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: 4
38
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 07:50 AM
link   
Why exactly wouldn't mercenaries wire high rises with explosives? They are mercenaries, for hire, if the pay is good enough they can agree to it, do not think for a second that there aren't people out there who would do it. It's true that we do not know exactly who was behind it. But to plant explosives for a planned demolition of the towers requires some kind of deep connection with the government and military. It's naive to think that the whole government was behind it, they play against each other too, a constant power struggle between the different branches of government, military and of course all the way down to personal level.

There are many testimonies from firemen (and others) who heard explosions prior to the collapses. Why would they place wired explosives when they used military grade nano-thermite ignited remotely? It's not some alien technology but probably more expensive. They did renovate the elevators a few months prior to the attacks, guarded by military personnel as well...pretty good chance to do whatever you want behind the scenes with access to vulnerable structures.




posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 08:20 AM
link   

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.


did that building have piece of another building collapse on it?



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by tide88
 
Pancake collapses does not cause evaporated concrete. I suppose you refer to the collapse of the towers with the top completely collapsing the much stronger structure beneath it but somehow pulverizes the concrete at free fall speed on it's way down, like there was no resistance at all, the physics of the WTC's must be in some kind of separate dimension where steel melts at temperature of a match and where two pieces of concrete may never meet as they would be destroyed immediately and where steel shoots out at explosive speeds instead of just falling down.



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Konoyaro
 




Why exactly wouldn't mercenaries wire high rises with explosives? They are mercenaries, for hire, if the pay is good enough they can agree to it, do not think for a second that there aren't people out there who would do it. It's true that we do not know exactly who was behind it. But to plant explosives for a planned demolition of the towers requires some kind of deep connection with the government and military. It's naive to think that the whole government was behind it, they play against each other too, a constant power struggle between the different branches of government, military and of course all the way down to personal level.

There are many testimonies from firemen (and others) who heard explosions prior to the collapses. Why would they place wired explosives when they used military grade nano-thermite ignited remotely? It's not some alien technology but probably more expensive.

Why do all conspiracies involve mysterious unknown people who never, ever come forward?
Why would they wire 3 buildings not 4?
Mercenaries by their nature are not stealthy.
Mercenaries use guns and small explosives. They are not building demo experts. That's a totally different field.
It would takes weeks to wire those 3 buildings and you could not take a chance on remote det equipment for that long of time.

Most cities have fires. In about a third of them the news reports explosions. But no one ever claims the explosions were from explosives.
Nano Thermite has been debunked a long time ago.

But this has been gone over many times in many threads. And in all those threads no one have ever presentes irrefutable evidence. This week it seems to be mercenaries. Next week???

It's been 10 years. You would think you would have something more than speculation.



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by Danbones
 





remember the kennedy bullet U-Turn?

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


^ Someone knows he is shilling...sorry...lying


The magic bullet theory did not only pretend the bullet made such a impossible turn but it also implied that it hang in the air for 2 seconds before continuing. Which where not the only amazing things that "happened" with that bullet. It somehow managed to go through 2 human beings multiple times and end up being shown in pristine condition as being the actual bullet.

The magic bullet theory that you claim to have been created by CT'ers had been shown on TV back then ,over and over again and later in a court case.

The reason that those 2 seconds of pause in midair ( a bullet, people!) was implied was, the zapruder film.

The entry points and the moments the bullets ...Woops "Bullet" went through them would otherwise not agree with the magic bullet theory.


And people bought it in mass back then simply because it was to hard to believe it was a inside job.
The same level of BS has been sold to the public on 9/11.



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by Konoyaro
 




Why exactly wouldn't mercenaries wire high rises with explosives? They are mercenaries, for hire, if the pay is good enough they can agree to it, do not think for a second that there aren't people out there who would do it. It's true that we do not know exactly who was behind it. But to plant explosives for a planned demolition of the towers requires some kind of deep connection with the government and military. It's naive to think that the whole government was behind it, they play against each other too, a constant power struggle between the different branches of government, military and of course all the way down to personal level.

There are many testimonies from firemen (and others) who heard explosions prior to the collapses. Why would they place wired explosives when they used military grade nano-thermite ignited remotely? It's not some alien technology but probably more expensive.

Why do all conspiracies involve mysterious unknown people who never, ever come forward?
Why would they wire 3 buildings not 4?
Mercenaries by their nature are not stealthy.
Mercenaries use guns and small explosives. They are not building demo experts. That's a totally different field.
It would takes weeks to wire those 3 buildings and you could not take a chance on remote det equipment for that long of time.



Conspiracies involve people who prefer not to have their face plastered all over the news because ....here it comes...conspiracy is a criminal offense maybe !? just a thought.

why not 5 or 10 or 15 buildings ? or ...why not just those 3 specific buildings...

A mercenary is just a hired help for a specific job. One would only hire people fit for the job.If that job requires stealth you would hire mercenary's capable of that wouldn't you ? Unless of course if you are only capable of specifically applying the typical Hollywood image of a merc. Next to that you can call them anything you want ,hired help is hired help.

Weeks before 9/11 there were power outages and "construction" being done including the removal of bomb sniffing dogs by the security company which coincidentally was run by a "Bush".



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Rubic0n
 




Conspiracies involve people who prefer not to have their face plastered all over the news because ....here it comes...conspiracy is a criminal offense maybe !? just a thought.

Conspiracies involve people who do no exist. Otherwise the conspiracy would fall flat after a few questions.




why not 5 or 10 or 15 buildings ? or ...why not just those 3 specific buildings...

7 buildings were destroyed in the attack and fire. Why no conspiracy around the other 4?




A mercenary is just a hired help for a specific job. One would only hire people fit for the job.If that job requires stealth you would hire mercenary's capable of that wouldn't you ? Unless of course if you are only capable of specifically applying the typical Hollywood image of a merc. Next to that you can call them anything you want ,hired help is hired help.


So why don't they hire mercenaries to bring down derelict buildings instead of expensive companies?




Weeks before 9/11 there were power outages and "construction" being done including the removal of bomb sniffing dogs by the security company which coincidentally was run by a "Bush".


Construction with power outages in NYC??? What shock. Ask anyone in NYC, there's always construction going on.
Are you suggesting no one knows who these companies were? Or what they were doing, construction wise?
Once again you are trying to use the mysterious unknown people ploy.
Once again this entire 911 conspiracy REQUIRES mysterious unknown people to exist. Otherwise you could get some facts to back up your beliefs.



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 10:58 AM
link   


Conspiracies involve people who do no exist. Otherwise the conspiracy would fall flat after a few questions.


Are you ok ?




7 buildings were destroyed in the attack and fire. Why no conspiracy around the other 4?


It seems painfully obvious that the buildings that were directly attacked and as a result of that collapsed on the scene are the ones that are being talked about, not the collateral damage. With the exception of course of WTC7 which was not attacked but collapsed into its own footprint just like WTC1 and 2 at that time.

Not taken down days afterwards like the ones you include.

Evidence needs to be removed/destroyed ASAP, not days after. THAT is why those buildings are focused on, obviously of course.




So why don't they hire mercenaries to bring down derelict buildings instead of expensive companies?



Again , it does not matter how you or anyone calls them. A hired company is the same thing. They hire someone to do the job. Whether you clamp down on the designation "mercenary" or not does not matter.





Construction with power outages in NYC??? What shock. Ask anyone in NYC, there's always construction going on.
Are you suggesting no one knows who these companies were? Or what they were doing, construction wise?
Once again you are trying to use the mysterious unknown people ploy.
Once again this entire 911 conspiracy REQUIRES mysterious unknown people to exist. Otherwise you could get some facts to back up your beliefs.


You can act stupid all you like but most that worked there had even worked there for decades and spoke publicly about it declared that they had never experienced the shutdowns that have occurred in the weeks before 9/11. And most certainty not the removal of bomb sniffing dogs from the building during that time from a security company that was owned by a bush member.

As for your unknown companies i never suggested that the name of the construction companies were unknown. I am not sure how you came to that. They were also not investigated in the NIST report and considering what went down that day they should have at the very least have been, would you not agree?

Much like how it did not matter to them (They who were running the "investigation") did not care about where the money came from to pull of what those supposed terrorists did that day. They are on record stating this.

You are almost correct in stating that it requires unknown people to exist. Difference being is that they do actually exist they just remain unknown , you can thank the purposefully half assed job they did with the investigation for that. Obviously not showing up on TV saying "WE DID IT IT WAS US LOLOL" ...duh

I am a bit stumped that this needs to be explained to you but,,, Being unknown does not mean "does not exist" ,or did the Zodiac killer also never exist ?


You can say "Yes" to that if you keep clinging to your failed logic.




edit on 15-3-2013 by Rubic0n because: fixed quotes



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 11:06 AM
link   
There were other buildings that were damaged in the WTC complex, but only three had total collapse (WTC 1, 2, & 7). Only 3 were important enough to be brought down in the manner they were..

BTW, there were 'power downs' in the towers just before 9/11, search '9/11 power downs' on youtube and you will find quite a few interviews with employees, and they said it was unprecedented that all their computer networks were taken offline during this mysterious power down.

Perhaps those that believe only the OS have an official explanation for the power down?!

Bizarre there was an UNPRECEDENTED power down just before 9/11!

Barry Jennings clearly reported explosions in WTC7 prior to any of the towers collapsing, although hardcore OS believers will fiercely deny that Barry heard the explosions before the towers collapsed, even though Barry clearly says he did in his interview.

Fires do not make buildings collapse in the manner WTC7 did, it's just not possible, and that collapse was also yet another UNPRECEDENTED event that happened during 9/11. Yes, the whole 9/11 situation was in itself unprecedented, but regardless of whether the 'attack' was unprecedented itself or not, many of the events that were unprecedented that day, should not have happened regardless.

The OS is flogging a dead horse, it's not a story that can be believed any more. I know some on forums still cling onto the OS, but it's a catalog of lies designed to trick the brainwashed members of society. The OS is such a good pack of lies to the brainwashed, that even after all this time it's quoted as truth!

Conspiracy theories such as 9/11 are quite often confirmed as conspiracy fact down the line, and based on all that has been unraveled in the last 10 years or so, the OS is now just a fictional theory, and the 'conspiracy theory' view is more closer to the truth.

Obviously there are some wacky theories, but they are just out there to make conspiracy theorists seem crazy, but those tactics are also wearing thin now, too many people are wise to such tactics!

To believe WTC7 came down due to fire is ignorant of all the real facts surrounding it's collapse, and this website supposedly carries that motto 'deny ignorance' but taking the OS at face value is just turning your back, and being ignorant imo.



edit on 15-3-2013 by DeeKlassified because: spelling



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Gravity is the weakest argument

No, gravity is the strongest argument.We've covered this ground before. The OP says there was "no fire" and "like a demolition". Did we digress?

Here is "asymetrical footy print" (without explosives), one more time.

Re evaluate...




edit on 15-3-2013 by intrptr because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by John_Rodger_Cornman
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?


Because the story to the public is never the same story that actually happened. The official government story goes into official government records for government officials to read about and mention in their official statements to the press. It's just what the government does. How many secret things happen in front of government figures where they get together and say they write up an official statement for the press, then the press goes through their security and legal filters and comes up with something for the public?

Take for example the secret meeting of big businessmen in NYC a week before the big event. I only know about that because I read about it in the WSJ, a week before the event. The writer mentioned the city, but obviously some security or legal filters kept the writer from disclosing who was there, where exactly the meeting was about. Very vague meeting, could have been about anything, but the fact that the writer felt compelled to mention it at all meant that there was a sense of urgency to inform the public about something. It is just an example about how what really happens is often heavily edited for the audience's security clearance level, or at least what the editor thinks the audience can tolerate.

I like that mention about known laws of physics. It's humble enough to say that today's people haven't figured it all out with physics. Maybe from that you could find some new physics to explain things.



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by DeeKlassified
 




To believe WTC7 came down due to fire is ignorant of all the real facts surrounding it's collapse, and this website supposedly carries that motto 'deny ignorance' but taking the OS at face value is just turning your back, and being ignorant imo.

Name one engineering company that supports your beliefs.
Name one current college professor that supports your belief.
Any one of either on the entire planet.

Why can't you even get Iranian engineers, professors and pilots to support the conspiracy? They would love to poke their finger in the eye of evil America.

In fact you can't get one credible group or person to support the conspiracy. Unless you count the ones making money off of it.



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 


I don't know if you've noticed, but all the buildings in your verinage video are concrete structures, pre-weakened for demolition, and the upper section is equal in size to the lower section. Comparing them to the WTC buildings is chalk and cheese.



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 12:02 PM
link   
edit on 15-3-2013 by korath because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by DeeKlassified
 




To believe WTC7 came down due to fire is ignorant of all the real facts surrounding it's collapse, and this website supposedly carries that motto 'deny ignorance' but taking the OS at face value is just turning your back, and being ignorant imo.

Name one engineering company that supports your beliefs.
Name one current college professor that supports your belief.
Any one of either on the entire planet.

Why can't you even get Iranian engineers, professors and pilots to support the conspiracy? They would love to poke their finger in the eye of evil America.

In fact you can't get one credible group or person to support the conspiracy. Unless you count the ones making money off of it.



Most people care to continue living, is likely why.

And most of them are like you, so incredulous that they blind themselves in order to carry on in delusion.

People that whistleblow are looked at as rats in the eyes of the panicked masses, look at what has happened to those who do speak up, all fired, branded as traitors, how many witnesses to 9/11 have met there deaths ?

Final Destination syndrome seems to catch up to these people who talk about 9/11 in a truthful manner, and the OTHER witnesses just flat out disappear.



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by ParasuvO
 





Final Destination syndrome seems to catch up to these people who talk about 9/11 in a truthful manner, and the OTHER witnesses just flat out disappear.

Once again no proof as to foul play in their deaths.
How convenient.

That would mean there are active mysteriously unknown people keeping tabs and occasionally killing people.
And yet no one talks. Year after year no one talks. No death bed confessions. No Wiki Leaks. No spam mail.
Even our enimies keep silent.

Let me ask something . .
If you think the 'big bad Jews' are behind this, explain something to me.

How do the Jews keep Ahmadinejad silent about 911?
But they let him aspouse the destruction of Israel and all Jews?



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Flatcoat
 


I don't know if you've noticed, but all the buildings in your verinage video are concrete structures, pre-weakened for demolition...

I don't knbow if you noticed but WTC 7 was "pre" weakened by the impact of debris from the collapse of the Twin Towers (it was heavily damaged) and it burned for 8 hours. Is that "pre" weakened enough?


...and the upper section is equal in size to the lower section.

In the demo video, they planned it that way. With regard to WTC 7, the collapse began at the bottom. Unlike the twin towers where the collapse was "top down", the entire weight of WTC 7 crushed each floor as the weight of the whole building started down. 1st floor crushed, then 2nd, third... and so on. Like pulling a bottom card out of a house of cards?

I know you guys are busy re evaluating WTC one more time. There has been significant work done before on this very subject. Here is just one post I made in just one thread about it. The whole thread is worth a glance...

www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 15-3-2013 by intrptr because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 


I'm sorry intrptr, but facts don't matter in a witch hunt.



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 





I don't knbow if you noticed but WTC 7 was "pre" weakened by the impact of debris from the collapse of the Twin Towers (it was heavily damaged) and it burned for 8 hours. Is that "pre" weakened enough?


I think the most significant part of my statement was the fact that they are "concrete" structures as opposed to steel. Besides, I don't see how the debris from the towers could have symmetrically weakened WTC 7 so as to cause a vertical collapse.



In the demo video, they planned it that way. With regard to WTC 7, the collapse began at the bottom. Unlike the twin towers where the collapse was "top down", the entire weight of WTC 7 crushed each floor as the weight of the whole building started down. 1st floor crushed, then 2nd, third... and so on. Like pulling a bottom card out of a house of cards?


So why don't they use that method for verinage then? Do you think it would work? Why do you think both sections are always equal?



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 


In fact you can't get one credible group or person to support the conspiracy. Unless you count the ones making money off of it.

And count the ones who distract the real reason 911 occurred (to start the wars) by reducing the conversation to bickering about the collapse details instead of the bigger picture of conquering the Middle East which by the way, is still ongoing. All as a result of 911.

The same opinions on these threads reappear again and again, "pre" rigged explosives, "asymmetrical" collapse into " perfect footprints". Despite not having one pic of leftover demolition materials like shock tube, wires or blasting caps... despite that the collapses from impact damage and fire can only mean (nothing) in their minds... despite that the collapses were not as "asymmetrical" as they imagine them to be.

At least they stopped with the fire temperature and "nano" thermite cutting charges, the hologram planes. remote controlled, cruise missile BS. Haven't heard those in a while. Maybe they are learning a little at a time. Despite their best full blinders, head in the sand denial, they must later admit that not all the 911 conspiracy theories are as strong as they used to be. The further down the road we get from the event the more they have learned about fires and how they work, about construction and demolition and about the distraction all this provides from the actual 911 truth that the US government and military industrial complex planned this to, like you said... wait for it... make money.

Greed, pure and simple.

Now back to bickering about "asymmetric collapses" and "perfect foot prints".





new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join