*New 9/11 Theory*.."The Ball Theory"!

reply to post by Nathan-D




Not "obvious", and not a "conclusion" based merely on sid-by-side comaprison videos!!

TWC 7 was structurally damaged, as was much of its ability to stay up, whilst still being subjected to the intense, and assymetrical heating from the uncontrolled fires.

When the first, second third fourth, etc, members that, after enduring the excess strain and doing more than their design limit capacity, they failed. In succession, maybe some almost simultaneously, who can tell...even a few split-seconds apart, is nearly simultaneous to human eyes, at normal speeds.

So much of what was occuring, inside, will forever be able to be detrermined exactly. It is ONLY the final effect, the part seen from the vantage points of the outside, that cause these claims of "similarity" to a CD being made.

Naturally, when things fall, they fall at about the same rate....that's called PHYSICS, and it's a part of how things behave in a gravitational field, like on this planet.

There are PLENTY of videos, search Google or YouTube, with PLENTY of examples of buildngs collapsing WITHOUT the use of any ... let me repeat, NO explosives whatsoever.

All due to the compromising of critical structural supports, and allowing gravity to take over. Physics.

The very old concept of the "wrecking ball" produces similar results, though not as elegantly. THIS thread's premise (well, the video that forms the basis of the thread, anyway...ITS premise) is utterly silly.

AND...the discussion has, once again, deteriorated into this same old "argument" --- that only those who get their impressions of building collapses in history usually from disaster movies, it seems, still see the WTC collapses as "evidence" of something sinister (other than the REAL sinister acts...the suicidal hijackers, using airplanes as "guided missiles").


The influx of SO MANY idiotic YouTube videos, made by people who couldn't buy a clue if they sold them at WalMart, has caused the state of discussion to devolve into this farce, and charade.

I am not going to wade into the bunk what is being said once again by the expert debunker here.

cause he is an expert in HARRP,FLIGHT,and building construction

he is on a conspiracy site and believes in no conspiracries.

and although his posts are very entertainting...they are just as supportive as the nay sayers.

I for one don't believe all the crap about 9/11...but at the same time i do think there was conspiracy here.

there are evil people in the world and the bush family are amongst some of the most evil.

good ole grandad bush was supplying weapons to germany even after the second world war started.

they have have made billions off the sales of weapons ...and to go start wars with po dunk countries is right up their ally.

but i thought rather that look at the destruction of the twin towers i would just show some of the construction of the twin towers then let you all go at it.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/34e347955bf5.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1768708e4438.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/dc8bd358d484.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/fa3d9b6358f5.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/432f17b2311f.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/827eccaf1d1a.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d53ee2d93f14.jpg[/atsimg]

Now as for building 7 it was a somewhat newer design and of stronger construction.

but it did have a flaw as the 23rd floor was made bomb proof and made to withstand 200pmh winds.

but that was a frowned upon design as why just do that to the 23rd floor.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Nathan-D

 

The influx of SO MANY idiotic YouTube videos, made by people who couldn't buy a clue if they sold them at WalMart, has caused the state of discussion to devolve into this farce, and charade.

just to point out my friend

you used numerous youtube videos to make your point also

or am i wrong there?


But i do have to agree with you....this world has become the rehashing of youtube....it is terrible.

but i do get good info from you so dont stop posting M8

but as lots of people like to say...not everything is a conspiracy...
BUT SOME ARE



[edit on 103131p://f06Wednesday by plube]

reply to post by plube


Yes.....

..just to point out ....you used numerous youtube videos to make your point also ...

Necessary evil. Not ALL of YT is worthless....and certainly finding comparable examples of undisputed evidence, is justified in certain instances.

It is important to point out that the videos I selected (form many) were NOT filmed and posted as part of 9/11 discussions. They are just there, because people like to see things get destroyed...human nature, "looky-loo" syndrome...'rubber-necking' phenomenon.

Like with comparisons of aircraft accidents, in relation to the events of 9/11 --- many, many examples on YT to show, as part of explanations.

Accidents that occured, and were not in any way connected to terrorism. But, to paraphrase a trite saying --- a picture is worth.....more than words.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Well put...keep up the good work of debunking....
thats kinda also why i choose to hunt construction pictures...i vowed a long time ago not to use youtube.

plus i am finding to better not to argue points...rather just put out food for thought and let others argue the finer points.

life is short and details seem never to be proof in the pudding

Experience tells me that wading into discussions with debunkers is usually a massive waste of time, but I'll make an exception just this once.

Not "obvious", and not a "conclusion" based merely on sid-by-side comparison videos!

Have you noticed that it looks like a controlled demolition? If we went to the park and saw an animal that looked like a duck, walked like duck, and sounded like a duck, would I be required to "prove" to you that it was a duck? The burden of proof is on the person who claims it is a lobster.

So much of what was occurring, inside, will forever be able to be determined exactly!

So why do NIST come up with so many unsubstantiated assertions as to what was happening inside WTC7 if, as you say, we don't know? We know one thing. For WTC7 to collapse symmetrically and at freefall acceleration for 120 feet all of the core columns inside the building would have needed to have been removed ahead of time within a spilt second of one another and could office fire do that? Could office fire spontaneously drop a building when the building doesn't even have any visible deformation?

TWC 7 was structurally damaged, as was much of its ability to stay up, whilst still being subjected to the intense, and asymmetrical heating from the uncontrolled fires!

Sure, WTC7 was structurally damaged, but so was WTC3, 4 5 and 6, significantly more so, and even NIST admits that the damage from falling derby that WTC7 sustained had no contribution to its collapse. In other words, according to NIST, it would have collapsed regardless of the structural damage from falling derby. Also, keep in mind that WTC7 was damaged asymmetrically and therefore it should have collapsed asymmetrically. If you kick a leg off a table, it still has three legs remaining.

There are PLENTY of videos, search Google or YouTube, with PLENTY of examples of buildings collapsing WITHOUT the use of any ... let me repeat, NO explosives whatsoever!

Those buildings are structurally weakened first and then pulled down with giant cables.

All due to the compromising of critical structural supports, and allowing gravity to take over. Physics!

I'm not going to bother asking you what you think "physics" is.

The influx of SO MANY idiotic YouTube videos!

Double-standards abound here. A video is a video, regardless of where it comes from. Just because it comes from YouTube, there's no reason to belabour it unless you can pick fault with it?

Not ALL of YT is worthless!

Ah, now it all makes sense. Just the YouTube videos that you agree with aren't "worthless", all other videos are bunkum. Awesome.

reply to post by thedman


Okay I keep seeing things like "my friend..or my coworkers saw the plane".How about some real names or some proof instead of just "my friends saw the plane"?Are we suppose to take your word?

I'm not saying there wasn't any planes.I'm saying the second plane was not your ordinary plane.Not if the nose cone can penetrate a steel and concrete building and come out the other side.How is this possible?You debunkers keep eluding that question.

The nose did come out perfectly unscathed on the other side.Like it shows here.
www.youtube.com...

How is this possible?

reply to post by XxiTzYoMasterxX

I'm not saying there wasn't any planes.I'm saying the second plane was not your ordinary plane.Not if the nose cone can penetrate a steel and concrete building and come out the other side.How is this possible?You debunkers keep eluding that question.

You seem to have problems with basic comprehension

The plane DID NOT PENETRATE a steel/concrete building

As stated earlier the exterior walls are not solid but a lattice of 1/4" thick
beams held together by spandrel plates welded to the beam. The completed section was bolted to others in 30 ft sections

Exterior wall sections of WTC

911research.wtc7.net...

The aircraft broke the connections to the apandrel plates amd sheared the bolts holding the sections together.

The broken sections were pushed out of the way - the plane did not penetrate, but pushed its way in after breaking the connections holding the beams in place.

As for concrete the floors were only concrete in the building and then
4 inches thick for the floor slabs (5 for slab in central core)

As for alleged "nose cone" - that has been debunked. It was debris cloud
punching through the other wall - one thing about WTC was its open floor concept. Once through the exterior walls were no solid partitions to stop anything - it was all sheetrock.

The alleged "nose cone" was probably jet engine or piece of landing gear which has the mass and strength to survive - number of pieces were recovered from the street.

Yeah I can totally understand why this video is silly lol.

Originally posted by Nathan-D
Experience tells me that wading into discussions with debunkers is usually a massive waste of time, but I'll make an exception just this once.

Not "obvious", and not a "conclusion" based merely on sid-by-side comparison videos!

Have you noticed that it looks like a controlled demolition? If we went to the park and saw an animal that looked like a duck, walked like duck, and sounded like a duck, would I be required to "prove" to you that it was a duck? The burden of proof is on the person who claims it is a lobster.

It looks similar to a controlled demolition but that's it. It does not possess the characteristics of controlled demolition such as flashes, bangs, and so on; Since were going to use analogies here, you guys are basically looking at a parallelogram and calling it a square because it has 4 sides. If you claim that a building was detonated without said detonation being audible or visible in anyway whatsoever, it is up to you to prove that to be true. Maybe people would actually take you guys seriously, and you guys would finally get another investigation. Or you could take the easier route, and stop believing in irrational theories that do nothing but make the truth movement look like a joke.

[edit on 11-8-2010 by technical difficulties]

[edit on 11-8-2010 by technical difficulties]

lol debris cloud haha that's a new one.

I'm done with you.

Originally posted by ipsedixit
What do you think he did wrong?

He relied on a low-resolution video, shot with a telephoto lens and significant parallax, to provide real-world geometry.

The parallax of a telephoto lenses distorts the apparent distance and relative size of objects, and therefore the apparent velocity of anything traveling between the objects. The most common example being the long-range shot (from center-field, behind the pitcher) of a the back of a baseball pitcher, on the mound, facing the batter as he pitches. The parallax makes the batter and pitcher seem close, and the ball speed slow.

Originally posted by Nathan-D
Have you noticed that it looks like a controlled demolition? If we went to the park and saw an animal that looked like a duck, walked like duck, and sounded like a duck, would I be required to "prove" to you that it was a duck? The burden of proof is on the person who claims it is a lobster.

I saw videos of planes flying into the towers.
The towers were burning because planes flew into them.
The towers collapsed.

What I have written above is the 'duck'.

Controlled demolition is the lobster.

reply to post by technical difficulties

It looks similar to a controlled demolition but that's it. It does not possess the characteristics of controlled demolition such as flashes, bangs, and so on.

It seems to me to present most of the telltale characteristics associated with a controlled demolition; for example, the classic crimp, complete steel-framing dismemberment, and a symmetrical and freefall collapse through the greatest path of resistance, etc. And there were bangs, someone on this thread previously posted a video of that. Also, this is what eye-witness NYPD officer Craig Bartmer said:

"I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down. All of a sudden I looked up, and the thing started pealing in on itself. I started running and the whole time you’re hearing, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom."

The fact there are no flashes can easily be explained by the fact that the demolition charges used probably weren't standard demolition charges, as chemical testing, eutectic steel and molten metal would all attest to.

Since were going to use analogies here, you guys are basically looking a parallelogram and calling it a square because it has 4 sides.

Can you point to another steel-framed building that has collapsed in a way that mimics a controlled demolition when it wasn't? Ever? Even one?

If you claim that a building was detonated without said detonation being audible or visible in anyway whatsoever, it is up to you to prove that to be true.

It was audible. NIST ruled out controlled demolition on the basis that the collapse of the building didn't reach 130 decibels half a mile away. But 130 decibels half a mile away is quite a considerable noise, it's the equivalent of an atom bomb going off half a mile away.

Maybe people would actually take you guys seriously, and you guys would finally get another investigation.

Maybe people would take NIST seriously if they didn't make baseless assumptions and refuse to release the parameters for their models on which they base their conclusions for independent verification? Just a thought.

Or you could take the logical route, and stop believing in nonsense theories that do nothing but make your movement as a whole look like a joke.

Nonsense theories? For a conspiracy theory forum this place seems to be suspiciously intolerant of theories that go against the official story.

[edit on 11-8-2010 by Nathan-D]

Originally posted by Nathan-D
Nonsense theories? For a conspiracy theory forum this place seems to be suspiciously intolerant of theories that go against the official story.

Nonsense, yes.

Intolerant only of "theories" based on ridiculous interpretations of flawed information.

In the vast spectrum of "theories" related to the events on 9/11/2001, the vast majority fall somewhere between nonsense and utterly ridiculous. And that does indeed cast a harmful light on the larger notions of conspiracies within the events of the day.

Originally posted by mister.old.school
Nonsense, yes.

Intolerant only of "theories" based on ridiculous interpretations of flawed information.

Do you think the idea of WTC7 being a controlled demolition is nonsense?

reply to post by Nathan-D


In as much as speculation on the source of the structural failure of the building contributes nothing to the postulations of a larger theory on the events of the day, yes. Nonsense.

Many "truthers/AE911-whatevers" have wasted time and energy looking into something that both contains many unknown variables and contributes nothing to the broader arc of a 9/11 conspiracy. Some present the notion that key strategic archives/items of value in the building were the primary target of the attacks -- which is a ridiculous idea.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Originally posted by mister.old.school
The parallax of a telephoto lenses distorts the apparent distance and relative size of objects, and therefore the apparent velocity of anything traveling between the objects. The most common example being the long-range shot (from center-field, behind the pitcher) of a the back of a baseball pitcher, on the mound, facing the batter as he pitches. The parallax makes the batter and pitcher seem close, and the ball speed slow.

Are you confusing parallax with "depth of field"?

Parallax in photography is an error that comes up in situations where what the lens sees and what the viewfinder sees are different. It is most noticeable at short distances.

"Parallax" is a condition that causes close up objects to appear in different places with respect to backround objects as the point of view of the observer (or camera) changes. It can cause a photographer to make mistakes composing photos where what he thinks is in the camera's view will turn out to be slightly different from what is actually in the view.

In the video of "the ball" the parallax error could be mimicked and would be apparent to the viewer, by the drift of the helicopter. In shots taken from a drifting helicopter, objects close to it would be seen to change location with respect to the backround, the far shore in the ball video.

But the ball and the towers are too far from the helicopter for parallax to have a significant impact on the shots taken in that video. If it were significant, it would be obvious to the viewer, as the depth of field issue is in the case of the pitcher's mound shots from baseball games.

You are bringing up an interesting piece of information but it is not applicable in this case. There was another case, maybe in September Clues, where much to do was made of the shifting backround of another helicopter shot, where the towers and the backround seemed out of sync as the helicopter flew by them. That was a valid parallax issue.


[edit on 12-8-2010 by ipsedixit]