I have tried to post some information from an article about conspiracies that was written by Paul Craig Roberts, however it has not been allowed, for some reason.

Essentially the article points out that calling someone a "conspiracy theorist" or labeling and dismissing troubling and unexplained events such as the destructions of the WTC, including 7, which was not hit by any aircraft, as nothing more than "conspiracy theories" so as to ignore their implications, is wrong. And that the US Government's own version of the events of September 11, 2001 is also a "conspiracy theory" albeit one that is less credible than those theories advanced by David Ray Griffin, or Paul Craig Roberts, or Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Since I have not been allowed to post the quote, I suggest people find it on their own, from the writings of Mr. Roberts, in Foreign Policy Journal and other sources.

"...such as the destructions of the WTC, including 7, which was not hit by any aircraft,..."

Could it possibly have something to do with, say, a couple million tons of debris slamming down next door on the same plaza, fires from the devastation next door, and the airblast from said impact?

Simply put: No. Your incorrect factual recitation does not explain 2.25 seconds of free-fall acceleration through the path of most resistance, as measured and stated by NIST. Only explosives can explain that phenomenon. Your "explanation" is a joke.

You do not get a symmetrical collapse from asymmetrical (not symmetrical) damage. If some of the supports had failed due to damage from the twin towers collapses, you would expect the damage to be greater on the sides facing the twin towers and a partial collapse from such a scenario should reflect that. However, WTC7 was a very secure modern building with about 80 or 90 supports per floor. It would have been built to handle the static load above of the building plus furnishings plus people, plus the loading from wind, with a safety factor added in. For a symmetrical collapse you need to take out all of the 80-90 critical supports plus the walls simultaneously on each floor. That's just not going to happen without planning.

From the NIST report on the collapse of WTC7:

"10. Some people have said that a failure at one column should
not have produced a symmetrical fall like this one. What is NIST’s
answer to those assertions?

WTC 7's collapse, viewed from the exterior (most videos were taken
from the north), did appear to fall almost uniformly as a single unit.
This occurred because the interior failures that took place did not
cause the exterior framing to fail until the final stages of the
building collapse. The interior floor framing and columns collapsed
downward and pulled away from the exterior frame. There were clues that internal damage was taking place prior to the downward movement of the exterior frame, such as when the east penthouse fell downward into the building and windows broke out on the north face at the ends of the building core. The symmetric appearance of the downward fall of WTC 7 was primarily due to the greater stiffness and strength of its exterior frame relative to the interior framing."

Oh, and on the freefall issue:

"11. In a video, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free
fall, something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you
describe. How can NIST ignore basic laws of physics?

In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at http://www.nist.gov/el/disa...,
NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories
(the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based
on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40
percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the
north face of the building had descended solely under free fall
conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST
was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it
in greater detail.

To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the
downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from
first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video.
Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and
acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent displacement data. The instant at which vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was determined by tracking the numerical value of the
brightness of a pixel (a single element in the video image) at the
roofline. This pixel became brighter as the roofline began to descend
because the color of the pixel started to change from that of the
building façade to the lighter color of the sky.

The approach taken by NIST is summarized in NIST NCSTAR Report 1A, Section 3.6, and detailed in NIST NCSTAR Report 1-9, Section 12.5.3.

The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the
roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration
of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages
characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:

Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).

Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)

Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time — compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower
stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended
essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the
structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model,
which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to
support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration
decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased
resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below."

wow, from chemtrails, to fluoride, to Big Foot....... to "Steel beams". Is this a joke.

How many times can a person type "conspiracy theorists" in one article?

Sorry discover magazine but Jet fuel cannot melt steel. This is not a conspiracy theory, this is a fact! Popular Mechanics can say the steel bent as much as they want but that does not explain the "pools of molten steel" under the rubble!

Okay. Try to follow along here, please.

Jet hits building, igniting fuel and materials inside.

Fire weakens internal support structure.

One floor falls when beams holding it up fail due to heat and weight.

Falling floor hits floor below, whose bracing is already weakened due to same fire, and collapses as well. External structural beams, already weakened by fire above, deform due to impact, and the floors collapse one after the other, doing progressively more damage until the entire structure fails and collapses.

Potential energy of falling material is converted to kinetic upon multiple impacts, blowing debris out any available opening, and heating the debris.

Material at the bottom takes the weight of the entire structure falling down, and kinetic energy has nowhere to dissipate and thus flash heats the material.

Take heated, malleable steel, drop a few millions tons of hot material on it with nowhere for that energy to go. Steel melts and/or is deformed by impact. Puddles.

Floor hits floor all the way to the bottom? So how long would that take? (Somewhat longer than observed). And how does this explain WTC7 freefall? (It doesn't)

Derick my friend, not even NIST is still trying to sell the bizarre and scientifically impossible pancake theory. These imbeciles are literally parroting information which is seventeen years out of date, and which is now denied by the very same people who gave out the information in the first place!

Evidence for "longer than observed"? Of course not. Just random blind intuition, like all science deniers.

No, floor hits floor until the building can't take the added strain and collapses. And what do you mean WTC 7 freefall?

and if you don;t know about Building 7 after 15 years. Chances are you don;t know much about 9/11. other than what the TV told us.

Tower 7* And that debunked over a decade ago, the best part about Tower 7 is that 911 truthers like playing an edited version of its collapse, when you can clearly see the penthouse located directly next to the elevator shaft collapses 5 seconds before the building falls...So I guess it was "demo'd" first?

University of Alaska Fairbanks, a Tier 1 engineering college, is about to upset your apple cart with their new findings on the erroneous NIST report regarding WTC7.

Mr. Cordero, why not check out what NIST reported: 2.25 seconds of free-fall acceleration for WTC 7. This cannot be explained without the use of explosives.

It was very easily explained without the use of explosives, since there weren't any. The ~2.25 seconds at g was only the partially-gutted EXTERIOR of your Sacred Tower 7, and the perimeter columns were 100% moment connected to spandrel beams, i.e. they all stood or all collapsed at once. When the interior collapses brought down the exterior, they all failed in unison, and snapped and sideways columns offer no measurable resistance. Since the interior was falling much faster at that point than the exterior and was connected to it at multiple points, g for the visible portion of the collapse could actually have been EXCEEDED for part of that time.

but you haven't explained what caused that giant core to fail.

Heat, from jet fuel. Are you brain damaged?

Read NCSTAR 1A.

why? I already know that they're lying.

How do you know that 230+ mostly civilian SEs and other experts are all lying to you if you haven't read the results of their investigation?

Links on here require moderator's approval. I posted them to NCSTAR 1A, 1-9, and 1-9A, but they may not show up. Search it yourself.

Service Temporarily Unavailable

The server is temporarily unable to service your
request due to maintenance downtime or capacity
problems. Please try again later.

that's what I got. so nist's web site is on a par with this site's ridiculous policies and probably your thinking. I don't know for sure about that, it's what I'm trying to find out, but the "moderators" here have some lame reason for why they need to have a blog which inhibits communications rather than enhancing them.

I've very rarely had any problem accessing the NIST web site, and didn't just now. The problem's with this web site and some others that won't allow links without seeing them first. Searching "NCSTAR 1A" just isn't all that difficult.

I've very rarely had any problem accessing the NIST web site, and didn't just now. The problem's with this web site and some others that won't allow links without seeing them first. Searching "NCSTAR 1A" just isn't all that difficult.

http://www.nist.gov/customc...

http://www.nist.gov/customc...

http://www.nist.gov/customc...

FEA begs to differ with you. University of Alaska Fairbanks is so far the only American Institution with the courage and integrity to address this treasonous crime and insult to human decency. They will not be the last.

When did a fire-induced building collapse that few have even heard of become a "treasonous crime and insult to human decency," pray tell? Hulsey's "courage and integrity" was bought and paid for by Richard "Box Boy" Gage, and don't hold your breath waiting for an explanation of their absurd 400F maximum steel temperature.
"They will not be the last" 9/11 truther nuts to be completely ignored by the ASCE, NCSEA, SEI, SEAoNY, structuremag . org, ENR, the Journal of Engineering Mechanics, etc., nor are they the first.

It became a "treasonous crime and insult to human decency" when the same thermitic agents that weakened WTC7 were also used in WTC 1 & 2 to kill over 2000 people. It won't be enough to eventually "omit" that WTC 7 was brought down by quickly planted explosives to conceal secrets, because there is ample evidence of the preplanned weakening before the towers were even blown up.

The infiltration of the ASCE by demolition experts with political agendas has only weakened their credibility, and the idiotic explanation of the WTC 1 & 2 collapses by Bazant only revealed ASCE's complicity in the coverup, and revealed their previously fraudulent work in OKC regarding the Murrah building.

The ASCE has ~145,000 members who don't drink your Kool-Aid, so why don't Box Boy & his 9/11 crackpots visit one of their annual conferences and enlighten them? They could bring along a ~4' piece of W14 X 730 like the 11 of 24 core columns in your Sacred Tower 7, and the 4 corner columns in each Twin Tower's core, and show everyone how 4.91" flanges, a 3.07" web, and 215 in^2 cross-sectional area of steel is secretly cut with explosives or incendiaries. 4' of W14 X 730 weighs 2,920#, so they'll need some heavy rigging equipment.

Fairly certain their application to present is consistently blocked by the aforementioned ASCE gatekeepers. I don't doubt that if given the chance to present there, you would see significant fractions of the cited 145k membership sign the petition for a new integrity driven investigation.

I'm "fairly certain" that Box Boy's 9/11 crackpots presented a petition regarding their Sacred Tower 7 at the May, 2015 AIA Convention in Atlanta and got 160 votes out of 4,052 FROM ARCHITECTS. Structural engineers are a far cry from being architects, and Box Boy's 9/11 crackpots would be lucky to get 5 votes at an ASCE, NCSEA, or SEI conference.
I'm also "fairly certain" that nothing's stopping them from getting a ~4' piece of W14 X 730 like the 11 of 24 core columns in their Sacred Tower 7, and the 4 corner columns in each Twin Tower's core and showing everyone how 4.91" flanges, a 3.07" web, and 215 in^2 cross-sectional area of steel is secretly cut with explosives or incendiaries ON VIDEO WITH AUDIO and posting it on YouTube and ae911"truth."

There was nothing "secret" about it.
https://youtu.be/hSApOavkHg8

Watch for yourself, Albury.

Its funny that truthers that aren't qualified to diagnose the smell of their own farts think they're structural engineers and experts because they watched a Youtube video..........Its embarrassing and incredibly pathetic.

If you don't know about WTC7 you should not comment on 9/11.

Look up the NIST FAQ's about WTC7. 2011 Revision, item #11. It is there in black and white that WTC7 fell at 100% of freefall for the times 1.75 seconds to 4.0 seconds into the progression of the collapse. During that time WTC7 fell 8 stories in a uniform manner straight into its own footprint. The floors below offered no pushback to slow the progression of the collapse, in violation of Newton's Third Law of Motion. It was as if the floors below were not even there.

No, actually, it isn't.

"11. In a video, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free
fall, something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you
describe. How can NIST ignore basic laws of physics?

In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at http://www.nist.gov/el/disa...,
NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories
(the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based
on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40
percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the
north face of the building had descended solely under free fall
conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST
was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it
in greater detail.

To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the
downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from
first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video.
Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and
acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent displacement data. The instant at which vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was determined by tracking the numerical value of the
brightness of a pixel (a single element in the video image) at the
roofline. This pixel became brighter as the roofline began to descend
because the color of the pixel started to change from that of the
building façade to the lighter color of the sky.

The approach taken by NIST is summarized in NIST NCSTAR Report 1A, Section 3.6, and detailed in NIST NCSTAR Report 1-9, Section 12.5.3.

The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the
roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration
of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages
characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:

Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).

Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)

Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time — compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower
stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended
essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the
structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model,
which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to
support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration
decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased
resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below."

This was updated 6/27/12. You can find the FAQ page here: http://www.nist.gov/el/disa...

stage 1. nothing happened. stage 1 exists to fool us. you seem to have been fooled. I'm not fooled.

I can see you';ve been fooled because the first stage that you mentions corresponds to zero falling at all.

why do you accept the bullshit of the first 1.75 seconds? That's crap. start the clock 1.75 seconds, nothing happened in those 1.75 seconds, just stupid lies to promote more stupid lies.

Show me the floor of a building that would support the weight of 1 floor falling a distance of 1.75s to 4.0s at 9.8m/s

17.15 meters ~ 39.2 meters
53.65 feet ~ 122.62 feet

Weighing x tons

Assuming x = 100k tons

PE= 200,000,000 × 32ft/s × 53.65 feet

PE= 343,360,000,000 joules

343.3 billion joules

KE= (200,000,000 × (32ft/s)^2)/2
KE = 102.4 Billion Joules

Total Energy = 102.4+343.3
TE= 445.7 billion joules

328.73 Billion foot pounds of force

Think about it...

That tubby blacksmith seems awfully worked up.
It's a shame he couldn't have dialed back his forge 300 degrees, to the actual max temperature of the diesel fuel that had burned off long before the collapse.
Also, It'd have been nice to leave the video running a week or so, to see how long it takes steel to go from molten red back to solid gray.
I do think that if a doctor did something about that bowel obstruction, it could improve his mood and maybe help him shed 50 lbs of B.S.

for that to even happen calls for more than a fire, if it did happen, it would still slow down on the way down and stop before the bottom unless it started at the center of gravity.

The floors below WERE NOT even there at that point; the interior began collapsing ~10 seconds before the exterior did, and the partially-gutted exterior may even have exceeded g for part of that ~2.25 seconds.

NIST admits 7 was in free fall for 2.5 seconds

According to NIST. the collapse of each tower came down at nearly free fall. As if it fell through air and not 400,000 tons of steel, concrete and other building material.

“The measurements have indicated that Tower one collapsed in about 11 seconds and Tower two collapsed in about 9 seconds…..this is essentially the rate at which free fall would happen.” – Shyam Sunder NIST
http://www.youtube.com/watc...

Just for the record, as this is years old now, but the poster above (Ken Doc II) left out some very relevant words from Sunder that completely change the meaning. The actual quote goes: "The measurements have indicated that tower one collapsed in about 11 seconds and tower two collapsed in about nine seconds, and the argument goes that this is essentially the rate at which free fall would happen.” Sunder wasn't saying they fell at freefall speed, he was saying this is what conspiracy theorists claim.

NIST has 7 in free fall and so does everyone who looks at it. We all can observe a falling object. Actually, I've found the best observers of the 3 towers destruction are 6 yr. old kids. https://www.youtube.com/wat...

Try to follow..... Jet fuel cannot cause steel to melt.

As for your whole "pancake analogy". It’s physically impossible for the top 1/5th of a building to smash through and completely destroy the entire bottom 4/5ths. If it disagrees with experiment….. it’s wrong!

Can you prove this statement wrong by experiment?