Need Unequivocal Evidence of WTC7 Demolition

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 06:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by KMFNWO
Seriously OP.

All kidding aside. You better come to your own conclusion and get focussed. Stop seeking others approval and go with what you believe.

Understand that this is a war. I know that sounds extreme but we are already taking casualties and it is time to stop pussy footing around and accept what is happening around you.

Don't just look at a single event. Take in the whole picture and you will see how it is all coming together.

With regards to your friends. State your case, look for a glimmer of cognitive thought then move on. Time is short and the work is plentiful.

Ask that God lead guide and direct you and you will do fine.

I'm already doing just that. Whilst 9/11 is an event that shouldn't be forgotten, given everything that has happened since then, the focus needs to be on prosecutions. The way everything unfolded immediately after 9/11 is totally suspect, and I doubt it was purely opportunistic.

I keep asking myself: what if this had occurred mid-term in the Presidency, or in the latter part of his second term in office?

[edit on 23-6-2008 by mirageofdeceit]




posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

I'm not even going to argue about this with you, because to pretend that you are qualified enough to know what numbers are realistic is a joke. Analyzing a collapsing building requires dynamic analysis above and beyond even what structural engineers are required to know, and you sure as hell don't know anything about it.


LOL, like you know anything.

Continue with your irrational beliefs all you want.

The fact is, these things CAN be modelled. Some troofers have evn done this very thing, and have come up with results that say nothing is "fishy" about the collapse speed.

Guess what? Buildings can also be backwards engineered to a high degree of accuracy, since building codes are a known element. To date, I'm not aware of any real result from anyone. Now, if troofers were REALLY so bent on the truth, someone would have done it by now, but they haven't.

And that's because the whole "truth" movement has nothing to do with any truth. It's all about the various political beliefs of those involved in it. Some from the extreme left, some from the extreme right. Notice a common theme there ? Extreme. Not rational. Not open minded. Not neutral. Extreme.

Nobody from those extremes is interested in any truth at all. They're only interested in some sick form of self reinforcement to their extreme views.



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 


What about the molten metal in the basement, weeks after 9/11, and that fact that there are precious few processes known (thermite combustion being one, but not the only one) that could have achieved such a remarkable result? What about the fact that a hydrocarbon (jet fuel, office equipment and furnishings, and construction materials)-fueled fire could, at most, burn at only half the temperature required to melt steel, and that UL's own tests indicated that, at most, the steel exposed to such temperatures would have buckled a mere three inches, and absolutely would not have melted as a consequence of the fire? What about the fact that even NIST admits that the floors did not pancake (so long Keith Seffen?)

I have no idea what caused the collapse of these three buildings on 9/11. The point is, if you're defending the NIST findings, neither do you.

Thanks, Bsbray11, for your efforts.



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 04:37 PM
link   
There is the whole truth and then there's the truth. The whole is how we end a story, but this one has barely begun! Steel does not factually or truthfully, melt with Jet fuel and
90 floors that were below the fire, all steel, can not fall because of a Jet fuel fire in a floor above. And a molten mass does not continue to burn for along time under the dust
that is left, cuz Jet fuel does not survive an 8 second supernatural free fall and linger
underground, so hot it is seen from space on infrared pictures. There must be mass delusion by so-called celebs as we always suspected!



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
LOL, like you know anything.

Continue with your irrational beliefs all you want.

The fact is, these things CAN be modelled. Some troofers have evn done this very thing, and have come up with results that say nothing is "fishy" about the collapse speed.


Have any links or evidence of "troofers" modeling and finding "nothing is fishy"? Personally I have never heard of this before, especially since NIST couldn't model the collapse, they ran their model to the point where they claim the global collapse initiated.



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by PplVSNWO

Have any links or evidence of "troofers" modeling and finding "nothing is fishy"? Personally I have never heard of this before, especially since NIST couldn't model the collapse, they ran their model to the point where they claim the global collapse initiated.


This guy has written a few papers and published them on S Jones' website. The last one is the one you asked for.

www.cool-places.0catch.com...

www.cool-places.0catch.com...

www.cool-places.0catch.com...



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 

Thats amazing, freefall speed would be 9.2 seconds and one of the towers is quoted as falling in 9 seconds on bith the NIST report and the paper you cite.

Talk about posting evidence without reveiwing it.



posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz


LOL, like you know anything.

Continue with your irrational beliefs all you want.

The fact is, these things CAN be modelled. Some troofers have evn done this very thing, and have come up with results that say nothing is "fishy" about the collapse speed.



yes, where are these models. where are the models of the pentagon, and all three buildings collapse. so far the only thing i have seen is the pentagon and in that model several importants structures were 'forgotten' and thusly left out of the equation.



posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 12:39 AM
link   
NIST report that discusses the fall speed:

wtc.nist.gov...



6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).

As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:

“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”

In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.



posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 01:23 AM
link   
reply to post by gavron
 


but there is no "pile driver" on top. you can clearly see the tops of the buildings almost completely break before the buildings start to fall. can someone post a video showing the huge building mass that pushed down the rest of the buliding at free fall speed? and can anyone else explain how, by there own theory, a large mass falling onto HUGE mass, has enough momentum, strength, force, whatever to completely negate resistance. especially the resistance of about 100 floors of building? just curious thanks.



posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 05:42 AM
link   
reply to post by gavron
 


Please don't use the NIST report as factual evidence. As a thread has pointed out, it is not peer reviewed and is also full of contradictions. For analysis on WTC7 collapse acceleration, there is a thread titled "911 - World Trade fell at free fall speed!!". See video posted by billybob on page 4.
Isolated fires as shown by -sorry, mistakenly thought I was replying to the Massive Fires thread- cause a steel framed building to collapse symmetrically at or anywhere near freefall. Nobody has yet to provide one example of a steel framed hi-rise globally collapsing from fire.

[edit on 24-7-2008 by PplVSNWO]



posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

Thats amazing, freefall speed would be 9.2 seconds and one of the towers is quoted as falling in 9 seconds on bith the NIST report and the paper you cite.

Talk about posting evidence without reveiwing it.


Pot, meet kettle....

Here's the 1st paragraph from the last link. Even this troofer estimates a range of 12-15 seconds. [SNIP]

Introduction
First and foremost, the towers did not fall at freefall speeds. The theoretical time required for an
object to fall from the top of WTC1 to ground level in a perfect vacuum is 9.22 seconds. Many
estimates have been presented as the observed time of WTC1 based on seismic and video analysis.
The range of these estimates is between 12-15 seconds (see Table 1). Given the lower range, it might
be reasonable to say that the tower fell at near freefall speed, but is this really meaningful?

Mod Edit: Civility and Decorum are Required


[edit on 24-7-2008 by Gemwolf]



posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 01:07 PM
link   
The post gavron made above you cites 9 seconds and 11 seconds.

You call me twoofer, you call me son, you post citing minimal sources and out of context frequently.

Its like if George Bush said "I never said that I hate blacks, in fact I still believe that diversity is one of Americas strongest assets."

and someone says "I hate blacks" - G.W. Bush.

Its a good tactic to get attention but it doesent work on me.

So the NIST report says they fell at slightly greater than freefall speeds (even tho it says 9 seconds), and claims that there was minimal resistance. The report never got to the point of how minimal resistance came to be, they only bother doing the math up to the inititation of the collapse. The pancake theory is dead. The fema report says:

"There is only a minimal probability of [our] hypothesis being true" in regards to the WTC7 collapse. The NIST report is incomplete.



posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


Read the NIST snippet again. You're wrong.

It says that the exterior panels fell - through the air - in 9 and 11 seconds. They are indeed in freefall, right?

The paper I cited estimates a 12-15 second fall time for the building.

So about 40% slower than freefall.

That's a huge difference. You need to get your head around this fact.



posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 01:49 PM
link   
....lately I have seen people responding about the WTC 7 demolition like this: "They planeted the explosives and charges as the fire burned and ragged!"


My god, is this what people think?


As for the Proof positive evidence that the building was doomed by foresight, I always like the BBC reporting the Solomon builiding collapse 20 minutes before it actually happened!!!

Such clairvoyance BBC has!!!



posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos.



posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
I'm looking for irrefutable evidence that shows the WTC7 couldn't have collapsed randomly at the time it did.
[edit on 21-6-2008 by mirageofdeceit]


The Irreducible delusion in your OP is contained within this one line. You're asking others to prove a negative.

In fact, the collapse of the WTCs was not at all random, nor unforeseen.

[edit on 26-7-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]



posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


This assertion is incorrect. None of the buildings collapsed at near freefall speed. This assertion has been rehashed for (literally) almost seven years with nothing new being brought forth. This claim can be made as many times as someone might care to but, it doesn't make the claim correct.

Here is the last detailed analysis I am aware of. It was updated in 2006.

Energy Transfer in the WTC Collapse

[edit on 26-7-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]



posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar
 


However in science once something stands the test of time it becomes a law. For example water doesen't evaporate without a sufficient energy source. e.g. skyscrapers don't fall down without a sufficient energy source.

The debate becomes relevant in this case when we question if the outside energy sources were sufficient to bring down a skyscraper.

If you can prove the energy source was insufficient you can prove mirages hypothesis.



posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


There is no need to go any further. The assertion that the buildings fell at free fall speed is incorrect.

Your original assertion concerned "free fall" speeds, not the amount of energy required to initiate a global collapse.


[edit on 26-7-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]





new topics
top topics
 
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join