911 Conspiracy Theorists - the controlled explosion

[Franky Four Fingers]

It wouldn't be the first time the American government harmed its own people in order to justify war.

The American government is epically corrupt and there are too many odd events that make up 911 to ignore the conspiracy theories.

- all scrambled fighters jets were sent in the opposite direction to the hijacked airliners.

Because there was a mix up by air traffic control

- the twin towers should not have fallen after the impact or exposure to the ignited jet fuel.
Why not?

- no one has been able to explain why explosions where seen on each floor just before they collapsed.
Ermmm yes they have many times

- why did tower 7 get demolished and how were they able to demolish it so quickly?

It wasn't demolished it collapsed

I watched it unfold live on TV too. Most of the world did. That means nothing.

There's too much footage for anyone to claim aircraft were involved. If you believe what the US government tells you, then I'm sorry but you've been brain washed.

Aircraft were involved, I saw them crash in to the towers via the medium of television and live footage of the day.


Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app

[gollUM]

@Saint-Just
Actualy, no... classicaly built house of cards would be poor example, no safety factor so of course that it would not work for me. But, I can arrange and build house of cards in such a way that you can remove part of the cards and it will still stand. :)
Towers were designed to withstand side impact of large aircraft. You can google the interview with structural engineer responsible for this in design phase, you can find it on you tube. For the core columns safety factor was more than 2. So theoreticaly if half of them were severely damaged the building would still stand. And it was impossible to severely structuraly damage half out of 49 core columns... not by aluminium and polymer aircraft.
Btw, what explosion are you refering to?

[Argee1977]

I haven't put forward my thoughts on any of the substantive issues being discussed, save to say that the pasengers were murdered.

I know nothing of demolition, but I know enough about life to do my own due diligence and to form my own opinion.
Within the WTC, I guess there are service areas, staircases etc that are off-limits to the public that would be conducive to planting high explosives. I dont know.
The movies always show some swarthy Brit using a mobile phone to detonate her explosives, so are 'miles of detonation line' absolutely necessary using such technology?. Again, I have no idea!
Maybe there is a 'unseen type of thermite'. I'm not even sure what thermite is, but I know that military technology is approx 50 years ahead of that which has been subject to public disclosure, which suggests I should do some of my own due diligence on your 'thermite' theory.

Clearly I need to do some more reading.
Boo, boring reading. Maybe I'll just do a 10 second Google search and quickly re-hash the top 5 results into some sort of wierd, hybrid non-opinion and then report back here within minutes, and if anyone debates me I'll call them a condescending name, and then wave my punctilious finger at my non-fact based, non-opinion whilst shouting down all those dumb idiots that disagree with me.

Thermite is a pyrotechnic rather than a secondary explosive.

The miles of det cord would be needed if you have multiple charges, as would the boosters, the evil brit phoning in would be using some type of IED on a single charge.

I don't think explosive technology is more advanced in any single field, what holds it back is our current limitations in regards to chemistry and physics.

[barkington]

Sorry. There's a typo in my post. I meant aircraft clearly were involved.

Building 7 was demolished. There is evidence of authorities giving the order to "pull building 7".

The rest of your response is nothing.


Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app

[monogroover]

There's too much footage for anyone to claim aircraft were involved. If you believe what the US government tells you, then I'm sorry but you've been brain washed.

There's too much footage for anyone to claim aircraft weren't involved, isn't there? Or is that what you meant? It would just take one amateur video recording to surface showing the tower impact without the aircraft superimposed, then we'd certainly have a mystery. But too much footage shows aircraft involved, and so do dozens of eyewitness accounts, not provided or controlled by the US government but prompted by the media.

[barkington]

There's too much footage for anyone to claim aircraft weren't involved, isn't there? Or is that what you meant? It would just take one amateur video recording to surface showing the tower impact without the aircraft superimposed, then we'd certainly have a mystery. But too much footage shows aircraft involved, and so do dozens of eyewitness accounts, not provided or controlled by the US government but prompted by the media.

I meant, it's clear aircraft were involved. I've edited my post.




Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app

[mr noble]

Sorry. There's a typo in my post. I meant aircraft clearly were involved.

Building 7 was demolished. There is evidence of authorities giving the order to "pull building 7".

The rest of your response is nothing.


Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app

"Pull building 7" was said with reference to the firemen inside being told to pull out. It's what the Americans say when they mean "call off the operation."

Luckily all the firemen managed to pull out shortly before the building collapsed. As far as I know, it collapsed because a much larger building had fallen on it earlier in the day. That's got to hurt right!?

[barkington]

Are these people for real? I've seen these numb nuts pop up on Facebook a couple of times and just block them. They seem to quote pseudo science and bits of facts to try and support a conspiracy that the US government did this themselves. Some even say that planes weren't involved. Seriously?

I really don't know where to start. Many of us, including myself, watched this unfold live after the first plane hit. I worked in the travel industry so watched it keenly all day. There were definitely planes involved! And if there was a conspiracy, the sheer amount of people it would need coordinate and keep quite would mean at least one of them would come out and blow the whistle, if not from a moral standpoint then afterwards for a fat paycheck from the media. These lunatics need to seriously have a long hard look at their mental health and seek some help.

Rant over and apologies.

This is an incredibly dumb thing to post about on a forum like this. I'm 99.9% you did it so you'd got lots of activity.

It's about as stupid as trying to discuss the existence of god. People have their own opinions. Those who need facts will never get them, those who have a strong feeling about it are unlikely to change their opinion.




Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app

[Franky Four Fingers]

Sorry. There's a typo in my post. I meant aircraft clearly were involved.

Building 7 was demolished. There is evidence of authorities giving the order to "pull building 7".

The rest of your response is nothing.


Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app

No I'm fairly certain building 7 collapsed.
Rest of my response is nothing......care to elaborate p?

[bond]

Yes I read and watched structural engineers comment extensively on the reinforced steel outer and inner layers that were PURPOSE built to withstand tremendous forces including planes flown into them. In accordance with this a video of a car travelling at a forced speed approximate to the speed the planes travelling at point of impact where improvised and gas propelled at a basic concrete slab. The car did not penetrate the concrete slab . The kinetic energy and velocity caused the car , engine to crumple into what amounted to nothing but a sheet of compressed metal . No pieces of engine here and back box there. In relation to the planes there should not of in theory been pieces of giant fuselage here nor engine there. Let alone the passport of the purposed 'hijacker'. The engine found blocks away. The engine examined had completely different components for the model of plane that was listed as flying into the towers that day.

This makes me chortle as I talk to a wide variety of people . Nurses, doctors, solicitors and people in all walks of life who do not accept the official line. Of course something flying hit the towers and of course they went down . Are they all tin hatters? Am I ?
Quite possibly but at least its therapeutic.

It's as if a false flag order can not be executed? I certainly don't think it would not if needed . At any cost


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mr noble]

In terms of Occam's Razor, let's list some of the assumptions that would accompany a theory that it was not the passenger aircraft that hit the towers:

- Someone needed to build planes that would look like the exact size and shape of the Boeings that were seen on video by multiple sources, and described by multiple sources. Let's assume this took more than one person
- Someone managed to switch the transponders and any other broadcasting equipment picked up by air traffic and radar from the real passenger planes to the fake planes without anyone noticing. I'm guessing there was quite a quick turnaround for the aircraft so this would have needed to be done quickly. Let's assume this would take more than one person
- The real passenger planes were disposed of/hidden without anyone not in the loop noticing. Again let's assume multiple people would need to be involved
- The people supposedly travelling on those planes, who are now apparently dead, were either murdered or paid enough money to not see their parents, spouses or children ever again. Let's again assume that as well as the passengers, multiple people would need to have been involved

I'm still waiting for Mr goLLUM to give his response to these assumptions that his argument creates.

[barkington]

"Pull building 7" was said with reference to the firemen inside being told to pull out. It's what the Americans say when they mean "call off the operation."

Luckily all the firemen managed to pull out shortly before the building collapsed. As far as I know, it collapsed because a much larger building had fallen on it earlier in the day. That's got to hurt right!?

Pulling a building is far more commonly a demolition term than an evacuation or retreat term.

Nothing's hurting over here. I'm not American and no one I know died in 9/11. So I couldn't really careless about the situation. I'm annoyed about America invading the Middle East for oil and fabricating the war on terror to justify it. But if they didn't, someone else would have done.


Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app

[Schofie]

This is an incredibly dumb thing to post about on a forum like this. I'm 99.9% you did it so you'd got lots of activity.

Thanks for your insight and your certainty, and your obvious long experience of what is 'dumb' to post on this forum. You don't know me so your 99.9% certainty I'm afraid is incorrect. I have absolutely no need for the attention of a load of pixels from people I don't know. I'm sure me saying it doesn't change your mind though so good evening to you.

Edit: what was dumb, however, is the tone of my OP. Too much emotion. I had just got off Facebook and seen a bloke fighting with every man and his dog about this very subject. Not thinking that could possibly be replicated here I wrote about my frustrations... I am now finding myself agreeing with you that it was a dumb thread

[gollUM]

Oh, about what we all were able to see on that day... there are people who were analyzing that also. News TV coverage I mean.
I like this guy, he was very thorough and precise:
https://youtu.be/gORu-68SHpE


@mr noble
I did not say anywhere that I have all the answers, but I am not afraid to ask questions. :)
So, what do you think how they pull it... if there was no civilian planes involved!?

[Franky Four Fingers]

Oh, about what we all were able to see on that day... there are people who were analyzing that also. News TV coverage I mean.
I like this guy, he was very thorough and precise:
https://youtu.be/gORu-68SHpE

Can you point us to the parts you think are pertinent to your point....I'm not watching 1.3 hrs

[reggie747]

This video makes for interesting viewing.

[gollUM]

@Franky Four Fingers
Trust me, relax and watch... interesting... mass media and stuff!

[Belligero]

I'm still waiting for Mr goLLUM to give his response to these assumptions that his argument creates.

Considering that he claims to be some sort of engineer, yet appears not to understand what F = ma means, I'd keep my expectations low.

[gollUM]

Yes, but who would amuse you all this time, if the things were different!?
It is very important that you know what F=ma means... and keep it to yourself! That way suspense is neverending... :)

[bond]

Surely if we apply Occom's razor here, the most plausible solution with least assumptions would be.......that Bin Laden orchestrated a horrific attack on America by flying two hijacked airplanes into the twin towers which eventually collapsed due to the extreme temperatures of the internal fires causing the steel to warp, stretch and twist. In collapsing, a huge chunk of tower 7 was gouged out, in turn causing that tower to collapse.

Assuming this is the correct version of events and it probably is-lest we not forget bin laden was CIA trained tactician, that if the above is the true event, that it was orchestrated by the US and further events transpired perpetuated via the patriot act post 9/11 for ulterior motives. Whether they were remote controlled flying bananas , holographs projected by the mysterious military flying ball caught on camera -the towers falling was a huge cash cow for the continuation of the wests way of life. Many elites profited and here we are . The rest is history and the dollar keeps turning


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bond]

One of the above videos shows a US test a propelled plane at high speed 'atomising' into dust against solid concrete walls . Is this analogous to a plane hitting towers made of the same materials ? This is where I have the difficulty understanding how the nosecone comes out the other side ? There are enough pictures of planes nosecones severely damaged through bird collisions . So how in Great Scott did it manage to penetrate the first layer intact and through the interior filled with walls, exiting the opposite side and yet ANOTHER solid steel and concrete wall. If it's not baffling to the physics teachers then I'm truly at a loss


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[asteclaru]

Pulling a building is far more commonly a demolition term than an evacuation or retreat term

Really? Cause in the 4 years I've been working in demolition I've never heard anyone say that. You generally don't pull on stuff you're trying to bring down because it's going to fall on top of you. That's literally the first thing you learn on the job

[asteclaru]

Towers were designed to withstand side impact of large aircraft. You can google the interview with structural engineer responsible for this in design phase, you can find it on you tube. For the core columns safety factor was more than 2. So theoreticaly if half of them were severely damaged the building would still stand. And it was impossible to severely structuraly damage half out of 49 core columns... not by aluminium and polymer aircraft.

1. The towers were designed to withstand impact with a smaller, lighter aircraft flying at a lower speed. But that's less important, since they DID withstand the impact. In fact, the towers were still standing more than one and a half hour after the impact

2. You keep banging on about columns and their safety factors, when, in fact, it was the trusses that ultimately failed and led to the collapse. You really need to take a look at the drawings of the towers to see why it was possible to fail like they did. Usually in tower blocks, the columns are evenly spread out. The WTC towers were different, with columns being placed around the lift cores and the facade, connected through steel trusses. When heated up, these steel trusses began to sag and pull inside the outer columns, which ultimately led to the collapse. You can have as many columns still standing as you want. If the trusses connecting them together (and supporting the slabs and what not) fail, the building is going down. You don't need a PhD in structural engineering to know that, just common sense and a little bit of knowledge of how buildings are built

[gollUM]

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WR...g_707_767.html

1. Not much smaller aircraft, comparable. Btw, one tower stood for little less then an hour, the other one for little more than hour and a half.
2. Yes, the thing you say and exactly how you say it would be official theory of colapse. If you deduct this logicaly, congratulations, I did not.
Just let me ask you what made trusses to fail again? Where from this temperature came from, the one that initiated sagging?

Btw, I am not banging anything. I just mentioned the fact about the core columns twice.

We are just talking, discussing the matter, I am not trying to organize new scientology church here. :)

[asteclaru]

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WR...g_707_767.html

1. Not much smaller aircraft, comparable. Btw, one tower stood for little less then an hour, the other one for little more than hour and a half.
2. Yes, the thing you say and exactly how you say it would be official theory of colapse. If you deduct this logicaly, congratulations, I did not.
Just let me ask you what made trusses to fail again? Where from this temperature came from, the one that initiated sagging?

Btw, I am not banging anything. I just mentioned the fact about the core columns twice.

We are just talking, discussing the matter, I am not trying to organize new scientology church here. :)

The fire caused the trusses to sag. You don't need anywhere near the melting temperature for steel for trusses to fail in this way

[Argee1977]

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WR...g_707_767.html

1. Not much smaller aircraft, comparable. Btw, one tower stood for little less then an hour, the other one for little more than hour and a half.
2. Yes, the thing you say and exactly how you say it would be official theory of colapse. If you deduct this logicaly, congratulations, I did not.
Just let me ask you what made trusses to fail again? Where from this temperature came from, the one that initiated sagging?

Btw, I am not banging anything. I just mentioned the fact about the core columns twice.

We are just talking, discussing the matter, I am not trying to organize new scientology church here. :)

It doesn't fill me with confidence that they've got the numbers wrong in their thrust to weight equations. The earlier assumption about their airspeed is also not really true, there may well be max speeds for aircraft, but they can go faster, the descent speed you talked about is critical though, as sink rate limits tend to be there to stop stressing the airframe and cause structural damage, but this of course would mean that if exceeded, the aircraft would have to be assessed, it wouldn't just break up once hitting that rate.

The assumption on the building structure again is just that, there was talk of an analysis on an aircraft strike, but no data found, it's also hard to calculate that for a building that was 30 odd years old, or against what part of the structure is struck as there are so many configurations. It would be a seriously difficult calculation to make, today we'd use analytical software, but again that doesn't factor in real world issues.

As others have said though, 1/2MV2 / A is the number that gives the KED, and with a fully laden 767 going at around cruise speed, that's a big number.

[Artistmike]

Generally speaking, in my view, people are entitled to hold opinions whether they are informed or not. They are opinions, that is all. People do not have a moral obligation to be informed before expressing any opinion. That is entirely up to them.

This may well apply to that statement .... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%27m_..._to_my_opinion

[seikopath]

This may well apply to that statement .... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%27m_..._to_my_opinion

I don't think it does. But that's just my opinion. Have a nice day Mike :)

[mr noble]

@mr noble
I did not say anywhere that I have all the answers, but I am not afraid to ask questions. :)
So, what do you think how they pull it... if there was no civilian planes involved!?

But in order to believe a plausible conspiracy theory such as yours, you do need to have all the answers to these impossible questions. Otherwise the alternate theory falls to pieces. If these raised questions cannot be answered in any remotely plausible manner, then the theory simply can not be valid.




I also find it intersting that the nose cone seemed to exit the building in tact. However, the comparison with flying a plane into a solid concrete block is not a fair one. The plane flew into an office block presumably filled with desks, chairs and the odd water cooler. Not quite the same as flying into a 6 foot thick concrete wall.
It is also entirely possible that the nose cone we see exiting the building, might in fact be a flattened sliver of the nose cone, a silhouette of the side profile of the bit which passed between the upright steel columns on the outside of the building. It was in effect, flying into and out of a pair of glass windows, through an office filled mostly with fresh air, not a solid concrete block.

[seikopath]

But in order to believe a plausible conspiracy theory such as yours, you do need to have all the answers to these impossible questions. Otherwise the alternate theory falls to pieces. If these raised questions cannot be answered in any remotely plausible manner, then the theory simply can not be valid.
.

But do you not need to apply the same level of critical thinking to any explanation of what happened that day?

For example, I find it hard to believe that the whole of building 7 could have been brought down by the office furniture catching fire, as has been suggested on this thread.

The collapse of the twin towers is attributed to the impact of the aircraft, along with the subsequent heat generated by the combustion of the aircrafts' kerosene.

But there was no impact or ignition of kerosene involved with the collapse of building 7.

So what brought a 47 story steel and concrete building down and reduced it to rubble?

All videos of the collapse of building 7 show a free fall collapse neatly into and within its own footprint.

How can that happen? If anyone can come up with a plausible explanation, I would be interested

But to say building 7 collapsed like that because some internal office furniture and fittings caught fire from the incident at the twin towers, I find unlikely. To me that isn't a plausible explanation.

[Franky Four Fingers]

For nearly 30 years my brother and I have argued about how the air/fuel mix enters a normally aspirated engine. Both of us think the other is crazy due to our opinions. My college lecturer agrees with me and an ex race engineer who my brother knows agrees with him......
Given the complexities surrounding 9/11 you can understand why they continue to raise debate and why we think that someone who doesn't share or see our opinion are somewhat unhinged.
However in saying that anyone who thinks that the planes were computer generated after there were thousands of eye witnesses must be loopy.

[mr noble]

IIRC, Tower 7 collapsed slightly forward, towards the twin towers.

The main towers didn't fall down totally straight either. As the tower with the big mast on top goes down you can see the mast falling sideways. There are plenty of videos from the ground showing masses of debris falling to the side as the towers come down.

Apparently the closest WTC tower fell towards tower 7 and gouged out a 25 storey high hole in the front of it which was why it eventually fell.
Can you imagine the forces involved with being 50 feet away from a WTC when it totally collapses? It isn't hard to imagine the damage that would be inflicted on nearby buildings.

I really don't see the whole conspiracy over tower 7. If it was a planned government demolishion, for a start I think it'd have happened on a Sunday, so that thousands less lives were lost. They also wouldn't have allowed hundreds of fire crew to be inside the WTCs and to have narrowly managed to pull them all out when they realised tower 7 was doomed too.

[seikopath]

Apparently the closest WTC tower fell towards tower 7 and gouged out a 25 storey high hole in the front of it which was why it eventually fell.

Have a look at this footage of building 7 collapsing.

It is only thirty seconds long.


https://youtu.be/Mamvq7LWqRU

Then tell me if you think what you see in the video is consistent with the explanation you have given.

Thanks
Dave

[Kingstepper]

However in saying that anyone who thinks that the planes were computer generated after there were thousands of eye witnesses must be loopy.

Have you spoken to thousands of eye witnesses?

We are just told there are.

[mr noble]

Have a look at this footage of building 7 collapsing.

It is only thirty seconds long.


https://youtu.be/Mamvq7LWqRU

Then tell me if you think what you see in the video is consistent with the explanation you have given.

Thanks
Dave

Totally. The last shot clearly shows the side you cannot see collapsing before the side you can see does. This, to my mind, backs up the fact that there was a 25 storey gouge out of the side you can't see. I don't think there is any single photo or video of the damage that was done to the side that was hit by the falling WTC tower. I expect if there were, no conspiracy theory about towe 7's collapse would exist.

The conspiracy theory is just too far fetched to imagine no one noticing. How on earth would a demolition squad manage to rig a building like that without any single person working inside for weeks before hand, noticing?

[ditchvisitor]

Do you not think that with a supposed and far fetched conspiracy this big, and with the hundreds of people that would have had to be involved to carry out all the ridiculous supposed elements, that someone would have documented it, and the stress and emotional torture of having killed thousands of fellow Americans would have led to people coming forward...

[seikopath]

To me it looks like a controlled demolition.

If you look at the second clip, there are some windows missing. They look like broken teeth. I presume that that is the side facing the twin towers and that those windows have been damaged by debris from the towers. At the end of that same clip, you see building 7 falling ever so slightly backwards.

If the building fell because of a whole in the front of the building, it would fall forwards surely? Not that I'm sure a building of that type would collapse like it has under those circumstances.

If you look at maps of the WTC site, there are two buildings directly between building 7 and the twin towers. These are buildings 5 and 6.

If a chunk of one of the towers fell into building 7 causing a 25 storey whole, it must have been massive. It must have cleared buildings 5 and 6.

The gap between buildings 5/6 and building 7 is only around 50ft by my estimation.

So this big chunk of debris cleared building 5 and 6, and went into the front of building 7 taking out a 25 story gap, with only 50ft clearance between the two buildings?

The 25 storey hole, if it did exist must have occurred at ground level, because you can't see it in any if the video footage above

[Hewjardon]

Totally. The last shot clearly shows the side you cannot see collapsing before the side you can see does. This, to my mind, backs up the fact that there was a 25 storey gouge out of the side you can't see. I don't think there is any single photo or video of the damage that was done to the side that was hit by the falling WTC tower. I expect if there were, no conspiracy theory about towe 7's collapse would exist.

The conspiracy theory is just too far fetched to imagine no one noticing. How on earth would a demolition squad manage to rig a building like that without any single person working inside for weeks before hand, noticing?

I worked my way through all the video links posted on this thread and have answered some of my own questions, and raised many more.

One of the 'take away' points that I am struggling with is that the two towers, upon repeated close examination, don't collapse as such, they appear to disintegrate. From many angles, and many sources, the towers just turn to dust. Huge amounts of rubble, that would be expected, just aren't there. Debris is minimal, but on the whole, almost entirely destroyed, as in vapourised- but that would take heat, sufficient levels of which simply didn't exist.

So what of this? I don't know, but I know what I saw, and traditional demolition explosives do not 'dustify' steel and concrete.

Logically I must ask myself what was used to bring those towers down that could turn structural steel and concrete into powder? Shear weight of a plane and the collapsed surrounding structure? Nope.
Heat generated by the impact? Nope, at best that could only apply to the area surrounding the impact, not the whole of both towers.
Traditional demolition explosives? Nope, already discounted by an earlier poster.

Maybe someone else that has watched these videos has some light they could shed?

[seikopath]

Do you not think that with a supposed and far fetched conspiracy this big, and with the hundreds of people that would have had to be involved to carry out all the ridiculous supposed elements, that someone would have documented it, and the stress and emotional torture of having killed thousands of fellow Americans would have led to people coming forward...

Ditchy, have a look at the thirty second video clip linked to above and please tell me what you think it looks like?
Interested to hear your opinion.
Thanks. Dave

[mr noble]

To me it looks like a controlled demolition.

If you look at the second clip, there are some windows missing. They look like broken teeth. I presume that that is the side facing the twin towers and that those windows have been damaged by debris from the towers. At the end of that same clip, you see building 7 falling ever so slightly backwards.

You've got it totally backwards mate. The gouge out of the side of the building (which incidentally, loads of fireman all speak of) is not visible as no one would be mad enough to have gone to take a video standing in the rubble of the collapsed towers. So, you can't see the gouge out of 25 floors. The smashed windows that you can see will have blown from the forces and pressures of having the gouge taken out of the _other_ side of the building.

Not sure why it's hard to believe at all. The WTC was many times higher than tower 7 (and 5/6) so to imagine that debris falling from way up there could hit the front of a tower far below and a bit to the side, is not hard to imagine at all. It's certainly easier to imagine that happening than a government cover up the size of which is just incomprehensible!

[seikopath]

If you say the gouge is out of one of the sides of the building, I find that even harder to understand. Are you saying the gouge was not in the front of the building, ie the bit that faced directly towards the two towers, but on one of the two shorter sides of the building?

[seikopath]

Even if a gouge in the side of a building like that could lead to its immediate collapse, I don't see how it could result in a free fall on its own footprint. The building seems to drop straight like a stone. There is hardly any 'lean'. There are no fires visible, or any substantial damage visible in any of the clips, which are taken from several different angles, that suggest loss of structural integrity to the extent needed to cause sudden and immediate collapse of the whole building like that. I don't see any plausible explanation for the collapse of a building like that. The entire building neatly drops at the same rate . It looks like a controlled demolition to me.

Here's the clip again https://youtu.be/Mamvq7LWqRU

If anyone can come up with a plausible explanation I would genuinely be interested to hear it.

[Belligero]

[...]It looks like a controlled demolition to me.

Yes, gravity tends to do that.

Cripes, mate — if flinging debris all over Manhattan was controlled, then what the hell would an uncontrolled one look like!?

[seikopath]

Yes, gravity tends to do that.

I don't accept that a building collapses like that just due to gravity alone.

These buildings after all are designed to exacting standards with significant margins of error to hold their own weight.

Youd need a significant event to compromise their stability. A building like that doesn't just collapse of its own accord.

[Harry Smith]

IMO those who could examine all the evidence as on here, youtube and dedicated sites and still retain their original opinion are unfortunately the type of people who will always stick to the official explanation regardless of evidence to the contrary.
What has been discussed on here so-far is only a minor part of the list of lies, half truths, physical impossibilities etc etc that surround this affair;
The perpetrators, the iarcraft, the so-called phone calls, radar information, deployment of military aircraft, the pentagon, WTC7, eyewitness conflicts and reports of explosions it just goes on and on.

Ok, forget all of the above, why did TWO buildings collapse in exactly the same way? then a third that wasn't directly affected?

[mr noble]

If you say the gouge is out of one of the sides of the building, I find that even harder to understand. Are you saying the gouge was not in the front of the building, ie the bit that faced directly towards the two towers, but on one of the two shorter sides of the building?

Jeeez! No, I'm saying big massive tower collapse and hit small little tower 7 on way down. Simple as that. One would imagine it hit the side of tower 7 wot faces it.

[mr noble]

I don't accept that a building collapses like that just due to gravity alone.

These buildings after all are designed to exacting standards with significant margins of error to hold their own weight.

Youd need a significant event to compromise their stability. A building like that doesn't just collapse of its own accord.

Maybe you mean a significant event like.......ummmmm.......a World Trade Centre falling on it???

[seikopath]

if flinging debris all over Manhattan was controlled, then what the hell would an uncontrolled one look like!?

The destruction of several buildings of that size is of course going to generate a massive amount of destruction in the local area. I am not disputing that.

What I am saying is that the way Building 7 drops, apparently free falling directly into its own footprint at some considerable speed looks like an exceptionally well executed controlled demolition to me. I havn't found any other explanation plausible for the way the entirety of the building collapses in such a rapid and uniform manner straight onto its own footprint.

[Kingstepper]

Ok, forget all of the above, why did TWO buildings collapse in exactly the same way? then a third that wasn't directly affected?

TWO buildings collapsed in exactly the same way because they were exactly the same and damaged in exactly the same way.

The third building collapsed because it was indirectly affected.

[seikopath]

Maybe you mean a significant event like.......ummmmm.......a World Trade Centre falling on it???

I still don't see how an event like that could lead to the uniform collapse of building 7 as shown in the video. The building collapses from the bottom.. There is nothing in the videos that shows any thing falling on top of the building, nor any damage to suggest that is the case.