113 votes

WTC7 in Freefall: No Longer Controversial

I do not care what anyone says. The evidence is overwhelming that our own government planned and carried out 911. Now let the trolls down vote and spew their BS.


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

The 9/11 Lies Keep America Stuck In Greater American Reich

And endless global wars.

Kill the 9/11 lies Restore the Republic.

Enjoy the R3volution.

Video has some mistakes

I took a look at the actual NIST report. You can download it yourself:


It does, in fact, state the roof line was at free fall acceleration. On pages 44-46, they discuss the same data shown in the Youtube video. It is just that their explanation is different.

The Youtube video states that the NIST report doesn't show the complete velocity profile. In fact, they do in Figure 3-15 of page 46.

I don't know if NIST updated their report, or the Youtube video just didn't mention it.

We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.

-C. S. Lewis

words matter...

he said, "They did not use a method which sampled the position vs. time ..."
The video never states that a profile was altogether absent.

The NIST report shows freefall acceleration in stage 2 only. NIST does not provide a different "explaination" based on similar data, it provides an innaccurate data set upon which analysis was done.

I AM is all that is. Everything else is malleable.

Never was controversial

The only people who forever seem to need convincing are paid shills and trolls. This particular thread is full of them.

The horrible thing is, that the people who blew these 3 buildings up and orchestrated this whole charade seem so far to be getting away with it.

Again, I would just like to thank:

SallySpamsation and Goldspam. Keep monitoring.

To the rest of you, if you haven't watched these, you should.

9/11: Press for Truth, starring 9/11 widows and parents


My 2006 Letter to the Editor of my local newspaper,
the only thing they published re: 9/11 for 5th anniversary


9/11 widow Patricia Casazza re: what whistleblowers told 9/11 family members

"The [Bush] government knew - other than the exact moment - they knew the date and the method of which the attacks were supposed to come. And none of this made it to mainstream media; none of it made it into the 9/11 commission report. And yet, again, all of your Representatives on the day that the commission book came out, were on their pulpits saying, 'what a fabulous job this commission has done, a real service to this nation.' And it was anything but a service, it was a complete fabrication. [Bush knew] other than the exact perhaps time - you know, because planes don't always go off on time - they knew the date, they knew the method, that it was going to be with airplanes. They knew that it was that day [9/11], and they were going to happen. They knew the targets."


The Untold Stories of the 9/11 Widows and Families


Then, when you're primed from the above, watch:

9/11 War by Deception, by Ry Dawson


Peace, except toward the real terrorists and war mongering war profiteers. Kill. Them. All.

Not free fall speed


Wtc7 total collapse at least 16 seconds


"Massachusetts Institute of Technology engineering professor Thomas W. Eagar was at first unwilling to acknowledge the concerns of the movement, saying "if (the argument) gets too mainstream, I'll engage in the debate." In response to Steven E. Jones publishing a hypothesis that the World Trade Center was destroyed by controlled demolition, Eagar said that adherents of the 9/11 Truth movement would use the reverse scientific method to arrive at their conclusions, as they "determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion.[79]

Calling conspiracy theorists "the truthers", Bill Moyers has quoted journalist Robert Parry "...threw out all the evidence of al-Qaeda's involvement, from contemporaneous calls from hijack victims on the planes to confessions from al-Qaeda leaders both in and out of captivity that they had indeed done it. Then, recycling some of the right's sophistry techniques, such as using long lists of supposed evidence to overcome the lack of any real evidence, the "truthers" cherry-picked a few supposed "anomalies" to build an "inside-job" story line".[80]"

"Loose change" fake documentary


"I cannot explain it. That is not my duty," says former German cabinet minister Andreas von B a leader of the 9-11 skeptics in Europe, in a recent Dutch documentary. VonKleist takes the same line. He doesn't theorize anything, he says. "I'm simply asking questions."

"That sounds fair at first, only it isn't. The movement's questions imply a different version of the story, and the true test is whether that alternative is more or less plausible that the official one. By saying they're only checking facts, the Truth activists avoid having to address the weaknesses in their own yarn. Why do the "booms" at the trade center come several minutes before the "demolition"? Why would the government destroy WTC7 when no one knew or cared about it? What happened to the people on the planes?"

"The key to understanding the Truth movement is to realize that its members do not lack faith in all institutions of the U.S. government. On the contrary, their theories rely on a healthy respect for the power and competence of air defense units, FBI agents, high-rise building designers, and others.

Why would Bush mistakenly say he'd seen the first plane strike on TV? How could the FBI miss so many leads? Is it plausible that the CIA ignored all those warnings? And after the purported multiple failures of the FAA and NORAD on 9-11, how come no one was fired?

It's odd. For a group of people who harbor so many doubts about the intentions of their own and other governments, the media, and fellow citizens, much of the Truth movement does not suspect for a moment that our defense spending has been a rip-off, that the FBI is a clumsy bureaucracy, that our spy agencies are deaf and dumb, and that our skyscrapers are not 100 percent safe. They do not seem worried that they could be unwitting partners in a more mundane conspiracy to obscure the limits of security and science. To the lies of the Bush administration, many in the Truth movement reply with stunning and familiar certainty. "I can't jump back to the other side," says Avery. "I know that what I'm doing is right."


"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Lamb of God - As the Palaces Burn


Nice try. Please cite an example of a steel frame building collapsing vertically into the footprint of its own foundation due to fire or any other means other than intentional implosion at any time in history which wasn't one of the three buildings at the World Trade Center complex.

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. - Margaret Mead

the deploying of the loads.

there must have been a fair number of folk who were there to insert the "explosive" ?? they have all no doubt vacated the country ..I am on the fence about this and I tire of it ..does my life pivot around these issues.no... but it is a certain personality type that is drawn in by these circumstances..I do not think bldg 7 is the door to enlightenment here.

The thermate was applied in the "fireproofing" upgrade.

Just mix in paint, apply. Safe until detonated.

Watch the white 'smoking' floors flying away and down.

Tons of dust covered Manhattan with iron micro-spheres. Something blew concrete and plaster to smithereens.

Free includes debt-free!

"I do not think bldg 7 is the door to enlightenment here"

where do you suppose that he thinks it is? the Smithereens?

Stop Denying Logic

Most 9/11 conspiracy theorists seem to be arm-chair engineers. This is unfortunate. Ron Paul has always stressed logic when making an argument and frankly the WTC 7 conspiracy is void of any logic or reasoning. Of the people that actually investigated the building collapse including all the evidence collected, not a single one disagrees with the NIST findings.

Once you sort through all the bullsh*t you find out that structural engineers in the 1980s didn't know about thermal expansion. In a way this building collapse taught us a lot about the effects of fires on steel buildings and it will make future buildings safer.

That's funny, Spock

The modern calculus for the concept of coefficient of thermal expansion was derived in the 18th century.

I know what an expansion joint is.

I also know that the "joints" on a high rise need to be able to move for other reasons as well.
they are really designed more like bearings.....

I'm not sure

...what you are talking about.
Maybe, you didn't mean to reply to me?

They are building buildings to the same specifications.

If the specifications were proven faulty they would have been updated.

Why were't they? Because buildings fall down during controlled demolitions.

Changing design specs wont stop explosives.

Free includes debt-free!

Are they?

because a quick trip through google turns up lots of things claiming that they are *not* building buildings to the same specifications, in direct response to the NIST analysis of WTC. Of course you can say that they had to do this because anything else would mean openly questioning the NIST analysis. But it does take the wind out of the sails of the "they're still building buildings to the same specifications" argument.

Some of the links I found collected here for posterity.


The new provisions address many areas relating to design, construction, and emergency egress from tall buildings, such as increasing structural resilience to building collapse from fire and incidents, requiring a third stairway for tall buildings, increasing width of all stairways by 50 percent in new high-rises, calling for luminous markings delineating exit paths in buildings more than 75-feet tall to facilitate rapid egress and full building evacuation, and a host of other recommendations relating to construction and emergency response.

More at the iccsafe.org (International Code Council) site, including discussions like this:
Use the search box to search for WTC and it will turn up quite a few things.


The proponents believe that a Class III combustible liquid distribution system was implicated in the WTC 7 collapse and that the soon to be released WTC 7 report will so find. This proposal recognizes the necessity for elective redundant power and seeks to regulate storage and distribution of Class II and Class III combustible liquids in high rise and other buildings while protecting against the risks associated with such use.

Tons more if anyone is interested.

Any changes that prevent 2'x4' 1.5 thick columns cut like this?


Free includes debt-free!

I was only responding to the claim

that they build buildings to the same code as before, which if it had been true would have been a very strong point. But it only took a little checking to find that it was false.

Re: diagonal cutting:
at the end.

I see that. Good finds.

Yes the second video was during the cleanup.

I spent a couple months using a cutting torch. Why would workmen spend the extra gas and time to cut at a 45 degree angle through a beam?

Why would the melted metal run on the outside of the box column?

Oxy-Acetylene torches use oxygen to blow away the melt.

Free includes debt-free!

Good questions

First, that video was just the first thing from a one-minute google search. It's not an issue I've ever looked into before.

But the first thing that stands out is that the fact that it's 45 degrees doesn't seem significant in and of itself, because in that video the guy points out the 45 degree cuts, and the three "candlesticks" that are still being cut. So whatever the reason, at least *some* 45 degree cuts were being done intentionally. The difficulty then would be showing that the one in the first photo is something different.

Why angled? I don't know. If I had to guess, maybe it's to make the beam fall in a more predictable direction.

So my next one-minute google search here is about the metal running down the outside. Here's a video (really just a video of still photos which is kind of dumb) allegedly showing a "thermic lance" being used during cleanup, and another showing what looks to me to be similar metal running down near the cut.

Note that I'm not claiming to have debunked anything. These are just the first things that seem relevant, following up on that photo of a diagonal cut. These are the questions I'd want to see addressed before I took that diagonal cut to be anything other than a cut done during cleanup, like the ones in the video clearly are, with the run-off resulting from the use of a thermal lance used because the beam is so thick.

I scanned a dozen other pages discussing it, but didn't see anything that would push me away from the simplest answer.

If you can point to a site that addresses these questions I'd like to take a look at it.

I appreciate that you are digging up these clues

I'm also just sharing clues not presenting proofs.

I thought it was interesting the way the outer skin was blown outward where plane One went in and where plane Two come out.

Free includes debt-free!

I think that....

...more than the expansion issue, the conspiracies tend to rest on fallacy as much as on lack of scientific expertise. With WTC7, you'll hear the phrase "small office fire" often. I've even heard people talk about how on the video footage you can "see that it is only small office fires". This is about as illogical as saying the Titanic should not have sunk because they could "see that it was only a small iceberg". Obviously you can't see most of a fire in a house or a building because most of it is on the inside. In addition, using the term "small office fires" conjures up pictures in your head of one or two rooms on fire when in reality, most of the building could be construed as "offices" so many people would say it was just small office fires even if the entire building was on fire. Their language is misleading. Their video evidence is proof of only what we already know which is that people on the outside of a fire can not really be sure how large the fire is on the inside.

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

My Barbeque burns hotter than Jet Fuel-A

How come I've been able to run it hours on end for the last 12 years and haven't yet needed to replace the grates?

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. - Margaret Mead


...you haven't crashed a 747 into it.

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

That's just not true

Scientists and engineers have been well aware of thermal expansion long before the 1980's. Case in point...

Have you ever driven over a steel bridge built before 1980? You know that *ka-plunk*, *ka-plunk* sound it makes through your tires? Those are literally called "expansion joints" based on a firm grasp of the concept of increased volume of matter in correlation with rising temperature (i.e. thermal expansion).

If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one.

In the context of causing a

In the context of causing a building collapse it appears they didn't think that would happen (at least not the ones who built the thing)...but it did.

Obviously the concept of thermal expansion was around.

"appears" is an assumption

Building collapse vs. bridge collapse...

To try and argue that this basic understanding of physics didn't transcend one type of structure construction over to the next, or that it ceased to be applied in this one particular case of WTC 7 (while setting aside WTC 1 & 2) including before the 1980's is stretching beyond the very logic and reason you speak of.

If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one.


yes, I'm laughing at you.

many experienced and capable engineers and architects disagree with your BS. Seems you're not just an armchair engineer but a wanna be airchair engineer.

thanks for today's humor

And did they have access to

And did they have access to all available evidence and produce a detailed report of the collapse? If so, I'd love to see it.

Yeah, thought not.

still laughing

keep them coming. laughing keeps me young

the evidence available is more than adequate to determine the government story is BS.

I don't need to solve the problem to determine how it did happen. Only determine if the BS we are told is possible. You and the government fail on that count. No amount of slick talk and brow beating is going to change that.

A honest investigation with results that are plausible is the only way to resolve this.