Trust Your Eyes , New AE vid . N Tower

Originally posted by weedwhacker

...He claimed just a page back that the penthouse pulled the rest of the building down.

LIE!

See how you "spin"???

Lie.

Lie.

Lie.

Nice, thanks for playing.

Despite your tantrum, no, he is absolutely right. You were just saying WTC7 was a top-down demolition because the penthouse failed first.

Top-down as in the top fails first, and brings down the rest of the building with it.

That is completely contradictory to NIST's theory that the columns failed at the bottom of the building first, thus the collapse really being a bottom-up demolition.


I already pointed this out in several posts.

He simply makes the connection that you are disagreeing with NIST and thus making up your own theory based on nothing but a simpleton observation that is incorrectly interpreted, and you post this spam, LIE LIE LIE over and over probably just to make yourself forget the obvious truth he just pointed out to you.

You can't say WTC7 collapsed from the top-down and simultaneously say you agree with NIST. Just because you think you know what you're talking about doesn't mean you get to make up anything you want and say everyone agrees with you.

[edit on 25-2-2010 by bsbray11]

I was asked a few pages ago what I thought a collapse whould have looked like if it had been caused by a plane/fire...

Okay, I'll answer....

First of all, at that height of impact I would expect the portions above the point of impact would fall off and "slough" off a few floors BELOW the point of impact.

I would expect over half of the building to remain standing.

I would expect this for BOTH towers.

Surely if a RAGING INFERNO engulfed both of these massive monuments for SEVERAL HOURS I would expect something to happen.

Not after one or two hours would I expect a complete "powderization" of these towers.

I would expect Tower 7 to still be standing after the fires had been out out.

The real question is...let's PRETEND you were telling me what would happen to the Towers if they were hit by a plane at full speed, with a full tank of fuel BEFORE Sept. 11th, 2001....

what would you tell me would happen?

Would it be the Official Story?

Or would it be more close to what I have described?

If so, what changed your mind?

hmmm.....science, logic, reality oh my.

discuss

reply to post by bsbray11


Please,

I do NOT use "NIST", but you cite their report.....

FROM WHAT I have read, on ATS....NIST may or may not have specifically addressed the details of each buildings' global collapse sequence.


SO, please enlighten us (or me) with actual NIST explanations, if you can provide the links.


Appreciate it, and if you wish to consider me a "babe in the woods" when it comes to the study and constuction, and understanding of building collapses, then I accept that moniker.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
LIE!

See how you "spin"???

Lie.

Lie.

Lie.

Nice, thanks for playing.

The permananent record of posts will show how you lied.

OK, bye!!!!

LOL. The "permananent" record of posts will show that I was wrong about how many pages back it was.

You can see WTC 7 penthouse level initiating the collapse, first....crashing down, pulling everything else with it, TOP DOWN.

edit to bold the parts you might want to pay close attention to.

[edit on 25-2-2010 by K J Gunderson]

reply to post by Game_Over


Huh? Why?

Do you understand how gravity works???

First of all, at that height of impact I would expect the portions above the point of impact would fall off and "slough" off a few floors BELOW the point of impact.

I would expect over half of the building to remain standing.

I would expect this for BOTH towers.

Let's ponder on that, for a moment...

Please review, via the many videos available, the sequence of the Towers impact damage, and subsequent collapse.

Pay attention.

FIRST Tower hit....higher floors....

SECOND Tower hit, slightly lower down...

(FIRST WAS AAL 11, SECOND was UAL 175)

FIRST Tower hit, higher up.....lastetd LONGER, that is remained standing, before collapsing LONGER than second Tower hit (by UAL 175). WHY???

Well. look at the area of impact damage, please.

Airplane that hit lower, and hit SECOND....THAT Tower collapsed FIRST!!!!!


Hmmmmmm....think on that, please.

Check my works, against the historical facts....then explain HOW my reasoning makes no sense....

ONCE AGAIN....Tower hit second, lower down, (UAL 175) collapsed FIRST.

Tower hit higher up, first (AAL 11) collapsed SECOND!

Please provide a plausible explanation, for this.

Thank you.











[edit on 25 February 2010 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
FROM WHAT I have read, on ATS....NIST may or may not have specifically addressed the details of each buildings' global collapse sequence.

Sounds like you are really the educated fellow here.

SO, please enlighten us (or me) with actual NIST explanations, if you can provide the links.

The image I posted above is from their draft report and explains how/why even NIST is saying the collapse initiated from the bottom of WTC7, not the top. If you pay attention to what it is saying you will understand the point. I am not going to go over the entire report for you. They didn't provide a full explanation anyway, they just called it a "new phenomenon" and said some other vagaries about the exact mechanisms. And provided a computer simulation that looks absolutely nothing like the actual building collapse.

reply to post by bsbray11


Let me refresh my memory...title of Thread is about the "N Tower"

Is that WTC ONE, or WTC TWO???

I got roped into your trap, that you set, by discussing WTC 7 here....MY mistake....

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And, I grow weary of this continuing "dance"....

"Mincing" terms, the "Texas two-step" at every turn, let the music change, and 'spin yur pardner', 'round and 'round!!!!

I tire of these games, played.



[edit on 25 February 2010 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by weedwhacker


When people like you can just admit that you may have been wrong once in a while, then a real discussion can begin. Until then, you will always see it as a trap you were "roped into."

reply to post by K J Gunderson

When people like you can just admit that you may have been wrong once in a while...

Ahh, the irony, the irony.....'

"It burns, it burns..."

[edit on 25 February 2010 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

When people like you can just admit that you may have been wrong once in a while...

Ahh, the irony, the irony.....'

"It burns, it burns..."

It sure does, doesn't it?

Come back in time with me....

Originally posted by ME
...He claimed just a page back that the penthouse pulled the rest of the building down.

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Originally posted by K J Gunderson...He claimed just a page back that the penthouse pulled the rest of the building down.

LIE!

See how you "spin"???

and

Originally posted by weedwhacker
You can see WTC 7 penthouse level initiating the collapse, first....crashing down, pulling everything else with it, TOP DOWN.

Want some Aloe?


So what is it that I was wrong about but refused to admit? I would be happy to admit, clarify, or whatever if you would be so kind as to point it out to me. Thanks in advance for helping me learn!

[edit on 25-2-2010 by K J Gunderson]

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by Sean48

Originally posted by weedwhacker


Last I checked, roof is on TOP of building....collapses first.

Top down.

In a earlier post , I said I was probably a tad bit older, in need of glasses.

Vanity won't serve you WW , a check up is easy.

If you see that as a Top Down, than you can't be reasoned with.

I think you need to get to an opticians pretty smartly. The penthouse, like on the roof, falls in first; its not a matter of debate.

Pulling the rest of the building down with it?????

Apparently you and WW need to seriously get some medical attention pronto! As per WW's claim. 'The roof falls in first pulling the rest of the building down.'

Watch that video again and again and again. NOTHING is pulled down by the roof. It is bottom up. You are claiming the roof fell first so that makes it top down. Bottom up or top down, the roof falls first. The middle of the building will not fall while the top waits for a bit and the bottom certainly has nowhere to go without the top coming with it. The top always falls first because it is at the top.

Perhaps you could point out to me where on this thread I speculated about the WTC 7 collapse or withdraw your comment.

All I did was to point out that it is obvious from videos that the penthouse fell in first. I am staggered to note that some posters on here , while eager to rubbish NIST's 3 year investigation by some of the best engineering brains in the country, apparently were unaware of such a simple and basic fact. What value their cd theories if they hadn't even noticed that ?

Originally posted by Alfie1
Perhaps you could point out to me where on this thread I speculated about the WTC 7 collapse or withdraw your comment.

Page 1.

Here

Originally posted by Alfie1
I think you need to get to an opticians pretty smartly. The penthouse, like on the roof, falls in first; its not a matter of debate.

Maybe you do not understand what a question or context is?

Originally posted by Alfie1
All I did was to point out that it is obvious from videos that the penthouse fell in first. I am staggered to note that some posters on here , while eager to rubbish NIST's 3 year investigation by some of the best engineering brains in the country, apparently were unaware of such a simple and basic fact. What value their cd theories if they hadn't even noticed that ?

All I did was ask if you agreed with WW that the penthouse was pulling the building down as you had attached your comment to his. Do you need me to explain what it means to ask something?

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by Alfie1
Perhaps you could point out to me where on this thread I speculated about the WTC 7 collapse or withdraw your comment.

Page 1.

Here

Originally posted by Alfie1
I think you need to get to an opticians pretty smartly. The penthouse, like on the roof, falls in first; its not a matter of debate.

Maybe you do not understand what a question or context is?

KJ you would sooner die than admit a mistake wouldn't you ? You cannot direct me to anywhere where I speculated on WTC 7's collapse. All you can come up with is a brief statement of fact ; the penthouse fell in first. Are you saying the penthouse didn't fall in first ?

Originally posted by Alfie1
KJ you would sooner die than admit a mistake wouldn't you ? You cannot direct me to anywhere where I speculated on WTC 7's collapse. All you can come up with is a brief statement of fact ; the penthouse fell in first. Are you saying the penthouse didn't fall in first ?

I can and have admitted to many a mistake. Can you admit that you cannot read? I will try to explain it one more time. You jumped on WW's statement about the penthouse so I was asking you if you also believed it pulled the building down with it. As I already stated, the top of the building will be the first thing to fall no matter how the building comes down so I am not sure what you think you are pointing out. That is why I asked.

Let me repost my words for you.

Pulling the rest of the building down with it?????

Apparently you and WW need to seriously get some medical attention pronto! As per WW's claim. 'The roof falls in first pulling the rest of the building down.'

Notice the question marks? There are several. Also notice I refer to WW making the claim, not you. Thanks for playing.

[edit on 25-2-2010 by K J Gunderson]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Sean48

 

Yes, your video shows clearly what I mean....watch very, very closely at the roof, see it cave in FIRST, before global collapse and cascading begins.

Last I checked, roof is on TOP of building....collapses first.

Top down.

Say it with me: "Dee-Lew-Shun-All" - it looked like the building sank in quicksand, not collapsed top down like the twins.

Wow, OSers spew so much of this sh|t they actually start to believe (a common defense they like to use against 'twofers')

I saw what appears to be a reptile building morphing

But really, it is obvious. The thing here is to figure out who and why and fit it into the overall big picture.

Real Muslim-Jihad-versus-the-Western-World-terrorists would have done it at night with 72 planes into 72 buildings in each of 72 cities for a total of over 5000 buildings burning in a total bloody hell simultaneously freaking out all of the United States and overwhelming us like a Haitian earthquake. It would have been way worse than what happened. I knew that morning that it was not as it seemed to be. Nobody would do something so goofy and so certain to bring hellfire raining down upon the Middle East. Nobody. If I am wrong, then the Muslim Jihad is the stupidest group on Earth. I mean, come on, flying a few planes into a few buildings and losing Iraq in the bargain? Please. That is the dumbest strategy.


Carry on.


[edit on 25-2-2010 by Cabaret Voltaire]

reply to post by weedwhacker

Gravity was smashing down all the tons and tons overhead,

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't gravity pull everything down at the same rate regardless of size ?

reply to post by Sean48



Sure looks bottom up to me !
Yep, looked at it again and again and again now for years.
Bottom up each time.
I'm really surprised the towers stood as long as they did though with all that "weak" and "fragile" steel supporting all that weight.
Snapping steel, steel that cuts itself clean, sheer weight slices, yes sir it's pretty amazing that the "damaged" part didnt just teeter and fall off,
LIKE IT SHOULD HAVE IF REAL PHYSICS WERE IN PLAY!

Hi All

My First post here. Ive been reading a lot ref 911 etc and it looks to me like something!!! from above (not visible) hits the top of the tower centrally as it appears to implode?? Then half way down Gravity (or whatever the name is) takes over and does the rest!