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.

 

Explosives in the WTC 7 bought it down...I believe now...

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


do you really think fire got hot enough to weaken the steel beams ? and i dont think just explosives where use by them selves but fire surely didnt do it but im sure you believe it did swamp

i have read lots of ur post

show me any info anywhere on the net of a open air fir weakening steel

whatreallyhappened.com...

and it was still standing

img187.imageshack.us...

www.stylofilms.com...

www.stylofilms.com...

and for the planes damage and fire combo we no the fires where a moot point on the steel structural integrity

this is what happens to planes that tangle with steel beams.
mind you this beam is only 13,000 pounds and most of the beams at the world trade center where 30,000 or greater pounds .

if a 13,000 pound beam dropped from 80 feet can do this to a military grade B52..... Imagine what a whole 220 foot wide wall full of aluminum beams steel beams and reinforced concrete can do?

and mind you the planes wieghd roughly 300,000 pounds ..that is roughly only the weight of about 10 to 12 beams of the WTC depending on where it struck.

now lets see , 500,000 tons *2000 pounds per ton give a weight of 1,000,000,000 pounds aginst 300,000 pounds hmmm what would win that battle, better yet if i could swing an object that weighed 1,000,000,000 at 500 mile per hour and hit an object that weighed 300,000 what would happen ??

those plane didnt glide threw the WTC effortlessly like they did with out some kind of help before they struck the building .

mass is mass physics is physics

for the structural integrity of the WTC the planes where like punching a hole in a screen door there will be a hole but the screen would not crumble

the fires just burned up the people and material inside and the planes well you saw what small beams do to big planes




posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by badgerprints
 


Thanks for confirming my earlier post.

The tallest building on record of being imploded is the J.L. Hudson Department Store in Detroit, Michigan. To prep this 439 foot tall building it took...




CDI’s 12 person loading crew took twenty four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. Over 36,000 ft of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay elements were installed in CDI’s implosion initiation system, some to create the 36 primary implosion sequence and another 216 micro-delays to keep down the detonation overpressure from the 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition.


www.controlled-demolition.com...

4,118 separate charges.....36,000 feet of detonating cord....24 days.......for a 33 story building and that was after other companies had spent over three months stripping the building down to allow the necessary access to the structure for the charges.

And you think that some contractors manage to wire THREE buildings (over 3,000 feet tall added together) in a matter of days.....with no one noticing???

[edit on 13-1-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]


In response to your question. No I don't believe they demoed 3 buildings. I never asserted that I did. I haven't seen enough evidence to think that WTC 1 and 2 were dropped with explosives.

I am VERY confident that 7 was and that is why I believe that 911 was known about previously.
The dropping of a commercial building has restrictions from noise decibels to flying debris to internal material abatement and even restrictions on seismic levels. These things take a lot more precision , time and effort than just dropping a stock structure with no monitoring or legal oversight.



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by lycopersicum
 


Not entirely sure why you think the guillotine they are using on B-52s at Davis Monathan is in any way, shape or form comparable to a high speed 757 slamming into a building, but it just does not begin to compare.

Then you post an article about the 1975 fire at the North Tower. The website treats it as some super secret story that is being hidden away. One question for you......do you know what was different about the first 33 stories of the North Tower as compared to the rest of it and to the entire South Tower????



Any guesses????





The first 33 stories of the North Tower had durable asbestos fireproofing applied to the structural steel. The rest of the North Tower and all of the South Tower had a less durable, non asbestos coating. One that we know was brittle and had crumbled away completely in many areas, on Sept. 11, 2001 it failed miserably. The 1975 fire was confined to an area of the North Tower with the asbestos coating, it did its job and protected the steel.

Which does bring me to another point, if you seem to think that fires normally cannot get hot enough to endanger structural steel...then WHY do they apply fireproof coatings to it????



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by badgerprints
 





These things take a lot more precision , time and effort than just dropping a stock structure with no monitoring or legal oversight.


It will still take weeks of prep work to be able to get to the structure for demolition charge placement. Absolutely no way to do it without someone noticing that the walls of their offices are gone.



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


True in normal life but 911 was not normal.

Things can be sped up and steps can be worked around.
There is no problem in having larger charges at fewer intervals do the same thing as many smaller ones. You just need to have fewer legal restrictions.
While we are at it, your logic is based upon the work methods of professional crews that use high explosives on a regular basis to get a certain job done within a specific budget under strict rules. Safety is of the highest importance for them. Safety takes time.

What we are talking about is based upon the idea of prior knowledge of an extremely evil act on a massive scale. The money made on the collapse of WTC7 was enormous.

A good crew with no morals and huge financial incentive would have had no problem pulling off #7. They just needed all of the rules and restrictions removed and the right number of "rea$ons" to get the job done.



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


the fire proofing would have only effected the floors and steel near impact

but regardless swampfox the fires never reached anywhere near the temp needed to be of any effect 1750 is 250 degrees shy of 2000 degrees and we all know by now 2750 degrees was needed to melt any steel that day thats a 1000 degrees differance

the steel was rated to burn at for 2 hours at that temp (2000) BEFORE it even begun to be effectted remember there was a 5 to one ration on the steels load ratio

it could handle 5 time more than needed it was over engineered for a reason

and the beam dropping on the B52 if u really have to ask

was shown to show what a little 13,000 pound beam can do to a plane roughly the same size and wieght

and do u really think speed affected the wieght ratio of the building to plane

300,000 pounds vs 1,000,000,000 pound(thats billion pounds man)

come on dude get real if i was flying threw the air at 500 mile perhour and hit a tree of lets say 3 foot diameter would i go threw it no, i wouldnt

just like a bullet traveling 4500 feet per second cant go threw 3 inch plate

speed is realative to mass also

no matter how fast the plane was going in never could have cut threw the steel with ease like it did with out some other source of energy

it just didnt have enough mass, mass is mass phyisics is phyisics neither you nor I nor george bush or osama beladen can change that fact

steel owns aluminum in ever way shape or form man and dispute that is just ignoreing fact and yeas its a matter of fact not opinion

that beam was free falling and barely even slows down and it wieghed only 13,000 pounds
most WTC beams where 30,000 pounds thats 1 tenth the weight of the plane 1/10 (10 to 15 beams weighed what the plane did you do realize that right)

and the plane to building is 1/3333 do u get it now dude just read the physical facts

a 1/3333 ratio is nothing like i said it was like punching a whole in a screen

i dont care what happened how it happened the fact remains newtons 1st law is newtons 1st law newtons 2 law is newtons second law newtons 3rd law is newtons 3rd law thermodynamics is thermodynamics physics is physics
mass is mass we cant change the rules can we

oh yeah and the steel was 110,000 psi steel you would need 15,840,000 psi to just remove a 12 inch by 12 inch section all at once much less a whole cartoon cut out of a plane

and the wings could have never generated that much energy







[edit on 13-1-2009 by lycopersicum]



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 10:49 PM
link   
You know one thing that gets me is when you look at the OKC Murrah federal building that took one heck of a blast. Now supposedly the Murrah building had some building feature where as one large long beam was holding up the entire facade and front part of the building and that this was the reason why the truck bomb was able to do so much damage(Im sure we have all seen).

Still though the entire building didn't collapse, even though many columns and the entire front of the building was demoed.

Compare this with the known damage to WTC7 and to the layman it pales in comparison. Yet ultimately we're told column 79 brought down the entire 47 story building(basically).

A close family member is a retired construction guy who built bridges and buildings in the DC area for 30 years, he could care less about 9/11 but I asked him anyways what he thought about the fact that these guys were claiming that basically one key column brought down a 47 story building and showed him a quick vid of the collapse , he laughed and said he didnt believe me told me later on that one "key" column could never bring down a 47 story building like that.

Ehh , just food for thought I guess.

So I dont know if explosives brought down WTC7 but without any pictures of damage to the building and a story that one column actually caused the collapse I think Ill wait to see what happens next.



posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by The All Seeing I
 


You know I am trying another approach to try to understand why you guys believe the demolition. All I am asking for is some evidence and there are not lame questions but I am getting lame answers and a few good ones.

Please tell me why there is no 'physical' evidence? If not, please go hijack another post with insults unless you can take them yourself and not whine.

Also, NONE of the buildings fell at free fall speeds.

griff, I think part of the investigation was wrong but there was access to 1000's of tons of material. There are pictures of them since they were used in the NIST reporting. I think that there should be better code in place and it showed in the new WTC 7 building using recommendations bought forth by the 9/11 commission.

[edit on 13-1-2009 by esdad71]



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 01:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
A "textbook" demolition, does not damage surrounding buildings.


BS, for one no one is saying it was a 'text-book' demolition, and do you know what percentage of controlled demolitions are 'text-book' and work 100% as planned? Do you? Maybe you should research it before making unsubstantiated claims?

If you think this is not in its footprint you need to make adjustments to either your monitor, glasses, or brain....



Why do you demand everything to be 100%? That is totally unreasonable. And why have you not finished our discussion about greenings paper you offered up and ran away from when challenged? Do you understand his maths, or not? I just want you to explain it for us, seeing as you offered it up as genuine evidence. Or are you really not interested in questioning anything, just perpetuating the lies?



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 01:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
Also, NONE of the buildings fell at free fall speeds.


This is another straw man. You should know by now no one has EVER said they fell at 'free-fall'. It has always been known, since NIST themselves calculated the fall times, that they did in fact fall NEAR, CLOSE, ALMOST, MAY AS WELL HAVE BEEN free-fall acceleration.

Your arguments are like 4 years old, can't you find some actual new FACTS to debate for a change? Yours, and the others here, constant bleeping of the same old tired BS is getting so old. Stop the spinning I'm getting dizzy in here.

[edit on 1/14/2009 by ANOK]



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 01:53 AM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 


Please tell me why there is no 'physical' evidence?


Who said there was no physical evidence? There has been scientific evidences found that proves thermite and thermate were found on the steel. A University did a private investigation, and the government has done everything in their power to ignore, Jones, and David Griffin finding, which proves the government is lying.
These people used “science” and proved NIST, and FEMA, and 911 Commission are lairs.
Your statement that there are no physical evidences shows you have not done very much research in to 911. Before you comment on these two articles, I would suggest you read them first. Then I will be happy to discuss it with you. One must have an “open” mind if you want to get to the truth.


Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely
Collapse?
By Dr. Steven E. Jones
Physicist and Archaeometrist
The views in this paper are the sole responsibility of the author.
The paper has undergone significant modifications following an additional set of peer reviews
organized by Journal of 9/11 Studies Editor Kevin Ryan.
An earlier version is now published in a volume edited by David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale
Scott, 9/11 And The American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out, Northhampton, MA: Interlink
Publishing, 2006. It is published here by kind permission of the editors. One of the editors
(Prof. Griffin) has explained that there were four reviewers for my paper, all Ph.D’s, two were
physicists. To clarify some apparent confusion: the paper is not published in “The Hidden History
of 9-11-2001,” Elsevier, 2006, although that volume does contain a number of relevant articles.

In this paper, I call for a serious investigation of the hypothesis that WTC 7 and the
Twin Towers were brought down, not just by impact damage and fires, but through the use
of pre-positioned cutter-charges. I consider the official FEMA, NIST, and 9-11
Commission reports that fires plus impact damage alone caused complete collapses of all
three buildings. And I present evidence for the controlled-demolition hypothesis, which is
suggested by the available data, and can be tested scientifically, and yet has not been
analyzed in any of the reports funded by the US government.


www.journalof911studies.com...



The Destruction of the World Trade Center:
Why the Official Account Cannot Be True
Shortly after 9/11, President Bush advised people not to tolerate “outrageous conspiracy theories about the attacks of 11

An outrageous theory would be one that is contradicted by virtually all the relevant facts.

The towers, however, were designed to withstand the impact of airliners about the same size as Boeing 767s. [5] Hyman Brown, the construction manager of the Twin Towers, said: “They were over-designed to withstand almost anything, including hurricanes, . . . bombings and an airplane hitting [them]” (Bollyn, 2001). And even Thomas Eagar, an MIT professor of materials engineering who supports the official theory, says that the impact of the airplanes would not have been significant, because “the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure” (Eagar and Musso, 2001, pp. 8-11). Likewise, the NIST Report, in discussing how the impact of the planes contributed to the collapse, focuses primarily on the claim that the planes dislodged a lot of the fire-proofing from the steel. [6]
The official theory of the collapse, therefore, is essentially a fire theory, so it cannot be emphasized too much that fire has never caused large steel-frame buildings to collapse---never, whether before 9/11, or after 9/11, or anywhere in the world on 9/1

[edit on 14-1-2009 by Gonenuts]



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 02:56 AM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 



Review of
'A New Standard For Deception:
The NIST WTC Report'
A Presentation by Kevin Ryan

911research.wtc7.net...


Building a Better Mirage
NIST's 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up
of the Crime of the Century


911research.wtc7.net...

Here are more important findings, that you should read that will help you understand why so many people are not dupe in to NIST phony science.
video.google.com...




[edit on 14-1-2009 by Gonenuts]



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 03:18 AM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 


The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and
Nano-Thermites
Kevin R. Ryan, 7-02-08
“Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? … NIST did not test for the
residue of these compounds in the steel.”
NIST Responses to FAQs, August 2006

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has had considerable
difficulty determining a politically correct sequence of events for the unprecedented
destruction of three World Trade Center (WTC) buildings on 9/11 (Douglas 2006, Ryan
2006, Gourley 2007). But despite a number of variations in NIST’s story, it never
considered explosives or pyrotechnic materials in any of its hypotheses. This omission is
at odds with several other striking facts; first, the requirement of the national standard for
fire investigation (NFPA 921), which calls for testing related to thermite and other
pyrotechnics, and second, the extensive experience NIST investigators have with
explosive and thermite materials.
One of the most intriguing aspects of NIST’s diversionary posture has been their total
lack of interest in explosive or pyrotechnic features in their explanations. Despite the
substantial evidence for the use of explosives at the WTC (Jones 2006, Legge and
Szamboti 2007), and the extensive expertise in explosives among NIST investigators
(Ryan 2007), explosives were never considered in the NIST WTC investigation. Only
after considerable criticism of this fact did NIST deign to add one small disclaimer to
their final report on the towers, suggesting they found no evidence for explosives

These inexplicable fires are a reminder that the WTC buildings were not simply
demolished, but were demolished in a deceptive way. That is, the buildings were brought
down so as to make it look like the impact of the planes and the resulting fires might have
caused their unprecedented, symmetrical destruction. Therefore, shaped charges and
other typical explosive configurations were likely used, but there was more to it than that.
Those committing the crimes needed to create fire where it would not have existed
otherwise, and draw attention toward the part of the buildings where the planes impacted
(or in the case of WTC 7, away from the building altogether).

This was most probably accomplished through the use of nano-thermites, which are hightech
energetic materials made by mixing ultra fine grain (UFG) aluminum and UFG
metal oxides; usually iron oxide, molybdenum oxide or copper oxide, although other
compounds can be used (Prakash 2005, Rai 2005). The mixing is accomplished by
adding these reactants to a liquid solution where they form what are called “sols”, and
then adding a gelling agent that captures these tiny reactive combinations in their
intimately mixed state (LLNL 2000). The resulting “sol-gel” is then dried to form a
porous reactive material that can be ignited in a number of ways.
The high surface area of the reactants within energetic sol-gels allows for the far higher
rate of energy release than is seen in “macro” thermite mixtures, making nano-thermites
“high explosives” as well as pyrotechnic materials (Tillitson et al 1999). Sol-gel nanothermites,
are often called energetic nanocomposites, metastable intermolecular
composites (MICs) or superthermite (COEM 2004, Son et al 2007), and silica is often
used to create the porous, structural framework (Clapsaddle et al 2004, Zhao et al 2004).
Nano-thermites have also been made with RDX (Pivkina et al 2004), and with
thermoplastic elastomers (Diaz et al 2003). But it is important to remember that, despite
the name, nano-thermites pack a much bigger punch than typical thermite materials.
It turns out that explosive, sol-gel nano-thermites were developed by US government
scientists, at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories (LLNL) (Tillitson et al 1998,
Gash et al 2000, Gash et al 2002). These LLNL scientists reported that --
“The sol-gel process is very amenable to dip-, spin-, and spray-coating
technologies to coat surfaces. We have utilized this property to dip-coat various
substrates to make sol-gel Fe,O,/ Al / Viton coatings. The energetic coating dries
to give a nice adherent film. Preliminary experiments indicate that films of the
hybrid material are self-propagating when ignited by thermal stimulus”
(Gash et al 2002).
The amazing correlation between floors of impact and floors of apparent failure suggests

Regardless of how thermite materials were installed in the WTC, it is strange that NIST
has been so blind to any such possibility. In fact, when reading NIST’s reports on the
WTC, and its periodic responses to FAQs from the public, one might get the idea that no
one in the NIST organization had ever heard of nano-thermites before. But the truth is,
many of the scientists and organizations involved in the NIST WTC investigation were

not only well aware of nano-thermites, they actually had considerable connection to, and
in some cases expertise in, this exact technology.
Here are the top ten reasons why nano-thermites, and nano-thermite coatings, should
have come to mind quickly for the NIST WTC investigators.
Forman Williams, the lead engineer on NIST’s advisory committee, and the most
prominent engineering expert for Popular Mechanics, is an expert on the
deflagration of energetic materials and the “ignition of porous energetic
materials”(Margolis and Williams 1996, Telengator et al 1998, Margolis and
Williams 1999). Nano-thermites are porous energetic materials. Additionally,
Williams’ research partner, Stephen Margolis, has presented at conferences where
nano-energetics are the focus (Gordon 1999). Some of Williams’ other
colleagues at the University of California San Diego, like David J. Benson, are
also experts on nano-thermite materials (Choi et al 2005, Jordan et al 2007).
3. Science Applications International (SAIC) is the DOD and Homeland Security
contractor that supplied the largest contingent of non-governmental investigators
to the NIST WTC investigation. SAIC has extensive links to nano-thermites,
developing and judging nano-thermite research proposals for the military and
other military contractors, and developing and formulating nano-thermites
directly (Army 2008, DOD 2007). SAIC’s subsidiary Applied Ordnance
Technology has done research on the ignition of nanothermites with lasers
(Howard et al 2005).

In any case, it is important for those seeking the truth about 9/11 to consider what
organizations and people had access to the technologies that were used to accomplish the
deceptive demolition of the WTC buildings. It is also important to recognize the links
between those who had access to the technologies, those who had access to the buildings,
and those who produced the clearly false official reports.
To that end we should note that NIST had considerable connections to nano-thermites,
both before and during the WTC investigation. It is therefore inexplicable why NIST did
not consider such materials as an explanation for the fires that burned on 9/11, and long
afterward at Ground Zero. This fact would not be inexplicable, of course, if those
managing the NIST investigation knew to not look, or test, for such materials


journalof911studies.com...

This is another good article to read and it explains why NIST did not look in to nano-thermites, yet the investigators for NIST where experts in this field. They where hired to explain everything but the truth.



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 03:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gonenuts
Your statement that there are no physical evidences shows you have not done very much research in to 911.


With esdad it's more like he just ignores anything that doesn't fit the 'official story'.

He knows all the 911myths type responses, which he parrots again and again regardless of any counter argument.

I mean he still thinks we believe the buildings fell at free-fall-speed, and he still thinks it's a relevant argument.

Esdad has been around long enough to know the arguments of both sides inside out, and he uses that to throw straw man arguments around. You get nowhere debating him, her, it...

(pretty much goes for most of our resident debunkers who have been around a lot longer than their present accounts would suggest)



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 07:42 AM
link   

posted by esdad71
Really? How do you know there was nothing? NIST did not bother to test for explosives did they? Real scientists were not allowed access to the towers or WTC7 were they? Firefighters were immediately gag-ordered weren't they? They could not ship the steel out of country fast enough could they? Baby Bush blocked an investigation for a long time didn't he?


posted by esdad71
First, Three researchers at NIST have been awarded Nobel Prizes for their work in physics, William D. Phillips in 1997, Eric A. Cornell in 2001 and John L. Hall in 2005 to name a few.



So your three researchers sold their souls for a few crumbs from the master's table. Seems kind of foolish doesn't it; building up such fine reputations and then throwing them away in a shoddy 10,000 page report which they are already backing down from? What do you think of this PhD former NIST researcher James Quintiere who is demanding that NIST be investigated? This guy is a true fire science and safety expert; not an idiot like NIST 'top scientist' John Gross who cannot even get his math right. Why would Quintiere be demanding a peer review of the NIST 7 year 10.000 page report if he did not think it was filled with BS?

Your silly denial that most of the steel from the WTC was quickly shipped out of country does not make it so; and Bush not only blocked investigations into 9-11, he stacked the 9-11 Whitewash Committee with a bunch of corrupt insider political hacks, and he has continuously blocked further investigations into 9-11 for the past seven years. If it was not for the private investigating citizen groups, we would have no investigation into 9-11 at all would we? The corrupt completely bought and paid for Mainstream News Media are certainly not carrying the ball are they? They completely betrayed the American people a long time ago.


James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has called for an independent review of NIST's investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11.

"I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable," explained Dr. Quintiere. "Let's look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Towers and how that relates to the official cause and what's the significance of one cause versus another."

Dr. Quintiere, one of the world's leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, also encouraged his audience of fellow researchers and engineers to scientifically re-examine the WTC collapses. "I hope to convince you to perhaps become 'Conspiracy Theorists', but in a proper way," he said.

In his hour-long presentation, Dr. Quintiere discussed many elements of NIST's investigation that he found problematic. He emphasized, "In every investigation I've taken part in, the key has been to establish a timeline. And the timeline is established by witness accounts, by information from alarm systems, by any video that you might have of the event, and then by calculations. And you try to put all of this together. And if your calculations are consistent with some of these hard facts, then perhaps you can have some comfort in the results of your calculations. I have not seen a timeline placed in the NIST report."

www.ae911truth.org...



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Where is the evidence that there was enough damage, and the fires were hot enough, to cause a 48 story building to fall symmetrically, through the path of most resistance, into its own footprint?


I'm curious about this statement...specifically your mention of the "path of most resistance".

- What is the "path of most resistance" as it relates to this instance?

- What would be the "path of LEAST resistance"?



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
It will still take weeks of prep work to be able to get to the structure for demolition charge placement. Absolutely no way to do it without someone noticing that the walls of their offices are gone.


If you think gypsum wall board can't be cut away and repaired within one given night, then you are highly mistaken my friend. I do it all the time in my line of work.



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
Also, NONE of the buildings fell at free fall speeds.


According to NIST, WTC 7 fell at free fall acceleration for approximately 2.5 seconds.

www.abovetopsecret.com...'

[edit on 1/14/2009 by Griff]



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by adam_zapple
 


Least resistance = Top floors fall to ground and leaves rest of building standing.

Most resistance = Top floors slam straight down through the rest of the building structure.



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by UKWO1Phot
reply to post by adam_zapple
 


Least resistance = Top floors fall to ground and leaves rest of building standing.


How could this take place if the rest of the building was beneath these top floors?


Originally posted by UKWO1Phot
Most resistance = Top floors slam straight down through the rest of the building structure.


So the resistance you refer to is the resistance encountered by the object which slows its gravitational acceleration?



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join