WT7 did not collapse due to fire.

Beware Stav, you're turning into a "right-winger"

Young stav is clearly living in his mom's basement and has all the time in the world to spend quoting the nist BS.

This same loon thinks everything is so great with the EU. He lives in an alternative world. He hopes his own ireland can be flooded with more invaders and especially with more muslims. What you see at work is a brainwashed "mind" forever getting it all wrong.

Anyhow at least they are having a decently toned discussion. Plum this guy can however trot out drivel indefinitely so take care re your valuable time.

Bump.

I have dedicated this morning to replying, Star.

Get ready mwhahaha.

• Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall). 

Marginally outside of freefall acceleration and entirely consistent with building demolition. Entirely inconsistent with natural collapse.

• Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)

This stage of  "natural" building collapse never occurs at fall speeds. Even when buildings are severely damaged through fire, bomb blasts or earthquakes. This is the crux of the freefall argument and is indeed a first-ever occurrence. This from the least of the three above likely candidates to cause such a result.

• Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

Consistent with building demolition and the result of cluttering. Fewer air spaces for debris to fall into. Also considered the first stage of settling since falling debris begins interacting on an interval curve which ascends steeply toward finally settling - simply, more stuff bouncing into stuff as the rubble settles.

I'll quote part of your reply here...

"In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below."


When I asked you why you prefer the NIST report and entirely discount this one you response was basically...

We are not experts and are relying on info from different sides of the fence - That's true, in part. In reality, the fence doesn't exist through the information stream. Most experts, including some of the world's prominent architects and engineers, that knew nothing about the collapse of WTC7, have been shown the footage and the vast majority, with no bias and without knowing that they were even looking at WTC7 collapsing, said it was a demolition. In fact, there is a direct correlation between knowing it was WTC7 and agreeing that it was brought down by fire. Strange, no?

So, the fence does exist, but people that are on no side of it unwittingly have supported the demolition argument. There is a very long list of such professionals. Again, another first. Why? Well, because with events like this it is quite easy, if you know what you are seeing, to be able to tell what is going on. It's the equivalent of a boxer being much more able to tell when a fight he is watching is being thrown, than what a regular punter is.

And it amounts to yet another anomaly in all this.

As for the Snowden story, there are some questions that one has to ask.

* When you listen to him speak, he did a recent podcast on Joe Rogan(i suggest every person on earth should see it), he makes no bones about this being a power grab. They understood that information was all-important in a connected world and thus the new currency of the globe. That level of power grab, and trampling of human rights, outshines the value of $'s that were funnelled in the aftermath of 9/11 massively. Just how much did they raise their power ceiling with this move?

* We now know that the people involved made that kind of play. In light of that, it brings the needle a lot closer to 911 being an inside job since it speaks to the morality/audacity/criminal intent/dereliction of duty/ability and much more, of the guys running the show at the time this all went down. Just where is the limit of potential for criminality within such a group?

As for the BBC accidentally reporting that WTC7 had collapsed. 

How did they know it was unstable? Had it swayed? Nope. Had any other building previously fallen due to fire? Nope. Was there anyone in the building surveying the damage to the building? Nope. Had a building ever suffered a collapse on the basis of the damage that was visible and present on WTC7? Nope.

So why did they fear it would collapse in the first place? Secondly, there is a massive and unmistakable difference between may collapse and has collapsed. Plenty of other buildings were damaged but the only one to be mistakenly reported as collapsed, actually did collapse. Yet another very peculiar anomaly. Whatever the information chain was on the day, it was not Chinese whispers between offices. 

Siting the BBC's explanation? Either the BBC was in on it or they were being fed information by a party that was. Siting the BBC's explanation is like asking a criminal, that knows he can't be caught, if he committed the crime. Of course, they'll toe the party line. Much like those that believed Trump was guilty of misuse of power expecting him to, for no reason, simply say that "Ya, well i did misuse power and should be fired." 

It's illogical.

In terms of keeping secrets? If an NDA is enough to keep a flatmate of mine, from years back, talking even in general terms about software he was working on, you can bet that physical threat to yourself and your family will keep you quiet as a mouse. 

Lets assume that you, Star, witness a murder by some group. Soon after, you are warned by people that you know have a great deal of power, that if you utter a word, your family will be killed. That no witness protection program known could protect them. Would you be making a trip to the cop shop to tell all? No, mate. No you wouldn't. Nobody would. 

If this was an orchestrated inside job, then you can bet the people involved would disappear you if you ever thought about coming clean. And you would be much more likely to stay mum if you got paid handsomely for your part too. Money and safety are about as good a two incentives as I can think of for keeping a secret. 

Truman warned about the rise of the military-industrial complex. And the guys, seemingly behind this, are those exact people. From MK-ultra to many other scandals, this same group has been shown to give very little of a shit for the lives of their constituents and the people they are supposed to serve. 

Just by what has come out, which is likely only a small fraction of what has actually occurred, it's quite clear than many of the people/groups within these institutions sh ould not be trusted at all. 

This 100% -> Despite being having opposites viewpoints, isn't nice when people can debate and discuss things in a civilized manner even if one doesn't agree with the other 

Literally couldn't agree more.

I shall be doing some drawings of my own to respond to your latest response, Star. And also respond to the rest.

To do with damage to building seven, its dimensions and it's where it landed and so on. 

Expect them soon.

Star, the response to your response.

Well, the experts that compiled the NIST report are saying otherwise, due to the events of that day and the design characteristics of 7 WTC it can and did happen.

This is nothing new. You'll have basically just said, refer to them. What I can do is ask you to do this - have a look at the image you posted of Building 6.

You'll note that it is basically cut in half. About 30%of the columns are completely missing, and all the columns around the cut are severely damaged and even severed, in multiple locations along a run. It's quite clear that the vast majority of the columns in this building have suffered fatal damage and entire floors and vertical sections have collapsed. But it's still standing. 

It's still standing because buildings are not built like a row of dominos. Undamaged columns will continue to support the weight above them. Even damaged or bent columns will more often than not continue to hold the structure up. 

And it's not me pretending to be an expert. It's simply looking at the vast precedent that exists, your picture of WT6 just being another example, in an entirely lopsided body of evidence. 

And that's one of the leaps to which I am referring to when I say that I feel NIST requires exceptional evidence.

It did not fall into its own footprint. 

Here is a simple drawing that I made. 

WT7 was 100M in length on its longest side. It was 190M high. So if we measure 190M horizontally,  from each side of the building, we can see an absolute maximum debris zone. That is, if the building literally fell over, in one piece, to any side.

The average debris field radius WTC7 was 21.3m/70feet according to the Fema report. 

I've included it in the bottom section of the diagram.

Without trying to understand what the acceptable/expected debris field for a skyscraper demolition is, just look a the potential versus the result. And this from a building where more than 90% of the columns were intact and more than 80% of floors were undamaged. 

The bottom of the drawing is to scale IE 190m vs 21.3m 

Note that the max slide off debris field is not included in the top down view above since the image is not big enough.

Say what you like, but that average debris field is tiny. Give me your honest opinion...do you agree or not?

Especially when you consider that the fires which supposedly brought it down burned on the lowest at 6-10 floors and highest at 29-30 floors. The top 17 floors thus being vastly intact and very likely to topple, considering the structural damage caused by WTC's debris was NOT symmetrical. 

And yet it all fell neatly in a pile...into its footprint.

You simply cannot accept this as a normal event. Both the proposed means of collapse and the resulting debris field are entirely abnormal. Anomalies on top of anomalies. 

Yes. I'm sure architects are aware of vertical thermal expansion, but I'm pretty sure they can't imagine or plan for every conceivable scenario that could occur that would endanger a building's structural integrity.

Very true. However, fire risk and column failure are integral and paramount to the design. This is why other buildings don't collapse under the same circumstances...ever.

Just because something has not occurred before does not it mean it can't happen.

I fully agree. Yet, again, it just means that it is very unlikely. when the equation looks like - unlikely x unlikely x extremely rare = ?

And that's the point. Singular anomalies are one thing, but as Draad mentioned earlier, when you start stacking them up, the  way they do here, questions must be asked. It's irrational not to.

"NIST strongly urges building owners, operators, and designers to evaluate buildings to ensure the adequate fire performance of structural systems."

I had read this some years back and remember laughing at the time. As someone that runs a commercial contracting company and deals with safety-related concerns on a daily basis... I cracked up when I read...the underlined part above.

No, when major structural flaw such as the above is discovered, and it presents a clear danger, retroactive work is mandated. IE Bring the building up to standard, sell it to someone that will or demolish it. Your choice. 

Standards were updated as a result of the NIST report in 2009.

Yes i have read those changes a few times over the years. they mainly deal with evacuation routes, fireproofing of stairwells and so on. 

Changes were also made to the fireproofing of structural columns. 

But, here is the kicker...There aren't going to be many more skyscrapers built in NY any time soon(no space) and these regulation changes are only for new buildings. Meaning that, as i said, many of the pre-existing structures should be at risk according to the NIST report. And the result is...

"We strongly urge you to ensure your buildings are safe." I don't know about you, but that doesn't sound very legally binding to me. And if a building does collapse as laid out in NIST, heads will roll and the safety authorities will be sued into oblivion. 

For this next part, i am just going to respond to sections of the paragraph, as they come...

I would find it much stranger, that the conspirators would have been able to plant demolition explosives undetected. 

Nanothermite residue and small spherical melts were found at the sites for WTC1, 2 and 7. Along with that, several tons of molten iron and melted steel beams(that fire cannot account for). Using thermite to melt the beams would have resulted in minimal explosives being used. NIST simply says, it would have been to difficult to place the thermite where needed. Difficult for whom? Contractors working night shifts in an empty building and unaccompanied by building security?

Where the conspirators that advanced that they where able to calculate/predict that the collapse of the main towers would cause debris strikes that caused fires of significant magnitude in 7 WTC that could provide cover for a controlled demolition, that the conspirators where able to hide both the visual and audio signs of controlled demolitions that can be seen and heard in virtually any video of a controlled demolition. We also have the issue that the collapse does not follow the typical collapse pattern of a controlled demolition.

No, they simply did it at night, and to periodically vacant areas of the building, with a material which was found in the rubble, that destroys/melts beams without the need for explosive...then set the fires themselves.

Perhaps insurance premiums did go up. Did you check?

Yep, i did, in the 2000s and since a couple of times. All you'll find is the risks associated with terror attacks and the resultant premium increases being regulated by authorities. And this is mainly because insures took a 30Billion+ hit as a result of 911. From revenue compensation to clean-up and replacement...they got raked. The government had to step in as insurers tried to get some ground back on the loss they swallowed.

Yet strangely, fire insurance and structural premiums did NOT rise at all outside of normally expected rates...despite there being an abnormally large incentive to raise them above normal rates at the time.

I realise that I did not respond to the damage to the Verizon building. I'll do so tomorrow

Bump

...@star

Hey Shark

Here's an idea.

Grow a pair of balls big enough to allow you to put your own thoughts and ideas forward.

D idn't even know WTC7 wasn't hit by a plane but takes all of two seconds to deepthroat the official narrative.

I'd ask you to substantiate you claim but you and I both know that won't ever happen.

Hold the phone, meme incoming.

Sorry for the delay in responding, little strapped for time at the moment. Will respond in the next day or so.

No worries, Star.

Seriously, no rush, just bumped it so it doesn't vanish.

Perhaps we bit off more than we can chew. And I fear it'll only get deeper from here on out.

I must be honest, it's been great going over this again. Have actually read quite a bit, both for and against, that I either missed previously or which is new.

We can do one bit/point at a time if you like.