Did a pair of <3.5 quakes knock down WTC7?

[Straybow]

Is it not obvious that an evil super-villain weakened the main columns of the WTC buildings with his heat-vision?

How else could they have fallen? The main key to the attack, though, must have been distracting all the super-heros with minor incidents so that none could fly in and rescue people or hold up the buildings so they wouldn't collapse.

[Cort Haus]

Is there an explaination anywhere of how the towers fell at nearly free-fall speed?

Neither the NIST nor FEMA reports were able to explain that in terms of either the truss failure or column failure theories, both of which seem as bizzare to me as Alien death-rays.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
Is there an explaination anywhere of how the towers fell at nearly free-fall speed?

Neither the NIST nor FEMA reports were able to explain that in terms of either the truss failure or column failure theories, both of which seem as bizzare to me as Alien death-rays.

I'm telling ya' - Gravitonic Beams.

You heard it here first.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by JohnT
I'm telling ya' - Gravitonic Beams.

Right. Any serious answers would be appreciated.

[JohnT]

Where's the serious question?

[Cort Haus]

It's right there.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
Is there an explaination anywhere of how the towers fell at nearly free-fall speed?

Neither the NIST nor FEMA reports were able to explain that in terms of either the truss failure or column failure theories, both of which seem as bizzare to me as Alien death-rays.

It seems you've answered your own question.

[realpolitic]

So many explainations that go counter to what seems normal, NORADs fighter defense being wimpy for example... While many of our sources are outright lying... An administration that starts a war of aggression( a capital war crime) on lies about WMDs. I suspect we've been lied to about most things that seem highly improbable. I didn't see anything large impacting WTC7 in those pictures, the dust obviously did cover many blocks. Debris seems just another lie of these murder for profit thugs.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
It's right there.

No it's not. What is "free fall speed"?

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by JohnT


No it's not. What is "free fall speed"?

Free fall speed is not what you get one one story falls onto another, encountering resistance that needs to be overcome, causing it to break and fall onto the next etc.

Free fall is what happens when an object falls with no resistance.

Almost Free-Fall Speed: Buildings brought down by controlled demolition collapse at almost free-fall speed. This can occur because the supports for the lower floors are destroyed, so that when the upper floors come down, they encounter no resistance. The fact that the collapses of the towers mimicked this feature of controlled demolition was mentioned indirectly by The 9/11 Commission Report, which said that the “South Tower collapsed in 10 seconds” (Kean and Hamilton, 2004, p. 305).[22] The authors of the report evidently thought that the rapidity of this collapse did not conflict with the official theory, known as the “pancake” theory. According to this theory, the floors above the floors that were weakened by the impact of the airliner fell on the floor below, which started a chain reaction, so that the floors “pancaked” all the way down.

But if that is what happened, the lower floors, with all their steel and concrete, would have provided resistance. The upper floors could not have fallen through them at the same speed as they would fall through air. However, the videos of the collapses show that the rubble falling inside the building’s profile falls at the same speed as the rubble outside[23] (Jones, 2006). As Dave Heller, a builder with degrees in physics and architecture, explains:

the floors could not have been pancaking. The buildings fell too quickly. The floors must all have been falling simultaneously to reach the ground in such a short amount of time. But how?. . . In [the method known as controlled demolition], each floor of a building is destroyed at just the moment the floor above is about to strike it. Thus, the floors fall simultaneously, and in virtual freefall. (Garlic and Glass 6)

http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html

[JohnT]

Seriously, can you just watch... the... video... ?

It is so obvious the buildings pancaked that I can't believe this is up for debate. The freaking top 40-odd stories collapsed on the rest of the building. In your rush to read conspiracy websites, did you not bother to see the video?

Look at this page:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/stc_frames.html

See how the top of the building collapses on the rest?

[JohnT]

I mean, what you had was 1/10th of the building collapsing on the rest. The thing weighed 500,000 tons. If 1/10th of the building collapsed on the rest of the (suddenly non-supported) framework of the building, yeah, it's really not going to take a long time for a 45,000 ton section of building to make it's way down 1,000 feet:

The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.1

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

Here's a short video that has a close-up of the collapsing sections in slow-motion. It's so obvious the top pancaked, I'm surprised you brought it into the debate.

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/s_tower_bang.mpeg

Is this what the Conspiracracy has to offer?

[Pyrodrew]

rubble outside[23] (Jones, 2006).

The same guy who wrote Evidence for Christ's Visit in Ancient America?