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

page: 7
38
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 11:20 PM
link   
IMO this is the most damning evidence that a conspiracy was afoot on 9/11. It has not been adequately explained, although others have attempted to convince some that it has, which is a lie. Considering all other factors, for something to fall at 9.8 m x s^-2, there must not be any resistance underneath the falling body. So for the building to collapse in this manner, the parts of the building beneath the top, which is the part that was supposedly damaged, all those lower portions of the building must have been falling at the same speed as well. OR, they must have been falling for a longer period of time.

None of it makes any sense, and personally I still feel the evidence points to an Israeli/Mossad operation, and not some Afghani terrorists. That was probably the cover story from the beginning. And the second weirdest aspect of 911 is the Pentagon. Out of over 80 cameras capturing footage at the time of impact, only one piece of footage has been released, and that particular piece of footage did not show an airplane at all. And then there is the FACT that one of the planes that hit the WTC was NOT a passenger plane at all, but a military plane. Countless people are recorder, there on the street as this was happening, saying that the plane was a military aircraft. People know what a passenger aircraft looks like, and what everyone saw was definitely not in that category.




posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 12:46 AM
link   
Give it a rest already. Everyone knows it was an inside job.. but it cant and never will be prooved or admitted. Do you really think they`d do that and selfimplode the country??? Immagine the repurcussions... staging a war like that by killing off your own citizens.



posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 01:32 AM
link   
OK Americans. If you ever by any stroke of luck get your 2nd revolution, you will know who to waterboard.

Starting with the authors of the NIST report....


We are waiting....For the fun that is coming our way...



posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 04:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by intrptr
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.


Translation:

"Hmmmmm Maybe he's right and I'm wrong after all? - But I'm way too stubborn and ignorant to admit that. What's the best sentence I can write whilst trying to sound that I'm still in the right, and get out of this extremely deep hole I've dug for myself without losing too much face???? Ahhhh this should do, hopefully nobody will notice"...

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.

edit on 16/3/13 by OpenEars123 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 





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.

Here ya go.
And it started with a little old vending machine fire.



posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 




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.

Please explain what shutting down power and rigging a building have to do with each other?



posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by rebelv
 




"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 planes heading and direction finding equipment were set for Washington.



posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Soapusmaximus
 




Or how about the NANO thermate found in all the dust samples - only made in one or two places at best?

Totally debunked. You must be reading older conspiracy rants on this subect.



posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by JiggyPotamus
 





And then there is the FACT that one of the planes that hit the WTC was NOT a passenger plane at all, but a military plane.

It sounds good on a conspiracy site. But it ignors the passenger atitfacts and body parts found all over the place.
For your snipet to be true you then have to explain how people and items from passengers on another plane ended up around the building.

Remember when a lie is told another lie must be used to cover up the first lie. It never ends.



posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
Here [/url] ya go.
And it started with a little old vending machine fire.

By comparing that particular building collapse, it would seem that dishonesty and misinformation take precedence over facts and truth. Even though this was already debunked in the thread you linked to, I'll do it again here:





- Firstly, it was obviously only a partial collapse as evidenced in the image.

- Secondly, this was not a steel-structured building. It was a concrete-framed building with steel reinforcements in the concrete columns. The steel reinforcement decreased with height.

- Lastly, the Verinage demolition technique has already shown that concrete structures will easily crush themselves down to the ground once collapse has been initiated. And that's exactly what we see here.


Steel-structured highrises cannot crush themselves down to the ground, nor have any completely collapsed down to the ground due to fire in history. This is a fact that remains unchallenged.

Comparing a concrete-structured building to a steel-structured building is dishonest, misleading, and a form of trickery to the lay person who isn't versed in building construction or demolition techniques, and building collapse history.



Originally posted by samkent
Please explain what shutting down power and rigging a building have to do with each other?

I didn't say anything about rigging anything. It was called a lie that there was a power down on the weekend before. I proved that wrong with two separate people coming forward and testifying to the contrary.



Originally posted by samkent
Totally debunked. You must be reading older conspiracy rants on this subect.

Can you provide the peer-reviewed paper that debunks the peer-reviewed thermite paper? We all would love to see it.

Otherwise, please recant your "totally debunked" comment. Thanks.




edit on 16-3-2013 by _BoneZ_ because: sp



posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by JiggyPotamus
And then there is the FACT that one of the planes that hit the WTC was NOT a passenger plane at all, but a military plane. Countless people are recorder, there on the street as this was happening, saying that the plane was a military aircraft. People know what a passenger aircraft looks like, and what everyone saw was definitely not in that category.

Since "samkent" commented on this, I will as well.

It most certainly is not a fact that one of the planes was a military plane. And it is also not "countless" people. It's only a couple people, and they were just mistaken. These witnesses you speak of were also commenting about the second plane.

The second plane we know was a passenger plane:




posted on Mar, 17 2013 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by br0ker
Give it a rest already. Everyone knows it was an inside job.. but it cant and never will be prooved or admitted. Do you really think they`d do that and selfimplode the country??? Immagine the repurcussions... staging a war like that by killing off your own citizens.


I agree, but I would like to see some independent experiments done.

1. Crash an airplane loaded with fuel into a high rise, an airplane drone,
and a building they wanted to demolish anyway, don't even send in
fire fighters to try and put out the fire, and then sit and watch and
wait to see how long it will take for the building to completely
disintegrate as it falls at demolition rate speed into its own
foundation.

2. Crash an airplane of comparable size, into a 3 or 4 story building like
the pentagon, but first, by remote control and perform those maneuvers
they claim the pilot performed to see if the airplane can even do it,
then see if it makes an only 8 foot diameter hole in the building leaving
almost no sign of airplane wreckage behind, no wings sheared off,
nothing, it will also be interesting to see if the lawn is pristine also.

Rebel 5



posted on Mar, 17 2013 @ 07:20 PM
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.


wow Sammy
i'm sure glad you are on "their" side
well you have certainly answered the question" why does the OS defy the laws of physics?"
and veryfied my answer:
"the average US citizen has the science education of a 12 year old"

lol
keep it up though
the truth couldn't win without you


"According to the Warren Report the missile hit JFK in the posterior neck, then without striking any hard object passed through the neck to exit at the front of his throat. It then entered Texas Governor John B. Connally's back at the right arm pit, sliding along his fifth rib, demolishing four inches of the rib before it exited his chest below the right nipple. The bullet then allegedly struck and shattered the radius of the right wrist on the dorsal side, then exited at the base of his palm and hit his left thigh just about the knee. The Report then asserts that CE 399 traveled about three inches beneath the surface of the skin, hit the femur and deposited a lead fragment on the bone. Then, sometime later, with a spasm of reverse kinetic energy it spontaneously exited the hole in Connally's thigh and neatly tucked itself under the mattress of a stretcher parked in a hallway of the Parkland Memorial Hospital that the Report asserted was linked to the wounded governor. There it rested calmly under the mattress waiting for its rendezvous with history."

jfklancer.com...

OSs always seem to be like the gulf of tonkin incident or the official uss liberty event, or the Kennedy assassination report
spurious to say the least

edit on 17-3-2013 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 06:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Millions of threads discussing this, but the smoking gun that WTC 7 was imploded is the FACT that the majority of the building landed in it's own footprint, evidenced by the outer walls being on top of the debris pile.

In a natural collapse the outer walls would be under the rubble, not on top, path of least resistance and all that. It takes timed controlled explosives to make the outer walls fold in on top of the rest of the collapsed building, exactly what an implosion demolition is designed to do.


Can you show a natural collapse then video & (or) pictures



posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 06:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Comparing a concrete-structured building to a steel-structured building is dishonest, misleading, and a form of trickery to the lay person who isn't versed in building construction or demolition techniques, and building collapse history.



Tell that to the AE9/11 truth guys on here that post pictures of high rise building fires on here that are also concrete or concrete steel construction and had NO impact damage.

Also the simple fact that the OTHER buildings you and others continue to compare the towers with are NOT 100+ floors high of a tube in tube design were floors can fall internally in the structure!!!



posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Can you show a natural collapse then video & (or) pictures


Can you?

Where is your vid and pics of a steel framed building that collapsed from fire and had the same outcome as WTC 7?

Can you demonstrate that sagging trusses can pull in columns?



Here is a vid of implosion demolitions, notice the similarities to WTC 7, the penthouse drops first, the outer walls lean inwards (the so-called lean of WTC 7), and the outer walls end up sitting on top of the rubble. Buildings do not collapse that way naturally.



Now can you find a multi story steel framed building that collapsed from fire, that falls like an implosion demolition?

edit on 4/8/2013 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Also the simple fact that the OTHER buildings you and others continue to compare the towers with are NOT 100+ floors high of a tube in tube design were floors can fall internally in the structure!!!


But they didn't collapses internally in the structure.

The whole structure, including the massive core, was all collapsing at the same time. Other wise the connections to the core would have caused friction/resistance, and the collapse would have slowed.

So, if the floors were simply collapsing within the structure then what caused the core to fail along with the floors, and no the floors did not hold the core up.

edit on 4/8/2013 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Can you show a natural collapse then video & (or) pictures


Can you?

Where is your vid and pics of a steel framed building that collapsed from fire and had the same outcome as WTC 7?

Can you demonstrate that sagging trusses can pull in columns?



Here is a vid of implosion demolitions, notice the similarities to WTC 7, the penthouse drops first, the outer walls lean inwards (the so-called lean of WTC 7), and the outer walls end up sitting on top of the rubble. Buildings do not collapse that way naturally.



Now can you find a multi story steel framed building that collapsed from fire, that falls like an implosion demolition?

edit on 4/8/2013 by ANOK because: (no reason given)

Interesting how you chose video from implosionworld when they explicitly state that 911 was not CD.

Here
edit on 8-4-2013 by samkent because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
Interesting how you chose video from implosionworld when they explicitly state that 911 was not CD.


I didn't choose it for that reason, just the first one I found.

I don't care what they said. This is the problem with this discussion, you go by what other people are telling you, not by your own knowledge. So I am not debating you, I am debating whoevers point you decide to use.

They can say what they want, this discussion is not about what people have said, it is about the physics of the collapses. If you have never taken into consideration the result of a major company going against the governments explanation, then you need a reality check mate. I know plenty of professionals who think the collapses could not have been caused by the fires, but they will never admit that in public because of the consequences. In some circles it would be worse than telling someone you're a gay middle eastern pedophile, or worse yet, an Obama supporter.

So unless you can explain what I have asked you to explain, what other people say has no relevance at all to this discussion.

So can you explain how sagging trusses can pull in the columns? Can you explain how WTC 7 landed in it's footprint? That is all I am asking, shouldn't be too hard for an expert as yourself, eh?





new topics
top topics
 
38
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join