1 and 2 towers collapse. Debris falls over all buildings in surrounding area. WTC7 collapses into its own footprint perfectly. Other surrounding buildings (some with far more damage than WTC7) remain standing. As I said, you do the math.
I'm curious what you base this on? About 1/3 of the face was gone, and 25% of the depth was destroyed by debris as well. If you remember the live news casts, they were expecting it to collapse for hours before it actually did. With the damage it sustained, it stayed up for quite a while. There is no evidence to suggest it were demolished. Just theories and comments take out of context. The building fell because of structural damage. It's hard to believe you can think otherwise, unless facts don't matter. Feel free to contradict anything in this; if you can. If you can't, we'll just add it to the list of things you fail to dispute: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/June2004WTC7StructuralFire&CollapseAnalysisPrint.pdf If building 7 is the "lynchpin" to the conspiracy; imagine taking down 2 buildings and hitting the pentgaon just to destroy building 7. Seems like there are easier ways
Then it should of collapsed off to the side or partially collapsed. It didn't, it came down perfectly. As for your last comment, the destruction of WTC7 was just to hide the evidence, the real aim of 9/11 was the "shock and awe" tactic to scare all the sheeple into supporting the illegal invasion of Iraq. That was the towers being hit broadcasted live to the world, WTC7 simply had to be destroyed, there was far too much evidence in that building for it not to have to be demolished. As the government were complicit in 9/11 no point posting government sites in evidence mate, there should have been a full independant enquiry into 9/11 but there wasn't, and never will be.
And your structural engineering degree and full knowledge of how WTC7 was built tells you this, correct? Is this not important to you?
cartoon knowledge of physics helps too, I bet. This is the same guy who hasn't answered basic questions about the pentagon crash and thinks he should be taken seriously here too
No sir, but this guy is a professor of physics and he explains it very well in layman's terms. Even you might be able to follow it.
Starting with the ad hominems already AGS. You are really losing your touch. Please give me some links to text that explains it in laymans terms that convinced your inquisitive mind about the conspiracy. And I'll happily point out where its wrong for you. I'm feeling charitable.
Watch the bloody video mate. This guy will explain fully why the whole thing is a big con to manipulate sheeple like you.
You want me to spend 2 hours on this for you? You have already failed to respond to either point I've made thus far. If you provide me with some text so I can read, I'll work with ya here. I know you can find something for me, big guy. If you care enough to tell the world the truth. Unless, you aren't confident enough in your "facts" to do a little digging yourself. You did such a wonderful job at proving your pentagon theory in a previous thread, surely you want to follow up with another bang-up job here!
No, I want you to spend 2 hours watching this for yourself, your family and the future of your country. Perhaps then you might start questioning the bullshit that you so staunchly defend.
So. Your answer is "no, I don't care enough to dig up some text to back up my spooky music video" and "no, I do not care to respond to the previous points you've brought up" Indeed, someone does need to question the bullshit that they so staunchly defend, but as we've all seen, you aren't capable of it.
AGS, I have a major in engineering, with minors in physics, math, and mechanical engineering...the dude is wrong...need another example of a physics teacher being wrong? Global Warming 101...the earth has warmed 1 degree F in about 100 years...thats it. no more. And as far as predicting weather 500 years ago, unless it was recorded it is just that, a prediction, NOT A FACT....face it, the "wool" has been pulled over your eyes...but then again, if you are a moonbat you can't be a sheeple...
If you don't want to watch the video by a qualified professor then that is up to you mate, you just carry on sucking up to Bush and the rest of the crazy gang whilst they ruin the Middle East and your own country. Don't say I didn't warn you though when the shit really hits the fan. You expect me to respond to your posts yet say you are not going to respond to mine?? You're a real hero mate ain't ya?
Actually, I've been asking you for text I can read and you present me with a video instead. I've made at least 2 points in this thread that you've ignored, and I'm ignoring the previous times you've ignored evidence I've provided that contradicts your theories - your previous post is only the latest example. And your retort is "watch the video, sheeple". It's kinda sad that you are so convinced by a theory you cannot even put into words.
OK, maybe modern Greek, but 'Aero' is ancient/classical Greek for 'Air' in its "Combining form". According to the online etymology dictionary and wiktionary I haven't seen the many previous posts in this thread, but has anyone accounted for or explained the explosion sounds heard by fireman and others?
Almost, I can remember a several instances where you asks the same thing about WTC7 and is handed a similar explanation without answering it. No, ridiculous claims about WTC7 is the most easiest task to debunk in my experience. Maybe it's because the same claims are popping up over and over again. 1. Not exactly in it's own footprint. 2. Yes, you've got that right, it was mainly damaged by WTC1 falling over on it. 3. Minor fires? I've showed a picture of this in another thread, did you ignore it? 4. Yes it was hit by a lot debris. Now tell me, if explosives was placed inside the building, how comes it didn't explode as a result of the fires? Also, how come that there was no loud explosions before it collapsed? How come that no seismological data recorded any explosions going of in WTC7? Wasn't they constructed differently?
Yes, WTC7 was built on top of the subway system or something; so it had a unique construction to it. As I previously noted (and AGS ignored) in the thread. Destruction or removal of just a few of the internal beams would have made the building come down. Which happened and it did.