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: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Jedi_Master
I guess that tells me your powers of observation...

The building you are showing doesn't fall straight down, it looks like it is tilting as it is falling...


But I have to admit, WTC7 was a lot better of a job than the above. It didn't lean nearly as much, despite being almost 20 floors taller.



Don't know about that looks to me like it did tilt south...

www.debunking911.com...

Scroll down near the bottom...

You do know that the south side was heavly damaged by WTC 1 don't you?




posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 06:46 PM
link   
Jedi where is this resistance you talk about? It's pretty obvious to anyone with eyes that 7 fell way too fast to have had any resistance at all. Doesn't it fall at about the same speed as the demo in the pic? How do you explain this?

Like bsbray said it was a better controlled demo than the one in his pic, which looks like it wasn't done quite right, explosives on one side probably went off too soon causing it to tilt instead falling perfectly straight down, which is the ultimate goal of the demolition engineer, no?

So you can see even a pro demo'd building can tilt, and you're saying one fell perfectly down with no tilt just from fires?
That's just laughable and goes against any laws of known physics.



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jedi_Master
You do know that the south side was heavly damaged by WTC 1 don't you?


Show us this heavy damage, no one else has been able too.

But regardless I'll say this one more time and see if it sinks in.

Damage to one side of a building WILL NOT cause it to fall vertically into it's own footprint. Otherwise we wouldn't need demo experts, you could just run a bulldozer into the buildings side, set a few fires and wait.

This is what happens to a building damaged on one side, notice it didn't collapse into it's footprint.



Did WTC7 have this much damage?

[edit on 24/11/2006 by ANOK]



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 07:01 PM
link   
Ok...

Damage...




Damage...



Video south side...



More damage...



Want more I can do more screen caps...

As far as resistance you didn't read and understand my previous posts did you ??

As far as OK city apples and oranges thought you knew better that that...



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 07:04 PM
link   
We've seen those pics, they don't show any damage that would cause a vertical colapse into it's own footprint. Re-read my last post, think logicaly and put 2+2 together.

What is it you don't understand about that?

And yes I have read your posts, sry but they make no sense.

[edit on 24/11/2006 by ANOK]



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jedi_Master
If you want what it should have fallen at it is 46.6186/ms (9.8*4.757 given the figures from the link), which is much faster than 23.236073155350010510826150935464/ms...


What part of that don't you understand, if free fall velocity is faster than actual velocity, then it did offer resistance...

And how do you know that the damage wasn't that extensive?

You got x-ray vision and can see through the smoke?

Damn I'd like to have that too...




posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jedi_Master
And how do you know that the damage wasn't that extensive?
You got x-ray vision and can see through the smoke?
Damn I'd like to have that too...


Do you have X-ray vision?

LOL Then I ask you the same question...How do you know that the damage was that extensive? You just admited you can't see it for the smoke!

And again for the millionth time. IT DOESN"T MATTER!!! damage to one side of a building WILL NOT cause it to collapse straight down into it's own footprint!

(Read that again a few times till it sinks in and a light in your head goes off, if there is anything to light up that is...
)

Did you look at the pic I posted of the federal building? That has far more damage than WTC7, infact WTC5&6 had far more damage. None of those building even collapsed let alone all the way to it's basement.



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
[And again for the millionth time. IT DOESN"T MATTER!!! damage to one side of a building WILL NOT cause it to collapse straight down into it's own footprint!



It didn't fall in it's own foot print, it tilted south east ( you know the side with the damage )...

www.debunking911.com...


Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.

www.firehouse.com...


I don't have x-ray vision but I do have eyewitnesses...

[edit on 24-11-2006 by Jedi_Master]



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 10:04 PM
link   
^ Dude just look at this picture...

That's not in it's own footprint? Don't need Xray goggles or anybody to tell me otherwise. You can believe everything you read if you like, I prefer to use my own eyes and power of observation.



A pro demo expert would be proud of that job...

And I'll repeat this one more time to make sure you read it...


And again for the millionth time. IT DOESN'T MATTER!!! damage to one side of a building WILL NOT cause it to collapse straight down into it's own footprint!


[edit on 24/11/2006 by ANOK]



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

And again for the millionth time. IT DOESN"T MATTER!!! damage to one side of a building WILL NOT cause it to collapse straight down into it's own footprint!


So you would have us believe, unfortunately you have yet to prove this.

And obviously, in the case of building 7 damage to one side, and the interior of the building WILL cause it to collapse.



Good science is changing your hypothesis to fit the data.

Bad science is changing the data to fit your hypothesis.

[edit on 25-11-2006 by LeftBehind]



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 02:05 PM
link   
^ What proof do you need? It's common sense. There is also no precedence, if building fell vertically into their own footprints it would have happened before.

Just think about it for a minute, say you take out 2 columns from 10, those ten are going to still stand, what is there to pull them down to the floor?

For a column to fall vertically it has to telescope somehow, how does that happen to a solid 4' thick column from fire? The columns didn't bend, or tip over, they went straight down with the rest of the building. Office fires alone cannot do this, or damage to one side of a building that doesn't effect all the columns. For a building to fall the way WTC&7 (and1&2) did the columns would all have to fail at the same time, otherwise you would have a partial collapse. How many times do I have to say this? How many pics do I have to show that proves this?

Anybody with an ounce of common sense, and not in denial, can see that.



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 03:35 PM
link   
I really don't understand how a fire can cause simultaneous structural destructions in three skyscrapers within the same day, and have them all virtually fall straight down. WTC 1 and 2 may have plumed out and WTC 7 may of had a slight tilt but that's not what I'm getting at.



posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 06:40 PM
link   
As bsbray showed with his video, even professional controlled demo's tilt over sometimes, so to say WTC7 was not a controlled demo cause it tilted to the left slightly is ludricous!

Talk about grabbing at straws...


Edit: Just thinking about this they put cutting charges on columns at a 45 degree angle to telecope them, in a controlled demo, so tilting to one side lightly would be expected, no?

[edit on 25/11/2006 by ANOK]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join