al Asaad

Pleas explain why the fact "...steel beams were ejected AWAY from the WTC collapse" have anything at all to do with the fact WTC 7 fell, the point of your hysteria? Ruminating (chewing your cud) over the fact (which I stipulated to) that WTC 7, fell, how is it you resort to using cheap Magician's tricks trying to divert my attention? As I again stipulate (you do know the meaning of "stipulate"-right?), your and the other's manta is and has been since early on: "WTC 7 was demolished with explosives".
The kid in me says: "Tho what"?
By making obvious and rhetorical statements ([ii]i.e.: steel beams being ejected[/i]) you have not advanced your cause: someone blew up WTC7 (see, I have again stipulated by inference that WTC 7 was blown up).

Now that we've settled that hash, would/can you and all your brilliant scientists and engineers please-please tell me what made WTC 7 fall at such an accelerated rate (as you theorists’ too often point out?)
Hell no you can't in that you conspiracy mavens have not yet figured out what you cannot explain nor dare you put forth a shaky posit as to why WTC 7 fell as it did.
Instead, you are and have been since whenever, building straw men arguments, parsing the same tired minutiae over and over ad nausuem.

Your mission then, if you care to accept it, is to tell us all, once and for all-why WTC 7 fell as it did.
You won't, cannot ever be able to tell us why WTC 7 fell as it did in that your side is asking the same question over and over and nothing has let you arrive at any satisfactory answer. As to WTC 7, are you and they suggesting that Newton somehow got it wrong?
That WTC 7 defied Newton's law?
So all that "Dust" (people parts, construction material-etc.) we saw billowing out all over lower Manhattan, my Brooklyn neighborhood ad nauseum on TV and the Internet didn't really happen? What?
Didn't really happen?

Did you, “eagleclaw” ever see ground zero-up lcose and personal?
FYI: I did, in that “ground zero” is but a 23 minute train ride from my front door in Clinton Hill Brooklyn.
While you speculators use BS engineering stats and physics tables to explain why this or that could or could not happen, and why WTC 7 fell and why there is something “wrong” with the speed with which WTC 7 fell, your utterly stupid, utterly rhetorical questions make you look and seem like dolts: your and my eyes and timing devices tell us WTC 7 fell, for whatever reason, faster than it should have.
What then are you suggesting in your self-serving, pointless question?

Even as I conversationally agree with your summation (for discussion purposes only), only dolts would speculate on why WTC 7 fell: it did and apparently at a rate of collapse which has you baffled.
*[]One wonders who was the first AR to notice WTC 7 “falling faster than it should” (a rather pointless observation), and has, by asking the anal retentive OP question, set off those of you who did not see the debris field-ask equally pointless questions?

That “cross” of 5 x 5 foot girders which survived the fall? Did (have you seen it up close? Did you ever get to see the debris disposal sites and how the structural materials for the top floors were mangle into fantastic shapes, as if a weird artist had taken acetylene torches to the debris?

One thing sure, non one with a reliable video camera** was close enough to the ground floor of WTC 7 when it collapsed to give you or me a definitive answer thus the mindless speculation.
**While WTC 7 fell in relative obscurity, WTC 1 & 2 certainly did not. From some obscured vantage points in NYC, 1 & 2 themselves fell in “record time”. But from the New Jersey side, all but the very bottom floors during the collapses were seen and as reported, there was no “illusions of speed”.
#My Dad was on our roof in Brooklyn watching them burn and then fall. From his vantage point at a higher elevation in Brooklyn than the footprint elevation in Manhattan, 1 & 2 disappeared in seconds, their ground floors hidden by the buildings surrounding them and the distances involved, including having the East River between him and them.

What your side “sees” (or not) “not” being the operative word, is the [i]entire collapse of WTC 7[/]. Only then would all your idle speculation make sense.
And from that paucity of information, your side has erroneously concluded WTC 7 “fell too fast”.
Even if the WTC buildings had been wired as you suggest, are you and your sycophants further suggesting that once the explosives went off, that mere fact caused WTC 7 to fall faster than otherwise possible?
That by cutting every support girder in WTC 7 at the same time, WTC 7 fell faster than it (or any buiding of its size and construction) otherwise would have?
Let us say the “government” (whoever) had time to wire WTC 7, even the north and south towers.
Let us also say the detonation timers in WTC 7 failed to syncrhronize with WTC 1 & 2 and the “government” (whatever) decided they must nonetheless bring WTC 7 down safely and efficiently.
According to your side, the three buildings had been pre-wired with explosives. It would be too dangerous to let WTC 7 stand so the signal was given and down she came.

What’s funny about this kooky theory (”problem” that is no “problem” at all) is ordinary, otherwise sane people have fastened onto WTC 7 as if it were the object around which sense could otherwise be made of the entire WTC tragedy.

al Asaad

"College boys", a familiar redneck-knuckle draggers comeback for thse they are otherwise jealous of.

kblair7

Cool...were practically neighbors! We should have coffee sometime

I live in Greenwich village, near WSP...

When the WTC happened, I was in living near Hoboken,NJ we went down to the waterfront to get a better look. The dust came all the way OVER the river to us. I couldn't see too well but the flames and smoke were easy enough to see.

Denie

Try using the timers on the videos instead of looking foolish. The one video times it from the collapse start...13+ seconds.
Are you people really this obtuse as to not even be able to look at a video and the timer at the same time?

Denie

You can if you're just not skilled enough to use the video's timer.

The 4th video (explosive energy) times the collapse from the fall of the penthouse.

Now what the new CT going to be for a 13 second collapse?

djack

But what if that timer is part of the conspiracy? What if those videos are fake? What if physics is all a lie just to deceive us? What if Cheney has been given control over physics by Satan?
It's the devil's work I tell you.

__________________

Denie

Scientific fact, physics and engineering are like kryptonite for this crowd.

Asking for proof of a CD theory that adheres to the scientific method is blasphemy to them.

Not one paper from the entire CT collection of "experts" has submitted a paper for peer review...EVER!
Not only that, these pseudo scientists have created their own online journal to try and fool the believers into claiming there are peer reviewed papers!

This has to be the most laughable act of desperation from the CT "experts" to date.
Create your own "journal", publish your own work there and have your fellow CT cohorts "review" the paper.

Denie

So...do you care to comment on why the building collapses in 13 seconds and not 6.5 like the CT crowd keep claiming?
Or is living in oblivion a familiar state for you?

djack

Your argument would have more weight if you had a few facts on your side. However your argument seems to be that you're right no matter what. That's not really a scientific discussion. That's more a Bushism. "Is our children learning?"

__________________

Denie

Oh, so now that the video show a 13 second fall time, it's no longer to be used as fact.

You were all so sure of it a few days ago making claims that it couldn't fall in 6.5 seconds, etc.
Now the video is not longer a reliable fact?

My argument seems to use WR video to prove what a imbecile he is (and anyone making same claim) for claiming a 6.5 second collapse when the video clearly times a 13+ second collapse. Prove that this is wrong.

So now that the video no longer supports this obtuse claim of WR, what facts are you going to accept?