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.

 

Freefall collapse.. without explosives?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 04:30 PM
link   
holy crap, this is getting so boring...i guess there's no way of proving one theory over another especially with people believing so hard in their own theories......the op has a point, this is something that i have been thinking about for the last couple of days......you guys keep throwing the same exact proof and say the same exact things in every single 9/11 thread......you won't even stop to consider that pulled could have meant just what it says, 'pulled' i'll have to do some research and find out how they go about pulling a tower....




posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


I understand what you're saying Anok but I can't tell from the wtc7 rubble pile pic if the north and south side are resting on top of the pile there, or whether that's just the north side. To me it looks like the pile has fallen bias to the south.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


Sorry I didn't post the full video including the collapse.

Here it is again including the complete collapse of wtc6 in freefall without explosives using cables, pulling it to the north:



Also, note the ominous sound of rumbling as the building goes into failure.
edit on 25-9-2011 by Insolubrious because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Insolubrious
 


Thanks for that. I've never seen that video before.

I'm interested how it will be reacted to.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Insolubrious
reply to post by ANOK
 


I understand what you're saying Anok but I can't tell from the wtc7 rubble pile pic if the north and south side are resting on top of the pile there, or whether that's just the north side. To me it looks like the pile has fallen bias to the south.


It doesn't matter if the building biased to one side, the majority of the building landed in its footprint. No demolition is perfect especially one that tall.

If you're trying to say that the walls we see is all from one side, then where did the other walls go? If the building fell to one side, and not straight down, then we would see the rubble spread in that direction. We don't, the rubble pile is more or less symmetrical, indicating the majority of the rubble fell straight down, and the outer walls fell inwards on top of them.

Look at this pic., and you can see how the wall is folded inwards, opposite of what would happen from a natural collapse...



Note how close it is to the other building. A 48 story building falling to one side would have had it land on top of other buildings, not spread its rubble symmetrically.

Compare WTC 7...



To a known implosion demolition...



That was a 30 story condo building, apparently the 3rd tallest to ever be imploded. But anyway compare the result to WTC 7, do you not see the glaringly obvious similarities?

Now look at an uncontrolled collapse from a bomb...



I think it's fair to say that has a much larger gash in it than WTC 7 had lol. In fact a fair amount of the weight bearing structure is gone leaving walls standing by themselves.


edit on 9/25/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Insolubrious
 


Again you are not seeing what you think you are in that vid. The building was already a burned out shell. The outer walls didn't fall inwards. In fact there were no outer walls left, it was a complete mess.

You really think you can compare it to the condition WTC 7 was in when it collapsed, without anyone pulling on it with cables, from it's own weight?



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


I like the way you don't even consider the OS to be a slim possibility. You consider it completely impossible, and that fascinates me, as an Anthropology student.

I'm personally of the belief that anything is possible. I just need evidence when presented with a possibility.

I do admit that demolitions are technically possible, just highly unlikely. I just wonder why you consider there to be 0% possibility that the OS is truth. It's... weird, psychologically.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





I do admit that demolitions are technically possible, just highly unlikely.


They are highly unlikely for social reasons, but highly likely for physical reasons.

Likelihoods mean very little when it comes to intentional acts, are absolutely crucial in purely natural physical events.



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01
reply to post by Varemia
 





I do admit that demolitions are technically possible, just highly unlikely.


They are highly unlikely for social reasons, but highly likely for physical reasons.

Likelihoods mean very little when it comes to intentional acts, are absolutely crucial in purely natural physical events.


Then I suppose the likelihood of it is subjective, because there are obviously variable opinions on the matter.

As long as we're not basing our beliefs on faulty facts, then we can all just agree to disagree.



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


There is fire in the building and the fire department might have left the
building burn out if they didn't have enough men to put out the fires.
When the building went down there was not that much smoke.
So I must assume all fires were out.
The usual determination of a safe building is next.
I think the building was declared unsafe.

Then the magic starts it seems for most people.
Magic does not happen without a reason.
For all concerned most feel the building should have remained standing
like the German bank building.



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 
Of all the things you've said up 'til now, let's let the record show that you believe that bldg. 7 collapsed due to fire. It's incomprehesible to me, that anyone who sees that building collapse, unimpeded, can look us in 'the eye' and say that it was not intentionally destroyed. You are the poster child for dis-information. I don't know when, but eventually people will begin to wake up, and you'll have an awful lot of 'splainin to do, because nobody can justify your stand on this. I hope you're getting paid extra for this, because your story is by far the most ridiculous one of all.



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by ANOK
 


I like the way you don't even consider the OS to be a slim possibility. You consider it completely impossible, and that fascinates me, as an Anthropology student.


Really?

It fascinates me that an anthropology student can make claim about a subject they are obvioulsy not educated in, physics.

Why would you expect me to say anything different? If you were in a field that actually requires a knowledge in physics you might have a better understanding of what I have been saying over and over again.

This whole debate isn't about your opinions, it's about facts. If you were to actually read and understand what I am saying, instead of finding ways to dismiss it, you would see why I keep repeating the same thing. Nothing you have said has contradicted what I have said and shown you. As a student you should be smart enough to realise when something is someones opinion, and when something is fact backed with evidence.

Physics is not opinion, it is fact. I have a background in engineering and mechanics. I have two year degree in engineering fundamentals, and a two year degree in engineering drafting. I am a qualified jet engine mechanic. I have taken physics I&II. I have even taken anthropology 101.


edit on 9/26/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by Varemia
 


The size of your gash is irrelevant.

Asymmetrical damage can not cause symmetrical collapse into its own footprint.

Its no good just saying it had a huge gash, you need to demonstrate how that gash could cause the events that followed.


Really? How? How can asymmetrical damage not cause symmetrical collapse? I still have not seen the numbers or verification, other than your word. But then, I do not trust your word either thanks to all those gaffs that you refuse to acknowledge or correct.



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Insolubrious
reply to post by ANOK
 


I understand what you're saying Anok but I can't tell from the wtc7 rubble pile pic if the north and south side are resting on top of the pile there, or whether that's just the north side. To me it looks like the pile has fallen bias to the south.


In fact we are looking at the North face of the WTC7, since when it collapsed, it fell leaning towards the South. In fact, it was leaning noticeably prior to collapse, which was why they needed to put a surveyor transit, to monitor the creep, or "slow mo" destruction of the structure from fire and damage.



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK


Really?

It fascinates me that an anthropology student can make claim about a subject they are obvioulsy not educated in, physics.



Heh, says the person who still cannot figure out how N3rdL works in the larger picture, and that somehow, any resistance will ALWAYS stop a falling object.




Why would you expect me to say anything different? If you were in a field that actually requires a knowledge in physics you might have a better understanding of what I have been saying over and over again.



Nope, sorry ANOK, but you cant be claiming to have a better understanding of physics when you are missing quite a few chapters. In fact, its as if you just read N3rdL and take it literally to cover everything, while ignoring the rest of the laws, and all the sub-laws, and other important parts. And to boot, you cant even properly deduce what NIST and FEMA state about the collapse initiator. I mean, dang, if you cant understand something so simple and insist on repeating the incorrect version, how can I, or anyone else for that matter, take you seriously on matters that are far more complicated and require a much better understanding than repeating a glossary entry for "NrdL"? According to you, I shouldnt be able to push a car down the street. The car weighs 2,000lbs, and I weigh 170lbs wet. And yet, I had little trouble pushing it by myself down the street when the starter broke. According to your version of "Equal and opposite reactions" I put the same amount of force on the car, as it does on me. But since its larger, I shouldnt be able to push it (according to you). So I am I breaking N3rdL? Cause that is what you claim when you say that the floors collapsing on each other, they should stop, because somehow the law dictates that the falling mass is smaller than the lower mass, therefore it should stop the collapse. Well, I can still push my car, and push it with ease once its rolling.



This whole debate isn't about your opinions, it's about facts. If you were to actually read and understand what I am saying, instead of finding ways to dismiss it, you would see why I keep repeating the same thing. Nothing you have said has contradicted what I have said and shown you. As a student you should be smart enough to realise when something is someones opinion, and when something is fact backed with evidence.

Physics is not opinion, it is fact. I have a background in engineering and mechanics. I have two year degree in engineering fundamentals, and a two year degree in engineering drafting. I am a qualified jet engine mechanic. I have taken physics I&II. I have even taken anthropology 101.


edit on 9/26/2011 by ANOK because: typo


And yet, you cannot apply N3rdL correctly, or read a report and correctly comprehend what was written. That is very strange. Oh yes, and I am STILL waiting for you to show some proof of the floor construction being ejected outside the footprint. I know you just love to bring it up time and again, and yet everytime I catch you, you run like hell and hide. Well, stop running. Let us see some proof of this occurring. You claim that floors were magically ejected. Let us see some proof to back it up.



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek

Originally posted by Insolubrious
reply to post by ANOK
 


I understand what you're saying Anok but I can't tell from the wtc7 rubble pile pic if the north and south side are resting on top of the pile there, or whether that's just the north side. To me it looks like the pile has fallen bias to the south.


In fact we are looking at the North face of the WTC7, since when it collapsed, it fell leaning towards the South. In fact, it was leaning noticeably prior to collapse, which was why they needed to put a surveyor transit, to monitor the creep, or "slow mo" destruction of the structure from fire and damage.



how is it that you know the details of what they did that day? just wondering because i didn't hear anything about them using a surveyor transit.....



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 



yup, it appears to be leaning to the south in that picture posted on the first page by Varemia and appears to collapse in that direction too, and I tend to agree that it appears (some of) the north face is sitting on top of the building 7 pile, suggesting it fell to the south slightly, although it didn't travel very far.

Anok - to answer your question I believe the majority of south face would be buried underneath the rubble pile in southern collapse. But really when you look at this pile, there's really not much left that's recognisable.



In the video I posted the building is pulled to north with cables but it really doesn't travel that far either, and tends to collapse in on itself for the most part which is odd in a way. The beams easily slipped off their seats and the floors give way and start falling apart, which can caused catastrophic and total failure.

NIST claim one key column is all it took for WTC7 to start collapsing. If that's true all you need to do is 'pull' a column out and wham bang thank you maam... That's a pretty shocking claim in my opinion, to be able to completely collapse 50 story building by pulling a single column.
edit on 26-9-2011 by Insolubrious because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by patternfinder

Originally posted by GenRadek

Originally posted by Insolubrious
reply to post by ANOK
 


I understand what you're saying Anok but I can't tell from the wtc7 rubble pile pic if the north and south side are resting on top of the pile there, or whether that's just the north side. To me it looks like the pile has fallen bias to the south.


In fact we are looking at the North face of the WTC7, since when it collapsed, it fell leaning towards the South. In fact, it was leaning noticeably prior to collapse, which was why they needed to put a surveyor transit, to monitor the creep, or "slow mo" destruction of the structure from fire and damage.



how is it that you know the details of what they did that day? just wondering because i didn't hear anything about them using a surveyor transit.....


It's about a third of the way down the page, though I haven't seen anything about creep yet. I'll check. Ok, it's at the bottom of the page. Doesn't say a surveyer transit, but the fireman is talking about how the tower was leaning:

www.debunking911.com...


but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?

Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it.


This is the video that isn't available on the site second from the bottom:




posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by patternfinder

how is it that you know the details of what they did that day? just wondering because i didn't hear anything about them using a surveyor transit.....


That my friend, you have to go to the firefighter accounts, where they mention this part. i am surprised as well that it is not mentioned much, especially by people calling themselves "truthers". Varemia has the link!

I forgot to mention:

It really bugs me when "truthers" take any account from the fire fighters where they mention hearing something go "boom", or mentioning something sounding like bombs going, and running with it as if it is defacto proof and evidence of demolitions inside the WTC buildings, or bombs, or what have you. But then, when you bring up the same firefighters speaking about the structural instability, the knowledge that the building is doomed to collapse, its leaning, bowing structure, or sounds of structural failure (groans and creeks) , they ignore them, or insist that they have no training or ability to tell the structural condition of a burning and damaged building, and are just "stating an uneducated opinion". Me? I do not refute they heard explosions or things sounding like explosions in the WTC building. You'd have to be a fool to think that things cannot go boom in a massive fire, especially when you have 30+ acres of offices burning, mechanical floors burning, buried vehicles burning, debris falling, oh, and two aircraft burning as well. To NOT hear an explosion in all of that? Not possible. But to run with it and claim, insinuate, or assume its proof of demolitions going off.............. is dishonest at best, and lying at its worst.

Did you read my response to you from before?
www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 9/26/2011 by GenRadek because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Insolubrious
reply to post by GenRadek
 


NIST claim one key column is all it took for WTC7 to start collapsing. If that's true all you need to do is 'pull' a column out and wham bang thank you maam... That's a pretty shocking claim in my opinion, to be able to completely collapse 50 story building by pulling a single column.
edit on 26-9-2011 by Insolubrious because: (no reason given)


To be honest, I dont know if that is all that it would take, but I guess you have to take into account the way it was built over the substation. Also, it wasnt caused by "one" beam snapping, but you also have to take into account the damage, the fire softened steel, and the beams that were compromised by fire and added stress. It would be great if one could just pull one column and have the whole thing come down, but then, that would be one very bad structural flaw.
WTC7 had to deal with the ConEd substation, and fires, and I'm pretty sure weakened steel beams will not react well when given an extra loading dumped on it when its fellow support structures give way.




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join