So Just Fire Brought Down WTC7 In A Perfect Free Fall Collapse ?

page: 1
34
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+12 more 
posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 10:07 PM
link   
So I was watching this video.....



It made me think if when they are trying to CD a building they even have trouble bringing it down into their own footprints. How much more so would a building that has fires burning on a dozen floors be challenged to collapse perfectly into it's on footprint at free fall speed. Even these CD buildings don't collapse at the rate that WTC7 did.
So how can fire accomplish it ?
I have watched a large building about 10 stories engulfed in flames, slowly it collapses, and the collapse is not even total, things break off, things fall off, and the heat is incredible, it felt like 100 degrees in cool fall weather at night.

What I do know is that all evidence on the WTC7 situation points to something other than what has been presented to the populace. Which is, fire and one major column on one side of the building failed, this caused the entire building to collapse in perfect simetry , not even from the side where the column failed first according to the NIST report. And yet in other planned CD you do see one side of the building going down first, as it's columns were taken out first creating a kind of domino CD from left to right or vs versa.

Even if the NIST report was 100% accurate in detailing what brought down the building, the collapse would have looked different. We know this from observing other CD buildings, and what happened when columns were compromised on either side of the building before the other side.
edit on 1-6-2013 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 10:18 PM
link   
This is such a unique and original thread....

I don't like calling people out for repeat threads, but seriously?
You've been here since 06. What are you thinking?


+20 more 
posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 10:20 PM
link   
Building 7 was a member of the WTC building union.

When it saw 1 & 2 go down it thought for a long while and then decided to go down in sympathy. Buildings 3,4,5 and 6 were mugs and wouldn't toe the union line.

My version is just as plausible as the Governments.

P



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 10:43 PM
link   
Yes just fire, and it was pretty breezy in NYC that day.


+1 more 
posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Ghost375
 


The last paragraph in the OP was in fact new to me after all this time, so yes new thoughts can create new threads, it is what this forum exists for right ?



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 



Even if the NIST report was 100% accurate in detailing what brought down the building, the collapse would have looked different.


This statement doesn't make sense. If the report were 100% accurate in what brought down the building, then it wouldn't matter how it looked to you.



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by iwontrun
and it was pretty breezy in NYC that day.

Actually, the forecast had the winds at 5-15mph.



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by iwontrun
Yes just fire, and it was pretty breezy in NYC that day.

There was no breeze. I live in NYC and was there. That was pathetic.



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
So Just Fire Brought Down WTC7 In A Perfect Free Fall Collapse ?


No. It didn't. And I've never seen anyone claim this.

When you've actually taken the time to learn what people say about WTC7 you'll be in a position to criticise their position. Until then you're attacking an argument nobody's making.
edit on 1/6/13 by Sankari because: typo...



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 12:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Bilk22
 


I believe he made a "tongue and cheek" comment, but it went right over your head.




www.geekation.com...



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sankari

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
So Just Fire Brought Down WTC7 In A Perfect Free Fall Collapse ?


No. It didn't. And I've never seen anyone claim this.

When you've actually taken the time to learn what people say about WTC7 you'll be in a position to criticise their position. Until then you're attacking an argument nobody's making.
edit on 1/6/13 by Sankari because: typo...


Can you prove any of the points you are trying to make. Just because you have never seen anyone claim this means absolutely nothing. Then you claim your position as absolute fact and throw it right back.

Photos? Pics? Anything other than supposition.

P:


+9 more 
posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 01:14 AM
link   
Building 7 is the key to understanding that the goverment was involved in 9/11
whistleblower testimony places trucks comming to the towers in the middle of the night in the pre 9/11 weeks..
they show up after janitorial staff leave,..and leave before the new days starts....what did they bring into the towers?



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 01:39 AM
link   
Might have had something to do with quite a bit of the side of the building facing where WTC 1&2 receiving damage from falling debris of the other two building collapsing. You know, that side that doesn't have lots of video nor pictures, but are out there to be found.

Of course I would also think that two very large buildings collapsing would have had quite a bit of vibration. Maybe even enough to put some serious cracks in fire damaged concrete perhaps.

I do recall a church being across the street being flattened by rubble from the twin towers, but no one seems to think that was mysterious or even controlled demolition. In fact, I think the church went a little bit faster than free fall speed. Pretty sure some cars parked on the street were flattened as well. But it could have been thermite which is basically just rust and powdered aluminum, but they say the found lots of traces of rust and aluminum in the area. Where could rust and aluminum came from? Maybe those two big buildings that had lots of steel in the framework and were clad in aluminum that had been exposed to the pollution of NYC for 40 some years? Nah, had to been planted because that makes more sense despite the dust clouds raised from those buildings were big enough to be seen from satellites in orbit without zooming in very far at all. Just enough to see the normal cloud cover across half country since they were weather satellites.



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 01:58 AM
link   
Some of you have completely missed the point of this OP, re-watch that 40 second video until you get it.
Yes it could have collapsed, but it would not have collapsed so fast and so perfectly like that, that is the whole point of the video, to help you understand how buildings look when the structure is weakened and does collapse.



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 02:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
Some of you have completely missed the point of this OP, re-watch that 40 second video until you get it.
Yes it could have collapsed, but it would not have collapsed so fast and so perfectly like that, that is the whole point of the video, to help you understand how buildings look when the structure is weakened and does collapse.


Do you think a youtube video is the way to learn this? Or many years learning structural engineering?

Do you think that the engineers who designed and built the towers learned their trade from youtube videos?

Do you not think that calculations are pretty important?


+1 more 
posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 02:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Ahabstar
 


Since you brought up the topic of pictures/video, why have we still not seen any footage other than the five frames that were played that day regarding the supposed plane wrecking into the Pentagon?

Why have official requests been denied?

Furthermore, if it were these supposed terrorists, and there is absolute proof of this in the tapes, then why don't they release them and wash this thing clean beyond an unreasonable doubt.

Oh, and by the way, the church that your strawman alluded to didn't collapse into it's own footprint. WTC7 did. I could go on for days about the inconsistencies in NORAD, molten steel in which jet fuel cannot burn hot enough to accomplish this, or half a dozen of other claims made by reputable and real engineers and architects.

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, for one example. And by a simply search in one of many, many other threads a countless number of other links for more substantiated and certified claims rather than comparing three skyscrapers and the countless incosistencies compared to the church across the street that was flattened, or whatever your strawman said.

Maybe they should have constructed that church out of what the terrorists (who are alive?) passport was; after all that thing survived a fiery inferno that turned steel to molten.

Same petty debates. Same pathetic deflects. So, now, I've seen WTC7 and it's consistencies being compared to a falling leaf, a tornado, and a nameless church.

And I thought those "truthers" (notice how it's easier to slander the otherside rather than listen and investigate it) with all their holographic plane BS were the epitome of crazy.




posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 02:28 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


Well when at least 2 CD experts say it's a CD, and over 1900 brave engineers and architects have said something is not right with WTC7, I think your point is mute.

A&E Signers



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 02:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by RomeByFire
reply to post by Ahabstar
 

Since you brought up the topic of pictures/video, why have we still not seen any footage other than the five frames that were played that day regarding the supposed plane wrecking into the Pentagon?

All the local CCTV has been released.


Why have official requests been denied?

They haven't, we have a total list of all the videos the FBI collected


Furthermore, if it were these supposed terrorists, and there is absolute proof of this in the tapes, then why don't they release them and wash this thing clean beyond an unreasonable doubt.

They don't have absolute proof, nobody can ever have absolute proof. Christ they found a passport and that is apparently not enough proof. They found video wills and that's apparently not enough proof. The two people behind the plot spoke loudly and frequently about how awesome they were. Not enough proof.

You could put a 911 truther in the damn plane seconds before impact and they'd begin questioning the passengers on which federal agency they work for.


Oh, and by the way, the church that your strawman alluded to didn't collapse into it's own footprint. WTC7 did. I could go on for days about the inconsistencies in NORAD, molten steel in which jet fuel cannot burn hot enough to accomplish this, or half a dozen of other claims made by reputable and real engineers and architects.

Or you could just read peer reviewed journals, notice that not a single 'reputable' scientist or engineer has published anything remotely related to WTC7 and that if it collapsed into its own footprint, you have to ask what happened here: en.wikipedia.org...


Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, for one example.

Have you seen their site? They still list thermite and high explosives as what was used, which makes zero sense. They don't exist to do anything but 'ask questions' and collect money. They have yet to publish anything.

Why is it you're willing to listen to one side, but when the head of the largest building group (CTBUH) states his position explicitly it has no effect on you?



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 02:29 AM
link   
It seems to me that the OP has proven it wasn't a controlled demolition.

From his own example, he states how impossible it is to create a freefall into the buildings own footprint. If even professional demolition people can't do this with all the time in the world and in total public view, how would you expect a bunch of guys sneaking around during the early morning hours to wire a 100% perfect demolition?

You wouldn't.

Therefore the only explanation left is that it was a freak of nature, not a controlled demolition.



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 02:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by exponent
 


Well when at least 2 CD experts say it's a CD, and over 1900 brave engineers and architects have said something is not right with WTC7, I think your point is mute.

A&E Signers

Wow two CD experts? Can you name one that agrees with you completely?

AE911truth don't have people sign anything specific, it's a general petition and they have published nothing.

They have no proof, they have 'things wot look odd'.

Compare this to the highly cited papers on the other side such as 'Performance of long span trusses in fire'. Why will you accept 1900 random people (few have relevant qualifications) but won't accept whole engineering groups on the other side?





new topics
top topics
 
34
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join