Building 7 revisited

[redrumloa]

Like most people, when the event first happened I was stunned and got literal tunnel vision, even though some things seemed odd. The US was attacked, end of story. So called Conspiracy theories boiled my blood.

In recent rears I've allowed myself to see the other side, and some things really don't make sense. I am still somewhat willing to suspend questions on building 1 and 2, as they were clearly hit with fully fueled jet liners. The "jet fuel can't melt steel" and the buildings falling at the rate of gravity seems odd, but I can give benefit of doubt.

My problem comes with Building 7, and to a lessor extent the Pentagon. Building 7 was not hit by a plane, and at worst had small office fires. Despite this, it also fell at the rate of gravity. Videos of it falling look exactly like controlled demolition.

Jessie Ventura discusses it here, just focus on what he says about Building 7:

He raises some good points. Then we have footage of police and what look like construction workers stating the building is about to "blow up" before it came down.

Then there is BBC reporting that Building 7 collapsed, while it is clearly still standing in the background behind her.

And finally, watch the actual collapse footage. It looks exactly like controlled demotion.

Now the Pentagon is strange for a bit of a different reason. If Jet fuel burns so hot and is so destructive, why did survivors walk out the hole?

I really, really don't like going down the trail, but it is what it is

Nearly 16 years later, has your view changed?

 

[ilwrath]

Nearly 16 years later, has your view changed?

Nope. Not a bit.

The only cover-up or conspiracies I'd believe about 9/11 is that:
1) The government probably had at least some intel suggesting there was something up with a terrorist activity involving planes.
2) The remains of the collapsed buildings were quickly gathered and buried without the normal long inspection process because the government already knew they had some structural defects, and didn't want dragged out investigations and lawsuits over why they were in use in the first place distracting from the war effort.

But as for bringing down the the buildings themselves... They simply weren't brought down in a controlled manner. It's just all about how conventional skyscrapers are built. They have to pancake straight down. It would be practically impossible to get one NOT to.

It's counter intuitive. We see stacks of stuff fall over, every day. And when they do, they never, ever crush straight down. They topple outward, and scatter widely. (And don't even get me started on that Russian video of the reinforced concrete block house falling on its side, even though it still amazes me...)

So, why wouldn't a skyscraper act the same way? Well, let me ask a seemingly unrelated question that brings it in focus. We push stuff with wheels all the time, right? They're pretty easy to roll. So why can't you walk up and push a couple train cars? There's no brake set. The wheels have a similar friction loss to a shopping cart. Why can't you push it? The answer is, of course, mass. You don't have enough force to move that much mass.

Now, look at the truly enormous mass of say only 30 floors of a skyscraper. Find me anything within the structure of that skyscraper that could impart anything even close to enough angular force to budge 30 floors of mass. Well, there's all these really strong beams around the outside, holding that much mass up, right? Yup, and those are beams set up to work together to provide great downward compression strength. But, that doesn't translate into being able to act as a pivot for that much mass. The beams fail way before the upper mass can pivot. Therefore, the building has no choice but to pancake.