You're comparing a 50 story building to a 9 story building. 7 collapsed while 6 didn't because it was a lot heavier! Its support columns bore a lot more weight and thus it was more likely to collapse from structural failure.
Use a little logic and intuition and it discredits all your conspiracy theories.
I'm not comparing building 5 and 6 to building 7 for a collapse. I am comparing the damage done in the radius of collapsed buildings. Bankers Trust was a lot closer to a collapsed building and is of comparable size and structure and it did not collapse. Yet it sustained greater or equal damage as WTC 7. Watch the video again please it is very logical and there is no theory relating to a conspiracy its all based on science.
I find it funny that idiots like marshllbs go onto videos like this and calls it "conspiracy theory" when all you show him is facts - people like that don't want to know the truth and wouldn't get it if it came up and slapped him in the face - like this does!
Building 7 was structurally reinforced in 1989 giving it, "Enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity," according to the New York Times.
Most people struggle with basic algebra which only deals with finite variables but you sir, with your supreme intellect are able to compute the trillions of variables that go into everyday life. I applaude you.
I suggest you start your own society, and let us average people continue to produce cars, phones, television,computers and YOUTUBE that you seem to enjoy so much. Good Day!
Haven't you noticed that debunkers will only deal with evidence that could theoretically be explained by the Official Government Conspiracy Theory?
To debunkers: just because some pieces of evidence/observed phenomena are explainable by both the truth movement and the OGCT doesn't mean you have debunked the truth movement.
Why won't you talk to us about the highly-corroborated reports of pooled and flowing molten metal in the debris piles?
"Lava" was one of the words used by one firefighter to describe these molten streams. Talk to us about the 1600-degree-Fahrenheit SURFACE temps measured FIVE days after the collapses.
Tell former FBI director Louis Freeh that he's just "a conspiracy nut" when he goes public saying that the 9/11 Commission was a cover-up.
Do more broadly-based research instead of incestuously focusing on 9/11 debunking. Very consistent patterns of elite criminality will begin to emerge.
Look into past wars, past terrorism, secret societies, medicine and disease, central banking, the disclosure project, the Advanced Energy Research Organization, the European Union, the North American Union, drug-trafficking, human-trafficking, Bohemian Grove, the Kennedy assassination, CFR, the Trilateral Commission, Bildeberg Group, depleted uranium, black-budget projects, MK ULTRA, project Blue Book, etc.
I could keep going, but the point is -- stop beating off to the good feelings you get when you find some 911 "debunking evidence," parade it about the internet, and launch personal attacks against others.
You think, "well, for most of humanity's history, we've been ruled by murderous tyrants, but we now live in the modern, enlightened, democratic era. The West liberated itself a while ago."
When did we liberate ourselves from elite tyranny and systemic corruption?! When?! Give me the date when everything magically changed -- when the super-elite of the world handed over their power. Please, tell us - the 'ignorant truthers' - of your perfect understanding of the world.
Also, every point you brought up can be explained logically without the need to infer conclusion(which is illogical).
WTC7 was the hardest hit building in the area from debris. Every building had firefighters that worked to extinguish the fires, but WTC7 reached a critical point where the leadership decided to pull the firefighters from the building and let it burn down.
Those firefighers then were moved to the other buildings. You just assumed they all were abandoned to let burn.
Would you be so kind to explain them then? I have a lot of questions. If you have time, thanks. How was it the hardest building hit in the area? Buildings 5 and 6 looked like they were hit a lot harder. Buiding 7 didnt burn down. It fell in about 8 or 9 seconds, straight down. Click on my name and watch my video about a controlled demolitionist. Thanks and thank you for the intelligent conversation. Peace.
The problem is we are trying to infer what happened based on limited information. We can conclude what ultimately happened, and therefore any plausible scenario that meets this conclusion is valid.
The building was hit from one side of the building with large debris which would weaken the structural integrity of that side. This would cause added strain on the other 3 walls. There were also fires that weakened the internal structure; this would also add more strain on these 3 walls.
Eventually, the building would continue to bow inwards until the walls could no longer support itself. You are correct,the fires alone did not bring the building down, but the magnitude of all these factors placed enough stress to compromise the structure. Of course, there may be other factors but I only need to illustrate a plausible solution for what occurred. What 911 truthers incorrectly do, is go beyond the conclusion, and introduce conspiracy. This is not science, but rather an Agenda.
True there are conspiracy theorist who draw quick conclusions, but I can show you hundreds of videos essays etc. in which highly distinguished researchers proficiently assemble facts that prove beyond a doubt that mere fires and the damage incurred from WTC1's debris did not cause the symmetrical collapse.
Ok so pressure melts steel beams? Thats the first I have heard about that. Why arent all the steel beams in large buildings melting all the time under the pressure they are under? Why do you feel the need to call me an idiot? I think you are in denial.
What he means to say is kinetic energy caused by pressure.....PV=nRT. Where P is equal to Pressure and T is equal to temperature. It is direct relationship meaning as Pressure increases so will temperature. Also, Volume (V)and pressure is an inverse relationship, as Volume decreases pressure increases.
A couple million tons converted into Kinetic energy can produce a vast amount of heat.
I know about pressure and heat but I highly doubt there was enough pressure to melt steel and keep it melted for an entire week. If you have evidence to support there was enough pressure and heat I would like to review that. Please post it here, thanks.
I dont have the information at hand but the equation for Joules or K.E. = 1/2mv^2. Then you would need the specific density of the materials affected. I havent done the math but the number of joules would be in the billions off the top of my head, assuming the mass was in the billions. Though a lot of this heat would be transfered to the air, but that would explain the large and high altitudes of hot plumes in the air.
Finish the sentence. Debris from the planes that struck the towers landed on or in a 47 story building and began such a raging inferno that in just a few hours the building spontaneously collapsed. It might as well be professional wrestling.
I havent read the NIST report. The official explaination for WTC 7 is still unknown and unexplained to this day to my knowledge. If there is an explanation I'd like to see/hear it. As far as WTC 1 and 2 the official explanation is jet fuel (kerosene with a few additives) fires weakened the support columns enough to cause a failure which in turn reduced the buildings 1 and 2 to a small pile of rubble.
You're comparing a 50 story building to a 9 story building. 7 collapsed while 6 didn't because it was a lot heavier! Its support columns bore a lot more weight and thus it was more likely to collapse from structural failure.
Use a little logic and intuition and it discredits all your conspiracy theories.
marshallbs 3 years ago
I'm not comparing building 5 and 6 to building 7 for a collapse. I am comparing the damage done in the radius of collapsed buildings. Bankers Trust was a lot closer to a collapsed building and is of comparable size and structure and it did not collapse. Yet it sustained greater or equal damage as WTC 7. Watch the video again please it is very logical and there is no theory relating to a conspiracy its all based on science.
Esseyex 3 years ago
I find it funny that idiots like marshllbs go onto videos like this and calls it "conspiracy theory" when all you show him is facts - people like that don't want to know the truth and wouldn't get it if it came up and slapped him in the face - like this does!
shadow1allaround 3 years ago
THANX 4 DOING THE VIDEO INSIDE JOB
catrapesdog99 4 years ago
Building 7 was structurally reinforced in 1989 giving it, "Enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity," according to the New York Times.
snipboy 4 years ago
Interesting. Could have also been modified to make it easier to destroy durring a false flag attack too.
djjimi 4 years ago
Wow, Spectre. Were my words really so difficult to understand? Let me try a different approach. Stay with me, now.
1) A sound hypothesis must deal with all observed data.
2) You ignore the eutectic/iron-rich spherules evidence.
3) Your hypothesis needs revision in order to take this evidence into account.
journalof911studies
youmightknowless 4 years ago
The below comments are for people like you, Spectre.
youmightknowless 4 years ago
Most people struggle with basic algebra which only deals with finite variables but you sir, with your supreme intellect are able to compute the trillions of variables that go into everyday life. I applaude you.
I suggest you start your own society, and let us average people continue to produce cars, phones, television,computers and YOUTUBE that you seem to enjoy so much. Good Day!
Spectre11B 4 years ago
Part one:
Haven't you noticed that debunkers will only deal with evidence that could theoretically be explained by the Official Government Conspiracy Theory?
To debunkers: just because some pieces of evidence/observed phenomena are explainable by both the truth movement and the OGCT doesn't mean you have debunked the truth movement.
Why won't you talk to us about the highly-corroborated reports of pooled and flowing molten metal in the debris piles?
youmightknowless 4 years ago
Part two:
"Lava" was one of the words used by one firefighter to describe these molten streams. Talk to us about the 1600-degree-Fahrenheit SURFACE temps measured FIVE days after the collapses.
Tell former FBI director Louis Freeh that he's just "a conspiracy nut" when he goes public saying that the 9/11 Commission was a cover-up.
Do more broadly-based research instead of incestuously focusing on 9/11 debunking. Very consistent patterns of elite criminality will begin to emerge.
youmightknowless 4 years ago
Part three:
Look into past wars, past terrorism, secret societies, medicine and disease, central banking, the disclosure project, the Advanced Energy Research Organization, the European Union, the North American Union, drug-trafficking, human-trafficking, Bohemian Grove, the Kennedy assassination, CFR, the Trilateral Commission, Bildeberg Group, depleted uranium, black-budget projects, MK ULTRA, project Blue Book, etc.
youmightknowless 4 years ago
Part four:
I could keep going, but the point is -- stop beating off to the good feelings you get when you find some 911 "debunking evidence," parade it about the internet, and launch personal attacks against others.
You think, "well, for most of humanity's history, we've been ruled by murderous tyrants, but we now live in the modern, enlightened, democratic era. The West liberated itself a while ago."
youmightknowless 4 years ago
Part five:
When did we liberate ourselves from elite tyranny and systemic corruption?! When?! Give me the date when everything magically changed -- when the super-elite of the world handed over their power. Please, tell us - the 'ignorant truthers' - of your perfect understanding of the world.
And when you've finished; start studying harder.
youmightknowless 4 years ago
Also, every point you brought up can be explained logically without the need to infer conclusion(which is illogical).
WTC7 was the hardest hit building in the area from debris. Every building had firefighters that worked to extinguish the fires, but WTC7 reached a critical point where the leadership decided to pull the firefighters from the building and let it burn down.
Those firefighers then were moved to the other buildings. You just assumed they all were abandoned to let burn.
Spectre11B 4 years ago
Would you be so kind to explain them then? I have a lot of questions. If you have time, thanks. How was it the hardest building hit in the area? Buildings 5 and 6 looked like they were hit a lot harder. Buiding 7 didnt burn down. It fell in about 8 or 9 seconds, straight down. Click on my name and watch my video about a controlled demolitionist. Thanks and thank you for the intelligent conversation. Peace.
Esseyex 4 years ago
The problem is we are trying to infer what happened based on limited information. We can conclude what ultimately happened, and therefore any plausible scenario that meets this conclusion is valid.
The building was hit from one side of the building with large debris which would weaken the structural integrity of that side. This would cause added strain on the other 3 walls. There were also fires that weakened the internal structure; this would also add more strain on these 3 walls.
Spectre11B 4 years ago
Eventually, the building would continue to bow inwards until the walls could no longer support itself. You are correct,the fires alone did not bring the building down, but the magnitude of all these factors placed enough stress to compromise the structure. Of course, there may be other factors but I only need to illustrate a plausible solution for what occurred. What 911 truthers incorrectly do, is go beyond the conclusion, and introduce conspiracy. This is not science, but rather an Agenda.
Spectre11B 4 years ago
True there are conspiracy theorist who draw quick conclusions, but I can show you hundreds of videos essays etc. in which highly distinguished researchers proficiently assemble facts that prove beyond a doubt that mere fires and the damage incurred from WTC1's debris did not cause the symmetrical collapse.
snipboy 4 years ago
Excellent then, I await this proof beyond a doubt in a court of law. Should be an open and closed case, as far as you are concerned.
Spectre11B 4 years ago
Kerosine can't melt blablab... meltingpoint blalbakbka...
WHAT ABOUT PRESSURE? IDIOT!
F00dTube 4 years ago
Ok so pressure melts steel beams? Thats the first I have heard about that. Why arent all the steel beams in large buildings melting all the time under the pressure they are under? Why do you feel the need to call me an idiot? I think you are in denial.
Esseyex 4 years ago
What he means to say is kinetic energy caused by pressure.....PV=nRT. Where P is equal to Pressure and T is equal to temperature. It is direct relationship meaning as Pressure increases so will temperature. Also, Volume (V)and pressure is an inverse relationship, as Volume decreases pressure increases.
A couple million tons converted into Kinetic energy can produce a vast amount of heat.
Spectre11B 4 years ago
I know about pressure and heat but I highly doubt there was enough pressure to melt steel and keep it melted for an entire week. If you have evidence to support there was enough pressure and heat I would like to review that. Please post it here, thanks.
Esseyex 4 years ago
I dont have the information at hand but the equation for Joules or K.E. = 1/2mv^2. Then you would need the specific density of the materials affected. I havent done the math but the number of joules would be in the billions off the top of my head, assuming the mass was in the billions. Though a lot of this heat would be transfered to the air, but that would explain the large and high altitudes of hot plumes in the air.
Spectre11B 4 years ago
Thanks...
seydsaba 4 years ago
""Debris from the planes that struck the towers."" the non-burning debris??
PTTurboe 4 years ago
Nice instructive video, thnx
HansVerbeek 4 years ago
theres was molten steel at 7 too. jetfuel cant motl metal, and of course we know there was no jetfuel as an accelerant for #7.
sighuponsigh 4 years ago
The NIST explanation is the "pancake theory" which is just plain silly. What started the fire in wtc 7, anyway?
DanielMurphy007 4 years ago
Debris from the planes that struck the towers.
Esseyex 4 years ago
Finish the sentence. Debris from the planes that struck the towers landed on or in a 47 story building and began such a raging inferno that in just a few hours the building spontaneously collapsed. It might as well be professional wrestling.
DanielMurphy007 4 years ago
hahaha
sighuponsigh 4 years ago
I havent read the NIST report. The official explaination for WTC 7 is still unknown and unexplained to this day to my knowledge. If there is an explanation I'd like to see/hear it. As far as WTC 1 and 2 the official explanation is jet fuel (kerosene with a few additives) fires weakened the support columns enough to cause a failure which in turn reduced the buildings 1 and 2 to a small pile of rubble.
Esseyex 4 years ago