Trust Your Eyes , New AE vid . N Tower

reply to post by moocowman

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

You are correct.

"Gravity", the force that we grew up with, because we evolved on this planet, and we are familiar with it......

"Gravity" is really an acceleration rate, when defined in physics.

ONE 'G', which is the "yardstick" used, based on our home planet's gravitational field, has been calculated to be 9.8 metres/persecond/per second, about 32 FEET persecond/persecond.

The MATH is available to examine, if you wish to Google or Bing or otherwise 'search' for it....

This sort of basic physics is so...well, "basic", it is well beyond the scope of this forum to keep attempting to educate people...people who either should KNOW this already, or have the tools at their fingertips to go learn.....

Fingertips aren't heavy....and typing in queries isn't diffcult. Reading and comprending, and turning off the filters that some people have to avoid 'inconvenient truths' that may be used, within their own minds, to keep their fantasy world intact.....THAT is a harder obstacle to hurdle.

Originally posted by weedwhacker

The MATH is available to examine, if you wish to Google or Bing or otherwise 'search' for it....

Fingertips aren't heavy....and typing in queries isn't diffcult.

You are so right weedwhacker, and you yourself should be qualified to 'search' for pertinent information dealing with the WTC Towers and WTC 7 such as the multiple reports of explosions, including from live reporters early in the day, and lots of evidence of heavy steel hurled from the towers in all directions, and multiple reports of WTC 7 collapsing early.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2106c2b2203a.jpg[/atsimg]

So why are you unable to 'search' for these things, deciding to fall back instead on your normal DENIAL mechanism?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f5b62bca8b49.jpg[/atsimg]

You have a very convenient 'failing' memory whenever it comes to CNN reporting the collapse of WTC7 at 11:06 AM EDT.



Since Building 7 officially imploded in on itself at 5:21 pm EDT, that is an advanced 'heads-up' to CNN from the 9-11 planners of 6 hours and 15 minutes. How do you explain that 'away' whacker?



Obviously WTC 7 is still standing in the CNN live report. Why do you think CNN expected WTC 7 to collapse over 6 hours early?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/870606a20bd4.jpg[/atsimg]

Obviously some force other than gravity was hurling those multi-tonned pieces of steel up to 600 feet away from both Towers in all directions. Are you capable of using the 'search' function reliably weedwhacker?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4b786c05ff6c.jpg[/atsimg]

[edit on 2/25/10 by SPreston]

reply to post by SPreston

....such as the multiple reports of explosions...

Uh huh.

Love this.

Keep churning the waters, and keep throwing in chum....because the sharks that circle, and bite initially, will, eventually, grow bored with the game. AND move on to better hunting areas.



[edit on 25 February 2010 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by weedwhacker

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.

Also Tower 2 (WTC 2- South Tower) unlike WTC 1 was struck off center

North Tower was hit dead center by AA11 - damage was then symmetric

911research.wtc7.net...

The remaining building structure would attempt to support the building
by creating an arch around the damaged section

WTC 2 was hit at oblique angle - the corner of the south and east faces
of the building. Damage was then off center (eccentric) - the southeast
corner of the building was left hanging unsupported.

www.911research.wtc7.net...

Fires caused columns along east face to bow in from the heat and stress until could not longer support load







We are taught in fire school that building with an off center (eccentric)
load on fire are prime candiates for collapse

Originally posted by thedman
North Tower was hit dead center by AA11 - damage was then symmetric

That damage is not symmetrical even on a single plane.

If you simplified it and pretended it hit perfectly horizontally, it would STILL only be symmetrical along one line of symmetry and the building would try to LEAN in the direction of all of these failed columns first. Not collapse from all 4 corners at the same time instantly, and also the core structure and the antenna it supported.

Originally posted by weedwhacker

....such as the multiple reports of explosions...

Uh huh.

Love this.

Keep churning the waters, and keep throwing in chum....because the sharks that circle, and bite initially, will, eventually, grow bored with the game. AND move on to better hunting areas.

So you have no response?

Or you think the explosions have actually been explained when they haven't at all?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
.....d with the game. AND move on to better hunting areas.

How is that technical writing career going for you?

English can be fickle but when we claim to be a technical writer, we should at least know the basics.

Let me ask, if this is all you have to contribute, why are you still here? Why are you not bored and in better hunting grounds yet? The last few days have revealed you as little more than someone looking to spread lies or ignorance and little else.

I come to this site to have a serious discussion about things and I keep running into the same brick walls. I have to ask now, do you believe anything you write? You fail to stand behind much of it. What about this latest little snippy bit of nothing? When will you get bored and move onto better hunting ground so that people who want to contribute something of value can use that space?

reply to post by Sean48


Also Sean... people that monitor earthquakes... their equipment picked up each and every explosion going off. Kind of hard to dispute evidence like that... Firemen and Police have even said ON RECORD that they heard explosions going off... it baffles me to this very day, with all the evidence that we have... people still refuse to believe hard cold facts. Not unless these people have something to hide... or hate to admit when their wrong...or just plain idiots...

=0)

Originally posted by bsbray11
Thanks ANOK.

I really wish Gen would read my posts instead of automatically flapping his fingers around on his keyboard every time he thinks it's his turn to respond to something.

No problem. I feel the same way. I spent two long posts explaining something, I forget now, and he would just answer with something that I already covered, or was completely irrelevant. I don't even respond to him now, tired of going around in circles with these guys.

It's like Wacker with his insistence that the only force working on the towers was gravity when I have personally had this discussion with him many times. He seems to forget in the official OS he supports there is no consideration for the loss of resistance from undamaged structure, and for gravity to be the only force pulling the building down then some other force had to have taken away the resistance. What was that force Wacker? (please learn what resistance/friction is first).

You have to either admit that something took the resistance away, or admit you're talking out of your anus and you do not understand physics at all. Gravity is the WEAKEST of natural forces. Almost as bad as those who claim the building fell because of it's 'kinetic' energy, they don't realise kinetic energy is not a force but a MEASUREMENT of the amount of energy an object has from it's movement.
When people make those claims it just shows they don't understand even the basics of how physics works.

Even a 'pancake collapse' would have had some resistance, and gradual slowing of the collapse wave due to a build up of resistance.
So your sad misunderstanding of physics doesn't even fit your own hypothesis Wacker.

[End of rant]

BTW If Wacker is a technical writer he is probably not doing too well, and took an extra job writing on internet forums to keep the 9-11 discussion from advancing... Haha just kidding Weedy!

[edit on 2/26/2010 by ANOK]

Originally posted by Chance321
Don't normally reply to this stuff, but the only observation I have to make is all that your seeing (the puffs? explosions coming out the side of the building) is caused buy what would be the huge pressures of hundreds of tons of steel an concrete pushing down blowing out windows. In my opinion now explosives, just great pressure.

if it was air pressure from a collapsing floor
then the puffs would be all along the entire section
of windows of THAT floor all the way across the side
of the building as the flooring runs from one corner to
another corner. The puffs only extrude in certain windows
and NOT the entire floor. So the puffs are localized
in certain sections. That's controlled demolitions.

reply to post by boondock-saint

if it was air pressure from a collapsing floor
then the puffs would be all along the entire section
of windows of THAT floor all the way across the side
of the building as the flooring runs from one corner to
another corner. The puffs only extrude in certain windows
and NOT the entire floor. So the puffs are localized
in certain sections. That's controlled demolitions.

Controlled demolition? Sez you....?

Window failure is a sign of impending building collapse - as the structure
is stressed and building begins to "move" or twist the forces exerted
cause the window frames to fail and windows to either shatter or be
popped out of the frame

Short blurb from FIRE ENGINEERING

www.fireengineering.com... signs-of-impending-building-collapse.html

Wall openings. More indicators of building movement can be found in monitoring the openings in the walls-the doors, windows, and passageways. Are they square? Do the doors still fit? Can you close them? Have the windows cracked for no reason? Are the frames square in the window frame? If not, the building is probably moving. Together with other signs of collapse, these are clues that you should change the strategy to defensive as soon as possible.

FF are taught to watch for window failure as sign building is unsafe and to
to evacuate

Since this is the thread in question in the following post, I felt the need to respond to it here, in the proper context.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

Interesting that weedwhacker has also been caught in a blatant lie.

Could you please elaborate?

Exactly WHAT did I write as a "blatant lie"?

LOVE TO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Let's start....here where I pointed out that you claimed that the penthouse on WTC7 pulled the building down. That went something like this...

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

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!!!!

But you had already said this as well...

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

In there, you also make the claim the WTC 7 was not a bottom up collapse...

BUT, if you're insisting on Towers being 'CD'....you just admitted they were NOT 'bottom up'!!

You were shown the evidence and the video proving this wrong and you just ignored it. You clearly stated the penthouse pulled the building down, then clearly denied saying that. You also tried to claim that 7 was a top down collapse. That would be two blatant lies right there. Understand now?

You can read it all over again here in case more clarification is needed.

[edit on 4-3-2010 by K J Gunderson]

reply to post by K J Gunderson


edit and delte because I saw that I got suckered into an online debate about a topic in the wrong thread.

Way to go, good try!

[edit on 4 March 2010 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

OK....let's examine a portion of your post, answering the allegation of my so-called "lies".....

But you had already said this as well...

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

OK, that was my quote. WHAT did I write? I wrote that I saw the "penthouse level initiating the collapse, first..."

THEN I said, 'top down'. Did I not?

WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That is some stretch. Here is what you said

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

Do you see the underlined and bolded part? Please address that. You denied saying it and there it is. You somehow completely avoided this in your response.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Well, duh....here is exactly what I wrote, as I copy/pasted it from your post, above:

"BUT, if you're insisting on Towers being 'CD'....you just admitted they were NOT 'bottom up'!!"

I told you that, if YOU insisted that the Towers (in this discussion we are referring to WTC 7) were 'CD', then in every OTHER bonafide 'CD' instance that we see, the collapse initiates 'bottom up' (or 'bottom first', if you prefer).

I said that you admitted the collapses were NOT 'bottom up'. Did I read your post incorrectly? Others can fact-check this.

THEN you write:

You were shown the evidence and the video proving this wrong and you just ignored it. You clearly stated the penthouse pulled the building down, then clearly denied saying that. You also tried to claim that 7 was a top down collapse.

Huh?????

Did I and you watch the same video?

I told you what I SAW! Is it a 'lie' to describe what I saw???? HOW is that a 'lie'???

Oh, and I DID NOT "clearly state" that the penthouse "pulled the building down"!

Shall I repeat my exact quote? It's right above, in this very post.

OK, I will: I wrote that I saw the "penthouse level initiating the collapse, first..."

When I said I saw the "penthouse level initiating the collapse" that was NOT meant to infer (which apparently YOU did) that the PENTHOUSE 'caused' the collapse!!!!!

Oh, and I didn't "try to claim it was a 'top-down" collapse...I DID claim it was a top-down collapse!!! It is an opinion, based on observation. Since WHEN is an opinion a "lie"???

I do not appreciate my words being 'spun' in this way!

Shame on you. And, I shall NOT call you the name on the tip of tongue...because it may simply be a lack of reading comprehension on your part. Your further discourse will decide your veracity, in this matter.

I hope any readers you care to wade through your nonsense will see your tactics for what they truly are.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Edit: YOU accuse me of 'lying', yet you post something that refutes your allegations of 'lying'??? What do I not comprehend in your 'point' here?

Are you lying by accusing me?



[edit on 4 March 2010 by weedwhacker]

You must be a little sick. First of all, I posted nothing refuting anything that I said.

You said it was top down. It was not. That is what is called wrong. You stand by it against all evidence, that makes it a lie.

This is simple. You said the penthouse pulled the building down. Then you denied you said that. Lie.

You insist that WTC7 was a top down collapse. It was bottom up. Lie.

Get it now?

reply to post by K J Gunderson


As above, deleted for same reason. Wrong thread, wrong topic.

My opinion still stands, but it is wrong thread. That's all.


[edit on 4 March 2010 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

Yeah...that was my impression. Sorry you misunderstood, or took it >SO LITERALLY< or whatever you did

NOPE!

You said

LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE

when I reminded you that you had that impression. Either way, you lied. Either you lied when you said the penthouse pulled the top down or you lied when you called me a liar for repeating it. Pick one. Stop spinning and just address the actual lie in question.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
In most 'CD' I've seen on video, there are timed explosions on the EXTERIOR, plainly visible (and audible). Those buildings begin to crumple AT THE BOTTOM first. WTC 7 was the exact opposite, from what I've seen in that OP video.

It collapsed, into itself. Caved in, starting from TOP, because it was structurally unsound internally, after burning all day long. There are plenty of evidences to corroborate this, reports from qualified observers who expected it would not stand, and would eventually collapse. They just didn't know exactly when it would happen.

Capisce, yet?

I understand that you are going to have to show me which video you have been watching. The entire building falls as one solid piece as it vanishes into the ground. We can all see it. You are going to have to show me just a little evidence that it caved in on itself.

Look spinner, You are defending your stance about the penthouse pulling the top down. Does this mean you are admitting you lied when you called me a liar for reminding you that you said it in the first place? Seriously now. People make mistakes. It happens. If you can just admit which one was the lie, maybe I can actually respect you enough to listen to you in the future. As it stands, you are spinning so fast you are blurry.

You said the penthouse pulled the top down. I reminded you that you said it. You called me a liar. You are not defending yourself saying it. So what did I lie about? Maybe you are just really confused. I can offer the benefit of the doubt.

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That is some stretch. Here is what you said

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

Do you see the underlined and bolded part? Please address that. You denied saying it and there it is. You somehow completely avoided this in your response.

post by weedwhacker

I think we all know for a fact exactly what weedwhacker is. This is not his 1st and only instance of deliberately 'distorting' the truth.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/824c02e4eb48.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e7bcad7adeae.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by SPreston


deleted, wrong thread

[edit on 4 March 2010 by weedwhacker]