World Trade Center 7 Explosion and Controlled Collaspe Caught on Tape.

a reply to: LaBTop

On a short break just now, that is NOT an answer to my question and YOU know it so again at what point do you start the timer on this collapse.

a reply to: LaBTop

Any large falling mass inside that part of the building could expel enough air to eject dust or debris and again you know that.

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: LaBTop

On a short break just now, that is NOT an answer to my question and YOU know it so again at what point do you start the timer on this collapse.

You are really trying hard to avoid the meat of the matter.
The start of whatever sort of NATURAL collapse, is of no importance for the simple fact that during that collapse, after the arbitrarily chosen "start" point in time by NIST, a 2.25 seconds period of free fall acceleration occurred. Which made it an UNNATURAL collapse.
That's all that matters. If you do not understand that, you have to educate yourself a bit more on physics matters.

What you try to do, is leading the readers away from the meat of the matter. We don't fall into these kind of traps anymore.


NIST started its timer far too early.
They based it b.t.w. on the change in colorization of one pixel, while Chandler just took one pixel positional movement of the roof line and followed that until the dust made it invisible.
Do you have the explanation and the data of that NIST pixel color method?
One thing is sure, NIST came to the same conclusion as David Chandler, after he pointed them to the huge fault in their methodology to determine if free fall acceleration occurred. They also found the same period of FFA, they just smeared some arbitrary seconds around it, to muddy the waters for readers who don't have a firm grip on honest mathematical rules and simple physics. They artificially lengthened their collapse measurements period, to come up with a slower acceleration time. Which is intentional and unforgivable LYING by NIST.

The change in colorization of their chosen pixel could for example have originated from the collapsing east or/and west penthouse structures on WTC 7 its roof area. Which let more sunlight from the sun in the east, shine on that pixel.

The only seconds that matter, are those 2.25 ones, the FFA ones.
No FFA without explosives, in ANY natural collapse. PERIOD, end of discussion.


If NIST however would have chosen its collapse start at a point in time, 8.2 seconds before we saw the parapet line of the top floor's roof beginning to sink, which is the NIST time stamp of the Nicolas Cianca photograph that shows the first sign of collapse, namely the denting of the roof line of the east penthouse, then they would have shown some real logic.



Now they just counted back to reach their goal of 5.4 seconds back in time, from their last measurable pixel position during global collapse.
Just add those 8.2 seconds to their 3 stages total of 5.4 seconds, and still the only important seconds are those 2.25 ones, the FFA ones. Free-fall accelerating debris means E X P L O S I V E S .
Which obliterated 8 stories worth of resistance in WTC 7's bottom 20 stories, in the invisible part of all videos of the WTC 7 collapse.

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: LaBTop

Any large falling mass inside that part of the building could expel enough air to eject dust or debris and again you know that.

Never saw that happen to ONE window. If it would, it would break several windows in a row. Since the WTC Towers were vast empty office spaces, as you should know by now. There were no corridors leading to ONE window. And the airconditioning ducts were situated UNDER those windows, their openings pointing UPWARDS.

By the way, that one window breakage happened many seconds before anything started to fall inside.

originally posted by: LaBTop
a reply to: waypastvne

5. WTC SMOKING GUN PROOF OF EXPLOSIVE DEMOLITION CHARGES by john sosman (view his 75 video's) :
www.youtube.com...
This is by far the best evidence for planted explosives in WTC 1 - 2, ever seen :

See my point 5 in my Final Conclusion chapter of that huge post. So you can read the explanatory text too.

This other post point 5, higher up, is also a good one :

5. The most important video, "9/11 WTC Detonations Finally Revealed" from -BoneZ- does not get one word to address it, from them. Because at last you can hear clearly the first detonations that forced that top-part of WTC North to collapse in on itself, downwards. And pulverized a great deal of that top-part already.

www.youtube.com...

Nice post there is proof of explosions there in those vids, however if people want to believe that airplanes did it which in my opinion flies in the face of logic and common sense it wont matter what is shown to people. I think we are dealing with people who want to believe the official story no matter what. Just as there are people in this day and age that want to believe the earth is flat, no matter what you tell them they wont change thier minds.

originally posted by: LaBTop

This is by far the best evidence for planted explosives in WTC 1 - 2, ever seen :

Your best evidence for explosives is a AC heat exchanger bursting, dumping its freon and blowing a bird screen out of its opening on a mechanical floor ?

That is your best evidence ?

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: LaBTop

This is by far the best evidence for planted explosives in WTC 1 - 2, ever seen :

Your best evidence for explosives is a AC heat exchanger bursting, dumping its freon and blowing a bird screen out of its opening on a mechanical floor ?

That is your best evidence ?

It's total garbage. Bunch of armchair analysts talking like they have vast experience in both controlled demolitions and raging high rise fires because they watched a bunch of YouTube videos they agreed with. Bah. . .

originally posted by: jaffo

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: LaBTop

This is by far the best evidence for planted explosives in WTC 1 - 2, ever seen :

Your best evidence for explosives is a AC heat exchanger bursting, dumping its freon and blowing a bird screen out of its opening on a mechanical floor ?

That is your best evidence ?

It's total garbage. Bunch of armchair analysts talking like they have vast experience in both controlled demolitions and raging high rise fires because they watched a bunch of YouTube videos they agreed with. Bah. . .

And that would make them different to you how?

originally posted by: jaffo
It's total garbage. Bunch of armchair analysts talking like they have vast experience in both controlled demolitions and raging high rise fires because they watched a bunch of YouTube videos they agreed with. Bah. . .

This, one assumes contradicts with YOUR experience in controlled demolitions and raging high rise fires?



As y'all know by now I don't think explosives were used. But I maintain that energy must have been added to the collapse in all cases where free fall speed occured. That would be the energy to clear the space below the falling floors.

WTC7 fell largely with free fall speed, this has been proven sufficiently. Also, the building fell with equal speed over the entire length of the building.

NIST tries to explain this in their model by making the floors collaps first after which the remaining walls, not supported by the floors anymore also collapse. But in the model some floors have almost totally been removed but the walls adjacent to these floors are unaffected somehow. Then other floors drop, but their adjacent walls are also still unaffected. And then suddenly - all walls collapse simultaneously at free fall speed!?

What magic sargeant ordered these walls to stay put until he gave the command "drop" ..?

NISTs computer model data has not been released. And from what we can see, the model they made does most certainly not match reality.

So, all in all, I maintain that indeed WTC7 was brought down in a somehow controlled way by adding energy to the building somehow. And if you check out the video, it seems clear that the energy was added from below, pulverising the lower section of the building first, which created the space in which the rest of the building simply collapsed.

Logic defied.

Alien ray. Told ya.

originally posted by: Flatcoat

originally posted by: jaffo

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: LaBTop

This is by far the best evidence for planted explosives in WTC 1 - 2, ever seen :

Your best evidence for explosives is a AC heat exchanger bursting, dumping its freon and blowing a bird screen out of its opening on a mechanical floor ?

That is your best evidence ?

It's total garbage. Bunch of armchair analysts talking like they have vast experience in both controlled demolitions and raging high rise fires because they watched a bunch of YouTube videos they agreed with. Bah. . .

And that would make them different to you how?

Probably because I rely on actual experts and not YouTube videos.

originally posted by: jaffo Bunch of armchair analysts

that's neither fair, nor accurate. i would expect nothing less from any OS proponent. many, many qualified and professional individuals also dispute the mythical OS. you may disagree with them all but to label them all as such ('armchair analysts') reveals your lack of integrity and classic OS mindset. sad.

a reply to: jaffo

Right. But apparently they're only experts if you agree with them. There are plenty of highly qualified people who disagree with the official theory...why aren't they "experts"?

originally posted by: Flatcoat
a reply to: jaffo

Right. But apparently they're only experts if you agree with them. There are plenty of highly qualified people who disagree with the official theory...why aren't they "experts"?

Actually, no there are not. Pretty much every reputable engineer in the World realizes that there is no conspiracy. You have a handful of guys with Bachelor's degrees signing a ludicrous petition. Sorry.

a reply to: jaffo

And yet a lowly maths teacher forced NIST to acknowledge the 2.25 seconds of freefall acceleration.....go figure.

you know reading through this last page of comments i cannot help but laugh at how stubborn the debate on 9/11 has become.

One side yelling that there are about 3000 experts in their field who have said NIST was wrong and demanding to know why they have not released their computer model data.

They other yelling that its 3000 vs the rest of the global construction community.

Neither side is ever going to budge.

Is it a suspicious that they still will not release that data?

yup!

Am i going to believe a group of 3000 architects and engineers or am I going to believe the almost American Society of Civil Engineers with almost 150,000 members.

I am going to believe the later.

people who seriously want to understand 9/11 need to stop trying to prove themselves to be right and actually start critically appraising the facts to find the truth.

ON BOTH SIDES!

Another question a bit off-topic but 9/11 related.
Why did they erase the twin towers from some movies? Out of respect??
Or better to let humanity forget faster the event, without any questions asked?
What or who was hiding inside the buildings or
what or who had to be erased?

It's a fast way to get rid of many problems at once and it is surely well worth the consequences regarding.

If we follow the conspiracy logic. If we agree that wtc7 was a set up. If we agree that this is what actually happened then we need to explain wtc 1 and 2, the Pentagon and shanksville. So over to you conspiracy chaps. We need a joined up coherent explanation that fully covers the how and the why and who of the whole. Can't just point at one building and say there you go.

a reply to: waypastvne
We already had this same conversation here in July 2014. Read the rest of our posts exchange on page 4 and my two top ones at page 5 again.

I still think the combination of the many other explosive "squibs" registered in f.ex. David Chandler's video on the subject, combined with this video, offers a better reasoning than your theory of a freon gas expel.
I also think that the bird screen you see floating/passing by in the air in your video, shows a very different, stiffer object than the black cloth we see spitting out from the mechanical floor.

You could be right, but I think my reasoning has a better chance to be the right one.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Thats why I listen to FDNY officers (Battalion chiefs/Deputy Chief) who were in command at WTC that day

Ie Capt JAy Jonas (trapped in Stairway B North Tower)

Battalion Chief John Salka

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden

Among others ..........

originally posted by: firerescue
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Thats why I listen to FDNY officers (Battalion chiefs/Deputy Chief) who were in command at WTC that day

Ie Capt JAy Jonas (trapped in Stairway B North Tower)

Battalion Chief John Salka

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden

Among others ..........

What do they know?
Obviously someone just watching youtube videos and getting their "facts" from a silly conspiracy site is much more knowledgeable than those who were at the site, doing their job that they had been trained for years to do!