?? The east penthouse and its supporting structure didn't fall through the rest of the building. Even NIST doesn't suggest that occurred. More important, neither does any of the evidence (photos, videos, etc.).

Where do you suggest that it went, then? The videos certainly show it descending some ten seconds before the rest of the building starts to fall.

What happens when a building is demolished? It's flattened, leveled to the ground. It doesn't fall down into a big hole in the ground.

I can easily state in my opinion the façade damage and fires in WTC7 were not nearly enough to cause a collapse imitating a controlled demolition but it does not change those 2 facts which do support the official story. Same as your interpretations do not change the many facts which do support an inside job.

One more note – I would seriously question the interpretation skills of anyone who does not find relevance in a group of Mossad agents in New York on 9/11 who were seen celebrating the collapse of the Twin Towers and were subsequently arrested with a van full of explosives.

What exactly about the eyewitness statements is inconsistent with the NIST interpretation? Why do you omit the other facts that are also consistent with the NIST work, namely the laws of physics. And where are these "facts" that support CD - you've yet to produce any. So far we've got loud noises not associated with the collapse and Bartmer's statement that shows no loud noise immediately before the collapse.

...and you have still to explain what a van-full of explosives well outside the building has to do with the CD theory. Were they chasing aircraft around so they could plant the explosives in the next building to get hit?

I would be careful about raising “the laws of physics” though, as these clearly fit with evidence supporting an inside job.

Scroll up and read again as I have listed the facts for an inside job which by far outweigh your two facts for the official story if you remember.

I am not sure what you mean by "well outside the building". They and the van were within filming and photographic range of the WTC complex. And not just “a van full of explosives”; a group of Israeli secret service agents who were seen celebrating the destruction of the Twin Towers and were subsequently arrested with a van full of explosives. To point out the obvious - it is highly likely this was a part of the team which rigged the Towers and WTC7 for demolition. But as it is not suspicious in the slightest to you flyingswan, I have a couple of questions: -

• Why were the Israelis celebrating, giving high fives and congratulating one another as they filmed the collapse of the Twin Towers?
• What were they doing, as employees of a ‘moving company’, with explosives in their van?

Really, you should read the full story here so you get the picture.

This from someone who clearly has no understanding of how a structure works or how one could fail. Have you asked one of your local structural engineers yet?

I've already said that I find your fact list less than convincing, and on some points actually evidence against a CD.

If there are other facts NIST are working on in addition to the two I have mentioned (debris damage to South facade and limited fires on a dozen floors) please add them to my list.

Come on, the CD theory says the buildings were rigged with explosives before the attacks, not after. Whatever they were doing with the explosives, they could not have been planting them in the WTC.

As for celebrations, I heard several times in the days after 9/11 people in the UK saying things like "Serve the New Yorkers right for supporting the IRA all those years, see how they like being hit by terrorists".

You have missed the main body of what I was saying and gone off on a waffle again. The main point was: -
If we do not have anymore than two hard facts NIST are dealing with then they are outnumbered by the controlled demolition facts. And once again, it does not matter that you make strange interpretations of the facts, they are still facts supporting controlled demolition.

Perhaps the Israeli’s had finished rigging the Towers and WTC7 only recently and were waiting out to view the attacks. Maybe, [sarcasm]shocking as it is[/sarcasm], they had some explosives left in their van after completing the job. How about instead of wriggling about, you answer the questions: -

• Why were the Israelis celebrating, giving high fives and congratulating one another as they filmed the collapse of the Twin Towers?
• What were they doing, as employees of a ‘moving company’, with explosives in their van?

While we are at it...

• Why did the owner of the 'moving company' close shop and return to Israel in a hurry shortly after the attacks?
• In a TV interview back in Israel, why did one of the men arrested say they had been in New York to document the event?

What is the betting no official story believer will be willing to seriously answer these questions.

but I don't see any evidence for your CD theory in the incident.

Iraq war veteran and experienced demolitions expert blows the cover on 9/11 inside job


Meet Torin Wolf. He has a broad and varied background as a US Army Combat Nurse during Operation Iraqi Freedom,....

...building construction contractor, certified structural welder, certified asbestos and hazardous materials worker, experienced demolitions expert, teacher, radio show host, and well studied 9/11 truth activist. Torin knows how to put a building up, and bring the same building down in its own footprint. Torin's free presentation, “Taking the Red Pill” .....
.....
While saving over 120 lives, Torin earned the Combat Medical Badge by providing medical care to US, allied, enemy soldiers, and civilians under combat conditions. Torin's arms display Samoan life saving tattoos, each line and symbol representing a group of lives saved. The army would like you to think he wasn't in Iraq, but unfortunately for them, Torin appears in a recent documentary filmed there. A true hero helping save lives in the middle east, Torin can be seen in section 4 of a PBS documentary called “Life and Death in the War Zone.”

With Torins impressive list of qualifications, his unwavering voice holds a power that shatters the lies of 9/11 sold to us by the government and mainstream media, “The official story we've been told about 9/11 is absolutely, physically impossible.”

Those words are not just backed up with his qualifications because his presentation goes through the hard physics as well. The presentation starts out with a serious warning that reminds us the state our country is in after the false flag attack and ensuing tyrannical hijacking of the government on that September morning. A hijacking not by Bin Laden, not by Al Qeada, but by a group of tyrants that orchestrated and benefited from 9/11. “Unless you want to be charged as a terrorist, I suggest you leave the room now. This is technically seditious material and you can be charged under section 802 of the Patriot Act just for being here.”

This upsets a few people near the front row. Everyone looks around to see if that will scare anyone off but luckily no one leaves and the presentation continues. The bookstore is now filled with former American citizens, now terrorists, simply because they want to learn the truth of what happened on 9/11. If you think the patriot act only applies to foreigners or dehumanized muslims with brown skin, you are very wrong. Torin rubs the effect in even more, “We [American citizens] don't even have to be charged – foreigners do.” Then tells us that the patriot act was written prior to 9/11, “This is admitted.” Also admitted is the fact that the patriot act has been used to come after American citizens over eight hundred times.

The presentation moves on and goes through some of the just plain crazy theories of why the towers fell, such as space beams, holograms, missiles, orbs, pterodactyls, etc., and easily debunks them. Torin then adds, “There is evidence most of these are put out by the government as disinfo.” Then explains how the White House, in violation of the law, has bought 28 billion, “Billion with a B” in fake news.

“But the craziest, most truly unhinged conspiracy theory for the towers falling on 9/11?” Torin asks rhetorically. “Fire.” The official story cannot be recreated by any experiment. NIST is the government agency involved in attempting to model what happened to the world trade center on 9/11, and they fail horribly. NIST never models what happens after the collapse initiation, and even what they do model before that is easily debunked. NIST created 16 separate physics programs to simulate the WTC 1 & 2 collapses and only got 1 to collapse partially. Torin adds, “When they did, [in the computer model] they removed 40% of the structural support.” The cross trusses that the towers received a significant amount of their strength from had to be removed to have a collapse in the computer simulation. Torin then mocks the official story, “There's no such thing as a 'pancake' collapse, but there is a progressive collapse”

A few slides are shown of progressive collapses throughout the world. None of them are anything like what happened to the world trade center with its pulverized concrete 100 microns or smaller just seconds after the start of collapse, and then its complete destruction. Torin uses his expertise to explain to the audience how and why a real progressive collapse occurs and subsequently why the WTC was not a progressive collapse. “The biggest problem with the argument,” Torin explains. “Time.”

Several slides are then presented that show the hard physics and observed time of WTC 2 falling. Worst-case scenario would require 0.5 seconds per floor for collapse. “The absolute minimum amount of time for a progressive collapse would be 43 seconds.” How long did it take for the building to fall in reality? About 8.6 Seconds.

“For the towers to fall at so close to free fall speed, over 110,000 separate and independent structural support points had to fail simultaneously. 'Pancake theory' does NOT explain the failure of the cores.” Torin explains passionately, obviously upset with the lies being told to the American people. "Nothing is holding the building up - No resistance. 110,000 structural failures at the same time."

Torin: "Nothing is holding the building up - No resistance. 110,000 structural failures at the same time."

Next, we are shown an incredible bit of detective work on Torins part. He shows a sequence of 12 different pictures of the collapse initiation of the North tower, WTC 1. Torin explains that the antenna on the top of the world trade center is a perfect guide of measurement for height, as there is a standard of changing the paint color of antennas once per fifty feet. The part of the antenna on the roof of WTC 1 appears black, then white alternated every fifty feet. There is a guide wire in the bottom left of every picture that shows that the camera does not move. Why is this picture so interesting? It shows the antenna, which is held up by the core columns, fall before the rest of the building while the fire line on the 78th floor doesn't move. Torin then goes through the hard physics of the scene we're looking at and explains how it directly contradicts the official story, “This building is not collapsing on the 78th floor. The antenna falls 56 feet before the 78th floor falls.”

Torin then gives his expert analysis on building 7 for about five minutes. For those that are new to this information, building 7 was the third building to collapse on 9/11. After a thirty second countdown was given by firefighters, it collapsed perfectly into its own footprint at 5:20 in the afternoon. It housed the IRS, Department of Defense, CIA, Secret Service, and the Security and Exchange Commission among many others. While I can't cover all of the hard hitting information Torin brought up about building 7, the highlight was his analysis of the collapse, which played over and over again on the screen behind him, “There is no doubt about it, this is a controlled demolition profile” then Torin directed everyone to view the kink, which is characteristic of a controlled demolition.
link

What's that got to do with anything?

The penthouse was on the roof, it disappeared into the building. Where are you claiming it went?

It only "disappeared" inasmuch as the structure collapsed/flattened onto itself, and most of what remained couldn't be seen from our ground level view, looking upward to the top of the building.

Or are you suggesting that it plummeted 47 floors down to the ground, through a perfectly sized "tunnel" that bored all the way down to the ground level floor? I sure hope not....

no but many experts do-- more importantly they are people willing to back up their theories in public debates unlike your imaginary list of scholars-- who can refute torins power point presentation??

Perhaps you missed the point of my last post: celebration does not mean responsibility. It can mean just the normal dislike of the US felt by much of the world's population.

I have no idea what they were doing or whether it was legal, but I don't see any evidence for your CD theory in the incident. Wriggle as much as you like, whatever they were doing with their explosives, they were in the wrong place at the wrong time for a WTC CD. "finished rigging recently" long after the aircraft impacts - very funny. It takes a long time to rig a CD, in fact no building that size has ever been CDed, and the picture of a bunch of Israelis rushing explosives up the stairs as everyone else evacuates is ridiculous.

Or are you suggesting that it plummeted 47 floors down to the ground, through a perfectly sized "tunnel" that bored all the way down to the ground level floor? I sure hope not....

I am suggesting that the penthouse movement is not a local collapse, for which there is no obvious cause, but a major failure which would leave a large hole in the building structure. The damage and the fires were well below the penthouse, so why would it move unless there was a collapse in the structure many floors below it?

Whatever his qualifications, he is not a structural engineer and displays the same ignorance of what happens in a structural failure as you and Q24, probably because he got his information from the same websites. Just one example: if structures cannot fail rapidly, how did the airliners enter the towers? On his argument, they'd bounce off.

Not out of our imaginations. George Bush and Dick Cheney are making BILLIONS on the gullible stupidity of Americans.
Alex Jones is fantastic. Check out his site at www.prisonplanet.com

the only ignorance here is in your analogy-- using that rationale when a skateboarder falls and his arm bends in a 90 degree angle at the midpoint between his wrist and elbow it would be undeterminable that his arm was broken until he saw a doctor that could verify it with x-rays-- i'll be waiting for the rebuttal from any structural engineer willing to counter torins presentation

You started off sensibly and raised the point that celebration does not necessarily mean responsibility – I can respect that. I am struggling for reasons why any Israeli would “dislike” the US though (no other country in the world supports another in the way that the US supports Israel with billions of dollars of foreign/military aid each year from the taxpayer and unconditional political backing).

That would be to say the penthouse “fell through” the whole of WTC7, ripping and tearing adjacent structural columns at every level, without instantaneously bringing down the rest of the structure? You are suggesting the interior of the building had lost a large portion of its structure and actually what we see collapsing of WTC7 is a hollow shell? The only way this would be remotely possible would be if the penthouse was built as an individual structure in its own right, running through the height of the building, which so far as I am aware it was not. This is an area NIST have not even dared venture into so I hope you know where you are going with it flyingswann.

The most obvious explanation and likely cause of the penthouse collapsing at the top, followed after a period by the main structure at the bottom, would be that they were due to separate damage events. This would again be consistent with controlled demolition where a series of explosive/cutting charges would go off in intervals at numerous points in the building.

2. DEMOLITION
Crudely, based on the Loizeauxs' Controlled Demolition Inc's website, 0.25 to 3 pounds of explosives are required for each detonation point in a building. Painstaking study of building plans (and/or the building) is necessary to get a building to collapse completely into its own footprint. It is hard therefore to escape the conclusion there's a reason for such painstaking study - that vertical collapse does not just happen; it has to be carefully and ingeniously devised. When exact building plans are available - again, judging crudely by CDI's website - a month's planning is sufficient to precisely lay charges for a typical CD. CD can be done either with wires or remotely via radio signal. Compared to the 439 feet tall JL Hudson Department Store demolition (mentioned on CDI's website), if buildings 1 and 2 (roughly 1,355 feet tall) were to be demolished, a crude calculation would be buildings 1 and 2 each would require three times as many locations and three times as much explosive as used in the JL Hudson Department Store: 3,300 locations and 8,184 pounds of explosives. WTC 7 would be comparable to the JL Hudson Department Store demolition. Likewise, since it's stated, "CDI's 12 person loading crew took twenty four days" to ready the JL Hudson Department Store for CD, a crude calculation would be a dozen people would need roughly 10 weeks to ready each tower, 1 and 2, for CD. They would also need end-to-end total access to the buildings.

It doesn't appear that any structural engineers are posting here, which is why I keep suggesting that Q24 finds one to ask. You could do the same.

or you could just post the relavent data since you have obviously made a decision based on something you have read somewhere-- or are you just making up possibities and wild scenarios to protect your fragile version of reality? i dont have to ask a structural engineer anything because my intellect and common sense are not flawed-- you you make rediculous assertions and jump to unrational conclusions and never support your theories or conjecture with hard data-- you endlessly spout nonsense about structural engineers this and the establishment that but you NEVER provide anyhting to back it up-- you sir are a poor excuse of a human being

this discussion is pointless.

your right when you refuse to look at the eye witness testimony,video cooberation and the criminal actions of a corrupt administration covering it up and waging false flag instigated wars-- all that is needed is the video of bldg 7 collapsing and the govt's official explanation to prove we arent in kansas anymore

This aspect is pure opinion on your part and does not constitute evidence.

It seems, sunofone, that you still can not differentiate between opinion and fact.

The UK comments I mentioned earlier were also from citizens of a country that supports the USA. I am sure that plenty of Israelis dislike the USA, just as plenty of the British do.

This situation has no equal in American political history. Why has the United States been willing to set aside its own security in order to advance the interests of another state? One might assume that the bond between the two countries is based on shared strategic interests or compelling moral imperativs. As we show below, however, neither of those explanations can account for the remarkable level of material and diplomatic support that the United States povides to Israel.

Instead, the overall thrust of U.S. policy in the region is due almost entirely to U.S. domestic politics, and especially to the activities of the “Israel Lobby.” Other special interest groups have managed to skew U.S. foreign policy in directions they favored, but no lobby has managed to divert U.S. foreign policy as far from what the American national interest would otherwise suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that U.S. and Israeli interests are essentially identical.

Sorry, I thought I had made my picture of the WTC7 final collapse plain many posts ago. I am saying that the penthouse moving was a sign of a structural failure many floors below the penthouse. This resulted in a large portion of the structure, at very least the penthouse and everything below it, falling through the building. This fall caused sufficient extra damage for the outer part of the building to follow a few seconds later. This does not imply that the penthouse supports were separate from the rest of the structure, just that the structural failure that initiated the collapse was below the penthouse rather than close to an outer wall. The short interval between the penthouse and the main collapse strongly suggests that they were part of a single sequence of structural failures. Perhaps you didn't realise the events were so close in time, as you have to search around on the web for a "WTC7 collapse" video that starts before the penthouse goes. Most just show the main building collapse.

Would you say the way in which WTC7 fell was normal? Let us say as an experiment we took a number of steel framed, high rise buildings. We then cut a few structural columns and started random fires in each of them. In the majority of our buildings, would you expect this characteristic where a section of the roof plummets down breaking supports at every floor of the structure to ground level, leaving a hollow shell before the outer walls of the building fall straight downwards? Or would you say that was more a one off; a peculiarity of WTC7’s collapse?

Read my post again. I am not saying that the failure starts at the roof, but in a part of the structure some way below. The penthouse moving is the visible sign that a collapse has started somewhere in the structure that supports the penthouse, not that the penthouse sytucture itself has failed.

If the final failure starts well inside the building this could easily happen again in your tests, but if the final failure is near an outside wall then the collapse would look different. It would all depend on how the fire and damage progressed through the building, it turn depending on the details of the structure and where the fire found the best sources of fuel and oxygen.

Read my post again. I did not say you believed the structure’s initial failure was at the roof. The point is that if there was a failure around the 10th floor which ‘proceeded’ upwards to the top of the building, this would necessitate each of the 37 stories above breaking free of their horizontal supports at every level. And doing this without instantaneously taking down the adjacent structural supports, ie the rest of the building, with it. You are asking us to believe the structure in the path below the penthouse acted like a tunnel right through the building; that it performed, at least initially, independently of the rest of the building. You are asking us to believe that load redistribution of the structure below the penthouse failed miserably or was non-existant. You are asking us to believe that the initial failure of a single internal column (out of a total of 24 I believe) at a single level ultimately caused the entire structure to symmetrically collapse at freefall speed. You are asking us to believe you are crazy.

The building falls vertically down because that is the direction in which gravity acts.

You still seem to have no concept of structures at all. I tried to explain several pages ago that I am not claiming that a "single internal column (out of a total of 24 I believe) at a single level ultimately caused the entire structure to symmetrically collapse." Pericynthion has provided you with numerical examples showing that your simplistic ideas of load redistribubion are wrong. It is obvious from your post that you are trying to apply your ideas of how an intact structure should behave to a structure that has been damaged.

To start again:

completely rediculous assertions that have no links to precedent or common sense-- columns dont just disintegrate when there are integrity breaches--here are examples of what concrete and steel buildings look like when the damage of certain load bearing members fail--
you just dont understand that math will always trump repetition

I would prefer not to start again flyingswan - we have already discussed the main building collapse. At the moment I am trying to be more specific to the event of the penthouse falling through the building approximately 8 seconds prior to the main building collapse. You did not seriously address any of the issues I raised in my last post, so perhaps a direct question is better: -

In your scenario, why did the structure between the damaged floor and the penthouse not redistribute its load to the remaining internal structural columns thus preventing the penthouse from falling separately from the rest of WTC7?

Even Pericynthion's examples of load redistribution would agree that these loads should redistribute in some fashion to the rest of the remaining intact structural columns. I have heard it argued many times by followers of the official story, the reason for WTC7's complete downfall is that high rise steel framed buildings will not collapse until all of their main columns are brought to maximum load bearing capacity. So, according to your WTC7 penthouse theory, either: -

1. The structure below the penthouse did redistribute its load to the remaining 23 columns which then all failed in turn, leaving only the perimeter columns intact.
2. There was no load redistribution method built into WTC7, thus allowing the penthouse and structure directly below to collapse independently of the rest.
   
   Neither of the above seem reasonable so I offer another option: -
3. A separate damage event occurred toward the top of the structure, close to the penthouse, causing it to collapse independently of the rest of WTC7.

Take your pick.

I spoke to firefighters that were inside the building who said they heard explosions before they were getting out of the building before the collapse, so there is conflicting stories. I have a tendency to trust the guys inside the building as they were inside immediately before the collapse.

Mmm. I recently seen the 911 movie with what's his face.... ?? Anyway, In the film it makes a significant point that the scenes were according to the fireman's accounts.. The movie depicts before the collapse there were sounds of bombs or explosions while they were still inside the tower..

Couldn't there have been other explanations of these explosions besides bombs... ?

Mmm. I recently seen the 911 movie with what's his face.... ?? Anyway, In the film it makes a significant point that the scenes were according to the fireman's accounts.. The movie depicts before the collapse there were sounds of bombs or explosions while they were still inside the tower..

Couldn't there have been other explanations of these explosions besides bombs... ?

the only thing is we have video that cooberates the firefighters claim of "secondary devices" where the towers disintinigrate all 110 floors in ten seconds which can only occur with the use of explosives

Only your opinion.

You do not need all 23 columns to fail before a collapse starts. A well-designed building should be able to survive a single column failure, but whether it needs two, three, four, etc adjacent columns to go before a collapse depends on the detail of the structure. Once a progressive collapse starts, the most likely direction for it to progress is vertically upwards, because the structure above is not designed to be unsupported.

With the basic double tube structure of WTC7, I see nothing anomalous in the collapse bringing down the interior tube a few seconds before the outer one.

Just giving my opinion on the Bankers Trust Building without any knowledge of the building's structure, I would say that there appears to be severe structural damage and I would not have been surprised if a subsequent fire had led to a collapse.

you are a complete joke -- perhaps you should take basic physics and some common sense to heart

As you have a selective inability to directly answer questions, I will attempt to deduce your line of thinking. You seem to believe that the structure did transfer its load to some, but not all, of the internal columns. This ‘grouping’ of columns then failed independently of the rest of the building, causing only the penthouse and structure below to initially collapse. If this was the case, why would the event cause the complete collapse of the rest of the building? The grouping of columns below the penthouse cannot have been relying on the rest of the columns for support (otherwise it would have transferred the penthouse load to them and not collapsed independently of the main building), therefore the rest of the columns cannot have been relying on the penthouse columns for support.

As you know, I would have been very surprised if a subsequent fire had led to a collapse. So after being damaged by falling debris from the Towers on 9/11 and last night sustaining a large fire for 7 hours over three floors (story here), the Bankers Trust Building is still well and truly standing with not even the slightest hint of collapse. In view of this, your belief that the building may have collapsed with the addition of fire now seems quite silly does it not, flyingswan.

The critical element is the one that is brought closest to its ultimate load. If there is a fire, then this critical element can be further weakened though the fire heating it or further loaded by thermal stresses, and it will also give way. The loads again redistribute, making another element the critical one. At some point you will reach the situation where a large part of the structure is depending on a critical element, and when this gives way, the structure collapses.

Again you seem to be clinging to this idea that load transfer loads up all the remaining structure uniformly. Load can't transfer to an element that has already failed, and broken elements make a gap which load cannot transfer across.

Once the penthouse moves, you have the situation that a portion of the structure is falling through the rest of the building. This falling debris is going to cause damage on the way down, and particularly when it hits the bottom and spreads outwards. This extra damage is what causes the collapse of the rest of the building. The short delay between the penthouse movement and the rest of the collapse fits this scenario very well.

I didn't say it would collapse, I said I would not have been surprised if it had.

Perhaps if you had an argument, you wouldn't need an insult.

Boy, I cant wait for the interview in the Final Cut. Debunkers will just hate the part where it says explosions going off in building7 before either Towers collapse! Go think of a good excuse for that!

The debunkers have discredited the upcoming interview as presented by Loose Change as BS before they can get them edited, If what they claim is truth why do they have to edit and make changes in the first place? The truth does not change! IMHO Loose Change cares only for the sensationalism, not the truth.
FYI Wild speculation and accusations do not permit us to prosecute the guilty, so please post your evidence. Tell us by whom, how when and where the explosives were planted? No more wild claims without evidence, we can't prosecute the parties responsible for this blasphemous act on mere speculation.
Until you can produce solid evidence that leads somewhere, please quit making baseless claims. IMHO you are making yourself look like the idiot you profess us all to be.

your are the one who has repeatedly refused to supply the links to the data that explains how the experts rationalize the disintigration of 110 floors and subsequent freefall collapse of two towers into their own footprints in 10 seconds-- where is the info that convinced you it is plausible? who was the structural engineer that calculated the equations and where are they?

Your above two comments are now directly contradicting one another. Your argument for the main collapse of WTC7 was based on columns failing and redistributing their load to remaining columns within the building one after the other. Now you are saying that loads cannot transfer across gaps. You cannot have it both ways. Also once an element has failed as you assume with the structure below the penthouse, causing a collapse separate from the rest of the building, that load above will obviously no longer be there. This would mean no extra load required redistributing to other local columns, nullifying your ‘loads reached critical point one after the other across the building’ theory. Once the penthouse structure collapsed it would have actually relieved a lot of weight on the rest of the building!

If you are claiming columns are in ‘groupings’, collapses can occur independently of each other and loads cannot transfer across gaps, you are contradicting your own theory about how the whole main structure instantaneously collapsed on itself, virtually symmetrically at freefall speed.
This is a new one - now the main building collapse was not initiated by the original debris, fire, or load re-distribution; it was actually initiated by the penthouse debris when it somehow ‘spread outward’ as it reached the bottom of the building. As we are dealing with solid steel here rather than liquid, flyingswan, it would be far more likely the debris would ‘pile up’ within the ‘tunnel’ it had created. How this section managed to tear free of all its adjoining horizontal beams, creating a tunnel through the building in the first place I still do not know.

I did not say you said it would collapse. I said “your belief that the building may have collapsed with the addition of fire now seems quite silly does it not, flyingswan”. And indeed, as the Bankers Trust building did not come in the slightest close to collapse, the assertion it may have collapsed is plainly wrong/far off the mark/silly.

the video of firefighters and emt's claiming "secondary devices" and "bombs" is evidence and it is about to be verified by the head of security for the entire complex-- in the final cut of loose change "barry jennings" is set to testify to explosions in wtc7 which killed many people before the collapse-- also the videos of the collapses cooberate the eye wtitness testimony-- the simple fact that both 110 story towers collapsed in 10 seconds which was heavily documented is further evidence of demolitions-- the claims are based on fact and solid evidence that cannot be denied you are the only one that looks like an idiot wearing blinders that looks away from the evidence any time it is presented-- retired BYU physics professor steven jones has definitively proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that thermate was used in the demolition and not one soul has stepped up to the plate to debate him-- you want proof talk to a physics professor about jones theories and whether or not they can discredit him-- i challenge you sir to back up your rhetoric

FYI Wild speculation and accusations do not permit us to prosecute the guilty, so please post your evidence. Tell us by whom, how when and where the explosives were planted? No more wild claims without evidence, we can't prosecute the parties responsible for this blasphemous act on mere speculation.
Until you can produce solid evidence that leads somewhere, please quit making baseless claims.

I won't hold my breath waiting for the video of the firefighters and emt's from loose change.

There is no such explosive as thermate! It is Thermite of which there is no evidence to support this theory in any of the debris.