that WTC building 7 wasn't a controlled demolition

and I will cast my vote for your candidate of choice in the 2012 presidential election

9/10/2012 12:21:14 AM

You're on acid?

Ralph Nader.

9/10/2012 12:28:17 AM

it should be in a demolition text book as an example of perfection

8 floors of free fall and only a small amount of debris escapes the footprint

9/10/2012 12:29:14 AM

controlled demo? i don't know.

i do think that was pretty weird, though.

9/10/2012 12:31:31 AM

maybe it was an uncontrolled demolition

Virgil Goode

9/10/2012 12:32:23 AM

Yeah towers one and two were done pretty well considering but 7 was damn nigh art

9/10/2012 12:33:26 AM

Still going with the acid theory.

9/10/2012 12:34:23 AM

9/10/2012 12:37:50 AM

This has nothing to do with answering your question but I thought it was pretty awesome. This is building 3

9/10/2012 3:22:39 AM

building 4

9/10/2012 3:23:59 AM

Building 6

9/10/2012 3:25:17 AM

Prove it was.
This is what worries you?
idiot.

9/10/2012 6:39:40 AM

This is literally the only thing that worries me. I'm 100% on the rest of life man.

[Edited on September 10, 2012 at 11:29 AM. Reason : GxB that's crazy I haven't seen those]

9/10/2012 11:29:41 AM

prove that it was a controlled demolition

9/10/2012 11:31:00 AM

I can't. All signs point to demo, but I'd rather believe it wasn't. And I haven't found any legitimate information to the contrary. So I come to you, TWW

9/10/2012 11:40:39 AM

I don't think you should vote for either of those jokers

9/10/2012 11:42:20 AM

I actually just registered my affiliation with libertarian and will likely vote as such. Not because of any greater sympathy with libertarianism, but since I can't justify voting for the jokers or the clowns I'll at least try to get another party on the ballot in the future. one small step towards abolishing the party system. one small step man, one small step.

9/10/2012 11:45:39 AM

This will be the first election since I have been of voting age where I will not vote for president.

I will vote for all the other shit though

9/10/2012 11:47:03 AM

http://rememberbuilding7.org/

http://www.wtc7.net/store/index.html

[Edited on September 10, 2012 at 11:51 AM. Reason : omg that store omg]

9/10/2012 11:47:23 AM

if you don't want to do a bunch of wading through tinfoil truther insanity and ignorant patriot crap, both sides largely pedantic, this is a pretty good analysis from a highschool physics teacher that cuts to the core of the issue: http://youtu.be/rP9Qp5QWRMQ

9/10/2012 11:57:06 AM

well if you aren't going to wade through all that, what fun is all this then?

9/10/2012 12:00:38 PM

Quote :

"highschool physics teacher"

Is that supposed to provide some sort of credibility? I am pretty sure that I could teach High School physics.

[Edited on September 10, 2012 at 12:02 PM. Reason : a]

9/10/2012 12:02:26 PM

Occam's Razor is all you need here.

9/10/2012 12:04:06 PM

I am pretty sure that Ipaerabol could teach High School physics.

9/10/2012 12:05:47 PM

^^ yep.

9/10/2012 12:17:12 PM

The point of mentioning that he's a HS physics teacher is twofold--he has an understanding of basic Newtonian physics and that it doesn't take a tedious egghead to point out the idiosyncrasies

^I'm sure I could teach PY 205/8 with comparable success haha

9/10/2012 12:19:50 PM

Quote :

" it doesn't take a tedious egghead to point out the idiosyncrasies"

The biggest fallacy people fall for when putting stock into the various conspiracy theories is that in a black swan event, idiosyncrasies are remarkable rather than expected. But, let's just compare how other extremely tall buildings collapsed when large jetliners were flown into it.

oh we can't? because that hasn't happened before? So instead, let's draw a conclusion and cherry pick data points that support said conclusion.

I'm not sure which one is the theory du jour here, but one of the previously popular one was where Bush was involved in the 9/11 attacks in order to [and insert one of many motives here]. But, Bush was an idiot, literally a blithering moron. But now the same people are calling him an evil mastermind behind a conspiracy so complex involving hundreds of actors across the globe that was perfectly executed?

Or

a charismatic religious extremist with access to great wealth that was previously on the US govt payroll was able to plan and bankroll a few dozen extremists to hijack planes, much like the various hijackings that have happened historically. Only this time, they'd fly said planes into certain buildings that have become symbols of America.

Nah, the other one sounds EVEN MOAR SINISTER! so it must be true!


[Edited on September 10, 2012 at 1:28 PM. Reason : .]

9/10/2012 1:26:20 PM

http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

9/10/2012 1:50:31 PM

Quote :

"WTC 7's collapse, viewed from the exterior (most videos were taken from the north), did appear to fall almost uniformly as a single unit. This occurred because the interior failures that took place did not cause the exterior framing to fail until the final stages of the building collapse. The interior floor framing and columns collapsed downward and pulled away from the exterior frame. There were clues that internal damage was taking place, prior to the downward movement of the exterior frame, such as when the east penthouse fell downward into the building and windows broke out on the north face at the ends of the building core. The symmetric appearance of the downward fall of the WTC 7 was primarily due to the greater stiffness and strength of its exterior frame relative to the interior framing."

Quote :

"In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail. To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video. Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent displacement data. The instant at which vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was determined by tracking the numerical value of the brightness of a pixel (a single element in the video image) at the roofline. This pixel became brighter as the roofline began to descend because the color of the pixel started to change from that of the building façade to the lighter color of the sky. The approach taken by NIST is summarized in Section 3.6 of the final summary report, NCSTAR 1A (released Nov. 20, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf) and detailed in Section 12.5.3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-9%20Vol%202.pdf). The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse: Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall). Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall) Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below."

9/10/2012 1:51:45 PM

This cheap ass apartment building falls over... and breaks lol


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vm9uNfAJ9G4



controlled demolition


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kpENtY5qAQ

[Edited on September 10, 2012 at 2:00 PM. Reason : .]

9/10/2012 1:55:12 PM

I'm not remarking on the "9/11 conspiracy" as a whole. All I'm saying is that, from the perspective of someone reasonably educated in the physical sciences, someone who has a cursory understanding of the conditions and structure in question and someone who has in the past studied building demolition out of a general enthusiasm for engineering, building 7 looked like like a textbook demo job. Physics and common sense don't disprove the idea.

But, like the existence of god, I'm not one to say "I CAN'T EXPLAIN IT SO IT MUST BE THE WORK OF A HIGHER POWER." I'd like to believe that no level of our government had anything directly to do with it, or that it was leveled professionally for safety concerns, or that some unprecedented perfect storm of damage led to its collapse.

And that's what I've been trying to find. But most of the conspiracy-theory "debunkers" I can find only seem to attack small facets of the tinfoil hat argument and don't address the core issues. But, I'm sure there are some intelligent arguments out there and I'd like to hear them.

So, again, prove to me that WTC building 7 wasn't a controlled demolition. I would, in all sincerity, like to hear it.


[Edited on September 10, 2012 at 2:13 PM. Reason : asdf]

9/10/2012 1:57:01 PM

9/10/2012 1:58:55 PM

Cool footage of the WTC 7 fires


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afb7eUHr64U&feature=player_embedded#!

9/10/2012 2:07:37 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3E-26oVIIs

9/10/2012 5:57:51 PM

it amazes me how much this gets glazed over...granted, there weren't a ton of deaths due to that collapse.

i would like to see the results of a random survey about this. I bet a large percentage of americans don't even know/forgot that it fell.

9/10/2012 6:05:50 PM

Quote :

"it amazes me how much this gets glazed over..."

You're kidding right?

9/10/2012 7:01:31 PM

^^ I seriously thought only two buildings came down.. but then again I didn't really pay attention to it because who gives a shit about NY

9/10/2012 7:08:56 PM

Quote :

"prove to me that WTC building 7 wasn't a controlled demolition"

is a flawed question in itself... It's very difficult to prove a negative.

Prove the lockness monster doesn't exist

The 45deg fracture argument (not sure if it's been discussed in the videos posted above) is pretty flawed. Chalk (and I think most ceramics) will fracture at 45deg when you just drop them on the floor simply because of the structure of the material. I'm not sure if Steel I-Beams will do the same, but surely someone has done that research...

9/10/2012 7:13:06 PM

if you have an inkling of belief that it WAS a controlled demolition, it would prob be better for everyone if you didnt vote. If you want to prove it to yourself, go back to school and get a degree in civil engineering and a masters concentrating in structural. w/out that, you probably wouldnt be able to recognize proof if it was in front of you.

9/10/2012 9:19:08 PM

^thank you, random dood on tww, for showing the world it's just that simple. so glad someone with engineering expertise has finally taken a look at this!

9/10/2012 9:39:53 PM

i never claimed to be the expert, what i do claim is that if you think one of the towers came down as part of a sinister conspiracy, then you are a wacko and wont be convinced by anything other than a full engineering study that you wouldnt even understand.

its like the global warming/evolution/vaccine crowd, no article or study is going to change their minds.

[Edited on September 10, 2012 at 9:43 PM. Reason : ANTI for those 3 things, obv]

9/10/2012 9:42:49 PM

i am NOT a wacko, extremist, or paranoid conspiracy theorist.

that being said, i don't believe for a second that the government is telling us the whole truth about 9/11.

more specifically (and not really related to this thread, but whatever), i think they are probably covering up just how much they dropped the ball on preventing it from happening.

9/10/2012 9:47:53 PM

lockness monster lol

9/10/2012 9:53:36 PM

^^its one thing to say that the government is keeping classified details of our intelligence operation secret. in that case, you just have to have a few people keep their mouths shut about information they have learned.

its another to propose that a massive undertaking such as faking hijacking multiple planes, then staging the demolition of the largest building in one of the most populated regions of the world.

and i know the OP only asked about one bldg, but if one was demo, they all had to be unless you also believe in extreme coincidence.

9/10/2012 10:10:04 PM

Who knows. False flag attacks are littered throughout history, although some of them may never be proven. A truly successful false flag attack will never be identified as such.

In any case, it's certain that the leaders of the U.S. (and by extension, the corporations backing them) had a lot to gain in the aftermath of 9/11.

9/10/2012 10:19:22 PM

when you step back and consider how massive of a conspiracy we're talking about, keeping it a secret just seems implausible to me

9/10/2012 10:22:00 PM

US has yet to see much benefit from the war in Afghanistan.

Also, the conspiracy theory that the terrorist hijackers were actually American agents would be far more plausible then the controlled demo theory. One could easily be contained to a few individuals and have tons of plausible deniability built in, the other would be a fairly massive undertaking and very difficult to explain away. Imagine if one the towers DIDNT come down and they found vast amounts of demo equipment in the basement lower floors? How does government explain that was the work of a few al aqaeda agents?

[Edited on September 10, 2012 at 10:25 PM. Reason : a]

9/10/2012 10:23:19 PM

Keeping it a secret isn't that important. The real trick is making sure that the mainstream media sticks with the same narrative and doesn't allow criticism to be taken seriously.

Quote :

"US has yet to see much benefit from the war in Afghanistan."

The people of the U.S.? Sure. Wars aren't meant to benefit the people, they're meant to benefit corporate interests.

[Edited on September 10, 2012 at 10:25 PM. Reason : ]

9/10/2012 10:24:25 PM

edit

but also, that would be very difficult to do w/ that scale of an operation. its the saying that two can keep a secret if one is dead, the more involved, the more likely it is that one or many will come forward w/ major details.

9/10/2012 10:27:05 PM

you fucking people...

9/10/2012 10:27:54 PM