Freefall collapse.. without explosives?

I do believe 9/11 is a cover up and those twin towers and building 7 didn't just collapse accidentally. But just to play devils advocate, I am always hearing from the CT crowd how Freefall = controlled demolition with explosives, i.e the constant claim by Richard Gage and co. that WTC7 fell at free fall speeds which is impossible without explosives removing the columns, but isn't this claim bogus?

Example:



In the video above, the building is being pulled down with cables and to me it appears to experience a moment of freefall with little resistance, yet the columns haven't been blown, this building has just been 'pulled it' down.

Now, bearing in mind we've just watched a building getting 'pulled' without explosives whilst experiencing free fall and complete collapse would it be considered impossible that WTC7 was pulled in a similar manner?

And after all, Larry did say 'pull it'! (Which would suggest cables)

Yes. I guess someone threw a lasso around WTC1 and WTC2 and then pulled on it.

Nothing collapsed on 9/11. The floors did not fall - each got blown to kingdom come. The debris fell at free-fall speed because there was no resistance from intact floors below it - they were being pulverized into (mostly) dust.

reply to post by Insolubrious


Sweetheart, we've been arguing about this for 10 years. If we don't agree on one theory, we'll just be #ed; the government isn't telling us anything.

Firstly it was at NEAR freefall speeds and WTC 7 clearly exemplifies this.

Also, The simple fact that the buildings all came down evenly and not tilted as is what would likely occur with a fatique based collapse due to fire.

Otherwise the buildings would have tilted upon coming down on the side where the fire was hottest, causing the most fatique and collapse before the cooler sides did.

But they came down symmetrically.

And if Silverstein didn't reap Billions out of the entire Charade then I also might think differently.

Because with every crime, there has to be a motive.....Billions of Dollars most certainly is...

But we have a known Zionist, who is in weekly contact with Benjamin Netanyahu, who leases the WTC, insures it to the hilt via 25 Insurance Companies....that alone should be investigated as Fraudulent in itself.
Who just so happens to not show up for work at the WTC, as well as his Daughters that day but his recent hire former FBI Agent, John O'Neil was required to !!!!

Such a Deal !!

reply to post by nh_ee


Exactly, when you include symmetry into the equation then yes one must conclude free-fall has been achieved by removing the strength of all the columns on all the floors interiorly so that it can fall into itself, but building 7 did tip to the south, best seen in this video.



If you were to push a building over it would fall over at freefall speeds even if it fell in one large chunk and all the supports held together.

In my opinion the NIST simulation was so bad it looked nothing like the collapse because NIST have massive deformations when it starts collapsing, WTC held it's shape to some degree. I am surprised they decided to show it, but I guess they had to show 'something'. 20 years from now someone will provide another explanation that will challenge the NIST official one based on some obscure data, and it will probably have something to do with adding extra I-beams to NIST models so it keeps it's shape or something else just as crazy.

What's missing from all the WTC7 videos is we don't really see what's happening at the base there, that's where the collapse was occurring.

Just some wild speculation on my part but perhaps it wouldn't be impossible to design building 7 in such a way that if you were to pull the base supports just a few feet to the north very quickly it would pull or tip the columns off their seats and onto the floors, in turn the whole thing would collapse bottom up like a domino falling to the south slightly, hence the term pull it, or pull its supports to induce a collapse.

Originally posted by micpsi
Yes. I guess someone threw a lasso around WTC1 and WTC2 and then pulled on it.

Nothing collapsed on 9/11. The floors did not fall - each got blown to kingdom come. The debris fell at free-fall speed because there was no resistance from intact floors below it - they were being pulverized into (mostly) dust.

Yeehaw! That's how the cowboys do it no?

I agree those towers came down to me like a nuclear bomb and were treated as such. Anyone could of been forgiven for thinking so after seeing the site of lower Manhattan after the collapse it looked as if someone had just nuked downtown with a tactical nuclear 'device'.

reply to post by Insolubrious

In the video above, the building is being pulled down with cables and to me it appears to experience a moment of freefall with little resistance, yet the columns haven't been blown, this building has just been 'pulled it' down.

I don't know what video you're watching, but that YouTube video doesn't show a building collapsing. And a building "appearing" to experience free-fall doesn't mean that it did, that's just dumb.

Also I couldn't help but notice this quote in your signature: "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth"

Here's a thread with a YouTube video that uses that exact concept to prove how the official story is impossible.

9/11 Experiments: Eliminate the Impossible

We must go back to the Directed Energy Weapon (DEW) as the natural cause
as whenever things appear to defy nature I pick the Tesla card.
Now we can't know for sure what a resonant collapse would look like
as Tesla tried many times and was stopped before total collapse.
The DEW is of course mechanical waves Tesla generated from his electrical
oscillators. This power of mechanical wave is proven with the success of his airship.

We need a test building and a test weapon announced by Tesla in 1940.
As the government and cartels and money masters turn a deaf ear to anything
Tesla all testing must be delayed and to see how they fall under such power
and compare we can only wonder how unnatural the whole collapse appears to be.

My theory is unacceptable to some but yet a possible way for high tech we know
nothing about and from the immense power involved would be above top secret.

Originally posted by Insolubrious
In my opinion the NIST simulation was so bad it looked nothing like the collapse because NIST have massive deformations when it starts collapsing, WTC held it's shape to some degree. I am surprised they decided to show it, but I guess they had to show 'something'. 20 years from now someone will provide another explanation that will challenge the NIST official one based on some obscure data, and it will probably have something to do with adding extra I-beams to NIST models so it keeps it's shape or something else just as crazy.

I think you were watching the wrong simulation. They did two, one with damage and one without.

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by Varemia


yup.. looks nothing like WTC7 collapse, there are massive deformations in those models. The damage is wrong too, WTC had a missing column on the north side from top to bottom.

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
We must go back to the Directed Energy Weapon (DEW) ...

My theory is unacceptable to some but yet a possible way for high tech we know
nothing about and from the immense power involved would be above top secret.

I wouldn't rule it out and it would make a very convenient explanation. There are hybrid options such as NDEW (nuclear directed energy weapons) www.liveleak.com...

'Nuclear device' is a broad term and does not exclude devices specifically designed to demolish buildings that are not geared toward mass destruction of cities, devices which may not sustain a full chain reaction but utilize moderators or sub critical reactions to collapse the towers.

lewis.armscontrolwonk.com...

Originally posted by Heartisblack
reply to post by Insolubrious

 

Sweetheart, we've been arguing about this for 10 years. If we don't agree on one theory, we'll just be #ed; the government isn't telling us anything.

But if we all agree on the wrong theory, then we'd be in the same situation, no?

reply to post by Insolubrious


Wow, that gash is massive. I've been kind of ignoring it for a while, because it doesn't really make sense, but here's a second picture that shows it:



From the bottom of this page:

www.debunking911.com...

They show on that site that there were fuel tanks right under that gash. Maybe that's where the fire gained momentum?

Originally posted by Insolubrious
reply to post by nh_ee

 

This vid isn't showing what you think it is. Look closer, you can only see the wall on the one side leaning, you can't see the whole building.

Now look at the debris pile post collapse...





You can see the outer walls on top of the rest of the collapsed building. How would they get there? They would have to fall inwards, after the buildings interior collapsed. What would that look like?

Watch your video again.

If you could see the whole building in that vid you would see the other walls also falling inwards, because that is what the post collapse pics show.

There is only one way that can happen, implosion demolition.

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...

If the building all leaned in one direction, the walls would be under the debris, and you would see the debris path falling in one direction. The rubble pile shows the building fell inwards from every side, classic implosion demolition.

reply to post by Varemia


The size of your gash is irrelevant.

Asymmetrical damage can not cause symmetrical collapse into its own footprint.

Its no good just saying it had a huge gash, you need to demonstrate how that gash could cause the events that followed.

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by Varemia

 

The size of your gash is irrelevant.

Asymmetrical damage can not cause symmetrical collapse into its own footprint.

Its no good just saying it had a huge gash, you need to demonstrate how that gash could cause the events that followed.

What's your damn problem? I was going over what was present, not making a conclusion and calling it truth.

Get off your freaking high horse, Anok. It's getting stupid.

Originally posted by Varemia
What's your damn problem? I was going over what was present, not making a conclusion and calling it truth.

Get off your freaking high horse, Anok. It's getting stupid.

Wow hit a nerve huh?

C'mon we all know why your showing your gash. If it was not relevant to yours, and the general OS supporters, viewpoint on the subject why bother even mentioning it?

I can understand your frustration though, to have everything you claim shot down constantly with truth.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Varemia
What's your damn problem? I was going over what was present, not making a conclusion and calling it truth.

Get off your freaking high horse, Anok. It's getting stupid.

Wow hit a nerve huh?

C'mon we all know why your showing your gash. If it was not relevant to yours, and the general OS supporters, viewpoint on the subject why bother even mentioning it?

I can understand your frustration though, to have everything you claim shot down constantly with truth.

edit on 9/25/2011 by ANOK because: typo

Why do you keep calling it "my gash." What is this? Am I the only one not getting this?

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by Insolubrious

 

Wow, that gash is massive. I've been kind of ignoring it for a while, because it doesn't really make sense, but here's a second picture that shows it:

From the bottom of this page:

www.debunking911.com...

They show on that site that there were fuel tanks right under that gash. Maybe that's where the fire gained momentum?

edit on 25-9-2011 by Varemia because: made the image show

If this is Building 7, then Dr. Judy Wood calls this "Lathering Up". What would make the whole side of a building start to smoke/dustify on one side only.

reply to post by downunderET


Except that as you can see at 20 seconds in this video:



The whole back of the building is covered in smoke.

Looking at this photo, which may be from earlier in the day, you can see that the smoke covers that gash and a number of other places on the back of the building: