titan said:

---

I watched that whole segment.

The problem with such thngs is you never know if the assertions in them are correct (if they are outside your field) . For example, that none of the 1,300 or more exprerts, and signees claims have been rebutted, but only ridiculed, is an assertion. If it is true that no one has refuted their arguments, that matters. But there is no way to be sure of that from such segments because the simply assert things.

However, physics was fortunately established during the Pax Americana and earlier and not in the 21st C and the arguments that it really seems to violate the physics are pretty jarring. Even the official inquiries seem to concede free-fall speed. I found the question of how they could obtain freefall speed while `pancaking downward' (the standard assumption) a pretty important one.

One thingi is for sure-- mocking and ridicule is not a rebuttal. Satellite on the other hand, has done excellent in offering counter arguments and that is how you do it.

This video here has raised a very Hmmm -- one about WTC-1. And besides, it is just fascinating --- physics and science is always more interesting than politics. Especially 21st C emotion `Sciency'.

---

Here's another fascinating video from Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Lots of varied and reputable people putting their name on the line in support of this belief, including explosive experts, firefighters, engineers (even some that worked on the WTC). I found their commentary to be fascinating and sobering at the same time. Nobody wants to believe this, but the evidence is compelling.

Quote:

---

There was an enormous amount of energy required to bring down the buildings at that speed which is not explained by the top portion being structurally compromised

---

Thousands and thousands of tons of falling structure impacting the flors below, which then fall into the next floors is more than enough energy.

New World Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

There was an enormous amount of energy required to bring down the buildings at that speed which is not explained by the top portion being structurally compromised

---

Thousands and thousands of tons of falling structure impacting the flors below, which then fall into the next floors is more than enough energy.

---

Watch the video at the 5:56 post on previous page. That one in particular. Maybe about the 4 minute mark if need to. Just watch for a few minutes. What the argument is is that there is the energy, but you can't hit freefall without obstruction below being removed below it as it goes for it to hit that pace. It should go slower. I have no idea in hell if that is true, but it seemed pretty logical.

AggiEE said:

---

titan said:

---

I watched that whole segment.

The problem with such thngs is you never know if the assertions in them are correct (if they are outside your field) . For example, that none of the 1,300 or more exprerts, and signees claims have been rebutted, but only ridiculed, is an assertion. If it is true that no one has refuted their arguments, that matters. But there is no way to be sure of that from such segments because the simply assert things.

However, physics was fortunately established during the Pax Americana and earlier and not in the 21st C and the arguments that it really seems to violate the physics are pretty jarring. Even the official inquiries seem to concede free-fall speed. I found the question of how they could obtain freefall speed while `pancaking downward' (the standard assumption) a pretty important one.

One thingi is for sure-- mocking and ridicule is not a rebuttal. Satellite on the other hand, has done excellent in offering counter arguments and that is how you do it.

This video here has raised a very Hmmm -- one about WTC-1. And besides, it is just fascinating --- physics and science is always more interesting than politics. Especially 21st C emotion `Sciency'.

---

Here's another fascinating video from Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Lots of varied and reputable people putting their name on the line in support of this belief, including explosive experts, firefighters, engineers (even some that worked on the WTC). I found their commentary to be fascinating and sobering at the same time. Nobody wants to believe this, but the evidence is compelling.

---

Based on stuff like this…these folks are no longer considered reputable….except maybe on fringe discussion boards and the Alex Jones show

Yes

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

Who would be looking? Who would even know what to look for?

Alex Jones been right about a lot of stuff as of late.

BluHorseShu said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

titan said:

---

I watched that whole segment.

The problem with such thngs is you never know if the assertions in them are correct (if they are outside your field) . For example, that none of the 1,300 or more exprerts, and signees claims have been rebutted, but only ridiculed, is an assertion. If it is true that no one has refuted their arguments, that matters. But there is no way to be sure of that from such segments because the simply assert things.

However, physics was fortunately established during the Pax Americana and earlier and not in the 21st C and the arguments that it really seems to violate the physics are pretty jarring. Even the official inquiries seem to concede free-fall speed. I found the question of how they could obtain freefall speed while `pancaking downward' (the standard assumption) a pretty important one.

One thingi is for sure-- mocking and ridicule is not a rebuttal. Satellite on the other hand, has done excellent in offering counter arguments and that is how you do it.

This video here has raised a very Hmmm -- one about WTC-1. And besides, it is just fascinating --- physics and science is always more interesting than politics. Especially 21st C emotion `Sciency'.

---

Here's another fascinating video from Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Lots of varied and reputable people putting their name on the line in support of this belief, including explosive experts, firefighters, engineers (even some that worked on the WTC). I found their commentary to be fascinating and sobering at the same time. Nobody wants to believe this, but the evidence is compelling.

---

Based on stuff like this…these folks are no longer considered reputable….except maybe on fringe discussion boards and the Alex Jones show

---

Dr Fauci believes in the official story of 9/11. Enjoy your "reputation"

I'll enjoy being factually correct

titan said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

According to whom?

---

---

Have you actually talked to a structural engineer?

---

But why!?

Its all explained in a YT vid. C'mon, man!!!!!


LOL

---

I watched it though. See what you make especially of the conservation of momentum part. That day did always look incredibly swift and surreal, and it turns out the clip (pace) of the descent seems to be violating physics. I was unsure of that, but I am familiar enough with the science to see at once the argument.

Once again, we at least see where all the doubt is coming from. And as for NIST ignoring "hard science" -- well they were ahead of their time and this govt admin ignoring even basic biology. And it was alleged the 9/11 report basically ignored W-7.

Certainly, some items to mull here.

All can be explained however, if the hard and fast statements about conservation and the speed of the freefall are simply incorrect. It is considerably out of my expertise.

---

I've seen all of this stuff before. It's been 21 yrs, this isn't new.

Hell, Popular Mechanics had a special, years ago, about the Truther idiocy and how laughably lackluster it all is from a science perspective.
Occam's Razor wins again.

AggiEE said:

---

Who would be looking? Who would even know what to look for?

---

Anyone with at least one semi-functioning eye would be able to see the personnel and the equipmen needed to drop a building like that. Also, again, the lack of whistleblowers adds to the sheer laughingstock this whole "Truther" conspiracy has become. PotUS can't even get a bj in his own office and have it remain a secret. This would bring down whole parties, if it were true.

BigRobSA said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Who would be looking? Who would even know what to look for?

---

Anyone with at least one semi-functioning eye would be able to see the personnel and the equipmen needed to drop a building like that. Also, again, the lack of whistleblowers adds to the sheer laughingstock this whole "Truther" conspiracy has become. PotUS can't even get a bj in his own office and have it remain a secret. This would bring down whole parties, if it were true.

---

The entire building elevator shaft was open for maintenance for the entire year. Charges could be placed discretely in packages that no one would blink an eye at

That is a buffoon plan to demo a building's elevator.

snowdog90 said:

---

RWWilson said:

---

I challenge any 9/11 conspiracy "truther" to come up with a detailed, complete summary of the alleged plot -- not the bits and pieces, but the whole story, put together -- that would not make any fifth grader anywhere burst out in convulsive laughter.

---

You ask this because you have no answer for Barry Jennings. This is typical.

If I'm wrong, tell me what you think of Barry Jennings. Does his story support the official story? Is he a liar?

---

Dude, just stop. Your theories are totally insane. And, no, I'm not going to listen Barry Jennings on this.

AggiEE said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

titan said:

---

I watched that whole segment.

The problem with such thngs is you never know if the assertions in them are correct (if they are outside your field) . For example, that none of the 1,300 or more exprerts, and signees claims have been rebutted, but only ridiculed, is an assertion. If it is true that no one has refuted their arguments, that matters. But there is no way to be sure of that from such segments because the simply assert things.

However, physics was fortunately established during the Pax Americana and earlier and not in the 21st C and the arguments that it really seems to violate the physics are pretty jarring. Even the official inquiries seem to concede free-fall speed. I found the question of how they could obtain freefall speed while `pancaking downward' (the standard assumption) a pretty important one.

One thingi is for sure-- mocking and ridicule is not a rebuttal. Satellite on the other hand, has done excellent in offering counter arguments and that is how you do it.

This video here has raised a very Hmmm -- one about WTC-1. And besides, it is just fascinating --- physics and science is always more interesting than politics. Especially 21st C emotion `Sciency'.

---

Here's another fascinating video from Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Lots of varied and reputable people putting their name on the line in support of this belief, including explosive experts, firefighters, engineers (even some that worked on the WTC). I found their commentary to be fascinating and sobering at the same time. Nobody wants to believe this, but the evidence is compelling.

---

Based on stuff like this…these folks are no longer considered reputable….except maybe on fringe discussion boards and the Alex Jones show

---

Dr Fauci believes in the official story of 9/11. Enjoy your "reputation"

I'll enjoy being factually correct

---

Of course, if you say so. Fortunately, your belief that your have the correct 'facts' has no impact on anything related to 9/11. Meanwhile, true Americans know what happened, grieve for the families, never forget, but move forward.

AggiEE said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Who would be looking? Who would even know what to look for?

---

Anyone with at least one semi-functioning eye would be able to see the personnel and the equipmen needed to drop a building like that. Also, again, the lack of whistleblowers adds to the sheer laughingstock this whole "Truther" conspiracy has become. PotUS can't even get a bj in his own office and have it remain a secret. This would bring down whole parties, if it were true.

---

The entire building elevator shaft was open for maintenance for the entire year. Charges could be placed discretely in packages that no one would blink an eye at

---

You're not felling the bldg with just shaft charges.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Alex Jones been right about a lot of stuff as of late.

---

Link?

snowdog90 said:

---

Satellite of Love said:

---

---

I've seen video of explosions going off on 911. One of them shows firefighters being interviewed after the planes have hit, then a huge boom, and they all jump at the noise.

---

Those firefighters are flinching at the sound of bodies crashing down from people who jumped. The firefighters even look at each other and confirm that that is what they're hearing. It's not explosions.

Like most everything else you're saying here, your confirmation bias is showing.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Alex Jones been right about a lot of stuff as of late.

---

Sure he has…He also has a stellar reputation. Even Joe Biden has been right at some point

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Alex Jones been right about a lot of stuff as of late.

---

Link?

---

Lazy?

AggiEE said:

---

Who would be looking? Who would even know what to look for?

---

Nevertheless that remains the most enormous hole in the whole matter. Even if it could be said that the videos at least allow the possibility of a demolition, and resemble it sufficiently where they can't be said to rule it out.

There is no denying the next thing is to answer that question of how and wired --- and especially if you mean all three buildings. At minimum you would have to figure out how long that would take, and work back from that to a presumed start date. See if had the necessary correlations with other events like maintenance.

Look, I can see where the videos generate doubt and the ridicule of it doesn't help -- in that sense it is like both the Election and Jan6 having `plants'. Ridicule of clear evidence doesn't build confidence.

But don't go to far into rabbit-holes that start requiring a bunch of other things for which there is no evidence.

Two cents.

BigRobSA said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Who would be looking? Who would even know what to look for?

---

Anyone with at least one semi-functioning eye would be able to see the personnel and the equipmen needed to drop a building like that. Also, again, the lack of whistleblowers adds to the sheer laughingstock this whole "Truther" conspiracy has become. PotUS can't even get a bj in his own office and have it remain a secret. This would bring down whole parties, if it were true.

---

The entire building elevator shaft was open for maintenance for the entire year. Charges could be placed discretely in packages that no one would blink an eye at

---

You're not felling the bldg with just shaft charges.

---

You're not felling the bldg in totality at freefall speed without explosives

I am not claiming the elevator shafts alone were placed with charges, but they were directly adjacent to the core columns that must be taken out to allow complete collapse

BluHorseShu said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

titan said:

---

I watched that whole segment.

The problem with such thngs is you never know if the assertions in them are correct (if they are outside your field) . For example, that none of the 1,300 or more exprerts, and signees claims have been rebutted, but only ridiculed, is an assertion. If it is true that no one has refuted their arguments, that matters. But there is no way to be sure of that from such segments because the simply assert things.

However, physics was fortunately established during the Pax Americana and earlier and not in the 21st C and the arguments that it really seems to violate the physics are pretty jarring. Even the official inquiries seem to concede free-fall speed. I found the question of how they could obtain freefall speed while `pancaking downward' (the standard assumption) a pretty important one.

One thingi is for sure-- mocking and ridicule is not a rebuttal. Satellite on the other hand, has done excellent in offering counter arguments and that is how you do it.

This video here has raised a very Hmmm -- one about WTC-1. And besides, it is just fascinating --- physics and science is always more interesting than politics. Especially 21st C emotion `Sciency'.

---

Here's another fascinating video from Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Lots of varied and reputable people putting their name on the line in support of this belief, including explosive experts, firefighters, engineers (even some that worked on the WTC). I found their commentary to be fascinating and sobering at the same time. Nobody wants to believe this, but the evidence is compelling.

---

Based on stuff like this…these folks are no longer considered reputable….except maybe on fringe discussion boards and the Alex Jones show

---

Dr Fauci believes in the official story of 9/11. Enjoy your "reputation"

I'll enjoy being factually correct

---

Of course, if you say so. Fortunately, your belief that your have the correct 'facts' has no impact on anything related to 9/11. Meanwhile, true Americans know what happened, grieve for the families, never forget, but move forward.

---

"True Americans" would want to get to the truth about why WTC7 collapsed instead of keeping their head in the sand gobbling up any approved media propaganda you're told

This thread is sponsored by Reynolds Wrap.

Have any of the conspiracy nuts on here offered any explanation for who masterminded this elaborate scheme? And why? You can believe all this nonsense, but why?

I'll listen.

AggiEE said:

---

New World Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

All of this is irrelevant to the question of how, and WTC7 defies all logical explanations for its collapse. It is undeniable proof of a controlled demolition. After knowing this, you can speculate all you want for the rest

---

Bullsh**. The explanation for its collapse is perfectly explainable and logical, but you continue to ignore it.

"Undeniable proof of a controlled demolition". I think you don't understand the meaning of undeniable proof.

---

If the explanation for the collapse is perfectly explainable and logical, why is it the only time it's happened in history (with the other two times being WTC1 and 2)?

I wouldn't step into a single high rise building if fairly innocuous and benign fires could bring down the entire structure. And again, we have eye witness testimony from credible witnesses that saw and heard explosions in the building first hand.

---

where else have you seen a high rise burn uncontrollably for hours unchecked?

AggiEE said:

---

Who would be looking? Who would even know what to look for?

---

Tens of thousands of feet of wiring all over the place
Support columns with surrounding walls removed
Hundreds of pounds of explosives on every floor
Weeks, if not months of work

CanyonAg77 said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Who would be looking? Who would even know what to look for?

---

Tens of thousands of feet of wiring all over the place
Support columns with surrounding walls removed
Hundreds of pounds of explosives on every floor
Weeks, if not months of work

---

They did it one day while everyone was at lunch.

sts7049 said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

New World Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

All of this is irrelevant to the question of how, and WTC7 defies all logical explanations for its collapse. It is undeniable proof of a controlled demolition. After knowing this, you can speculate all you want for the rest

---

Bullsh**. The explanation for its collapse is perfectly explainable and logical, but you continue to ignore it.

"Undeniable proof of a controlled demolition". I think you don't understand the meaning of undeniable proof.

---

If the explanation for the collapse is perfectly explainable and logical, why is it the only time it's happened in history (with the other two times being WTC1 and 2)?

I wouldn't step into a single high rise building if fairly innocuous and benign fires could bring down the entire structure. And again, we have eye witness testimony from credible witnesses that saw and heard explosions in the building first hand.

---

where else have you seen a high rise burn uncontrollably for hours unchecked?

---

Quite a few examples:

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

CanyonAg77 said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Who would be looking? Who would even know what to look for?

---

Tens of thousands of feet of wiring all over the place
Support columns with surrounding walls removed
Hundreds of pounds of explosives on every floor
Weeks, if not months of work

---

Remote charges don't need wire

You wouldn't necessarily need all surrounding walls removed, the support columns were accessible from the elevator shafts

Hundreds of pounds of explosives...weeks, if not months of work....this is all accomplished logistically with enough access & time, the private company that was working these upgrades had essentially unfettered access since the start of the year, with rotating areas of the building being completely closed off at times for crews to work. The crews could easily have been installing remote packages under a normal guise of "fire protection", so they would not need to be involved willingly in the conspiracy.

dude. most of those "examples" state why the circumstances were different and explain it not collapsing.

AggiEE said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Who would be looking? Who would even know what to look for?

---

Tens of thousands of feet of wiring all over the place
Support columns with surrounding walls removed
Hundreds of pounds of explosives on every floor
Weeks, if not months of work

---

Remote charges don't need wire

You wouldn't necessarily need all surrounding walls removed, the support columns were accessible from the elevator shafts

Hundreds of pounds of explosives...weeks, if not months of work....this is all accomplished logistically with enough access & time, the private company that was working these upgrades had essentially unfettered access since the start of the year, with rotating areas of the building being completely closed off at times for crews to work. The crews could easily have been installing remote packages under a normal guise of "fire protection", so they would not need to be involved willingly in the conspiracy.

---

Ok, Alex, this is getting old.

Remote charges is bulls**t. Any stray electrical or radio signal could set them off. No way you risk that with 2001 technology

sts7049 said:

---

dude. most of those "examples" state why the circumstances were different and explain it not collapsing.

---

They explain numerous fires that were MUCH worse than WTC7.

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Remote charges is bulls**t. Any stray electrical or radio signal could set them off. No way you risk that with 2001 technology

---

Not even close to reality. Basic arming systems could be designed to prevent that from happening.

What is odd about all those others is the fires burned even far longer and never triggered their collapse.

Yet the pair of WTC towers drop with fires burning not even two hours; less counting WTC-2.