The 1 camera they released footage from (the pentagon had over 80) was too close for anything as large as an airliner to fill the frame. It looked like a plane because a cruise missile resembles a plane at that distance.
More research will show that footage from the news stations was doctored and the media was 100% complicit in the day’s events even making mistakes as large as reporting the destruction of wtc7 before it had happened
Link? I’ve never seen this video. I did see a video of a CNN reporter saying that he walked down to the hole in the pentagon and saw absolutely no plane debris, only tiny pieces of metal you could pick up with your hands
But perhaps what you might not know is that video had been edited. Frames 23 - 27 had been reversed, where the grey squiggle that some suggest is exhaust gas has in fact been moved in the sequence. You really do not see a Boeing 757 - 200.
A point to note in this video, it is before the further collapse of the Pentagon building which rarely gets seen. Most film is after the further facade collapse and makes the destruction look greater. A 757 has a wing span of 125ft, the damage here does not show that.
No plane needed to hit WTC 7. The consensus appeared to be that the fires were sufficient to cause the structural weakening that led to the collapse of all buildings. No cruise missile hit the Pentagon. It was an airplane, sure enough. No cruise missile would ever attempt to hit a target at low altitude; too much altitude error. The general principle is to go into a steep dive, in order to reduce the target-miss effect of altitude error to close to zero.
Please go and read the study from the University of Alaska Fairbanks that was released recently, where they categorically state that no, building 7 could not have collapsed due to a few office fires. Impossible.
There weren't just a "few" office fires (these were all combustibles being involved, not just paper burning in a wastebasket). And there was no fire extinguishing in operation, due to a failed automatic system and the lack of water pressure. The main consensus was that the planes and the fires doomed all the buildings, but other studies contended that the fires alone would have caused the collapses, all from the same effects of diminished column strength and catastrophic collective failure at each floor. In the case of WTC 7, It was underway for some prolonged period of time. It was sagging and groaning before it was evacuated and ultimately collapsed. It happened. Ergo, it was possible. They had plenty of time to notice anything out of the ordinary. (They discovered, for example, that the expansion of the building frame, due to the heat of the fires, had displaced the footing of one of the main columns, a major contributor to the final collapse.)
But what is the epistemological method by which the University of Alaska (Fairbanks) is deemed superior to all the other bodies involved in all the prior analyses? They say it was "impossible" and the others say not only that it was possible (it happened), but that it was inevitable. You want to stick with the one that provides a fig leaf for paranoia...which is a personal bias.
"They discovered, for example, that the expansion of the building frame, due to the heat of the fires, had displaced the footing of one of the main columns, a major contributor to the final collapse"
But they didn't find that at all, perhaps you need to understand how these columns and supporting beams were fixed, they didn't simply slip off as they were designed not to be able to do that, but if even one of them did they would all have to fail at the same time for the building to fall at free fall speed.
Short summary from UAF
"The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied the collapse. The secondary conclusion of our study is that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building."
It is not my bias nor paranoia that leads me to this point, when 1000's of engineers and architects disagree with the NIST report on how a few fires bought a structure down globally and at free fall speeds, it is merely common sense that there are two sides to the argument, and one of them sides is lying!
Building 7 fell at the speed of gravity. That is a fact agreed upon by everyone. That means that every support gave way at the exact same moment.
I have seen videos of explosions going off in the windows of building 7 prior to it's collapse exactly the same as other controlled demolitions I have seen (on video). Those videos being "real evidence" is not agreed upon by everyone, but it is compelling evidence. It may not be sufficient evidence, and it isn't, not for me, but it is compelling. Discounting it as compelling evidence is ludicrous.
But just the fact that the building fell into it's own footprint exactly the same as a controlled demolition is incredibly compelling evidence that it was in fact destroyed in a controlled demolition. No other building, in the history of the planet, has ever fell like that "because of bad design." Every building in the history of the planet that was destroyed by controlled demolition however, fell in the exact same manner. Any theory of what happened that can't account for that evidence is wrong.
And I don't mean "it could have happened, if all the stars aligned, and god farted at that exact moment in a north by northwesterly direction" nonsense, I mean, "it was almost certain to fall into it's own footprint if it caught fire, and here's why. And here's the blueprint of the building. And here's how we rebuilt it in a FEM. And here's what happened when a tiny fire lit in one of the rooms. And here's why it fell exactly like a controlled demolition according to the blueprint and the FEM simulation. And here is an example of it happening again. And here's how the engineer that designed that building for the Rockefellers was so stupid despite being one of the highest paid engineers of all time."
There's also the fact that the media, which is the key complicit entity in every single false flag operation in history declared it collapsed fifteen minutes before it actually collapsed. "Woopsie!" That also is not contested evidence, even if it has been memory holed.
As for the pentagon, there is one particular thing that all airplane crashes in the history of the planet have in common; that is they all leave behind airplane parts. There was no evidence of an airplane at the pentagon except one piece of twisted metal that could fit into the back of a pickup truck that just so happened to have the airlines insignia on it. This lack of an actual airplane at the airplane crash site suggests there was no airplane crash at the pentagon. Believing that a thing is true when there is no evidence is called "faith." I respect your faith, but I do not think it makes for a sound argument.
How many buildings fell from simultaneous column failures? How quick does "simultaneous" have to be? If all the columns on a floor are far below design strength and there is no more design margin, it is only a matter of chance that at least one will fall below critical strength and fail. Failure is essentially instant and the stress that was imposed on that column will redistribute in a wave traveling at the speed of sound in the steel structure. This is about 4,000 feet per second. If a column is spaced 5 feet from another, the redistribution will take about a millisecond. How many columns are there? 50? 100? At this rate all columns could fail sequentially in 50 to 100 milliseconds. A floor collapse event in a tenth of a second would look pretty instantaneous ("exact same moment") to any human eyeball, and the upper floor would collapse onto the lower floor at the speed of gravitational acceleration. (Downward motion in 0.1 second would be about 0.16 foot. If the floor heights were 10 feet, you would have 98% of free fall.) Which would start the whole process over, only this time with the added force of the descending impact. And another floor would collapse. And so on.
WTC 7 may be evidence that this failure process is inherent in buildings suffering structural strength loss from extensive fires---as the original analyses were beginning to discern. You assume you see it only in demolitions. The fact may be that this is a new "natural" failure mechanism. If you see striped horses only because circus performers paint them that way, and then see a zebra, do you ask "Who painted the zebra?" You would, if you didn't understand that a zebra was a natural phenomenon.
At the Pentagon they found airplane components, such as engine parts. The airplane was obliterated and mixed with building wreckage and debris. I expect there was fuel residue also. There is no credible alternative explanation. A missile could not have proceeded on that approach path (too low to the ground). And no warhead could have produced that damage without a significant blast.
Let's take a look at your proposed model. It's plausible, but how likely is it? What conditions would have to be met?
Assumption
The building was designed such that any energy wave from any point would flow perfectly to all other supports, without any barriers in the design that would redirect the energy, or otherwise slow it down.
OK, maybe. I've never designed a high rise, but I have designed quite a few one and two story buildings. Except for the simplest structure, a single story square box with four walls and four supports, one at each corner, this assumption does not hold true. There are always energy redirects. In addition, such a box would not fall straight down if it failed, it would fall towards the side of failure.
Assumption:
The building was built exactly weak enough at every single member to fall if any one particular member failed.
If any member was stronger than "exactly weak enough to fail" instantaneously then this assumption is incorrect. I say this because it fell at the speed of gravity. Every single member must have suffered catastrophic failure instantaneously (or if you prefer, at the speed of sound in steel). This would be especially true across the "first floor" to fail. That is why when they demolish buildings they simultaneously destroy members across whole floors. If they do not, it won't fall straight down, and it won't fall at the speed of gravity. They don't need to destroy every member on every floor, because they will collapse as you suggest if there is sufficient force, but any one particular floor that is destroyed must do so across every key supporting member simultaneously. Also, it can't just happen on a single floor, not and fall at the speed of gravity. That is why they destroy several key floors in controlled demolition.
Coincidentally, this explosion pattern across several floors is exactly what is seen in the windows of the buildings in the eye witness videos that show that.
Assumption:
The exact right member failed in order for the building to fall straight down.
If we assume that the building was built (intentionally or unintentionally) for the exterior supports to fail on the outside if key inside members failed, if ANY OTHER member failed first, anywhere except somewhere dead center, it would not produce the fall pattern that was observed. Looking at the simple design from the first assumption, lets take the four posts at the corners and add one to the middle. Then we have to make all of them sufficiently weak that if the middle post fails and only the middle post fails, all of the other posts will instantaneously suffer catastrophic failure. Again, if any other post fails it will not fall perfectly straight down as Building 7 did.
There's also the problem that, according to the official story, the fire did not start in the middle of the building but on the side "where the airplane part hit the building." How exactly that fire spread to the middle, and caused the middle supports to fail first, before the outer supports where the "fire started" is not something that has ever been addressed, but it would have to have happened that way. I guess we can call that another assumption.
WTC 7 may be evidence that this failure process is inherent in buildings suffering structural strength loss from extensive fires
OK, maybe, but you have a lot of assumptions that have yet to be shown in any reasonable way. Even if you do show them in a reasonable way (FEM analysis e.g.), there are thousands of buildings that have been built similarly, and they are either all still standing, or collapsed in the same manner as Building 7, except uncontroversally under controlled demolition.
Could I design something that fits the above assumptions? Probably, but I would have to try with the intention of making it fail. No structural engineer worth his salt could look at such a building design without knowing that any member failure would result in a catastrophic failure for the whole system. Such calculations are part of the design schematic.
Even back in the day, people weren't that stupid. There had been plenty of failures in smaller buildings (earthquakes e.g.) before they built the bigger ones. They always made members stronger than they had to be because of potential high wind loads, and potential earthquakes, etc. But your proposal suggests that the design was exactly weak enough to fail if any one member failed. OK, that;s plausible, but no one could build a building like that without knowing that they were.
In other words, it would have been known that a fire in a trash can on a single floor would have caused a collapse before the first shovel hit dirt.
You assume you see it only in demolitions.
Me seeing it only in demolitions is not an assumption, that is a statement of fact. I have never seen any other building fall in this manner except in controlled demolitions. Show me any other building collapse in this manner, or even anything close to this manner that was not a controlled demolition.
The fact may be that this is a new "natural" failure mechanism.
OK, maybe, but other than this one event, for which there is substantial evidence for a different cause of failure, and tremendous incentive to make it happen, there is zero evidence to support this assertion. NONE. Because there is no evidence, you believing it is based on faith. Again, I respect your faith, but it does not make a sound argument.
At the Pentagon they found airplane components, such as engine parts.
The amount of airplane parts they found could quite literally be put into one single pickup truck (and probably was). Your belief of what is possible in an airplane crash stretches credulity beyond even the plausible. Take a moment and really think about the forces involved in an airplane crash, their lower limit and their upper limit, and what it would take to disintegrate an airplane into unrecognizable parts rather than make it break apart and/or crumple. Take a look at the building, and the site around it. Take a look at the parts they found, then try to make the condition of those parts fit with every single other piece of a 757 being disintegrated. Why would that handful of pieces, again, that can fit into a SINGLE PICKUP TRUCK survive intact, with that crumple pattern, yet the entire rest was disintegrated to the point where nothing recognizable as "airplane" survived.
The airplane was obliterated and mixed with building wreckage and debris.
REALLY LOOK at the building wreckage and debris. REALLY LOOK. There is no evidence of a fire within several of the exposed rooms within the surrounding building. Those rooms should have been in the path of the wings, yet they weren't even singed. Look at the wreckage and find anything that might belong to a massive airplane. Hell, just look at the volume of wreckage and explain to me how an airplane and a building fit within it.
Look, I’m not saying I know the truth of what happened, but your explanation does not fit all of the available evidence. The best you are able to do is give a “maybe,” and “it’s plausible that.” That is not an argument from investigation and evidence that is an argument based on faith.
There is no credible alternative explanation.
You assume that you know everything there is to know about every single weapon owned by the military. Their flight capabilities, their explosion patterns, their yield, etc. I don’t care if you are a “death ray designer”, the hubris is incredible. Your arguments of “there couldn’t have been a missile because I know everything there is to know about missiles, and I have tested them in every capacity” are not believable, and are otherwise insufficient.
And neither did the official report. They said it was the result of uncontrolled fires (and that the Twin Towers would have fallen from uncontrolled fires as well). It stings when your conspiracy fails to get the facts in order.
We can have all kinds of arguments about what missiles can do in various circumstances. Seaborne missiles can afford to fly low to the water because the water reference surface is reliably level. Not so with ground surfaces. My recollection of cruise missile hits on precise land targets is that they still have a terminal dive. This is driven by the need to suppress the projection of altitude errors in the ground plane.
But the fact that it was AA Flight 77 was established by the radar and air control trace of its flight path. The fact that it was hijacked was established by phone calls out of the plane by passengers. The fact that it was an airplane was established by multiple witnesses who saw it, including a pilot from another aircraft who saw it from higher altitude. You are in no position to deny these facts. Why do you even bother?
Wow. You've had some doosies but I'm afraid you just lost all credibility. God please see your way out this time. You don't contribute and you're not a Q supporter.
I sure as hell am a Q supporter, but I am not a fantasy supporter. Q gives us insight into what is going on right now behind the scenes. He doesn't buy into all the fringe nonsense. The fact that we have been lied to about many things does not equate to a worldview that we have ONLY been lied to. That is radical insanity, and goes nowhere. It presents us the problem of figuring out what the lies are, exactly. We do that by finding out the truth that may be hidden. But we don't start with that as a going in position. Everything unravels if we take that seriously.
Why am I not an alien from Mars tapping into the internet? Were you really born where your birth certificate says, or on some other continent? How far have you traveled away from home---and how do you really know you traveled that far? Is every skyscraper really occupied? Is every airplane really filled with passengers? We see lots of cars on the road, but are they really driven by people with lives apart from driving all day long? Is the sky really a different color, and something was done to our eyes at birth to make us see it blue?
I'm imaginative and can go on and on. This is all nutty stuff. And it is a waste of time and a diversion from paying attention to what is real and what is going on. What I see are people who (1) don't know shit, and (2) are credulous as hell by accepting whatever fringe nonsense appeals to their paranoia, and (3) have a deep desire to believe that the world is all a lie because that gets them off the hook for being responsible to LEARN THINGS. The Moon Hoaxers, Flat Earthers, and Chemtrailers are all in this category. They are so ignorant that they could be called the Walking Brain-Dead. They are allergic to learning anything. Whatever contradicts their paranoia is held to be a lie, so as to conform to the paranoia ("you're not a Q supporter"). You don't like what I have to say, but you can't respond critically to it because I do know what I am talking about. My handle is not a LARP.
What about the experts that testified that a 757 could not physically maneuver in the way "witnesses" described at such low altitude. The engines are designed to make full power at cruising altitude. They have very little power at sea level. They would have literally been choking near ground level.
You are basically telling me that airplanes cannot fly near the ground, yet they do this all the time when taking off or landing. The engines are sized for power (thrust) required at takeoff and landing. They do not develop that thrust at cruise condition. You misunderstand airplanes. If they are descending from altitude (diving, in other words), they convert their potential energy of altitude into kinetic energy of speed. (One of the required processes prior to landing is to lower the speed of the airplane.)
It is not clear that the 757 did any "maneuvers" except to approach at a high speed and low altitude. Under those conditions, it would be operating in strong ground effect, which can prevent it from touching ground. (Unexpected problem in early U-2 flights: the pilot could not figure out how to land. The airplane lift was so strong in ground effect, it would just continue to float above the runway. They had to spoil the lift in order to touch down. Lesson learned.)
There was no clearly defined runway, and I don't believe there were any flight-sims back then that would have accurately taken a terrorist into the pentagon. I'd argue that the pilot had to have made some major corrections toward the end. Also, the topography near the Pentagon isn't exactly flat for miles. They would have been dodging obstacles to maintain their flight plan.
We can agree to disagree, but take a look at the testimony of experts on flight characteristics.The planes may have been "floating" above the ground, but the engines would have had little thrust to do much else, other than climb or make micro-corrections.
i think 2 planes hit WTC 1 and 2. No plane hit WTC 7. A cruise missile hit the pentagon.
The 1 camera they released footage from (the pentagon had over 80) was too close for anything as large as an airliner to fill the frame. It looked like a plane because a cruise missile resembles a plane at that distance.
This ^^^
More research will show that footage from the news stations was doctored and the media was 100% complicit in the day’s events even making mistakes as large as reporting the destruction of wtc7 before it had happened
This....canceled a downvote from the logic impaired.
I've seen this video as well and I don't think it's that clear. Something hit the Pentagon coming but it was most definitely not a 757.
Link? I’ve never seen this video. I did see a video of a CNN reporter saying that he walked down to the hole in the pentagon and saw absolutely no plane debris, only tiny pieces of metal you could pick up with your hands
But perhaps what you might not know is that video had been edited. Frames 23 - 27 had been reversed, where the grey squiggle that some suggest is exhaust gas has in fact been moved in the sequence. You really do not see a Boeing 757 - 200.
A point to note in this video, it is before the further collapse of the Pentagon building which rarely gets seen. Most film is after the further facade collapse and makes the destruction look greater. A 757 has a wing span of 125ft, the damage here does not show that.
Uh, my take is this was the post-collapse. Prior to this the damage was a hole about 30ft diameter centered about ceiling level of ground floor.
You are indeed correct anon, my mistake this WAS AFTER it had collapsed. I just looked at some other images and indeed there was little destruction.
My apologies, I'll leave the original up though as I don't mind admitting being wrong.
Here's one before the facade collapses as you said. https://www.allmystery.de/i/tYCCAE4_GksquH_PentBW.jpg
Google Tomahawk.
There is absolutely no way a guy who couldn’t fly a damn Cessna was able to hand fly that plane at that speed and precision…no fucking way
No you didn't...fucking liar...
No plane needed to hit WTC 7. The consensus appeared to be that the fires were sufficient to cause the structural weakening that led to the collapse of all buildings. No cruise missile hit the Pentagon. It was an airplane, sure enough. No cruise missile would ever attempt to hit a target at low altitude; too much altitude error. The general principle is to go into a steep dive, in order to reduce the target-miss effect of altitude error to close to zero.
Please go and read the study from the University of Alaska Fairbanks that was released recently, where they categorically state that no, building 7 could not have collapsed due to a few office fires. Impossible.
There weren't just a "few" office fires (these were all combustibles being involved, not just paper burning in a wastebasket). And there was no fire extinguishing in operation, due to a failed automatic system and the lack of water pressure. The main consensus was that the planes and the fires doomed all the buildings, but other studies contended that the fires alone would have caused the collapses, all from the same effects of diminished column strength and catastrophic collective failure at each floor. In the case of WTC 7, It was underway for some prolonged period of time. It was sagging and groaning before it was evacuated and ultimately collapsed. It happened. Ergo, it was possible. They had plenty of time to notice anything out of the ordinary. (They discovered, for example, that the expansion of the building frame, due to the heat of the fires, had displaced the footing of one of the main columns, a major contributor to the final collapse.)
But what is the epistemological method by which the University of Alaska (Fairbanks) is deemed superior to all the other bodies involved in all the prior analyses? They say it was "impossible" and the others say not only that it was possible (it happened), but that it was inevitable. You want to stick with the one that provides a fig leaf for paranoia...which is a personal bias.
"They discovered, for example, that the expansion of the building frame, due to the heat of the fires, had displaced the footing of one of the main columns, a major contributor to the final collapse"
But they didn't find that at all, perhaps you need to understand how these columns and supporting beams were fixed, they didn't simply slip off as they were designed not to be able to do that, but if even one of them did they would all have to fail at the same time for the building to fall at free fall speed.
Short summary from UAF "The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied the collapse. The secondary conclusion of our study is that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building."
Here's the link to the UAF report and download. https://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7
It is not my bias nor paranoia that leads me to this point, when 1000's of engineers and architects disagree with the NIST report on how a few fires bought a structure down globally and at free fall speeds, it is merely common sense that there are two sides to the argument, and one of them sides is lying!
Building 7 fell at the speed of gravity. That is a fact agreed upon by everyone. That means that every support gave way at the exact same moment.
I have seen videos of explosions going off in the windows of building 7 prior to it's collapse exactly the same as other controlled demolitions I have seen (on video). Those videos being "real evidence" is not agreed upon by everyone, but it is compelling evidence. It may not be sufficient evidence, and it isn't, not for me, but it is compelling. Discounting it as compelling evidence is ludicrous.
But just the fact that the building fell into it's own footprint exactly the same as a controlled demolition is incredibly compelling evidence that it was in fact destroyed in a controlled demolition. No other building, in the history of the planet, has ever fell like that "because of bad design." Every building in the history of the planet that was destroyed by controlled demolition however, fell in the exact same manner. Any theory of what happened that can't account for that evidence is wrong.
And I don't mean "it could have happened, if all the stars aligned, and god farted at that exact moment in a north by northwesterly direction" nonsense, I mean, "it was almost certain to fall into it's own footprint if it caught fire, and here's why. And here's the blueprint of the building. And here's how we rebuilt it in a FEM. And here's what happened when a tiny fire lit in one of the rooms. And here's why it fell exactly like a controlled demolition according to the blueprint and the FEM simulation. And here is an example of it happening again. And here's how the engineer that designed that building for the Rockefellers was so stupid despite being one of the highest paid engineers of all time."
There's also the fact that the media, which is the key complicit entity in every single false flag operation in history declared it collapsed fifteen minutes before it actually collapsed. "Woopsie!" That also is not contested evidence, even if it has been memory holed.
As for the pentagon, there is one particular thing that all airplane crashes in the history of the planet have in common; that is they all leave behind airplane parts. There was no evidence of an airplane at the pentagon except one piece of twisted metal that could fit into the back of a pickup truck that just so happened to have the airlines insignia on it. This lack of an actual airplane at the airplane crash site suggests there was no airplane crash at the pentagon. Believing that a thing is true when there is no evidence is called "faith." I respect your faith, but I do not think it makes for a sound argument.
How many buildings fell from simultaneous column failures? How quick does "simultaneous" have to be? If all the columns on a floor are far below design strength and there is no more design margin, it is only a matter of chance that at least one will fall below critical strength and fail. Failure is essentially instant and the stress that was imposed on that column will redistribute in a wave traveling at the speed of sound in the steel structure. This is about 4,000 feet per second. If a column is spaced 5 feet from another, the redistribution will take about a millisecond. How many columns are there? 50? 100? At this rate all columns could fail sequentially in 50 to 100 milliseconds. A floor collapse event in a tenth of a second would look pretty instantaneous ("exact same moment") to any human eyeball, and the upper floor would collapse onto the lower floor at the speed of gravitational acceleration. (Downward motion in 0.1 second would be about 0.16 foot. If the floor heights were 10 feet, you would have 98% of free fall.) Which would start the whole process over, only this time with the added force of the descending impact. And another floor would collapse. And so on.
WTC 7 may be evidence that this failure process is inherent in buildings suffering structural strength loss from extensive fires---as the original analyses were beginning to discern. You assume you see it only in demolitions. The fact may be that this is a new "natural" failure mechanism. If you see striped horses only because circus performers paint them that way, and then see a zebra, do you ask "Who painted the zebra?" You would, if you didn't understand that a zebra was a natural phenomenon.
At the Pentagon they found airplane components, such as engine parts. The airplane was obliterated and mixed with building wreckage and debris. I expect there was fuel residue also. There is no credible alternative explanation. A missile could not have proceeded on that approach path (too low to the ground). And no warhead could have produced that damage without a significant blast.
Let's take a look at your proposed model. It's plausible, but how likely is it? What conditions would have to be met?
Assumption
The building was designed such that any energy wave from any point would flow perfectly to all other supports, without any barriers in the design that would redirect the energy, or otherwise slow it down.
OK, maybe. I've never designed a high rise, but I have designed quite a few one and two story buildings. Except for the simplest structure, a single story square box with four walls and four supports, one at each corner, this assumption does not hold true. There are always energy redirects. In addition, such a box would not fall straight down if it failed, it would fall towards the side of failure.
Assumption:
The building was built exactly weak enough at every single member to fall if any one particular member failed.
If any member was stronger than "exactly weak enough to fail" instantaneously then this assumption is incorrect. I say this because it fell at the speed of gravity. Every single member must have suffered catastrophic failure instantaneously (or if you prefer, at the speed of sound in steel). This would be especially true across the "first floor" to fail. That is why when they demolish buildings they simultaneously destroy members across whole floors. If they do not, it won't fall straight down, and it won't fall at the speed of gravity. They don't need to destroy every member on every floor, because they will collapse as you suggest if there is sufficient force, but any one particular floor that is destroyed must do so across every key supporting member simultaneously. Also, it can't just happen on a single floor, not and fall at the speed of gravity. That is why they destroy several key floors in controlled demolition.
Coincidentally, this explosion pattern across several floors is exactly what is seen in the windows of the buildings in the eye witness videos that show that.
Assumption:
The exact right member failed in order for the building to fall straight down.
If we assume that the building was built (intentionally or unintentionally) for the exterior supports to fail on the outside if key inside members failed, if ANY OTHER member failed first, anywhere except somewhere dead center, it would not produce the fall pattern that was observed. Looking at the simple design from the first assumption, lets take the four posts at the corners and add one to the middle. Then we have to make all of them sufficiently weak that if the middle post fails and only the middle post fails, all of the other posts will instantaneously suffer catastrophic failure. Again, if any other post fails it will not fall perfectly straight down as Building 7 did.
There's also the problem that, according to the official story, the fire did not start in the middle of the building but on the side "where the airplane part hit the building." How exactly that fire spread to the middle, and caused the middle supports to fail first, before the outer supports where the "fire started" is not something that has ever been addressed, but it would have to have happened that way. I guess we can call that another assumption.
OK, maybe, but you have a lot of assumptions that have yet to be shown in any reasonable way. Even if you do show them in a reasonable way (FEM analysis e.g.), there are thousands of buildings that have been built similarly, and they are either all still standing, or collapsed in the same manner as Building 7, except uncontroversally under controlled demolition.
Could I design something that fits the above assumptions? Probably, but I would have to try with the intention of making it fail. No structural engineer worth his salt could look at such a building design without knowing that any member failure would result in a catastrophic failure for the whole system. Such calculations are part of the design schematic.
Even back in the day, people weren't that stupid. There had been plenty of failures in smaller buildings (earthquakes e.g.) before they built the bigger ones. They always made members stronger than they had to be because of potential high wind loads, and potential earthquakes, etc. But your proposal suggests that the design was exactly weak enough to fail if any one member failed. OK, that;s plausible, but no one could build a building like that without knowing that they were.
In other words, it would have been known that a fire in a trash can on a single floor would have caused a collapse before the first shovel hit dirt.
Me seeing it only in demolitions is not an assumption, that is a statement of fact. I have never seen any other building fall in this manner except in controlled demolitions. Show me any other building collapse in this manner, or even anything close to this manner that was not a controlled demolition.
OK, maybe, but other than this one event, for which there is substantial evidence for a different cause of failure, and tremendous incentive to make it happen, there is zero evidence to support this assertion. NONE. Because there is no evidence, you believing it is based on faith. Again, I respect your faith, but it does not make a sound argument.
The amount of airplane parts they found could quite literally be put into one single pickup truck (and probably was). Your belief of what is possible in an airplane crash stretches credulity beyond even the plausible. Take a moment and really think about the forces involved in an airplane crash, their lower limit and their upper limit, and what it would take to disintegrate an airplane into unrecognizable parts rather than make it break apart and/or crumple. Take a look at the building, and the site around it. Take a look at the parts they found, then try to make the condition of those parts fit with every single other piece of a 757 being disintegrated. Why would that handful of pieces, again, that can fit into a SINGLE PICKUP TRUCK survive intact, with that crumple pattern, yet the entire rest was disintegrated to the point where nothing recognizable as "airplane" survived.
REALLY LOOK at the building wreckage and debris. REALLY LOOK. There is no evidence of a fire within several of the exposed rooms within the surrounding building. Those rooms should have been in the path of the wings, yet they weren't even singed. Look at the wreckage and find anything that might belong to a massive airplane. Hell, just look at the volume of wreckage and explain to me how an airplane and a building fit within it.
Look, I’m not saying I know the truth of what happened, but your explanation does not fit all of the available evidence. The best you are able to do is give a “maybe,” and “it’s plausible that.” That is not an argument from investigation and evidence that is an argument based on faith.
You assume that you know everything there is to know about every single weapon owned by the military. Their flight capabilities, their explosion patterns, their yield, etc. I don’t care if you are a “death ray designer”, the hubris is incredible. Your arguments of “there couldn’t have been a missile because I know everything there is to know about missiles, and I have tested them in every capacity” are not believable, and are otherwise insufficient.
Search Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. 2000+ of them concur that WTC 7 didn’t fall as a result of the Twin Towers collapsing.
And neither did the official report. They said it was the result of uncontrolled fires (and that the Twin Towers would have fallen from uncontrolled fires as well). It stings when your conspiracy fails to get the facts in order.
We can have all kinds of arguments about what missiles can do in various circumstances. Seaborne missiles can afford to fly low to the water because the water reference surface is reliably level. Not so with ground surfaces. My recollection of cruise missile hits on precise land targets is that they still have a terminal dive. This is driven by the need to suppress the projection of altitude errors in the ground plane.
But the fact that it was AA Flight 77 was established by the radar and air control trace of its flight path. The fact that it was hijacked was established by phone calls out of the plane by passengers. The fact that it was an airplane was established by multiple witnesses who saw it, including a pilot from another aircraft who saw it from higher altitude. You are in no position to deny these facts. Why do you even bother?
Wow. You've had some doosies but I'm afraid you just lost all credibility. God please see your way out this time. You don't contribute and you're not a Q supporter.
I sure as hell am a Q supporter, but I am not a fantasy supporter. Q gives us insight into what is going on right now behind the scenes. He doesn't buy into all the fringe nonsense. The fact that we have been lied to about many things does not equate to a worldview that we have ONLY been lied to. That is radical insanity, and goes nowhere. It presents us the problem of figuring out what the lies are, exactly. We do that by finding out the truth that may be hidden. But we don't start with that as a going in position. Everything unravels if we take that seriously.
Why am I not an alien from Mars tapping into the internet? Were you really born where your birth certificate says, or on some other continent? How far have you traveled away from home---and how do you really know you traveled that far? Is every skyscraper really occupied? Is every airplane really filled with passengers? We see lots of cars on the road, but are they really driven by people with lives apart from driving all day long? Is the sky really a different color, and something was done to our eyes at birth to make us see it blue?
I'm imaginative and can go on and on. This is all nutty stuff. And it is a waste of time and a diversion from paying attention to what is real and what is going on. What I see are people who (1) don't know shit, and (2) are credulous as hell by accepting whatever fringe nonsense appeals to their paranoia, and (3) have a deep desire to believe that the world is all a lie because that gets them off the hook for being responsible to LEARN THINGS. The Moon Hoaxers, Flat Earthers, and Chemtrailers are all in this category. They are so ignorant that they could be called the Walking Brain-Dead. They are allergic to learning anything. Whatever contradicts their paranoia is held to be a lie, so as to conform to the paranoia ("you're not a Q supporter"). You don't like what I have to say, but you can't respond critically to it because I do know what I am talking about. My handle is not a LARP.
You're fuckin annoying and you're full of shit. Look at that giant reply you sent. DEERing like the weak, fake, lying little bitch that you are.
What about the experts that testified that a 757 could not physically maneuver in the way "witnesses" described at such low altitude. The engines are designed to make full power at cruising altitude. They have very little power at sea level. They would have literally been choking near ground level.
You are basically telling me that airplanes cannot fly near the ground, yet they do this all the time when taking off or landing. The engines are sized for power (thrust) required at takeoff and landing. They do not develop that thrust at cruise condition. You misunderstand airplanes. If they are descending from altitude (diving, in other words), they convert their potential energy of altitude into kinetic energy of speed. (One of the required processes prior to landing is to lower the speed of the airplane.)
It is not clear that the 757 did any "maneuvers" except to approach at a high speed and low altitude. Under those conditions, it would be operating in strong ground effect, which can prevent it from touching ground. (Unexpected problem in early U-2 flights: the pilot could not figure out how to land. The airplane lift was so strong in ground effect, it would just continue to float above the runway. They had to spoil the lift in order to touch down. Lesson learned.)
There was no clearly defined runway, and I don't believe there were any flight-sims back then that would have accurately taken a terrorist into the pentagon. I'd argue that the pilot had to have made some major corrections toward the end. Also, the topography near the Pentagon isn't exactly flat for miles. They would have been dodging obstacles to maintain their flight plan. We can agree to disagree, but take a look at the testimony of experts on flight characteristics.The planes may have been "floating" above the ground, but the engines would have had little thrust to do much else, other than climb or make micro-corrections.