Thread: Architects & Engineers Discuss WTC No. 7

Originally Posted by Xei

Haven't watched all of it, I just got to the point where there were multiple people relaying how they heard explosions going 'boom boom boom boom boom boom' as it fell... isn't this exactly in accordance with what engineers say, which is that there was a cascade of floors? It only seems suspicious because some of them use the word 'explosion' to describe the sound, which is of course what it sounds like.

In the same way it's not clear what the firemen are talking about. Has anybody actually interviewed them and asked what they saw, and how it was distinguished from the collapse of the floor above them?

In any case, there should be plenty of actual footage. A controlled demolition is very obvious from the outside, there is a very large explosion noise and material is expelled from the floors in question. If I see some physical evidence I'll be perfectly happy.

Please watch the whole thing. People talk about secondary explosions far-removed from both the planes hitting and the buildings collapsing. Even the reporters are talking about the explosions, and the thoughts of the first responders that there are probably 'secondary devices.' It's really not as vague as your portraying it. I'm not saying they are right in that there were actual bombs, but their thoughts on the matter really can't be misinterpreted.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

WTC7 didn't have working sprinklers either, iirc. But it didn't have firefighters trying to put out the fire either, iirc.

Yeah, I'm not too sure about how effective any firefighters (if any) might have been on those infernos. It really doesn't go into much detail on which (if any) were just allowed to burn themselves out. But I will go ahead and assume that there were firefighters present in a majority of those blazes. But even that, considering the blazes shown in those pictures, I can't say would prove to be a catalyst that would cause those buildings to burn for so long and not fall, when WTC burned for such a shorter time. I also find it hard to believe that - with controlled demo taking as much planning as it usually does - a single faulty column (outer damage be damned, this is what the report says happened) caused such a uniformed, near-free-fall collapse of WTC7. Not saying it didn't happen. Not saying it couldn't happen. I'm simply skeptical.

Originally Posted by Xei

> Arguing about arguing

Clearly you didn't want to drop the meta rubbish. But I've been on ED long enough to know that it's a black hole from which nobody ever emerges. I'll just stick to the actual arguments themselves.

Lol. Wow. Ok, man.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut Zero

Yeah, I'm not too sure about how effective any firefighters (if any) might have been on those infernos. It really doesn't go into much detail on which (if any) were just allowed to burn themselves out. But I will go ahead and assume that there were firefighters present in a majority of those blazes. But even that, considering the blazes shown in those pictures, I can't say would prove to be a catalyst that would cause those buildings to burn for so long and not fall, when WTC burned for such a shorter time. I also find it hard to believe that - with controlled demo taking as much planning as it usually does - a single faulty column (outer damage be damned, this is what the report says happened) caused such a uniformed, near-free-fall collapse of WTC7. Not saying it didn't happen. Not saying it couldn't happen. I'm simply skeptical.

Well, I'll take all of that as it is, but the collapse was, again, not uniform, nor was it a free-fall.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Well, I'll take all of that as it is, but the collapse was, again, not uniform, nor was it a free-fall.

I was careful enough (this time) to say 'near free-fall'.

I'm going to tread lightly, here, because you've made some really educated posts here on DV (especially when it comes to physical sciences, I believe(?) - and it's definitely not my field of expertise). I'm a 'call it as I see it' kind of guy, for the most part, but I do my best to understand certain scientific principles, when I can. So, I would like you opinion on this video:


(And though it may not be actually, technically, physically 'uniform, but damnit, it's close, isn't it?? Lol.)

But really, what would your rebuttal to this video be? Do you feel the narrator is incorrect about something? Or Steven Jones, who is asking the questions on the panel? If they are correct, is the rate of collapse here not close enough to actual free-fall (so close, in fact, that even NIST seems to have retracted their initial statement and included a significant (IMO) period of free-fall), to say that it fell 'near free-fall'?

If it is near free-fall (or, even more, if it was free-fall), would you be at all intrigued, or would it become so insignificant that you would be surprised you even doubted it to begin with?



To be honest, I like where we are in the discussion. Some might disagree, but I think I've (well, 'we've', counting OP and mcwillis. Hehe) done pretty well in offering a least a shred of gray to some of the 'official' points. There has been plenty in this thread that has come down to simply "which one of our assumptions sounds the 'best'". There is very little actual proof to many of the official claims. A lot of simply falls on 'well, that's what most likely happened.' Remember, this is all about those people who simply think an investigation should be done - not people who are just looking to shout "HEY, CONSPIRACY!" In my opinion, there are really a lot of unanswered questions, and things that someone has to really put forth faith in 'what they think would happen', in the situation.

Originally Posted by Xei

A controlled demolition is very obvious from the outside, there is a very large explosion noise and material is expelled from the floors in question. If I see some physical evidence I'll be perfectly happy.

There is plenty of video of it, and yes, it looks exactly like what you see in all controlled demolitions (the large puffs of smoke jetting out of the windows, in sequence, just before the structures come down). The thing is (again, this isn't my first rodeo): that when people see them, they immediately 'know' that they are the unseen, pancaking floors falling down upon each other, within the buildings, expelling puffs of debris out of the windows as each floor caves in (which is now the explanation that is stuck in your head, even before having seen the video). There's really no need in showing it. I know where it leads. Lol.