WT7 -"For 8 stories of free fall, there couldn't have been any structural resistance."

[Bonobo]

Yeah, I know. It's old. It has been repeated. But you still have to deal with it.

Free fall, admitted but not explained by the official report -for 8 stories. In perfect symmetry.

"The symmetry is the smoking gun."

You may not like it, but you can't ignore it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZEvA8BCoBw&feature=player_embedded

[BeFree]

1. Yep

A beautiful piece of work, taking that building down like that.

And man, the coverup afterwards, almost perfect.

But not good enough. Videos tell a whole 'nuther story.

Thanks, Bonobo, hope all is soon to be well in Japan.

[LARED]

2. "The symmetry is the smoking gun."

Why do you believe this?

[Bonobo]

3. Because in order to fall symmetrically, the supporting structure

would also have to fail symmetrically and simultaneously. Isn't that apparent?

[LARED]

4. No it's not apparent at all.

all anyone can see is the outside of the building.

[BridgeTheGap]

5. Ask an architect. But you can also apply minimal logic or observations of other buildings

that have collapsed from fire damge. They typically don't collapse all at once, only those with explosives placed at critical structural points will do that. Still, ask an architect or maybe even a demolition expert.

[William Seger]

7. Baloney

Where is this mythical demolition expert who can explain why 8 stories would have been blown out 1.5 seconds after the building was already irrevocably headed down? Can this expert reveal the secret of the magical silent explosives that were used? Where is the mythical structural mechanics expert who can explain to his colleagues why a progressive collapse can't happen rapidly?

After 10 years, if all you have is imaginary physics extolled by imaginary experts, maybe it isn't too soon to start considering that you're on the wrong trail.

Here's a hint: Contrary to the "truth movement" lie that Bonobo parrots in the OP, the 8-story fall IS explained by the NIST hypothesis.

Edit: Regarding your invitation to compare WTC7 to other buildings, that's a great idea: I defy you to find an example of a controlled demolition that shows 8 stories of free-fall 1.5 seconds after the building starts to fall.

[wildbilln864]

11. "Contrary to the "truth movement" lie that Bonobo parrots in the OP, the 8-story fall IS explained "

where? :popcorn:
still believing the official BS I see.
"They must find it difficult, those who have taken authority as the truth, rather than truth as the authority"

[William Seger]

13. Right here

[wildbilln864]

17. ah,

more speculation! fail sdude!

[zappaman]

19. ah,

see post #14

[William Seger]

20. Physics-based, rational, and plausible speculation

... from people who actually know what they're talking about. On the other hand, demonstrably ignorant people with a bizarre psychological need for 9/11 to be an "inside job" are speculating that magical silent explosives were planted in an occupied office building to blow out 8 floors after the building was already falling, and have yet to offer any rational reason why that would be done, much less how. Sorry, WildBill, but WTC7 is a monumental fail for the "truth movement."

[wildbilln864]

25. "magical silent explosives"

that's a good one William! ridiculous but funny. thanks. No such thing though you will continue to make up such nonsense anyway. Can't take you seriously sdude.

[William Seger]

27. Yep, magical silent explosives are beyond absurd

... and yet, there they are right at the heart of WTC7 controlled demolition theories. Those theories were never based on anything more than the logical fallacy that if it looks like a CD then it must be a CD, completely ignoring the incontrovertible facts that a conventional CD of WTC7 would have blown out windows for several blocks and would have produced a distinctive explosive sound that would easily have been heard in New Jersey . The attempts to avoid the problem of magical silent explosives by substituting thermite -- which has never been used for a controlled building demolition -- fail because there would be no way to precisely coordinate thermite melting through all those columns: CTists claim that the ONLY way to get that 2.25 seconds of free-fall would be to blow out columns on 8 floors all at once with explosives. The only thing WTC7 theories prove is the remarkable ability of CTists to ignore cognitive dissonance.

[wildbilln864]

35. it did not have to be...

and wasn't "conventional"! And you make ridiculous assumptions! Thermit for example wouldn't be a loud reaction. And as you know some witnesses heard "pop, pop, pop" as the floors went down. You assume of course that was only the sounds of the floors impacting each other. But it may have been more.

"completely ignoring the incontrovertible facts that a conventional CD of WTC7 would have blown out windows for several blocks and would have produced a distinctive explosive sound that would easily have been heard in New Jersey ." That's just ignorant bullshit and you know it!

[William Seger]

36. As usual, you answer facts and reason with hand-waving

You missed the point: Thermite wouldn't be loud, but it also wouldn't produce the sudden and coordinated failures that the CD hypothesis demands. Progressive collapse satisfies both conditions.

NIST gave an example of what sort of shock wave would be produced if explosives had been used to blow out just one critical column, and the assertion of this thread is that all the columns on eight floors were blown out! Huckster Richard Gage deliberately omits the sound tracks of the CD videos he shows to his marks, but you can hear the distinctive "crack" of explosives that Gage wishes to hide if you hunt down the originals, and blowing out 8 floors of WTC7 would require much, much more explosives than any of those CDs.

> That's just ignorant bullshit and you know it!

Oh, I think I'm pretty good at detecting ignorant bullshit. :eyes:

[SidDithers]

23. Looks like a pefectly symmetrical collapse to me...

:rofl:

Sid

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LARED]

14. Unintended irony is one of the things that truthers

Seem to be unintentionally well versed in.

[zappaman]

15. +1 n/t

[hack89]

8. It was not a symmetric collapse

WTC-7 fell in 3 phases:

1. The penthouse collapsed into the building, indicating the failure of some internal support structure.
2. One side of the building then collapsed,
3. Which triggered the global collapse of the remaining structure.

[wildbilln864]

12. bull.....

SHIT!

1. The penthouse collapsed into the building, indicating the failure of some internal support structure.
failure caused by something removing the support structure!

2. One side of the building then collapsed,
not in any video I've seen! Or any you've seen either!

3. Which triggered the global collapse of the remaining structure.
"Global collapse" is a made up term(not used before 911 anywhere) meant to prevent any further investigation into the fact that the buildings all fell defying the conservation of momentum.
Nothing else anywhere ever has globally collapsed without demolition involved!

:popcorn:

[SidDithers]

24. "defying the conservation of momentum"...

which website did you read that at, bill?

Perhaps you can detail, with the proper vector equations, just how momentum wasn't conserved during the collapse.

Sid

[wildbilln864]

26. perhaps you should study the concept on your own...

I don't have the time nor desire to waste time trying to show you what you do not want to see! I will however provide you with a link to get you started...here... :hi:

[SidDithers]

28. Yes, bill, I know what the conservation of momentum is...

I can state with utmost certainty that I've studied far more physics than you have.

But you made the claim that momentum isn't conserved. Prove it.

Sid

[wildbilln864]

29. utmost eh?

now that thar's funny! thanks sdude!

[SidDithers]

31. You have me confused with someone else, bill..

sdude is a different poster.

And you're right. "utmost" isn't correct. I can say with absolute certainty that I've studied more physics than you.

Now, about that conservation of momentum thing you mentioned. Show us all that you understand what you're posting about, and not just regurgitation the opinions if someone else.

Sid

[William Seger]

32. "... a made up term(not used before 911 anywhere)"

It took me 15 seconds to find a use of the term "global collapse" from 1999:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020740398001374

> Nothing else anywhere ever has globally collapsed without demolition involved!

More bullshit. I've mentioned several times here that my first encounter with the phenomenon was the 1973 collapse of the Skyline Towers.

So why are "truther" sites spoon-feeding you bullshit, WildBill? And why do you never seem to make even minimal efforts to verify it?

[wildbilln864]

33. global collapse ...

isn't mentioned in your Skyline Towers link.
and your first link is a paid subscription of $31.50?

[William Seger]

37. You don't need to buy the article to see "global collapse" in the title

The term simply indicates scope, local vs. global. You claimed NIST made up the term after 9/11. Will you apologize for talking through your hat?

[Bonobo]

16. In other words, "don't believe your lying eyes." nt

[hack89]

21. What exactly does your link have to do with WTC-7 ? nt

[William Seger]

22. No, in other words, "OPEN your eyes" n/t

[Poll_Blind]

9. I don't have an answer I'm happy with but the official answer seems to be plain bullshit.

PB

[SidDithers]

10. The collapse was asymmetric...

"perfect symmetry" is nonsense.

Sid

[wildbilln864]

18. thanks...

for offering your opinion. :hi:
there is nothing that's actually perfect.

[RKP5637]

30. Thanks for posting this! n/t

[errrrrrrrrrm]

34. Arrrgh

how do I post a new thread?