Trust Your Eyes , New AE vid . N Tower

reply to post by K J Gunderson


Again, not only using more insulting and inflammatory language, you still accuse me by 'paraphrasing' and stating, incorrectly, something I did NOT directly write!

Look spinner, You are defending your stance about the penthouse pulling the top down.

I will not engage you in the thread any longer. It will be for all who read this later to decide.

MY opinion is quite clear, and what I fear, here, is a blatant attempt to incite me to get a warning.

You will not succeed.

Good. Day.

I said, "Good. Day."

Take your argumentative style elsewhere, try it on someone else.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

It looks, to me, as if the central, INTERNAL supporting structure gave way first, and the WEIGHT from above, which was the top floor (and Penthouse portion) and likely several floors beneath began to fall at about the same time.

Since I assumed most people realize that floors in a building are usually attached to the outer walls, it stands to reason to think that a heavy portion, unsupported from below, would start down, thus PULLING on the outside supporting walls.

Do you mind if I do some repair work on your 1st sentence above?

According to NIST, after being forced to correct their stupid error by a high school physics teacher (Jeff Chandler),

It looks, to me, as if the central, INTERNAL supporting structure gave way first, and the WEIGHT from above, which was the top floor (and Penthouse portion) and likely several floors beneath began to fall

for eight floors at freefall speed, with the resistance totally removed below,

at about the same time.

This is what we see in the videos weedwhacker; the penthouse collapsing on the roof when internal supports are removed by demolition, and then the entire building falling straight down for eight floors in freefall (2.25 seconds) as approximately 8 floors are removed by demolition, and then the remaining 39 floors slowing in their collapse as they continue through the path of most resistance.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3abd8190fbe1.jpg[/atsimg]

[edit on 3/4/10 by SPreston]

reply to post by SPreston


SPreston, it just dawned on me that I was lured into a discussion about WTC 7, by K J Gunderson.

THAT little snippet of my quote, in your post above, refers to THAT building only, and MY opinion and impressions of THAT building's colapse, from another thread.

Sorry, but your response to it is irrelevant, in context.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

Again, not only using more insulting and inflammatory language, you still accuse me by 'paraphrasing' and stating, incorrectly, something I did NOT directly write!

Look spinner, You are defending your stance about the penthouse pulling the top down.

I will not engage you in the thread any longer. It will be for all who read this later to decide.

MY opinion is quite clear, and what I fear, here, is a blatant attempt to incite me to get a warning.

You will not succeed.

Good. Day.

I said, "Good. Day."

Take your argumentative style elsewhere, try it on someone else.

LOL. You refuse to address me because I clearly pointed out a direct contradiction. Why is it so hard to just admit? Weedwhacker, it is there in print for all to read. Getting upset with me does not make it go away.

You said that the penthouse pulled the building down.

You then called me a liar for reminding you that you said it.

Deal with it.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by SPreston

 

SPreston, it just dawned on me that I was lured into a discussion about WTC 7, by K J Gunderson.

THAT little snippet of my quote, in your post above, refers to THAT building only, and MY opinion and impressions of THAT building's colapse, from another thread.

Sorry, but your response to it is irrelevant, in context.

I did not lure anyone anywhere. I pointed out that you have a history of telling blatant lies. You asked me to point them out. I did. You decided to try and discuss WTC7 when all you had to do was address your contradiction. Do not blame me for where you went unless you call me leader and admit you just follow!

reply to post by weedwhacker


You appear to be a novice on the subject who is unqualified to be posting in a public forum. It's time to start dealing with the reality of what actually occured....not what the government attempts to feed the general public.

How does a building FALLING DOWN, eject tons of steel at 70 mph , some

at a distance of 200 yards.

Obviously it does when a 450 ton jumbo smashes into it!
I dont know what speed it hit either!

[edit on 7-3-2010 by wayaboveitall]

Sorry just realised your still on about tower 7, I thought you meant T1 or T2 for some reason when I read 'North'. My Bad.

[edit on 7-3-2010 by wayaboveitall]

reply to post by weedwhacker


there's only 1 issue with your line of reaoning..

if it was pancaking.....

wouldn't just IMPLODE as gravity would have it.. ?? yeeeah.. the first floor would NOT even begin to EXPLODE till maybe even the 20 floor fell on top of the other.. maybe..

sorry I don't buy it .. doens't even fit physics..

For those having difficulty with the top down vs bottom up idea:

The penthouse falls because the structure below it has been compromised. The penthouse isn't disintegrating, it's falling. You can loosely call this bottom up (though bottom first might be a better term) because the structural failure is occurring at/near the bottom of the building. This is apparent in the fact that the building itself remains relatively intact as it falls. Like someone has kicked your legs out and your upper body falls down.

Top down means the structure is being destroyed from the top first, again this term(top down) can be applied to the twin towers as the disintegration starts at/near the top.

I hope this clears things up for alfie et al.

[edit on 7-3-2010 by mrwiffler]

[edit on 7-3-2010 by mrwiffler]

reply to post by mrwiffler


I wouldn't argue with any of that mrwiffler. I quite accept that the penthouse fell in due to failure deep in the bowels of WTC 7.

I just got p----d off with people apparently denying that the penthouse was the first visible sign of final collapse.

Originally posted by Alfie1
I just got p----d off with people apparently denying that the penthouse was the first visible sign of final collapse.

I don't think anyone has denied that.

All that had been denied is your misinterpretation of that FACT.

You seem to think it indicated a natural collapse for some reason, when in reality it is a sign of classic controlled demolition as has been explained and ignored.

I'll post this one more time, will you please read it? Or is it too hard for you guys to take something NOT from 9-11myths and put it in context?...

Sometimes, though, a building is surrounded by structures that must be preserved. In this case, the blasters proceed with a true implosion, demolishing the building so that it collapses straight down into its own footprint (the total area at the base of the building). This feat requires such skill that only a handful of demolition companies in the world will attempt it.

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...

[edit on 3/7/2010 by ANOK]