48 votes




Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Actually, I thought it was

Actually, I thought it was pretty accurate. You shill for a fraud. How come you're not dead from swine flu yet? lol

This building in China burned

This building in China burned pretty good and it didn't fall down.
Hummmmm, just saying. (-:


“It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds”
-Sam Adams

New video

Still burning. Still standing.


Exercise Your Rights. If You Don't Use Them, You Will Lose Them.
My News Twitter http://twitter.com/sharpsteve
My YouTube http://www.youtube.com/user/sharpsteve2003

No silly!

You need jet fuel to make that happen.

Jet fuel + fire = sudden collapse

Only jet fuel can make all the support beams snap completely in unison.

That's why demolition teams rely on jet fuel.

Including Adjacent buildings too

like building 7. Just a whiff of jet fuel in the air should be enough to create spontaneous freefall collapse. It sort of just melts the core into a puddle and the rest of the building falls into the hole left by it. And if you believe that then I have some of Saddam's WMDs to sell you!

Uh huh!

Jet fuel fumes make buildings fall down. POOF! Just like that.

except that

They didn't snap all in "unison" - whatever you mean by that.

Pardon me for not attributing great importance

to the split seconds between each level's collapse.

You're right.

Jet fuel makes the floors pancake sequentially, rapidly, and uniformly, but not simultaneously.


What happened, ironman? You just...stopped talking. How did that happen? Were you confronted with *DUN Dun dun* a fact?

I love all of you NIST report supporters.

If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.

some of us have a life

and responsibilities beyond asking mom to send down a few more hot pockets and a six pack.

Though I am trying to figure out what fact I was confronted with ?

Anyway, in WTC 7 some of the supporting beams were snaped early on when big parts of the other WTC fell on it. Really only two snapped any where close to the same time.

I'll step in here.

You keep setting up a straw man by claiming one factor to be the cause of the collapse and then pointing out how ridiculous it sounds for that one factor to have caused it. Well, you are correct, the fuel wasn't the "one factor" that caused the collapse. However, that is not the theory anyway. Nobody I know is saying that the jet fuel caused the pancaking of the floors. Obviously that doesn't even make sense. Gravity, the weight of the floors above, the weakened support beams, and the fire which burned not only the fuel, but other items in the building, all combined to cause the collapse.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).


"Straw man." And you counter me with "I know an old lady who swallowed a fly."

How did the support beams weaken? Because the fire was so hot. Why? Because of jet fuel.

Why did the floors pancake? Because the support beams were weak, because the fire was so hot, because of jet fuel.

Why was gravity so impressively on display that day? Because the floors pancaked, because the support beams grew weak, because the fire was hot, because of jet fuel.

Well, DUH!

It's because the laws of physics took the day off. Pfft, everyone knows that! ;)

I'm reaching up and reaching out.
I'm reaching for the random or what ever will bewilder me.
And following our will and wind we may just go where no one's been.
We'll ride the spiral to the end and may just go where no one's been.
Spiral out.

Let's look at what the lead NIST investigator said then...

In August 2008 NIST released the draft of their final report for public comment; they then held a technical briefing to allow individuals with certain credentials to pose questions. One question asked was how it was that NIST could have arrived at the conclusion that the rate of the collapse of WTC7 was 40% slower than the rate of free fall when all measurable data shows that the building fell within a few percent of the acceleration of gravity. The lead investigator for NIST, Shyam Sunder, included this in his response:

"A free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it."

When stating their analysis showed the time it took for the structure to collapse was "roughly 40% more" than what free fall would have been he said, "that is not at all unusual because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case and you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place and everything was not instantaneous.

According to Mr. Sunder, NIST determined in the draft of the final report the following:
- free fall would take 3.9 seconds for WTC7
- their computer model predicted 5.4 seconds
- the slower time was to be expected because (1) there was structural support (2) there was a progression of failures and (3) these failures weren't instantaneous

Now, when the final version of the report came out in November 2008 NIST suddenly changed their mind about free fall and said that it did, in fact, occur. So how is it that the laws of physics, which were clearly described by Mr. Sunder when he stated the conditions required for free fall, suddenly change in 3 months? They completely fudged the data to cover up the existence of free fall. When this was pointed out to them they tried to defend their data and insist free fall did not, and could not, occur due to the existence of structural support. Then, they just decided to admit that it did happen, even though they said it wasn't a possibility, and just shrugged it off.

How can anyone take the investigation of the collapse of the towers that day seriously when this is the sick joke we have parading as "scientific analysis" of the events?

I'm reaching up and reaching out.
I'm reaching for the random or what ever will bewilder me.
And following our will and wind we may just go where no one's been.
We'll ride the spiral to the end and may just go where no one's been.
Spiral out.

I don't think you are understanding this correctly.

Even if the bottom 70% of the building was made out of playing cards, that resistance alone would have prevented the rest from falling at "free fall" speeds. You guys use that term not knowing that in using the term, you are proving that you don't really understand what happened. Freefall means that absolutely nothing was underneath the falling structure. Oviously there was something. Even if the supports were cut, or blown or something, there was still part of the building underneath the falling part which would have slowed the fall by a little bit. So even if you all are correct, and it was demolished with explosives and such, it still wouldn't have fallen at "free fall" speeds.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

No, I think the problem is that you don't understand physics.

The building's collapse DID accelerate at a speed indistinguishable from free fall. That is a fact. It has been measured and verified, even by the liars at NIST despite them trying to first deny it. Free fall in Newtonian physics is the motion of an object where the only force acting upon it is its own weight. Weight is the force on an object due to gravity. NIST calculated that WTC7 was in free fall for 2.25 seconds. That could only have been done if several floors and supporting structures were blown out at specifically timed intervals allowing the structure to fall unimpeded to where it could reach a rate of acceleration. That could not happen in a scenario with gradual weakening of support structures due to fire where the resistance from each floor hitting the one below would cause deceleration in the fall due to resistance. Look at video of acknowledged controlled implosion demolitions and notice how they blow out several floors. As the buildings collapse the rate of the fall accelerates. Here, I'll include some for you:

Landmark Tower implosion:

Aladdin Hotel implosion:

Everglades Hotel implosion:

West Palm Beach condo implosion:

Now, in case you don't take my word for it you can check out David Chandler's video analysis of NIST's treatment of the WTC7 free fall issue from which I obtained the information in my last comment. Mr. Chandler is a high school physics teacher. I assume these should be sufficient credentials for you considering you cited your position as a middle school teacher whose curriculum includes teaching fallacies to demonstrate that you are a sort of authority on that particular subject in your "Truthers continue to see what they want to see" post.

This video, which is part 1 of 3, is just under 11 minutes long and covers Chandler's discussion of the issue with free fall in the NIST report:

Part 2, just under 6 minutes, addresses NIST's measurement of the time of collapse:

Part 3, a little over 10 minutes, goes into Chandler's detailed analysis of the WTC7 collapse:

I'm reaching up and reaching out.
I'm reaching for the random or what ever will bewilder me.
And following our will and wind we may just go where no one's been.
We'll ride the spiral to the end and may just go where no one's been.
Spiral out.

The final say

The last laugh

The joy of victory!

Typical illogical thinking

Fires are not all the same, Buildings are not the same. There's no reason to expect that all fires in all building will behave exatly the same.

For one, no other much larger building collapsed on top of the building shown. think that might make a difference ? ? ?

By the way, WTC 7 is about 300 ft higher than the highest building ever brought down by controlled demolition (J.J Hudson department store 439 ft. ).

No building has ever been brought down by "nanothermite" or magic fairy dust either.

No building has ever been brought down by controlled demolition clandestinely.


Three buildings.

All in one day.

And it has NEVER happened before ...

To ANY building.

On ANY day.


Ok. I'm curious:

What is it about your brain, or your emotional tendencies... or both ..

That makes you so resistant to rational evidence .. NO MATTER WHAT

I'm honestly fascinated by it at this point. I mean I'm pretty sure I have a pretty good idea why and could take guesses at it.

But have you ever reflected on this yourself?

one time I threw an ax

at a knot on a tree, from about 50 ft away. First time, the ax stuck, right in the knot.

Then I tried again - never could do it again, couldn't even get the ax to stick. It was a highly imprbable event that happened.

The point - I understand randomness, complexity and coincidence. An event as complex as a building collapse, that almost never happens, cannot be understood by a simple analogy. Add in the plane crashes, and you have an even more extraordinary circumstance.

Why anyone would so oversimplify what happened, to the point where you think you cancompare building to building on such simple tearms - collapse or not, confuses the hell outof me. Then add in that you seem so arrogant about the accuracy of your conclusions. You Remind me of a Religious zealot seeing jesus in a piece of toast, and wondering how I can possible not think it is a miracle.

Oh yeah?

This one time?

I was trying to hit a goalpost on a football field from the other end with an ax. I kept trying it over and over and over again but I could never get the ax even 15 yards down the field.

This went on for years. I would search the internet to find people that had done it, or just to find pointers on technique. Nothing.

Why? WHY can't I stick an ax in a goalpost 100 yards away?! SO frustrating. I mean, there just doesn't seem to be any reason why not. Right!?

Then - one day - I suddenly hit it three times in a row! Once for each side of the goalpost. And the third one hit the bottom support dead center.

The only strange thing was I never threw the third ax. Actually, I only had two.

That was weird. Oh well:

I must have had help from hijackers living in a cave somewhere in the middle east. Invisible hijackers. That's who 'trusted authorities' usually blame, so that's good enough for me!

SteveMT's picture

Has a building ever "pancaked" without there being a "pancake?"

Have three buildings ever done that on the same day before after being hit in three different places? WCT7 free falls through the first 2 seconds; no resistance at all like dropping a ball. Structural engineering 101: resistance must be completely removed for free fall speed to be achieved.

Yes, on 9/11 buildings

Yes, on 9/11 buildings pancaked

SteveMT's picture

There should 110 pancaked floors times 2 for both WCTs,....

and there should be 47 pancaked floors for WCT7. I guess I missed that Thanks for letting me know.

Your math seems right but I

Your math seems right but I don't get your point.

SteveMT's picture

Where are all of the stacks of pancakes?

They should have been pretty easy to count...one on top of the other, correct? Three stacks. There is no such phenomenon like this seen on any videos. The floors were blown out laterally, they did not collapse vertically, so they could not have collapsed the next floor below.

So you're saying they did not

So you're saying they did not pancake? They tipped over? I really don't get your point. Wtf does 'blown out laterally' mean? The floors shot out the side into New Jersey or something? No matter which theory you believe, the towers collapsed straight down.

Do you trust Jesus

to decide or physical laws?

If the construction is based of central reinforced conrete core (around lift shafts), then outer columns do not carry the main weight of the building. In that case, only floors on the side will buckle. Building might be demolished later.

Russia builds more reinforced concrete buidings than steel ones.

Tesla did it

Not as well known, Tesla had one of his earlier experimental stations right next to that site (which is fyi true). Obviously, longitudinal waves crossing in time did it. Someone did a calculation of the wavelength of the original waves, said oh no, they are going to pop out at this particular date with no explanation, and planted bombs to cleverly disguise this unstoppable disaster.

No? Well, the only theory it can't possibly be in pc speak is someone did exactly like it looks. Planted explosives.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

The economy looks like it

The economy looks like it gets better when the Fed prints money.

Sometimes it takes a closer look than untrained eyes watching YouTube to get the real answer.