Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Building 7 symmetry- yes or no?

page: 1
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 15 2012 @ 01:56 PM
link   
People, does this building fall in symmetry or not?

Here is a video showing multiple angles of WTC7 collapsing.

1- Does the entire building fall at once?

2- Does it fall into it's footrpint?

Good'old Dave says that we can't see that the south side collapsed in symmetry with the building, but given the side we can see does fall at close to free fall speed- then surely when that part moves out of the way when it collapses, the couth side would still be standing?



Or is he just a shill and it is blatantly obvious the entire building all comes down at the same time in a speed that assumes no resistance?

Just watch the collapse video, do you think it all comes down at the same time? Or are us 'conspiracy nutters' all delusional paranoid freaks?

Make up your own minds people! Don't listen to the shills.




posted on May, 15 2012 @ 02:07 PM
link   
Dorthy, where is Toto, Toto knows...

Who did it and who is covering it up?

Idiots think it was anything other than the obvious and think their shilling and sockpuppeting is over....they know, we know, that we know that they know and we know what they did and are doing...

Who owes the fiddler? Stay off the rooftop you might wake someone up....

Truth doesn't matter or reality, just obey and shut up....

No place like home, good by yellow brick road, hello dolly...

good ole dave, oh know, not this crap again, what a shill and full of poo poo doo doo
edit on 15-5-2012 by earthinhabitant because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 02:11 PM
link   
1- Does the entire building fall at once?
Yes
2- Does it fall into it's footrpint?
Yes

So, whats this all about ?



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Wonderer2012
 


Well you are obviously sensitive about being a "delusional paranoid freak" so I won't comment on that.

But WTC 7 didn't collapse at anything like free-fall speed :-

www.youtube.com...

Anyone can time it themselves and, if honest, won't exclude the east penthouse falling in.



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by NullVoid
 

about some of the deniers and shills around here, trying to pretend it did not...and tell us we don't know and we will not ever know and since we don't know, it does not matter and there is no such thing as a conspiracy and theories only make it worse...so forget about it and don't pay attention or give any credit to logic and reason, as this is fantasy land and that is all that matters, so stop asking questions and doubting the official story, no one is lying so stop saying that...is why having to have this thread is my guess...





posted on May, 15 2012 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by Wonderer2012
 


Well you are obviously sensitive about being a "delusional paranoid freak" so I won't comment on that.

But WTC 7 didn't collapse at anything like free-fall speed :-

www.youtube.com...

Anyone can time it themselves and, if honest, won't exclude the east penthouse falling in.



Given your way of thinking building 7 took 16 years to collapse. You know, 'what goes up must come down'. Built in 1985, came down 16 years later.

Once the main structure gives way, it takes 7 seconds to come down, the videos show this to be a fact.

The long shots show this better, once the tip of the building starts to collapse, the building in its entirety comes down in 7 seconds, even stays vertical as it falls into it's footprint.



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 02:26 PM
link   
11syyskuu.blogspot.com...


Maxwell's demon and WTC 7

(Background: at the end of 2008, NIST published the final official report on the destruction of WTC 7, the third skyscraper totally destroyed on 9/11. Discarding earlier official hypotheses (and based on no physical evidence, as "[N]o metallography could be carried out because no steel was recovered from WTC 7"), the institute claimed that ordinary office fires resulted in an "extraordinary event", the skyscraper's total symmetrical destruction, which progressed at complete freefall acceleration for over 2 seconds, or the span of 8 floors.)

Quoted from "The Rapid Graceful Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7" by Crockett Grabbe,
www.sealane.org...


To fully understanding the nuances in the 2008 Report by NIST, it might be helpful for people to learn about Maxwell's demon. This demon was actually conjured up by the famous James Clerk Maxwell, one of the most innovative physicists of the 19th Century. He is most famous for developing the 4 coupled equations that completely describe the fields of electricity and magnetism. One of the other physics topics he worked on was that of thermodynamics, a subject considered essential at that time to understand how engines and other sources produce work. 3 laws had been developed on thermodynamics years before -- principles that were developed as a result of the enlightenment of the industrial revolution. But Maxwell saw a puzzling problem about the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics says that if 2 containers side-by-side are in thermal equilibrium with each other, they will stay in thermal equilibrium. But Maxwell postulated that if there was a little demon opening up a small door between the containers, the demon could monitor thermal molecular motion by only allowing fast molecules to pass through into one container, and slow molecules to pass through into the other container. Thus over time the demon would cause the 2 containers to move out of thermal equilibrium with each other, in seeming contradiction to the 2nd law.

The resolution of the paradox formulation by Maxwell is that that little demon must of necessity be considered part of the physical system. To get the extremely large amount of information on the movement of septillions of molecules requires external work, and with that external work considered there is no violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. In fact 20th century statistical physics was developed to go beyond thermodyamics, and includes those extremely small remote possibilities (such as all this information being transmitted to septillions of molecules) in analysis of the expected outcome.

In the case of the ostensible collapse of WTC7 initiating by a local buckling from fires that was formulated by NIST, that demon would have to control the flow at millions of such doors along the top of the building to maintain that amazing symmetry for the under-7-second collapse. Fires in general are very asymmetrical, so the demon would have to get the burned structures in the right place at all these points for the catastropic timing of the collapse to produce this amazing symmetry. But if the architectural failure started locally from fires as the NIST Committe claims, that local asymmetry would have to result in a global perfectly-symmetric fall within hundredths of a second. All of the information from the locally asymmetric failure would have to propagate to all corners of the building and almost instaneously create a perfectly symmetric fall. The demon would have to move at an extremely fast rate to these millions of doors to control this amazing transition to global symmetry. The statistical odds of this happening are so overwhelmingly small that the scenario is patently absurd.

But again, moving between millions of doors at extremely fast speeds to obtain this amazing symmetry is not the only feat the demon would have to do. Building 7 of the WTC fell with perfect symmetry and at freefall from its very start. The establishment of freefall came from very careful timing and measurement by David Chandler in 3 videos in a series entitled "WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall" he produced and placed on the web ( www.911speakout.org ). NIST admitted the building was in freefall for more than the first 2 seconds of its collapse, despite claims they made when they first released the WTC7 Report on August 21 that it was not in freefall.

The implications of the fact that the collapse was in freefall are that the gravitational energy was totally used for the freefall of the building. The well-known physics principle of conservation of energy shows that there was no gravitational energy left to break the building apart as it fell. If gravity was the only source of energy, there is no energy to cause the structure to collapse as it falls. Conservation of energy shows this could only happen if the building fell as if it was




posted on May, 15 2012 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by NullVoid
1- Does the entire building fall at once?
Yes
2- Does it fall into it's footrpint?
Yes

So, whats this all about ?


Because there are seeming shills on the forum that will flat out deny video evidence. It may be clear to many, but shills are actually effective in changing people's opinions.

If you can discredit a theory, and make the person involved in the theory to look stupid or irrational, then you can convince a fair amount of people to stop asking questions. At the end of the day, we as humans conform (in general), and it can be easier to ignore the truth and be accepted, than to ask questions and be ridiculed and outcast.

Shills play on this human weakness.



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wonderer2012

Originally posted by NullVoid
1- Does the entire building fall at once?
Yes
2- Does it fall into it's footrpint?
Yes

So, whats this all about ?


Because there are seeming shills on the forum that will flat out deny video evidence. It may be clear to many, but shills are actually effective in changing people's opinions.

If you can discredit a theory, and make the person involved in the theory to look stupid or irrational, then you can convince a fair amount of people to stop asking questions. At the end of the day, we as humans conform (in general), and it can be easier to ignore the truth and be accepted, than to ask questions and be ridiculed and outcast.

Shills play on this human weakness.



And a common shill response to my post will be 'I don't need to to do anything to make you look stupid and irrational, you do that yourself' etc.

Seen it so many times, they are predictable, and sadly effective, I've seen many times people stop asking questions or go down a certain road of thought simply because they worry what people will think of them.



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Wonderer2012
 


You can swear black is white, doesn't make any difference. The first visible sign of collapse of WTC 7 was the east penthouse falling in. Prior to that obviously, internal supporting structure that we cannot see failed.

Anyone can time it for themselves and I would ask them to do that . I would just ask them to view the whole and not be misled by multiple truther clips that carefully cut out the penthouse collapse. Why would anyone do that in pursuit of truth ?



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


You can say it is black or white, the color is irrelevant, the comparison here is to an implosion demolition, so show us anything ever falling like this, that will prove to anyone that your theory is correct, i.e., a video of another building in history that has fallen like the 3 did on 9/11, as we have yet to see any other comparison that even remotely resembles this, outside of the obvious, even if color blind, can see..



Alfie, have a little survey for you, if you check my signature, as it was create for members like you...
edit on 15-5-2012 by earthinhabitant because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Wonderer2012
 


think we got few here who are getting paid to talk this non sense, or just so gullible they believe some alice in wonderland Easter bunny story...as this is not harry potter and lord of the rings, as much as it is, reality and check your self and make sure you understand very clearly what a demolition is and what it is not, and then look at the 3 and let us know if you have vision impairment, mental impairment or getting paid, in one way or another, so any admission to it being demolition, would incriminate you or someone you know?



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by earthinhabitant
reply to post by Alfie1
 


You can say it is black or white, the color is irrelevant, the comparison here is to an implosion demolition, so show us anything ever falling like this, that will prove to anyone that your theory is correct, i.e., a video of another building in history that has fallen like the 3 did on 9/11, as we have yet to see any other comparison that even remotely resembles this, outside of the obvious, even if color blind, can see..



Alfie, have a little survey for you, if you check my signature, as it was create for members like you...
edit on 15-5-2012 by earthinhabitant because: (no reason given)


Meaningless ! Please point out to me a single similar event in the history of the world where Boeing 767's crashed at high speed into Towers 1300 ft tall and where debris rained downed on a nearby 47 story building starting fires.



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by Wonderer2012
 


Well you are obviously sensitive about being a "delusional paranoid freak" so I won't comment on that.

But WTC 7 didn't collapse at anything like free-fall speed :-

www.youtube.com...

Anyone can time it themselves and, if honest, won't exclude the east penthouse falling in.



Oh, the shills have arrived to derail the thread! We know who you all are, we know your game.
So people that we are being lied to are now 'delusional paranoid freaks' Is this all you shills have left now, name calling! Is that your new tactic, when all else fails and no one believes your BS OS all you can do is be childish!

STAY ON TOPIC!

This thread is about symmetry, what you got shill? Would love to know your thoughts on symmetry....



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 02:55 PM
link   
Has everyone viewed this as a precursor and refresher?

WTC 7 Compilation video




posted on May, 15 2012 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by 4hero
 


You brought up the "paranoid delusional freaks" mate, not me. And in deference to what is obviously a sore point with you I refrained from commenting further on that. Jeez, some people are never happy.



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by 4hero
 


You brought up the "paranoid delusional freaks" mate, not me. And in deference to what is obviously a sore point with you I refrained from commenting further on that. Jeez, some people are never happy.



sounds like a good, get out, to avoid explaining and more denial of the obvious, as hyper sensitivity is one thing, failure to address the evidence and facts, is another, don't let the door get you, on the way out and if you ever think of not being so sensitive and letting people run you off so easily, let us know...shilling ain't easy and the pay must be great...



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


no plane hit that building and the two it hit, fell exactly the same with a little more explosion noticed, if you would do your research, as meaningless, is the response from you, have been waiting for, thanks for that, will grant you, as insignificant as you might think it is, still need to see 1 building that has ever fallen like the 3 buildings fell...that was not demolition and require access to the interior of the structure, and plane fuel does not have a combustion or energy to do it, as buildings do not fall like that, from planes, or imagination, only in your dreams, so click your heals and tell us what we already know, there is not place like home, there is no place like home, ...jeeze, where ig good ole dave when you need him...not this crap again...



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by 4hero
 


You brought up the "paranoid delusional freaks" mate, not me. And in deference to what is obviously a sore point with you I refrained from commenting further on that. Jeez, some people are never happy.

Delusional is something we are for sure trying to establish here and alfie got some bad news for you....have you seen a doctor recently about your condition, as I hope this comes as no surprise, either you are or you are being paid to make outlandish claims about WTC 7 and anytime you got an proof of your claims, let us know, as seeing is believing and if you cannot see it, then someone is a master of illusion and silly rabbit, tricks are for kids..



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 04:19 PM
link   
Yes; or about as close as my eye can tell anyway.

I have always thought it to be a crying shame that Building 7 was not built as substancial and to the same construction codes as were the other building with-in the complex.

I am suggesting for people to look at Buildings 2, 3, and 5.

They sustained direct hits from the debris from the two main towers and yet still stood well enough they had to be torn down later.






top topics



 
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join