero that lasted for a very long time.

---

As someone who works with structural engineers …builders of buildings etc…Let me just thank you on behalf of all of us, that you didn't choose structural engineering studies. You probably saved thousands of lives

---

Let me thank you for building structures that collapse to the ground at free fall speed from a few insignificant fires.

Oh wait, you don't do that because it's physically impossible and we don't have any examples of this happening from modern high rise buildings.

You'd think a structural engineer well versed in statics and dynamics would comprehend just how impossible wtc7 collapse was if we are to believe the official story.

Should everyone at UAF who wrote the most recent study we have not be designing buildings? What about then 3,000+ architects and engineers at AE911? Sorry to burst your overinflated ego but agreeing with the official narrative doesn't make you a good engineer.

But again, all you get are the same tired "turn in your degree" nonsense. Nothing but personal attacks, which is a sure sign of extreme insecurity and lack of conviction in your own weak arguments

But wait, you work with structural engineers, you aren't one yourself. Figures we have another basket weaver

Martin Cash said:

---

I'm still waiting for ONE plausible explanation of who would plan such an elaborate hoax to kill 3,000 Americans, and more importantly, why.

Just one.

---

Oh gee, I don't know. The government that wanted wide scale surveillance of its citizens, increasing executive power, wars in the Middle East?

Who would want that? Maybe talk to those that worked on PNAC

Same story with Covid 20 years later. Buy yes, continue believing conspiracies are never possible and that your government always has your best interest at heart

TexasAggie_02 said:

---

If you read the reports, the center structure collapsed first, leaving the shell of WTC7 standing on its own momentarily. What you see in the videos is the shell collapsing.

I would imagine that would be easy to determine, bc the shell would be on top of all the other debris, rather than mixed up in the pile.

---

And the center structure collapsing is some "no big deal" thing? As if this one column got weaker from fire, and took out everything with it? Completely comical

These fires were the opposite of "insignificant", "minimal", or "mundane". Not sure why you keep minimizing them. It's either ignorance or just trying to support this silly conspiracy.

double aught said:

---

These fires were the opposite of "insignificant", "minimal", or "mundane". Not sure why you keep minimizing them. It's either ignorance or just trying to support this silly conspiracy.

---

In the context of all the worst building fires in history, they were nothing extreme

AggiEE said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

You're an embarrassment to all the basket weaving degree holders from Blinn. Time to turn in your basket weaving degree.

You cannot name a single other building that collapsed like WTC7 in the entire history of modern steel buildings. We have countless examples of many fires that have raged in an uncontrolled fashion for much longer. Should be easy to find some if buildings are THAT vulnerable to routine fires, yet you CAN'T. The fact that you believe buildings are that vulnerable to office fires to the point where they can cause complete and utter collapse of massive steel columns all simultaneously shows how much of a basket weaving mouthbreather you are. Engineering designs would never be that completely fragile and exposed.

None of the eye witnesses were "debunked". It's not just Jennings either, there are countless others. It all gets hand waived as "bububu that day was really chaotic they probably weren't hearing or seeing explosives"

Complete and utter cognitive dissonance. I do not need to speculate on the mechanics of a covert complex operation to know that it has occcurred due to the physical impossibility of WTC7's "natural collapse" which is corroborated by the university studies I've previously posted yet you continue to ignore.

---

Without resorting to degree returns and offending any true basket weaving professionals from Blinn, let me refer to the below report from the American Society of Civil Engineers on potential causes.

Significant damage in almost certain probability occurred following the collapse of WTC1. This ignited fires on several floors as well and likely led to the chimney effect also seen on WTC1 and WTC2. This type of burning can create superheated gasses quite efficiently which undermines the steel quickly. To study this, go to your local patio store and get you a chiminea.. Enjoy a nice, overbuilt fire and watch it shoot out the top like a blow torch. Not perfect, but you get the idea.

The report below also points to a potential assist from a damaged fuel oil distribution system on floor 5. You have another complicating factor with a ConEd substation in a basement.

Finally, a 20-inch water main was damaged likely resulting in little or no flow to the buildings sprinklers. It also meant no firefighting was done as no water for hoses.

The building burned for 7 hours uncontrolled before collapsing.

And to add another point of reference, the USS Bonhomme Richard burned for just 2 hours before firefighting began and it took 5 DAYS to put the fire out. On a ship made almost entirely of steel and with less combustibles than you would find in not just an office building, but keeping in mind this was a hotel and JAM PACKED with combustibles.

It just takes common sense sometimes when you remove the tin foil hat.

https://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/%28ASCE%29ST.1943-541X.0000398

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/military/story/2021-10-20/navy-failures-bonhomme-richard-fire

---

Appreciate the tone of this response versus others in this thread. I don't disagree with the notion that aircraft + jet fuel would have induced significant local damage. That is clearly evident. What we do disagree with is the notion that this local damage at the least important section of the towers (from load bearing standpoint) would cause catastrophic systemic and complete failure of the entire building at free fall speed from top to bottom. The USS Bonhomme may have been unsalvageable from the standpoint of getting it repaired for service again, but it DID NOT exhibit complete and utter failure of all the core supporting structure.

Buildings do not completely and utterly collapse due to office fires. They sustain significant damage, of which there is no doubt. They may even feature partial collapses. But unless every single loadbearing member is removed near simultaneously it won't result in a near free fall collapse.

There was also nothing that should have caused significant molten steel, nor the extremely high thermal readings at Ground Zero that lasted for a very long time.

---

As someone who works with structural engineers …builders of buildings etc…Let me just thank you on behalf of all of us, that you didn't choose structural engineering studies. You probably saved thousands of lives

---

Let me thank you for building structures that collapse to the ground at free fall speed from a few insignificant fires.

Oh wait, you don't do that because it's physically impossible and we don't have any examples of this happening from modern high rise buildings.

You'd think a structural engineer well versed in statics and dynamics would comprehend just how impossible wtc7 collapse was if we are to believe the official story.

Should everyone at UAF who wrote the most recent study we have not be designing buildings? What about then 3,000+ architects and engineers at AE911? Sorry to burst your overinflated ego but agreeing with the official narrative doesn't make you a good engineer.

But again, all you get are the same tired "turn in your degree" nonsense. Nothing but personal attacks, which is a sure sign of extreme insecurity and lack of conviction in your own weak arguments

But wait, you work with structural engineers, you aren't one yourself. Figures we have another basket weaver

---

Deflect all you want…At least my baskets maintain the same laws of physics that actually exist instead of some laws from a bizarro world. I do, however, apologize for making a dig at you. I cannot imagine how difficult it must be to believe what you do when the rest of the world just think it's nuts. Bully for you

AggiEE said:

---

TexasAggie_02 said:

---

If you read the reports, the center structure collapsed first, leaving the shell of WTC7 standing on its own momentarily. What you see in the videos is the shell collapsing.

I would imagine that would be easy to determine, bc the shell would be on top of all the other debris, rather than mixed up in the pile.

---

And the center structure collapsing is some "no big deal" thing? As if this one column got weaker from fire, and took out everything with it? Completely comical

---

I've asked you multiple times and your disingenuous ass refuses to answer. So I'll ask again is it your position that WTC7 was completely abandoned and demolished on the inside (they way buildings are imploded, you know), prior to 9/11?

If not, how was this the the first purposeful implosion in history of an in-tact, occupied building?

AggiEE said:

---

Martin Cash said:

---

I'm still waiting for ONE plausible explanation of who would plan such an elaborate hoax to kill 3,000 Americans, and more importantly, why.

Just one.

---

Oh gee, I don't know. The government that wanted wide scale surveillance of its citizens, increasing executive power, wars in the Middle East?

Who would want that? Maybe talk to those that worked on PNAC

Same story with Covid 20 years later. Buy yes, continue believing conspiracies are never possible and that your government always has your best interest at heart

---

Thanks for the response.

Insanity confirmed.

BluHorseShu said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

fka ftc said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

You're an embarrassment to all the basket weaving degree holders from Blinn. Time to turn in your basket weaving degree.

You cannot name a single other building that collapsed like WTC7 in the entire history of modern steel buildings. We have countless examples of many fires that have raged in an uncontrolled fashion for much longer. Should be easy to find some if buildings are THAT vulnerable to routine fires, yet you CAN'T. The fact that you believe buildings are that vulnerable to office fires to the point where they can cause complete and utter collapse of massive steel columns all simultaneously shows how much of a basket weaving mouthbreather you are. Engineering designs would never be that completely fragile and exposed.

None of the eye witnesses were "debunked". It's not just Jennings either, there are countless others. It all gets hand waived as "bububu that day was really chaotic they probably weren't hearing or seeing explosives"

Complete and utter cognitive dissonance. I do not need to speculate on the mechanics of a covert complex operation to know that it has occcurred due to the physical impossibility of WTC7's "natural collapse" which is corroborated by the university studies I've previously posted yet you continue to ignore.

---

Without resorting to degree returns and offending any true basket weaving professionals from Blinn, let me refer to the below report from the American Society of Civil Engineers on potential causes.

Significant damage in almost certain probability occurred following the collapse of WTC1. This ignited fires on several floors as well and likely led to the chimney effect also seen on WTC1 and WTC2. This type of burning can create superheated gasses quite efficiently which undermines the steel quickly. To study this, go to your local patio store and get you a chiminea.. Enjoy a nice, overbuilt fire and watch it shoot out the top like a blow torch. Not perfect, but you get the idea.

The report below also points to a potential assist from a damaged fuel oil distribution system on floor 5. You have another complicating factor with a ConEd substation in a basement.

Finally, a 20-inch water main was damaged likely resulting in little or no flow to the buildings sprinklers. It also meant no firefighting was done as no water for hoses.

The building burned for 7 hours uncontrolled before collapsing.

And to add another point of reference, the USS Bonhomme Richard burned for just 2 hours before firefighting began and it took 5 DAYS to put the fire out. On a ship made almost entirely of steel and with less combustibles than you would find in not just an office building, but keeping in mind this was a hotel and JAM PACKED with combustibles.

It just takes common sense sometimes when you remove the tin foil hat.

https://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/%28ASCE%29ST.1943-541X.0000398

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/military/story/2021-10-20/navy-failures-bonhomme-richard-fire

---

Appreciate the tone of this response versus others in this thread. I don't disagree with the notion that aircraft + jet fuel would have induced significant local damage. That is clearly evident. What we do disagree with is the notion that this local damage at the least important section of the towers (from load bearing standpoint) would cause catastrophic systemic and complete failure of the entire building at free fall speed from top to bottom. The USS Bonhomme may have been unsalvageable from the standpoint of getting it repaired for service again, but it DID NOT exhibit complete and utter failure of all the core supporting structure.

Buildings do not completely and utterly collapse due to office fires. They sustain significant damage, of which there is no doubt. They may even feature partial collapses. But unless every single loadbearing member is removed near simultaneously it won't result in a near free fall collapse.

There was also nothing that should have caused significant molten steel, nor the extremely high thermal readings at Ground Zero that lasted for a very long time.

---

As someone who works with structural engineers …builders of buildings etc…Let me just thank you on behalf of all of us, that you didn't choose structural engineering studies. You probably saved thousands of lives

---

Let me thank you for building structures that collapse to the ground at free fall speed from a few insignificant fires.

Oh wait, you don't do that because it's physically impossible and we don't have any examples of this happening from modern high rise buildings.

You'd think a structural engineer well versed in statics and dynamics would comprehend just how impossible wtc7 collapse was if we are to believe the official story.

Should everyone at UAF who wrote the most recent study we have not be designing buildings? What about then 3,000+ architects and engineers at AE911? Sorry to burst your overinflated ego but agreeing with the official narrative doesn't make you a good engineer.

But again, all you get are the same tired "turn in your degree" nonsense. Nothing but personal attacks, which is a sure sign of extreme insecurity and lack of conviction in your own weak arguments

But wait, you work with structural engineers, you aren't one yourself. Figures we have another basket weaver

---

Deflect all you want…At least my baskets maintain the same laws of physics that actually exist instead of some laws from a bizarro world. I do, however, apologize for making a dig at you. I cannot imagine how difficult it must be to believe what you do when the rest of the world just think it's nuts. Bully for you

---

Your belief violates the very basic conservation of momentum theorem in physics. A near freefall collapse is completely impossible unless the entire massive core structure was compromised simultaneously. The nature of the impacts and surrounding fires does not explain that. The explanation by NIST and others where somehow the local fires compromise the structures above and "pull" the rest of the building down with it are inconsistent with the fact that the entire top section is getting pulverized before we see the waves of explosives moving rapidly down the building.

Most of the world does not have the intellectual capacity or honesty to overcome their own cognitive dissonance to accept the painful truth of the reality we live in. And that's fine. I certainly don't WANT to believe this, but that's what you must conclude when looking at the physical impossibility of the collapses and WTC7. Ultimately it's more comfortable living in ignorance and instantly dismissing something without taking much of a deep dive into the facts surrounding it. Wear your masks; socially distance; depend on the state, etc. etc.

Ed Harley said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

TexasAggie_02 said:

---

If you read the reports, the center structure collapsed first, leaving the shell of WTC7 standing on its own momentarily. What you see in the videos is the shell collapsing.

I would imagine that would be easy to determine, bc the shell would be on top of all the other debris, rather than mixed up in the pile.

---

And the center structure collapsing is some "no big deal" thing? As if this one column got weaker from fire, and took out everything with it? Completely comical

---

I've asked you multiple times and your disingenuous ass refuses to answer. So I'll ask again is it your position that WTC7 was completely abandoned and demolished on the inside (they way buildings are imploded, you know), prior to 9/11?

If not, how was this the the first purposeful implosion in history of an in-tact, occupied building?

---

I have explained this multiple times before but you are not listening. I believe that WTC7 was having roaming maintenance for many months, mostly after close of normal business hours under the guise of nothing nefarious. Same situation as WTC1 and 2.

I have maintenance personnel constantly running throughout my building and I would never second guess what's going on. People in this thread have the comical view that these explosives would be clearly labeled in big red boxes like it's out of a looney tunes cartoon, when it could have been indistinguishable from fire protection installation.

Martin Cash said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Martin Cash said:

---

I'm still waiting for ONE plausible explanation of who would plan such an elaborate hoax to kill 3,000 Americans, and more importantly, why.

Just one.

---

Oh gee, I don't know. The government that wanted wide scale surveillance of its citizens, increasing executive power, wars in the Middle East?

Who would want that? Maybe talk to those that worked on PNAC

Same story with Covid 20 years later. Buy yes, continue believing conspiracies are never possible and that your government always has your best interest at heart

---

Thanks for the response.

Insanity confirmed.

---

So the fact we immediately go to war with Iraq, who had nothing to do with this attack, doesn't give you any questions? I mean they found passports of the attackers (can't find Hunters laptop) but go fight daddy's war with a different country?

You don't question any of that? Insanity is indeed confirmed.

AeroAg1 said:

---

Martin Cash said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Martin Cash said:

---

I'm still waiting for ONE plausible explanation of who would plan such an elaborate hoax to kill 3,000 Americans, and more importantly, why.

Just one.

---

Oh gee, I don't know. The government that wanted wide scale surveillance of its citizens, increasing executive power, wars in the Middle East?

Who would want that? Maybe talk to those that worked on PNAC

Same story with Covid 20 years later. Buy yes, continue believing conspiracies are never possible and that your government always has your best interest at heart

---

Thanks for the response.

Insanity confirmed.

---

So the fact we immediately go to war with Iraq, who had nothing to do with this attack, doesn't give you any questions? I mean they found passports of the attackers (can't find Hunters laptop) but go fight daddy's war with a different country?

You don't question any of that? Insanity is indeed confirmed.

---

If the government wanted a pretext for going to war in Iraq, there were much simpler ways to do it than blowing up three buildings, planning to blow up two more, coordinating it with flying jets into the towers, and killing 3,000 Americans. But if you want to believe that's what really happened, keep drinking.

Martin Cash said:

---

AeroAg1 said:

---

Martin Cash said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Martin Cash said:

---

I'm still waiting for ONE plausible explanation of who would plan such an elaborate hoax to kill 3,000 Americans, and more importantly, why.

Just one.

---

Oh gee, I don't know. The government that wanted wide scale surveillance of its citizens, increasing executive power, wars in the Middle East?

Who would want that? Maybe talk to those that worked on PNAC

Same story with Covid 20 years later. Buy yes, continue believing conspiracies are never possible and that your government always has your best interest at heart

---

Thanks for the response.

Insanity confirmed.

---

So the fact we immediately go to war with Iraq, who had nothing to do with this attack, doesn't give you any questions? I mean they found passports of the attackers (can't find Hunters laptop) but go fight daddy's war with a different country?

You don't question any of that? Insanity is indeed confirmed.

---

If the government wanted a pretext for going to war in Iraq, there were much simpler ways to do it than blowing up three buildings, planning to blow up two more, coordinating it with flying jets into the towers, and killing 3,000 Americans. But if you want to believe that's what really happened, keep drinking.

---

The emotional sentiment of the country and world would not have accepted the lies of Iraq anywhere near what as sufficient to go to war with them. The mood and sympathy due to 9/11 was a massive component of a blood thirsty american public ready to be proactive on stopping terrorism, whether by individuals or entire states like Iraq. Iraq was clearly labeled as a terrorist state and painted as such with scary words like "chemical weapons".

But clearly war in Afghanistan/Iraq were not the only shift; domestically the creation of Homeland Security was the other side of the coin.

Martin Cash said:

---

AeroAg1 said:

---

Martin Cash said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Martin Cash said:

---

I'm still waiting for ONE plausible explanation of who would plan such an elaborate hoax to kill 3,000 Americans, and more importantly, why.

Just one.

---

Oh gee, I don't know. The government that wanted wide scale surveillance of its citizens, increasing executive power, wars in the Middle East?

Who would want that? Maybe talk to those that worked on PNAC

Same story with Covid 20 years later. Buy yes, continue believing conspiracies are never possible and that your government always has your best interest at heart

---

Thanks for the response.

Insanity confirmed.

---

So the fact we immediately go to war with Iraq, who had nothing to do with this attack, doesn't give you any questions? I mean they found passports of the attackers (can't find Hunters laptop) but go fight daddy's war with a different country?

You don't question any of that? Insanity is indeed confirmed.

---

If the government wanted a pretext for going to war in Iraq, there were much simpler ways to do it than blowing up three buildings, planning to blow up two more, coordinating it with flying jets into the towers, and killing 3,000 Americans. But if you want to believe that's what really happened, keep drinking.

---

Apparently you didn't pay attention the last 4 years. But I'm sure you trust the science.

AggiEE said:

---

TexasAggie_02 said:

---

If you read the reports, the center structure collapsed first, leaving the shell of WTC7 standing on its own momentarily. What you see in the videos is the shell collapsing.

I would imagine that would be easy to determine, bc the shell would be on top of all the other debris, rather than mixed up in the pile.

---

And the center structure collapsing is some "no big deal" thing? As if this one column got weaker from fire, and took out everything with it? Completely comical

---

Start watching at 15 seconds. You can literally see the protruding roof sections fall into the building while the shell remains intact for a few seconds. You can follow the fall of interior debris by watching the windows give out on the left side as the roof comes down within.

The rest of the video describes how it happened.

There were uncontrolled fires on 10 of 52 floors for 7 hours.

AeroAg1 said:

---

So the fact we immediately go to war with Iraq, who had nothing to do with this attack, doesn't give you any questions?

---

Iraq war didn't start until until 1-1/2 years later, not "immediately"

TexasAggie_02 said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

TexasAggie_02 said:

---

If you read the reports, the center structure collapsed first, leaving the shell of WTC7 standing on its own momentarily. What you see in the videos is the shell collapsing.

I would imagine that would be easy to determine, bc the shell would be on top of all the other debris, rather than mixed up in the pile.

---

And the center structure collapsing is some "no big deal" thing? As if this one column got weaker from fire, and took out everything with it? Completely comical

---

Start watching at 15 seconds. You can literally see the protruding roof sections fall into the building while the shell remains intact for a few seconds. You can follow the fall of interior debris by watching the windows give out on the left side as the roof comes down within.

The rest of the video describes how it happened.

There were uncontrolled fires on 10 of 52 floors for 7 hours.

---

You see the penthouse collapsing/being destroyed prior to the rest of the building. The penthouse was a small section of the building, even if it were compromised by itself by fires, it does not sufficiently explain the totality of the collapse. Other controlled demolitions have staged "sequences" of buildings taken down. It is not all at once, though not until all the core columns have been significantly compromised will the structure in total begin to fall, which we can see here.

Uncontrolled fires on 10 of 52 floors for 7 hours does not bring down an entire building, largely symmetrically, and at near free fall speed.

The NIST explanation is basically working with an assumption that the collapse must have occurred from natural causes, those torturing the data and using all sorts of mental gymnastics to arrive at that absurd conclusion. The collapse is only explained by demolition.

bless your heart

TexasAggie_02 said:

---

bless your heart

---

Bless yours. Instead of looking at a simplistic model that has been rigged to fit a per-determined point of view, why don't you spend the time to listen and watch the discussion below where UaF actually concluded something entirely different from NIST? They didn't go into theoreticals or conspiracies, just stated very plainly that the only way for complete collapse to have occurred as it did was for there to be near simultaneous destruction of the core loadbearing members

You guys do know that the guy who planned the entire operation, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who we have locked up in Gitmo, confessed and gave all the details on the planning and logistics? We have videos of all the hijackers as they go through security and many eyewitness accounts from gate agents and other people?

For someone to believe that our government was behind this, you would have to believe that multiple people, including the POTUS, signed off on a plan that would:

Kill thousands of American citizens
Nobody would squelch on
Nobody would get caught
Would work
Nobody would squelch in the years afterwards
Was the best plan they had for the objective they wanted.

I could go on and on. The psychology, the logistics,etc…none of it holds up to any logical reasoning.