Visible explosions in WTC7.The video you did not know exists...

Not by the investigators in any official capacity. NIST themselves said they didn't look for it.

 

The FBI did, and documented it.

 

THe rebuttal is because you people refuse to read answers and then repeat the same questions. Read the threads and learn some facts.

NO explosives were used and physics clearly points to no such thing.

Physics clearly proves no explosives were needed.

You are simply not well educated about physics.

- - - Updated - - -

You stated that the PHYSICS clearly point to the need for explosives to be used.

The burden of proof is on you and everytime you are asked to explain this is the only response you give.

Physics is not your OPINION and your OPINION is all you have.

 

You misquote me, the real explanation is
that the least likely scenario is the total destruction
of 110 stories of skyscraper. Why should ALL of the
floor trusses and ALL of the core columns and ALL of
the outer wall box columns fail at the same time?

If I were well educated ...... would that then mean that
I would embrace the hijacked airliners used as weapons story?

 

They didn't.

 

forgive me my typos,
the statement should have been
on a horizontal plane. Each floor would have to
have been completely destroyed before going on
to the next, no room for leaving behind any remnant
of the previous floor to remain standing. thus complete
& total destruction being the order of the day.

 

All they would have to do is collapse,the complete destruction happened on the way down

 

The "collapse" requires the breakage of bolts/welds/rivets (or?)
and therein lies the problem, can an imperfect set of forces caused
by the falling mass from above, mesh perfectly with whatever strong/weak points the building may have such to produce the result of breaking all of the connections for a single floor on a horizontal plane, and do so all at the same time?

 

The overloading of the hangers on the spandrels and the core columns doesn't indicate total destruction YET

 

however, what would happen if the connections between
the floor trusses and the core or outer wall, failed in a
non-uniform manner? that is some broke, and allowed
rubble to flow down to the next level, without breaking
all of the connections(?)
The uniformity of the "collapse" is a significant feature,
as is the lack of force required to do the job, if the upper
mass is accelerating at 2/3 the acceleration of gravity,
then there is only 1/3 of the weight brought to bear against
the lower part of the building, so how does this 1/3 the weight
accomplish all that destruction and keep it orderly?

 

Most likely the trusses were hung with ordinary steel bolts,and the ones used were 5/8....bolts like the one used are hardened,and prone to snap,besides nothing in the towers failed in a uniform manner on 9/11

 

au contraire my friend, the towers "collapsed" in a very uniform manner in that the plane of structural failures happened consistently in a horizontal plane, to do otherwise would have brought on dumping of rubble out one side of the towers in much greater volume than the others, but instead, the documentary videos shot from many different angles, shows a uniformity of the ejection of material out all sides of the tower(s).

The destruction of the tower(s) was an engineered event
that was planned to happen as it did.

 

There you go,making assumptions...the videos show a uniformity in the dust cloud,not the material being ejected,since that ended up in an almost flowerlike pattern around the towerswith many beams being ejected into surrounding buildings

 

There you go, the almost flower-like pattern is the product of the
ejection of material in a uniform manner out the
North,South,East,West sides of the building and the petals of this
"flower" are very nearly the same size all around, right?
Makes no sense when one considers that there was a built-in
non-uniformity from the start & that is the alleged airliner crash
to the building. Non-uniformities tend to be progressive in that
the more the plane would tip, the more rubble would collect on
the low side, etc......

I stick to my statement that the gambler KNOWS
that the least likely outcome of the "collapse" event
is the total destruction of 110 stories of skyscraper.

 

Actually if you attempted to read the link I have posted a number of times, that would be the most likely outcome.

 

and this is very clearly a case of an "expert" writing a politically
correct paper that is well received by others who also desire to
be politically correct, and is indeed WRONG!

you can not support the concept of chaotic damage resulting
in a uniform "collapse" of a 110 story skyscraper.

 

So it was ready to move back into the next day, huh? Well ... let's take a look at the evidence.

http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/tr-049.pdf



What?? Floors sagging up to three feet? Impossible! Fire can't do that to steel!!
Ignore the "thermal expansion" damage in appendix H too, it can't happen with steel. Never.

Hmm ... fire weakening steel to the point of possible building collapse. Good to know.

 

3 feet... an astronomic dimension!

'Due to the risk of structural collapse' - they were fearing that ceilings may fall locally and possibly kill firemen, but not the entire building.

 

That's not what the report says. Yes .. three feet. Just how far do think you have to shift a load bearing column before catastrophe ensues?

 

at issue here is the question of
could a single point of failure cause the "collapse"
of the entire skyscraper? I submit to this forum
that ALL skyscrapers are designed such that no
single point of failure could instigate total collapse.

 

And we should just take your word for it? Evidence and citations, please.

 

I offer up the opportunity for you to experiment if you will
build whatever structure you like, make it out of toothpicks
or lego blocks or beer cans glued together, whatever, then
go at cut any one structural element at random, does the
whole thing "collapse" as did the towers & 7?

additionally the Meridian tower burned for 11 hours and had a
3 ft deflection of the floors, the WTC tower(s) burned for significantly
less time and were destroyed down to street level. Whats up with that?

what does good old common sense tell us about all this?
I agree with Galileo in that our creator gave us minds
so we should use what we have been given, no?

 

Look up scaling and how it relates to physics, especially on the scale we're discussing here.

Meridian had concrete to support the steel. WTC did not.

 

You've got to be kidding me.

You think that one structural element failed and the rest were in pristine condition?

 

"Column 79"

need I say more?