That is certainly not clear by your posts here

Do you see what you do here?

You try to make a point. We show how you're wrong. You just jump to a new talking point. It's called Wack-a-troofer and it's why this thread is so long. You still haven't shown why I should care that WTC7 is the first collapse of its kind. What are the number of comparables?

You're wrong about the NiST report. It's the middle section of the fall (not the first 2.25 seconds) of the outer wall that fell at free-fall. Not that basic facts stop you.

I think every single sentence in this post is false,including your awareness of the failure point of steel, given how you cited the failure of jet fuel to melt steel as a point in your favor.

The buildings didn't collapse at free fall speed.

They didn't collapse entirely into their own footprints, but to the extent they did, gravity pulls things straight down, and there was no transverse force.

There were no high energy explosions.

There was no melted steel.

It is easy to pulverize concrete. Have you ever thrown a cinder block against the pavement?

Oh, here's a sentence that's true. There are examples of buildings not collapsing. How many of them were hit by jumbo jets? How many were hit by tons of debris and were left burning uncontrolled for hours? Withstanding an earthquake is not the same as Withstanding a jet impact, and only a simpleton or a liar would try to conflate the two.

I do not choose to believe the government. I choose to believe basic, well established facts about construction that you do not.

http://www1.ae911truth.org/news-sect...-chandler.html

Ah now we're at the youtubez and links to 'experts' stage.

This is what happens when a troofer realizes he's out of his depth.

It's really amazing how they keep talking about free fall speed even after having to concede that they didn't fall at free fall.

LOL... and that's entirely because ...

A) You have years invested in this topic and you can't get any more mileage out of the "'Murica did its very best was just duped" circle of logic, and that makes you mad.

and

B) you're a complete dick

BWFCLEE, there are very few rules in PU but one of them is people's family member are off limits. Call people whatever you want but leave their family out of it. If you do it again after I catch up with the rest of this thread you'll be temp banned.

You have a youtube link to refute these arguments? I mean you and Mr Wookie seems convinced about:

1.) Buildings not falling at free-fall speed. From the article "It fell for about 2.5 seconds at a rate that was indistinguishable from freefall"

2.) No high energy explosions. From the article "there are huge pyroclastic flows of dust, resembling a volcanic eruption".

3.) There was no melted steel. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evid...rgy/index.html

I mean that is just one of many links I could cite. What is this guy missing. You clearly have the knowledge to clear this up very quickly, and we can all move on right?

I apologize if I have broken any rules. I am new here. I don't see what I said here that was even insulting, especially given the other guy's ridiculously aggressive tone from the beginning. But no probs, I will refrain from mentioning family members in any context.

Ridiculously aggressive tone is allowed. It is often the only way to get something across with some of the truthers that have been in this thread.

Yes, please understand: Establishment frat members here will always be free to troll it up and draw reaction whenever they like. You will not be allowed to fire back. ... That's the case for both here (to a more loose standard) and the main, always has been. ...

FYP

Right I see. I might be at a disadvantage here. I find going straight into dumb insult mode when I don't know someone difficult. In fact I find difficult in any circumstance. Still, not to worry, harder challenges have been overcome.

This is completely untrue to the point that I want to do bad things to your account. While I've been a mod no one has been punished for what they said against anyone in the forum, regardless of their beliefs. People have been punished for saying racist things or for saying a whole lot of incoherent things or bringing family members into the insults. If you make this claim again be prepared to site some proof Jiggs.

Thanks for the warning

just keep it civil you ****ing truther dip****.

Sticking to the topic at hand 'It' in that quote is just outer wall. If you read the report you would know that. And if you watched a video of the fall you'd see the interior of the building starts to collapse well before the outer wall.

But no one has denied that a portion of the building fell for a portion of the time at free fall. Nor is that a big deal.

As for the rest it's been covered in depth ITT. But if you can't even understand how the NIST describes the building falling in pretty sure you won't understand any more physics.

I can't find it. There was a burn post towards deuces in which pop cans (?!) were mentioned. Must be in a different thread.

Merely quoting the NIST report isn't relevant because the whole reason that there is an issue with 9/11 to this day, is that official explanations do not make sense. That is the whole argument. We can all quote from Government documentation and come to the conclusion that it is fine, some Arabs decided to leave their caves and go on an adventure, hijack four planes, instantly figure out how to fly them, fly into two towers and destroy three buildings, as well as the Pentagon, though they are never picked up on any cameras after entering the most defended piece of airspace on the planet.

Insulting my Physics knowledge is possibly laughable, but not really relevant.

This, from the article, is relevant:

So, if the NIST report is accurate and correct, and one supporting column lost its integrity due to fire, but no mention of loss of the other two supporting columns, the east penthouse would just not fall vertically at freefall speed. But it did.

The pop can fiasco was when we learned that Dueces didn't understand the difference between static loads and dynamic loads and that trying to argue in this thread by analogy is always a bad idea because the other side invariably attacks the analogy on points it wasn't trying to make.

BWF if the towers where brought down by a huge explosion why was no explosion on any of the videos of the buildings collapsing? Why was there no seismic record of an explosion?

Then why did you try to do it.

See this is another example of you being wrong and just moving on to your next talking point. You're like a 101 course on lame troofer tendencies.

Maybe you don't believe the official story because you have no idea what the official story is? I don't think it has caves in it.

You clearly haven't read the NIST report and you just said we should ignore it. What the **** are you talking about now?

With references to WTC1 and WTC2 there are lots of witnesses who refer to explosions. Then there is a huge energy that sends clouds of debris miles from the site. Look at other building collapses on youtube, even ones that have been detonated, there is not the same energy. Look at volcano's or space shuttle taking off. There is similar energy.

There seems to be contention as to what the recorded Seismic activity represents? Some interpret it as some explosions in addition to the impact of the falling buildings. Others refute this. One theory that has been mentioned is that Thermite might have been used to generate the intense heat and energy required to destroy the core of the buildings, which would explain the intense energy, and the intense heat that remained for weeks afterwards, and the molten steel. Numerous, small Thermite explosives might not generate recognizable seismic activity.

The article I linked to refers to eye witness accounts, including firemen, of explosions from WTC7.

Btw, I am not what you would call a truther per se. I have an open mind. I personally find it hard to believe the official account, but if it is true then that is great!! As I have said, I am more interested in the potential consequences IF it was discovered that this was a false flag. If it was a result of a neo-con attempt to re-shape the world. What would happen? What would the world look like after the fall out?

No caves, really?

Essentially, the official explanation has big Thermite explosion size holes in it.