Roundhead, the evidence you present is lacking.
The building collapsed at virtually free fall speed. Several studies have been done(Including by Legge)which show from observing a certain point of the building as reference, and timing and calculating its speed, it was "virtually" free fall speed. It fell though basically air, through the path of MOST resistance, the structure itself.
It did not collapse at virtually free fall. Anyone with a ruler and a copy of any of the video recordings of the collapse can easily determine that during the portions of the collapse visible on video, the roof line accelerated considerably more slowly than free fall. (Are you claiming it accelerated faster once it was out of view? If so, what evidence do you have for that notion?)
The structure did not fall through itself, it collapsed from near the bottom.
It fell along the path of the greatest force vector (gravity) which was also the path of the net force vector (gravity being stronger than the resistance), as Newton's laws dictate.
Billowing clouds of dust are a characteristic of CD.
Dust is a characteristic of building collapse regardless of cause, so it is not evidence of CD, only evidence that the building collapsed, which I think we all agree it did.
Controlling the rubble pile by pulling in the exterior columns to fall inward, are evidence of a sucessful CD
Where in the videos of the collapse do we see the exterior structure falling inward? If they fell inward why did they hit adjacent buildings?
From the rubble pile it appears that in the latter parts of the collapse, as the top floors began impacting the ground, some walls fell inward and some (on the opposite sides) fell outward. This means that some of the horizontal framing retained the ability to transmit force horizontally as it fell. This is evidence (though not strong evidence) against CD, because a successful CD designed to collapse the building inward must sever all of those horizontal connections.
The kink in the Penthouse is a telltale sign of symetrical widespread interior column failure.An attribute of a sucessful demo, and easy to note on demo videos for a comparison.
The kink was not in the center of the penthouse, nor in the center of the building. So it does not in any way indicate symmetry.
Widespread interior column failure does indeed, however, appear to have occurred. We know this because the building collapsed. What alternative possibilities does this rule out, however? A large building cannot completely collapse without widespread interior column failure. Like the dust cloud, if it doesn't rule out any other cause of collapse then the fact that columns failed in the collapse is not evidence in favor of CD.
Reports by witnesses state the bottom floor was blown out prior to the onset of destruction.This characteristic is common on demo's.
Blown out, really? Like with explosives? Please explain how witnesses in a position to clearly see the bottom floor survived the explosive blowing out of this glass-encased structure.
Or perhaps they were really describing the effects of the bottom portion buckling as the lower parts of the facade collapsed, a process which although violent, would have left those witnesses alive to report what they saw? (To figure out which possibility is more likely, ask yourself whether the witnesses you're referring to were alive or dead when they described what they saw.)
Witnesses state the building was cordoned off and the collapse expected as early as 3:00 in the afternoon. This is always done prior to a demo, its collapse is expected and the area is cleared.
Like dust and column failure, this is consistent with a CD but not evidence in favor of CD over other possible causes of collapse. Police would cordon off any building that was in imminent danger of collapse regardless of the reason.
Pile debris was removed prior to researchers being able to study it.This IS done on a CD because the cause is already known, no reason to examine the pile.
Please give one example where debris piles have been left intact for research purposes after the collapse of a building. Otherwise, I must conclude that the expedient removal of debris piles is completely normal procedure.
Deputy Chief Hayden:"It came down about 5 o�clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o�clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse".
This is evidence against CD. How would a fire chief know it was going to collapse in advance, if collapse was caused by CD?
Emergency worker:it was horrifying... about a second later the bottom floor caved out and the building followed after that... we saw the building crash down all the way to the ground... we were in shock." - 1010 WINS NYC News Radio
"Caved out?" I thought you said "witnesses" said the bottom floor "blasted out." "Caved out" sounds more like structural failure. I guess you were wrong.
Rescuer 3: "The building is about to blow up. Move it back!"
"We are walking back. There's a building about to blow up. There's flame and debris coming down."
Very large fires can blow up, which is ample reason to move bystanders away from them. (You might want to look up what "blow up" means in a glossary of firefighting terms.)
Again, evidence that rescuers knew the building was going to collapse is evidence against CD, since they would have no way of knowing that the building was secretly prepared for demolition.
The buildings collapse, if it was a CD, in the aftermath did exactly what a designed CD should do. In other words, building 7, in aftermath, looks exactly like what a Cd should look like, if sucessfull. Symetrical, no or virtually no collateral damage, neat tidy debris pile.
7 exhibited all of the features of a CD, nothing doesnt fit, it displays all the signature characteristics.
Not true. It lacks the following signature characteristics, among others:
- Sounds of explosive charges.
- Seismic effects of explosive charges.
- Prior gutting of the building and removal of all material likely to turn into shrapnel from the overpressure of the blasts, such as glass.
- License given by city authorities for the demolition to take place.
- Prior consent of the building owner.
- Avoidance of damage to the surrounding buildings.
Asymetrical damage doesnt agree with complete and symetrical near freefall failure.
Correct, but it does agree with the asymmetrical and not freefall failure that actually occurred.
No metal from the supposed failure area has been studied to support this "anti theory" of fire being the only cause.NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTS FIRE AS A CAUSE, of the building being pulverized and destroyed
There is no physical evidence that wtc7 was on fire? Really?
Where are multiple, huge concrete floor pieces in the rubble. Much as an eathquake can bring a building down, and photographic evidence shows it leaves large pancaked floor sections visible in the rubble, 7, if falling down only because of fire, should mimic this attribute, as both are in fact gravity collapses, and fire doesnt pulverize concrete. This is an extremely important point. Fire damage and earthquake damage should result in similar loking debris piles with intact or semi intact piles of floors visible.
Demolition charges do not pulverize concrete either. Nor does thermite.
However, I know from experience that impacting the ground can shatter concrete sheets into small pieces. Interestingly enough, the speed at which it hits the ground and how much other stuff falls on top of it (both of which are directly related to the height of the building) makes a great deal of difference in how pulverized it becomes.
Do you know a way that a 47-story steel frame building could collapse without shattering its concrete floors into small pieces? If so, I guess wtc7 didn't collapse in that particular way, because its concrete was pulverized. Demolition charges wouldn't pulverize it, thermite wouldn't pulverize it, so the impact of the collapse pulverized it. So it's not evidence in favor of CD, just more evidence that the building did indeed collapse.
Fire has never before brought down completely a steel framed building, and many have been on fire, longer, and more widespread.
Secret controlled demolition has never brought down completely a steel framed building, and many have been less profitable, owned by joos, and insured for much more money than wtc7.
The collapse was predicted, in spite of the fact the ultimate explanation for the buildings demise was a first time in history failure, that nobody in the city could have possibly have thought of in a historical perspective.
Except that we have statements of firefighters explaining what made them believe it was about to collapse. The building was shuddering, out of true, and making noises that the firefighters believed indicated structural deterioration going on. This is consistent with NIST's explanation for the collapse and it is entirely inconsistent with CD.
If it was a CD, its perfectly logical to predict demise ahead of time, and get people back and rope it off, in fact its normal.
If its fire alone, its illogical to predict demise, there is no precedent.
Fire has caused steel structures to collapse before. Firefighters don't worry about the exact mechanism, whether the cause is heat-weakening, prior structural damage, or unusually hot fire. They wouldn't be standing there saying "it's creaking and bulging but it won't collapse because the structural damage is insufficient and the fires aren't hot enough." They would have no way to know that those causes were insufficient, nor would they care. When the building shows clear signs of imminent collapse, they move bystanders (and themselves, if they cannot fight the fire) away.
Your evidence for CD is poor, and combined with the direct evidence against CD such as the lack of shock waves, shrapnel, and outward signs of explosions prior to the collapse, does not reach the level of being worthy of serious consideration.
Respectfully,
Myriad
