runlikell

I am referring to the first few seconds of decent for the outer layer of the structure. We do all agree that the upper portion of the outer layer fell at free fall for a period of several seconds, right?

What are playing word games now? Or are you seriously asserting that the outer building structure as observed through numerous video recordings, did no decent at freefall acceleration for any period of its collapse? This is what it has come down to, huh? Deliberate misinterpretation. And hey, if you're not deliberately being mischievous then a pity your pathetic effort to respond to what I had intended to be addressed. It doesn't take an Enlgish scholar to figure out what I meant. Either start thinking more than a half dozen seconds or quit being an argumentitive bully. Are we all at a consensus now that there is no such phenomenon that allows for freefall descent while passing through a fall line that contains substantial matter?

Is consciousness good or bad? Such a question cannot be answered objectively without first defining the terms 'good' and 'bad' objectively. What truly does it mean for something to be good, or bad? Definitions vary around the world, and history provides many explanations, some containing contradictory pieces. However, by and large, there is common ground within the bulk of minds advanced enough to have notions of such concepts. And all the common ground is centered around consciousness as a prerequisite for good and bad. No consciousness = no good nor bad. Good, in essence, always amounts to states of well-being, while bad does too but represents the opposite side of the spectrum. This is why, in my opinion, Einstein said that the most important question one can ask is whether the universe is a friendly place. I think what he was getting at is, that whether the universe is such that it is both capable of and destined to support sustainable conscious well-being, is the most important question one could ask. If the answer were to be no, that conscious suffering was inescapable, the answer to the original post of this thread becomes uncertain. If the answer were a strong no, that suffering was the inescapable destiny of all consciousness unfortunate to have emerged, then the answer would be a definite no--ie, consciousness would surely be a bad thing. Fortunately, it appears that the universe is indeed a friendly place. Consciousness is not trapped by the laws of science to forever remain in torment; we can rise above our roots of suffering, and the appears down the horizon--within short distance actually; attainable, indeed, within the lifetime of many folks reading this--that a universe dominated by consciousness which has harnessed control of its own state and eliminated unwanted suffering, is quite probable. Sit back and enjoy the show, for heaven is no destination for the deceased, but an attainable place to be constructed through highly advanced technology which will rapidly emerge by way of the law of accelerating returns. In the long run, things will only get better; such is the way things have been for as far back as we can look, and will be the way things go for as far as we can extrapolate--ultimate goodness, so it seems, is the fate of the universe.

is it possible for an object to begin decent, and during a measured period to accelerate at free-fall speed, while simultaneously during this period moving downward through a pathway that is occupied by considerable mass? ie, a pool ball landing on another without losing momentum? I am trying to comprehend NIST's explanation for the collapse of WTC7 as occurring without the aid of any added forces. Please do not resort to ad hominen attacks. Is this not a matter of basic physics? Because if I understand the agreed upon measurements of the first several stories of collapse of that building, as equal to free-fall acceleration, wouldn't that mean that had I jumped off the building at the moment the collapse began, and videotaped my twin standing on the edge of roof, that we would have both remained at the same elevation, even though I had nothing but air beneath me, yet my twin had a vertical wall of construction material directly beneath him? Am I wrong to see this specific part of the collapse as a issue of basic physics? If incorrect, why? If it is indeed basic physics, can anyone give other examples of such a phenomenon occurring, especially ones which have occurred in the laboratory and can be repeated? Thanks fellow critical thinkers and science lovers

The official government report on the collapse of WTC building 7 (a 47 story skyscraper which also collasped on 9/11 as the 3rd of the day) reports that during the first few seconds of its collapse, that the building accelerated at freefall speed. This is astonishing. How could this be possible without the use of controlled demolition techniques to use explosive energy to more the matter that sits at the bottom of and directly underneath the building out of the way so that it does not provide resistance when the upper part moves through its normal path? That is, normally we use explosives from top to bottom to acheive fast collapes that are close to freefall. But now it is claimed that the explosives are not necessary? Why bother with controlled demolitions at all from now on then? The fact is that the investigation was illegitimate for several reasons, not the least of which was that there was a major conflict of interest between WTC security managers being close family members to government employees with authority over the investigation. It's no wonder they didn't even bother examining for evidence of explosives.

Hey guys! I bet some of ya'll thought I gave up, didn't ya? Ha! Anyone who thought that will in time see that in truth my character lies on the opposite side of the spectrum. In actuality, I was forced to take a hiatus from the internet due to life circumstances not worth going into right now. What's important is that, I'm back now. And ready to address all the comments which can appropriately be done so in such a situation. Obviously it would not be practical to reply to every single post made since my last one (near the beginning of page 1), and so I'm wondering if there is any sort of guideline or protocol for this type of situation. Othewise, I'll just pick my battels based on those handful of posts which compel a reply the most. First things first. I notice upon looking at my account that I received 2 negative feedback votes. Gosh, I can't help but feel as a knee jerk reaction that they were undeserved, but I'll try to stay within my place as the FNG and remain humble. What did I do to deserve negative feedback? I started a topic that provoked pages of conversation, and in the couple of replies, I remained polite, and was objective and logical as I know how to be. What else could I have done? I will fully respect any sincere answer, but simply rating me negatively with no explanation would be, in my opinion, cowardly move. OK, so I've laid down the challenge. Come out of the shadows, whoever you are. Having welcomed me to the forum with an most unfriendly gesture. And hey gosh, maybe I've come to the wrong forum. I was hoping to have a polite, sincere, and genuine discussion about an issue that it is difficult to talk about without elliciting deep, powerful emotions in Americans. But already, I have had beleifs been pinned on me, I have been treated in a way that is biased, in being asked for a level of evidence that was never provided by anyone on the other side of the argument, which ya'll seemed to swallow unquestioningly. Let me finish off my making sure anyone who *wants* me specifically to respond to a post they made, please remind me to do so. I do not want to be acccused of ignoring anyone. Even rude folk, those appearing less intelligent or well researched than me, or defensive and biased thinking replies.... they all come from human beings. And, in accordance with the humanistic principle set forth by my (as I like to call it) scientific religion of secular humanism, I think everyone deserves to be acknowledged and treated with respect. So go ahead and name call if it validates some deep insecuirty remaing from the trauma of childhood bulliying left. Or reply in haste if can simply cannot contain yourself ong enough to read over what you wrote and ask yourself whether the same level of standards have been applied to the opposing viewpoint, if you're weaknesses do not allow for a refined, difnified post. I won't talk down to someone speaking directly to them, even if I have the security of being able to hide behind my avitar on the other side of the globe. Such is besides the point. My goal is the pursuit of truth despite its implications and inhernet discomfort. If that is also yours goal, can we not work together along common gruond? Please remember, you are speaking to someone who rolled his eyes at his conspiracy spoutting friends talking up Loose Change, and who did not claim to have absolute certainty one way or the other until addressing all of the main arguments and counter argunmetn and rebuttals and debunkings on both sides, as exhaustively as I could, until all that was left was fanatical ravings. It took many months, and admittedly, a lot of tears (this coming from a man who rarely cries), before I could no longer deny the overwhelming evidence for controlled demoltion. At this point, I don't even think it was necessarily an evil thing --if it is true that it was a false flag operation-- just like alowing Pearl Harbor to happen was a necessary evil that helped prevent another evil many times bigger in magnitude. 3000 deaths in the collapse of two buildings pales in comparison to what we would have seen had they crashed those planes into nuclear reactors (which they could have easily done, having flown right by one in new york. talk about failing to maximize damage). If that's what it takes to raise awareness to a level that can bring resources towards the prevention of terrorist acts with truly high scale numbering in the millions, then such a sacrafice would surely be deemed well worth it by any comptent military leader. Note of clarity: I am NOT saying I believe that the government rigged the buildings, or that it was good. I am merely illustrating one line of thought which hopefully helps my grander point become more clear. The idea that the twin towers were brought down in a controlled demolition does not have to necessarily be a bad thing. Don't be arrogant and think you have all possible explanations for motives are scenerios figured out. It could easilt have been much worse, so we've done somethign right. Right

I am aware of the nature of the topic being super duper touchy, as, for one, admitting to controlled demolition implies what is nearly an incomprehensible level of incompetence and/or corruption on behalf of our beloved and trusted institutions of government, media, and education--eliciting deep feelings of anger, distrust, and hopelessness in most of those who do come to admit to believing the twin tower destruction hypothesis as false. In addition, 3,000 of our citizens died that day, with an even higher death toll accuring after that day mainly from health issues due to severe toxic exposure in the cleanup of GroundZero by ill-informed poorly, equipped patriotic volunteers--and to imply those deaths as potentially unsolved evoked pain in so many. And the general trauma of that day, and the War on Terror that has followed, is such that many would prefer not to the possibility of alternative explanations at all. Rejection of the official one, is extremely taboo, so much so that it's not even worth defending any argument against the "theory"----which, of course, explains a completely unexpected and drastically unprecedented total and rapid collapse of a steel-framed modern skyrise, as the result of minor structural damage from the crash combined with a relatively short in duration and mild in intensity jet fuel boosted hydrocarbon office fire--allegedly well accepted (despite the notion of mass levels of support from the relevant experts still remaining unverified) by relevant professionals. The story is not worth dissenting against to a great deal of scientists and technologists and engineers who have serious doubts but fear the consequences of speaking up about those doubts too loudly and effectively, having seen what happens to those who have. History has shown us this terrible predicament of the suppression of truth despite many intellectuals having, internally conceived and only privately shared, a strong rejection of the current 'common sense' well accepted ((as far as one can tell through lack of opposition in oppressive societies) by virtually all people of a respectable status within society. It's happened several times before, just as logical freethinkers of past eras did not speak up about their disbelief in Heaven, Hell, religion as a whole, or the grand daddy of God's existence, not because they lacked passion or valid arguments, but sadly out of legitimate fear of ostrisization, death, or worse (ie, torture with methods that'd make a victim of such look at an upcoming day of waterboarding as a sort of vacation). The fear of severe consequences is still valid in this day and age, through career loss, humiliation, and even threats of harm to family. I'd like to make it clear that I have every intention for any ensuing discussion to remain as such instead of quickly becoming an argument, which almost unavoidably leads to ad hominen attacks against me on this topic, at least thus far in my many instancses of bringing it up through attempts to pursuade others to question the propaganda of our time. Please, may we all do our best to remain fully civil and keep the discussion as objective as possible. What I would really like to see, more than anything else, is for each side of the argument to be treated equally in all standards, to apply just as scrutiny and critical investigation towards all hypothesis, without giving the preferred, much more comfortable (for Americans) and easier to swallow and fully digest (metaphorically speaking; in terms of thought) official hypothesis any preference. I will admit right here and now that I am not a formally trained scientists. I am hence not familiar with many of the expectations surrounding the presentation of scientific material and other arbitrarily determined details for scientific communication. By no means does that justify an assumption that there's any lack of intelligence, knowledge, or ability for insight (lateral thinking as I like to call it). I just haven't memorized modern Western society's rules for the professional presentation of evidence. Regarding the argument put forth in this thread, I do not come unprepared to defend it. Not by any means. Bring it on . So, you ask for evidence, quantitative backing. Of course, not a problem. Could you please specify what you consider to be satisfactory evidence? In regards to my claim that collapse initiation was not feasible, I used the NIST report claiming the collision+fire as cause of collapse as a reference for estimates of structural damage done from the collision (petty at worst), and examined building blueprints to see what was there, studies how steel framed highrises tend to respond to hydrocarbon fires as there have been many far worse fires which burnt for far longer in the past. Also, it doesn't hurt to know the properties of steel .

The Twin Towers were marvels of structural engineering when constructed. Nowadays, it's well accepted that they were built in a highly redundant fashion using far more steel than necessary. The structures were built to withstand the impact of multiple large planes, and there is no evidence of faulty construction. The manner in which the towers collapsed, as proven through a huge amount of video evidence from a multitude of sources, is such that they simply could not have possibly have not been demolished but in a controlled manner through the release of a tremendous amount of energy during the collapse sequence. A self initiated collapse, even taking into account the impact of the planes and ensuing fires, does not even come close to being a sufficient explanation for how it began to fall. A total collapse is also unexaplined without adding energy through explosives and the like. Same goes for the manner in which the steel was left, broken into so many fragments. Same goes for the lateral ejection of crushed concrete and other materials with considerable force. Same goes for the extremely hot temperature of the debris for such a lengthy period. Same goes for the speed of collapse, which requires energy to remove much of the structure beneath collase zone so as to allow for collapse momentum to be maintained. I want to make something clear. I am not a, as they call them, "conspiracy theorist". That is, I don't believe in an evil cabal controlling the world, nor do I have any theories of government cover-ups. I am a logician, a scientist, and a skeptic--requiring valid evidence and logical soundness for all of my beliefs. I am not arguing that 9/11 was an 'inside job'. That is not a scientific issue. This is. How can this remain ignorned by scientists throughout America? We need to speak up!