nano Thermite found in all 911 dust samples

[Damocles]

That's bullshit .. total disingenuous bullshit.

Seasoned and decorated combat pilots don't know about flight and manuevers? What the fuck are you talking about?

Bowman, doesn't know about national security, airplanes and their aerodynamic structure? What the fuck are you talking about?

Hundreds of engineers, scientists, and acadamians don't know what they're talking about?

Have you any idea how many gag orders have been issued since 9/11 about 9/11?

Seriously dude, I'd rather NOT have this conversation with you because your arguments are silly .. and dishonest. It's the argument of a stooge.

And again, seasoned decorated pilots who say they are seasoned decorated pilots on the internet. The reality is, all you have to do is go talk to a pilot of an airliner. They will tell you that it is possible to do that, and the path they flew showed a level of inexperience rather than perfection. It won't be too hard to do that.

Instead you believe a link.

Talk to somebody that you know, you'll hear differently and reject somebody else that you know, tell them what a conspiracy they are part of as they stand with their mouths open, stunned. They aren't out to trick you.

And the thousands of engineers, etc. that we can post from on the other side?

Either you believe a link, or you go and talk to somebody who you know carries the information. I chose to read the link, then use that to go and talk to somebody who I know holds the information that was pertinent. You know, somebody who designs really big buildings.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

That's bullshit .. total disingenuous bullshit.

Seasoned and decorated combat pilots don't know about flight and manuevers? What the fuck are you talking about?

Bowman, doesn't know about national security, airplanes and their aerodynamic structure? What the fuck are you talking about?

Hundreds of engineers, scientists, and acadamians don't know what they're talking about?

Have you any idea how many gag orders have been issued since 9/11 about 9/11?

Seriously dude, I'd rather NOT have this conversation with you because your arguments are silly .. and dishonest. It's the argument of a stooge.

On the manuevers, I only know what I have been told from my cousin who is a navy pilot...

WHAT are your sources telling you is difficult about the course the planes took?

 

[blackascoal]

http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm

Conspiracy Theorists bring up the fact that the towers were the first steel high rises to fall from fire in history. The fact is the towers had other firsts that day they never seem to include.

There were a lot of firsts for the WTC. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been hit with a plane traveling 500 miles an hour and had its fire proofing removed from its trusses. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever had its steel columns which hold lateral load sheared off by a 767. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been a building which had its vertical load bearing columns in its core removed by an airliner. For Building 7, in all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been left for 6-7 hours with its bottom floors on fire with structural damage from another building collapse. Not the Madrid/Windsor tower did not have almost 40 stories of load on its supports after being hit by another building which left a 20 story gash. The Madrid tower lost portions of its steel frame from the fire. Windsor's central core was steel reinforced concrete. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been without some fire fighters fighting the fires.

I could go on with the "Firsts" but you get the drift. The statement that the WTC buildings were the first high-rise buildings to collapse from fire is deceptive because it purposely doesn't take those factors into account.

Conspiracy sites point to the building falling straight down as proof the buildings were blown up. Even Professor Jones uses this in his paper as an indication of controlled demolition. "

More at link

It is a POWERFUL mindfuck.

There were no "raging fires" in WTC7.

It was not hit by substantial debris from the towers.

It fell at free fall speed, which defies scientific law.

Here is WTC7 as it begins to collapse/melt ..

Where, oh where, are the raging fires?

If the fires came from debris, wouldn't they affect the top floors, not the bottom? .. but I can show you pictures of the bottom .. no raging fires there either.

See that buckle in the middle of the building as it starts to fall? That's exactly what happens in a controlled demolition.

Here is the Madrid Fire .. during ..

The ENTIRE building was engulfed in tremendous flames .. so much so you could see it from space.

and after ..

Even the giant crane is still intact on top of the building.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

It is a POWERFUL mindfuck.

There were no "raging fires" in WTC7.

It was not hit by substantial debris from the towers.

It fell at free fall speed, which defies scientific law.

Here is WTC7 as it begins to collapse/melt ..

Where, oh where, are the raging fires?

If the fires came from debris, wouldn't they affect the top floors, not the bottom? .. but I can show you pictures of the bottom .. no raging fires there either.

See that buckle in the middle of the building as it starts to fall? That's exactly what happens in a controlled demolition.

.

I note your photo

1) is from the viewpoint of the side of the building OPPOSITE to the one that was hit by the debris from the tower...

2) DOES show tremendous amounts of smoke in the air on the other side of the building (which was about 7 hours AFTER the towers collapsed... I wonder where that smoke was coming from??)

Also, as to your the 'building buckled in the middle' portion... amazing how that happens when the building was gutted by the falling debris.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

also BAC... due take note of this one simple fact....

The Madrid building has NOTHING to do with the towers or WTC7. NOTHING.

It was not hit by a 767 full of fuel.

It was not hit and gutted by massive debris from other superstructures collapsing.

It was not the same structural design as the towers.

So enough of the deception. They are not the same situation.

 

[blackascoal]

On the manuevers, I only know what I have been told from my cousin who is a navy pilot...

WHAT are your sources telling you is difficult about the course the planes took?

Here is what Bowman had to say ..

Further suspension in logic exists in the 'official story's' narrative as to who flew Flight 77 so expertly into the Pentagon's west wing. Hani Hanjour is credited with being the airplane's pilot. This is a man who, three weeks before September 11, attempted to rent a Cessna at an airfield in Maryland. Suspicious of his dubious 'pilot's license', officials at the airfield insisted he take a chaperoned test-flight before rental would be approved. He failed his test flight miserably. He could neither control, nor properly land the Cessna. In fact, the instructors at the airfield in Maryland said, "It was like he had hardly even ever driven a car. He could not fly at all." Other source. And yet, the official narrative of 9/11 asks us to believe that Hanjour pulled off a stunt that would press the limits of even the most experienced aviation test pilot.

The official story unfolds something like this. The rather diminutive Hanjour, sometime after take-off, fought his way into the cockpit, and wrestled control of Flight 77 from a 6'4" former Marine combat fighter pilot named Charles Burlingame, a man family members and colleagues say would never have given up his aircraft or the safety of his passengers. After dispatching with the co-pilot as well, Hanjour settled in and turned his attention to the bewildering array of gadgets and devices of a Boeing 757 instrument panel - a panel he was wholly unfamiliar with - in an airplane traveling 500 mph, 7 miles in the air, under the stress of a recently executed hijacking plot. Then, without the help of any ground control or air-traffic controllers providing him information and/or settings, this pilot who could not control a tiny Cessna 3 weeks earlier "would have to very quickly interpret his heading, ground track, altitude, and airspeed information on the displays before he could even figure out where in the world he was, much less where the Pentagon was located in relation to his position." (From the essay 'The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training', by Nila Sagadevan, an aeronautical engineer and pilot.)

From the Ohio/Kentucky border, Hanjour then supposedly turned the plane around, set course for Washigton D.C. hundreds of miles away, and successfully entered the most restricted airspace in the world without eliciting a single military intercept - despite the crash of two other known hijacked aircraft into the WTC, and a missing third, being covered on every radio and television station in the country. "In order to perform this bit of electronic navigation, he would have to be very familiar with (Instrument Flight Rules) procedures. None of these fellows (the alleged hijackers) even knew what a navigational chart looked like, or even how to plug frequencies into NAV/COM radios, much less input information into flight management computers (FMC) and engage LNAV (lateral navigation automated mode). If one is to believe the official story, all of this was supposedly accomplished by raw student pilots while flying blind at 500 MPH over unfamiliar (and practically invisible) terrain, using complex methodologies and employing sophisticated instruments."

According to the official account, an unidentified aircraft that somebody randomly decided was 'Flight 77' (remember, the transponder needed to identify the aircraft had been turned off) then suddenly pops up over Washington DC out of nowhere and executes an incredibly precise diving turn at a rate of 360 degrees/minute while descending at 3,500 ft/min, at the end of which "Hanjour" allegedly levels out at ground level. The maneuver was in fact so precisely executed that the air traffic controllers at Dulles refused to believe the blip on their screen was a commercial airliner. Danielle O'Brian, one of the air traffic controllers at Dulles who reported seeing the aircraft at 9:25 said, 'The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane.'" (ABC News, 10/24/2001, also archived at www.cooperativeresearch.org)

The official story of Hanjour's flight path continues in an even more bizarre narrative. Having successfully entered D.C. airspace, with no idea how soon fighter aircraft would show up to shoot him down, he finds himself pointed in the ideal direction toward the East wing of the Pentagon, where all the top brass in the military are known to be stationed. But then he apparently changes his mind as to his heading, and pulls off that incredible, sweeping 270-degree descending turn at 400+mph to approach the Pentagon from the opposite direction. There, he inexplicably lines up the less valued West wing, which was miraculously scheduled to receive the finishing touches of extensive bomb-blast retrofitting the next day, September 12, leaving it conveniently empty of most of its military employees. "The section known as Wedge 1 (the West Wing) had been under renovation and was scheduled for final completion on Wednesday, September 12th, 2001."

So from a mile out, the man who could not properly land a Cessna at a small airport in Maryland weeks earlier, zeroes in on the conveniently chosen western façade of the Pentagon, flies 20 feet off the ground in a Boeing 757 at 400 mph, clips a number of lamp poles on his way in, apparently providing no adverse interference to his flight path, then runs into a tree and a generator trailer, before depositing the enormous aircraft perfectly in between the first and second floor of the United States' military headquarters. Leaving no visible scratch on the Pentagon lawn, no large sections of airplane, no cars from the adjacent I-395 disturbed by the enormous jet-wake, and no publicly available video evidence of this incredible feat - despite the existence of at least 83 cameras on buildings and lamp posts encircling the Pentagon.

"I shan't get into the aerodynamic impossibility of flying a large commercial jetliner 20 feet above the ground at over 400 MPH. A discussion on ground effect energy, vortex compression, downwash reaction, wake turbulence, and jetblast effects are beyond the scope of this article. Let it suffice to say that it is physically impossible to fly a 200,000-lbs airliner 20 feet above the ground at 400 MPH. The author, a pilot and aeronautical engineer, challenges any pilot in the world to do so in any large high-speed aircraft that has a relatively low wing-loading (such as a commercial jet). I.e., to fly the craft at 400 MPH, 20 feet above ground in a flat trajectory over a distance of one mile. (Remember that when a plane is landing conventionally, it is traveling somewhere around 150 mph, producing SIGNIFICANTLY less wake than a plane traveling at 400 mph.)

"Furthermore, it is known that the craft impacted the Pentagon's ground floor. For purposes of reference: If a 757 were placed on the ground on its engine nacelles (I.e., gear retracted as in flight profile), its nose would be about fifteen feet above the ground! Ergo, for the aircraft to impact the ground floor of the Pentagon, Hanjour would have needed to have flown in with the engines buried in the Pentagon lawn. Some pilot. At any rate, why is such ultra-low-level flight aerodynamically impossible? Because the reactive force of the hugely powerful downwash sheet, coupled with the compressibility effects of the tip vortices, simply will not allow the aircraft to get any lower to the ground than approximately one half the distance of its wingspan - until speed is drastically reduced, which, of course, is what happens during normal landings."

A. Whistle Blowers

Defenders of the official story say over and over and over again, if 9/11 was truly an inside job, if these planes truly did pull off unreasonable maneuvers, if this conspiracy really was hatched, there would be a litany of whistle blowers trying to expose these crimes. The simple response to this comment is, there is. There is an enormous number of pilots, aeronautical engineers, FAA flight controllers, military officers, military intelligence operatives, intelligence analysts, FBI employees, and others with expertise in these fields who have come together into organizations with the explicit intent of exposing the crimes of 9/11. Here is a very short list of a few members of one of these 'whistle-blower' organizations, 'Pilots for 9/11 Truth' - www.pilotsfor911truth.org

Robert Balsamo 4000+ Total Flight Time Former: Independence Air/Atlantic Coast Airlines

Glen Stanish 15,000+ Total Flight Time American Airlines, ATA, TWA, Continental

Captain Russ Wittenberg (ret) 30,000+ Total Flight Time Former Pan Am, United United States Air Force (ret) Over 100 Combat Missions Flown??

John Lear Son of Bill Lear Founder, creator of the Lear Jet Corporation More than 40 years of Flying 19,000+ Total Flight Time

Captain Jeff Latas USAF (ret) Captain - JetBlue Airways

Ted Muga Naval Aviator - Retired Commander, USNR

Col Robert Bowman USAF (ret) Directed all the 'Star Wars' programs under Presidents Ford and Carter - 101 combat missions

Alfons Olszewski Founder Veterans For Truth US Army (ret) Aircraft Maintenance Crew Chief

Robin Hordon Former Boston Center Controller Commercial Pilot

John Panarelli Friend and fellow aviator of John Ogonowski - Capt. AA #1111,000+ Total Flight Time Eastern Metro, Braniff, Ryan International, Emery Worldwide, Polar Air Cargo

Lt. Colonel Shelton F. Lankford United States Marine Corps (ret) 10,000+ Total Flight Time 303 Combat Missions

Captain Dan Govatos 10,000+ Total Flight Time Former Chief Pilot of Casino Express airlines Director of Operations Training at Polar Air George

Nelson Colonel USAF (Ret.) Licensed Commercial Pilot and Aircraft Mechanic

Dennis Spear Army Aviator (ret) 7000+ Total Flight Time Operations Officer, Aviation Safety Officer

Captain Joe H. Ferguson 30,000+ Total Flight Time (ret) USAF (ret)

For a full list, click here.
http://www.911hardfacts.com/report_14.htm

It is completely unintelligent to suggest there is not enough evidence to suspect there are serious problems with the fairy-tale of 9/11 .. which is not what I'm suggesting you are doing.

 

[Damocles]

I got sucked back in for a time. But I will stick to what I said before, there really is no moving the mind when people have made it up this way.

I sought conspiracy because I don't trust the government, I found other information when speaking to those whom I know aren't trying to "trick" me, trying to perpetuate theories, who don't have an agenda.

I refuse to allow my preconceived notions and mistrust to rule my mind. There are better things to argue about, but none that make some people so emotive and angry. I'm not here to make you angry, but I will maintain that the attempt to dismiss what people understand as "simplistic" or "foolish" doesn't help your case.

You will believe what you want to regardless of what people post here today, taking from sites that report what supports your preconceived ideas. What I suggest is to get away from the computer, speak to somebody you know, not somebody provided by a group who is a "decorated pilot", or that you have never met before being introduced to the "Engineer" (I'm an Engineer, but not a structural Engineer. I could be introduced to you as an Engineer and it wouldn't even be a lie, but it wouldn't change that my expertise lies elsewhere.)

Seek more information than from these sites. I have.

 

[blackascoal]

also BAC... due take note of this one simple fact....

The Madrid building has NOTHING to do with the towers or WTC7. NOTHING.

It was not hit by a 767 full of fuel.

It was not hit and gutted by massive debris from other superstructures collapsing.

It was not the same structural design as the towers.

So enough of the deception. They are not the same situation.

You're repeating a lie that I don't know if you know is a lie.

WTC7 WAS NOT HIT BY LARGE FALLING DEBRIS

I showed you a picture of the building as it collapses .. show me where you see any damage from debris.

If you like, I'll show you close-ups of the building before it collapses .. no damage by debris.

The "debris" lie was constructed to counter the evidence that there were no raging fires as first said.

WTC7 was not the same strctural design as the towers, but it fell in the exact same way .. first time in the history of Man, even though many buildings have been hit by planes .. WTC7 WAS NOT HIT BY ANY PLANE.

 

[blackascoal]

Superfreak,

In regards to your big as plane flying at tremendous speed loaded with fuel theory .. here's the Pentagon just after being hit by exactly such a plane ..

If you look real hard you can see where the fully loaded big ass plane supposedly hit .. which left a 16 by 14ft hole just under the collapsed portion of the roof .. which didn't collapse until half and hour after the plane hit .. even though a 757 is almost as tall as the building .. and there are no burn or skid marks on the still manicured lawn which would suggest the tip of the plane HAD to be higher than the building when it hit.

Oh yeah .. then there is this ..

What's wrong with this picture?

It's right next to the impact site of the crash, yet there wasn't even enough smoke to cover the white walls of a room next to where a big ass fully loaded plane hit that is exactly like the ones which supposedly melted giant buildings.

There is an open PAPER book sitting on a WOODEN stool, neither burned or damaged.

One floor up there is a PLASTIC monitor sitting on a file cabinet .. unmelted.

I'm comfortable with whatever anyone chooses to believe.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

You're repeating a lie that I don't know if you know is a lie.

WTC7 WAS NOT HIT BY LARGE FALLING DEBRIS

I showed you a picture of the building as it collapses .. show me where you see any damage from debris.

If you like, I'll show you close-ups of the building before it collapses .. no damage by debris.

The "debris" lie was constructed to counter the evidence that there were no raging fires as first said.

WTC7 was not the same strctural design as the towers, but it fell in the exact same way .. first time in the history of Man, even though many buildings have been hit by planes .. WTC7 WAS NOT HIT BY ANY PLANE.

AGAIN.... your photo is from the OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE FUCKING BUILDING.... IT DOES NOT SHOW THE SIDE THAT WAS EXPOSED TO THE TOWERS.

YOU ONCE AGAIN ARE IGNORING THE REPORTS THAT STATED THE OTHER SIDE WAS GUTTED.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Superfreak,

In regards to your big as plane flying at tremendous speed loaded with fuel theory .. here's the Pentagon just after being hit by exactly such a plane ..

If you look real hard you can see where the fully loaded big ass plane supposedly hit .. which left a 16 by 14ft hole just under the collapsed portion of the roof .. which didn't collapse until half and hour after the plane hit .. even though a 757 is almost as tall as the building .. and there are no burn or skid marks on the still manicured lawn which would suggest the tip of the plane HAD to be higher than the building when it hit.

Oh yeah .. then there is this ..

What's wrong with this picture?

It's right next to the impact site of the crash, yet there wasn't even enough smoke to cover the white walls of a room next to where a big ass fully loaded plane hit that is exactly like the ones which supposedly melted giant buildings.

There is an open PAPER book sitting on a WOODEN stool, neither burned or damaged.

One floor up there is a PLASTIC monitor sitting on a file cabinet .. unmelted.

I'm comfortable with whatever anyone chooses to believe.

Again you are trying to compare apples to oranges. Educate yourself on the FACT that different buildings can be constructed in different manners. Or do you honestly expect anyone to believe that the structure of the Pentagon and that of the towers was identical (except for height of course)?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Superfreak,

In regards to your big as plane flying at tremendous speed loaded with fuel theory .. here's the Pentagon just after being hit by exactly such a plane ..

If you look real hard you can see where the fully loaded big ass plane supposedly hit .. which left a 16 by 14ft hole just under the collapsed portion of the roof .. which didn't collapse until half and hour after the plane hit .. even though a 757 is almost as tall as the building .. and there are no burn or skid marks on the still manicured lawn which would suggest the tip of the plane HAD to be higher than the building when it hit.

Oh yeah .. then there is this ..

What's wrong with this picture?

It's right next to the impact site of the crash, yet there wasn't even enough smoke to cover the white walls of a room next to where a big ass fully loaded plane hit that is exactly like the ones which supposedly melted giant buildings.

There is an open PAPER book sitting on a WOODEN stool, neither burned or damaged.

One floor up there is a PLASTIC monitor sitting on a file cabinet .. unmelted.

I'm comfortable with whatever anyone chooses to believe.

Please source that second picture....

 

[blackascoal]

And again, seasoned decorated pilots who say they are seasoned decorated pilots on the internet. The reality is, all you have to do is go talk to a pilot of an airliner. They will tell you that it is possible to do that, and the path they flew showed a level of inexperience rather than perfection. It won't be too hard to do that.

Instead you believe a link.

Talk to somebody that you know, you'll hear differently and reject somebody else that you know, tell them what a conspiracy they are part of as they stand with their mouths open, stunned. They aren't out to trick you.

And the thousands of engineers, etc. that we can post from on the other side?

Either you believe a link, or you go and talk to somebody who you know carries the information. I chose to read the link, then use that to go and talk to somebody who I know holds the information that was pertinent. You know, somebody who designs really big buildings.

Brother, please go away.

Your argumnts are stupid .. increasingly stupider.

This is Col. Robert Bowman, not some internet creation as you suggest in your desperately stupider comment.

Dr. Robert Bowman: the impossibility of the official government story
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlGm9ZorT4Q&feature=related"]YouTube - Dr. Robert Bowman: the impossibility of the official government story[/ame]

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0274.shtml

 

[blackascoal]

AGAIN.... your photo is from the OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE FUCKING BUILDING.... IT DOES NOT SHOW THE SIDE THAT WAS EXPOSED TO THE TOWERS.

YOU ONCE AGAIN ARE IGNORING THE REPORTS THAT STATED THE OTHER SIDE WAS GUTTED.

That would be this side of the building ..

Does it look gutted to you?

Additionally .. Your false argument contradicts every investigation, including FEMA"s own ..

5.1 Introduction

World Trade Center Seven collapsed on September 11, 2001, at 5:20 p.m. There were no known casualties due to this collapse. The performance of WTC 7 is of significant interest because it appears the collapse was due primarily to fire, rather than any impact damage from the collapsing towers

The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence.

Believe what you want .. I don't really care.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

That would be this side of the building ..

Does it look gutted to you?

Additionally .. Your false argument contradicts every investigation, including FEMA"s own ..

5.1 Introduction

World Trade Center Seven collapsed on September 11, 2001, at 5:20 p.m. There were no known casualties due to this collapse. The performance of WTC 7 is of significant interest because it appears the collapse was due primarily to fire, rather than any impact damage from the collapsing towers

The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence.

Believe what you want .. I don't really care.

"FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors — along with the building's unusual construction — were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse."


As for your photo... yes, it looks like it is gutted... amazingly, the photo you show has the smoke, the hole from the debris, but the smoke does not allow you to see how bad the damage is and the top of the building is cut off in the photo... so you cannot see how far up the damage is.

 

[blackascoal]

"FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors — along with the building's unusual construction — were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse."


As for your photo... yes, it looks like it is gutted... amazingly, the photo you show has the smoke, the hole from the debris, but the smoke does not allow you to see how bad the damage is and the top of the building is cut off in the photo... so you cannot see how far up the damage is.

It's an incredibly ridiculous story.

The building is not gutted and was not hit by heavy debris .. and with all the melting buildings, there is no explanation for any of them falling at free fall speed .. which would suggest that none of the floors offered any resistance.

It's an incredibly ridiculous story.

But making people smarter is not my responsibilty

 

[blackascoal]

Please source that second picture....

http://www.thepowerhour.com/911_analysis/report.htm

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

It's an incredibly ridiculous story.

The building is not gutted and was not hit by heavy debris .. and with all the melting buildings, there is no explanation for any of them falling at free fall speed .. which would suggest that none of the floors offered any resistance.

It's an incredibly ridiculous story.

But making people smarter is not my responsibilty

LMAO... so you cant see the big hole in the photo you put up? The fire that is inside? The smoke billowing out?

AND you will ignore the fact that the later reports stated that the report that YOU and other conspiracy theorists point to was WRONG.

You definitely shouldn't focus on trying to make others smarter. You have your own work cut out for you in educating yourself.

Your blatant refusal to look at anything that breaks up your fantasy is pathetic. Do you believe in Santa too?

 

[Damocles]

Brother, please go away.

Your argumnts are stupid .. increasingly stupider.

This is Col. Robert Bowman, not some internet creation as you suggest in your desperately stupider comment.

Dr. Robert Bowman: the impossibility of the official government story
YouTube - Dr. Robert Bowman: the impossibility of the official government story

Oh, I'll be "going away" but it isn't because my "arguments are stupid", it's because you are a block of stone who refuses to listen to any information other than your own.

I took yours, I asked people who would know, and I found out differently than you and I suggest you do the same. People with agendas push them, talk to people without them.