It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


WTC7, debris from WTC1

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 07:12 PM
MikeVet, whether that's your work over at JREF or you borrowed it, it is erroneous in reference to this topic.

Gas under compression travelling at 700mph (!) would take a lesser resistive path of the glass windows smashing before ejecting lumps of steel and concrete. I believe the figures in the calculation also are assuming the air on each floor is actually compressed - so no gaps, or cracks, or vents, like bsbray pointed out.

Also, a large piece of the top of the North Tower seemed to fall without breaking up too much, so the upper height used in those calculations aren't appropriate to the North Tower debris which hit WTC7, at least.

Another point is that WTC7 is 570 feet tall, so the debris travelled 355 feet in the horizontal plane before landing on something at 570 feet from ground level, namely the penthouse on the top.

Calculations are not really what I was looking for when I posted this topic. There are too many unknowns for most scientific methods to be applied with any certainty of accuracy. The objective is to find all or any possible forces that could have caused this bizarre behaviour, and while I can't discount "air" entirely, I find it highly unlikely.

Bsbray, do you have any information on the distance for the Garden from the complex or any photographic evidence of what landed there, and from which tower?

posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 07:56 PM
Ahh, it's not my work.

Apparently, the person who did it was an anonymous truther. The work was second hand, with no author available to attribute.

i was just putting it out there for discussion.

posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 03:37 AM

Originally posted by OrionStars
Do you see any steel from the inside blowing out all over Manhattan and the Hudson River? No one can, because it did not do that.

Because the steel didn't fly "all over Manhattan," it's somehow in the footprints, even though I can clearly see that it isn't? Do you think I'm stupid? What kind of a rebuttal is this supposed to be, anyway, when I have demonstrated everything that needs to be demonstrated with photos, and explained them repeatedly? You just keep ignoring everything I say. I still don't even understand why in the hell you are still arguing with me about this.

All that came straight down into the footprint sublevels. Until it made piles above ground, and spread out, when not being contained by foundation walls of the sub-levels.

That is complete garbage. You can see large chunks of debris flying out freely onto the Winter Garden in collapse videos of WTC1. And if you look at the images above and try to tell me that that used to be two piles that just "spread out" by some unknown mechanism, as if they were marbles, and you think I'm going to buy that, you're naive. Come on, man. Look at the pictures I posted and correct your views of this thing. Those pictures do not lie. There is no arguing with them.

What people saw flying out and off the buildings were some of the primary perimeter steel support frames and the steel facade. That was not the majority of steel or anything else making up both buildings, including elevators, stairs,and escalators.

The perimeter columns were significant parts of the structures themselves, and represented a large amount of the total mass in either tower.

That dust cloud was some of the pulverized sheetrock and concrete being blown to the outside, due to decompression, with all that weight, mass and velocity from the top dropping straight down.

When is the last time you tried to shock-load something by dropping dust on it? Pulverized concrete is irrelevant to impact loading.

The rest landed straight down into the footprints in the sub-levels.

Prove it. You're the one making baseless assertions here. Show me the images that proof this.

posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 03:11 PM

Originally posted by bsbray11
I still don't even understand why in the hell you are still arguing with me about this.

well, consider the fact that he was argueing whether the acronym for the New York Fire Dept is FDNY or NYFD.

he was shown the correct one was FDNY and still wanted to argue the point.

does that answer your question?

new topics

top topics
<< 1   >>

log in