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

page: 2
38
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 02:06 AM
link   
reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman
 




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


Science is based on fact and tries to understand the relationships in this world. Politics is based on perception and tries to control the relationships in this world. In reviewing the history of warfare, this is not the first time a pile of lies has been used to instigate conflict. Unfortunately it probably wont be the last as the population fails to learn from these dire mistakes.




posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 07:26 AM
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.


Let me get this straight.
They controlled everything else that day with ultimate perfection.
Wtc1&2 - Pentagon - witnesses - evidence - NYFD - NYPD - NY Port Athority - All news outlets on the planet - All engineers on the planet

And yet a few civilians brings down one of their planes?
Are you seriously trying to tell us they didn't think about a mutiny by the lambs going to slaughter on one plane?

It's the same tired thories with no evidence to back them up.



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 10:42 AM
link   
I never understood why the US Govt. wouldnt just show us a clip of the plane entering the pentagon.. put it to rest if you have it...



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by stirling
Precisely the question which the ole avatar poses........WTF?
this baby was rigged to blow...the only explanation possible....


I used to do demolition. The lift shafts and stair wells are usually the strongest part of the building. They are the back bone of the building and are always constructed first and the rest of the buliding off of that as they go up.

Looking at your avatar you can see the engineering rooms on top fall first. These rooms are above the lift/elevator shafts and as they fall into the building, it's obvious the spine of the building was compromised/attacked.

The hole in the side of the building would NOT cause the building to collapse this way.

What happened is no longer important....what is, is the WHO, and WHY!
edit on 14-3-2013 by Wifibrains because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 11:11 AM
link   
believing (however ludicrously) in the pancake theory - still the question of where did the building(s) go?
Dr. Judy Woods comparative analysis of the Seattle Kingdom material - brought down by controlled demolition to the tower(s) is not refutable, further no artifacts such as toilet seat/faucet/telephone/desk were found.



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 11:18 AM
link   


reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman
 




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




remember the kennedy bullet U-Turn?
the OS defies the laws of phisics because the O's know the American public has the average science education equal to that of a twelve year old



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 





remember the kennedy bullet U-Turn?

They never said it did a u turn. Conspiracy people did.



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 11:49 AM
link   
I don't believe anyone has mentioned it, but we all need to remember tht WTC 7 collapsed due to the fire..

.. which made it the first steel-framed high-riise building, in history, to collapse due to 'fire.'

Oh. And the BBC "coincidentally accidently" talked of the WTC7 building collapsing... when it was still there.

How about NORAD? How about the Thermite, and Molten Steel?

Nah, these questions are ludicrous... it was obviously the terrorists. If you believe the "official story," you either are choosing to completely discard logic and critical thinking, or you're pushing another agenda, one deeper and more sinister.

Yeah, what a tragedy on American soil. My heart toils at the thought and know of the amount of civilizians that have been killed due to the justification of my government attacking itself (ie false flag).

God Bless America.



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 12:11 PM
link   
There must be 1000 threads on ATS regarding WTC7, so not sure why we are going over old ground here.



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 12:39 PM
link   
This horse has been obliterated from excessive flogging, however the question will always be valid until we know the truth.

Unfortunately numbskulls will always deny the truth, you just can't fix stupid.

It was an iside job, intelligent people have been telling the sheeple this for years.

S&F for having the balls to post this, and for reminding people of the truth.



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by OpenEars123
 




It was an iside job, intelligent people have been telling the sheeple this for years.

Too bad there's never been any real proof of your claims.
If there had been something would have been done about it long ago.



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 


Reality is a tough thing to handle for you isn't it.

You are unable to see that flat out it was helped along in many ways, and that simple terrorists had nothing to do with this, BECAUSE it is not simple you cannot and will not accept anything different, Hardwired into you.

Don't worry you are not alone, most of this planet's people have been rendered incapable of seeing anything for themselves, most belong to a religion of thinking of one sort or another.

Just realize that you look incredibly weak, saying there is no proof. Far LESS proof of your story exists, in fact so much less that it almost does not exist.



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 04:47 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.


If that is so why was UA 93 in fact heading for Washington when it came down and why did those in control of the aircraft dial up the VOR frequency for Reagan National Airport to help them get there ?



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ParasuvO
reply to post by samkent
 



Just realize that you look incredibly weak, saying there is no proof. Far LESS proof of your story exists, in fact so much less that it almost does not exist.


That, or something like it, has been said many many times but it is still nonsense.

There is in fact not a single incontravertible fact proving an inside job 9/11 conspiracy.

On the other hand, there are buckets of facts indicating that it wasn't. Just have a peruse of the 1200 items of evidence introduced at the Moussaoui trial for example :-

www.vaed.uscourts.gov...



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 05:02 PM
link   
maybe 2 planes were all they expected as the towers were supposed to fall over and take out WTC7

All I know is that WTC7 must have been one of the worst designed and constructed buildings



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by 11I11
There must be 1000 threads on ATS regarding WTC7, so not sure why we are going over old ground here.

Indeed. I wonder if maybe certain 9/11-oriented businessmen have found their revenues insufficient for tax season and are trying to drum up donations. Sending acolytes and footwear out throughout the internet, preaching the gospel for the few unconverted who have still not heard it. Does that make me a conspiracy theorist?



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rob37n
As we all know now buildings collapse neatly into their own footprint in these circumstances.


Except none of the buildings that collapsed at the WTC came down in their own footprint.... just how do you think WTC 7 got damaged!



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by 11I11
There must be 1000 threads on ATS regarding WTC7, so not sure why we are going over old ground here.


Because its the one occurrence that day that was filmed and reported on and the video is crystal clear.
It is the thorn in the Lions Paw if you will.

I didn't mind reading the 1000 threads and the more the merrier I say.
Who in their right mind would want this buried and forgotten?

S&F to the OP

Regards, Iwinder



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by ParasuvO
reply to post by samkent
 



Just realize that you look incredibly weak, saying there is no proof. Far LESS proof of your story exists, in fact so much less that it almost does not exist.


That, or something like it, has been said many many times but it is still nonsense.

There is in fact not a single incontravertible fact proving an inside job 9/11 conspiracy.

On the other hand, there are buckets of facts indicating that it wasn't. Just have a peruse of the 1200 items of evidence introduced at the Moussaoui trial for example :-

www.vaed.uscourts.gov...


What in the world do photos and pictures of people who have nothing to do with buildings exploding and collapsing in impossible ways ??

Your evidence is entirely meaningless and out of context.

It is YOU who believe that this is possible with planes, and no evidence exists that it could have occured the way it is reported by government... No way these men could have forced all of these amazing things to have occured, and yet it seems heaven and earth has been moved to make it seem relevant.

Sad that you cannot see your entire framework is trying to fit the narrative, even engineers and physics professors have bent reality so it fits the official tale, the tale you claim does not even exist....sigh.



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by hellobruce

Except none of the buildings that collapsed at the WTC came down in their own footprint.... just how do you think WTC 7 got damaged!


Except WTC7 did. Lot's of pics of WTC7 that show it landed mostly in it's own footprint. Outer walls sitting ON TOP of the rest of the collapsed building proves that. If it had collapsed outside of it's footprint, in a natural fire induced collapse, the outer walls would be UNDER the rest of the collapsed building. Think about it.

The two towers could never have been brought down into their own footprint, too tall and skinny. They could not have been collapsed using conventional methods.

What did happen though is that most of the rubble was spread around the towers in a 360° circle, indicating a symmetrical collapse. A natural collapse would not be symmetrical from asymmetrical damage. The collapses themselves prove that as the tops tilted due to resistance, resistance that must have been removed after the top sections started collapsing/tilting. In other words the top and bottom sections, were more than likely two separate collapses to make it look like the plane impacts caused it, but common sense physics showed NIST that could not have been the case, so they made up the silly trusses pulling in columns nonsense.












new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join