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

Originally posted by intrptr
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

Gravity is the weakest force. You ignore resistance. If we covered this before you obviously didn't learn anything.

Fire cannot cause resistance to be removed instantly to cause an instant global collapse. Fire burns fuel, and then moves on to other fuel or is extinguished. Steel columns are not fuel, they do not burn. So all that is effecting the columns is radiated heat, which takes a long time to heat steel up, which btw will never reach the same temp as the fire.

WTC 7 wasn't even fully engulfed with fire, just a lot of smoke. It could not have caused all columns to suddenly fail, it simply doesn't work that way. Even IF it was fully engulfed the collapse would not have been global as fire does not effect all columns the same way at the same time, only timed explosives can do that.

Fire does not make gravity a stronger force....

What does it mean to say “Gravity is the weakest of the forces”?

Verianage is not used on steel buildings, and they drop 50% on 50%, not just the top few floors hoping they will crush more mass than themselves. Talk about going over stuff before, every one of your arguments have been gone over before, and it's all rubbish mate.

I thought this video already proved years ago that it what a set up?

* * * * * * * A T T E N T I O N * * * * * * *

So far, so good.............. almost.

Just a reminder to keep to the topic -- " WTC7 falls at free fall speed? Why does the official story defy know laws of physics?". Eye on the ball, please. Debate each other and the available information and not each others' personalities. Personal attacks/accusations won't fly here.

Let us not forget: All Members: 9/11 Conspiracies Forum Update and Information

Thanks!

Originally posted by intrptr
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"

You're missing the part where the official conspiracy theory claims that fire brought all three buildings down. If you're going to do a comparison, you have to show a fire-induced collapse of a steel-structured highrise and how it compares to the collapses on 9/11.

By comparing other controlled demolitions to 9/11, you're actually helping the controlled demolition theory, not hurting it. But at the same time, you're hurting your credibility by trying to compare concrete building collapses with steel-structured collapses, which are not comparable.

Originally posted by intrptr
The video shows how a collapse initiated on one floor brings down the house, no matter what the building is made of.

Did you not even read what you quoted? You can't "bring down the house" in a steel-structured highrise.

Because you cannot tell the difference between a steel-structured highrise and a concrete structure, I see there is some lack of knowledge of building construction and demolition techniques.

Think of it this way: buildings in earthquake zones will be made of steel because in an earthquake, a steel structure will sway and bend, but still stand. A concrete structure will crack, and crumble under the slightest stress. Concrete structures are no where near as strong as steel structures when it comes to destructive forces such as earthquakes and demolitions.

The Verinage technique only works on concrete structures because steel-structured highrises cannot fall or collapse like a deck of cards or match sticks. Accordingly, fires alone cannot bring down steel-structured highrises either. That's why we have explosive demolition, which is the only demolition technique currently used on steel-structured highrises.

Do a search on YouTube for "failed demolitions" and you'll see numerous steel-structured buildings that just fall over, but stay together. They don't crumble, they don't break up. Steel-structured buildings are far stronger than official conspiracy theory proponents tend to believe.

Originally posted by intrptr
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?

Again, steel-structured highrises cannot be crushed or crumbled like a deck of cards, or like concrete structures can.

Originally posted by intrptr
I thought the "isolated ejections" were explained as compressed air blowing out ahead of the collapse wave on the floors where elevator doors were?

I don't know who fed you that completely made-up disinformation, but that would be totally incorrect. Official conspiracy theory proponents have theorized that the ejections are from compressed air, but it's only a theory to explain away one of the many signs of controlled demolitions.

I can see you're not familiar with how explosive controlled demolitions work, but had you spent some time doing research on explosive controlled demolitions, you would know that isolated ejections are a direct result of high-powered explosives being detonated.

Because isolated ejections are only ever seen in explosive controlled demolitions, and because they are seen at the WTC, and because hundreds of witnesses reported explosions and flashes, it's safe to assume the isolated ejections seen at the WTC are from high-powered explosives.

Originally posted by intrptr
to crush the next and the next all the way to the ground. 50 / 50 doesn't matter.

With the Verinage technique, 50/50 does matter, that's why it's done that way. And once again, you cannot "crush the next and the next all the way to the ground" in steel-structured highrises. Steel-structured highrises are too strongly built for that.

Originally posted by intrptr
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.

Those are not the stairwells. Who told you they were? Those windows being blown out are either from explosives being detonated all the way up the building, or from that whole facade flexing. Likely the former since the blow-outs are all in the same area.

HINT: compressed air won't blow out ahead of a collapse since there's nothing being compressed.



Cont'd in next post...

Originally posted by intrptr
Some people heard booms. Mostly frightened, confused witnesses.

Those claims would be quite hilarious if this wasn't such a serious topic. Actually, most people heard the booms and explosions. And most of the people that reported them were not "confused". They actually gave quite detailed accounts of what they saw and heard.

Several firefighters saw flashes going up, down and around the towers down at the lower floors while the towers were collapsing up above. Numerous witnesses, including first responders, reported timed, synchronous booms as the towers were collapsing.

Flashes, timed booms, and isolated ejections are all signs of controlled demolitions. None are signs of fire-induced collapse.

Originally posted by intrptr
And they always proceed the actual collapse. Always. They have to...

I think you mean PREceed, which means to come before? Explosions will come before and during a collapse, not after (proceed).

Originally posted by intrptr
These "cracks" are readily evident for miles when those kinds of demolitions occur.

Did you know that you can hear the explosives being detonated in all three WTC buildings for miles? Check out the following video where you can hear the explosives being detonated in all three WTC buildings from two miles away. A subwoofer or headphones with true bass is required to appreciate the explosive sounds. Also, ignore all the other clutter in the video. I only post this video for the purposes of hearing the explosive sounds from two miles away:

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by intrptr
Show me one photo of spent "shock tube" left over in the rubble.

That shock tube looks like any other wiring. And in a building that has thousands of miles of wiring, and with everything being turned all the same color (grey) from concrete dust, that shock tube will blend in with all of the wiring of the buildings.

Nobody thought to even consider specifically looking for controlled demolition components in buildings that were considered brought down by planes and fire.

Do you have any evidence of anyone specifically looking for those components? Not seeing any does not mean that someone specifically looked for them.

Originally posted by hellobruce
Conspiracy theory lie, there is no evidence of that at all

Everyone knows Scott Forbes who came forward in 2004 about the power down on the weekend before 9/11. Another gentleman by the name of Gary Corbett came forward in 2010 with his proof of employment at the WTC, and he also confirmed the power down on the weekend before 9/11.

Two witnesses to the power down means that it happened. Eyewitnesses = evidence, which = no lie on this point.

Originally posted by hellobruce
Another conspiracy theory lie, how do you explain the death of Sirius

Although the extra bomb-sniffing dogs were removed, not all of them were. Not everyone is educated on every single fact. Instead of calling them lies, how about mistaken?

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

While a Bush brother was on the board of directors, Marvin Bush, another Bush family member was the President and CEO: Wirt Walker III.

That's what the "W" stands for in George W. Bush, and his father George H. W. Bush: Walker.

George Walker Bush, and George Herbert-Walker Bush.

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

Anyone care to explain why what you posted just got debunked with facts?

reply to post by hellobruce

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

Got to be some kind of clue, huh? I would star that 5 times but I only have one account.

Originally posted by intrptr
Got to be some kind of clue, huh? I would star that 5 times but I only have one account.

Some kind of clue that he was completely inaccurate? Star his post 5 times because he was completely inaccurate? Please look at my post directly above yours. I debunked everything he claimed.

lol, you gotta be naive and gullible to believe the government's "official" version of what happened. So much evidence that contradicts the official lie that was spoon fed to people. "DURR, no, my government would never lie or cover anything up!"

reply to post by argentus

Just a reminder to keep to the topic -- " WTC7 falls at free fall speed?

Could not possibly fall any faster.

Why does the official story defy know laws of physics?".

It doesn't.

Eye on the ball, please.

Thank you. Since that is so difficult on the 911 forum these days, I rescind any thing offensive I may have already said and apologize to all and to all a good night.

reply to post by _BoneZ_

Your posts are way to long to prompt any further interest from me on here. Maybe if you took it one or two points at a time instead of carpet bombing the whole page...

regardless, have a nice thread... I'm out.

reply to post by _BoneZ_

Your posts are way to long to prompt any further interest from me on here. Maybe if you took it one or two points at a time instead of carpet bombing the whole page...

regardless, have a nice thread... I'm out.

Originally posted by intrptr
Your posts are way to long to prompt any further interest from me on here. Maybe if you took it one or two points at a time instead of carpet bombing the whole page...

You didn't post one or two points at a time in your posts. I do understand that you can't debunk or counter anything I've stated, so I accept your concession. Have a good evening.

reply to post 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."


Well said, and WTC 7 is never even mentioned in the 'ahem' "official"
report '911 Commission report' which was about as independent a
report as having George Bush & Dick Cheney themselves write it.

Virgil Cane

Originally posted by Alfie1

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 ?

The recording only helps confirm the fact that something went wrong that day with there plan.
They didn't expect the passangers to highjack the highjackers.
The passangers manged to get help through the radios and were probly starting feel a little better becuqse with the help of airtrafic they should be able to at least get the plane to the airport and get talked through the landing proeccedures.
With the towers help and the auto pilot they should have been able to at the very least had a slow crash landing somewere in the vicinity of the airport..
But the powers that be would not want this as there would be evidence that wasn't destroyed so they did the next best thing and had a fighter jet shoot it down

reply to post by Soloprotocol


I would have no problem with the fact they could have 'pulled' it to save lives.

But if it was the case, they would find it hard to justify why there already were explosives in the building. But again, they are good at what they do, smooooke and mirrors! I'm sure they would have find a (shoddy) way to justify it.

I have a problem with the fact they are lying and try to make us believe it collapsed on its own.

We could use an ounce of truth once or twice a month for a change

Peace out.

reply to post by Brother Stormhammer


You appear to have missed the sledgehammer sarcasm in my post. I take on board what you have said and more importantly your experience as a fire-fighter, I salute your bravery in that respect, anyone who goes into a burning building when anyone with sense is heading rapidly in the opposite direction deserves and gets my fullest respect.

In all of this I have the utmost respect for those who lost their lives, were injured, and affected by the tragedy of the 9/11 events. Nothing can take away their pain and loss. However, once that is set aside I feel that the official story is lacking, not credible, and hasty and patchy in it's conclusions. Hence we have forums and discussions like this to allow open debate.

In your experience have you seen large steel and concrete structures behave like this when exposed to fire and/or impacts from large objects. Look at the tragedy of the Oklahoma bombing and the building there that was subjected to a massive bomb, yet a significant portion of the building remained standing despite a ground zero detonation, neither did the building catch fire, and collapse neatly on top of the other rubble. There was a large building in China that caught fire, the fire raged for some time, but it didn't collapse, it just burned. There are, I have no doubt, a massive catalogue of building disasters from around the world, yet in all this documented evidence only three buildings ever appear to have collapsed in this manned from these kinds of impact. Much as I want to believe that 9/11 was caused by a group of highly motivated terrorists bent on delivering a major blow to their sworn mortal enemy, it just isn't credible. It smacks more of a crummy TV series cancelled midway through season 1 than real life.

My problem is that the collapse of WTC 1, 2, & 7 aren't credible based on the evidence of the events themselves and even more so when compared to the mass of evidence of other fires and events to other buildings of similar construction. I hope I am wrong, I wish it were as simple as presented in the official story, but...sorry, I just don't believe what we are being told in the official story. I believe that events were manipulated by the military industrial complex to create a pretext for never ending war in far off places to generate millions of dollars to make rich men richer still and keep the general population of Western Civilization living in fear of attack by terrorists, and everyone else in fear of being attacked by US forces and their cohorts, usually us British. It's not as if the US doesn't have form in this respect, Operation Northwoods, and the Gulf of Tonkin incident for starters.

reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman


I do apologise for the troll, but I could not resist!.
www.youtube.com...

Limbo

Originally posted by Soapusmaximus
Subject matter expert my butt,

I do agree that one shouldn't be a "subject matter expert" if one can't even get the subject matter correct. That's why I corrected the incorrect subject matter in my post on the first page. Probably why there has been no response since.