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.

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?

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?

---

Seriously? Because it's non controlled, it's spewing toxic gases into the air and no municipality would approve it, among other reasons.

New World Ag 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?

---

Seriously? Because it's non controlled, it's spewing toxic gases into the air and no municipality would approve it, among other reasons.

---

The WTC7 collapse was just as clean, symmetrical, and swift as any controlled demolition I've seen, if not more so than most

Didn't even require any massive inferno, just relatively minor fires

The south side of the building was already damaged, the internal floors started to fail as the 8 hour long fires weakened the structure. You can see the top floor penthouse disappear as the floor collapses.

But no, you choose to believe that it was done by explosives. When were these explosives installed and what was the motive?

snowdog90,


DO watch New World Ag's video there on this post reflecting back to on page 5. Go to the 4:50 minute mark, and watch till 6:30. That is even visually captured on the video happening (for WTC-1) and shows how it caused the descent. This comes under that category I termed "natural causes" for the same phenomena demolition can produce.

Quote:

---

---

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?

---

Ironic since WTC7 is exactly why you don't do that.

WTC1 and 2 came down in an uncontrolled way. Effect was WTC7 ended up being destroyed too.

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?

---

wow

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.

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?

---

This falls under the "Just because you can make the argument doesn't make it reasonable." category.

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.

---

That's what she said.

titan said:

---

snowdog90,


DO watch New World Ag's video there on this post reflecting back to on page 5. Go to the 4:50 minute mark, and watch till 6:30. That is even visually captured on the video happening (for WTC-1) and shows how it caused the descent. This comes under that category I termed "natural causes" for the same phenomena demolition can produce.

Quote:

---

---

---

Titan, I've seen this video before. He provides a theory of how the tower could have fallen the way it did. It is just a theory, just like all the theories truthers have. No investigation was done on the remains of the building to ptove or disprove that theory.

But for the sake of argument, or discussion, I will say that theory is correct. I don't think it's correct, for lots of reasons, but I'd like to table those for now and say that theory is correct.

Ok. New topic. Watch again from 4:50 to 8:40. At 8:40, there is a black arrow on the screen. What is it pointing at? Make sure to pause at 8:40, try not to watch past that... yet.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

So truthers don't have to prove anything. They can just question the true story with no proof and then don't have to prove their bull**** claims.

Tear everything down and build nothing.

---

This is typical of conspiracy theorists. They can't present any rational theory to explain their claim. When you have the truth on your side you can present a theory of events which matches the facts you present.

It's pretty simple:

On the morning of September 11, 2001, 19 militants associated with the Islamic extremist group al Qaeda hijacked four airplanes and carried out suicide attacks against targets in the United States. Two of the planes were flown into the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, a third plane hit the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, just outside Washington, D.C., and the fourth plane crashed in a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

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.

---

There is no evidence that person is a college graduate and all evidence suggests he is not. He is wholly unable to present a rational explanation for his claims.

Insane person: WTC 7 was intentionally demolished by persons using explosives.
Rational person: Considering we know terrorists had just flown planes into the WTC buildings and those building were destroyed as a result, who, why, and how would someone go to the trouble of demolishing a nearby building?
Insane person: ?????? WTC 7 was intentionally demolished by persons using explosives.

snowdog90 said:

---

titan said:

---

snowdog90,


DO watch New World Ag's video there on this post reflecting back to on page 5. Go to the 4:50 minute mark, and watch till 6:30. That is even visually captured on the video happening (for WTC-1) and shows how it caused the descent. This comes under that category I termed "natural causes" for the same phenomena demolition can produce.

---

Titan, I've seen this video before. He provides a theory of how the tower could have fallen the way it did. It is just a theory, just like all the theories truthers have. No investigation was done on the remains of the building to ptove or disprove that theory.

But for the sake of argument, or discussion, I will say that theory is correct. I don't think it's correct, for lots of reasons, but I'd like to table those for now and say that theory is correct.

Ok. New topic. Watch again from 4:50 to 8:40. At 8:40, there is a black arrow on the screen. What is it pointing at? Make sure to pause at 8:40, try not to watch past that... yet.

---

Okay, I did. I stopped at that point too. The narative claims it is a remaining part of WTC-1 that then falls too some 25 seconds after the rest. But tracking it as it falls with a pointer it almost seems like an adjacent structure just behind. It doesn't appear to be in the right place to be the `corner' on the other side. But its hard to tell at a first pass and it could be part of the building indeed.

Okay?

titan said:

---

snowdog90 said:

---

titan said:

---

snowdog90,


DO watch New World Ag's video there on this post reflecting back to on page 5. Go to the 4:50 minute mark, and watch till 6:30. That is even visually captured on the video happening (for WTC-1) and shows how it caused the descent. This comes under that category I termed "natural causes" for the same phenomena demolition can produce.

---

Titan, I've seen this video before. He provides a theory of how the tower could have fallen the way it did. It is just a theory, just like all the theories truthers have. No investigation was done on the remains of the building to ptove or disprove that theory.

But for the sake of argument, or discussion, I will say that theory is correct. I don't think it's correct, for lots of reasons, but I'd like to table those for now and say that theory is correct.

Ok. New topic. Watch again from 4:50 to 8:40. At 8:40, there is a black arrow on the screen. What is it pointing at? Make sure to pause at 8:40, try not to watch past that... yet.

---

Okay, I did. I stopped at that point too. The narative claims it is a remaining part of WTC-1 that then falls too some 25 seconds after the rest. But tracking it as it falls with a pointer it almost seems like an adjacent structure just behind. It doesn't appear to be in the right place to be the `corner' on the other side. But its hard to tell at a first pass and it could be part of the building indeed.

Okay?

---

Awesome. It actually is part of the tower still standing. What do you think it is made of? I'm trying not to influence your opinions. So, what is that part of the building still standing made of?

Quote:

---

Awesome. It actually is part of the tower still standing. What do you think it is made of? I'm trying not to influence your opinions. So, what is that part of the building still standing made of?

---

I don't know off hand. I haven't fully committed to memory the composition of the multi-block structure by which the Towers were comprised of. So it is indeed part of the tower still standing. Which is very interesting then, because it means WTC-1 did not fall straight down either if there is its "stump" still in the path.

I have always known that near the very bottom -- only occasionally shown in "aftermath" pictures (but not suppressed---just infrequent) are that there are "stumps" of both bottom of both towers still in place. But those are much shorter than this stage of the film here. So the stumps were once higher.

One thing that I think he is being a bit evasive on is that the falling part does seem to be freefall and in the 10 -12 second range --- that the part below that doesn't fall is not exactly germaine to how fast the part above does fall. Not sure it matters but its a distinction that might.

titan said:

---

Quote:

---

Awesome. It actually is part of the tower still standing. What do you think it is made of? I'm trying not to influence your opinions. So, what is that part of the building still standing made of?

---

I don't know off hand. I haven't fully committed to memory the composition of the multi-block structure by which the Towers were comprised of. So it is indeed part of the tower still standing. Which is very interesting then, because it means WTC-1 did not fall straight down either if there is its "stump" still in the path.

I have always known that near the very bottom -- only occasionally shown in "aftermath" pictures (but not suppressed---just infrequent) are that there are "stumps" of both bottom of both towers still in place. But those are much shorter than this stage of the film here. So the stumps were once higher.

One thing that I think he is being a bit evasive on is that the falling part does seem to be freefall and in the 10 -12 second range --- that the part below that doesn't fall is not exactly germaine to how fast the part above does fall. Not sure it matters but its a distinction that might.

---

Cool. Yes, his dismissal of freefall is pretty disingenious because it is so fast, it is very close to freefall, and it shouldn't be. There should be 80 floors or so of unharmed massive steel beams slowing the fall.

But table that.

Let's assume the part still standing is part of the outer steel frame. It looks to be several stories high, estimated between 7 and 10 stories. Let me know if you disagree with this assumption.

Now, what happens to that "stump"? Watch carefully, watch several times. Not a trick question, just tell me what you see.

It appears that some of the `internal guts' and remaining vertical smaller beams of the remnant wobble and drop near vertical and after a beat the taller spire-like side that may be a `corner' than lurches to your left (not sure of the compass direction) and then descends not quite vertical. The fall of the "internal" parts" favors the left side--as if that weakened first by beats.

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?

titan said:

---

It appears that some of the `internal guts' and remaining vertical smaller beams of the remnant wobble and drop near vertical and after a beat the taller spire-like side that may be a `corner' than lurches to your left (not sure of the compass direction) and then descends not quite vertical. The fall of the "internal" parts" favors the left side--as if that weakened first by beats.

---

Yes, but don't try to diagnose. Just watch what happens. It does start to fall, but watch again and pause it at 8:43. What do you see?

snowdog90 said:

---

Cool. Yes, his dismissal of freefall is pretty disingenious because it is so fast, it is very close to freefall, and it shouldn't be. There should be 80 floors or so of unharmed massive steel beams slowing the fall.

But table that.

Let's assume the part still standing is part of the outer steel frame. It looks to be several stories high, estimated between 7 and 10 stories. Let me know if you disagree with this assumption.

Now, what happens to that "stump"? Watch carefully, watch several times. Not a trick question, just tell me what you see.

---

This is not the correct way to analyze this. The 80 undamaged floors were indeed slowing the fall, up until the floors began to collapse. Within seconds, the integrity of the entire structure begins to fail, with steel bending and bolts sheering not just at the drop but throughout. And as the huge falling mass builds speed to the ground, its force exponentially accelerates.

It also produced incredible heat as the mass came down. Think pyroclastic flows from a volcano. The buildings were pulverized into the basements.

Yeah, not sure if flying a jumbo jet full of jet fuel into an old hotel or old building is gonna be cheaper than a controlled demolition.

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.

It (the `spire') hasn't completed its drop out of view down as it leans left when you hit 8:43.5 and it switches to other content. In fact, slightly leaning left, the spire drops more or less vertical, seems to stop -hit something, then has commenced a lean left again to finish falling (but it doesn't) before the view cuts away. The base surge of all the falling debris (a useful volcanic term that applies here--they are even sometimes called debris clouds) is billowing up in front of it.

fka ftc said:

---

snowdog90 said:

---

Cool. Yes, his dismissal of freefall is pretty disingenious because it is so fast, it is very close to freefall, and it shouldn't be. There should be 80 floors or so of unharmed massive steel beams slowing the fall.

But table that.

Let's assume the part still standing is part of the outer steel frame. It looks to be several stories high, estimated between 7 and 10 stories. Let me know if you disagree with this assumption.

Now, what happens to that "stump"? Watch carefully, watch several times. Not a trick question, just tell me what you see.

---

This is not the correct way to analyze this. The 80 undamaged floors were indeed slowing the fall, up until the floors began to collapse. Within seconds, the integrity of the entire structure begins to fail, with steel bending and bolts sheering not just at the drop but throughout. And as the huge falling mass builds speed to the ground, its force exponentially accelerates.

It also produced incredible heat as the mass came down. Think pyroclastic flows from a volcano. The buildings were pulverized into the basements.

---

WOW! We were thinking alike! Exxcellent.

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?

---

I am.

Proc92 said:

---

Yeah, not sure if flying a jumbo jet full of jet fuel into an old hotel or old building is gonna be cheaper than a controlled demolition.

---

Again, WTC7 was not hit by a plane…

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.

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.

On WTC-7 watching video, his statement about pulling comes while talking to a Fire Dept chief. He mentions to avoid loss of life. Now that makes no sense for an already abandoned (by 4-5pm) building, so what it does seem to mean is one of two things:
a) Pull the damage control efforts, in the same way the fight to save a ship is given up. You let it go and abandon. These are the lives "being saved"

b) Pull it, as in destroy it deliberately, so you have some say on the `how' and `when' it comes down. (This could mean `save lives' by making sure none are around since you choose the time)

A seems far, far more likely, but would agree that (B) at least is on paper the other clear meaning in the context as it implies an action and decision. But this gets right back to the crazy idea of how was it already ready for such?

One possibility, though a nutty one: as very important HQ, it was already set up to self-destruct. But really didn't think this concept is something that is ever done. The risk of blowing up your own HQ by some kind of malfunction seems too great.

[End digression]

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.

Lol

titan said:

---

It (the `spire') hasn't completed its drop out of view down as it leans left when you hit 8:43.5 and it switches to other content. In fact, slightly leaning left, the spire drops more or less vertical, seems to stop -hit something, then has commenced a lean left again to finish falling (but it doesn't) before the view cuts away. The base surge of all the falling debris (a useful volcanic term that applies here--they are even sometimes called debris clouds) is billowing up in front of it.

---

Ok. What would make that 10 story piece of steel fall almost straight down? Picture a large dead tree that you have to cut down. How would it fall?

What is that debris above the billowing dust cloud coming off of the spire? Where does it come from? It wasn't there before that spire started to fall?

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'.