i am not convinced; in a couple of frames it seems to originate from 5-6, there's no gap in those frames and smoke is infamous for sticking to walls. i am not saying all the smoke originates from 5 and 6 but a lot of it did, and nobody is lying, it is known there were 8 floors on fire across wtc7, the fact there's no visible fires on that facade reinforces my point. regardless, steel bdgs dont happen to come down symmetrically in a perfect and mathematical collapse. if you believe that you'd have to ignore two major laws of physics, conservation of momentum and conservation of energy. wtc7 collapse implies that all 91 columns, all bolts and all floors gave way ay the same time. it is preposterous and physically impossible without explosives helping to clear the way. now more and more renown physicists and structural engineers are voicing their support for the demolition hypothesis, being the only one to account for all the evidence and more.
Believe me, I'm not trying to CONVINCE you of anything. That'd be a colossal waste of time. Just saying that heavy smoke came from 7, and the firefighters there, in live recordings are saying that they are afraid of the building collapsing from the fires that they can't fight due to lack of water pressure and exterior damage and killing more of their bro's. What do you make of their beliefs? Also, there HAVE been other steel buildings to collapse from fire - so to say otherwise is a lie. http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm Contrary to popular belief September 11, 2001 was not the first time a steel framed building collapsed due to fire. Though the examples below are not high rise buildings, they make the point that fire alone can collapse a steel structure. The McCormick Center in Chicago and the Sight and Sound Theater in Pennsylvania are examples of steel structures collapsing. The theater was fire protected using drywall and spray on material. A high rise in Philly didn't collapse after a long fire but firefighters evacuated the building when a pancake structural collapse was considered likely. Other steel-framed buildings partially collapsed due fires one after only 20 minutes. The steel framed McCormick Center was at the time the World's largest exhibition center. It like the WTC used long steel trusses to create a large open space without columns. Those trusses were unprotected but of course much of the WTC lost it's fire protection due to the impacts. "As an example of the damaging effect of fire on steel, in 1967, the original heavy steel-constructed McCormick Place exhibition hall in Chicago collapsed only 30 minutes after the start of a small electrical fire." I still have never seen a reason why 7 WOULDN'T have fallen straight down, no matter what the reason. Matter of fact, I can remember reading a paper from the implosion web site - I can't find it right now - and the guy writing it says that he would expect it to come down like that. Yet no papers I've read yet why it shouldn't. I'd be willing to read whatever you have on the subject..... And every example I've seen of CTers citing why the laws of momentun and conservation of energy prove their point, I've read counterpoints why the Ct version is a poor example that would get you a flunking grade if you were a physics student.
Fiery Crash Collapses California Freeway http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8OQL2IO2&show_article=1 Fuel burning under load supported by steel. Steel gets hot. Steel fails. Freeway overpass falls down. Itâs physics.
high rise steel frame bdg never colllapsed, due to fire, before and after 911, and that's what we refer to. your last statement is as poor as it gets when the best physicists in the world agree that conservation of energy and momentum are two basic laws you cannot get around in the case of a free fall complete colllapse. if you want to debunk 7 you have to come up with an explanation as of why those 2 basic laws were violated...or maybe they didnt appply on 911? this is one of the last professor, who wrote a paper years back on the towers, to come forward [look at the credential] saying 7 was demolished: http://www.911blogger.com/node/8101 ...and demoltion expert danny jovenko that didnt enen know WTc7 collapsed on 911 when he was shown the video had this to say: "...it starts from below... They have simply blown away columns." "This is controlled demolition." "A team of experts did this." "This is professional work, without any doubt." the video has been pulled from both goog and youtube for a change...hopefully will be up again soon and i can post it.
Steven Jones who is a physics professor has completed some interesting and convincing studies here: http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/DrJonesTalksatISUPhysicsDepartment.pdf http://www.journalof911studies.com/ But IMO it's a waste of time and energy trying to convince others that the official story is highly questionable. I gave up recently when an acquaintance could not see how 200000 tons of steel and concrete would prevent a building from falling as fast as a ball dropped from the top floor, and he is a professional builder. As Russo said at the end of this video (quoting Nick Rockefeller): "Look how stupid everybody is". http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1263677258215075609&hl=en
Here's another conspiracy for the nutjobs. A tanker caught fire, and an expressway overpass collapsed. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070430/ap_on_re_us/highway_collapse Obviously the work of Bushaliburton in an effort to overcome the 9/11 truthers. Fire doesn't melt steel or concrete, after all. Or maybe it was caused by Global Warming.
Hey, you're making some progress now - so now I see you agree that steel buildings CAN collapse due to fire alone. I really don't see the difference between why a smaller building WOULD collapse, and why a larger building absolutely - according to you - CAN't collapse due to fire. Perhaps you could explain it to me, keeping into account the fact that both would be built using the same engineering factors........ The problem with your physicists are that they aren't building engineers and aren't familiar with how buildings are ENGINEERED. Here's someone who knows how it works. http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51540 Third, Fetzer and Jones argue that the Twin Towers could not have collapsed so neatly without a controlled demolition. Architects clarify that any such building is designed to load-shift. The failure of part of a floor causes other parts of that structure to compensate and take up the load. This means that each floor must always fail symmetrically. As long as any part of the floor remains intact, it is designed to pick up the remaining load. Thus, it was inevitable that the towers collapsed symmetrically and down the center. Furthermore, controlled demolitions start from the bottom up. The WTC collapse bears no resemblance to that whatsoever. So that explains the near symmetrical failures of 1,2 and 7. ANd explains how 1 and 2 survived the plane impacts - load shifting. Now read this to see a GOOD breakdown of the collapses. It's rather long and takes a few rereads, but well worth your time if you're seeking some truth... http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf
Haroki, Thanks for the contribution. I sincerely appreciate your viewpoint and hold the Hegelian approach to truthseeking in high regard. I will take a close look at what you've posted and carefully consider.