NIST Officially Admits Freefall Speed re:WTC 7!!, page 7
Pages: <<  4    5    6    7    8    9    10  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 121 times


reply posted on 12-12-2008 @ 01:32 PM by ashamedamerican
reply to post by IconoclasticTalamasca



It was WTC #7

That's it standing right behind her as she says it has collapsed.


reply posted on 12-12-2008 @ 03:12 PM by Supes
Here's my observations on this. From what I was told in my fire science classes, steel begins to lose integrity at 600f and begins to flow at 1200. In watching the towers fall, what I noticed was the areas above the impact fell through the damaged areas and continued downward through the building. Typically, demo'd buildings fall from the bottom and all the way up the structure. If you look at the videos, this didn't happen.

Think about the mass of all those floors above the impact and all fairly structurally sound. The fires weaken the structure in the damaged areas to the point of failure. The intact portions above fall through the weakened sections gaining momentum, as they hit the areas below the damage, their momentum carries them through, taking the floors below along for the ride, gaining speed and mass. Earlier in the thread someone mentioned the speed of collapse was 94% of free fall, not sure if that's fact, but thats not free fall.

Watch the videos again and notice how the dust and debris is ejected as the section above the impact falls through the building. To me it's indicative of the upper section falling through the building and not a demolition which would have the debris coming from the bottom of the building.

While I don't deny that it all smells fishy, I think the devastation was far beyond the planner's wildest dreams. I bet they would have settled on fire damage and a few hundred lives lost.



reply posted on 12-12-2008 @ 04:33 PM by Supes
reply to post by ashamedamerican



I wasn't trying to come of as a self styled expert or anything, I was just posting my observations

The problem I have is that both sides have used "science" and "experts" to "prove" their claims.

All I know is what I saw, and what I saw was reminiscent of demolitions, but not exactly like the others I have seen as the towers didn't fall from the bottom.

Either way, the only real evidence we have is what we have seen, and if what you saw was a building razed by explosive charges, then that is what you saw. I didn't perform or see reports of trace studies looking for evidence of explosives, so I based my post on what I saw.


reply posted on 12-12-2008 @ 04:57 PM by cashlink
reply to post by Supes



All the science that is being used to support the Official Story, has already been proven false to begin with. None of the Official Story is true, it is “all” a lie it was built on lies, that is why it cannot stand up to real science.


reply posted on 12-12-2008 @ 06:56 PM by thedman

So could it not have been possible for a terrorist to plant a bomb in the basement? Osama himself was amazed that the twin towers fell down. The plot was to take out as many people as possible, so a bomb in another area of the building could also have been part of the plot


Seem to forget that that was done 8 1/2 before 9-11 or do you ignore
that too.

1500 lb truck bomb planted in parking garage near some of the support
columns - blew 100 ft crater through 6 levels in the basement. Buildings
survived - some of my friends worked in WTC then. Told of hearing
thump and feeling building move.

en.wikipedia.org...

Picture of crater



In order for explosives to be effective would have had to wrap explosives
arounf support columns and also torch cut the columns to weaken them

Just one problem - unlike demolition site WTC WAS OCCUPIED! (98%
occupancy). All the columns unlike a demolition are covered in layers
of sheet rock behind furniture. Now explain how one moves the furniture,
cuts into the sheet rock (ever cut piece of sheet rock? Leaves hell of a
lot of dust everywhere), place explosives, repair hole/paint hole, replace
furniture and clean up mess- all in a few hours and not have anyone notice it?


reply posted on 12-12-2008 @ 07:40 PM by ashamedamerican
Originally posted by thedman
Geez you recite all the idiotic conspiracy theories quite well - been practicing?

Maybe should read this - answers your questions


No I've been researching which I would suggest you do too.

The engine that was found 3 blocks from the towers was either a CFM-56 or a CF-6, it's tough to tell because the two engines are very similar.

The problem with this is that those are both General Electric engines and United Airlines doesn't use GE engines on it's 767's, they use Pratt & Whitney engines. Pratt & Whitney will service a CFM-56 but it is still made by GE.

So whoever planted the engines, planted the wrong engines.
But you would know that if you had researched this and not just used Google.

By the way this thread isn't about the towers, or the engines found at the towers, it's about the NIST report on WTC 7.


reply posted on 12-12-2008 @ 07:48 PM by billybob
reply to post by star in a jar



maybe you accidently clicked the mouse button while you were reading his post. a spontaneous "ignore user?" window sounds like a pretty lame thing to do if you've bothered to hack into the system.
Pages: <<  4    5    6    7    8    9    10  >>    ^^TOP^^



9-11 lecture at Basel University, Switzerland.
  Posted 13 days ago with 14 member flags
9/11 Actors re-visited
  Posted 6 days ago with 12 member flags
Wikipedia categorizes 9/11 truth as \'denialism\'
  Posted 17 days ago with 11 member flags
Building Collapses in Rio
  Posted 14 days ago with 6 member flags
new film "Human the film (2012)" covers all the bases and more!
  Posted 8 days ago with 6 member flags

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:

Anonymous hacks CIA
  Breaking Alternative News, Posted 13 hours ago, 108 replies
Free Psychic Readings
  General Chit Chat, Posted 9 hours ago, 88 replies
Hollow Earth Theory New Evidence.
  General Conspiracies, Posted 8 hours ago, 61 replies
Free will
  Philosophy and Metaphysics, Posted 11 hours ago, 48 replies