Three points. Building 7 was heavily damaged from falling debris. See the photo below. I remember the building owner told the fire dept. it was OK to bring the building down, as it was a danger to anyone trying to rescue people at the scene. If they did use explosives to bring down building 7, there's your source of thermite.
You misspelled "Now, we have hard physical evidence that some people are just plain fucking nuts." Just sayin'.
Well to be honest, there isn't any proof that more folks weren't in on it and didn't put some thermite there to be ignited when the planes hit. There are a lot of ways thermite could have got there.
Having thermite in the plane would not have done any good, it has to be precisely placed. And yes, Larry Silverstein did say that he told the firemen to bring down the building. The problem with that is, it takes months to plan and execute a demolition. You don't just rig it up on the spot. Especially one that is already on fire. It takes professional contractors to rig a building for demolition, firemen don't have that skill. To say that falling debris and fires caused WTC 7 to fall down symetrically at free fall speed is simply ridiculous. So tell me, what is the logic in calling someone "crazy", that has hard physical evidence of a controlled demolition? Does that just prove your unwillingness to even consider a particular point of view? It would be like, if someone found Kobe Bryant's DNA, blood and fingerprints at a crime scene, and you call the scientist that found them crazy because you're a big Kobe Bryant fan.
It's not ridiculous. From what I've read, you're overstating the significance of it "falling symmetrically at free fall speed." Buildings often collapse that way, even outside of controlled demolitions. The reason controlled demolitions are done is to ensure that it falls that way. It can fall that way naturally but, for obvious reasons, no one wants to leave it up to chance when they want to bring a building down. So, the fact that it came down so "smoothly" is not de facto evidence that it was done in a carefully controlled manner.
I'm willing to consider the alternatives for a minute. Then I realize the scale of the conspiracy is so enormous that it would be impossible to cover up. A handful of operatives in the Reagan White House couldn't keep Iran-Contra secret, how can one reasonably expect thousands or tens of thousands of people from coming forward with an actual smoking gun? Then there's the nature of conspiracy theories in general. They throw a bunch of nonsense out there to catch the interest of the gullible, then as each and every point they make is debunked, the response is "well, that still doesn't prove ..." and move onto something else. It's like the JFK assassination theories. It's believable that no single gunman could shoot the rifle so many times in so few seconds. Then you see Penn Gillette on his Bullshit! show with the same model rifle aim, fire, reload, aim, fire, reload, aim fire, reload with time to spare. And then he takes a bunch of untrained civilians out in the desert where they recreate the whole thing and all those people made head shots from the same height, angle, and distance 9 out of 10 times. And FWIW, I don't think they'd need a controlled demolition of WTC 7 after it was damaged. They were happy to blow it up and let it fall where it may. What was it going to do, take out the WTC itself (it had already fallen). [video=youtube;kcrF346sS_I]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcrF346sS_I[/video] [video=youtube;62gvoKyODu4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62gvoKyODu4[/video]
That's a big lie. Hitler was actually an innkeeper's apprentice in Dusseldorf and was never the leader of Germany. It's shocking, but WWII never actually happened. The government wants you to believe it did. Mein Kampf was written in an office in Washington DC by a bureaucrat from Iowa. When you start questioning our role in WWII, you'll see there are too, too many inconsistencies for it to be true. barfo
I want to become one of they. They probably get all kinds of hush money or a cushy govt. job with the best benefits.
From your name it appears you go to the U of O. I respectfully advise you to spend more time in class.
Now you are making stuff up. Come on now. "The buildings would collapse anyway, the demolitions just ensure that they do"? No, the buildings collapse because the demolitions cut their support. Unless you believe they are actually brought down by teleknesis, and the demolitions are simply there for backup. Can you name an example of a building that did that? It doesn't take a very deep understanding of the laws of physics, to know, that of a collapsing building has ANY structural support what so ever, it cannot fall at free fall speed. And they certainly don't just crash in on themselves, all the way down to the ground like what happened on 9-11. Besides, now we have strong physical evidence of a controlled demolition, and no one here seems to want to acknowledge that. But like it or not, it's something you're going to need to start dealing with. We've got some bad people running the show here....worse than most people imagine.
Nearly every large building has a redundant design that allows for loss of one primary structural member, such as a column. However, when multiple members fail, the shifting loads eventually overstress the adjacent members and the collapse occurs like a row of dominoes falling down. The perimeter tube design of the WTC was highly redundant. It survived the loss of several exterior columns due to aircraft impact, but the ensuing fire led to other steel failures. Many structural engineers believe that the weak points—the limiting factors on design allowables—were the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure. With a 700 Pa floor design allowable, each floor should have been able to support approximately 1,300 t beyond its own weight. The total weight of each tower was about 500,000 t. As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h. It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.
Debunked. On to the next wild-eyed conspiracy theory. Steven Jones deliberately left out the author's own reasonable and likely conclusion. http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm
A very well-constructed debunking of the absurd thermite "findings". [video=youtube;OWpC_1WP8do]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWpC_1WP8do&feature=player_embedded[/video]
It DID accelerate in its fall. The tremendous weight of the floors snapped the floor joists almost instantly when it reached each level. It just didn't accelerate as fast as it would have if nothing impeded the fall.
