Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

WTC7 falls at free fall speed? Why does the official story defy known laws of physics?

page: 1
38
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+12 more 
posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 07:20 PM
link   
Why did WTC7 fall at free fall speed during 9/11? No fire. No plane impact. Falls in a way that is consistent with demolition.

Why does the official story defy the known laws of physics?




posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman
 
New World Order Agenda...

Ask George Bush, Cheney, or a Rothschild.... They know why.

Edit: The Mastermind behind such an evil false flag?

Signs point to "Hans Kolvenbach" Infamous Black Pope.
edit on 13-3-2013 by Mandrakerealmz because: (no reason given)


+1 more 
posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman
 


It didn't fall at free fall speed. It took the north face of the building 5.4 seconds to fall 18 floors. If it was free fall it would have taken it less than 4. It took the entire building 18 seconds to collapse once it started.

No fire? The building was riddled with fire through out it. There was a huge fire burning inside it according to the best eyewitnesses possible, the firefighters that were there.

There was no plane impact, but massive pillars from the Towers impacted the building. You can see holes in the side of it, and the firefighters reported holes close to 20 stories in the side.

So what you're saying is that they refused to blow up WTC 4 and 6, well after the event because they didn't want to risk workers lives rigging the building, or have the explosives damage the slurry wall, but they sent them into a burning building, that was showing obvious signs of collapse early in the day to rig the explosives?


"A little north of Vesey I said, we’ll go down, let’s see what’s going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see.

So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.



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. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.

Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7— did you have to get all of those people out?

Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn’t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn’t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn’t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o’clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then. At that point in time, it seemed like a somewhat smaller event, but under any normal circumstances, that’s a major event, a 47-story building collapsing. It seemed like a firecracker after the other ones came down, but I mean that’s a big building, and when it came down, it was quite an event. But having gone through the other two, it didn’t seem so bad. But that’s what we were concerned about. We had said to the guys, we lost as many as 300 guys. We didn’t want to lose any more people that day.

www.debunking911.com...


+53 more 
posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 07:35 PM
link   
Because United 93 was intended to hit WTC 7 and when that plane got taken out of the sky above Pennsylvania prematurely they had to continue there plan and bring WTC 7 down.

You cant have a building loaded with explosives just sitting there when the insurance agency sends their people in to assess the damage. So they had to 'pull' the building.

The official story defies the laws of physics because it's b.s.


+5 more 
posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 07:46 PM
link   
I just watched a TV program called Destroyed in Seconds where a two story building took all night to collapse after catching fire, and it fell down randomly at different points in time and even exploded at one point. That doesn't happen in the real world as 9/11 showed. As we all know now buildings collapse neatly into their own footprint in these circumstances. I wonder if the Destroyed in Seconds people faked the footage or some reason?
edit on 13/3/1313 by Rob37n because: spelling mistake.


+5 more 
posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 07:48 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman
 


There is no link to a new report here. This argument has been rehashed ad nauseoum. Your two line post is shameful. As too my spelling but less disrespectful to those lives changed on 9/11. So



This thread needs to be closed.
edit on 13-3-2013 by UFO1414 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by TheLieWeLive
 


good point.

Destroy the evidence.



posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheLieWeLive
Because United 93 was intended to hit WTC 7 and when that plane got taken out of the sky above Pennsylvania prematurely they had to continue there plan and bring WTC 7 down.

You cant have a building loaded with explosives just sitting there when the insurance agency sends their people in to assess the damage. So they had to 'pull' the building.

The official story defies the laws of physics because it's b.s.


Never heard this theory, but it makes a whole lot of sense...


+10 more 
posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 08:28 PM
link   
Millions of threads discussing this, but the smoking gun that WTC 7 was imploded is the FACT that the majority of the building landed in it's own footprint, evidenced by the outer walls being on top of the debris pile.

In a natural collapse the outer walls would be under the rubble, not on top, path of least resistance and all that. It takes timed controlled explosives to make the outer walls fold in on top of the rest of the collapsed building, exactly what an implosion demolition is designed to do.



posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by goochball
 


I have heard that theory. And it makes a whole hell of a lot of sense. WTCI and WTCII had to come down before flight 93 hit WTCXII. There was a revolt on the plane and they shot it down.



posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Stop using logic.

Your a logic terrorist. Suspicious activity on a conspiracy message board. Report Report!


Yeah the way it fell neatly (not in increments like it should have) and in one pile that stinks of demolition.



posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by GrantedBail
 


Stand down order?

What?

Then they lied about not shooting it down.



posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman
 

Seriously...Why are we still talking about this???? Everyone knows what they saw and heard. Anyone who still argues the OCS is either a retard or a sock puppet. Period.



posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 08:46 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 


+12 more 
posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
It didn't fall at free fall speed. It took the north face of the building 5.4 seconds to fall 18 floors. If it was free fall it would have taken it less than 4.

Really? NIST's report says otherwise.

In the NIST report NCSTAR 1-9 page 607 states:

a freefall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s


WTC 7 fell at free fall speed during 2.25 seconds over at least 8 stories of its 7-second collapse. Everyone can keep claiming "no free fall", but it's right there in the NIST report for all to read. And anyone can do their own calculations to prove as much also.



Originally posted by Zaphod58
It took the entire building 18 seconds to collapse once it started.

And since any kind of free fall acceleration is a fact and very damning evidence, we have ridiculous collapse times like the one above. The collapse of a building is calculated from the time that the actual building starts collapsing. Not when something falls off of it. Not when something caves in through the roof.

There was an audible explosion right before the penthouse fell through the roof. Then the building sat for a couple seconds, then the building itself collapsed in approximately 7 seconds.



Originally posted by Zaphod58
There was no plane impact, but massive pillars from the Towers impacted the building.

Which NIST stated had no bearing on the collapse of WTC 7.



Originally posted by Zaphod58
You can see holes in the side of it, and the firefighters reported holes close to 20 stories in the side.

False, false and false.

There was actually only one "hole". More like a gouge going down the middle of the north facade:





As you can see, the rest of the north facade was intact with only cosmetic damage. Besides the gouge going down the middle for so many stories, there was no other major visible damage to that side of the building.



posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Because buildings always collapse into their footprints from asymmetrical damage...



+8 more 
posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by UFO1414
reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman
 


There is no link to a new report here. This argument has been rehashed ad nauseoum. Your two line post is shameful. As too my spelling but less disrespectful to those lives changed on 9/11. So



This thread needs to be closed.
edit on 13-3-2013 by UFO1414 because: (no reason given)


The disrespect to the lives changed on 9/11 is from the actual perpetrators, the completely bogus investigation and the sockpuppets that support the official story.

Release the videos from the roof of the pentagon and elsewhere to support the OS and the conspiracy theorists will go away. Until then....


+6 more 
posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 09:33 PM
link   
Precisely the question which the ole avatar poses........WTF?
this baby was rigged to blow...the only explanation possible....



posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 

misunderstood. so so sorry
the other line
edit on 13-3-2013 by GrantedBail because: (no reason given)









 
38
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join