The way you do this. Is you create a "committee" then, you choose who goes on the committee and then you only give it evidence and a scope that will arrive at your desired conclusion. Whoever pays for it determines result. That is how the Soviets did science and its how America does it today.

If you had 12 scientists each do investigation independently, all of them would simply state that the building could not have failed from buckling at rate. Every single independent report comes to same conclusion and the committee comes to the other conclusion. Its mathematically and physically impossible. You can just get a bunch of "experts" who are paid to come to your desired conclusion. That is how system works.

This is called "consensus reality". You have to hold both what actually happened and the consensus reality at the same time. Without contradiction. That is what doublethink means.

For media, the advertisers determine what the view of the media is. 70% of their revenue is coming from the pharm industry. So media is pro-vaccine and anti-supplement or else they get their ad money cut.

This is exactly right.

Building 7 is the smoking gun of 9/11! If anyone believes the NIST fire story you need to have your head reattached to your brain.

Unfortunately we are a nation of mental amputees and spiritual eunuchs.

Correct. Programmed by the government system of stupid!

how come we all THAT smart and still cant reprogram THEM the way WE want?!

Agreed

Do you have a technical background?

Yes.

What field?

EE+CS

So you have no experience with statics, deformable bodies, structural analysis correct?

I have experience with those things because I am a sentient being incarnate in a physical reality that gives rise to observable habits of matter which are modeled by the aforementioned methods as well as a multitude of others.

So you have no experience with thinking independently of the alleged consensus of a credentialed group somehow deemed to be authoritative on the matter of explaining black-swan building demolitions?

I'm a rational person with a scientific mind. Your not gonna convince anybody of anything with all that conspiracy gibberish you speaking. You claim to be an engineer, but your last post sounded like a basement neckbeard and not a logical person.

Then prove it. Engage rationally and scientifically instead of limply appealing to authority and then ad hominem as you just did here.

Burden of proof is on you. You claiming aliens planted bombs. You gotta back it up. Instead of talking shit.

And a nice straw man to wrap it up, proving yet again that you have no real interest in rational argument. No, you're just here to discredit, distort, deny, and derail, to which I reply with a hearty fuck you, big guy.

Again... It's "you're." You + are = you're. Did you forget your lesson here?

Lol, calling out improper use of your/you're? Thats the last resort of a dumb ass that has nothing else to say.

None needed. What about first principles of newtonian mechanics do you think am EE couldnt understand.

So explain to me all of the physics principles involved.

lol its in the header.

When an object falls at 9.8 m/s² that means nothing is resisting it. what about that do you not understand?

You are greatly oversimplify the collapse.

Because from a first principles standpoint, the rest of the details are meaningless. First principles tells us the building was in free fall. You can spend the rest of your life hashing out the details, but the details will never contradict the first principles Newtonian calculations. That's all there is to it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&persist_app=1&v=FJFpWINABzg

Asymmetrical collapse.

Im on a phone, ill watch it later. But can you tell me what you're trying to say?

Your two word argument just contradicted itself. Asymmetric damage does not cause a symmetric collapse. I watched your video, it collapsed pretty evenly considering the tower to the left was the first to go down.

The real issue with anymmetrical damage applies to the twin towers. If a plane crashes in to one side, that side would have more damage than the other. For whatever reason, when they fall, asymmetric damage does not cause a symmetric foot print where that building will fall. The building would fall to one side or the other, instead of in on itself.

I tried to explain it a couple different ways for your brain to understand.

The collapse was clearly asymmetrical. Clearly. And if you had a view of the other side of the building you would be 100% clear. You van clearly see the penthouse failing. If you look closely at the video along the vertical line of the penthouse as it initially collapsed you can see the corresponding windows blowing out debris due to the structural failure of the interior columns of the building. You can clearly see a localized internal collapse that began well before the global collapse.

Let's suppose you're correct on building 7, it was an asymmetrical collapse. its a small building and there's not a lot of footage of it. I'm conceding this point because it's not my main area of concern as stated in my last post.

More importantly: how did the asymmetric damage of the world trade towers cause them to collapse in on themselves? We have clear footage of that. It defies the laws of physics.

More importantly: how did the asymmetric damage of the world trade towers cause them to collapse in on themselves? We have clear footage of that. It defies the laws of physics.

It does not. The heat from the fire wasn't enough to significantly reduce the strength of the steel, but it was hot enough to cause it to expand. One of the main steel girders underwent significant expansion from the heat, (the longer the beam the more it expands, being a main girder, it was quite long) this caused excessive forces on one of the column connections resulting in failure. The reason this occurred is because the building was designed assuming the sprinkler system would work in the event of a fire, which in this case, it did not. Now, after this connection broke, there was a collapse within the building that brought down a portion of several floors. This collapse left a number of the core columns without any lateral support, eliminating nearly all of there strength and thus causing there failure. Loading then shifted to the perimeter columns which quickly overwhelmed them, causing the collapse of the structure. Regarding the free fall, this occurs only after the collapse is well under way. The increasing speed at which the top half of the tower impacts successive floors is large enough that the columns provide essentially no resistance. Its like dropping a brick on a couple pieces of uncooked spaghetti standing up.

There is one simple principle involved, Newton's third law of motion. Straight down free-fall acceleration for 2.5s implies ZERO counteracting force, which implies ZERO structural rigidity for at least as far as the building fell in that timeframe. The only way for a complete lack of rigidity to occur throughout that much of the building is for the steel frame supporting the building to be broken and displaced almost simultaneously across the entirety of the structure.

A collapse based on weakening steel at specific hotspots implies that most portions of the structure would still be rigidly standing and give resistance to the falling parts, preventing free-fall and resulting in an asymmetric, slow, and messy collapse sequence, which is the opposite of what the evidence shows.

If you watch the actual unedited collapse video and not the conspiracy theorist ones, you can see that the building did collapse asymmetrically. Case closed.

for you

for you

Yes, and for /r/engineering and /r/AskEngineers and /r/architecture and American Society of Civil Engineers and most engineering professionals. Now what?

Now try thinking for yourself and constructing an actual counterargument instead of referring your belief-formation to committee.

How about stop playing childish games and write a rigorous mathematical analysis for peer review? If you disagree with all the data that the ASCE compiled, then respond to that said data , instead of wasting my and the general publics time with your nonsense. How about that for a change?

The common-sense reasoning required to identify the collapse of WTC7 as incapable of arising from buckling due to fire requires neither "peer review" nor rigorous mathematical proof, only simple and rational consideration of the elementary principles of physics as I explained above, and which you are incapable of providing any substantive counterargument to (because naturally there is none).

However, it does require an army of journalistic shills, committees staffed by cowardly careerists, and insecure useful idiots such as yourself to bury that common sense under a mountain of official fabrications, distortions, half-truths, and pseudoscience.

instead of wasting my and the general publics time with your nonsense...

You must have a very inflated notion of the value of both your own time and that of the bread-and-circus-seeking "general public" to fall back to such a ridiculous talking point.

If you have no math and physics in your response, then don't waste my time buddy. Just don't. And you claim to be an engineer, smh.

There was. Educate yourself.

Though it appears that building 7 was a controlled demolition, I can't help but notice these circle jerky comments are becoming very common when discussing it.

i'm unsure of what you're talking about. Can you please elaborate?

If you pay attention to the comment sections for a bit, you will notice the same banter as is used in bashing 'fill in the blank' in r/news and r/politics being used ever more increasingly here, especially with regards to building 7.

edit:look at the comments that comment spawned. They seem aimed at making those here feel superior, blames the 'stupid' people then the government programing. I just feel this is a further part of influencing and programing.

youre right in sense, but the real reason why i made this post was to try and educate people who engage in this conversation on other subs. And spread knowledge about how to refute the commonly heard claims like:

"the vague concept of free fall cant determine things about the vast amount of internal forces in a building."

and

"its such a big complicated building, you cant know whats going on inside of it just by just watching it fall!"

I see statements like those all the time on reddit. more People need to know exactly how scientifically wrong those statements are.

ATTENTION : The described behavior happens on both sides of any arguement.

They seem aimed at making those here feel superior, blames the 'stupid' people than the government programing.

Comments like those are from people who are incapable of commenting on the science behind the arguements, but want to personally join in with something they think they understand.

Critical thinking requires extensive experience in identifying the extent of one’s own ignorance in a wide variety of subjects.-Jim Quinn

Can you make an argument debunking the NIST WTC 7 report?

Nearly four thousand architects would disagree with you.

The shills have woken

Nah, most of them are bored with this shit already. The death blow came last weekend.

The AIA vote was a decisive rebuke of 9/11 truth from an organization of professionals they were actively courting for support. If that vote doesn't make you take a step back and re-assess what you think you know, nothing ever will.

Oh ok. The nail is in the coffin. Move along people.

The AIE911T vote was invalid--any architect who, uuh, wanted WORK in the future knew that there was one way to vote only.

If these people believed the official lie why would they sign on to AE911T?

The AIE911T vote was invalid--any architect who, uuh, wanted WORK in the future knew that there was one way to vote only.

The vote wasn't public...

If these people believed the official lie why would they sign on to AE911T?

Um...wat? The American Institute of Architects just held their annual conference and had a vote (brought forward by members of ae911truth) as to whether a new building 7 investigation was needed.

3892 of them voted against vs 160 for.

A million architects can't change the laws of physics.

They aren't opinion.

They aren't up for vote.

What makes you think you understand the laws of physics better than architects, or structural engineers?

what exactly do they disagree with? can you elaborate please?

3892 AIA members just voted against the need for a new investigation into building 7.

and in other news Monsanto pays for positive studies. how do you think it would turn out if congress voted on it? a little like political suicide for anyone that voted yes, huh?

The presenters were only given 6 minutes to make their case. And for some unexplainable reason, they weren't even allowed to show video of wtc7's collapse. And yet AE911Truth still managed to gain 150 new AIA signatories.

Right, I'm sure the 4000 that voted against the need for a new investigation had never even heard of building 7 before, despite it being the truthers most commonly brought up argument for 7 years now.

Why are you always so afraid to get specific with numbers?

The presenters were only given 6 minutes to make their case. And for some unexplainable reason, they weren't even allowed to show video of wtc7's collapse. And yet AE911Truth still managed to gain 150 new AIA signatories.

And were all of those < 4000 architects fully aware of the official story findings?

The presenters were only given 6 minutes to make their case.

13 years, 8 months, 12 days and 6 minutes.

And in all that time, you've managed to convince 4.1% of AIA architects.

And for some unexplainable reason, they weren't even allowed to show video of wtc7's collapse.

Do you really think the 3892 that voted against an investigation had never heard of building 7 before?

And yet AE911Truth still managed to gain 150 new AIA signatories.

While 3892 thought they had their heads up their asses.

I'd bet green money you'd get the same result in a room full of structural engineers, or a room full of demolitions experts.

And were all of those < 4000 architects fully aware of the official story findings?

Can you prove they weren't? Or are you just inventing reasons to invalidate the landslide you just got buried under.

Look, maybe you haven't been keeping up on current events, but you just got your asses kicked pal.

6 minutes. And not allowed to show the collapse. Fixed that for you. Nice try though! And you're the one using the number as a crutch. So, again, can you prove they all know what the official story states?

And I guess those 150 members that signed didn't have their heads up their asses before, but now all of the sudden they do, right?

6 minutes. And not allowed to show the collapse. Fixed that for you. Nice try though!

So the AIA conference is the first time in history the WTC 7 argument has been made?

And you're the one using the number as a crutch. So, again, can you prove they all know that the official story states?

Nearly 4000 of them knew enough about the collapse to vote against the need for a new investigation.

Let's just clear this up right now. Exactly how many professional organizations do support the truth movement?

The American Institute of Architects ? Nope.

The American Society of Civil Engineers ? Nope.

The American Institute of Steel Construction? Nope.

The National Fire Protection Association? Nope.

The American Concrete Institute? Nope.

The Society of Fire Protection Engineers? Nope.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency? Nope.

The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat? Nope.

The Structural Engineers Association of New York? Nope.

You know what? This is going to take forever. It might be faster if you listed the professional agencies that have come out in support of the truth movement.

The presentation was 6 minutes long. Yup. And they weren't allowed to show the collapse. Yup. But, why? Let's hear a good reason.

So everyone who voted knew about what the official story states?

The presentation was 6 minutes long. Yup. And they weren't allowed to show the collapse. Yup. But, why? Let's hear a good reason.

Probably because every resolution presented at the conference was given the same amount of time, and none of them had AV presentations.

That's your "good reason?" Much investigation! Very science!

Here is the full list of resolutions presented at the AIA conference. There were a dozen of them.

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&amp;source=web&amp;rct=j&amp;ei=UjNhVc6vIcnFgwSpgoGwCQ&amp;url=http://www.aia.org/aiaucmp/groups/aia/documents/pdf/aiab105884.pdf&amp;ved=0CBwQFjAA&amp;usg=AFQjCNGnCQabhjDf744RUy5PxTLapAeofw&amp;sig2=XCxNfeZ0HRj4IIZUwSFFsw

Here is the full schedule of AIA events for their 2015 convention.

http://eventscribe.com/2015/aia/aaSearchByDay.asp?h=Full%20Schedule&amp;SDDO=0&amp;t=Full%20Schedule&amp;popup=1

Resolution presentations and votes were done between 8:15am and 10:00am on Saturday the 16th.

For all 12 resolutions.

See that bitch? Much investigation! Very science!

Guess how long that took me?

5 minutes.

Don't you ever get tired of me making you look stupid?

Who asked you for a list of resolutions? What a waste of 5 minutes. You seem to have a lot of free time to spend on people who disagree with you. "Bitch?" The more desperate you get, the more angry you get. I continue to wait for a good reason not to show the WTC 7 collapse on a presentation about the WTC 7 collapse. I also continue to wait for an answer to my question asking if every member who voted, knew what the official story stated. Why do you continually dodge that? I also await your answer to my question as to the validity of opinion of AIA members considering 150 joined AE911Truth after a 6 minute presentation with no ability to show the collapse. What happened with them? Are their opinions no longer valid since they disagree with yours now? Were they valid before? What happened? Why do you keep begging people to believe the official story? You act like 9/11 is so inconsequential, but here you are. Continually begging.

Who asked you for a list of resolutions? What a waste of 5 minutes. You seem to have a lot of free time to spend on people who disagree with you.

Hmmm...I could have sworn it was you that asked for this:

http://imgur.com/JRKi03P

You wanted a "good reason" why the presentation was only 6 minutes long, and why they weren't allowed audio and video.

Because the entire portion of the event they were slotted into was 105 minutes in total along with 11 other resolutions being presented, as well as updates on the AIA's activities and finances, plus, meeting their newly elected national officers. I'd bet a million dollars none of the 12 resolutions had A/V because that's not how they are presented.

You asked for a reason, now you're too stupid to understand it.

I also continue to wait for an answer to my question asking if every member who voted, knew what the official story stated

I couldn't care less.

3892 - 160

How many professional organizations did you come up with that support the truth movement again?

Right, zero.

I did ask for a good reason. Are you claiming to have provided one? I can't find it.

6 minutes. No video allowed of the presentation they were presenting.... Still waiting on that one... Thanks...

I could care lessons

"Every answer I have makes me look bad, so I'm afraid to answer."

Fixed that for you!

I did ask for a good reason. Are you claiming to have provided one? I can't find it.

Sure did.

6 minutes. No video allowed of the presentation they were presenting.... Still waiting on that one... Thanks...

You're too stupid to understand how hard you just got slapped.

Did ae911truth get treated any differently than the other 11 groups presenting resolutions? Shit, even they didn't make that claim, and they were in the goddamn room while everyone presented!

They got the same time everyone else did, with the same resources. They never said any differently.

Oh sorry, thought you were going to give a good reason as to why they weren't allowed to show a video of the collapse of the building, when they were giving a presentation about the collapse of the building.

6 minutes and no video.

Much investigation. Very science!

Oh sorry, thought you were going to give a good reason as to why they weren't allowed to show a video of the collapse of the building, when they were giving a presentation about the collapse of the building?

6 minutes and no video.

Did any of the other 11 groups presenting resolutions use video? Did any of those 11 groups get more than 6 minutes?

If so, why has no one at ae911truth made that argument? As in not a single person?

Why don't you stop making mealey mouthed accusations and actually back something up for once? Or is that too much work for a halfwit?

Which other group was giving a presentation on the WTC 7 collapse and a new investigation due to a failure of the first? Thanks in advance! Much learning!

By the way, did everyone who voted know what the official story states?

So your argument isn't that they were shortchanged, it's that they deserved more time than the other 11 groups?

Can you be more specific? How much of the 105 total minutes of their segment did they deserve?

Follow up question, was ae911truth aware of the rules of presenting a resolution at an AIA conference when they signed up to be included with the other 11 entrants?

You think you can ignore my questions and ask others? Let's try again:

Did everyone who voted know exactly what the official story stated?

You think you can ignore my questions and ask others? Let's try again:

Nice goalpost shift. Guess you know you lost that one.

Let's recap. The reason they got 6 minutes and no video is because everyone got 6 minutes and no video. They were well aware of the limitations before they presented.

Once again, another one of your arguments lands with a thud.

Did everyone who voted know exactly what the official story stated?

How on earth would I know that?

How many of the 160 that voted for a new investigation know exactly what the official story states?

3892 - 160

Again, you're the one using the number as a crutch.

You think you can ignore my questions and ask others? Let's try again:

Did everyone who voted know exactly what the official story stated?

Just because you ran from the goal post, doesn't mean it shifted.

;)

Did everyone who voted know exactly what the official story stated?

I literally just answered that exact question in my last reply.

You're embarrassing yourself.

Is that all you got? We about done here?

The score remains 3892 - 160.

No you didn't. Want to try again?

Yeah, you're done.

Thanks for playing. Better luck next time.

3892 - 160

... And /u/Pvt_Hudson_ ran off into the distance. As far from the goal post as he could...

The dark side is embedded in this one. He fights for such an evil. Watch loose change once with an open mind. Quit being so American.

Well, except that I'm not American...

OK so I'm probably going to win the prize for 'simplest question' but could you recap this story for me as I'm not familiar with it.

Being in Australia means we miss so much and although I do pay attention and search out world news, I still miss stuff.

Sorry if this seems a bit stupid. But I am genuinely interested, especially in the implications if what you're saying is, well, true about the NIST.

heres the basic story.

When building 7 collapsed, it happened in 3 stages. The 1st stage: some of the corner of the building started to fall. A couple seconds later, the building entered freefall for 2.5 seconds. the final stage it slowed down again.

when NIST made their first report on building 7, they averaged the collapse time of the first 2 time periods. And because the building didnt enter freefall untill ~ 2 seconds after the collapse started, when they averaged the acceleration from these time periods, they concluded that the average acceleration was less than freefall.

And thats entirely true. But its also entirely uninteresting. it would be like, when calculating the speed of a major league Fastball pitch, to take the velocity of the ball during the time when its still in the pitchers hand during his windup (slowly moving backwards before accelerating forwards) and averaging that speed with the speed when its in the air moving towards the catcher. It may be true that the ball had an average velocity of 70Mph during that time period, but the INTERESTING thing is that that ball had a speed of 95 MPH while it was moving through the air.

Thats exactly what NIST did at first. they obscured the fact that the building experienced a 2.5 second period of free fall by averaging it together with a period of collapse preceding free fall

Then at a NIST event, a highschool physics teacher in the audience brought the mistake (a ludicrous mistake that no competent scientist would ever make) to their attention. They then revised the building 7 report and admitted the building entered free fall. But they were deff hoping that it would go un noticed. Since then it has been played down a whole lot by people without any knowledge of physics.

Why don't more independent people with knowledge point this out?

because people dont want to put their careers in jeopardy by speaking about this stuff...

When building 7 collapsed, it happened in 3 stages. The 1st stage: some of the corner of the building started to fall.

Whoa, that's not true. The interior of the building collapsed first. You can see the penthouse collapse into the interior several seconds before any of the exterior collapses.

If you check NIST it says it collapsed from a corner first.

i thought the official story was it was supposed to have started when a floor collapsed internally (or something)?

-the outside faces only collapsed later?

The official story is a farrago of nonsense.

sure, but i think what they say is it started from some internal collapsing stuff first. then the outside corner collapsed later.

I don't see it collapsing from an outside corner anywhere.

me neither. maybe it was supposed to be that the internal structure collapsed first then the whole outer structure came later.

And encountered no resistance.

which i guess would onyl be possible if the inner structure had already collapsed, which we know is bullshit so.

think i got it thx.

If, by "corner", you mean column 79 under the east penthouse, then yes. But not the exterior corners: http://imgur.com/a/gGr3J

even if, for all intents and purposes regarding this issue, that difference is uninteresting. The building still accelerated at 9.8m/s² for 2.5 seconds. the chances of that happening naturally are practically nonexistent.

I always took it that the same demolition process took place on all three WTC buildings? And that WTC7 was primed as a target for the third plane.

When the penthouse collapses I figured that it does so because a central column beneath it has been blown up/cut mirroring the process in the taller towers which is seen when the roof structures of those buildings collapse. Am I wrong?

Not a stupid question at all. theres nothing wrong with not being aware off all this, its a bit of a rabbit hole.

in my opinion, its the single most important detail of the entire events ...the evidence it out in the open for the world to see. anyone can calculate the acceleration of collapse from a video. whereas melted steel beams and thermite, that evidence can be outright rejected. A video collapse cant be. From them first trying to obscure the fact, to them playing it down like its not a big deal; it shows how much of a joke the NIST report really was.

Go to any university physics or engineering department, and if the professor isn't scared of you videotaping them and they're confident that the conversation is off the record, they'll tell you that something weird happened here as its not possible for a building to naturally enter free fall like this. They just don't want to put their career in jeopardy by speaking out on it...

They just don't want to put their career in jeopardy by speaking out on it...

Oh yes, reminds me of that particular quote of Orwell's regarding the treatment of the truth "in times of universal deceit."

As I've heard it said by Ron Paul: "truth is treason in the empire of lies"

Mind giving this physics litmus test a shot? I posted it to a different 9/11 physics thread yesterday.

http://www.np.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/36uqh3/911_physics_quiz/crhjgan

Danny Jowenko, world authority on controlled demolition.

Says WTC7 for certain CD before he even knew what he was watching.

Danny Jowenko dies in mysterious single-car "accident" soon afterwards.

Go to any university physics or engineering department, and if the professor isn't scared of you videotaping them and they're confident that the conversation is off the record, they'll tell you that something weird happened here as its not possible for a building to naturally enter free fall like this.

Nope.

They just don't want to put their career in jeopardy by speaking out on it...

Or they simply think 9/11 truth is horseshit just like the 3000+ architects last week who voted against a reinvestigation at the 2015 AIA conference. How about that option?

I really appreciate this answer, thanks.

I managed to watch a couple of links posted in this thread. One was by a conspiracy supporter and the other not a supporter. What I found ironic is that the one that supposedly disproved the theory looked even more like CD than the one posted in favour of it! But ultimately they both showed essentially the same thing. I have absolutely no idea how that could have been a random collapse shakes head

Here watch for yourself. They are trying to claim that that was not a controlled demolition. What do you think it was? Fire? Because that's the answer that the media (and all the kids who made fun of smart people in high school) want you to believe.

Downvoted for providing the video evidence? Must be at least a FEW shills kicking around. Lemme bump that back up again.

Conspiracy theorist always look at the heavily edited version of the collapse. Here is the ACTUAL unedited collapse that conspiracy theorist don't want you to see. This is why engineers and and scientist don't waste their time arguing with conspiracy theorist. You can clearly see it was not even close to a controlled demolition. The building began collapsing asymmetrically beginning at the penthouse, causing asymmetric failure of structural members, which then cause localized failures seconds later on the roofline, which then initiated a global collapse. No CD here. But the circle jerk and brainwash in this sub is too strong.

@1s BOOM! <penthouse starts falling>

No CD here, nope, none at all... it was uh girders sliding against each other. yeaaaah that's it...

Pretty impressive they were able to edit ALL THOSE MULTIPLE ANGLES of that shot.

please say "conspiracy theorist" again.

Thank you I really appreciate this and for not treating me like an idiot 😉

Edit: I'm no engineer or demolitionist but that looked pretty freaking control and symmetrical to me. In both links.

This is the real core of the issue in my opinion; now you see the divide. One side says "official story only" and the other says "official story doesn't equate". No further sub-divisions are necessary. They only serve the function of keeping the circle-jerk spinning.

NIST states that the exterior framing failed only after the interior already failed. The interior floor framing and columns collapsed downward and pulled away from the exterior frame. The clues for the interior failing were the collapse of the penthouse (visible in youtube videos) and windows breaking before the exterior collapse.

They also showed that the descent time was in three stages - first one was much slower than free fall which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories; second stage was the free fall explained by no internal support and no support from buckled exterior frame below; in third stage the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.

I'm not a physicist and I'm not arguing that the NIST explanation is correct. It sounds plausible to me. I would like to understand why their explanation could not be true.

it cannot be true because they didn't use physical evidence. Instead they used a model and kept modifying it until the model partially collapsed in a manner inconsistent with the actual collapse. And their modifications consisted of removing fasteners, stiffeners, altering the size of the beams, adjusting the temperature of the fires, adjusting the physical response of steel at the temperatures. When you watch the simulation, you see the initial momentum to generate the scenario for their collapse has a beam falling several stories unimpeded to knock a column off its footing. This looks nice in a frame model, but the building had floors and it would have been impossible for the beam to fall unimpeded and gain the necessary momentum to initialize the collapse. The collapse would then be partial and non-symmetrical.

Free-fall in itself is not the smoking gun. Global symmetrical free-fall through the path of greatest resistance is. This is what the evidence shows.

But this is all nonsense. In determining an engineering failure, we don't model it, we use the physical evidence. NIST had to jump through a lot of hoops to avoid using physical evidence. In order to avoid any evidence of explosions, NIST made an arbitrary measure for explosions: the explosion would have produced 130-140 decibels at half a mile. They then determined that there was no evidence of an explosion heard at such a magnitude. This is wrong on many levels. Primarily because in forensic investigations, we use evidence, not find ways to avoid examining evidence. By their standard, they can dismiss videos of first responders reacting to a huge explosion by saying it failed to meet their criteria for an explosion.

In short, NIST altered known attributes of WTC 7 until they could produce a model that fell. The simulation does not reflect reality and does not explain anything.

But what it does do is show that they went out of their way to avoid conducting a forensic investigation according to accepted standards. They went out of their way to avoid using the physical evidence. And they made unsupportable claims (no explosions) using arbitrary methods.

It's like saying JFK was killed by a meteorite.

Do you have a source for how they tinkered with the structure model until they got what they want? I would think it would take a lot of tinkering to get a building to fall the way it did without demolition.

The best source available is NIST itself:

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm

The good bits are scattered but a careful analysis roots them out.

Could I trouble you to take my physics litmus test from a different 9/11 physics thread yesterday?

http://www.np.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/36uqh3/911_physics_quiz/crhjgan

Do you have a source for how they tinkered with the structure model

See especially sections 2 & 5 in this report: Fraud Exposed in NIST WTC 7 Reports.

Thats exactly right, the descent time did happen in three basic stages.

but the thing to take away, is that if a period of free-fall is experienced, that means for that time period, there is zero resistance opposing the collapse of the building. The fact that some of the building fell before the rest of the building entered free fall doesnt take anything away from the fact that, the a majority of the parts which constituted the building fell with zero resistance (nothing was opposing it) for a period of time. and the only way that could happen is if every support beam failed simultaneously, or failed in succession as the building was falling. (like a row of dominoes: as the first one tips into the second one, some force causes the second one to start falling into the third one exactly as the first one hits the second so that the first one doesnt need to transfer any force to the second one. it may seem like a small amount of energy difference in this example, but the time needed for one domino to knock over the next one gets compounded into a total time for the whole series to fall, culminating in the last domino falling over. if the sequence of dominoes finishes 2 seconds before it was supposed to, you can conclude that the last domino falling over was not a consequence of the first one falling over, because it happened 2 seconds before the laws of physics allow it to happen.).

This is precisely the reason why the NIST simulation wasn't provided for this free fall stage of collapse. As given their initial conditions, and initial collapse stages, it would have been impossible to get the simulation to play out the way we saw it (Collapse in free fall for a period of 2.5 seconds).

The chances that the entire support structures of the building collapsed first, only leaving the outer shell of the building to collapse without resistance is slim to none. Furthermore, if it DID happen that way, NIST would have rejoiced in their ability to show an accurate simulation for the entire collapse. but they didnt.. because the collapse didnt happen that way. So they weren't able to show the collapse in simulation.

Thank you for your contributions here. Free fall is the smoking gun.

Great explanations, man! If your interested, I know I'd appreciate more threads like this posted on here. Applying physics and other sciences to "conspiracies" reaps the strongest evidence, in my mind. Plus physics is badass.

thanks man :)

The post i made last week, about the media suppressing ron paul.. well i got in a really long argument with this guy cutterjon, and he brought up a couple good points. The argument would be stronger if I ran some statistics on the data and corrected for group differences between the different candidates internet user demographics. Ive since done all the math and corrected for not only that, but for other things as well (posituve vs negative internet traffic on youtube). Im going to post it all a little closer to bernie sanders campaign, as i think it will have the best chance of going viral on r/dataisbeautiful or r/politics or somewhere (and here as well of course) at an important time like that. it was a very heated argument i had w/ that dude lol, but all in all his motivation to disprove the video has resulted in the argument becoming stronger, as now there are less things a skeptic can cling to after the statistical corrections are performed. i know hed prob curse me out if he saw this lol, but wherever u are cutterjon, thanks for your help ;)

Nah...he'd probably just have a good laugh at the suggestion that you've actually "run the statistics" on the nonsensical argument that you were trying to peddle and have anything of substance to contribute, but are holding it back for timing's sake. Fake physics credentials, multiple accounts...what a piece of work.

Dominoes...lol. Really high-quality, rigorous physics going on here. Ohhhhh wait, physics is all about "hand-waving" arguments.

a majority of the parts which constituted the building fell with zero resistance

Huh? How are you calculating that? All you can see is part of the exterior.

The chances that the entire support structures of the building collapsed first, only leaving the outer shell of the building to collapse without resistance is slim to none.

How are you calculating the probability?

is there even any truth to this part of OPs question?

exterior framing failed only after the interior already failed

where the fuck are the sheeple ??crickets.

yeah dude, this is a little weird... I was really expecting to see shill city in this thread. Guess they know how to pick/choose their battles.

The shills are on vacation since its a big start of summer holiday here in the US. Government paid shills need vacations.

Thank you for doing this

Exactly what I came here for. No sheeple trying to argue... Guess they only go after soft targets. Thanks for posting!

hahaha there are too many non-shills, this is a first, i guess they are busy with something else like the tpp or osama book list right now.

So you made a post asking for differing opinions on a subject, and here you make it clear that you would label those who disagree with you as shills? Wow.

Why not go to an engineering sub and share your ideas? Surely they would be most qualified to address your theories

Found one. Nice comment history. ..

Damn, I've been found out.

I work for Illuminaughty. I have been tasked with having discussions on unpopular threads on niche internet forums, in order to prevent the truth of 9/11 from coming out. Now that I've been discovered, I may as well reveal the truth to you now.

George W. Bush commissioned a team of Mossad Agents to fill the buildings with anti-matter bombs. This is the only way free-fall collapse is attainable. The controlled demolition theories are a red herring. Anyone supporting those theories is a shill, most likely employed by the JIDF. If they state otherwise, that is further proof of their shillness.

The reasons for the attack aren't what you think though. It wasn't about getting to the Middle East for oil, the real reason was far more sinister.

Back in the 1970's, Bin Laden organized a raid on Area 51, capturing alien technology and hiding it among the mountains of Afganistan. This was used as leverage for generations, as the Americans couldn't let the truth out to the world. If the rest of the world found out that they hid first contact in order to harvest their technology, there would be outrage. All world events America was involved in were at OBL's beck and call. They planned 911 to discredit him, and destroyed the evidence by bombing the mountains, until the pretense that OBL was hiding in a cave.

Open your eyes, Sheeple.

TBH, I didn't read any of that.

Thats because you are afraid of the truth.

Either way I had fun writing it

Thanks, old-timer. Or so I assume.

Watch your blood pressure man you seemed really stressed out in our convos last night.. id hate to see you get all worked up over this imaginary reddit stuff.

Nope I didn't say that or even imply that. Not sure what you're talking about. not all who have dissenting opinions are shills, but all shills will have dissenting opinions.

Well, instead of taunting people here, head to an engineering sub and ask them your question. Surely if you possess the truth there is no better place to have it confirmed?

I don't have a question. The point of this post is to educate people on how to go about thinking about/ responding to the opposing arguments.

Then go educate some engineers. Their feedback could strengthen your theories, right? If what you've got here is so strong that you feel the need to educate people with it, why not present it to actual trained engineers and see if they can provide feedback.

You say right in your post you would like to discuss it with skeptics. You will find very few 911 truth skeptics in this sub. Take it to one where you'll actually find some.

Because to a trained engineer, this stuff is trivial. Id rather educate people who don't have that training.

Nothing I typed here is "strong"... Its first principles physics. but in the hands of people who care, its enough science to prove the point.

But more so, this is exactly the type of post that gets removed on other subs.

Because to a trained engineer, this stuff is trivial. Id rather educate people who don't have that training.

That sounds like an excuse. If it is trivial, then they should just say "Yep, what you've got there is solid" and you can come away with support from actual engineers!

Its first principles physics. but in the hands of people who care, its enough science to prove the point.

Then it should be easy to get some engineers to back you up. That strengthens your argument, and they may even give you some help to improve it!

But more so, this is exactly the type of post that gets removed on other subs.

Never know until you try! There, I linked it for you...

www.reddit.com/r/AskEngineers

Lol dude this was a Saturday afternoon reddit post. It did exactly what I wanted it to do. Give people who may not know the science behind free fall an opportunity to learn.

What you're saying can literally be said about every situation in life (ie: "why do I do more?").

70_80 people might have learned something while here today. I consider that a success for 30mins work on a Saturday afternoon.

Sorry, I thought you'd be more motivated. You seem to be claiming you have some pretty revolutionary shit.

Given the scope of your claims, I figured discussing with some engineers on an internet forum would be a no brainer. You did say you wanted to discuss with skeptics right?

What's with all these fucking stupid comments? You guys seem like shills trying to belittle or derail the topic. Who gives a fuck that you are impressed that there aren't any shills?

You really have a hard time dealing with that fact that people don't share your views eh?

That has got to be a frustrating existence.

What are my views again? Or you just trying to sound clever?

I assumed, given your anger, that you are a 9/11 truther, like most people here. It seemed like you were mad that I questioned the motivations of the OP and took the focus off of his post. I made the judgement based mostly on your pathetic shill accusation, a pretty obvious demonstration of your inability to comprehend legitimate opposition to your position.

I haven't put an opinion either way and you are calling me a pathetic shill? Fucking prick... You are the one who sounds angry and unsure of himself.

You called me a shill...

You guys seem like shills trying to belittle or derail the topic.

Also you were very angry from the start. Don't blame me when I respond in kind.

Also, I'm going to suggest a conspiracy here. Is it a coincidence that another user containing the name lloyd has started bothering me not long after another deleted their account? But the rabbit hole goes even deeper... the previous user, named LloydBoyd, contains the name Boyd. Boyd Crowder is a main character in the excellent show Justified, which just finished its last season on FX. Your username also contains Lloyd, and the name Bennett. The Bennett family is featured mainly in season 2 of Justified, with the character Dickie Bennett making appearances through the series.

Could it be, that you have switched to a different account? Could be a bit of a weird coincidence, but the fact that the LloydBoyd account stopped posting after a few exchanges with me, and then a user with a remarkably similar name singles out my comment hours after with an unusually angry tone, I have a feeling I'm speaking to the same person.

Fuck you - I ain't part of no conspiracy out to get you. Who are you? I know no other Lloyd's and Lloyd Bennett is my actual name. Don't fuck around and try and get me mixed up in some other bullshit please. I didn't even read all of that other shit you wrote. look at my comment history.

Hey now, just thought I'd ask. Pretty remarkable coincidence I guess then!

Weekend.

Is this a deliberate/malicious lie on behalf of NIST?

1. In a video, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free fall, something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you describe. How can NIST ignore basic laws of physics? In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/wtc_draftreports.cfm), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail. To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video. Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent displacement data. The instant at which vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was determined by tracking the numerical value of the brightness of a pixel (a single element in the video image) at the roofline. This pixel became brighter as the roofline began to descend because the color of the pixel started to change from that of the building façade to the lighter color of the sky. The approach taken by NIST is summarized in NIST NCSTAR Report 1A, Section 3.6, and detailed in NIST NCSTAR Report 1-9, Section 12.5.3. The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse: Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall). Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall) Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model, which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm

What was the collapse initiation mechanism in you mind?

What is your evidence for it?

the first thing that jumps out in their statement:

During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below.

that is outright wrong. The entire roofline descended at free fall during stage 2, not just the north face. also, it wasn't "essentially" free fall, it was free fall (again, they're doing their best to play it down). lastly, it didn't indicate "negligible" support from the structure below, it indicated completely nonexistent support from the structure below. 3 white lies in one sentence, which completely plays down the fact that the entire top of the building descended at free fall.

They then go on to say:

This is consistent with the structural analysis model, which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above.

stage one was consistent, but being how they wrote that sentence directly after the sentence talking about the building entering free fall (stage 2), it sure makes it sound like theyre claiming that their structural analysis model was consistent with the observed period of free fall, which couldn't be further from the truth... so now we have 2 back to back sentences, with as many white lies as there is concepts in those sentences.

Everything said regarding the building entering free fall is a serious bending of the truth, or outright deception...

Now factor in that they did their best to write the report without having to admit to any of this free fall business, and it takes their lying to a whole, notha, level...

it sure makes it sound like theyre claiming that their structural analysis model was consistent with the observed period of free fall

That is exactly what they are saying. Where is the lie?

Why in your analysis, was there the period of near free fall?

What is your evidence for it?

Because their structural analysis model was completely inconsistent with the free fall period. Otherwise they wouldn't have had to cut their simulation off after stage 1. they weren't even close to having a working model of the stage 2 free fall collapse. Stage 1 was the only thing they were able to show in the simulation.

Part of the reason why this evidence is so damning, is because anyone/everyone has the evidence right in front of them. there are hundreds of videos showing the collapse of building 7. from these videos, its straightforward to calculate the speed of the descending roofline and deduce that its accelerating at 9.8 M/s² for the majority of the descent.

I posted this very simple physics problem to a different 9/11 physics thread yesterday:

http://www.np.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/36uqh3/911_physics_quiz/crhjgan

There are 78 views on imgur and I've received only one submission. Wondering if you (OP) and any others in this thread would give it a shot.

Bravo!

ITT: the same offer OP has, just with the Twins and their NEAR free fall speed compression under a fraction of their own weight.

I know I'm going to get downvoted, though I agree whole-heartedly with you, but this kind of post is useless anymore. No one who doesn't already know 9/11 was an inside job won't change their mind or simply doesn't care. They don't care that 'suspects' were held without charges or trial and tortured. They don't care about the NSA spying on us. They don't care about the TPP. They are slaves, worker bees who just want to go to their job, watch their kids play soccer, drink some wine and watch t.V.

You, me, the people on here.. we are the last real Americans.

Don't be so gloomy! New articles are being written, new books are published, people are still giving lectures, and a new generation is on YouTube watching videos. And in all likelihood, at least half the country rejects the official story.

Just because you feel you know everything and are caught in a rut doesn't mean other people aren't going through a progression. You are right that there are people that don't seem to care, but I really think that most of them would, if only they understood how this affected them.

sigh, its sad, but you're all too right... I guess all we can do with this reddit medium is try and take knowledge of this kind and get it out to as many subreddits as possible...

Don't be so sure of this. i though all that "Bush Did 9/11" was all just a joke untill I saw this and now i'm actually entertaining it as a possibility. Good physics can change minds.

Building 7, and indeed the towers, were likely wired from the very beginning--like from construction.

If you read By Way of Deception by Victor Ostrovsky (ex-Mossad agent) he makes it quite clear that there are bombs planted in hundreds of Arab-controlled buildings, bridges, and other infrastructure--and that they were put there YEARS ago at the time of construction.

Google info on how the buildings' supplies were unusually secured, how some welders had top-secret clearances and worked behind screens, how they ran out of their "special" 3" rebar" (coated with a black plastic-type substance) and had to use "normal" rust-colored rebar for a week (hence the non-symmetrical collapse of one of the towers)...and on and on. Those buildings were most likely wired from the get-go...it's quite clear that Issar Harel of Mossad knew that an "event" like 9/11 was going to happen 20+ years before it did. Then there's the predictive programming--some of the most obvious was contained in one of Arnon Milchan's (Israeli arms dealer extraordinaire and "movie producer") films in which...a plane was saved by kids from, hmm, crashing into the WTC. Then...the countdown heard before the demo of WTC7 seals the deal. See if you can't find the guy talking to Leslie Robinson (one of the original architects) about exactly how the buildings would be taken down when they outlived their usefuleness.

It was scripted as well as most Hollywood films--they had the same people working on it, after all.

That is all quite interesting and somewhat plausible (in comparison with "the towers were pre-rigged with explosives, which is a good thing, so they can be CDed in an emergency so they don't fall on other buildings"), but still so out there a source or two would help your case ;)

ELI5 TL;DR please.

If a building collapses, the part of the building falling down pushes against parts of the building not falling, then pushes those non-falling parts against other non-falling parts, and so on. The non-falling parts resist against the falling parts, even though the falling parts will eventually move the non-falling parts because of the force. However, that resistance will slow the falling process. If there is no slowing, but instead acceleration, it means that the falling parts of the building did not encounter any non-falling parts - and that can only happen if another force pushed those non-falling parts out of the way. That other force can be explosives.

Bravo! That makes for a great 9/11 elevator pitch. Maybe it should be stickied.

So the whole building was made to fall.

"Pull it"

Actually, this is what NIST's model tried to show. Their story is that a beam was deformed by fire enough to detach it. This beam fell 5-6 stories and unseated a column. The column fell and brought down the supporting beams which dragged the other columns with it.

The resulting recording of the collapse then does not need to account for the path of resistance if their theory is valid.

But it isn't valid. It isn't valid because we have the plans for the building. And they changed the plans so that the models could fall.

Their problem was quite basic. They put in all the data, the fasteners, the stiffeners, the fireproofing, the thickness of the I beams, the seating for the column footer and they put in the forces that the building was under. And the model would stand forever under such conditions. You hit run and nothing happens. So then you tweak it and tweak it and then something happens. And you tweak that until it kind of could look like that.

Their model's essential problem is that it both needs and can't have the same forces at the same time. The force to drag the adjoining columns down with the falling of the lateral beams is the same force that would prevent their falling in the first place. They need to act like a force doesn't exist for long enough to allow the initial momentum and then act like it does to allow that momentum to build.

They need it to behave as a triangle and then as soon as it does, revert to a square, over and over throughout the entire structure.

Then and only then does their model fall at all. But this is impossible. The force cannot be turned on and off with a switch. It can only be turned off. That means that the supports were simultaneously taken out. Controlled demolition.

Purdue did the same thing with the model of the Pentagon...they somehow "forgot" the 6-foot-thick concrete partitions built into the building at the time of construction...and much, much more.

If a building collapses, the part of the building falling down pushes against parts of the building not falling, then pushes those non-falling parts against other non-falling parts, and so on. The non-falling parts resist against the falling parts, even though the falling parts will eventually move the non-falling parts because of the force. However, that resistance will slow the falling process. If there is no slowing, but instead acceleration, it means that the falling parts of the building did not encounter any non-falling parts - and that can only happen if another force pushed those non-falling parts out of the way. That other force can be explosives.

Engineering student here, This is wrong.

Even though the lower undamaged structure was designed to be able to handle the upper damaged 18 stories, this is only true in a static sense. Once the loads became dynamic (due to gravity), the dynamic loads had already far exceeded the structural design limit and the failure had to propagate until all the energy is dissipated.

This is true for nearly every structure in existence, and certainly true for every skyscraper: once progressive collapse begins, it can't be stopped because the supporting structure below cannot handle the many multiplications of the load it was designed to support.

It's erroneous to think of a skyscraper as a solid column of material that's able to stop falling objects. In reality a skyscraper is more like a skeletal structure with thousands of interconnected supporting members. The loss of too many members/supports will cause failure. A giant mass falling through the center of the skeleton will only knock more of the structure away, further propagating the collapse.

It's not really a matter of engineering, it's physics my friend. Where in your model do the falling objects accelerate at free fall? I am with you on the support failure and collapse (never did I say falling objects were stopped - on the contrary, I said non-falling parts will move) - but it does not explain the question at hand... free fall acceleration.

It's not really a matter of engineering, it's physics my friend

Engineering is physics. In case you don't know.

I am with you on the support failure and collapse (never did I say falling objects were stopped - on the contrary, I said non-falling parts will move) - but it does not explain the question at hand... free fall acceleration.

The heat from the fire wasn't enough to significantly reduce the strength of the steel, but it was hot enough to cause it to expand. One of the main steel girders underwent significant expansion from the heat, (the longer the beam the more it expands, being a main girder, it was quite long) this caused excessive forces on one of the column connections resulting in failure. The reason this occurred is because the building was designed assuming the sprinkler system would work in the event of a fire, which in this case, it did not. Now, after this connection broke, there was a collapse within the building that brought down a portion of several floors. This collapse left a number of the core columns without any lateral support, eliminating nearly all of there strength and thus causing there failure. Loading then shifted to the perimeter columns which quickly overwhelmed them, causing the collapse of the structure. Regarding the free fall, this occurs only after the collapse is well under way. The increasing speed at which the top half of the tower impacts successive floors is large enough that the columns provide essentially no resistance. Its like dropping a brick on a couple pieces of uncooked spaghetti standing up.

Building 7 fell with 9.8 m/s² for a period of 2.5 seconds. That implies that nothing was resisting its collapse for that time period. That situation is close to impossible for a natural collapse of a building. Ive seen people here suggest that free fall doesn't imply such unnatural conditions. those people are misinformed.

Just a small correction, The fact of freefall does not imply nothing was resisting collapse, it absolutely indisputable confirms nothing was resisting collapse. The situation is not close to impossible for a natural collapse, it is impossible.

So this can suggest unnatural means?

unnatural means

Internal explosions to weaken the structure would consist of that!

I don't like speculating. The fact that they first lied about it, only changed it when confronted about it at a meeting, then revised the report and did their best to play it down... the fact that they were so quick to offer a simple explanation, but then so utterly unable to generate a simulation that even remotely resembles what happened. ... these truths speak for themselves.

A simulation for which they won't release either the data or the model to any form of peer-review, on the grounds that doing so could compromise the "security" of other buildings. Such a transparent crock of shit, eh?

absolute crock of shit...

To slightly change topic, what are your thoughts on the pentagon? I think its bullshit that theyre withholding all the video evidence... but i recently heard a theory that makes a lot of sense: say it actually did happen the way they say. By withholding all the videos and creating public distrust around the issue, if public trust in the entire event ever becomes unmanageable sometime in the future, they could release the actual video, which would cause public trust in the *entire * event to return to normal. I found this theory very interesting, considering that i could totally see it being used as a limited hangout damage control chess piece in the future, and actually work very well at destroying skepticism in the unrelated events of building 7 and the twin towers...

Grandmaster-level strategic and tactical thinking is what we must presume to be dealing with here so I certainly wouldn't rule out anything like that on the basis of it just being too diabolical, however to my mind there were too many other indications that it wasn't an Al-Qaeda guided plane.

There's no way in hell a piss-poor pilot who only flew in sims and couldn't be trusted to land a Cessna somehow guided their maiden and final voyage of a 757 through a high-G turn just above sea level to park the plane at 500 knots right through the recently reinforced outermost ring of the Pentagon.

That's a bit much for me to accept.

i deff agree with you. Ive seen the information casting doubt on the actual kind of plane that it could have been.

If i were in charge of the PR though, when i sensed things were getting out of control, id flood the media with reports that theres evidence that it was actually a missile that hit the pentagon. and id have the CIA feed all these fake storys to the MSM. Then after hijacking the public distrust, and getting them to all dewll on this fake issue, thinking that real proof of a missile is imminent: BOOM id hit them with a video of A plane hitting the pentagon (whether its the plane or not now becomes less important as its far less big a deal than what everyone had been thinking). Then everyone would go, "awe man, see? the government isnt lying to us. it all happened the way they told us, we shouldn't have been so distrustful!". and because the speculation was hijacked and then disproven, overall speculation in the entire event would die down as well...

Thats how id do it if i was in charge at least lol.

I like how you think, and this kind of scenario is why I'm suspicious of Snowden and many other likely "limited hangouts." There are just so many potential ways to puppeteer the masses when you have so much power and resources at your disposal, that we have to treble-scrutinize any data points that purportedly confirm our beliefs.

Verify, verify, verify.

Video's can be doctored.

An aluminum fuselage can't penetrate 3 rings of steel reinforced concrete designed to withstand truck bombs and whatever other imaginary threats they could cook up when building it.

No physics major here, but I know those kinetic numbers don't add up.

Pilot here...not only this but two other things.

First, VMo of the plane was exceeded by over 130kias. This CANNOT happen in real life. The plane will flutter apart. This speed is determined in wind tunnels and by massive computer simulations. IT IS INVIOLATE.

Secondly, the FDR shows that, from the time the engines were spooled up, the cockpit door remained closed. Are we to believe that the "terrorist" (who couldn't fly a damn Cessna) would enter the plane, hide in the cabin, not be noticed (though the fake "calls" say that he was), take the plane, push it FAR beyond what the FMS would allow (somehow), break the laws of physics (somehow), exceed the maximum design speed by a HUGE amount (impossible) and then fly a near-impossible path into the 40' tall side of the Pentagon..just remodeled with Kevlar wall inserts in that wedge...exactly opposite the part of the building where the brass was?

Hahaha, NO.

And fly several feet over the ground at 500+kts without any ground effect or messing up one single blade of grass on the lawn.

Ground effect...good point!

[deleted]

youre right...theyre related in the sense that it all happened on the same day and all. I just meant they're unrelated in the sense that a plane hitting (or not hitting) the pentagon doesn't really have any effect on the collapse of building 7 or the twin towers. but if the public were to see the video of a plane hitting the pentagon after years and years of speculation that it didn't happen, i feel like it would cause speculation about the secret building 7 simulation code, and general distrust in the events of the entire day to die down as well.

Im not saying i necessarily believe it happened that way, just that it would totally make sense to stash away the tapes to be used as a limited hangout in case things ever got out of control in the future. In fact, if I were in charge of the PR surrounding 9/11, thats exactly what i would do...

This!!! Great insight and forethought.

i thought the official story was it was supposed to have started when a floor collapsed internally (or something)?

-the outside faces only collapsed later?

I don't see it collapsing from an outside corner anywhere.

If, by "corner", you mean column 79 under the east penthouse, then yes. But not the exterior corners: http://imgur.com/a/gGr3J

which i guess would onyl be possible if the inner structure had already collapsed, which we know is bullshit so.

think i got it thx.

I assumed, given your anger, that you are a 9/11 truther, like most people here. It seemed like you were mad that I questioned the motivations of the OP and took the focus off of his post. I made the judgement based mostly on your pathetic shill accusation, a pretty obvious demonstration of your inability to comprehend legitimate opposition to your position.

There was. Educate yourself.