RE: the psychological warfare on the subject of 9/11/2001 [W:241:846]

Menard_K · Jan 10, 2014

Re: the psychological warfare on the subject of 9/11/2001

Mark F said:
Because it isn't.
1. You have never even established that free-fall occurs in CD (hint: it doesn't).
2. You perpetually fail to grasp there was no free-fall for 2.25 seconds (last time: it was an average - sometimes more, sometimes less than G. Please explain over-G in a CD scenairo).
3. You perpetually fail to grasp even that was limited to just a single measured point on the exterior of the building and thus can not be used as a measure of the entire building.
4. You fail to grasp this occurred at the end of the collapse sequence, not at the start. Why blow 8 floors if the building is already collapsing???
5. You fail to grasp the exterior of the building (on which the point of measurement was taken) was un-supported as the interior had already collapsed, pulling the exterior down with it (hint: non-CD explanation for over-G at the end of the collapse sequence)

Actual proof would have to include things like evidence of explosions - sound, visible blast, shock-waves that would have taken out every window for blocks, blast damaged steel, detcord remnants, etc, etc, etc,. Plus it would be nice to have a named suspect, a plausible motive and a rational explanation for how a CD was carried out. I can't emphasize enough the motive part since I have yet to hear you or anyone else explain WHY the building needed to be demo'd. What possible purpose does that serve the plot.

I would go on, but I have said too much already.

Gee, what are two of the favorite plays from the terrorist playbook? Hijacking and suicide bombing. What would happen if they decided to combine the two into a relatively simple, low-cost plan that required few resources and little special skill that could not be readily acquired???

The mind boggles!

The Japanese proved very effectively in 1944-45 that manned aircraft make wonderful missiles. Those Kamikaze pilots, with just a few weeks of the most rudimentary training imaginable could reliably hit a 350 ft. long, 35 ft. wide warship maneuvering wildly at high speed while the ship was shooting at them. A large stationary target visible from 50 miles out is nothing compared to that. Kids on a Danish TV show hit the buildings every single time on a simulator. That you can't figure it out doesn't make it not so.

Now I have really gone on too long. Too much information for you to digest. Eagerly await the next evasion and moving of goalposts and fully expect you to keep making the same false claims over and over and over.

Note for Ozzy ..... parse this one out
as you would for one of my posts .....

or?

Mark F · Jan 10, 2014

Re: the psychological warfare on the subject of 9/11/2001

Menard_K said:
Note for Ozzy ..... parse this one out
as you would for one of my posts .....

Please do. Thanks Oz. Clearly our friend needs your help.

ozeco41 · Jan 11, 2014

Re: the psychological warfare on the subject of 9/11/2001

AS REQESTED BY Mark F
cc: Menard_K

Mark F said:
Menard_K said:

Note for Ozzy ..... parse this one out
as you would for one of my posts .....

Click to expand...

Please do. Thanks Oz. Clearly our friend needs your help.

OK - Just for you Mark - seeing as you asked politely.

Mark F said:
Because it isn't.
1. You have never even established that free-fall occurs in CD (hint: it doesn't).

Free-fall dos not distinguish collapse initiated by CD from collapse initiated by other causes. That fact has been explained for M_K several times. Whether he has established it in his claims is moot. It is "stand alone" fact that free fall does not mean CD independent of any individual persons opinion. Any argument based on free-fall == CD is thereby not proven. Whoever makes it.

Mark F said:
2. You perpetually fail to grasp there was no free-fall for 2.25 seconds (last time: it was an average - sometimes more, sometimes less than G. Please explain over-G in a CD scenairo).

M_K has been offered reference links to the most accurate measurements known of the motion of WTC7 North Façade. The relevant period of time was around "G" - not sustained at exactly "G" - and it including a brief period "over G". (BTW over-G is plausible in a CD but unlikely because of the normal constraints of the "C" part of "CD".) Understanding the free body physics of over-G is moderately complex physics. I can explain using several models and a plausible reason for over-G at WTC 7 North Façade.

Mark F said:
3. You perpetually fail to grasp even that was limited to just a single measured point on the exterior of the building and thus can not be used as a measure of the entire building.

It was a single point measurement and clearly not representative of the building asa whole.

Mark F said:
4. You fail to grasp this occurred at the end of the collapse sequence, not at the start. Why blow 8 floors if the building is already collapsing???

The most accurate measurements of movement of that reference point on North Façade show movement for some seconds before "release". That fact alone contra-indicates explosive cutting. Gravity does not have a delay mechanism before responding to cut columns.

Mark F said:
5. You fail to grasp the exterior of the building (on which the point of measurement was taken) was un-supported as the interior had already collapsed, pulling the exterior down with it (hint: non-CD explanation for over-G at the end of the collapse sequence)

Collapse of interior before exterior is fact. over-G already commented on.

Mark F said:
Actual proof would have to include things like evidence of explosions - sound, visible blast, shock-waves that would have taken out every window for blocks, blast damaged steel, detcord remnants, etc, etc, etc,.

The evidence from fields other than structural mechanics is overwhelming "no CD"

Mark F said:
Plus it would be nice to have a named suspect, a plausible motive and a rational explanation for how a CD was carried out. I can't emphasize enough the motive part since I have yet to hear you or anyone else explain WHY the building needed to be demo'd. What possible purpose does that serve the plot.

"would be nice" is a value judgement. Such evidence is circumstantial to the primary questions of structural mechanisms of collapse. Given that there is no counter hypothesis to "No CD" there is no need to call on circumstantial evidence.

Mark F said:
I would go on, but I have said too much already.

That is a judgement call but given the small probability of your reasoning being taken on board - yes you may have said too much.

Mark F said:
Gee, what are two of the favorite plays from the terrorist playbook? Hijacking and suicide bombing. What would happen if they decided to combine the two into a relatively simple, low-cost plan that required few resources and little special skill that could not be readily acquired???

Interesting but circumstantial.

Mark F said:
The mind boggles!

I don't suffer from cerebral boggleitis so I cannot comment from experience.

Mark F said:
The Japanese proved very effectively in 1944-45 that manned aircraft make wonderful missiles. Those Kamikaze pilots, with just a few weeks of the most rudimentary training imaginable could reliably hit a 350 ft. long, 35 ft. wide warship maneuvering wildly at high speed while the ship was shooting at them. A large stationary target visible from 50 miles out is nothing compared to that. Kids on a Danish TV show hit the buildings every single time on a simulator. That you can't figure it out doesn't make it not so.

Circumstantial analogy - could be of value in a discussion but not in a reasoned debate. IMO

Mark F said:
Now I have really gone on too long. Too much information for you to digest.

You said it. :roll:

Mark F said:
Eagerly await the next evasion and moving of goalposts and fully expect you to keep making the same false claims over and over and over.

Your prognosis and the basis on which you probably formed it understood.

Menard_K · Jan 11, 2014

Re: the psychological warfare on the subject of 9/11/2001

in contrast to one of your follow-ups to any one of the "truther" posts
this clearly shows your bias. .... or?

"It was a single point measurement and clearly not representative of the building asa whole."

You are joking .... right?

whatever .......

Mark F · Jan 11, 2014

Re: the psychological warfare on the subject of 9/11/2001

Menard_K said:
in contrast to one of your follow-ups to any one of the "truther" posts
this clearly shows your bias. .... or?

"It was a single point measurement and clearly not representative of the building asa whole."

You are joking .... right?

whatever .......

That's it? That is all you can counter with is "whatever"?

If we are wrong then please demonstrate how we are wrong. If for example NIST didn't take the collapse speed measurement of 7 from a single point then please show how this is untrue. It would be in the report now wouldn't it so therefore you should have no problem finding it. I suspect you won't because you can't so it is easier for you to rationalize throwing your hands up in the air by calling "bias" - always much easier than dealing with the reality.

But since the "free-fall" measurement you obsess over so much was in fact taken from a single observed point and therefore does not represent the building as a whole and since said measurement does not prove CD by a long shot you either need to expand your hypothesis with (a lot) of additional supporting data or revise it to acknowledge you can not prove CD based on your single anomaly and move on.

Menard_K · Jan 11, 2014

Re: the psychological warfare on the subject of 9/11/2001

Mark F said:
That's it? That is all you can counter with is "whatever"?

If we are wrong then please demonstrate how we are wrong. If for example NIST didn't take the collapse speed measurement of 7 from a single point then please show how this is untrue. It would be in the report now wouldn't it so therefore you should have no problem finding it. I suspect you won't because you can't so it is easier for you to rationalize throwing your hands up in the air by calling "bias" - always much easier than dealing with the reality.

But since the "free-fall" measurement you obsess over so much was in fact taken from a single observed point and therefore does not represent the building as a whole and since said measurement does not prove CD by a long shot you either need to expand your hypothesis with (a lot) of additional supporting data or revise it to acknowledge you can not prove CD based on your single anomaly and move on.

Do you really believe this stuff?
This single point, was part of the wall, & that is the same visible bit that was the North wall of WTC7 & the West wall, now this point does not exist in isolation, it is part of the whole, & this whole, that is at the very least is composed of the North & West walls, descends at 9.8 m/s^2 for 2.25 sec, fact is, the video that the measurement was taken from was a "long lens shot" that is the camera may have been as much as a mile a way from WTC7 and as such, small vibrations at the location of the camera causes anomalies in the data that can be extracted from it. HOWEVER, please note that the 2.25 sec period of time is significant to the relevance of the data. People are attempting to discredit the CD argument by saying that CD doesn't involve free fall, but CD can be engineered in all sorts of ways, there are many variations on CD, the single unifying bit is the fact that the demolition was engineered rather than the product of fires or other unpredictable forces.

In the video that analyzes the sound track of a video shot within sight of WTC7, there are 6 "booms" and ALL equally spaced in time. This is NOT the product of transformers blowing up, for at least the last half century power sub-station transformers have had safety pressure relief mechanisms to prevent explosions.

ozeco41 · Jan 11, 2014

Re: the psychological warfare on the subject of 9/11/2001

Menard_K said:
in contrast to one of your follow-ups to any one of the "truther" posts
this clearly shows your bias. .... or?

Don't be coy - say it.

Reality is that I routinely acknowledge when those whose activity i judge to be either truther side or trolling get something right.

I mean those are rare and noteworthy events.

The OP for the thread about "Global collapse was inevitable" - in its original form - was written to assist an habitual troll on another forum who actually asked TWO sensible questions. Made my day and I gave him the full professional explanation treatment as both recognition and reward.

Menard_K said:
"It was a single point measurement and clearly not representative of the building as a whole."

You are joking .... right?

It is a simple matter of fact - and in this case a true fact. If you prefer and if I ever respond to any of your posts I could colour code my text:

1) This is an item of FACT which I claim is True/False;
2) This is a step of logical reasoning; AND
3) This is background material for explanatory purposes which plays no material pert in my argument. AND
4) THIS IS A JOKE

Mark F · Jan 11, 2014

Re: the psychological warfare on the subject of 9/11/2001

Menard_K said:
Do you really believe this stuff?
This single point, was part of the wall, & that is the same visible bit that was the North wall of WTC7 & the West wall, now this point does not exist in isolation, it is part of the whole, & this whole, that is at the very least is composed of the North & West walls, descends at 9.8 m/s^2 for 2.25 sec, fact is, the video that the measurement was taken from was a "long lens shot" that is the camera may have been as much as a mile a way from WTC7 and as such, small vibrations at the location of the camera causes anomalies in the data that can be extracted from it. HOWEVER, please note that the 2.25 sec period of time is significant to the relevance of the data. People are attempting to discredit the CD argument by saying that CD doesn't involve free fall, but CD can be engineered in all sorts of ways, there are many variations on CD, the single unifying bit is the fact that the demolition was engineered rather than the product of fires or other unpredictable forces.

In the video that analyzes the sound track of a video shot within sight of WTC7, there are 6 "booms" and ALL equally spaced in time. This is NOT the product of transformers blowing up, for at least the last half century power sub-station transformers have had safety pressure relief mechanisms to prevent explosions.

You still don't get it. There was no "G for 2.25 seconds" - that was an AVERAGE not a constant. For some of that period the measured point EXCEEDED G, while for other parts of that short interval it was less than G. The fact that you keep repeating "descends at free-fall for 2.25 sec" in spite of having been repeatedly informed how inaccurate that is makes you a liar. Nobody is going to take you seriously if you keep repeating things that you know to be untrue.

The silly part is that none of this even matters anyway since your argument does absolutely nothing to prove or disprove CD. This anomaly can be easily explained without CD and have chosen (as always) to ignore that while presenting no other evidence in support of CD. As I have said many times before, the speed at which something falls tells you nothing about why it fell. Any period at, near or over G can be explained by natural collapse or CD. By itself it means nothing. You need to provide much, much more proof for CD other than "free-fall for 2.25 seconds". In a court of law you won't even get a hearing, let alone win with a case that weak.

And yes that measurement is only relevant to one part of the external facade which had by that time long detached itself from the already collapsing building interior so no, it was no longer part of a whole. Again, this is something you have been told before but you keep ignoring it. This by the way does further damage to your argument. That 2.25 second period occurred at the end of the collapse sequence. The interior had already collapsed leaving only the un-supported exterior facade. What purpose does CD serve at that point? The building was effectively long gone before G was reached/exceeded.

Menard_K · Jan 12, 2014

Re: the psychological warfare on the subject of 9/11/2001

Mark F said:
You still don't get it. ..... the speed at which something falls tells you nothing about why it fell.

the rate of descent speaks volumes about the conditions present as it falls.
something descending at 90% of G, is only impressing 10% of its weight upon whatever
is below it at the time. The fact that WTC7 keeps its shape while falling, indicates clearly
that there has been a uniform removal of structure out from under the building.
How is it that chaotic damage can cause the total removal of structure out from under
the observed falling north & west wall(s) and all at the same time?

Mark F · Jan 12, 2014

Re: the psychological warfare on the subject of 9/11/2001

Menard_K said:
the rate of descent speaks volumes about the conditions present as it falls.

Fine. But that has nothing to do with CD.

The fact that WTC7 keeps its shape while falling, indicates clearly
that there has been a uniform removal of structure out from under the building.

Except for that not being true, sure, why not. If the removal of the structure was "uniform" why were there 3 distinct collapse phases and why did the building twist and lean as it fell? And again, what does any of this have to do with CD. The natural collapse due to fire hypothesis fully explains the observations. CD does not. There are many elements missing from what was observed that would be present in an explosive CD.

How is it that chaotic damage can cause the total removal of structure out from under
the observed falling north & west wall(s) and all at the same time?

How many times do we need to go over this before it penetrates your thick skull? Collapse of interior pulls down exterior shell. Job done. The interior of the building was essentially gone before the exterior (the bit you see on Youtube) fell. That is explained by natural collapse. No CD required. For (hopefully) the last time, CD is not required to explain any of the observations. I am truly sorry you don't get that but at this point your limitations are not my problem. You have presented ZERO EVIDENCE FOR EXPLOSIVES, just personal incredulity about how buildings fall.

What is a natural collapse Menard? Weakening of a structure sufficiently to initiate its failure and collapse via gravity.
What is a CD Menard? Weakening of a structure sufficiently to initiate its failure and collapse via gravity.

Once the collapse is initiated the building falls as buildings fall. Either way gravity does the bulk of the work.

Your scenario requires blowing up a building that is already experiencing a total collapse event and that is just stupid. What would be the point of that?

Menard_K · Jan 12, 2014

Re: the psychological warfare on the subject of 9/11/2001

so let me get this straight,
because of the random fires & the also random damage caused by bits ejected from the towers as they fell, WTC7 first had the inside of the building "collapse" COMPLETELY & without deforming either the North or West wall(s) and then the Penthouse "collapses" into the now vacant interior of WTC7 and on its way down, it triggers the North & West walls to also fall, and indeed they fall at an average acceleration of 1G for 2.25 sec.

Is that the case?

Please note that the "over G" bits that are alleged to have happened,
are most probably anomalies caused by the nature of the LONG LENS shot
that had to have been done, even very small vibrations to where the camera is located
translate into anomalies in the perceived timing.

I challenge the idea that "it just happened" the way that it happened without
any prior planning & engineering on the part of somebody who wanted WTC7 destroyed.

ozeco41 · Jan 12, 2014

Re: the psychological warfare on the subject of 9/11/2001

Menard_K said:
so let me get this straight,
because of the random fires & the also random damage caused by bits ejected from the towers as they fell, WTC7 first had the inside of the building "collapse" COMPLETELY & without deforming either the North or West wall(s) and then the Penthouse "collapses" into the now vacant interior of WTC7 and on its way down, it triggers the North & West walls to also fall, and indeed they fall at an average acceleration of 1G for 2.25 sec.

Getting closer there M_K
1) Don't forget that the fires were unfought because of resource limitations.
2) The interior collapse did deform the north and west facades. Some precision measurements are available.
3) East penthouse fell - therefore the support under it had failed - not known if that specific bit of the collapse triggered the "release" of the facades but the trigger almost certainly was part of the interior collapse even if not EPH falling. The "over G" aspect is partial confirmation of interior collapse triggering "release" of façade. If you comprehend the free body physics of "over G" you will readily see why that point is so.
4) The average acceleration was for single points on north façade - not the whole façade.

Menard_K said:
Please note that the "over G" bits that are alleged to have happened, are most probably anomalies caused by the nature of the LONG LENS shot that had to have been done, even very small vibrations to where the camera is located translate into anomalies in the perceived timing....

the person who did the measurements - femr2 - is way better than making those mistakes. If you ever get serious you could read the material. Compensating for camera shake and atmospheric induced movements of the image are two of the first factors dealt with.

Menard_K said:
I challenge the idea that "it just happened" the way that it happened without any prior planning & engineering on the part of somebody who wanted WTC7 destroyed.

I seem to recall that you may have made that bare assertion before.

Menard_K · Jan 12, 2014

Re: the psychological warfare on the subject of 9/11/2001

ozeco41 said:
Getting closer there M_K
1) Don't forget that the fires were unfought because of resource limitations.
2) The interior collapse did deform the north and west facades. Some precision measurements are available.
3) East penthouse fell - therefore the support under it had failed - not known if that specific bit of the collapse triggered the "release" of the facades but the trigger almost certainly was part of the interior collapse even if not EPH falling. The "over G" aspect is partial confirmation of interior collapse triggering "release" of façade. If you comprehend the free body physics of "over G" you will readily see why that point is so.
4) The average acceleration was for single points on north façade - not the whole façade.

the person who did the measurements - femr2 - is way better than making those mistakes. If you ever get serious you could read the material.

I seem to recall that you may have made that bare assertion before.

How about a link to this "over G" study?
and also, note that the single point that was used for measurment
was CONNECTED to the rest of the building the North & West walls
had not disintegrated or radically deformed.

Quag · Jan 13, 2014

Re: the psychological warfare on the subject of 9/11/2001

Menard_K said:
How about a link to this "over G" study?
and also, note that the single point that was used for measurment
was CONNECTED to the rest of the building the North & West walls
had not disintegrated or radically deformed.

Oh come on MK respond to what Ozeco said or do you accept his points and are now just moving the bar to start over again?

PilotsForTruth · Jan 13, 2014

Re: the psychological warfare on the subject of 9/11/2001

MK, just ignore Quag... he/she/it is a troll.

ozeco41 · Jan 13, 2014

Re: the psychological warfare on the subject of 9/11/2001

Quag said:
Oh come on MK respond to what Ozeco said or do you accept his points and are now just moving the bar to start over again?

Thanks Quag - however whether M_K accepts them or not doesn't change the fact that the points are correct.

Now, as for this bit:

Menard_K said:
How about a link to this "over G" study?

The "over G" finding came out of several intensive discussions of the accuracy of the NIST measurements of WTC 7 collapse - including the notorious "free-fall" of WTC7 which Chandler allegedly "forced NIST to admit". Setting aside the hyperbole of that situation the fact was that several members posting on The911Forum had questioned the accuracy of NIST's work. Their work discussed on JREF was subjected to all the scorn usually directed at truthers on that forum. The best measurements were those performed by femr2.

Femr2 met the same strong opposition based on presumption that he was a truther BUT the underlying technical realities emerged over some time.

Here is one example of femr2's work - a comparison of WTC7 acceleration for the disputed free-fall of the North Façade plotted via the NIST methods and three other methods using different mathematical smoothing processes.

...I can still link M_K to some of the discussion - as I said earlier "if he is serious" BUT be warned:
A) The technical and mathematical aspects are at a higher level of complexity than we are currently seeing on this forum - it needs "brain in gear" to comprehend; AND
B) The climate of "truthers must be wrong" for which JREF is notorious makes a lot of noise in the threads - and makes an interesting study in psychology in its own right.

Back to the comparison graph. The obvious features include:
1) All three alternate methods of mathematical smoothing give similar results;
2) NIST method gives significantly different results;
3) ( The "heading very high" part of the two Polynomial based plots at the 12 second time is because they went outside the window of validity - The Savitzki Golay plot not so affected.)
4) All three show the period of "over G"

The arguments in justification of the accuracy of femr's work have also been discussed at length. And reluctantly accepted by a small but growing group of JREF regulars including some who post here.

Now as for M_K's final comments:

Menard_K said:
and also, note that the single point that was used for measurement
was CONNECTED to the rest of the building the North & West walls
had not disintegrated or radically deformed.

Yes I am aware of the actual situation which is not as simple as you state it. Again if ever you get into serious discussion it can be explained. I won't waste energy dotting the"i"s or crossing the "t"s of details at this stage.

Quag · Jan 13, 2014

Re: the psychological warfare on the subject of 9/11/2001

PilotsForTruth said:
MK, just ignore Quag... he/she/it is a troll.

Lol the guy who's only purpose here is to sell stuff is calling me a troll

ozeco41 · Jan 13, 2014

Re: the psychological warfare on the subject of 9/11/2001

Quag said:
Lol the guy who's only purpose here is to sell stuff is calling me a troll

Plus, for the cognoscenti, there is some irony in the gender confusion of "he/she/it".

(cognoscenti noun 1. people who are especially well informed about a particular subject.)

Menard_K · Jan 13, 2014

Re: the psychological warfare on the subject of 9/11/2001

ozeco41 said:
Plus, for the cognoscenti, there is some irony in the gender confusion of "he/she/it".

(cognoscenti noun 1. people who are especially well informed about a particular subject.)

Given the fact that the interwebz be totally anonymous, you can NOT expect to have any point of reference with regards to any given persons gender, or for that matter, is any given poster, an AI project? .... what?

Question EVERYTHING
where are we going
& WHY are we in this handbasket?

or?

mike2810 · Jan 13, 2014

Re: the psychological warfare on the subject of 9/11/2001

Menard_K said:
Given the fact that the interwebz be totally anonymous, you can NOT expect to have any point of reference with regards to any given persons gender, or for that matter, is any given poster, an AI project? .... what?

Question EVERYTHING
where are we going
& WHY are we in this handbasket?

or?

Unless one takes the time to look at the page "about me" and the person has taken the time to fill it out.
Granted the person could fill in fake information. Yet, for the purpose of the forum most of the members gender can be identified.

Your response is typical from one who does little to no creditable researching. It is ok to question MK, just do some self help and research.

Menard_K · Jan 13, 2014

Re: the psychological warfare on the subject of 9/11/2001

mike2810 said:
Unless one takes the time to look at the page "about me" and the person has taken the time to fill it out.
Granted the person could fill in fake information. Yet, for the purpose of the forum most of the members gender can be identified.

Your response is typical from one who does little to no creditable researching. It is ok to question MK, just do some self help and research.

so let me ask .... are YOU convinced beyond a reasonable doubt,
that there was indeed a "FLT 11, 175, 77, & 93" and that on 9/11/2001
all 4 of these flights were hijacked & three of them crashed into buildings?
and then as a natural consequence of having been hit by an aircraft,
WTC 1 & 2 "collapsed" into complete & total destruction of the entire building(s)?
and WTC7 "collapsed" as a result of fires and explosives could not possibly have
been involved, just as in the case of WTC 1, 2 & total collapse was inevitable ....
right?

9/11/2001 = Made for TV Drama ( complete with sleezoid special effects )

oh well ......

mike2810 · Jan 13, 2014

Re: the psychological warfare on the subject of 9/11/2001

Menard_K said:
so let me ask .... are YOU convinced beyond a reasonable doubt,
that there was indeed a "FLT 11, 175, 77, & 93" and that on 9/11/2001
all 4 of these flights were hijacked & three of them crashed into buildings?
and then as a natural consequence of having been hit by an aircraft,
WTC 1 & 2 "collapsed" into complete & total destruction of the entire building(s)?
and WTC7 "collapsed" as a result of fires and explosives could not possibly have
been involved, just as in the case of WTC 1, 2 & total collapse was inevitable ....
right?

9/11/2001 = Made for TV Drama ( complete with sleezoid special effects )

oh well ......

I have answered before MK.
Yes, the four flights occurred beyond a resonalbe doubt. ( You have been provided links to suppor this in the past)
Yes, the impact and resulting damage and fires caused the WTC 1,2 to collapse. (( You have been provided links to suppor this in the past)
Yes, the collapse of the WTC damaged number 7 and with the resulting fires, it collapsed. (( You have been provided links to suppor this in the past)
The collapse was inevitable, because it happened. ( You have been provided links to suppor this in the past)

Was it certain before the crash/fires that a crash/fire would cause collapse? No., Yet that is what happened.

So provide your evidence of sleezoid special effects.

this is the last time I will tell you this.
I have also stated that the official report is not perfect. Yet the conclusions are correct.

Menard_K · Jan 13, 2014

Re: the psychological warfare on the subject of 9/11/2001

"The collapse was inevitable, because it happened."

Question: With or without EXPLOSIVES? ....... or black magic & witchcraft?

what?

Mark F · Jan 13, 2014

Re: the psychological warfare on the subject of 9/11/2001

If I may,...

Menard_K said:
"The collapse was inevitable, because it happened."

True

Question: With or without EXPLOSIVES? ....... or black magic & witchcraft?

Without explosives, black magic or witchcraft. With impact damage, fire and gravity.

Menard_K · Jan 13, 2014

Re: the psychological warfare on the subject of 9/11/2001

Mark F said:
If I may,...

True

Without explosives, black magic or witchcraft. With impact damage, fire and gravity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QMSAsOkumI&list

For the enlightenment of any who will keep an open mind ......

L8R