I believe 9/11 was an inside job now

[FallentoReason]

Demolition engineers have testified repeatedly about how a controlled demolition is performed. No evidence of any such explosion was found which would have included vast amounts of wiring.

Moreoever,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaBQ3AkRetI

it starts on the bottom....not the middle....and the whole mass settles into a pile.

If you could please go to 7:30 on my video, they show WTC7 alongside proper controlled demolitions.

---

It's quite laughable to think that the failure of one "critical" column triggered the building into a perfect free-fall collapse. As a civil engineering student, I can guarantee you NO building is desgined with a self destruct button in the form of a "critical beam". That's just ridiculous. You make it so that the building has no way of collapsing even if a few members have failed. Over-compensating is key in civil engineering.

Perhaps you should learn about how WTC7 was actually built then, because it wasn't a standard construction, owing to the fact they had to build it over an electricity substation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYzLu7gDbJs

Additionally, one of the theories for the collapse of WTC7 involved exactly what you think is laughable...the failure of a single column: http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/200...-Nov07.pdf

Ok, I'll watch the video after I finish this response.

It doesn't matter if it's a theory. It's still incredibly laughable. You have some 30-40 other columns in the building and *none* of those are able to keep up the building without this Super Column?? It's ludicrous.

The building should have collapsed unevenly - towards the debris-struck side - if that's what caused it to collapse.

It wasn't the debris that caused it to collapse. It was the uncontrolled fires that spread through the building. The debris started the fires, yes, but I don't think you'll find anyone claiming they were the direct cause of the collapse.

Ok, I was just clarifying that point. Yeah, I agree that debris alone couldn't do it.

Except the bottom gave way and fell evenly at basically a free-falling acceleration. It's quite the miracle for random debris, fire and just the overall uneven damage to do that.

Have you ever watched a video of the collapse? Go watch it again. You'll see part of the penthouse collapse into itself before the outside starts to fall down. This wasn't a free falling building by any calculation.

Please watch my video from 12:40-13:30 and also 7:30 in that order. You'll see that WTC7 free falls just like a controlled demolition.

As for the penthouse collapsing first, that *is* the initial evidence to suggest a demolition. I can't find the segment in the video for it, but what they say is that it's evidence of an implosion. The reason for why the inside falls first and then the outer structure is so that the whole building ends up "stacked" where it stood, as opposed to spilling everywhere and potentially hitting other buildings. That's how controlled demolitions are done.

Then not only explain the mechanics to me, but the physics of how uneven damage to one side causes the building to free-fall.

Fires spreading throughout the building...plus I never said it free-falled (nor does any evidence suggest it did).

Tell me what you think of those sections in the video.

Engineering/physics 101: columns provide vertical resistance. Half a building giving way means that the structure above the failed columns now begin to accelerate. This however doesn't translate as a horizontal force. The other half of the columns are still supporting the weight above them. The end result is that half the building gives way, and given the benefit of the doubt, the side that is falling might actually pull the other side *horizontally*, hence why I say it should've fallen towards the weakened side.

Again, look at the actual structure of the building. It wasn't built to a standard frame. If the fires had been put out, it's likely the building would not have collapsed at all. The building fell not due to the damage one side of it took, but due to the fires which raged for hours throughout the building.

[/quote]

Well, like I said, I'll look at your video to see how this structure was built.

---

If it were a controlled demolition, both buildings' structural columns would need to be exposed and rigged with literally thousands of charges (*), along with the necessary wiring to ensure proper detonation timing.

The question for the conspiracy theorists - how could this have been plausibly accomplished without anyone noticing?

(*) I am not a demolitions expert. Each building was 110 floors with 47 core structural steel columns. "Thousands" seems a reasonable estimate.

Yeah, I think this is the biggest problem for the conspiracy. It's hard to believe that 2000-3000 people going in and out of these buildings never once saw anything suspicious (or even heard anything on the other side of the wall).