Joefreiheit (December 31, 1969 at 11:59 pm)

9/11 was an obvious demolition job. No steel structure building has ever fell straght down because of a fire or because of airplanes. What a bunch of lies we were told.

punctualbird (December 31, 1969 at 11:59 pm)

Of course WTC 7 was insured. All major buildings in Manhattan and every other center big and small have an insurance dollar value attached. That's not surprising. Why would someone that is already fabulously wealthy, powerful, and privelidged, risk everything for this mass murder plot? If you had evidence of blasting caps, shock tubes, detonation chord, you would have my attention, but you've got vague suspicions that don't amount to substantial proof of guilt.

punctualbird (December 31, 1969 at 11:59 pm)

Yes, stages, the Penthouse collapsed six seconds before the rest of the structure. This means there were stages to the collapse, there was an internal collapse, that pulled in lateral columns in such a way that the remaining columns were unable to support the massive Euler stress and then it just snapped...in stages.

sillybilly44444444 (December 31, 1969 at 11:59 pm)

Stages? That's why you see the full shape of the building coming down all at once. Again, this all happens because of a few failed lateral columns at the base...

sillybilly44444444 (December 31, 1969 at 11:59 pm)

Haven't you ever looked into this? 7,000,000,000 profit on a 15,000,000 investment. Now that's just the insurance. Now add on the revitalization of lower manhatan once the site is rebuilt. The new building 7, opened 2006, is much more efficient and that's just the first building rebuilt. The overall profit for Larry Silverstein and building contractors is incalculable. Now that's just the tip of the iceberg; what about the politics...

punctualbird (December 31, 1969 at 11:59 pm)

No physical evidence was recovered or witnessed by the clean up crews that have experience in this area. No blasting caps, shock tubes, detonation chord, etc. Then there's the question of motive - why would the government need to blow up a building? It just doesn't make any sense. Who would do it? Why? And also, how? When? It's just too big an operation to demolish a building covertly in downtown Manhattan.

punctualbird (December 31, 1969 at 11:59 pm)

Euler stress does explain why it came straight down, because of the height of the building, enormous force was directed downwards. And if you examine the full length video, you'll see that this collapse occurs in stages. The centrally located penthouse falls in first, which then pulls the interal supports inward (not seen in the video, but we can infer this). The whole system gets pulled into the middle causing what appears to be a single instantaneous event. But it falls in stages.

sillybilly44444444 (December 31, 1969 at 11:59 pm)

Euler stress deals with calculating stress concentrations in individual beams, it has nothing to do with what we're talking about. It doesn't help your argument for why a building would "collapse" and cruble directly down instead of in any other direction. Unless all virticle columns failed at exactly the same time the building would fall in the direction of whichever virticle column failed first and the intact virticle column(s) would divert the path from being straight.

sillybilly44444444 (December 31, 1969 at 11:59 pm)

Euler stress might have something to do with your point but your point has nothing to do with reality.

punctualbird (December 31, 1969 at 11:59 pm)

Also, it didn't collapse into the path of most resistance, because, if you actually could read, you would see that I wrote the failing structure was unable to resist the above factors. If you could read between the lines, you'd understand, the building gave way through a combination of factors: damage, fire, design flaws, Euler stress, to name the obvious known factors. I admit not everything is known about the collapse, but controlled demoltion is unrealistic. How did the bombs get there?