Your assertions don't mean **** when you are trying to convince somebody of something. Who the **** are you and why should we believe one single assertion you utter?

Taking everything you said as true - this still doesn't make sense. Are you saying that anytime somebody doesn't mention something that means they clearly disagree with it? That's absurd.

The NIST report doesn't cover how planes stay in the air, should we also assume that they don't disagree with all explanations of how flight is possible?

Your reasoning is especially dumb because you made the claim about a paper published AFTER the NIST report. How could the NIST comment on a paper that hadn't even been published yet?

It's not even just a matter of being a simple assertion. It's also the fact that his explained reasoning behind his assertion is absolutely ridiculous.

This is typical Deucism. You like to use one definition/meaning of a word/phrase and then try to use it a totally different meaning someplace else - all while pretending that its the same definition.

We can call this your house of cards theory, in which you compare a highly redundant modern structure with the theoretically least redundant structure you can think of. You are leading the crescendo of idiocy ITT. The more sense I make the more your donkey thinking is exposed.

Did you happen to notice the dust cloud of pulverized concrete expanding from collapsing towers way before the end? lol I honestly don't know why you even bother to discuss these technical issues when you are completely clueless.

Again for JJ the extra special- I am making a claim about the thesis, not a particular presentation of that thesis.

I've explained all of this to you. I even used an analogy to put it in a different light. I think we have found the limits of your understanding or my teaching ability in this format. Kukraprout seems to get it. Maybe he can explain it to you better.

Yet I can't resist trying one more analogy. I always think my sharp tools can penetrate any density, although this thread is making me wonder if I am underestimating the density which is out there.

Imagine you're a detective. Some crime happens and it's so epically important that the police commander puts every detective on it in quasi independent investigations. You are the first one to believe they have solved the case. You type up your report and submit it to the commander. He say thanks I will go over this. Then he forms a special task force to solve the crime. They take years on it, and when they publish their report your analysis purporting to have solved the crime isn't mentioned or incorporated into their analysis.

Wouldn't you feel like your work was rejected?

You shouldn't accept assertions based authority. You should believe assertions, or not believe them, based on a judgement of the reasons behind them.

Then again, if your understood that we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.

Even NIST says the jet fuel was pretty quickly consumed in the fireballs, in reference to the twin towers. With building 7, they said it was merely office fires, not any more powerful fuel source or the mechanical damage (although I could go back over this thread and find tons of people who claim otherwise and claim they are representing NIST lol).

If you want to talk about fires, temperatures, and softening steel that's fine. I think that is another area where NIST appears to do some major fudging despite having to admit the worst for their overall case where the evidence is most solid. For example, they state the dislodging of fireproofing as a necessary condition for collapse but they never prove it happened or make a strong case for it happening.

You are trying to reason based on a field that you have no background in. Why the **** should I listen to your reasoning if A) it makes little sense and B) you have no expertise?

If scientist A who has studied global warming for decades says the cause of global warming is x, and random person on the internet b says the cause of global warming is fires from cat tales struck by lighting by a vengeful god who likes dogs best, how much credence should be given to each argument?

So who am I to believe? You saying that NIST didn't give a collapse mechanism or NIST when they give a collapse mechanism?

Is it your belief that WTC7 was both free falling and expending energy crushing something (however little)?

These should help:

http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610

http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861611

http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861612

http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=901225

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudi.../faqs_wtc7.cfm

There's no need to get cheeky. Just explain, in plain English, the ramifications of the admission that WTC7 free fell for 2.25 seconds.

Does that mean the building was both free falling and crushing something simultaneously? Does that mean WTC7 was free falling for 2.25 seconds, but not crushing anything? If the latter, how would that even be physically possible?

Sounds like some supports collapsed and it took 2.25 seconds before there was enough resistance from the rest of the structure to materially slow down the falling section. How does the 2.25 seconds of free fall play into a controlled demolition theory? They measured the speed of the collapse using the roofline didn't they? If you drop a chain when does the top of the chain slow down? As soon as the first link hits the floor or the last link?

If we grant your premise that it was a controlled demolition of WTC 7 how was it rigged to blow? How would the planners know what sections of the building were going to be damaged and which weren't? Who planned the demolition and why? I thought Jiggs already showed that this was a conspiracy with the Saudis, what part in that conspiracy did WTC 7 play?

The chain is a great example.

I mean it's kind of confusing to me how this point escapes you. Like regardless of the cause the video shows us what happened.

WTC7 is also misleading because the internal portions collapsed well before the outer wall. You can see this in various videos where a room on the roof disappears 5-10 seconds before the facade starts its collapse.

Are there videos anywhere of any other building falling in this wtc7 fashion, that is - a one story fire taking it down all at once in its own footprint? Is this a unique phenomenon to sky scraper-esque buildings?

(If I recall correctly, in Fight Club, when Ed Norton torched his apartment, because of the 3 foot concrete slabs seperating each floor, the fire was self contained and only damaged his apartment. Shouldn't this be standard for large ass buildings? )

A dropping chain isn't analogous with a dropping building. A chain cannot stand on its own; it lays flacid on the ground when unaided. A building otoh stands erect by itself when unaided. The stiffness between the two is too different to compare the scenarios.

The point is "where is the building going/what is the building doing when it's experiencing free fall for 2.25 seconds?" It's going down obviously, but it should be running into the earth or itself, which should create an observable resistance. But free fall means no resistance is occurring, so the two occurring together is impossible, but that is the position you are arguing--a physically impossible position.

They explain it quite well in their FAQ, and they do so in plain English - much clearer than I can and it is less effort for you to click than for me to click for you then cut and paste for you. The FAQ is the last link. If you have further questions, you should read the other links as they go into much greater detail than the FAQ, and do so much better than I could.

Here is a very short explanation that shows that the top of the front exterior wall of the north side of WTC 7 falling at freefall while other bits are being crushed isn't some strange thing: The building isn't just one component. The main support structure started falling well before the wall started to fall. The top person on a human pyramid can accelerate at freefall speeds for a bit even though the people below are crushing the ground and each other.

Another very short explanation: "Essentially freefall" is not "freefall." The lower parts of the wall that hadn't already given way offered much lower resistance than would be necessary to slow the acceleration of the mass falling (the outer wall was not a support structure) enough to be measured. Not much difference than saying that you fall at essentially freefall when you jump on an egg.

For those who like JAQing with the answer being yes...

Isn't it true, that no building has ever been recorded to have fallen in this fashion - relatively all at once, due to a fire?

If starting a one story fire actually did result in perfect demolitions, one would think those in the demolition business are wasting a lot of time and money setting up explosives, aren't they?

Your point is absurd. The video clearly shows what happened and how this works. How would a controlled demolition cause change the fact that the wall falls the way it did? Is the video edited?

First, there were multiple fires although I can't remember right now if they were all meaningful or not.

Second, there's a pretty low sample size of tall buildings with uncontrolled fires left burning for hours. It's not surprising that we haven't seen this because we haven't seen many.

This would be a horrible way to do demolitions. You have a collapse that takes hours and you can't be sure how or if it will actually fall. And after that you have a bunch of rubbish on fire that needs days to put out.

Does anyone have *any* interest in moving beyond the mechanics of the collapse of the towers?

'35 Reasons to Question 9/11.' Clocks in at 3 hours, pretty much a clip documentary of extremely wide-ranging topics. GET SCHOOLED, N00BS.

https://www.corbettreport.com/episod...-question-911/

Boom!

I totally thought that was the Colbert Report and almost clicked.

But it's not so you'll never look into it?