'What about building 7'?

[NoahFence]

There were 24 core columns in WTC 7.

The fires in the building were most likely due to arson to provide some sort of cover story for the collapse, as it seems impossible for the North Tower collapse occurring 350 feet away, with only about 4% of it aflame and collapsing with copious amounts of fire dousing gypsum dust, to have caused fires on ten floors of WTC 7. There also is no photographic evidence of the fires in WTC 7 until 12:15 PM (nearly two hours after the North Tower collapsed). The story is quite weak and I am surprised people are falling for it.

^
The best and brightest twoof has to offer.

Tell you what kiddo. Give us your honest theory of the entire day's events and I'll donate a c note to your master, Gage. Everything has to tie into each other.

Sound fair?

 

[BasqueArch]

delete

 

[BasqueArch]

There were 24 core columns in WTC 7.
The fires in it were most likely due to arson as a cover for the collapse and their being set by the collapse of the North Tower is also a cover story.

^
The best and brightest twoof has to offer.

Tell you what kiddo. Give us your honest theory of the entire day's events and I'll donate a c note to your master, Gage. Everything has to tie into each other.

Sound fair?

The gashes and fire on WTC7 was a cover story for the collapse of the north tower onto it which was a cover story for the demolition of the north tower which was a cover story for the plane crashing into it which was a cover story for the misdirection demolition of the south tower which was a cover story for the plane crashing onto it which was a cover story for Larry Silverstein to collect enough insurance money to rebuild a much more expensive new WTC7 with less rentable area years later but not enough to rebuild the WTC complex because he tried to pay the least amount of insurance but the lenders forced him to buy at least what the PANJ had and his lawyers had the wrong wording on the insurance so he got much less that what he should have to cover him in this plot, and as a cover story for NWO Clinton to steal poppies from Afghanistan and sand from Iraq.
And that’s why WTC7 was silently blowed up.

 

[DGM]

There were 24 core columns in WTC 7.

The fires in the building were most likely due to arson to provide some sort of cover story for the collapse, as it seems impossible for the North Tower collapse occurring 350 feet away, with only about 4% of it aflame and collapsing with copious amounts of fire dousing gypsum dust, to have caused fires on ten floors of WTC 7. There also is no photographic evidence of the fires in WTC 7 until 12:15 PM (nearly two hours after the North Tower collapsed). The story is quite weak and I am surprised people are falling for it.

A house near me had a tree fall on it the other day. The house burned to the ground. Interestingly enough the tree had 0% fire. There was another one explode and burn due to ice falling off the roof.

You really can't imagine how fires could have started in building 7? You really need to look outside your box.

 

[Spanx]

There were 24 core columns in WTC 7.

The fires in the building were most likely due to arson to provide some sort of cover story for the collapse.

Yeh, I'm starting to wonder if it was Barry Jennings, we know he was in there and he had every opportunity, I'm sure there is a video of him admitting it somewhere?

 

[ProBonoShill]

Where about? You mean the building exterior ?

Hey Gerry, why do you keep dodging all these posts?

Why are you exhibiting such rude behaviour?

Does your analysis cover as many elements?

A simple yes or no will do. You can add your justifications if you want.

What did you model for your CD theory?



There are big holes in your CD theory, better work on those holes first.

Do you have a list of the holes?

It's not a better approach it's a cowardly approach.

So let me get this straight.
You want to discuss the minutiae of a report created using a limited model, yet are too afraid to discuss even general details of your CD fantasy?

Really? That's your plan?
LOL!

I'm guessing the reason your posting on this 3rd party website is an attempt to convince members here or onlookers that 9/11 was an inside jobby job? Correct?

I mean why else would you be here.

Do you think all the posts you ignore, all the questions you dodge, all the quote mining and cherry picking are really helping your credibility?

I'm predicting you'll ignore this post, like you have several times in this thread and others. Just remember every time you do, it shows you're too afraid to discuss your 9/11 theory.

Trying to prove NIST's model (there's that word again) has some insignificant minor error and equating that to inside job is beyond laughable. Couple that with the fact you won't touch your moronic CD conclusion with a 10 foot pole and we can only surmise you're not very adept at discussing the entirety of events that occurred on 9/11. For some strange reason twoofers these days always seem to have trouble with this.

Let's discuss Shanksville.
Let's discuss the Pentagon.
Let's talk about WTC 1.
or WTC 2.

No No No No! But hey NIST was off half an inch on some minor detail in their limited model created for a building that wasn't even attacked: yeah awesome let's talk about that!!!!

No twoofer has ever put forth a coherent theory on the complete events of 9/11 and judging by your posts (and those of your buddy Ziggy) that won't be changing anytime soon.

Oh and just in case your wondering how successful the truther brigade has been in the past with regards to convincing the lurkers, this might help.

...that reminds me, you didn't get back to Oystein or Reactor drone about the top and bottom/z axis thingy

I had a couple of posts with questions for gerrycan that he ignored. I'd really like a reply to the first one, as his credibility is at stake, so please, gerrycan, hop back to that post on page 111 and explain to me why you fed me false information about the chapter 11 model, because if you don't, I will conclude that you did so, and probably will continue to do so, for deliberate and nefarious purposes:




As for the second unanswered post, I can understand if you want to maintain secrecy and continue to conspire clandestinely:

I should add one more question: Is AE911Truth paying for this project out of donations?

Re: the highlighted above.

Truthers are so predictable.

Is the ISF now managing Randi's million dollar challenge, I want to collect my money.

 

[GlennB]

There were 24 core columns in WTC 7.

The fires in the building were most likely due to arson to provide some sort of cover story for the collapse, as it seems impossible for the North Tower collapse occurring 350 feet away, with only about 4% of it aflame and collapsing with copious amounts of fire dousing gypsum dust, to have caused fires on ten floors of WTC 7. There also is no photographic evidence of the fires in WTC 7 until 12:15 PM (nearly two hours after the North Tower collapsed). The story is quite weak and I am surprised people are falling for it.

Ah yes, my hasty mistake - just looking at the numbering of the columns. Still, 24x8x4 charges (pushing 800) , going off at much the same time? It still didn't happen.

 

[tsig]

There were 24 core columns in WTC 7.

The fires in the building were most likely due to arson to provide some sort of cover story for the collapse, as it seems impossible for the North Tower collapse occurring 350 feet away, with only about 4% of it aflame and collapsing with copious amounts of fire dousing gypsum dust, to have caused fires on ten floors of WTC 7. There also is no photographic evidence of the fires in WTC 7 until 12:15 PM (nearly two hours after the North Tower collapsed). The story is quite weak and I am surprised people are falling for it.

All your dead horses belong to us.

 

[DGM]

The fires in the building were most likely due to arson to provide some sort of cover story for the collapse, as it seems impossible for the North Tower collapse occurring 350 feet away, with only about 4% of it aflame and collapsing with copious amounts of fire dousing gypsum dust, to have caused fires on ten floors of WTC 7. There also is no photographic evidence of the fires in WTC 7 until 12:15 PM (nearly two hours after the North Tower collapsed). The story is quite weak and I am surprised people are falling for it.

Quoting to show the rigor of AE 9/11s top engineer.

I don't think there's any doubt who has the weak story.

 

[NoahFence]

The gashes and fire on WTC7 was a cover story for the collapse of the north tower onto it which was a cover story for the demolition of the north tower which was a cover story for the plane crashing into it which was a cover story for the misdirection demolition of the south tower which was a cover story for the plane crashing onto it which was a cover story for Larry Silverstein to collect enough insurance money to rebuild a much more expensive new WTC7 with less rentable area years later but not enough to rebuild the WTC complex because he tried to pay the least amount of insurance but the lenders forced him to buy at least what the PANJ had and his lawyers had the wrong wording on the insurance so he got much less that what he should have to cover him in this plot, and as a cover story for NWO Clinton to steal poppies from Afghanistan and sand from Iraq.
And that’s why WTC7 was silently blowed up.

You're missing two planes! Just like real twoofers. Well done!

 

[jaydeehess]

WTC 7 was 144 feet wide and if the entire east side interior had been collapsing when the east penthouse went down there certainly would have been sunlight seen through more than just the top story windows. Your camera angle theory does not explain it away.

The structure south of the core would not shadow those windows?

Removal of eight stories of the core would have left the exterior unsupported for those eight stories and caused it to buckle. The minimum resistance during buckling over an eight story column length would have been less than 5% of the column strength. The falling core would also be pulling the exterior inward, through the attached beams, so the exterior would essentially fall in free fall and it actually could experience a little higher acceleration than gravity due to a whip action from the already falling core.

Oh Anthony, you'll be a debunker yet. After all this IS essentially what debunkers have been saying for a few years now.
Like I said, tire tread marks on Chandler.

See above answer. There is nothing strange about it. However, 0.75 seconds of a miniscule amount of acceleration above gravity would not explain residual resistance being overcome to retain freefall for the next 1.50 seconds. That is really a silly notion. The only way to get a symmetric free fall over eight stories is for the entire 24 column core to have been removed over eight stories. The mechanics are also right for it to include a slightly over free fall acceleration at the beginning due to the whip action of the already falling core.

The "next 1.5 seconds"? Are you surmising that it attained over 'g' instantaneously? In fact it rampoed up from zero , to and through 'g' and then ramped down again.

The problem with accepting the NIST claim of a naturally collapsing interior (core) progressing from east to west is that the exterior of the building comes down over its full length and width simultaneously. There also wasn't any exterior deformation on the east side when they say it was collapsing first and then spread to the west. The core would have been removed starting in its center and moving outward to effect a pull-in and keep the fall somewhat tight. The difference in timing between inner and outer core columns being pulled would only have been fractions of a second. The core removal, starting at its center, is very likely to be what caused the horizontal kink in the north face as the collapse started.

You seem to always ignore the " kink" that occurred in the vicinity of the first visible collapse. At that line the entire structure begin deforming with roofline and all floors tilting down at the line of the kink.

The east penthouse being taken out by removing column 79 high in the building and eight stories of the entire core being removed to cause the full collapse shortly after can explain everything that is observed.

If you ignore motive and means and just assume they can do anything. You realize of course you have to invent out of thin air, the spooks running about surreptitiously planting explosives, hundreds of them. Your reasoning for causing in fall of the EMP is utterly ridiculous given it has the evil perpetrators not giving a rat's buttock about murdering thousands of people or destroying or causing major damage to over a dozen buildings, making thousands of people homeless, destroying a wing of the Pentagon
BUT
wanting to keep damage to a Post Office down to an absolute minimum.
It would be hilarious if not so macabre.

 

[jaydeehess]

Quoting to show the rigor of AE 9/11s top engineer.

I don't think there's any doubt who has the weak story.

Oh yeah, I mentioned the spooks planting explosives unseen (explosives that went unheard) there's also the spooks running around unseen and tossing matches.

Since the towers could not start fires I guess those spooks , fire bugs they are, must have done WTC5 as well.http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/wtc5.html

 

[DGM]

Oh yeah, I mentioned the spooks planting explosives unseen (explosives that went unheard) there's also the spooks running around unseen and tossing matches.

Since the towers could not start fires I guess those spooks , fire bugs they are, must have done WTC5 as well.http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/wtc5.html

Just once I'd like a conspiracy theorist to explain why anyone would take down building 7. Larry Silverstein didn't profit, it was not in his best interest. Did the CIA and the FBI (that offices) decide it's better to dump the contents in the street instead of using a paper shredder? "Public safety", that's the worst joke of all.

There is no logic behind the CD of building 7.

 

[jaydeehess]

Just once I'd like a conspiracy theorist to explain why anyone would take down building 7. Larry Silverstein didn't profit, it was not in his best interest. Did the CIA and the FBI (that offices) decide it's better to dump the contents in the street instead of using a paper shredder? "Public safety", that's the worst joke of all.

There is no logic behind the CD of building 7.

Why destroy every single WTC structure?

 

[DGM]

Why destroy every single WTC structure?

Why claim Larry Silverstein ever controlled the purse strings on the WTC complex (outside of 7)? Their research is cursory at best.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

The fires in the building were most likely due to arson to provide some sort of cover story for the collapse, as it seems impossible for the North Tower collapse occurring 350 feet away, with only about 4% of it aflame and collapsing with copious amounts of fire dousing gypsum dust, to have caused fires on ten floors of WTC 7. There also is no photographic evidence of the fires in WTC 7 until 12:15 PM (nearly two hours after the North Tower collapsed). The story is quite weak and I am surprised people are falling for it.

Another interesting point to add is that there were no fires in either the Post Office or Verizon buildings. They were on either side of WTC 7, like WTC 7 were about 350 feet away from the North Tower, and also had some small amount of debris damage, but no fires. This is while WTC 7 is alleged to have had fires started on ten floors by the North Tower collapse which we also need to believe somehow remained unseen for about two hours after the North Tower collapse.

Anyone who knows these details and still believes the story that the fires on ten stories in WTC 7 were started by the North Tower collapse has to be considered gullible.

 

[DGM]

Another interesting point to add, which shows the more likely reason for the fires in WTC 7 was arson, and that the notion that the North Tower collapse caused the fires is unlikely, is that there were no fires in either the Post Office or Verizon buildings, both of which were directly across from the WTC site next to WTC 7 and also had some small and insignificant debris damage as WTC 7 did.

What about the Deutsche Bank building? Never happened or was that also arson.

You're getting more desperate every time you post.

 

[Animal]

WTC 7 and also had some small and insignificant debris damage as WTC 7 did.

It is hard to believe you are still trotting out that dead horse to try and pass of as prime beef.


I guess you are to used to your fellow cultists that swallow that BS hook line and sinker.

 

[NoahFence]

Another interesting point to add, which shows the more likely reason for the fires in WTC 7 was arson, and that the notion that the North Tower collapse caused the fires is unlikely, is that there were no fires in either the Post Office or Verizon buildings. They were on either side of WTC 7, about 350 feet away from the WTC site like WTC 7, and also had some small amount of debris damage, but no fire.

You lie.

Why?

 

[GlennB]

Another interesting point to add, which shows the more likely reason for the fires in WTC 7 was arson, and that the notion that the North Tower collapse caused the fires is unlikely, is that there were no fires in either the Post Office or Verizon buildings, both of which were directly across from the WTC site adjacent to WTC 7 and also had some small and insignificant debris damage as WTC 7 did.

WTC7 was hit by at least one major lump of burning debris from WTC1. Those other two buildings were not.

But you're missing the point. Absent the unpredictable strike(s) of burning debris on WTC7 there would have been no reason to expect raging fires in the building. What then?