It's Really Annoying When You Drop A...
News1 min ago
Building 7 collapse.
How does a building collapse into its own footprint at freefall speed? What happened to the law of physics on this day? This building,lest we forget ,was NOT hit by a plane..
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by funkyrich. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
LazyGun: I never said that I had answers to the collapse only that I had a gut feeling that it does not make sense.One could argue that you seem entrenched in your no-conspiriacy theory and have decided to ignore certain facts.If the explanation is as so mundane,as you claim,then why wasn't the collapse of building 7 even mentioned in the 9'11 final commision report? Who are believable sources then? The BBC and CNN (Crap no news)?
As you say - but gut feelings dont cut it.... analysis, observation and evidence do - all of which you ignore.
To repeat - Your initial contention was that the collapse of WTC7 was iffy. I post you links describing factors contributing to its fall - internal fires and because the side of the building you dont see in the video you linked to had a massive hole in it, 20 stories high and approx a 3rd of the bulding in width, that further compromised the integrity of the building - Damage incurred by the collapse of the North Tower of the WTC earlier in the day. The report that details the investigation into the WTC7 collapse is not the 9/11 commission report, the purpose of which was to provide a narrative for the events leading up to the collapse of the 2 towers, and the actions and responses in the first 108 minutes. The report you need to read is the NIST report.
You ignore this, still preferring to trust your "gut" - without offering any kind of plausible or rational exposition of what you think is happening. You then do what every single conspiracy theorist I have ever seen debate this subject does - change the subject, without even acknowledging that their initial point has been debunked.
And now you do it again. Have you read the 9/11 commission report? Do you understand the purpose, the scope and the remit of the report? Do you know what timeline they looked at and reported on? Do you know what time WTC7 collapsed? Have you, in fact, got any evidence at all of anything underhand?
I actually get angry at those conspiracy theorists who just casually believe this was some form of massive conspiracy. Such a casual attitude to the facts, to the science, to the evidence,is to belittle all that pain, all that death, all that shock, all that suffering, all that heroism - and instead try to paint a picture of some sort of vile government black flag operation that coincidentally kills 3,000 or so of their own civilians . Life, and these sort of tragedies, are not a movie - they arent some plot out of the X-files!
Recognise this. Were this actually a conspiracy, the scope, planning and organisation of such an operation would have required the involvement of 100s if not 1000s of individuals. No conspiracy could keep so many quiet.
To repeat - Your initial contention was that the collapse of WTC7 was iffy. I post you links describing factors contributing to its fall - internal fires and because the side of the building you dont see in the video you linked to had a massive hole in it, 20 stories high and approx a 3rd of the bulding in width, that further compromised the integrity of the building - Damage incurred by the collapse of the North Tower of the WTC earlier in the day. The report that details the investigation into the WTC7 collapse is not the 9/11 commission report, the purpose of which was to provide a narrative for the events leading up to the collapse of the 2 towers, and the actions and responses in the first 108 minutes. The report you need to read is the NIST report.
You ignore this, still preferring to trust your "gut" - without offering any kind of plausible or rational exposition of what you think is happening. You then do what every single conspiracy theorist I have ever seen debate this subject does - change the subject, without even acknowledging that their initial point has been debunked.
And now you do it again. Have you read the 9/11 commission report? Do you understand the purpose, the scope and the remit of the report? Do you know what timeline they looked at and reported on? Do you know what time WTC7 collapsed? Have you, in fact, got any evidence at all of anything underhand?
I actually get angry at those conspiracy theorists who just casually believe this was some form of massive conspiracy. Such a casual attitude to the facts, to the science, to the evidence,is to belittle all that pain, all that death, all that shock, all that suffering, all that heroism - and instead try to paint a picture of some sort of vile government black flag operation that coincidentally kills 3,000 or so of their own civilians . Life, and these sort of tragedies, are not a movie - they arent some plot out of the X-files!
Recognise this. Were this actually a conspiracy, the scope, planning and organisation of such an operation would have required the involvement of 100s if not 1000s of individuals. No conspiracy could keep so many quiet.
LazyGun:OK but why didn't the floors below at least slow down the upper stories when it collapsed? The law of gravity is such that gravitational acceleration cannot achieve its full effect if it is fighting any opposing force.For example if you dropped a lead ball into a vat of molasses the viscous process -or friction process in the tower's case-would slow it down.But this was not the observed effect.I have in fact looked at the links you provided but there is little chance of scientific independence within NIST given that they pay close heed to political pressures.
I am sorry if my views upset you but I am entitled to them just as you are entitled to label me a crank for expressing them.
I am sorry if my views upset you but I am entitled to them just as you are entitled to label me a crank for expressing them.
At what speed do you think a 50 storey building, fatally weakened by unfought fires blazing out of control in the bottom levels of the structure, and with a massive, 20 storey hole in one side and around a third of its length?
The Penthouse level collapsed first, into the structure, pancaking onto lower levels, due to the unfought blazes that weakened the penthouse floor level. How fast do you think that the laws of physics dictates the levels should fall at?, How long do you think it took for the building to fall? Your analogy of the lead ball and molasses is not valid, since it does not describe very well the situation with WTC7.
What law of physics suggests that the building would not, in fact, collapse as it did, following the path of least resistance, and, contrary to the claims of the conspiracy theorists, falling toward the south/east? (demonstrated by aerial pictures taken shortly after the collapse).
The Penthouse level collapsed first, into the structure, pancaking onto lower levels, due to the unfought blazes that weakened the penthouse floor level. How fast do you think that the laws of physics dictates the levels should fall at?, How long do you think it took for the building to fall? Your analogy of the lead ball and molasses is not valid, since it does not describe very well the situation with WTC7.
What law of physics suggests that the building would not, in fact, collapse as it did, following the path of least resistance, and, contrary to the claims of the conspiracy theorists, falling toward the south/east? (demonstrated by aerial pictures taken shortly after the collapse).
LazyGun: Where did you get this 20 storey hole in building 7's side from? According to reports the building only suffered a few small office fires with slight superficial damage, after all it was approx 350 ft from the two towers. Buildings much closer to the twin towers did not collapse in this fashion even though they must have suffered much more damage.If all steel towers could collapse this way the health and safety mob would have kittens! The law of physics is not a fluid,movable phenonemon it behaves as it behaves.
-- answer removed --
Sorry if I am bothering you Eddie - This kind of cut and paste recirculation of lies and bad science in the name of some nebulous conspiracy really bothers me.
Funky - do you not read the posts? 1 response post I gave quoted eyewitness testimony from captain of the attending firecrews pointing out the size of the hole. This was also covered in the NIST report.
WTC7 was 400 ft away from the Towers - Towers were 1300 ft high. If other buildings were undamaged, that was luck.
You still havent answered the question. At what speed should a 50 storey building collapse?
Funky - do you not read the posts? 1 response post I gave quoted eyewitness testimony from captain of the attending firecrews pointing out the size of the hole. This was also covered in the NIST report.
WTC7 was 400 ft away from the Towers - Towers were 1300 ft high. If other buildings were undamaged, that was luck.
You still havent answered the question. At what speed should a 50 storey building collapse?
Latest Posts
Sir Keir Starmer Under, Fresh...
News1 min ago
Employers To Move Jobs Abroad...who'd...
News4 mins ago
Home & Garden5 mins ago
News8 mins ago
