Explosives in the WTC 7 bought it down...I believe now...

Originally posted by esdad71
It did fall to the side. Any of the videos show that. It fell to the weak corner.

No it didn't.

The only leaning it did was in towards it's center. That my friend is a classic example of a controlled demolition, the center columns are dropped first so the outer wall fall inwards. If that is not done the walls would fall outwards as that is the path of least resistance, not inwards where floors and columns etc would stop the walls from toppling.

Look at the pic again and tell me which way it is leaning...

Blasters approach each project a little differently, but the basic idea is to think of the building as a collection of separate towers. The blasters set the explosives so that each "tower" falls toward the center of the building, in roughly the same way that they would set the explosives to topple a single structure to the side. When the explosives are detonated in the right order, the toppling towers crash against each other, and all of the rubble collects at the center of the building. Another option is to detonate the columns at the center of the building before the other columns so that the building's sides fall inward.

science.howstuffworks.com...

You should read that whole article, you might find it interesting.

And please don't try to claim most of the building didn't fall into it's footprint...



That's about as good as it gets...

reply to post by Wally Hope


www.debunking911.com...

www.debunking911.com...

www.debunking911.com...

Not tilting over? Really? I don tknow, it looks like its tilting towards the south pretty obviously from this angle. And I dont really see it falling into itself either. More like its falling down and towards the south with a southerly tilt.

reply to post by GenRadek

Not tilting over? Really? I don tknow, it looks like its tilting towards the south pretty obviously from this angle. And I dont really see it falling into itself either. More like its falling down and towards the south with a southerly tilt.

Those blurry photos do not prove anything, furthermore, WTC did not lean all the core columns on every floor were blasted at the same time, that is the only way the demise of WTC 7 can be explained by sciences. NIST has failed with its science to tell the truth. Anyone who continue to support the lie after been shown the facts, are either in such a state of denial, or are helping in the cover-up, or play a sick game.

Originally posted by GenRadek
And I dont really see it falling into itself either. More like its falling down and towards the south with a southerly tilt.

These kinds of statements just show your bias.

In physics you can represent motion with vectors. Then there is no argument and no guessing.

If you represented WTC7's motion or acceleration with a vector, the largest component of it would by far be the vertical component because most of the energy WAS accelerating the building straight down towards the ground, into itself.

Yes, it leaned, but the lateral motion was much, much smaller than the vertical motion.

Learn how they describe these things in a technical sense and you won't have so much of a problem trying to make your biased words prevail over someone else's biased words.

reply to post by GenRadek

What you are seeing in your pics is the wall falling inwards, look at it again, the angle of the pics confuses the perspective.

Also that is well into the collapse. Look at my pic just as the collapse is starting, you can see the obvious dip in the middle (the penthouse kink) caused by columns in the center failing (see link). Why would there be a failure in the center of the building when the supposed damage was only to one side of the building?
Physics tells us that objects always follow the path of least resistance, which in this case would be towards the damage (as you claim it does), but it's obvious the building fails IN THE CENTER first which is completely independent of the so called damage to one side. Then the building falls straight down, within a degree or two nothing is ever perfect, and the so called damage to one side has no obvious influence on the collapse.

Then on top of that it can be shown to be a controlled demolition method, as I highlighted in my last post...science.howstuffworks.com...

So you've got both the physics and evidence of a controlled demolition method in use, no need to have evidence of actual explosives (that weren't looked for). Oh yeah there is Jones and his thermite (whatever your opinion of him is)...

[edit on 15-6-2009 by Wally Hope]

reply to post by Swing Dangler


Heat any aluminized paint with a torch and see what happens.

Looking at side by side videos of WT7 & buildings purposefully brought down by 'controlled demolition'..

I notice that not one of the purposefully blown-up buildings was hit by a fueled up jet liner... yet they collapsed just as if they had.

Two drastically different causes should result in noticeably different results.

reply to post by Wally Hope


Kink in the middle as the interior columns are destroyed and resistance removed.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d46ae6cbb613.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by SPreston


Yes thank you.

Also note the raging fires...What do you mean you can't see 'em? Wait till thedman, or exponent gets here, they'll point them out for ya...

reply to post by esdad71

why would i even consider proving this to you.i don't care about you. in fact i don't like you,and i'm damn glad such a tailwaging traitor to the constitution dosn't believe 911 was an inside job. i hope you never buy our b.s. i want you right where you are. i'm tired of being stabbed in the back by people like you, but please do get a life .go campin, get raped by
bigfoot. do some freak'in thing w/ yourself.

reply to post by randyvs


Accusing someone of being a traitor because he doesn't share your point of view is exceptionally narrow-minded.....and un-American. I recommend that you reserve "tailwaging(sic) traitor" for those who actually display such traits.

I noticed on the second plane impact plane WTC that it is preceded by a brilliant white light beam that travels diagonally and meets the plane upon impact in a sweeping motion that spans almost the whole width of the building.It's too strong ,intense and cohesive,unchanging to be a mere sun reflection.I believe the second plane was BEAM GUIDED,possibly a robot plane without live people in it,a drone exploding bomb plane,in my opinion.

Originally posted by vze2xjjk
I noticed on the second plane impact plane WTC that it is preceded by a brilliant white light beam that travels diagonally and meets the plane upon impact in a sweeping motion that spans almost the whole width of the building.It's too strong ,intense and cohesive,unchanging to be a mere sun reflection.I believe the second plane was BEAM GUIDED,possibly a robot plane without live people in it,a drone exploding bomb plane,in my opinion.

Or...

Strobe lights: High-intensity strobe lights that flash a white-colored light are located on each wingtip. Most smaller planes are only equipped with one of these strobes near the leading edge just behind the red or green navigation light. Larger airliners may be equipped with an additional strobe at the trailing edge as well. These flashing lights are very bright and intended to attract attention during flight. They are sometimes also used on the runway and during taxi to make the plane more conspicuous.

Most likely window reflection of one of the strobes on the plane as it got close enough to the building.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by esdad71

 

why would i even consider proving this to you.i don't care about you. in fact i don't like you,and i'm damn glad such a tailwaging traitor to the constitution dosn't believe 911 was an inside job. i hope you never buy our b.s. i want you right where you are. i'm tired of being stabbed in the back by people like you, but please do get a life .go campin, get raped by
bigfoot. do some freak'in thing w/ yourself.

Wow, do you have anything to add skullboy or are you just here to whine, moan and ride coattails. I could care less if you like me, my friends or my avatar.

Try proving it or can you not do it? I think the reason you cannot do that is you cannot think for yourself nor come up with anything that would be recognizable as communication with the real world.

go get raped by bigfoot? Man, get on your meds and stop broadcasting your fantasies to me and this forum. Also, please do not call me a traitor unless you can prove it. That is called slander. Look it up....

Fact is, there is ABSOLUTEY NO evidence of explosives. We have some cured paint chips that dripped micro steel balls and nothing else. No peer reviews.

give me your proof man? that is what this forum is about. What can you possible have that would prove explosives. I triple dog dare you Skully....where is it???? we, the 9/11 traitors are waiting....



[edit on 1-7-2009 by esdad71]

Originally posted by esdad71

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by esdad71

 

Fact is, there is ABSOLUTEY NO evidence of explosives.

FACT IS...there is NO EVIDENCE of the fires that NIST says there were, nor ANY evidence to support their HYPOTHESIS...NO steel to examine
...dismissed ALL explosives, BASED on ONE TYPE...RDX the loudest and most concussive, to eliminate ALL the THOUSANDS of different combination's.....NO TESTING...just SOMEONE'S PERSONAL opinion, that they would have been TOO LOUD.....very scientific

We have some cured paint chips that dripped micro steel balls and nothing else. No peer reviews.

lol..paint chips that dripped micro steel balls?.....EXPLOSIVE chips, and perfectly round spheres of IRON...not steel...THROUGHOUT the dust...at ONE point the iron was molten, in order to form perfectly round spheres while flying through the air...HOW does THAT happen?

give me your proof man? that is what this forum is about. What can you possible have that would prove explosives. I triple dog dare you

Why is there NO pics of ANY fire that NIST says occured, in the WTC7 report?

[NCSTAR1A-3.2]"It is likely that much of the burning took place beyond the views of the windows"

lol..HOW does THAT effect the perimeter columns to offer NO RESISTANCE in order to get free fall ACCELERATION...if there is something there it HAS to offer resistance

-[NICSTAR 1A 3.6]"constant, downward acceleration during this time interval. This acceleration was 32f/s^2,(9.8m/s^2), equivalent to the acceleration of gravity.
This free fall drop continues for approximately 8 stories or 32 meters,(105ft.), the distance traveled between t=1.75s and t=4.0 s.

as soon as the kink is formed, the HVAC, 'other' Penthouse, roof, facade, within 0.5 seconds from each other, have free fall ACCELERATION for 100+ft. ALL support was INSTANTLY taken away, AS WE SEE by the EVEN decent
if there was a progression from east to west
WE WOULD SEE IT
the roof WILL NOT support itself while columns fail below it. the facade is a non supporting structure, and IS attached to the perimeter columns it will not stand while the columns fail behind it.

So...how do you get,'EVERY' column to act the same way, at the same time, unless they are under the 'SAME' conditions, and acted on by the 'SAME' force???

as soon as the kink is formed, the 'ENTIRE' building,evenly falls at 9.8m/s^2 for 2.25 seconds,(t=1.75s to t=4.0s [NICSTAR 1A 3.6])

Acceleration of gravity...at 4.0s of the collapse, the 'ENTIRE 'building is falling faster than 80 ft.a second...'ONLY' possible by removing 'ALL' resistance...nothing in the way

Shyam Sunder the lead investigator for the NIST said this about free fall acceleration, durring the Q&A news briefing at NIST, BEFORE the final report came out.....when there was NO mention of free fall ACCELERATION occurring in 7

"free fall acceleration can ONLY occur when there is NO STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS BELOW IT"

watch?v=V0GHVEKrhng&feature=channel_page



but....the problem is....WE SEE the ENTIRE building, falling EVENLY, AS FAST AS AN OBJECT CAN FALL THROUGH THE AIR,(9.8m/s^2), WITH no resistance OF any kind...SO where did the vertical support go to ACROSS the building to get the result WE ALL SEE?
[edit on 1-7-2009 by esdad71]