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

Originally posted by samkent

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.

I never said who brought down the plane Sammy my boy, but since you inquired, the military brought it down. Three targets had already been hit. It was time to stop the madness and shoot down a civilian aircraft. Just ask Donald Rumsfeld. I'm sure you're familiar with the video.

Who said everyone was involved? Not I. This could have been easily accomplished with an outside military force. Hired mercenaries from other countries. We have hired mercenaries now in Afghanistan and Iraq, or course we don't call them that. The new name is 'Private Contractors'.

I'm glad to see you still show up at most of the 911 debates. Why exactly would that be? It's a factious question by the way. I'm sure I already know the answer.

Originally posted by ANOK
Except WTC7 did.

Why do some people keep pushing that lie?

When 7 World Trade Center collapsed, debris caused substantial damage and contamination to the Borough of Manhattan Community College's Fiterman Hall building, located adjacent at 30 West Broadway, to the extent that the building was not salvageable. ...... The adjacent Verizon Building, an art deco building constructed in 1926, had extensive damage to its east facade from the collapse of 7 World Trade Center, though it was able to be restored at a cost of US$1.4 billion

Do they think posting lies like that somehow makes their silly conspiracy theory real?

reply to post by hellobruce


It's not a lie, you fail to understand what 'in it's own footprint' means.

It's not a literal term, as in 100% of the building has to be in it's footprint. WTC 7 was 47 stories, the tallest building officially ever imploded was only 23 stories tall (do you know why?). The fact that they got so much of WTC 7 to collapse in it's own footprint means someone new what they were doing.

Why did you fail to address the fact that the outer walls were sitting ON TOP of the rest of the collapsed building?
Do you fail to understand how that cannot happen from a natural collapse also? How do you explain it, luck?

Originally posted by ANOK
I's not a lie, you fail to understand what 'in it's own footprint' means.

I know what it means, it is just a term you have twisted and distorted to try and claim the WTC buildings were bought down by demolition....

The fact that they got so much of WTC 7 to collapse in it's own footprint means someone new what they were doing.

No, again why do you think the WTC buildings should have fallen over?

Do you fail to understand how that cannot happen from a natural collapse also?

You claiming something does not make it true, and if some of the outer wall was not on top you would have just claimed that was proof that it was demolished....

Originally posted by hellobruce
I know what it means....

Then explain what it means please. If I have twisted the term then explain it. Then show me a single building implosion that landed 100% in its own footprint. Then explain why when imploding a building they put tarps on other buildings close by to protect them from flying debris.

You are the one who is twisting terms mate, or simply failing to understand them. I'll let you make the choice.

No, again why do you think the WTC buildings should have fallen over?

Silly question. They shouldn't have fallen over, or completely collapse at all.

You claiming something does not make it true, and if some of the outer wall was not on top you would have just claimed that was proof that it was demolished....

It's common sense. If you understand simple physics, and how buildings are constructed, it's pretty obvious why the outer walls can not be on top from a natural collapse. You saying otherwise makes not one iota of difference.

Why do you seem so desperate to argue this? How about some evidence that a natural collapse can do what an implosion demolition is designed to do? Do you understand what an implosion demolition is?

Originally posted by TheLieWeLive

I never said who brought down the plane Sammy my boy, but since you inquired, the military brought it down. Three targets had already been hit. It was time to stop the madness and shoot down a civilian aircraft. Just ask Donald Rumsfeld. I'm sure you're familiar with the video.

Except again, like your idea that UA 93 was heading for New York, there is not a shred of evidence for it and plenty against.

The cockpit voice recorder shows a struggle for the cockpit with those on the flight deck clearly talking of putting the plane in.

The flight data recorder shows all systems working until impact which it obviously wouldn't if it was shot down.

Witnesses on the ground saw UA 93 at low level and in one piece shortly before impact.

Cleveland Air Traffic Control was tracking UA 93 and other aircraft in the vicinity had visual sightings shortly before it crashed. You can listen to that here :-

www.youtube.com...

Must have been some super stealth fighter that was not only invisible to radar but to the human eye as well.

reply to post by ANOK

The fact that they got so much of WTC 7 to collapse in it's own footprint means someone new what they were doing.

I love these kinds of statements.

Why did you fail to address the fact that the outer walls were sitting ON TOP of the rest of the collapsed building?
Do you fail to understand how that cannot happen from a natural collapse also? How do you explain it, luck?

How do you explain that gravity pulls any direction but
d
o
w
n
?

"Natural collapse", lol.

reply to post by ANOK

It's common sense. If you understand simple physics, and how buildings are constructed,

Common sense says they did in fact fall down. Yup... indeedy. Physics aren't "simple". Are you an architect? Or a demolitions expert? How about physics...?

Common sense says you can't be all three. Oh thats right, you say you aren't.

So whats your beef with people that say they fell down?

do we ever stop to think maybe the WTC7 WAS deliberately pulled to save lives...after all over 300 firefighters had just lost their lives in another building...if they decided to pull it then i'm behind them 100%....what would have been said if the put another 300 firefighters at risk in that Brick and Mortar structure....it's simply wasn't work the risk. Why they didn't think to say to the public..Yes, we pulled it to save lives is beyond me...doesn't make sense, unless insurance was being screwed..

It was demolished without a doubt, you can hear the explosives go off in many videos. Below I've posted what is, according to me, the best presentation of what actually happened. Though I've not believed the official story for a long long time, it really erases any doubt that might hide in the darkest corner of your mind. The video gives a scientific explanation going through all the steps of what occurs in a fire caused collapse vs a controlled demolition, and guess what, the WTC7 collapse have none of the characteristics caused by fire but all of the characteristics of a controlled demolition. They go very much into depth of each stage. Enjoy!

reply to post by Soloprotocol


Problem is there is no way they could have rigged it on the day. It takes too long, and it was on fire. Which means only one thing....

reply to post by ANOK
Yeah, it's pretty obvious that it would be impossible to rig the building for demolition in that short time, especially while it's on fire...not just the danger of the fire itself but carrying explosives anywhere near a live fire is just crazy.

Originally posted by intrptr
How do you explain that gravity pulls any direction but down...

There is more than just gravity acting on a structure. The resistance of a building has to be stronger than gravity, or they would never stand in the first place. To collapse a building vertically into it's footprint means to remove ALL the resistance in a timed sequence, inside first followed by the outside folding in on top of the inside, exactly what WTC 7 did.

Buildings generally do not collapse straight down, and land in their own footprints by themselves. If they did then it would not be necessary to rig them with timed explosives.

WTC 7 should not have collapsed at all, let alone in the exact same way as an implosion demolition. IF it collapsed from fire, or loss of a core column, we would have seen collapses around the areas of damage first. Look at ANY natural collapse, and you will see a completely different pattern of collapse to WTC 7. Then look at an implosion demolition, and notice all the similarities.

Gravity is the weakest argument for the OS, and I thought was abandoned years ago. This is why people believe the OS...

www.science20.com...

Originally posted by Rob37n
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.

Setting aside my opinion on the truth of the official story of 9/11, I really feel that I have to comment on two things here, just in the name of "deny ignorance".

Disclaimer - I do have several years of experience as a volunteer fire fighter, but I do not have a degree in civil engineering, nor am I a certified fire scene investigator. That said, I have watched buildings burn, and occasionally collapse on several occasions...some in actual firefighting situations, some in training exercises, and some on film as part of the same training. No two of them collapsed in the same way. Every collapse is different. Differences in construction materials and methods, differences in the severity and scope of the fire, the age of the building, weather conditions....literally thousands of things can cause two very similar buildings to burn (or collapse) in startlingly different ways. Thus, the burning building from "Destroyed in Seconds" behaved differently from WTC 1 and 2, or WTC 7, and none of them behaved like the Pentagon when it was hit. That doesn't, in and of itself mean that any of the events were staged or faked, just that, as noted above, every building collapse is different.

I also get rather tired of hearing about how WTC 1 and 2 collapsed so neatly into their own footprints. Take a quick look at aerial photographs of the scene, and compare them to the 'before' images. The rubble piles are considerably larger than the footprints of the standing towers....again, in and of itself, that doesn't support or undermine the official story, but it's not accurate to say that the collapses were some remarkably neat and tidy affairs. Given the way the towers were constructed, they weren't going to come down like a felled redwood, regardless of what caused the collapse. There wasn't sufficient shear strength in the structure to allow that.

reply to post by BrianG

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

No High rise and fires don't mix well at all.
People want to feel safer than they actually are.

Research the vending machine fire at a European university high rise. It took down a whole section in less of time.

reply to post by Soloprotocol

do we ever stop to think maybe the WTC7 WAS deliberately pulled to save lives

One slight correction to your post.

The 'effort' to save WT was pulled. Not the building. Larry simply screwed up his words.

reply to post by samkent
Well no, fire with anything doesn't mix well unless controlled. Actually high rises do stand up to fire quite well as most of them barely collapse at all. Burning Question: Should the History of High-Rise Fires Be Ignored? But anyway fires burn unevenly by it's nature as it consumes combustible material and then moves on to the next combustibles, they do not cause collapses at free fall speed as it burns unevenly.

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by BrianG

 

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

No High rise and fires don't mix well at all.
People want to feel safer than they actually are.

Research the vending machine fire at a European university high rise. It took down a whole section in less of time.

But wasn't that a partial collapse of a concrete structure? A bit different to the total collapse of a steel structure.

reply to post by TheLieWeLive

I never said who brought down the plane Sammy my boy, but since you inquired, the military brought it down. Three targets had already been hit. It was time to stop the madness and shoot down a civilian aircraft. Just ask Donald Rumsfeld. I'm sure you're familiar with the video.

Who said everyone was involved? Not I. This could have been easily accomplished with an outside military force. Hired mercenaries from other countries. We have hired mercenaries now in Afghanistan and Iraq, or course we don't call them that. The new name is 'Private Contractors'.

I'm glad to see you still show up at most of the 911 debates. Why exactly would that be? It's a factious question by the way. I'm sure I already know the answer.

Mercenaries don't wire entire entire sky scrapers for demolition. Let alone getting it at the exact floors where the planes hit.
Mercenaries were not maning ATC to coverup a shoot down of a civilian plane.
None of the dead firefighters radioed "Hey these buildings are wired for demolition!".
None of the civilians who escaped the second WTC have said "We saw these strange wires running all over the place."

To pull things off the way we saw it happen would reqire hundreds of people. Most just to cover things up.
And no one has ever explained why our political foes like Iran have never presented engineering experts proof that the whole thing is a cover up. Are we to believe our hidden muscle men are strong arming Irans Mahmoud Ahmadinejad into shutting up? He sure seems to spout off about the holocaust and the same Jews that are believed to pull off 911, can't shut him up about it.

And your thinly vailed attempt to accuse me of being a plant or shill is just plane silly. I've been here for several years. I enjoy rebuffing peoples silly ideas.

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by Soloprotocol

 

Problem is there is no way they could have rigged it on the day. It takes too long, and it was on fire. Which means only one thing....

Good point, a Building that size would take a week to rig for a controlled demolition...