Building 7 symmetry- yes or no?

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 15 2012 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by hdutton

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.


Um... 2 did collapse.

Obviously you failed at what you are preaching. Did YOU look into buildings 3 & 5? If so, can you list the differences between 3 and 5 to building 7?




posted on May, 15 2012 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 




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.

The only 'meaningless' thing here is your increasingly pathetic objections. Sure, no building probably ever has been 'rained downed' by falling derby from 13000ft towers. But my dear Alfie, that does not adequately explain why WTC7 collapsed symmetrically into its own footprint. No, no it doesn't. I know what you're going to say, 'But... but, it didn't collapse perfectly symmetrically, it tilted sideways slightly' so I'm going to preemptively counter that. It's not usual for controlled demolitions to tilt, you can find countless examples on YouTube so don't bother pulling that threadbare argument out the hat. Even NIST admit that WTC7 would have collapsed irrespective of the damage from falling derby, and besides, the core columns were completely untouched by falling derby and most of the floors were untouched by fire, as even admitted by NIST. Does any of this explain why WTC7 collapsed at freefall acceleration in a manner similar to a controlled demolition? No, no. Even NIST's $100,000,000 computer-model fails to explain freefall, and in fact doesn't even incorporate it.

By clinging to these myths instead of to what you know to be real and true independently for yourself, your mind has acquired more conflicts with reality although you are in denial of that and insist that your fantastical beliefs are real. This is how your beloved OS-cult has deranged you and given you an immense psychological problem that you cannot possibly resolve. And now you have become a channel for this corrupting mental force that is trying to repeat what it has done to you upon others and so to propagate itself. You have been mind-zapped, Alfie, and the sooner you wake up to that fact the better it will be for you and for everyone else who you are still able to infect with your mental disease of denialism. The 'evidence' that WTC7 collapsed from fire is derived purely from computerized models that have not been verified, replicated or in any way proven in the public domain. They are completely unexplained and unaccounted for and they have no status in real science whatsoever. They are simply claims that have never been substantiated. But if you wish to prove me wrong, do please go right ahead and show us how they are substantiated.
edit on 15-5-2012 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by hdutton
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.


one does not have to be an expert to count and do the math on this operation, however still looks like a few are lacking in the field and took trickeronometry , not trigonometry based on their responses have seen and heard...wondering if there should be an IQ exam to get to post here, first.



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by hdutton

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.


Um... 2 did collapse.

Obviously you failed at what you are preaching. Did YOU look into buildings 3 & 5? If so, can you list the differences between 3 and 5 to building 7?


He must have meant 3, 5, and 6. Although, the 22 story WTC 3 did collapse, with only a tiny portion of one end left standing, just a few floors. The other buildings were very small. 9 Stories on number 5 and 8 stories on number 6. Both had to be taken down due to extensive damage.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 06:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by hdutton

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.


Um... 2 did collapse.

Obviously you failed at what you are preaching. Did YOU look into buildings 3 & 5? If so, can you list the differences between 3 and 5 to building 7?


Preaching?! Hahaha! Only shills preach, and the shills have no evidence as always. Weak attempts at debating as per usual.

Why would the differences between these buildings be relevant?


The fact they did not collapse in a controlled demolition style compared to 1, 2 & 7 are the major differences you should be focusing on.

Do you not think it odd that 1,2 & 7 fell the way the did?

Do you not think it odd that the Marriott Hotel was still standing?

Please do reply, I doubt you will have any decent answers. The shills don't generally provide good answers to back up their pathetic OS.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 06:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by hdutton

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.


Um... 2 did collapse.

Obviously you failed at what you are preaching. Did YOU look into buildings 3 & 5? If so, can you list the differences between 3 and 5 to building 7?


It just gets easier and easier to expose the shills on this site.

Put one or two "mis-statements" out there and they will be all over them like flies. The best part is their absolute belief that they are absolutely right and proper in absolutely every aspect.

I have never claimed to be "the sharpest bulb in the box", but I do enjoy what little bit of a real life I have.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by 4hero



Preaching?! Hahaha! Only shills preach, and the shills have no evidence as always. Weak attempts at debating as per usual.

Why would the differences between these buildings be relevant?


The fact they did not collapse in a controlled demolition style compared to 1, 2 & 7 are the major differences you should be focusing on.

Do you not think it odd that 1,2 & 7 fell the way the did?

Do you not think it odd that the Marriott Hotel was still standing?

Please do reply, I doubt you will have any decent answers. The shills don't generally provide good answers to back up their pathetic OS.


My answers to you will not be "decent" to you. All you will do is resort to calling anyone that deals with facts- "shills".

Your failed logic on physics, building construction, and the history that surrounds 9/11 is glaringly obvious.

How much of the Marriott was left standing after 9/11? Do you know? Probably not.

Do I think it's odd that buildings fell down after being intentionally hit by airplanes at high rates of speed?

No, I don't. Nor will you find a SINGLE controlled demolition expert that thinks that WTC 1&2 were controlled demolitions or that they even resembled controlled demotions. Only truthers believe that. Only one CD expert in the world believed that WTC 7 resembled a CD. BUT... he also stated that 1 & 2 were not.

So, keep up with your playground name calling.... it's all you got. (and you're not good at that)



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 11:08 AM
link   
Dutch demolitions expert comments on WTC 7 - Stormfront
www.[hate-site-nolink] › ... › General › Revisionism › 9/11 Truth
3 posts - 1 author - 11 Jul 2011
Danny Jowenko, a Dutch demolitions expert comments on WTC 7 stating ... demolition expert who went on record as saying he believed that ...

The murder of Dutch demolitions expert Danny Jowenko - YouTube
www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCzwsOaFsgM13 Aug 2011 - 5 min - Uploaded by thisisyourwakeup
The murder of Dutch demolitions expert Danny Jowenko ... danny Jowenko had been threatened and made ...

People with demolition expertise questioning 9/11
demolitionexpertsquestion911.blogspot.com/
worked for Controlled Demolition, Inc. for almost three years before and during ... certified asbestos and hazardous materials worker, demolitions expert with long ... looking at it from various disciplines, it's obvious that all three WTC buildings


Demolition Expert Debunks the Debunkers - YouTube
► 9:11► 9:11

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ns_hjONWZ885 Jul 2010 - 9 min - Uploaded by citizenfor911truth1
Former explosives technician from Controlled Demolition, Inc explains why controlled demolition could have ...

LENDMAN, Stephen. Humanitarian US writer on WTC, 9-11 ...16 Sweet (and Scary) Building Demolition Videos: From Amazing ...
weburbanist.com/.../16-sweet-and-scary-building-demolitions-in-acti...

5 Mar 2008 – Some of these demolitions are simply damned impressive while ... Watching this one it is almost impossible to believe that it can end .... A leading Dutch demolitions expert was shown footage of 47-floor skyscraper WTC 7 (not ...

Iraq war veteran and experienced demolitions expert blows the ...
www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2007/310707expert.htm
31 Jul 2007 – He was not just helping at a lower level in the demolitions - he was the guy .... So what does Torin think took down the WTC buildings? Different

Proof of Controlled Demolitions on 9/11 by the Experts (Richard ...

www.youtube.com/watch?v=14-PHDS5h0g27 May 2010 - 9 min - Uploaded by NorCalTruth
Proof of Controlled Demolitions on 9/11 by the Experts (Richard Gage, .... To believe that three ...

Urgent: Scientists Discover Nano-Thermite Explosives in 9/11 WTC ...
investigate911.org/
World Trade Center towers destroyed by controlled demolitions using ... CNN poll shows that 89% believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11. ..... Van Romero, a demolition expert, former director of the Energetic Materials ...

Dan Rather says WTC collapses look like demolitions [Archive ...
acapella.harmony-central.com › ... › The Political Party
24 posts - 17 authors - 5 Mar 2007
Do you have to be a demolition expert to have seen a professional ... He doesn't believe the official story either. ... WTC 1, 2 and 7 :wave: ...

There are also more than 1,500 architects and engineers who have raised scientific questions over the collapse of the World Trade Center and are calling for a full investigation of 9/11, and it’s worthwhile to discuss why, she added.

“Architects & Engineers 9/11 Truth,” also the name of the nonprofit that says the collapse of the buildings was not caused by the impact of the planes but by explosives or controlled demolition.
edit on 16-5-2012 by earthinhabitant because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by earthinhabitant
Dutch demolitions expert comments on WTC 7 - Stormfront

Danny Jowenko, a Dutch demolitions expert comments on WTC 7 stating ... demolition expert who went on record as saying he believed that ...


Please read my above post. You will clearly see that I referenced a CD expert that said that WTC7 looks like a CD. Yet he also states that 1 and 2 do NOT. Truthers always seem to forget that part.

Claims that he was "killed" are unfounded. Paranoia is not evidence.

The rest of your post is a mess with broken links.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by hdutton
 

www.ae911truth.org...


Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration
Improbable symmetry of debris distribution
Extremely rapid onset of destruction
Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes
Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally
Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking
Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds
1200-foot-diameter debris field: no "pancaked" floors found
Isolated explosive ejections 20–40 stories below demolition front
Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame
Several tons of molten metal found under all 3 high-rises
Evidence of thermite incendiaries found by FEMA in steel samples
Evidence of explosives found in dust samples

And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire:

Slow onset with large visible deformations
Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)
Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer-lasting fires have never collapsed.



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by earthinhabitant
 


It's like I said, I don't claim to be the sharpest bulb in the box, but it would appear you have begun preaching to the choir.

I have been asking questions about the way which all this appeared from day one. I was at work when it all happened, but when I got home and watched the replays, It just seemed so "fake" the way the buildings fell.

This "appearance" is why I will continue to ask questions. I somehow know I will never get enough satisfactory answers, but I will still ask.



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 06:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by hdutton
reply to post by earthinhabitant
 


It's like I said, I don't claim to be the sharpest bulb in the box, but it would appear you have begun preaching to the choir.

I have been asking questions about the way which all this appeared from day one. I was at work when it all happened, but when I got home and watched the replays, It just seemed so "fake" the way the buildings fell.

This "appearance" is why I will continue to ask questions. I somehow know I will never get enough satisfactory answers, but I will still ask.


How many structural engineers have you spoken with?
How many controlled demolition experts have you spoken with?
How many first responders have you spoken with?

You continue to ask questions.... but to whom?



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by hdutton
reply to post by earthinhabitant
 


It's like I said, I don't claim to be the sharpest bulb in the box, but it would appear you have begun preaching to the choir.

I have been asking questions about the way which all this appeared from day one. I was at work when it all happened, but when I got home and watched the replays, It just seemed so "fake" the way the buildings fell.

This "appearance" is why I will continue to ask questions. I somehow know I will never get enough satisfactory answers, but I will still ask.


How many structural engineers have you spoken with?
How many controlled demolition experts have you spoken with?
How many first responders have you spoken with?

You continue to ask questions.... but to whom?


I guess you could say, I have obviously not been asking the right people. I spend a lot of time reading posts on ATS.

I know you are not interested in my background in the handling and use of various explosives. That would not qualify me as knowing anything about the results to be expected from them being used.

I know you would not be interested in my background in construction and how a building is put together. That would not qualify me as knowing anything about what one should look like if it fell down.

As for first responders, I live in an area where the tallest things I see are 70 to 80 foot pine trees. So most of our fires would be of brush or maybe a house.

If you would alow me one kind of side comment. A lot of years ago, I left blood, guts, and body parts on three different continents in service of this country and it's people. Until I draw my last breath, I will continue to demand and excersire my right to ask questions to and about whom ever and what ever I please.

Don't misunderstand me. I am not big and strong. I am not brave and invincible. But, I am the meanest thing on the face of the earth. If anyone should not believe what I say .... well it's best you believe it.



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wonderer2012
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.


Oh, I get it now. The WTC 7 building didn't fall down the same way as any controlled demolition on the face of the Earth, so instead of admitting it doesn't fit the definition you want, you simply change the definition until it comes out to your liking.

The video shows the penthouse collapsed into the interior of the building six seconds before the northern side of the building did, and a room full of engineers and fire specialists in NIST use eyewitness accounts and computer modelling to estimate it's because the south side folded up and caved inwards six seconds before the north side did. Because this doesn't sit well with what the conspiracy theorists want, they snip off the collapse of the penthouse from every video they can get their hands on and declare the collapse of the building isn't relevent to how the building collapsed, plus, they discard the findings of the NIST report by accusing these engineers, fire specialists, and eyewitnesses of being sinister secret agents who aren't remotely as knowledgable as college kids making internet videos in their dorm room. In this way you can honestly say experts declare the collapse looked like controlled demolitions...depending on what the definitions of "experts", "collapse", and "controlled demolitions" are.

Sooner or later you're going to need to provide more tangible evidence for your accusations than playing these children's games and saying the boogeyman did it, you know.



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 





Sooner or later you're going to need to provide more tangible evidence for your accusations than playing these children's games and saying the boogeyman did it, you know.


Why should anyone of us who are not comfortable with and continue to question the O S have to provide any answers for the reasons the towers fell as they did?

It would be far more logical, oh that may be a bad word for some.

I think the burden of proof of the O S is still on those who support it. Try to find some good solid physical evidence, rather than computer models from made-up information which can not be refuted.

This would be be much better than calling everyone who questions the O S a "conspiracy nut".

I am begining to think there is a conspiracy to suppress not only the truth but also the questioning.
edit on 18-5-2012 by hdutton because: old men can't spell



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by hdutton

Why should anyone of us who are not comfortable with and continue to question the O S have to provide any answers for the reasons the towers fell as they did?


Becuase unless and until you do so we're necessarily going to need to rely on the scenarios that do provide reasons for the collapse. For example, deputy fire chief Peter Hayden was at the site all during 9/11 and he specifically reported the fires in WTC 7 were burning out of control and the fires were causing massive deformations in the integrity of the structure, and it was his testimony that NIST took into consideration when they came up with their report. They don't mention his name specifically but from their description of events it's obvious who it was they were quoting.

For me or anyone else to take these "inside job" claims seriously you're not only going to need to address the details of your scenario itself, you're likewise going to need to address why all this other evidence is false. Up until now, the only answer the conspiracy people can offer is that everyone that says they're wrong is really a sinister secret agent, and I shouldn't need to point out just how intellectually lazy that is.


I think the burden of proof of the O S is still on those who support it. Try to find some good solid physical evidence, rather than computer models from made-up information which can not be refuted.


Okay, fair enough. Deputy fire chief Peter Hayden was at the site all during 9/11 and he specifically reported the fires in WTC 7 were burning out of control and the fires were causing massive deformations in the integrity of the structure. Give me a reason for why I shouldn't believe him that doesn't involve him being a sinister secret agent.


I am begining to think there is a conspiracy to suppress not only the truth but also the questioning.


...and we're back to the "sinister secret agents" excuse all over again. You disappoint me.



posted on May, 19 2012 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


I have been tied up so far today, so I just got back to read you response.

Last night, I looked thru some old videos in my collection and found one I know you will enjoy.

This: www.youtube.com...

is a segment from a much longer vid: www.youtube.com...

Hope I did not get them reversed.

It was made after the Oklahoma City bombing, but long before 9/11.

If you should endeavour to watch either of them, I ask you to pay particular attention to the statements of Michael
Riconsocuito as he explains his work and knowledge. It may also be entertaining to do a quick search for him on Google or wiki-pedia. If only half of what I have read is true, it is facinating.

As to the reasons given for the building collapsing due only to fire. I would hope we have learned enough to use the same high quality materials as those in the Barcelona hotel fire. This "monument of proper construction" burned for several hours and remained standing. After the fires were out you could see the steel skeleton because all the interior walls and furnature were burned away.



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by hdutton

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.


Um... 2 did collapse.

Obviously you failed at what you are preaching. Did YOU look into buildings 3 & 5? If so, can you list the differences between 3 and 5 to building 7?


Either that, or it indicates the truthers have intimate knowledge of the attack they accidentally let out. After all, if it's impossible for the BBC to simply make a mistake and get the name of WTC 7 confused with the names of WTC 1 and WTC 2 while it was happening then it must mean it's impossible for the truthers to get the names confused ten years afterwards.

Wait a minute! Didn't Alex Jones supposedly predict the 9/11 attack before it happened? How would the truthers know something like that?



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 08:17 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.



I'm gonna be decent and make an apology, you mentioned it in your post, and it appeared that you were referring to the people you lot call 'truthers', so please accept my apology for the mix-up. An easy mistake when us 'truthers' get insults like this daily from the debunkers or disinfo gang when they are losing their grip!

Back to the topic....

Definte symmetry, and if the debunkers dont agree on 'perfect' symmetry it's a close to symmetry as you're gonna get with a controlled building collapse.

As for the footprint, these buildings fell straignt down, yeah maybe a few pieces of debris went outwards, but the bulk of all the buildings that collapsed went into it's own footprint. If you think otherwise please explain why you think it didnt.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

After all, if it's impossible for the BBC to simply make a mistake and get the name of WTC 7 confused with the names of WTC 1 and WTC 2 while it was happening then it must mean it's impossible for the truthers to get the names confused ten years afterwards.

Wait a minute! Didn't Alex Jones supposedly predict the 9/11 attack before it happened? How would the truthers know something like that?


No, the BBC called it The Saloman Brother's Buildings, and they also used the name WTC7, I don't think they would be refferring to any other building that had just collapsed by the name of The Saloman Brother's Buildings/WTC7.

As we know it had not just collapsed, it was still standing, and the twin towers had long collapsed.

So by using the 2 names that WTC7 is known by, i.e. WTC7 & The Saloman Brother's Buildings, and considering how much time had passed since WTC1 & WTC2 had collapsed, we can safely say they meant WTC7, and we can safely say this was a massive cock up! They got the info it had collapsed (even though it didnt 'collapse' until 20 mins later) from none other than Mayor Giuliani!





new topics
 
8
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join