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

Originally posted by adam_zapple
It free-fell for only PART of the collapse.

And that's all she wrote...

A debunker admitting to free-fall?

You do realise that it only takes PART of the collapse to be free-fall to prove there was NO resistance, thus proving there had to be more than office fires and asymmetrical damage involved in the collapse right? Especially when the rest of the collapse was only slightly slower than free-fall.

Thanx zapple...btw did you and seymour get your names from the same place? Work in the same office maybe?

Originally posted by lycopersicum

i chose not to trust in any way shape or form

This is the great thing - you don't need to trust them.

They provide calcs that YOU can check with people that YOU trust.

The reverse can't be said about your sources.

They provide nothing that I can see.

They make a statement, and expect someone to believe them.

BTW, I still don't see very many relevant credentials, nor do I see them published.

Do you wonder why?

reply to post by Seymour Butz


do you trust anything from anyone affiliated with rockefeller??
im sure you have done plenty of research on 9/11 wright??

and i am very sure it has lead you to other discoveries true or false??



and all of garcias math wright or wrong is assuming

that the build was empty and no fire proofing was left at all on the steel

he didnt even calculate in is math the r factor of the steel and all other materials in the building (insulation,sheet rock, fire proofing ect ect ) or the ability of which all these materials can transfer heat, and at what rate
he only stated the amounts of energy that it all had

all im saying is he looks to be cherry picking and not giving all the data

to the normal unresearched person his stuff looks WOWing but he has left so manny other factors out that i have to question his material( he left out stuuf like this
gators911truth.org... www.coloradoenergy.org...
and this esa21.kennesaw.edu... and this
www.alltechinsulation.com... and this
www.inspect-ny.com...)

thats all im saying man not to mention hes been seen hangging with nelson rockefeller

but whatever its all good you believe what you believe and i believe what i believe no harm done

i just dont believe its all nice and tidy like we are lead to believe by the media

as stated before i am not a no planer just a no commercial jeter LOL
and i dont believe our government in general had anything to do with it
its way way deeper then that

just dont forget what was going on that same day in the military and fema was running drills to

i believe its the same people he is talking about really listen not just watch it really really listen
www.youtube.com...

he also told us
www.youtube.com...

as did he
www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by adam_zapple
It free-fell for only PART of the collapse.

And that's all she wrote...

A debunker admitting to free-fall?

You do realise that it only takes PART of the collapse to be free-fall to
prove there was NO resistance thus proving there had to be more than office fires and asymmetrical damage involved in the collapse right? Especially when the rest of the collapse was only slightly slower than free-fall.

If there was "no resistance", as you claim, how could ANY portion of the collapse have been slower than free fall?

From NIST: "the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions."

Originally posted by lycopersicum

1-do you trust anything from anyone affiliated with rockefeller??

2-or the ability of which all these materials can transfer heat, and at what rate
he only stated the amounts of energy that it all had

3-all im saying is he looks to be cherry picking and not giving all the data

4-thats all im saying man not to mention hes been seen hangging with nelson rockefeller

5-i just dont believe its all nice and tidy like we are lead to believe by the media

6-as stated before i am not a no planer

7-just a no commercial jeter LOL

1- I don't trust anything, from anybody, until I vet their statements from multiple sources.

2-here's the thing - while you are somewhat correct with your thermodynamic laws - you don't do these calcs either, even though you SAY that this proves everything. Nor do any of your sources. And yet you choose to believe their statements. No vetting on your part.

3- your sources give no data at all, so that anyone can check their work. Mine do.

4- you just pulled this out of thin air, didn't you? See, while those in the TM would accept this without proof - as you do with your sources - I do not. Not only that, but you give no rational, independent reason that DOESN'T rely on conspiracy theories as its proof WHY this would be bad. If you can give me some Madoff level proof of how slimy they are......

5- my tv stays tuned to CNBC, so I wouldn't know. I read.

6- thank god....

7- uh oh...

reply to post by ANOK

You said: "You do realise that it only takes PART of the collapse to be free-fall to prove there was NO resistance, thus proving there had to be more than office fires and asymmetrical damage involved in the collapse right? Especially when the rest of the collapse was only slightly slower than free-fall."

This statement makes no sense, at all. It proves neither of your claims. Are you desperate or uncertain?

Originally posted by pteridine
This statement makes no sense, at all. It proves neither of your claims. Are you desperate or uncertain?

What's with this 'you said' bit, can't you just use the sites default quote function like everyone else? Is that a jref thing?

Please explain how it doesn't make sense, just saying it means nothing.
Please provide evidence that I'm wrong. I have supplied plenty of evidence to support my point, where's yours? Otherwise your post is pointless finger pointing.

We are having a debate here, not yelling you're wrong, I'm right, like school children. Support your claims or keep your thoughts to yourself.

You are the one who appears desperate, desperate to say ANYTHING to get the last word in, even if it is irrelevant nonsense.

reply to post by ANOK


I don't use the quote function because it is easier to block copy rather than edit quotes.

Point by point on your previous statement:

"it only takes PART of the collapse to be free-fall to prove there was NO resistance" -- this is not logical because if any part of the collapse was NOT freefall then it shows that there was some resistance.

"thus proving there had to be more than office fires and asymmetrical damage involved in the collapse right? "
It doesn't prove that there had to be more because it was not freefall.

9/11, WORLD TRADE CENTER BUILDING 7:

This building was indeed blown up by prepositioned demolitions. As reported by the New York Times, Building 7 was the New York City headquarters of the CIA. Top Secret documents and media were deliberately destroyed by demolition and fire after it became apparent that the destruction of the other buildings could spread to the Central Intelligence Agency building. This was confirmed by the fact that the debris from # 7 was removed by special contractors from the site and neither police nor firemen were allowed near it. There is no mystery or conspiracy regarding #7's destruction.


DRACHENFEUER

reply to post by esdad71


1. Don't you mean why did individuals within the government wait so long to bring the WTC 7 down? I'm pretty sure my local United States Post Office, a part of the government, had nothing to do with WTC 7's collapse.

Great question. Perhaps plane number 3 was suppose to hit that building. Perhaps the perps counted on WTC 1 and 2 doing more damage to mask the CD implosion.

2. What evidence is there of explosives? I can point you to steel that has had a high temperature attack on it turning it into swiss cheese. See FEMA study. See Journal of Materials publication. I can offer video/audio recordings of explosion that sounds like a clap of thunder and firefighters standing near a phone heard stating the builidng is about to blow up.

What I can not give you is a government scientific report by FEMA, NIST, or BATF that used forensic chemical testing on steel samples to prove conclusively that no explosives were used.

Can you offer these forensic tests that show a result of no explosive residues were found in the steel samples? Let me answer that one for you:
No tests were done to prove or disprove the use of materials. Considering the unprecedented collapse of this building, this is the FIRST thing that should have been done to the steel samples. It was not. And it never will be.

I wasn't led to this conclusion via conspiracy website, mind you, but rather fire officials and FEMA:

Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members- described by one close source as a "tourist trip"-no one's checking the evidence for anything.

And to no ones surprise, the following prediction came true!

As things now stand and if they continue in such fashion, the investigation into the World Trade Center fire and collapse will amount to paper- and computer-generated hypotheticals.

Keep in mind NIST's computer-generated hypothetical did not match reality.

So you see, the very plausible and most likely cause of WTC 7 demise was via controlled demolition. The forensic evidence that has been examined by FEMA was NEVER examined by NIST. This evaporated steel points to a thermite or variant type of attack on the structure.

Until a comprehensive collection of steel samples from WTC 7 is forensically tested for explosive residue to prove one way or another, this line of inquiry and investigation remains completely valid and indeed necessary.

Now where is all that WTC 7 steel?
Fire Engineering explains quite nicely:

Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the Happyland Social Club Fire? Did they cast aside the pressure-regulating valves at the Meridian Plaza Fire? Of course not. But essentially, that's what they're doing at the World Trade Center. For more than three months, structural steel from the World Trade Center has been and continues to be cut up and sold for scrap. Crucial evidence that could answer many questions about high-rise building design practices and performance under fire conditions is on the slow boat to China, perhaps never to be seen again in America until you buy your next car.

And I might add the ability to test for explosive residues as is called for in fire related crimes.

Originally posted by pteridine
"it only takes PART of the collapse to be free-fall to prove there was NO resistance" -- this is not logical because if any part of the collapse was NOT freefall then it shows that there was some resistance.

"thus proving there had to be more than office fires and asymmetrical damage involved in the collapse right? "
It doesn't prove that there had to be more because it was not freefall.

you better inform the NIST, then, as they admit it was in freefall for 2.6 seconds.
ANOK: 1
pteridine: 0

and, to add: it was in near freefall for the entire descent.

reply to post by billybob


Even when it wasn't in free-fall, it was still really damned close, to within a small margin of error. Others have done acceleration measurements besides NIST, of course. I think NIST coming out and giving their own figure is a sort of damage control, even though they couldn't explain it, either.

reply to post by billybob


Perhaps you didn't read my post correctly. If the building was not in freefall for the entire collapse, then there must have been some resistance.

Pteridine logic 1, Billybob scorekeeping 0

Originally posted by pteridine
Perhaps you didn't read my post correctly. If the building was not in freefall for the entire collapse, then there must have been some resistance.

But so what? If there was resistance then it would not have been in free-fall AT ALL. The collapse would have slowed as the resistance accumulated as the structure fell. But we get a uniform speed all the way down with only slight differences in the speed of seconds. When it wasn't in free fall it was only slightly slower.

So really you are splitting hairs with time of the collapse. The point isn't really the speed, but the fact the collapse wave did not slow down as the resistance should have accumulated.

Originally posted by Wally Hope

Originally posted by pteridine
Perhaps you didn't read my post correctly. If the building was not in freefall for the entire collapse, then there must have been some resistance.

But so what? If there was resistance then it would not have been in free-fall AT ALL. The collapse would have slowed as the resistance accumulated as the structure fell. But we get a uniform speed all the way down with only slight differences in the speed of seconds. When it wasn't in free fall it was only slightly slower.

So really you are splitting hairs with time of the collapse. The point isn't really the speed, but the fact the collapse wave did not slow down as the resistance should have accumulated.

I was responding to Billybob. The time of collapse should start with the beginning of the penthouse collapse and many are ignoring that. "Almost freefall" is not really freefall. But, as you suggest, so what? I believe that in this case it doesn't really matter how rapidly the building collapsed.
The claim of demolition is based only on the speed of a catastrophic collapse. The question would be how can one tell the difference between one kind of catastrophic collapse and another.
As there is no physical evidence of explosives, it is only reasonable to conclude that the catastrophic collapse was not induced by demolitions.

Originally posted by adam_zapple
If there was "no resistance", as you claim, how could ANY portion of the collapse have been slower than free fall?

For one thing, air resistance is not taken into account. Remember we're talking about free-fall acceleration in a vacuum.

Someone figure out how much the building should have slowed due to air, and you're already looking at theoretical numbers that contradict what we actually witnessed.

We don't even need to try to calculate or figure in how much resistance the actual steel structure should have provided when there isn't even enough "room" in the numbers to account for drag from the air, though it is common sense that steel provides more "resistance" than air and I feel anyone who would contest that point is frankly an idiot. Everything was pushed out of the way; none of the buildings PE/KE failed it. This was a very, very coordinated demolition. There is no other way to achieve these numbers in this kind of situation.

[edit on 24-5-2009 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by esdad71
As far as shipping all the steel, this is a fallacy.

If you want to talk about logical fallacies, "why" something is done has absolutely no scientific bearing whatsoever on whether or not it was actually done. In other words "why" is not a scientifically quantifiable statement.

If you want residue, look at appendix C of the FEMA report where they show a eutectic mixture they found on the surface of columns ate holes through them, and can't explain where the compound came from. I'm assuming you know what a eutectic reaction is. If not, look it up. It's NOT a kind of corrosion that would take place over months in a smoldering lava pit, it's a reaction that takes place readily, especially with small particles like FEMA found.

If you don't WANT to see that kind of evidence, then you're not going to. That's the bottom line. You are one of those people who will never be convinced simply because you don't want to be, Esdad. It would wake you up to too much corruption in the world that you really don't want to see, and wouldn't be able to handle. Just watch what happens to this country in the next few years, that's all that concerns you.

Originally posted by pteridine
The time of collapse should start with the beginning of the penthouse collapse and many are ignoring that.

Nobody is ignoring it you're misinterpreting it. The penthouse collapse as you call it is a classic sign of controlled demolition.

When a large building is demolished the center columns are blown first, this causes the outer columns and walls to fall in toward the center instead of falling outwards. This is how they get buildings to fall into their own footprint just as 7 did.

"Almost freefall" is not really freefall. But, as you suggest, so what? I believe that in this case it doesn't really matter how rapidly the building collapsed.
The claim of demolition is based only on the speed of a catastrophic collapse. The question would be how can one tell the difference between one kind of catastrophic collapse and another.
As there is no physical evidence of explosives, it is only reasonable to conclude that the catastrophic collapse was not induced by demolitions

Almost free-fall might as well be free-fall. Do you not realize that it doesn't have to be 'free-fall' to prove it was not a natural collapse?

No building by itself is going to symmetrically globally collapse straight down into it's own footprint without help. Show me ANY building in history that fell like WTC7 by itself from fire.

How do YOU know there was no evidence of explosives? Did you go to the sight and investigate?

Again you are splitting hairs with the collapse time. Your argument is a waste of time, and you'll not convince me that the collapse time was consistent with a natural collapse. We know what the times are and they are not consistent with a natural collapse period, prove otherwise.

Blasters approach each project a little differently, but the basic idea is to think of the building as a collection of separate towers. The blasters set the explosives so that each "tower" falls toward the center of the building, in roughly the same way that they would set the explosives to topple a single structure to the side. When the explosives are detonated in the right order, the toppling towers crash against each other, and all of the rubble collects at the center of the building. Another option is to detonate the columns at the center of the building before the other columns so that the building's sides fall inward.

science.howstuffworks.com...

That is what they did to get 7 to fall straight down rather than tip to one side. Pretty simple and logical huh? More logical than office fires and asymmetrical damage and the 'penthouse collapsed'.

[edit on 24-5-2009 by Wally Hope]

reply to post by Wally Hope


You commented "Almost free-fall might as well be free-fall. Do you not realize that it doesn't have to be 'free-fall' to prove it was not a natural collapse?

No building by itself is going to symmetrically globally collapse straight down into it's own footprint without help. Show me ANY building in history that fell like WTC7 by itself from fire.

How do YOU know there was no evidence of explosives? Did you go to the sight(sic) and investigate?"

Proving that it was not a natural collapse is more complicated than timing the fall. No one knows how a building in in the situation WTC7 was in would collapse. You think you do or are merely repeating what others think would happen but the situation was without precedent and physical evidence is necessary to prove explosives.
There was no evidence of explosives reported. If you went to the site and found explosive residue, blasting caps, timers, wiring, secret plans, or other such evidence when you investigated, you should immediately take your evidence to appropriate authority. Until evidence of explosives is brought forward, we must conclude that explosives were not involved.

1. "Why did they wait so long to demo Building 7?"

Easy, because they wanted as little attention as possible. Building 7 was supposed to be the Grand Finale of the entire Shock Opera. Flight 93 was to hit it right in front of everyone, just after the North Tower fell and cleared the path. The problem came up when a pilot who didn't know the script, unexpectedly shot down Flight 93 after it had made it's turn toward Manhattan. So it took a little while for them to figure out what to do. If they dropped it right after the North Tower fell, most people would have sat back and thought "What caused that?". So they waited, the MSM ran the story once, right as it took place (when most people had grown tired of seeing the towers fall over and over and over again and turned off their TVs) and then the MSM never aired it or really spoke of it again.

(I might also add, this article put up today, might shed some light on this part of your question... )

willyloman.wordpress.com...

2. "Why didn't they find explosive residues in the dust or remains at Ground Zero?"

Even easier; they didn't look.

Each "investigation", every one of them states very clearly that they never tested for explosive residues. FEMA, The NIST Report, The NIST Report on Building 7, ... hell, even the new one done by Steven Jones... for SOME reason, no one wants to test for explosive residues in the dust or in the remains of the World Trade Centers. I don't know why, but that is why they have not found any... they never looked.

[edit on 25-5-2009 by willyloman]