Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Photographic Analysis of the WTC7 Hole - NIST Debunked

page: 6
11
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Why do people keep claiming that the building fell into it's own footprint. If it hit buildings across the street, that means that it did not fall perfectly into it's footprint.
[edit on 21-3-2007 by LeftBehind]


It might not have fallen directly into its own footprint but it did not collapse to the side that had all the damage from the towers (That everyone keeps bringing up)

So how does a building collapse pretty close to straight down that is supposed to have severe structural damage to 1 side ?




posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 11:52 AM
link   
Again, it did not fall straight down. It fell towards the south and towards the east, hitting buildings across the street and spilling all over the street.

www.debunking911.com...

Something can't fall straight down, and still hit things across the street.



posted on Mar, 24 2007 @ 01:21 PM
link   
Straight down? To the East? Not critical. What is critical is the rate of collapse. The roof hits the street in 6.5 seconds. This is free fall rate. In order for this to be the case, all structural integrity necessarily must be eliminated ahead of the collapse wave.

There us just no way that rate of collapse could be achieved unless all the support columns were simultaneously wiped out. It's called conservation of momentum.....Physics 101.



posted on Mar, 25 2007 @ 02:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by brisa
Straight down? To the East? Not critical. What is critical is the rate of collapse. The roof hits the street in 6.5 seconds. This is free fall rate. In order for this to be the case, all structural integrity necessarily must be eliminated ahead of the collapse wave.

There us just no way that rate of collapse could be achieved unless all the support columns were simultaneously wiped out. It's called conservation of momentum.....Physics 101.


Please check my math on first post of page 5 of this thread. See if your calculation for unrestricted free fall of 570 ft is about the same.



posted on Mar, 25 2007 @ 03:58 AM
link   
Guys, "perfect" is irrelevant. It wouldn't be 100% perfect no matter what the cause of its collapse. Engineers know this. That building still fell right down into its own footprint. Anyone that says otherwise is an idiot as far as I'm concerned, I don't care anymore. Throw in a hundred bucks and take any class with labs at a community college and you'll pick up real quick how stupid that argument is, when you start getting experimental data that never exactly matches the ideas on paper.


Originally posted by Ahabstar
Please check my math on first post of page 5 of this thread. See if your calculation for unrestricted free fall of 570 ft is about the same.


I checked it for you.

I used a formula for motion from mechanics,

x = (.5)at^2

Where x is displacement, a is acceleration, t is time.

Rearranging the above formula to find time for the roof to hit the ground with no resistance:

t^2 = x/(.5)a

NIST said WTC7 was 610ft tall.

t^2 = (610ft)/(16ft/s)

t = 6.2 seconds for WTC7's roof to fall to the ground with no friction whatsoever

And air resistance would take effect, but whether or not its effect on the final time is worth considering is another issue. The real resistance is coming from hundreds of thousands of tons of concrete and bolted-solid steel. In fact, you can't even really apply classical mechanics to such a situation in a steel-frame structure, because we aren't sure how they are actually supposed to behave. That's something else though that I don't feel like getting into, too late/early.


Btw you said that WTC7 didn't lean into itself, and was too level and so you doubt it's a CD.

Well, it did actually have a kink develop:



And so it did fold into itself to prevent collateral damage.

[edit on 25-3-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Mar, 25 2007 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
And so it did fold into itself to prevent collateral damage.



Well then, why did it still hit other buildings?

If that was the plan then they failed miserably on that aspect.

Secondly, if it was the same people who brought down the towers, why would they only worry about collateral damage with 7?



posted on Apr, 25 2007 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Well then, why did it still hit other buildings?

If that was the plan then they failed miserably on that aspect.


Considering the heavy damage that would have occurred if it fell over in one direction, INTACT, I believe that the VERY LIMITED damage to the neighboring buildings would be considered an EXTREME success. Perfection is not a possibility.

When CDI imploded the Hudson's building in Detroit they hit all sorts of intact structures (re: people mover, neighboring buildings) and that was still considered VERY successful by demolition terms.

Remember, WTC 7 (excluding 1 and 2) would have been the worlds tallest building ever taken down via. CD (assuming that is the case)... perfection is not possible.



posted on Apr, 25 2007 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pootie
When CDI imploded the Hudson's building in Detroit they hit all sorts of intact structures (re: people mover, neighboring buildings) and that was still considered VERY successful by demolition terms.


This needs to sink into everyone's head.

And so does the fact that, to get a building to drop straight down, you have to cut all the columns at the exact same time. I can only imagine what psychological defense mechanism keeps so many people from realizing the implications here.



posted on Apr, 25 2007 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Secondly, if it was the same people who brought down the towers, why would they only worry about collateral damage with 7?


I didn't mean to ignore this. Pretty neat how they managed to basically only destroy the ENTIRE WTC COMPLEX (RE: Silverstein owned buildings). (Except for that small church but that is peanuts)



posted on Apr, 25 2007 @ 06:06 PM
link   
In fact when they drop large building in tight areas they hang protective sheets on other buildings to minimaze damage to them...



posted on Apr, 25 2007 @ 11:38 PM
link   
The entire center of the Oklahoma City building was blown out and the building stayed standing, and it was WAY more damaged than #7.



posted on Apr, 25 2007 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spoodily
The entire center of the Oklahoma City building was blown out and the building stayed standing, and it was WAY more damaged than #7.


So right you are. Do you really want to get me started on this again? The Murrah Building had one column that remained intact. This is verified by the same people who cleaned it up...CDI. BTW, CDI cleaned up WTC 7 and now they are employed by NIST to "find the truth if there were explosives". Come on. I contacted CDI before and they were a little loose in telling me that getting into the business was pretty much harder than getting into the mob (I have a copy of the e-mail if anyone is interested). Not in the exact words, but from what I understood what they said, it was either family, know someone, or both. That's it. Sounds pretty mob run to me. Anyway, I'm straying from topic.



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
But the blob seems to have grown more solid and gotten bigger with each successive publication from them, reaching farther and farther in towards critical components deep in the building.


They need the blob to be big enough to affect "transfer trusses" #1 and #2 for their upcoming half assed theory to even look half assed to a half wit.

The blob on the SW corner is too small in ther drawing and the center blob should bot exist at all IMHO.

[edit on 18-9-2006 by Slap Nuts]

Bump since the new NIST report is out.



posted on Aug, 21 2008 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Originally posted by bsbray11
"Debunkers" may not be responding to this thread, but how many of you want to bet that they won't hesitate to reference the supermassive hole in the South face next time WTC7 comes up anyway? As if this post never existed.


I will be here.

I will remember.

I will bring this post back to the top for them...


How many years later? I TOLD YOU I would remember friend.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 12:52 AM
link   
Until tonight I've thought 9/11 questioners were conspiracy nuts. Now I am simply afraid. Since 9/11 governments around the world have take the opportunity to crack down on whomever they wish. (See Naomi Wolf's 'American ... Fascist' book and Youtube video.) Also see Noam Chomsky. I am coming through an anonymous IP via Tor network. You should use it to protect yourselves. I can't reveal all details of what happened to me as I was threatened if I went public.
By babbling some threatening things (neg. ideation about a politician 10 yrs earlier) while still in shock after a disaster, I ended up getting interrogated a few months later by the three XXX federal forces, and one American (JTF). They asked me all sorts of questions about my knowledge of bomb-making, and any links I might have to Islamic groups (1.5 hrs) of which I had none of course. (I'm a WASP for # sakes.)
After the phenobarbitol IV caused me to have a gran mal seizure (from interaction with a prescription drug), they removed it, and the electo-shock arm cuff and covered up my shackled wrists and ankles for a video. They also removed the eyelid taping, and three spot lights.
Then they had me act out the part of an Islamic fundamentalist on video. I had to scream things about 'Allah', how I knew how to make bombs and I was going to blow up .
After taking a DNA sample, fingerprints, photos they made me sign a legal document in 9 point font I could not read after the eyelid taping and lights. They said it said 'All of this was voluntary', and that they'd not let me go unless I signed it.
Naomi Wolf was right. I pray Obama can undo this mess. We're torturing our citizens under illegal, black ops right in North American cities. This happend in late 2005. Peace.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 03:51 PM
link   
Interesting thread, 9/11 myths and debunking 9/11 are known for presenting their data in such a way to support the OS. Good to see you have proved what most of us already knew, that there was no 20 story hole in WTC7.

Some of these so called 'debunkers' will believe anything the government, media and dubious websites tell them.

NY police officer & first responder Craig Bartmer states there was not that much damage to WTC7, and he also says the fires were not severe either. Where are the video statements saying their was a 20 story hole and raging fires?! There just do not exist, because these facts are lies to fit the OS.

Craig Bartmer


If you search for pictures of the Verzion building, the WTC US Post Office, and the Bankers Trust building, you'll see they had some damage, but they never caught fire and collapsed!

Here is an image showing their position in realtion to the towers.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by thegameisup
 


This is a three year old thread. The evidence in this thread shows you to be wrong, why are you bringing it back from the dead by repeating an old claim?

There are photos of the damage in this thread, there are discussions of the damage in this thread. A single person not seeing the damage means little when there is direct evidence of it.

edit: I should say, it's a 3-6 year old thread. I think it deserves to die.
edit on 6/7/12 by exponent because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


I got sad when I opened this.... Ultima1 has a post on the top of the page...poor truther died back over a year ago.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
reply to post by thegameisup
 


This is a three year old thread. The evidence in this thread shows you to be wrong, why are you bringing it back from the dead by repeating an old claim?

There are photos of the damage in this thread, there are discussions of the damage in this thread. A single person not seeing the damage means little when there is direct evidence of it.

edit: I should say, it's a 3-6 year old thread. I think it deserves to die.
edit on 6/7/12 by exponent because: (no reason given)


Do I tell you what thread to post in?

9/11 is almost 11 years old, but you're still here 11 years later trying to argue that 9/11 was not an inside job?

If a thread is active, then it's fair game, right? Maybe you might not like to see this thread come to the top because it will quash your wacky 20 story hole claim, but there is enough evidence and analysis in this thread to show there was no 20 story hole, and to show the fires were not that damaging.

You seem worried again, why are you always so touchy?

A single person? Maybe you need to look through the thread again and see there are more people in this thread that disagree, and prove there is no 20 story hole, than people that do. The same goes for the internet, just search about, and you'll see your 20 story hole theory is in the minority.

Anyway, you brought up the 20 hole theory earlier, so I decided to see if anyone here had covered it, and I thought I would add somehting to it. That is not against the rules is it? I post for me, and others that like to engage in a decent manner, not for people like you!



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma
reply to post by exponent
 


I got sad when I opened this.... Ultima1 has a post on the top of the page...poor truther died back over a year ago.


You don't sound that sad if you're calling him a truther!

What happened to him anyway?





new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join