Well..I started this thread for another member to discuss the events of WTC7...I chose the word "anomalies" just to be as diplomatic as possible. That member has since chosen to avoid this discussion.
WTC Building 7 Anomalies
- Thread starter MacGyver1968
- Start date
Well..I started this thread for another member to discuss the events of WTC7...I chose the word "anomalies" just to be as diplomatic as possible. That member has since chosen to avoid this discussion.
Woot!! I just broke 6000 posts...someone buy me a beer!
So the fire burned for an hour and 15 minutes, and was fought by firefighters and caused "slight" damage. The WTC7 burned for 7 hours and was not fought....how do these two examples compare?
Hard to compare, true. Fire can be kinda random no? You guys are all really convinced that fire took out all of WTC7 main support structures at exactly the same time...amazing.
It didn't need to. As each of the columns failed, they transferred their loads to the surrounding columns. When enough of the columns failed, they imparted a load greater than the breaking strength of the remaining columns..which caused them fail all at once. No explosives or "nanothermite" required.
wtf is nanothermite.
Ummm problem : then it doesn't come down all in one piece. Someone was so generous to link us to some "real" demos where they take out sections of a building and they just slide right off until the next section gets ignited.
If you mean to tell me they made this building to fail(instantly) completely if any main beam failed, then I guess our conversation ends there...
Ummm problem : then it doesn't come down all in one piece. Someone was so generous to link us to some "real" demos where they take out sections of a building and they just slide right off until the next section gets ignited.
If you mean to tell me they made this building to fail(instantly) completely if any main beam failed, then I guess our conversation ends there...
Who brought up nanothermite goof?
First...nanothermite. Back in the early days of 9/11 truth the truthers claimed that conventional explosives were used to bring down the 3 buildings at wtc. The only problem, as debunkers pointed out..was that conventional explosives make REALLY BIG EXPLOSIVE SOUNDS. The truthers really didn't have a way to explain this so they switched their theory to thermite (a combination of aluminum powder and iron oxide). When the debunkers showed that conventional thermite didn't react quickly enough or had enough energy to cut the columns...the truthers then changed their theory once again to nanothermite...thermite that has the particles at nano-meter scale...a substance that is pretty much unknown except in a few experimental laboratories. With this new substance they could claim anything...that it's both a incendiary and an explosive.
As you pointed out...most CD's do not bring the entire building down all at once. The building is brought down in stages to get the debris to fall where they want it. I don't think the evil perps that CD an empty building for no apparent reason would have considered this.
Does your education in demolition of large office buildings consist of anything more than watching youtube videos (and particularly, youtube videos about 9/11 conspiracy theories)?
If not, why should anyone care about your opinion of what a video of WTC 7's collapse looks like?
I note that a central thrust of most 9/11 conspiracy theory material is a certain catering to the reader/viewer's ego - specifically, the implication that the dynamics of modern office building collapse under fire/kinetic damage is amenable to amateur analysis of photos and videos, and that actual experts with advanced degrees and years of real field experience don't know anything that some shmoe watching youtube can't learn in under 30 seconds. It's preposterous on its face, but one will never go broke playing to the egos of conspiracy theorists. Or, you might go broke, but it won't be for lack of an audience.
The Loose Change "documentary" was where this really jumped out at me - the idea that we can't trust all these independent experts, but somehow a layman watching youtube is going to learn enough about thermite and skyscraper dynamics in one hour to venture a meaningful opinion on mechanisms of structural failure from selectively-edited photos and videos. It's crazy, but it flatters the viewer's ego (also by telling them that they're in on a "secret" and so in some kind of information/intellectual elite).
The other leg that conspiracy theories walk on being the need to see the world as a controlled, predictable place. The idea that a few dozen shitheads in caves on the other end of the world could destroy the Twin Towers is terrifying in a way that a massive government conspiracy is not. It suggests that the idea of an ordered, controlled world is simply an illusion, and that we could all just suddenly descend into madness, barbarity and deprivation on a massive scale at any time. That we're subject to mere chaos and chance. Many people prefer to believe that governments (and specifically, the US government) completely control all aspects of life and business and everything else. Even if they are posited as malign, there is still comfort in the idea that events are controlled and planned - that our lives are governed by some powerful intellect.
Last edited:
I loved that whole post Quad, but especially this bit:
So then... Conspiracy theories are the result of Cognitive Dissonance
I don't really care if anyone thinks I'm a loon. Guess what, I've got nothing to loose here, I get to speak my mind. I haven't actually watched a lot of conspiracy videos (except some about WTC 7 which jumped out at me on it's own).
I got a set of eyeballs I calls em, like I sees em. I don't think fire brings down any building like that, I think the report lied. I could be wrong sure. It doesn't matter and that is true.
I notice the people going with the official story on WTC7 keep trying to bring in all the other B.S about sept 11. I am not doing that...I have no idea if that stuff is true or not. I know WTC 7 did not go down from fire. I have eyeballs.
I got a set of eyeballs I calls em, like I sees em. I don't think fire brings down any building like that, I think the report lied. I could be wrong sure. It doesn't matter and that is true.
I notice the people going with the official story on WTC7 keep trying to bring in all the other B.S about sept 11. I am not doing that...I have no idea if that stuff is true or not. I know WTC 7 did not go down from fire. I have eyeballs.
Well...no offence NF..that is called cognitive dissonance. Even though you have no experience...you rely on your untrained eyes...rather than science to influence what you think brought down WTC7.
Yes In this case I will.
It doesn't matter if I am right or wrong.
Yeah. Ha Ha, very good. Nice hypothesis. I suppose a classically trained aerodynamics engineer could come up with a convincing argument why flying pigs should exist too without being held to standards of evidence and rational physics.
That was a convincing conspiracy theory. Thanks for the entertaining read.
Well. . . except for two glaring items that even my nine year old can detect and point out. And his favorite subject in school is science.
First, at no time in history, before or since, has any modern steel frame structure ever collapsed because of office fires. This is a fact. Engineers and architects are well trained and competent in their trade, and have for decades designed buildings such as these to withstand the ravages of earthquakes, fires, planes, natural disasters, etc. When they do succumb to nature, their collapse is asymmetrical, not symmetrical. A student of nature and the universe knows this. Just one other example besides this building exhibiting this type of behavior during a fire with resulting similar collapse would make this NIST report a reasonable hypothesis. Otherwise, it is as reliable as the bibles "theory" of creation.
Second, they wrote, "Additionally, in its study of WTC 7, NIST considered all available data and evaluated a range of possible collapse mechanisms," which is in fact. . . untrue! They failed to investigate the most glaringly bloody obvious, didn't they? Um. . . controlled demolition? Simply, they failed to look at how the building fell, the classic signs of controlled demolition and adhered to Occam's razor. Why didn't they look for signs of controlled demolition? Because, they already assumed, (or were told) that was impossible.
Then stop arguing that the WTC7 was demolished by the US government rather than a victim of a 7 hour unfought fire.