It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How long did it took for the WTC 7 to collapse?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
...as opposed to swallowing whole whatever new crap Alex Jones or ST911 are spewing out.


See this my friend is where you make yourself look stupid. You argue against what we say because you think that we cannot have the knowledge by ourselves to argue against the official story without, according to you, just parroting what Alex Jones and others say. When all you are doing yourself is parroting what NIST says, without even understanding what it is they're saying.

I don't need Alex Jones or anyone for me to understand the physics of the attacks. I probably visit his site less often than you do. If you really understood anything about what you're trying to argue, and are not just blindly repeating NIST etc. then you should be aware that others also could understand without someone else telling us.

[If] I do parott Jones I will be sure I understand what I'm parotting.

In other words you have just proved, to me at least, that you really don't want to understand the physics, you just want the official story to be true whether it is or not.
Anyone that trys to make you think logicaly instead of blindly is 'spewing crap'.
You will never open your mind and really try to understand the physics, as long as it contradicts the official story, will you?

And I'll make a bet, you will totaly miss the point of my post..

I can't wait for you to prove my point again...




posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
Another mind numbing debate where some common sense should end it.

The central core should not have collapsed period and even if there was failure it would have not fallen as far down as it did. There even could have been a tilting of the core at some point but we never got that.

Collapsing floors would mean the outer structure may fail in places but that could cause a crumpling eg. like in a pop can.

Regarding floors I still see no argument to explain why the two elevator or sky levels would not either stop or greatly slow the building collapse.

The conclusion watching the outcome is a form of demolition using the plane's impact as a diversion from the true method used to bring the building down.




LOL
This is about World Trade Center 7 but you have a point. There is a debacle in how/why the inner cores of both buildings seemed to of gave out simultaneously with the rest of the building at collapse initation.



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masisoar

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
The central core should not have collapsed period and even if there was failure it would have not fallen as far down as it did. There even could have been a tilting of the core at some point but we never got that.

Collapsing floors would mean the outer structure may fail in places but that could cause a crumpling eg. like in a pop can.

Regarding floors I still see no argument to explain why the two elevator or sky levels would not either stop or greatly slow the building collapse.



LOL
This is about World Trade Center 7 but you have a point. There is a debacle in how/why the inner cores of both buildings seemed to of gave out simultaneously with the rest of the building at collapse initation.


Sorry about that. All you have to do is remove the bit about the sky level observation points and the rest fits to a good degree I'm sure.

I still don't understand Lucky Larry' and his infamous: There has already been a terrible loss of life...

What did you mean Larry? Too many people died and that wasn't the plan?

More would have died if WTC 7 wasn't pulled? Why Larry?

Please tell us Larry, humanity needs the truth more than you need another million dollars.



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by LeftBehind
...as opposed to swallowing whole whatever new crap Alex Jones or ST911 are spewing out.


See this my friend is where you make yourself look stupid.


That's amazing how one quote taken out of context makes me look stupid to you.

Yeah I'm real impressed at your powers of deduction.


That was in response to the picture of "squibs" at WTC 7. I'll say it again, they are not squibs. Look at the originals.

Since the whole WTC 7 "squibs" seems to have originated with Jones, it was easy to come to the conclusion about swallowing nonsense whole, as both of you seem to believe in these imaginary "squibs".

Thanks for proving my point.



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind

Since the whole WTC 7 "squibs" seems to have originated with Jones, it was easy to come to the conclusion about swallowing nonsense whole, as both of you seem to believe in these imaginary "squibs".

Thanks for proving my point.


What originals? Because in all honesty I have no clue what you're talking about. Can you please link the "originals"? I would search for it myself if I knew what you were talking about.



posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 12:07 AM
link   
Reformed Argument

When you analyze other videos of WTC 7 collapsing, you notice other windows shattering, or what appears to be shattering but as the building falls.. they don't seem to be shattered, unless they become shrouded in what's being expulsed from the windows.. but IF thats the case, what's causing the expulsions?

WTC 7 "squib" video

In this video, an observation can be made, that on the front-face of this building, you can see, as it collapses, a string of windows breaking up the building, on what appears to be on eitherside of the kink. As the building falls, you notice the broken windows become somwhat obscured by what appears to be explusions from the windows.

With this + the corner explusions.. what caused the expulsions?

[edit on 11/23/2006 by Masisoar]



posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
That was in response to the picture of "squibs" at WTC 7. I'll say it again, they are not squibs. Look at the originals.

Since the whole WTC 7 "squibs" seems to have originated with Jones, it was easy to come to the conclusion about swallowing nonsense whole, as both of you seem to believe in these imaginary "squibs".


Hehee yeah thanx for proving my point as I bet you would. What point of yours did I prove? I think you're just confused, try re-reading what I said...


I do apologize for the 'stupid' comment, but I'm just trying to wake you up a bit. A person who stubbornly refused to see the obvious right in front of them is why the world is in such a mess.

But anyway 'squibs', yeah what originals? Show us the originals or shut up!
I don't see how it would make any difference though, just a clearer pic of what we've already seen, no? How can a better pic suddenly turn it into compressed air, physics isn't effected by picture quality...lol

And who said the squibs thing was started by Alex Jones? Maybe he was the first to point it out I don't know, I came to that conclusion by myself, I didn't need to be told it was squibs. Pls, all you're doing is trying to discredit ppl by bringing up names of people you refuse to except. You're not doing anything to prove the official story has any weight, or that what we're seeing is not squibs.

If it's not squibs, there hasn't been a satisfactory explanation for what else they could be, do you know what else they could be? I'm guessing you believe the compressed air theory? And where did that theory come from? From the people who are being accused of a conspiracy! Like an accused murderer trying to convince a jury that the bloody knife in his hand caught in a video is really a banana.

The most common saying in the gov/military is 'cover your ass', you expect them to tell you the truth? How naive.

[edit on 23/11/2006 by ANOK]



posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 01:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
But anyway 'squibs', yeah what originals? Show us the originals or shut up!


I'm interested in seeing these too. If he posts them, someone quote the link or send me a U2U.



posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masisoar
Reformed Argument

WTC 7 "squib" video

In this video, an observation can be made, that on the front-face of this building, you can see, as it collapses, a string of windows breaking up the building, on what appears to be on eitherside of the kink. As the building falls, you notice the broken windows become somwhat obscured by what appears to be explusions from the windows.

With this + the corner explusions.. what caused the expulsions?

[edit on 11/23/2006 by Masisoar]


That's the same Naudet video I have...

If you are realy after the truth download VirtualDub ( it's free ), and watch it frame by frame, you'll see that there are no expulsions ( I do see smoke, but no expulsions ) from those windows, nor from the so called "squibs"...

Link to VirtualDub

[edit on 23-11-2006 by Jedi_Master]



posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 12:45 PM
link   
Well since some of you would rather buy whatever they sell on prisonplanet than do your own research.

Here are the higher res pictures.








Those are obviously not jets of smoke flying out the sides.

There are no squibs, and this is not the first time these "squibs" have been disproved.

It can't possibly be memory lapse, so I'll just assume that some of you ignore whatever evidence that disagrees with your theories. Otherwise the same people would not bring up the same tired arguments.

[edit on 23-11-2006 by LeftBehind]



posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 01:45 PM
link   
Sry LeftBehind but that pic is not showing the complete story now is it...

www.youtube.com...



posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Well since some of you would rather buy whatever they sell on prisonplanet than do your own research.


Ya just cut and paste whatever you see fit, Just like Prisonplanet...

Unfortunately the link Bsbray pointed you do isn't about prisonplanet, or this or that, It states what happened and leaves you to think why..

In case you forgot it here ya go.


Originally posted by bsbray11
Another staffer at Studyof got around to calculating the velocity before I did, but here it is nonetheless:

www.studyof911.com...

101 Barclay was used as a reference point from a CBS video.



But then again you probably didn't read it cause it don't fit within your little box.

Just like Anok stated, You don't tell the full story, why don't you try that before you come in here trying to be something your not cause ANOK just put you in your place.

[edit on 11/23/2006 by ThichHeaded]



posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 03:08 PM
link   
You huys are hilarious.

Find a high res video and watch it.

I am not going to hold your hand and lead you to one.

Showing the same compressed grainy footage does not show squibs.

Watch the high res version and you will see the same thing in those hi res pics.

Windows breaking.


No squibs.


Haven't any of you wondered why the quality is so low for all the "squib" pictures for WTC 7?

Obviously better resolution shows whats really there.

Why are people being deceptive by showing grainy compressed images when they could easily show the Hi resolution ones?

The answer is that the "squibs" don't hold up unless zoomed in and distorted, because they are broken windows.



posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 03:30 PM
link   
Well seeing as it is only you who seems to know about these hi-res videos then you need to suply a link or shut up. You've been here long enough to know how it works.

Right now your just spouting empty words, and we're supposed to change our minds cause you say so?

Supply this proof of yours, if you can, and then we can go on with the discusion.

What's so difficult? You either have a high res copy or you don't. Right now I'm guessing you don't, otherwise you'd have posted it by now instead of just making claims.

So now puffs of 'compressed air' are just broken windows? And we're the ones who are hilarious?

[edit on 23/11/2006 by ANOK]



posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 03:53 PM
link   
LeftBehind, read my post and watch that video.

Jedi_Master, no.

[edit on 11/23/2006 by Masisoar]



posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masisoar
Jedi_Master, no.

[edit on 11/23/2006 by Masisoar]



Hmmm...interesting...

So I take it you don't want to downlaod VirtualDub, and watch it frame by frame so that you can see that there are no "squibs"...

Gotchya
...

Guess that old saying is true "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink"...



posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Another staffer at Studyof got around to calculating the velocity before I did, but here it is nonetheless:

www.studyof911.com...

101 Barclay was used as a reference point from a CBS video.


Based on the height of the building given by NIST, as shown in that article, the acceleration from what's visible in the CBS video was around 9.77 m/s^2, whereas free-fall is 9.8m/s^2.

So the building was pretty much falling at free-fall speed in a vacuum. Looking forward to explanations of this.


I see you didn't read your link to the end, if you had you would find this...


The final figure for theoretical collapse acceleration rate of WTC7 in complete free fall in atmosphere and at sea level is 8.94m/s2, which is only a little above the actual observed 8.71m/s2 acceleration rate arrived at from analysis of the CBS footage and using the Emporis height measurement. From this we can imply that the structure provided a negative acceleratiion, i.e resistive force of approximately 0.23m/s2 to the gravitational collapse.


www.studyof911.com...



posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 10:25 PM
link   
WTC7's mass is irrelevant to how fast it fell.


I'm fully expecting an equally irrelevant post in response from you, so try to understand that the rough estimate was to consider something other than the distance it covered per time as it fell.

The amount of resistance provided was also ridiculously little, but I suppose lagging behind actual free-fall speed by .01 m/s would be proof enough for you that there's nothing to see here.



posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 10:34 PM
link   


I see you haven't goten rid of your childish insults have you ( funny how you have to resort to them )...

If the mass is so irrelevent then why was it factored in ?

Hey I'm not the one saying it is falling faster than free fall...



posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
I'm fully expecting an equally irrelevant post in response from you, so try to understand that the rough estimate was to consider something other than the distance it covered per time as it fell.


Let's see how long it takes this one to sink in.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join