There was a a film of that on TV last night and they had to pre-damage the tanker car that they used before it would collapse.

OMFG I stated exactly that and mentioned the similarity was in unseen forces taken for granted and not normally seen for the real power they have, so what's your point?

enorbet, also remember that "no one in the US Federal Government is paying you to defend The Official Story.™

If you are defending it because you, in fact, "unwaveringly believe this to be true," perhaps at the exclusion of all other possible interpretations, then "let me point you to the nearest windmill" as you soldier-on in your Quest.

However, let me also point out that The Official Story – any(!) Official Story – does not automatically wear The Mantle Of Truth, just by having been promulgated by Government Officials! (Quite frankly, I have yet to encounter a single Official Story that I didn't feel was utter and complete hogwash. But, that's just me.)

I think that it's very important to remember crowd psychology when regarding such stories: they are devised to satisfy, and frankly to placate, a crowd population of people. They strive to push the entire popular discourse to accept the premise that The Official Story is True, and that all other interpretations are the work of ... Theorists, all (of course) doomed to be Disproved.

An Official Story is never content to be "one among many." It is ... "story, story, über alles!"

Those of us who choose not to accept The Official Story do not, in fact, need to be "corrected." Because there is, in fact, absolutely nothing ... giving due deference to the "mountains of 'expert testimony'" ... to ever prove that The Official Story is correct. The promoters of all such stories have a very obvious bias. For them, it is not enough to state a certain position: they need for you to believe it, and to do so at the exclusion of any and all other competition.

ping sundialsvcs - I actually looked up at the quote to make sure it was me whom you were addressing... twice. I thought you had a better grasp of how I think but that is apparently mistaken since there is no such thing as "unwavering belief" with me, with the rare possible exception being "Being alive is The Best, especially considering the alternatives" but even in that I can imagine conditions under which it might not be. I tender confidence in relative probabilities.

It should also be obvious that being "Official" carries no weight with me since I consider the odds very high in the JFK assassination that some of the mistakes and almost all of the application of "Classified" to evidence were done to accomplish a cover up, and I have stated that before, here. That does not imply that multiple assassins were involved, only that someone(s) of considerable power and influence thought he would look bad if the whole truth were revealed. It also doesn't rule that multiples out.

WTC is a "horse of a different color" in that while we can see JFK being hit we cannot see LHO (or anyone else) firing the shots. Much of the questions and research revolved around numbering the shots and attempting to locate or rule out their point of origin - a huge gap in what we have to go on. With WTC we saw the weapons, the impacts, and the resulting conflagration in real time leading to the ultimate collapses. It took relatively small effort to work backward for points of origin.

My biases exist in the form of weighting of probabilities. For example when I have been hurt by others I try to remember that far more often than actual malice is lack of concern and incompetence and that misunderstandings and misinterpretations are extremely more common than not. "A" only rarely == "A'". One such bias is that the simplest explanation is usually the most accurate. This applies to WTC in that no other explanation than the most obvious one (given the crashing planes and the mathematics of structure and gravity) I have read or seen comes without massively convoluted and long term difficulties in the extreme. In the case of WTC the most obvious is also the simplest, and given the evidence and laws of Physics, the most likely.

You say that immediately upon seeing the news coverage you knew the cause, even though you admittedly saw no evidence of explosions and had to conjure up some top secret formula unknown to.... well, almost everyone, to make your interpretation work. To me that is a sure sign of real prejudice - since by definition as in a court of law it is arriving at a verdict before all the evidence is in.

I quite literally don't give a ratzass my conclusion is in agreement with findings carrying the stamp of "Official". It may even carry an urge for extra scrutiny BUT I know the simplicity of the math of the forces involved, that the temperatures reached did indeed weaken the structure by up to more than one half of original strength. There was no way continued exposure to those temperatures would not have weakened the structure so, as has been dramatically demonstrated in subsequent testing. The weight of the falling floors is known and how far they fell is also known so it is trivial to calculate the immense force of mass at velocity. Those make simple compelling sense just as those same calculations show that the first attempt had rather little chance of bringing down a single tower with that relatively puny blast. It was fairly intense but in too small an area to weaken structure sufficiently to do more than make a loud noise and a sizeable hole. It did somewhat serve as proof of concept though, that it was possible to get a bomb in the structure. The only remaining problem was getting a larger one inside and jets with full tanks of jet fuel was just as brilliant and simple as it was despicable.

Finally while those like me that have actual evidence and numbers to work with as well as the same view as you of the event, you have only the view and your convictions, baseless convictions in this specific event. If that is misrepresentation it is only because I have seen no real evidence from anyone, including you, sundial, that has enough weight. let alone likelihood, to demand reconsideration. I am honestly open to some competing explanation but the facts and figures must be there, not just philosophy.

Incidentally your last 2 sentences apply to you and your story as much as any government or corporate spin doctor.

enorbet, I'll stick to my own personal opinions and I'll never be drawn into the spider's-web of being expected to "justify" those opinions against any sort of "official version of The Truth," since I fundamentally (and, personally) judge those versions to in fact be falsehoods.

Let me repeat myself: "I conclude that the entire 'Official Story,' once again, is f-a-l-s-e."

And you need not waste your time, further, endeavoring to convince me otherwise. I s-a-w not two but three buildings "collapse neatly into their own footprint" on that fateful day, and then I fully comprehended (in my own sovereign mind ...) both the timing of the third building's fall (and the IMHO™ obvious™ nature of it), and the identity of the particular building which fell, with regard to the City's anti-terrorism stratagems.

The conclusions that subsequently rammed themselves through my still-disbelieving mind, at the same time(!) "made a mockery of" The Official Story, and(!) "proved the utter necessity of" (IMHO) Promoting It At All Costs.

"False, but Necessary(?)"

But ... "this has already been said." I shall therefore again try to Bow Out.

Yeah, Gravity sucks

"Building #7 is 'The Smoking Gun.'" A very excellent video presentation, only 35 minutes long, is here.

This video not only includes numerous shots of the 47-story building neatly collapsing into its own footprint, but others of steel-framed buildings that were even completely consumed by fires which did not. It contains recordings made by firefighters and officials who were telling the public that "this building is going to collapse." (Even though it was comparatively undamaged vs. say, WTC#5, which was utterly consumed by fire ... but did not collapse.) And, the careful testimony of dozens of structural engineers from around the world and demolition-company experts. A firefighter described the crime-scene investigation rules and laws that must be followed –*even in the case of a minor house-fire with no loss of life – that were not.

And this frank observation: "You do know that, if one of the three buildings was rigged for demolition, all of them were."

Only three steel-framed buildings in history have ever collapsed "due to fire." All of them were in the same city, all of them were leased by one man, and they all fell in the same manner and on the same day: collapsing upon themselves in almost exactly the same amount of time that it would take a baseball to fall to the ground from the same height.

WTC #7's penthouse disappears first, immediately followed by the top structure, immediately followed by the building with a string of smoke-puffs going up its side. A perfectly symmetrical implosion. And, a debris pile that burned beneath the surface at over 1400 degrees for many days even though millions of gallons of water ("a lake") was poured on top of it for many days.

This truth is a hard and bitter pill to swallow. But the concealment of the truth is even worse. You can blame #1 and #2 on airplanes if you are determined to do so, but #7 is the smoking gun. See for yourself.

- - -
Edit: I would also very much recommend to you this English-language (RT ... Russia) interview of Dr. Neils Harrit, professor of chemistry at the University of Copenhagen. After describing it as "a masterpiece of demolition," and having previously discussed nano-thermite (a military-grade explosive) at considerable length, he becomes quite human in the last couple minutes of the video, when the interviewer asks what he thinks about "conspiracy theorist." (Around 12:04.) (English, of course, is his second language ...)

I think that it is also significant that Dr. Harrit's initial introduction to the conundrum was very similar to my own. (12:04)

He saw a tape and said, "what is this?" When told, "9/11" ... well, in the interest of brevity I won't quote the entire piece (but please take the time to watch it). At (7:24) he says:
The very-consistent take-away of all of these people is that this is (at least ...): "the Crime of the Century" that has never even been investigated, as the Law prescribes! (And, the cover-up of the same, of course, would be another, even bigger, crime.)

Although these interpretations are much more benign than my own judgment of them, even so, they are (IMHO) absolutely "demands that should still be made, and re-made, until they finally bear fruit."

Background: Dr. Harrit and 8 of his professional colleagues had previously published a paper in an open chemistry journal, which (of course) seems to be comparatively hard to find these days. But you can still find it, indirectly, here. Or, more directly, the 25-page PDF is here.) Naturally, it was promptly "debunked," but others debunked the debunkers. I will leave it to you to decide.

But if you read the 25-page paper . . . as I would strongly encourage you to do . . . it speaks for itself, as any well-crafted scientific paper should do.

Indeed ... How peculiar it is that the "official investigators" declined to do such a very-obvious thing, especially when such is required by law in any crime scene? (If your own house had "burned down," I guarantee that the firefighters will have routinely done this, for the benefit of both criminal investigators and your insurance company, whether you were aware of it or not, and even if they suspected you of nothing.)

The paper, in its analysis, is also pedantic in its thoroughness: (e.g. ...)
But ...
and then ...
---
---
By the way, Dr. Harrit points out that "thermite is really not that uncommon." He describes how you might arrange for your house to burn down while you're away on vacation, triggering the fire with a cell-phone call. I had no idea ...

This last post, sundial ol' buddy, is your best yet with actual studies even if I find Dr. Harris slightly suspicious for the likelihood of a an agenda or at least predisposition. For example I don't see the logic of "... if one of the three buildings was rigged for demolition, all of them were." One is not a logical consequence of the other. Such thinking is not Scientific. It is good enough though that I do intend to watch the video and wade through the document even though the idea that any manner of thermite residue, let alone unconsumed thermite, was present looks to be fallacious and there are simpler explanations for any and all compounds discovered. The dust, BTW, was in fact tested so I want to see what your studies above say about that.

FWIW we need to be especially careful with video interviews. There was one listed for the UFO thread about Roswell that on the surface seems rather genuine. It does not, however, stand up to deeper scrutiny. Similarly, I hope you have seen the prison interview with James Files who talks for over 2 hours on his involvement in the JFK assassination and he is extremely convincing... once again until you look deeper and check details and the shady credentials of the man who was the author of articles and this subsequent interview. The point is that videos can be scripted with some allowance for improvisation designed to carry credibility and edit out any conflicting information, mush like the cliche Used Car Salesman.

I know from your many posts that you consider yourself something of a skeptic and just to clear up your idea that I am something of an Official Story sheep, if I haven't already, I view all data as worthy of equal skepticism and never assume that if the bulk is verifiable then by extension all must be. That is a leap I am not willing to make. All data deserves harsh scrutiny if one is actually interested in discovering the truth rather than seeking support for a pet idea.

Soi I probably won't post here again for a few days as I will give the above info thorough investigation. Till then, sundial.

Obviously, the statement that "all of them were" is an opinion ... but, I think, a very prescient one.

Building #7 collapsed in such a way that it basically could not possibly be anything but demolition. One video that I cited shows it collapsing side-by-side with two different "known demolitions," and the collapse pattern is exactly the same. Likewise, the fact that the penthouse and then the on-the-roof structures collapse first, followed by a perfectly symmetrical seven-second fall. Likewise, the fact that you can see puffs of smoke "run" up the sides of the glass walls. Likewise, the fact that this pile of debris, just like the others, also burned extremely hot for many weeks while being continually doused with water.

Thus, it truly is "the smoking gun." And so, when you pit the collapse of this building, which has no credible explanation at all except demolition, against the virtually-identical collapse patterns of the Twin Towers ... Well, if you want to believe that only one building was "pulled" while the other two collapsed due to jet fuel and Jimminy Cricket physics, that's your pleasure.

Whether you call it "an act of War," as I do, or "the crime of the century," I know an official cover-up when I see one. But, I don't understand why.

- - - - -
I do actually think that there's something to "UFO's," too. A lot of strange things happen out there at Groom Creek Air Force Base, aka "Area 51." One of the most interesting possibilities seems to involve Nicola Tesla's mostly-now-classified experiments with very high frequency electricity with respect to gravity. If it were possible to counteract the force of gravity, and possibly also use it as a means of propulsion, the most logical shape would be a circular disc that basically acted as a "surfboard." When energized, it would be surrounded by a visible static field: it would glow. It could possibly move very fast and change direction abruptly. But, a long-term power source might be a problem, and the craft would be extremely dangerous. Nevertheless, it would utterly revolutionize both space travel (controlled return to earth instead of a free-fall "re-entry") and military aircraft. It is exactly the sort of thing that the United States Air Force would have a very strong professional interest in. And, Groom Creek would be a good place to do it ... possibly the only safe place to do it. Today (if a radio signal could get through the field), it might be the basis for a drone.

Here we go again, you doing my job for me characterizing you jumping to (preconceived) conclusions and me the cold, hard skeptic looking for "Just the facts, Ma'am". You may see it as prescient but it is simply unsupported speculation. Puffs of smoke are normal during a collapse since air space is being filled by falling debris much like a piston in a cylinder of an air compressor. Large buildings such as these are commonly thirteen (13) feet each and a fall of many tons for 13 feet is a phenomenal (but calculable) amount of kinetic energy. This is nowhere near "Jimminy Cricket Physics", which characterizes your POV as highly biased as well as contrary to factual. This is exactly why you conclude that no other conclusion is credible since that fits how you (choose to) see the world. I, OTOH, recognize that many possibilities exist but they have a hierarchical order of likelihood. I literally don't care which wins out, since there is almost nothing I can do about it but take note.

Once again <sigh> they look identical because regardless of what caused the weakening of structure the collapse of all of them is a direct result of only one thing - GRAVITY.

As for UFOs I have no problem with and in fact embrace the concept as long as one places due emphasis on the first word. It's the process of working from "unidentified' to "identified" that causes me to draw a hard line between fantasy and reality.

Now back to the homework you assigned

"Gravity" is the enemy of all structures and of all things – but buildings do not "free-fall into their own footprints" just because of gravity. They only do this when everything in the building, bottom to top (not top to bottom ...), ceases to support them ... all at once. This is not "weakening" of the structure: it is the instantaneous "destruction" of it. That's what demolition experts are paid big bucks to do, and YouTube is filled with "demolition fail" videos where anything went wrong.

With building #7, nothing went wrong. And yes, you can see the puffs of smoke from the rapidly and sequentially-exploding "squibs" in several different lines (e.g. first video, 07:44). But, it's all very unmistakable anyway: "any fool can see what's going on here." When a building collapses like that, it can be one thing only. The "path of least resistance" is, suddenly and instantaneously, "straight down." When debris from the upper sections descends, everything beneath them has systematically cleared itself out of the way a fraction-of-a-second before, so that absolutely nothing is deflected into any other path. (Every "fail video" is a case where, for one reason or another, that failed to happen.)

And it becomes "the smoking gun" because it clearly establishes the presence of demolition – and all of the weeks and months of preparation that necessarily goes into any such job.

Now, you're free to believe whatever Official Story you please, but to do so, in my view, simply strains credibility well beyond its breaking point. "If one building was rigged with explosives ... the other two buildings were, too." The pattern of destruction that everyone observed – but wished to deny – suddenly has a grisly but entirely-sufficient technical explanation that has nothing at all to do with airliners: it is entirely consistent with controlled demolition using exotics, in all three cases. Two of them can be debated if you wish to do so; the "smoking gun" cannot.

To paraphrase Isaac Newton's version of "Occam's Razor": Which leaves the unanswered question: "Why?"

Puffs of "smoke" at the bottom of a collapsing building of several floors would be exactly what you would expect. As the floors above collapse the air pressure inside the ground floor would increase quite rapidly until it rose sufficiently to blow out the doors, windows and possibly the walls as they would not be structural.

Air pressure in such a building would probably blow-out entire panels of glass. But we see puffs of smoke appearing in several rapidly-ascending lines up the side of a structure that we already know is being demolitioned. Therefore, we already know that these are explosive "squibs." (The glass panels don't move. In fact, nothing at all is "ejected.")

It is more difficult to see this on Towers #1 and #2, largely because of the very different manner of construction of the two buildings, especially in the design of the external sheathing. Nevertheless, once we are fore-armed with the certainty that "demolition has been used in at least one case," we are free to observe the other two events with that certainty in mind ... and, we find several visual anomalies which might be squibs. (But any explosion-gas products could also be contained within the sheathing: they could have been driven inwards. #7 has no such thing.)

The "into its own footprint" manner of collapse of the entire structure is, of course, the most-damning evidence of all, and all three fell-down in just that way. And, given that we know (by simple empirical observation) that #7 was demolitioned, we are free to draw the obvious conclusion that the other two buildings were, also. This hypothesis is "true and sufficient to explain the appearances," in all three cases. In fact, it is really the only one. Incomprehensible though it may be.

Here we distinctly disagree.
1) Yes buildings do "freefall into their own footprint" once structure is sufficiently reduced no matter how that is accomplished. Even in planned demolition not only is it not necessary it is never done commercially that the entire "bottom to top" structure is destroyed. Only key elements have to be compromised. That's why the big bucks.

2) Top-down works just fine if that which is falling has sufficient mass and velocity which actual numbers prove existed. As for the speed, once that amount of mass falls 13 feet the kinetic energy is so enormous that it becomes for all intents and purposes the proverbial "unstoppable force". The lower floors might just as well be paper.

3) The puffs of smoke could be from squibs but several other scenarios are quite plausible too. Also, as one of the "Official Story" components is a large hole in one side caused by heavy jet parts including at least one engine that struck it, and a diesel fuel line under delivery pressure fed fuel to an upper floor, "nothing went wrong" is not an accurate representation at all. Incidentally since I've viewed the video you linked in it's entirety once and parts of it several times, it is clearly visible that toward the end of the collapse Bldg. 7 began to skew to one side. Just as the last few floors clears the line of sight one can clearly see the roofline tilt by several degrees and it is toward the exact side with the hole.

4) The "1 demolition implies all 3 as demolitions" is exactly the sort of non sequitur generalizations without a shred of evidence that sheds a bad light on the whole "truther" objective. That some claim Israel was behind it and others who claim FBI agents assassinated 3 or more firefighters is further reductio ad absurdum that displays the politival bent of the Neo-Nazi, KKK-like mindset of some of these "truthers".

So it is not a smoking gun. It isn't even a gun at all since there is no "bullet", "spent casing" or any specific evidence ruling out other means AND considerable evidence that explosions did not occur and even totally fabricated "evidence" on the part of so-called "truthers". No smoking gun means no 1 let alone all 3 demolitions.

Finally what is "true and sufficient" becomes difficult when one has not yet concluded via evidence what "true" is, and not having the truth and not putting "the cart before the horse" is even a more fundamental part of Logic than Occam's Razor and must be included when applying it. One thing that is obviously true is that whatever goal may have been in the mind(s) of any inside theoretical conspirators could have been accomplished with less money, less time, less risk, fewer participants, and just as great an effect or even more with several well-placed bombs. Even as crude a device as Timothy McVeigh's truck bomb, say one each in a dozen key locations set off sequentially over say an hours time 5 minutes apart with the realization the next one is coming, certainly assumed by explosion #4, being unable to stop the next one and realizing the unknowm - how many are there? would easily have created as big a stir, if not greater in scope. So Occam's Razor, when properly applied, makes conspiracy apart from the obvious Al Queda conspiracy far more complicated and therefore far less likely. Incidentally, Al Queda who hates Israel as much as any radical Muslim group, chastised those who claimed anyone other than Al Queda, especially Israel, as "ridiculous".

Now on to more research and the pdf you linked.

Enorbet, there really does come a time when "your own eyes" are a credible, and sufficient, source of information.

Building #7 is the "smoking gun" that blows the covers completely off. There simply is no other explanation for why that building collapsed in exactly the way that it did. Once you see #7 doing this, and you inescapably know how and why, you (IMHO)cannot plausibly deny that you saw #1 and #2 doing the selfsame thing, despite the airliner fires in the upper stories.

Furthermore, fires burned for months despite millions of gallons of water, and firefighters found both molten and evaporated steel. All three buildings exhibited the same effects. (Here is a USGS map showing surface temperatures of over 1400ºF five days after the events. (Also here, better showing building locations. Notice that the "impossible temperatures" are the same for #7 as for #1 and #2.)

From hereThis video describes the construction of #1 and #2, particularly with regard to the exterior sheathing, and lists testimony of molten steel, and finally, demonstrates a (homemade) thermate charge. He constructs a thermate charge, using off-the-shelf materials, which cuts horizontally through a beam joint identical to the ones used in the buildings. He also constructs a model of the bolted-together columns that were used on the outer sheathing and shows how a tiny amount of thermate would melt the bolt-heads.

Even though one might desire to take solace in "Official Stories" in this case, both empirical observation and subsequent objective analysis simply and ably (IMHO) proves that the story cannot be true. Period.

Instead, the evidence points unmistakably to a horribly different conclusion.

The evidence is out there, and it cannot be denied.

This leaves us with: questions. I cannot personally accept that this was "an insurance job," particularly because of the associated hijackings. I especially find it unfathomable to consider that hundreds of people were killed in two airplanes for a diversion. But, neither do I think that desert-people from half a world away were truly responsible. I consider it to be an act of War, not terrorism.

And it could easily happen again.