The Nal wrote: » How did they plant all of the explosives? And why bother? A load of planes crashing into buildings in America is enough justification for war. How do you explain Bin Laden discussing organising the attacks?
buzzerxx wrote: » I think it was cotrolled demolition. I reach this conclusion because I'm not an idiot. The speed of freefall defied all historical precedence for structures of that magnitude and level of engineering.
King Mob wrote: » Ok. So when you say controlled demolition, what do you mean? What method was used? And how do you know?
King Mob wrote: » Mm hmm? How long would it take a ball to drop from the same height as WTC7?
Cheerful Spring wrote: » Have we not addressed this already in this thread.
Cheerful Spring wrote: » I still puzzled by this?
King Mob wrote: » Nope. Not once. Only whining about it. You have never provided an answer to this. I know. It's because you can't do a simple physics problem. The fact you can't provide an answer shows that you don't know any physics or math and that you don't understand what free fall is.
Cheerful Spring wrote: » Your question is dumb in the first place. I still trying to understand what significance the ball dropped from the roof has?
King Mob wrote: » You give me a number and the math you used to reach that number, then we'll talk. Otherwise, you can't do math, you don't understand physics and you don't know what free fall is. The fact you can't answer a simply physics problem proves that.
Cheerful Spring wrote: » What number? .
King Mob wrote: » How long it would take for a ball dropped from the same height as WTC7 to reach the ground. Please give your answer in seconds. Please show your work. Just like in school. Otherwise, you can't do math, you don't understand physics and you don't know what free fall is.
Cheerful Spring wrote: » Whatever the height of WTC7 is from the roof to the ground. You then have to calculate then with 9.81 m/s^2 to get your answer in seconds.
Again what this got to do with the collapse of WTC7.
King Mob wrote: » OH! You're almost there! You can do it! Please work out how long it would take. How do you calculate it? By not being able to answer the very simple question, it shows that you can't do basic math, you don't understand physics and you don't know what free fall is. Hence, your opinions about the physics of WTC7 are worthless. And your previous claim, that those who disagree with your insane conspiracy theories are ignorant of physics and engineering, is hilarious. It's also really funny to watch you flounder around the fact you can't answer it.
Cheerful Spring wrote: » This not a math class. 226m (WTC7) off the top of my head 8 to 9 seconds it would take.
King Mob wrote: » You tell me. How did you work it out? Show your math and the equations you used. You do understand math and physics, right? So why is it so difficult for you?
Cheerful Spring wrote: » What figure did you get?
King Mob wrote: » Not 8-9 seconds. Again, you're the one who has to prove they can do simple math. But you keep avoiding it. Try again. Please show the equations you use to reach your answer. Or you can be brave and admit that you can't do the math.
Cheerful Spring wrote: » Show how you arrived it was not 8 and 9 seconds. I asking math from you now:) I want to see if you even know yourself before I go any further on this.
King Mob wrote: » Lol. :rolleyes: So again, you can't do math. You don't understand physics. You don't know what free fall is.
Cheerful Spring wrote: » I want to see your calculation. You asked the question and I gave your answer in seconds. You said is wrong the answer I gave. Now show everyone how you provided me wrong, please and thank you.
King Mob wrote: » Lol. Ok. Anyone can quickly use Wolfram Alpha to check his answer. 8-9 seconds, on top of being woefully imprecise is also very wrong. :rolleyes:
Dohnjoe wrote: » Which begs the elementary questions 1. Who ordered that WTC 7 be blown up? what was the chain of command? 2. Who carried out the preparation of the building for demolition? names, details, etc 3. Why did they blow up WTC 7? motive? 4. If an answer is given for 3. why didn't they carry that out when they were preparing the entire building for demolition? alternatively why didn't they let fire do the job? 5. What was the added value of taking a risk to "blow up" a 47 story building in the middle of NY under the gaze of the world's media, governments, foreign intelligence agencies during the most significant event of the 21st century/ 6. How was it coordinated with the rest of the attacks that day? what if the planes missed the towers, how would they explain this building in NY entirely rigged to explode? 7. There are constantly leaks from the White House, CIA, FBI, the NSA, why are there no leaks about this after 17 years? 8. Why are there no witnesses, no whistle-blowers, no deathbed confessions? This is basic stuff. Motives, suspects, witnesses, credible evidence. Evidence has to corroborate other evidence. Any tribunal for reinvestigation would need this. Here are some things that don't wash. Making personal claims like "it looks like a demolition to me so it has to be" isn't evidence. Personal acts of incredulity: "I can't believe a building fell down due to fire, that's impossible, therefore it must have been secretly blown up with silent explosives". Appeal to experts or authority is pointless if they only represent a highly isolated view. Likewise declaring that an inside job exists because "no one can prove the official story to me personally" - that's literally how flat-earthers validate their theory. And last but not least, calling people idiots for not accepting a very obviously far-fetched theory - unsurprisingly 911 is banned or harshly moderated on many engineering forums due to that kind of thinking
weisses wrote: » The only question you should ask yourself is ..could office fires bring down a building in symmetrical free fall .... And the answer is NO
Dohnjoe wrote: » It goes without saying, personal beliefs have zero bearing on an event. The fact that someone is incredulous about something also doesn't mean anything. "I can't believe that men landed on the moon, with that 60's technology, no way!".. means absolutely nothing. Even more bizarre is maintaining a view that a building collapsing due to fire is completely implausible, while at the same time maintaining a view that a secret plot to silently blow it up is entirely plausible Event happens. "No amount of evidence or consensus for theory X will ever convince me it happened" "I accept theory Y with little or no evidence" Words cannot describe how utterly ridiculous that is. Also it's not like it's some unobtainable truth or mystery, you could literally go to the engineering department of any university, go to any (recognised) organisation of engineers or architects, write to any recognised publication and they'll literally give you the answer. There is no logic or critical thinking to these types of views, it's a dogmatic blindspot. Or worse; faulty thinking.
Cheerful Spring wrote: » It is implausible as NIST claims the collapse started on floor 12-13, column 79 and this caused a chain reaction of collapsing floors inside the building. Groups not with the conspiracy movement have debunked this explanation. I provided you prove of that. Where we at then? Again the other groups explantation is just as stupid, because how do floors just fall down from fires that are protected by shear studs and fasteners and web plates. Fires were collapsing steel high rise buildings there be no issue, but the skeptics claim its possible because a building made of some steel collapsed in Iran. Even though we know the building in Iran was suspect and was in bad nick an if gas explosions went off, would be an issue. The fact the found steel melted in WTC7 wreckage is why i maintain fires did not bring down that building. Its scientifically impossible for a low temp fire to melt steel through, can't happen. If fires were at 1200c in WTC7 yes it possible, but we know fires were only 400c in the afternoon
Dohnjoe wrote: » Translation "I can't believe the building fell due to fire so it didn't" Cool, but it means nothing. Feel free to present your unique version
Cheerful Spring wrote: » The fire explantation, not a good explanation for why the Steel melted. If normal office fires can do this why do we not see evidence elsewhere of this occurring? Find evidence of this online. Steel Buildings catch fire all the time and I never saw steel melt at a low temp? Fires are known to burn things inside buildings, not collapse buildings. We be in serious trouble if fires were able to topple buildings to dust.
Dohnjoe wrote: » "Melting" steel is not what caused the building to fall. Many steel framed structures are recorded as collapsing or partially collapsing due to fire. WTC 5, a steel framed building, partially collapsed Sorry you were busy explaining how WTC 7 being "blown up" was part of a giant secret plot that only you know about, you were giving details, go on.. I have many questions about this
Cheerful Spring wrote: » It was was documented by FEMA in 2002
Why not a plot occurred on 9/11 and men boarded planes and attacked buildings. Would you have envisioned a crazy scenario like this pre 9/11 would you have thought it was possible. This was the stuff of hollywood pre 9/11. What do you really know about hijackers, like the history of how the ended up in America is not well documented. Who recruited them, what were they doing pre 2000. You have taken it for granted you have been told everything.
Partial collapse it just an area of the building losing structural stability.
Dohnjoe wrote: » "Melting steel" was not the reason that WTC 7 fell. That might be your interpretation but it's not the findings Which is precisely the same fallacy that individuals use to justify their theories of energy weapons and "mini-nukes" And what caused the partial collapse of the building? Think before you write
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/867a9f20e705add43a3ada2e4f4480cc.svg)
