NIST shows WTC 7 collapse from opposite angles

reply to post by downtown436



How about a picture of a REAL CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION, of the WTC Scene.

Originally posted by esdad71
This is a picture I have NEVER seen on here or any other site because I think it shows that there is no demolition here even though it is a picture from NIST and I am sure it will get the usual "NIST" is garbage posts but this fact that is shown.

Is this enough to show that there was no demo? You decide....

This post is good enough that I could repost it myself, verbatim, and everyone would immediately realize it's a joke.





I have a question, esdad.





Does the above image prove that the WTC Towers suffered "pancake collapse"?


Why or why not?



(Hint: the illustrations have absolutely NOTHING to do with observed fact, ie what the buildings actually looked like when they "collapsed." Same with your WTC7 images from NIST. I dare you to post a single image of WTC7 collapsing that looks anything like their computer simulation here. )

More stuff from NIST's faulty computer models? I have seen several photos and videos of WTC#7 and it does not correspond with what was shown.When you have one their own department heads coming forward saying they did not even answer his questions then you must suspect that they were not interested in a full investigation.

reply to post by SPreston

I agree, SPreston. I just wonder why they released a more detailed diagram for their secondary model rather than their primary one. I suppose if they had released a diagram of their model with little elves hopping up and down on the roof they would have shown all four directions. Or with the model of their finger of God pushing down on the roof they would have shown all four directions plus one from above and one from below. I'm thinking this may be an obfuscation tactic to confuse the less informed, as we all ready see in the OP how it confused him/her into thinking NIST says the collapse zone was on floors 17 through 29, which NIST wasn't saying at all.

Thanks for the replies.

Let me answer a few questions first.

1. Actually, I do not make my own lunch as I like half naked women serving me wings and beer and I am sure my stipend from the government for posting on this site could cover your salary.

2. Hate Hate Hate. A few good posts but I am not looking for stars. That is not what this about. i was just trying to show something that showed points of collapse on specific floors that coincide with the 'skeleton' of the building that was built over an existing structure.

3. Crayon drawings? C'mon guys, you can do better than that can't you? This is a simple diagram that anyone could analyze. Nothing implied or changed just simply the collapse. These pictures show that the penthouse falling seconds before the WTC collapse within these pictures.


In my original post, I did not attack any side as so many of you have and you show you closed mindedness in these forums. I simply said I have never seen these pictures and wondered if it would show that there was catastrophic collapse as found during the investigation. Even the title of my thread is vague and simply states opposite angles not "NEW EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT THERE WERE NO DEMOLITIONS AT WTC7!!!" .

So if there is nothing that can help I will take my crayon drawings and eat my wing...

PS - How long did that take you BS?

[edit on 6-2-2010 by esdad71]

Originally posted by esdad71
PS - How long did that take you BS?

How long did it take me to realize the images don't look anything like the actual WTC7 collapse as we have all seen it?

Um, about a second or two. Give or take.

reply to post by bsbray11


Please show me how this does not show the collapse and try to use something close to the crayon drawing from NIST and not a 3rd grade MSpaint render.

What makes this difficult is that any investigation up to this point is not admissible to the argument since a cornerstone of the truth movement is that it is all lies. Circular logic as mentioned earlier. A catch 22 if you will.

However, in this simple picture, it shows where the 'inner collapse' takes place and why the building fell into itself.

At 1:10 of this video (Sorry, it was the first I found with this angle) , it shows the top of the building fall and then the initiation of a global collapse.


www.youtube.com...

I would think this would show it as the crayon drawing describes.

Originally posted by esdad71
Please show me how this does not show the collapse and try to use something close to the crayon drawing from NIST and not a 3rd grade MSpaint render.

I don't know what the hell you're talking about with the MS paint stuff but this is all the proof I need that the two don't match:








If you can't see the difference between those two then you must have really sucked at these games as a kid:

However, in this simple picture, it shows where the 'inner collapse' takes place and why the building fell into itself.

I really don't understand where you see the correlation to what WTC7 actually did when it collapsed. It just fell straight down. The image I posted above is the messiest anyone ever saw it. I have NEVER seen it that twisted up in videos or images. So you must understand there is no evidence for that actually happening, as just opposed to continuing to fold down into itself like the rest of what we actually saw.

No it did not fall straight down just like the WTC 1 and 2 did not fall 'straight down'. Also trying to insult me with sunday comic games is comical and. Why can you not show me some proof?

I gave a link to a video that shows what the drawing shows. That the interior of the building failed and then the structure fell. No demolitions. Have you never looked at the plans and the changes to the structure of the WTC 7. Since you present yourself as an expert than you should be able to provide some proof and not a comic strip. Your evidence to help my post is a comic strip.

You have never seen it fall in that manner because you will not allow yourself to see it. Let me explain it like this...

Does it look like a demo, yes, since it all fell at once but it was not because there is NO proof of a demo. It is perception. Now, a tranny has a package and may look like a women but it is not. Better hope you did not have that 3rd shot of tequila. You see, perception. You choose not to see what is behind the compressed video shown over and over and over and over and you call those who feel the OS is correct sheep? In these forums we are the only ones who do NOT follow the crowd.




[edit on 7-2-2010 by esdad71]

Originally posted by esdad71

I gave a link to a video that shows what the drawing shows. That the interior of the building failed and then the structure fell. No demolitions. Have you never looked at the plans and the changes to the structure of the WTC 7.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6b3a23848587.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/82ed4f992152.jpg[/atsimg]

Please try to face reality. The frame of the building could not have twisted like the NIST model without twisting the exterior of the building in like manner.

IT DID NOT easily verifiable by simple observation.

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

Their so-called model is useless because it does not fit reality.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ff63b4123264.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d97a33c0a367.gif[/atsimg]

Originally posted by esdad71
No it did not fall straight down just like the WTC 1 and 2 did not fall 'straight down'.

Come on, you know you are splitting hairs. If it didn't fall straight down then how did it fall? Did it lean over? No, that would be even more wrong than saying it fell straight down, because it most definitely didn't just fall over like a tree. Do you know what a vector is in math or physics? If you expressed this building's acceleration as a vector almost ALL of the motion would be on the "y axis," meaning it fell DOWN much more than it fell in any other direction. Come on man, this is worse than you being horrible at the "spot the difference" game. This is you not even being able to admit which direction a freaking building fell!

You can't say it fell to the North, or the South, or East, or West, because parts of the building landed in adjacent streets in ALL of those directions. Which is simply to say it spilled over into neighboring streets. Not surprising at all, even for a demolition. It's center of gravity was still obviously in its own footprint, and the mass sank straight down to get there.

Also trying to insult me with sunday comic games is comical and. Why can you not show me some proof?

Dude if you can't tell the difference between the actual photograph of WTC7 and NIST's graphics then there is no proof in the world that will ever satisfy you, because your own eyes are lying to you.

You really can't work that "spot the differences" puzzle, can you? You seriously can't see the differences between the REAL picture and the FAKE computer simulations that look nothing like the real pic?

I gave a link to a video that shows what the drawing shows. That the interior of the building failed and then the structure fell.

Have you ever seen the actual building (in videos) fold up like NIST is trying to say it must have? No, you have not. Stop lying to yourself over something so stupidly obvious. I'm not arguing anything else about your illustrations. Simply that they DON'T MATCH. That's all! It's EASY TO SEE! The evidence is simply LOOKING at them!

Have you never looked at the plans and the changes to the structure of the WTC 7.

Does that have anything to do with the two sets of images not matching? No.

Since you present yourself as an expert

Have I actually claimed that? No. Though if being able to "spot the differences" on that comic is any indication, then I guess I am more of an "expert" than you are, by far.

than you should be able to provide some proof and not a comic strip. Your evidence to help my post is a comic strip.

The evidence that the images do not match is in the images themselves. Maybe you are confused as to what exactly I am referring to?...

You have never seen it fall in that manner because you will not allow yourself to see it. Let me explain it like this...

No, you don't have to explain that. I know exactly what you mean. You have to intentionally brainwash yourself in order to see any similarity between the two at all. That's fine. NIST must have been expecting people such as yourself to have no trouble doing such a thing, for the sake of your own cognitive dissonance caused by the obviousness of how irrelevant their illustrations are to the actual collapse videos.

Does it look like a demo, yes

And does it look anything like the images from NIST? NO! That is my one and ONLY POINT.

but it was not because there is NO proof of a demo. It is perception.

It is perception that you CHOOSE to believe there is no evidence that it was a demolition, you're right. You must LEARN to ignore testimony of explosions ripping out of the bottom of the building by a NYPD officer. You must LEARN to ignore seismic evidence of explosions from FEMA after both towers had collapsed (which they label as "subsequent collapses"). You must LEARN to ignore RECORDINGS of explosions from near WTC7 in the evening. You must LEARN to ignore people walking away from it in hard-hats with bolt cutters, as you hear explosions in the background, saying something to the extent of "You hear that? She's blowin'. That building's coming down soon." You have to LEARN to ignore the free-fall that indicates the building was doing no work as it fell, which probably means little to nothing to you in the first place since you only fool yourself into thinking you understand the physics that implies (no work = no collapse, unless SOMETHING ELSE was doing the work, the ONLY WAY it could free-fall into itself).

You have to LEARN to ignore all of those things and many more in order to say there is no evidence for demolition. Yes, it is all about perception. At least you are honest about that much.

Now, a tranny has a package and may look like a women but it is not.

Now you're really losing me man.

Better hope you did not have that 3rd shot of tequila. You see, perception. You choose not to see what is behind the compressed video shown over and over and over and over and you call those who feel the OS is correct sheep? In these forums we are the only ones who do NOT follow the crowd.

I hope you noticed through this whole post you have just been defensive of demolition claims. Not once have you offered a single ounce of evidence to support a fire-collapse theory from a demolition theory. You know if bombs/explosives blew up the inner columns, the interior would also collapse first. That is exactly how demolitions are typically accomplished. See:



They don't all go off at once. Or at least, they don't have to. You have probably seen the claims from the various demolition contractors saying you could make a building dance as it comes down if you really wanted to. The possibilities with timing the charges in different ways are endless. If anyone tells you otherwise, they are full of you-know-what, and no, I'm not when I say this.

All you do is ignore all the evidence of demolition and pretend you have some proof of something else in these illustrations that don't even match reality, not even superficially. You can pretend until the day you die esdad, but who is benefiting from that? Sometimes, MOST of the time, a woman that looks like a woman, IS a woman. I have never in my life seen such a blatant mistake made when watching a building fall. It falls the way it falls because of what's happening inside of it, and in the case of WTC7, when it all came down, they blew up everything that was still left, and the whole thing came down instantly like a house of cards, accelerating as if nothing at all was underneath it. There is no mistaking that. A building falling from its own weight smashing into itself NEVER free-falls as if NOTHING is under it. Nor do your illustrations (NIST's) look anything like WTC7 actually did, and you KNOW it.


That report is the best a bunch of government-paid engineers could do to reinforce the government line. And it still sucks, horribly. You know they whitewash stuff, they lie, they manipulate data in order to misinform the public. They would sooner fire engineers or outsource the entire job (which they did, to the same people that "investigated" other suspicious "terrorist" events) before they would admit they are wrong. So they make stuff up as best they can and roll with it. And they aren't even GOOD at it in this case because of how little they have to work with, and yet you STILL swallow it up like you've been waiting for it for years and don't even care what they say anymore.

[edit on 8-2-2010 by bsbray11]

All of you realize that what I posted is the exterior columns and not the 'walls' of the building, right? It is showing the interior buckling and collapse that occurred and that would not be 'visible' in the majority of the videos that are presented. However, I posted a video that showed alternate angles so I suggest you go back and take a look. I think it was around 1:10 or so.

If you look at the architecture of the WTC7 it was as unique as the WTC 1 and 2. It was a frame built on a frame built on a base. Instead of using explosives as you have provided ( I am well aware of how to bring down a building and know there is also evidence left in every demolition) the diagram shows how the building fell into itself.

This is not about denial but the simple asking of a question. Also, being defensive is civil when someone asks if you can do a 'tell the difference' picture.

Where is the evidence? None, it is all conjecture. However, we have uncontrolled fires that raged for hours within a building that the rescue workers were pulled from because it was visually leaning and collapse was imminent.

When you show me a picture of a blasting cap, wire or any evidence of explosives then the truth would be out but in 8 years this has not happened. The FBI searched for bomb parts after 9/11 wanting to know if there was secondary or additional explosives on the ground or delivered via the airliners.

I wonder why no one ever demands to see the actual physical (or photos of) buckled column 79? If people are so apt to rely on physical evidence for explosives wouldn't they also demand this, too?

Along with this I would like to see how much wire they pulled from the rubble and how they determined if it was all legitimately in the building.

Along with this I would like to see their stock pile of electronic debris which they went through, identified, tested and determined were all benign. How long did it take for them to do this? Did they test every chip of this size:



But as it is now, the only physical evidence from WTC 7 is a single column that is akin to swiss cheese and the seismograph recordings.

Originally posted by esdad71

The FBI searched for bomb parts after 9/11 wanting to know if there was secondary or additional explosives on the ground or delivered via the airliners.

Is this something else you just made up?

What makes you think the FBI conducted an actual criminal investigation instead of a coverup?

How come all the early reports of explosions and bombs was hushed up for years and censored from the public broadcasts?

Hey esdad.

wheres those "visual leaning ' photos you mentioned??

I have no idea what you are talking about...sorry.

Care to elaborate??

reply to post by SPreston


The FBI was there immediately and in the days following. I guess you never read about the case of the FBI's taking 'momentos' from ground zero during said investigation. I am not making up anything.

As far as the leaning, I posted a video a few pages back that you would want to reference. In one it shows the roof of WTC7 begin to fall into itself before the actual collapse which agrees with the investigation into WTC 7 that led to the specs for the new building to replace it. that is what NIST does. It researches to make sure it does not happen again.

Also, there were lots of reports of bombs. How about the report of bombs in the lobby that turned out to be bodies hitting the glass. They were so loud it was reported as explosions at first. Read something that is not conspiracy thick and maybe you will see the truth.

The government did not plan 9/11 but it is responsible due to piss poor intelligence sharing and numerous other faults that allowed it to transpire. That is a large leap to thermite, radio controlled planes and silencing 1000's of co conspirators.



[edit on 12-2-2010 by esdad71]

Originally posted by esdad71
Also, there were lots of reports of bombs. How about the report of bombs in the lobby that turned out to be bodies hitting the glass. They were so loud it was reported as explosions at first. Read something that is not conspiracy thick and maybe you will see the truth.

Not all reports of explosions are explained by people jumping. An FBI official even told MSM that morning that they had reason to suspect a vehicle bomb had been detonated in the underground parking garage that coincided with the plane impacts, there were so many people who experienced the explosion in the basement alone, and thought the subway or parking garage had exploded.

The government did not plan 9/11 but it is responsible due to piss poor intelligence sharing and numerous other faults that allowed it to transpire.

FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds' case states that her supervisors were intentionally misdirecting agents in the field prior to 9/11, and that they had plenty of prior indication to act. She translated Arabic messages for them.



Btw I would also like to see the photos of WTC7 that show it leaning. You've ranted about such photos for years but STILL I have never seen any. Not during collapse but prior to it.

[edit on 12-2-2010 by bsbray11]

Would this be the same computer model that NIST refuses to give out the data on? Even though we the people paid for the analysis? Even though an FOIA request has been made and paid for?

Why would they not want to release their model for peer review?

Originally posted by esdad71
However, in this simple picture, it shows where the 'inner collapse' takes place and why the building fell into itself.

How do you get that the NIST computer sim is showing the "inner collapse" when the caption specifically says "exterior buckling after global collapse initiation"?

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by esdad71
However, in this simple picture, it shows where the 'inner collapse' takes place and why the building fell into itself.

How do you get that the NIST computer sim is showing the "inner collapse" when the caption specifically says "exterior buckling after global collapse initiation"?

And ALL of the computer drawings taken from the NIST model clearly depict the exterior walls on all four sides of the 47 story building. And those depicted exterior walls in the NIST model, are clearly buckling in an extreme manner absolutely not seen in the actual videos of the WTC7 demolition.

Why are you trying to CON us esdad71?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6b3a23848587.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/82ed4f992152.jpg[/atsimg]

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





[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d97a33c0a367.gif[/atsimg]

[edit on 2/12/10 by SPreston]