Now that one is worth talking about, because nothing ran into WTC7 building. At most some debris fell on the roof. There is no doubt that WTC7 was pulled. But there was time to install explosives in that building. There was also thermite found in the dust around the towers. There was molten steel running in the basement days later, that we saw on video.

I don't know what happened, but there sure are interesting details.

Burning JetA can weaken steel enough to make it sag after long exposure. It does not have to melt to weaken. Ever put a rod in a fire at a weenie roast until it glows red, and then see how easy it is to bend? I mean a wood fire. A wood fire without any forced oxygen, burning in the open, will heat steel to red hot and it'll bend.

Some of the same doubts that are expressed about this are the same doubts I have always had about the Oklahoma city rider truck explosion bombing. The engineers said that there had to be an explosion on the inside of the building for the columns to blow outward like that, witnesses said they hear 2 explosions, They hauled the debris away in hours, not days after an investigation, and put police at the dump so no one could look at the beams etc.

I would like to get to the bottom of that one too.

kind of like Brits taking every opportunity to praise the NHS and Socialism.

The simplest answer is the same force that powers all structure collapse - Gravity. To put some reference numbers to the concept I hinted at about the effect of distance on velocity and the resulting (nearly squared) increase in force, consider that (as shown on Mythbusters and discussed by Physics departments galore online) a 500 pound piano falling a mere 50 feet collides with the force of 20,000 pounds.

If we are talking about a cascade failure where each successive floor offers some braking force but the tipping point has been reached where whatever resistance offered is not only overcome but due to the distance and speed reached in each successive fall of 10 feet (and 10 feet more, and 1o feet more, and 10 feet more, etc) with the weight of the falling object growing much like an avalanche gathering momentum and power from a mere snowball to an entire mountainside the force becomes additive and ever increasing. This is why the linked experiment is invalid since the force right from the first fall onto the top plank is nowhere near 10 feet and the space between each plank is at most 3 inches. In order to replicate the force, the fall distance must be identical since that is the "prime mover" at work. It is possible to get similar results with less mass since that is halved, but the speed is squared. Whether simply ignorant of the Physics or actively deceptive, the man who made the video effectively rigged the results.

Sorry but that is lame. Of course gravity played an important part. I suppose the gravity also melted the steel...

I have seen enough threads that you argued in and fully realize nothing any of us num-skulls say will change your mind. However it seems you ENJOY a good argument(I have no problem with that) so if you choose to stick up for the mainstream(needed to collect the towers' insurance) story, more power to you.

I also have to comment no matter who wins this argument, It Still DOESN'T change what actually happened or prevent it from happening.

I did notice something interesting this time though.

None of the conspiracy theorists are British.

Because sundial doesn't think the towers fell down properly.

Oh yeah...

[moves right along...]

Isn't that the very essence of this place? The same individuals expressing the same old opinions and slipping in their political and ideological viewpoints while they're at it... yawn.

When we COULD be doing something useful, like watching the games (live without losing sleep if you're in the right place).

No it is not lame. It's simple Physics. Gravity is the force of collapse. Compromising support resistance to collapse by whatever means triggers the process, and incidentally though rather important, steel was not melted. Do the research.

Speaking of research another area in which yours has been lacking or biased is saying "nothing any of us num-skulls say will change your mind" because there are several instances right here on LQN where I have admitted fault and/or realized a new set of evidence that changed my mind and I admitted it without silly ego defenses or hesitation. Furthermore I have clearly stated, also several times, that there is no shame in being wrong only in staying wrong once valid evidence is in, so those two pieces of evidence, readily available to anyone paying attention, that speak to a state of both mind and character, fly in the face of your "conclusive finger pointing".

Additionally I am not "sticking up for the Mainstream". I am sticking up for the process of understanding things through proper rules of evidence unbiased by any political agenda. In fact, if you've read even a handful of my posts you should recognize that I tend to be disrespectful and suspicious of Authority, hardly the Champion of Any Party Line that you make me out to be.

Bottom Line - Do the freakin' Math for the forces involved. Realize that a thousand foot fall won't kill a mouse, will kill a rat, will break a human and will splash a horse into a puddle or that a penny dropped from the Empire State Building will NOT go right through you but a 20 pound weight dropped from 6 feet will knock you unconscious and from 12 feet likely kill you instantly. Did you miss the point of a 700 pound piano (or a 700 pound box of feathers for that matter) hits with the force of 20,000 pounds when falling from 50 feet? THESE are the real forces involved and for something more concrete notice that other such structure collapses from fire alone have occurred since 9/11.

So it now remains to be seen, since this is current and specific (steel didn't melt and didn't need to and other buildings named above have in fact collapsed in a like manner) questions some of your conclusions, whether you will behave like you accuse me of or you will "put your money where your mouth is" and actually consider that evidence and modify your position in the least little bit or go right on preaching your agenda.

As for "prevention" that appears currently unlikely but slowly improving a bit and that is the condition of inter-agency collaboration versus competition. That is what is hard to fathom and even harder to justify in my mind, that no agency directors of which I'm aware were at the very least fired for dereliction of duty.

Having read pretty much all the arguments in this and in the earlier thread, I remain in doubt of both sides. Sundialsvcs and others have not convinced me that the buildings MUST have collapsed due to carefully placed explosives. Enorbet and others have not convinced me otherwise.

I do acknowledge that it generally takes careful engineering and a thorough knowledge of a building's structural design to make it fall into its own footprint, especially a tall vertical building. I cannot say what the odds are that such a building, or three buildings, could collapse thus without the careful engineering. Is it possible? Probable? I haven't a clue.

My personal life has not been in any way affected by the WTC incident. Nor am I likely to be more than indirectly affected by any such future incident within the USA - or Europe. Nor could I ever imagine what I could do one way or the other to prevent or even foresee any such future incident. And yet I must also acknowledge that there are global issues here, especially if it turns out that the U.S. government is itself implicated.

What's a poor lay doubter to do?

That means you're firmly on Sundial's side. Stop being dishonest.

Seriously, this is a rhetorical device that I spot instantly.

@enorbet I didn't mean that previous post in a bad way, since I myself enjoy a good argument.

I have been active outdoors all my life and done a little of about anything. I do know a lot about real life physics from experience.

One thing that I can't comprehend, is that:

If the fire did cause the collapse of the floor that triggered the "dominoe" effect. Would one side not give way before the other? and the top piece not measure its length on the ground even if totally destroyed?

I have messed with fire enough to know that the whole floor couldn't give away at the same time especially on two different buildings.

Any thoughts on this?

My, my. Seeing collusion and cooperation where there is none. Suspicious of anyone who isn't clearly on 'your side'. Isn't that pretty much what conspiracy theorists do?

No thanks. I refuse the bait, and remain in doubt. But - keep arguing; you may convince me.

P.S. Did you add the bit about 'rhetorical device'? It didn't show when i first quoted your post.

Riiight....

Yeah that was a later edit.