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

reply to post by intrptr

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.

No they come in waves.
It used to be that every three weeks an old/renewed theory is dredged up for a rechew.

In a couple of weeks it will be the pentagon missle thing again. Then it'll be flight 93. Or maybe the dancing Israelis.

reply to post by samkent


The Jews have NOT kept Ahmedinejad silent on 9/11 lol.

It is truly amazing to see that you think things cannot be kept secret very easily, that agents of all kinds are busy at work hiding things on a 24/7 basis.

When is the public ever given evidence of anything ?

Everything is kept away from public consumption, "for the good of us all".

National security is cited in every way imagineable as a way to halt crimes, and the media does exactly as they are told, ALWAYS.

I'm a Brit and I have to say that the whole 9/11 thing has always stunk of it being an inside job .

" Only in America " folks

reply to post by Flatcoat

I think the most significant part of my statement was the fact that they are "concrete" structures as opposed to steel.

The buildings in the demo weren't "high rise" either. Doesn't matter if concrete, steel or both. The demo is to show how weight of upper floors will collapse anything once they begin falling (even without explosive initiation). weight of structure falling crushes the next floor and the next floor, etc.-- in a "top - down" collapse.

Besides, I don't see how the debris from the towers could have symmetrically weakened WTC 7 so as to cause a vertical collapse.

"Helped" weaken the structure. Then add uncontrolled fire for 8 hours. Combined they weakened it just enough to initiate a collapse. Then gravity took over. You see? Not any one of those things, but all combined.

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?

They weren't (all equal). The engineers wanted to

a) not use explosives. Because they are loud (break windows), dangerous (accidents), and expen$ive.

b) Wind up with the same result (total collapse) without much damage to nearby structures. Explosive trains or sets can fail and then the collapse is not complete or falls sideways risking damage to nearby structures.

c) they were making sure the weight of the top of the buildings were sufficient to crush everything below into a pile of dust. It didn't always work by the way (in the video). The foundations of all buildings are built stronger than the top stories.

The towers in New York are a compromise of materials and cost to attain their height. They are actually more susceptible to impact and fire because of their lightweight construction materials at higher altitudes. By the way, all towers that fell were made of concrete and steel.

reply to post by samkent

Keeps me amused. In the far reaches of the back of my mind--- I (like to believe) I am getting through. One issue, one mind, at a time (maybe).

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by intrptr

 

No they come in waves.
It used to be that every three weeks an old/renewed theory is dredged up for a rechew.

In a couple of weeks it will be the pentagon missle thing again. Then it'll be flight 93. Or maybe the dancing Israelis.

Do you think this is because the majority of 9/11 conspiracy people have gone on to other "truths" to expose? I notice that about the same time they disappeared the "Newtown shooting is a hoax" people started to appear.

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by samkent

 

Keeps me amused. In the far reaches of the back of my mind--- I (like to believe) I am getting through. One issue, one mind, at a time (maybe).

Keeps you amused ?
Are you proud of the fact that you support the theory of 9/11 being a terrorist attack , or are you totally terrified of admitting that you may not be safe from your very own PTB ?

reply to post by GoodOlDave

Do you think this is because the majority of 9/11 conspiracy people have gone on to other "truths" to expose? I notice that about the same time they disappeared the "Newtown shooting is a hoax" people started to appear.

That was funny, thanks for the laugh. The "it never happened" crowd, lol.

Originally posted by tpg47
I'm a Brit and I have to say that the whole 9/11 thing has always stunk of it being an inside job .

" Only in America " folks

Not true. Didn't the conspiracy crowd in the UK push the "Princess Di was assassinated by the SAS to protect the reputation of the royal family" for a time, there?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by tpg47
I'm a Brit and I have to say that the whole 9/11 thing has always stunk of it being an inside job .

" Only in America " folks

Not true. Didn't the conspiracy crowd in the UK push the "Princess Di was assassinated by the SAS to protect the reputation of the royal family" for a time, there?

I have absolutely no idea and to be honest , I couldn't care less .
Diana died in a car wreck . It was very sad , but it was what it was and I should imagine it would be futile to try to prove otherwise .

reply to post by tpg47

Keeps you amused ?

Yes it does. See my above post.

Are you proud of the fact that you support the theory of 9/11 being a terrorist attack...

You do realize that Saudis made up the crews and the friendly relationship between the Bushes and them? I am not proud of that by the way.

Ahem, I know you are not proud either of Tony Blair's complicity siding with all the WMD rhetoric leading to both our countries invading Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya...?

...or are you totally terrified of admitting that you may not be safe from your very own PTB ?

Very terrified. What are the risks of exposing these truths for all the world (and the controllers) to see?

I would caution you to jumping to conclusions or putting words in my mouth. I am very aware of the way 911 was used to start all the wars by both our countries and Nato, whatever. And sickened to the core of my being about it. That is very "Un -- American". How about you> How do you feel about your government?

Be brave now.

reply to post by intrptr


Wow . I didn't expect such an honest and open reply .
I guess now more than ever we are all afraid of what our own governments are capable of and what ends they are prepared to go to , to achieve their goals .

Respect .

Originally posted by intrptr
Here is "asymetrical footy print" (without explosives), one more time.

There are several problems with the Verinage controlled demolition technique when comparing it to the WTC:

- Firstly, you're attempting to use a controlled demolition to refute a controlled demolition theory. Those two mutually exclude each other.

- Secondly, the Verinage technique only works on concrete structures because concrete breaks and crumbles. This technique cannot and will not work on a steel-structured highrise because steel structures do not break and crumble like concrete.

- Thirdly, the Verinage technique utilizes the top 50% of the structure to crush the bottom 50% of the structure, unlike what we saw at the WTC where the top 15% of the structure crushes the bottom 85% of the structure according to conspiracy theorists who cling to the official conspiracy theory.

- Lastly, you'll notice that the isolated ejections seen at the WTC are absent from all of the videos of the Verinage technique:




If those isolated ejections were from air escaping as official conspiracy theory proponents claim, then we would see them in other building collapses. But we don't. We only see these isolated ejections in controlled demolitions that use high-powered explosives. And we see them in the WTC where explosions are heard, flashes are seen, and timed / synchronous booms are heard as the buildings were collapsing.

Not one single building collapse on record has ever produced isolated ejections except for those buildings that have been brought down by high-powered explosives. This is a fact that cannot be refuted, dismissed, or debunked.

Originally posted 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

I don't know if you've noticed, but making false claims doesn't help anyone's credibility.

NIST's final report on WTC 7 states otherwise:

Other than initiating the fires in WTC 7, the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7.

NIST even went further to say:

Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from fires...

NIST Final Report on the Collapse of WTC 7

NIST even states that not only was the damage not sufficient enough to have any effect on the collapse of WTC 7, the damage was not extensive and had no bearing on the collapse of WTC 7 at all.

Which brings us to:

Originally posted by intrptr
(it was heavily damaged)

Not withstanding the facts provided by NIST above, I provided images on the first page. I'm not sure why you ignored those images, but here they are again:





Besides the gouge which severed only 7 external columns according to NIST, there is no other visible damage to that side of the building from WTC 1's collapse other than minor cosmetic damage.

Originally posted by intrptr
and it burned for 8 hours

This point is irrelevant since there have been numerous fires in steel-structured highrises that have burned for far longer and have never collapsed, most not even a partial collapse.

Originally posted by intrptr
With regard to WTC 7, the collapse began at the bottom

You mean like most other controlled demolitions?

Originally posted by intrptr
Despite not having one pic of leftover demolition materials like shock tube, wires or blasting caps

And you're assuming someone was looking for those items. Do you have any idea of how much debris was left over? Or how many thousands of miles of wiring were in those buildings? You know to look for those things in actual controlled demolitions, but those are not looked for in any other building collapse.

Originally posted by intrptr
despite that the collapses from impact damage and fire can only mean (nothing) in their minds

According to NIST's calculations, only 15% of the structure in the impact zones of the towers was damaged, leaving 85% in the impact zones intact, and 100% above and below the impact zones intact. That's still a very solid structure with only minimal to moderate damage.

The only parts of a plane that would've done any damage to the core of the towers would've been the engines and landing gear. The aluminum airframe would have done virtually zero damage to the cores of either tower.

As far as the fires are concerned, fires don't bring down steel-structured highrises. Never have, never will. So, no, the impacts and fires don't really mean much as far as the actual collapses are concerned.

I've read a lot of replies of missing evidence, blast caps and such. Watch "Blueprint for truth" by "Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth" that I posted a while back, actually I implore you to watch it. I promise you, there is a lot of evidence of explosives, and I mean a lot! For anyone who has watched it, I challenge anyone here to argue against their case, which would be a very difficult thing to do.
They go through the material so that anyone can understand, but if you have a more scientific background you can access the raw material for your own analysis, they encourage it in fact, they say that you shouldn't just take their word for it but research it yourself and draw your own conclusions, in the words of Timothy Leary "Think for yourself, question authority" but I'm sure you all know that.

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.

Yea.. because the "truth" is what makes sense.. right

the evidence reads like a bad spy thriller. and then there are plotholes like many of the "hijackers" are still ALIVE. passports from the hijackers being found in rubble. norad standing down. i guess because a talking head on TV said this is the truth, it is to be taken as gospel. oh well, back to the sand. it needs a head to be stuck in it.

reply to post by _BoneZ_

- Firstly, you're attempting to use a controlled demolition to refute a controlled demolition theory.

I am refuting the "conspiracy theory" of controlled demolition, with "real world" controlled demolition. If one is real and the other theory they cannot be "mutually exclusive".

- Secondly, the Verinage technique only works on concrete structures because concrete breaks and crumbles. This technique cannot and will not work on a steel-structured highrise because steel structures do not break and crumble like concrete.

All the buildings were constructed of both? The video shows how a collapse initiated on one floor brings down the house, no matter what the building is made of.

Look at the beginning of this video. Collapse initiated at damaged floors. The weight of floors above have only to crush one-floor-at-a-time, not "all 85" at once?

Just like we saw...


And here (enhanced)...

- Lastly, you'll notice that the isolated ejections seen at the WTC are absent from all of the videos of the Verinage technique:

I thought the "isolated ejections" were explained as compressed air blowing out ahead of the collapse wave on the floors where elevator doors were? Same with reports of explosions on ground floors and basement elevator shafts early on... by fuel / air mix explosions?

Don't know about elevators in French demo video. Those buildings aren't as tall. There are clear compression waves from each floor collapsing just from air pressure ahead of the collapse wave, though. The 50% thing I explained as they're making sure the weight of the building atop the floor "pull' was sufficient to crush each floor. That is all that is necessary... to crush the next and the next all the way to the ground. 50 / 50 doesn't matter. How much does 15 stories of WTC weigh when it falls 20 feet? Answer: enough to crush the next floor below. Thats what happened.

If those isolated ejections were from air escaping as official conspiracy theory proponents claim, then we would see them in other building collapses. But we don't.

Yes we do. WTC 7. Beginning at :39 in here. The red marked windows are the stairwell windows which all blow out ahead of the collapse. A stairwell is like an elevator shaft in that it is open from top to bottom and the compressed air from the collapse will seek the easiest path, right?

I don't know if you've noticed, but making false claims doesn't help anyone's credibility.

---

where explosions are heard, flashes are seen, and timed / synchronous booms are heard as the buildings were collapsing.

Both your quotes... Ahem... Some people heard booms. Mostly frightened, confused witnesses. Other booms could be anything.

Real world explosions... the kind of explosives needed to cut beams and fracture reinforced columns are LOUD. And they always proceed the actual collapse. Always. They have to... in order for the collapse to occur, I mean. These "cracks" are readily evident for miles when those kinds of demolitions occur.


Thank you for your post, I enjoyed that. Gotta go.

reply to post by Konoyaro

Show me one photo of spent "shock tube" left over in the rubble. It is very resilient. It is always left over from explosives demolition. Tell that to the firefighters who are trained to identify these components clambering in the rubble. They lost friends there... you think they would hide that? Or miss seeing it?

Originally posted by Rubic0n
Weeks before 9/11 there were power outages

Conspiracy theory lie, there is no evidence of that at all

and "construction" being done including the removal of bomb sniffing dogs

Another conspiracy theory lie, how do you explain the death of Sirius, or do you just ignore it as it destroys your conspiracy theory?

by the security company which coincidentally was run by a "Bush".

Yet another conspiracy theory lie, it was NOT run by a Bush.

Anyone care to explain why we keep getting this much debunked nonsense posted here?

Originally posted by Brother Stormhammer
I also get rather tired of hearing about how WTC 1 and 2 collapsed so neatly into their own footprints

WTC 1&2 did not land in their own footprints, WTC 7did. So you can stop being tired about it.

The twin towers were too tall and skinny to land in their footprints, that is why the rubble was ejected in a 360­­° arc. The collapses were still vertical, in other words they collapse down through the path of most resistance symmetrically. Resistance that should have slowed the collapse due to Newtons 3rd law, equal opposite reaction, the conservation of momentum, and the loss of mass. Each impacting level you lose Ke to deformation, friction/resistance, sound, heat. With nothing acting to remove resistance the collapses should have slowed, but they accelerated.

NIST claims sagging trusses pulled in columns. A truss that is sagging from heat can not put more force on the columns they were attached to than when they were cold. The trusses were attached to the columns with 1" and 5/8" bolts, which would have failed long before the columns did. The truss itself would fail before the columns did.

Two building doing the same thing is not a freak coincidence, it shows it was planned to happen.

Originally posted by samkent
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.

It's ok to admit you're scared samkent, my kids are afraid of the boogyman, but to be so in-denial is just plain ridiculous.

...You know the sky is blue on a clear day, right?

....(awaiting skeptical response)