Science > Physics > Does the free fall of WTC 7 imply its' controlled demolition?
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
26 Apr 2007 07:44:20 AM |
| Object: |
Does the free fall of WTC 7 imply its' controlled demolition? |
If WTC 7 collapsed in 6 seconds, and it takes 6 seconds to free fall
from the roof of WTC 7, is it true that WTC 7 underwent a free fall?
Logic tells us yes!
PROPOSITION 1:
It took a total of 6 seconds for the roof of WTC 7 to reach the
ground. This proposition is supported by the empirical,
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7750532340306101329
Collapse start time: 17 seconds
Collapse end time: 23 seconds
Total collapse time: 23-17 = 6 seconds
PROPOSITION 2:
A free fall from a height equal to the roof of WTC 7 would take 6
seconds. This is easily proven through basic physics.
Displacement = initial velocity * total time + 1/2 * acceleration *
total time^2
or
s = ut + 1/2at^2
where
s = 174 m (height of building)
u = 0 m/s (building was stationary prior to collapse)
a = 9.8 m/s^2 (since gravitational field strengh averages at
a constant)
Thus,
174 = 0 t + 1/2 9.8 t^2
Solving for t
t = sqrt( 2 * 174 / 9.8)
= 5.9590
~ 6 seconds
CONCLUSIONS:
]1] The observed free fall motion implies the entire structure met no
resistance during its' entire descent.
[2] The only way to move the lower structures out of the way before
the upper structures fall and collide with them is through
synchronized explosions, exactly the kind seen in controlled
demolition.
HOMEWORK FOR READER:
You think fire can make concrete free fall through concrete? Well go
figure out how, and patent it. The demolitions industry eagerly awaits
you with great wealth!
.
|
|
| User: "CWatters" |
|
| Title: Re: Does the free fall of WTC 7 imply its' controlled demolition? |
26 Apr 2007 02:35:43 PM |
|
|
<schoenfeld.one@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1177591460.707104.13970@o40g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
[2] The only way to move the lower structures out of the way before
the upper structures fall and collide with them is through
synchronized explosions, exactly the kind seen in controlled
demolition.
What about the floor one from the top? How was that "moved out of the way"?
What about the one two from the top etc? No explosions seen on those floors.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Moroney" |
|
| Title: Re: Does the free fall of WTC 7 imply its' controlled demolition? |
26 Apr 2007 11:12:00 AM |
|
|
writes:
If WTC 7 collapsed in 6 seconds, and it takes 6 seconds to free fall
from the roof of WTC 7, is it true that WTC 7 underwent a free fall?
Logic tells us yes!
Except it didn't. The "6 seconds" was the time from the beginning of the
collapse until the roofline vanished behind foreground buildings.
(actually, 'beginning of the collapse' is itself wrong, because some
portion of the building including the east penthouse, started collapsing
seconds earlier, and the west penthouse also collapsed slightly sooner)
Why the unrelated groups? rec.motorcycles?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Henry" |
|
| Title: Re: Does the free fall of WTC 7 imply its' controlled demolition? |
26 Apr 2007 05:24:30 PM |
|
|
wrote:
If WTC 7 collapsed in 6 seconds, and it takes 6 seconds to free fall
from the roof of WTC 7, is it true that WTC 7 underwent a free fall?
Logic tells us yes!
PROPOSITION 1:
It took a total of 6 seconds for the roof of WTC 7 to reach the
ground. This proposition is supported by the empirical,
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7750532340306101329
Collapse start time: 17 seconds
Collapse end time: 23 seconds
Total collapse time: 23-17 = 6 seconds
PROPOSITION 2:
A free fall from a height equal to the roof of WTC 7 would take 6
seconds. This is easily proven through basic physics.
Displacement = initial velocity * total time + 1/2 * acceleration *
total time^2
or
s = ut + 1/2at^2
where
s = 174 m (height of building)
u = 0 m/s (building was stationary prior to collapse)
a = 9.8 m/s^2 (since gravitational field strengh averages at
a constant)
Thus,
174 = 0 t + 1/2 9.8 t^2
Solving for t
t = sqrt( 2 * 174 / 9.8)
= 5.9590
~ 6 seconds
CONCLUSIONS:
]1] The observed free fall motion implies the entire structure met no
resistance during its' entire descent.
[2] The only way to move the lower structures out of the way before
the upper structures fall and collide with them is through
synchronized explosions, exactly the kind seen in controlled
demolition.
HOMEWORK FOR READER:
You think fire can make concrete free fall through concrete? Well go
figure out how, and patent it. The demolitions industry eagerly awaits
you with great wealth!
Osama used his magic fires on 9-11-01. "Everyone" "knows" that. <g>
--
http://911research.wtc7.net
http://stj911.org
http://www.911truth.org
Here's what happens to steel framed buildings exposed
to raging infernos for hours on end.
http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html
On 9-11-01, WTC7, a 47 story steel framed building, which
had only small, random fires, dropped in perfect symmetry
at near free fall speed as in a perfectly executed controlled
demolition.
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html
http://wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5.htm
Ever wonder who benefits from the 300 MILLION
U.S. taxpayer dollars spent each DAY in Iraq?
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0223-08.htm
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=21
"They are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And
there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to
take... men with blind hatred and armed with lethal weapons
who are capable of any atrocity... they respect no laws of
warfare or morality."
-bu$h describing his own illegal invasion of Iraq.
http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/
http://www.truthout.org/
http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/
http://thirdworldtraveler.com/
http://counterpunch.org/
http://responsiblewealth.org/
"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things
that matter." -- Martin Luther King Jr.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is
not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
Don't let bu$h do to the United States what his very close
friend and top campaign contributor, Ken Lay, did to Enron...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steve" |
|
| Title: Re: Does the free fall of WTC 7 imply its' controlled demolition? |
26 Apr 2007 01:45:17 PM |
|
|
Check out the Popular Mechanics debunking of this crap. Clear and concise.
Leave Hank and his ilk to their tin foil swathed mutterings.
<schoenfeld.one@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1177591460.707104.13970@o40g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
If WTC 7 collapsed in 6 seconds, and it takes 6 seconds to free fall
from the roof of WTC 7, is it true that WTC 7 underwent a free fall?
Logic tells us yes!
PROPOSITION 1:
It took a total of 6 seconds for the roof of WTC 7 to reach the
ground. This proposition is supported by the empirical,
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7750532340306101329
Collapse start time: 17 seconds
Collapse end time: 23 seconds
Total collapse time: 23-17 = 6 seconds
PROPOSITION 2:
A free fall from a height equal to the roof of WTC 7 would take 6
seconds. This is easily proven through basic physics.
Displacement = initial velocity * total time + 1/2 * acceleration *
total time^2
or
s = ut + 1/2at^2
where
s = 174 m (height of building)
u = 0 m/s (building was stationary prior to collapse)
a = 9.8 m/s^2 (since gravitational field strengh averages at
a constant)
Thus,
174 = 0 t + 1/2 9.8 t^2
Solving for t
t = sqrt( 2 * 174 / 9.8)
= 5.9590
~ 6 seconds
CONCLUSIONS:
]1] The observed free fall motion implies the entire structure met no
resistance during its' entire descent.
[2] The only way to move the lower structures out of the way before
the upper structures fall and collide with them is through
synchronized explosions, exactly the kind seen in controlled
demolition.
HOMEWORK FOR READER:
You think fire can make concrete free fall through concrete? Well go
figure out how, and patent it. The demolitions industry eagerly awaits
you with great wealth!
.
|
|
|
| User: "noone" |
|
| Title: Re: Does the free fall of WTC 7 imply its' controlled demolition? |
27 Apr 2007 02:40:00 PM |
|
|
In article <1r6Yh.79046$_c5.4751@attbi_s22>,
"Steve" <nobodyhere@example.com> wrote:
Check out the Popular Mechanics debunking of this crap. Clear and concise.
And anti-scientific hogwash.
--
..
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "proehling" |
|
| Title: Re: Does the free fall of WTC 7 imply its' controlled demolition? |
28 Apr 2007 01:09:36 PM |
|
|
"noone" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote
Check out the Popular Mechanics debunking of this crap. Clear and
concise.
And anti-scientific hogwash.
Probably run by Zionists, Blacks, and women, too!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Keith Schiffner" |
|
| Title: Re: Does the free fall of WTC 7 imply its' controlled demolition? |
28 Apr 2007 05:32:50 PM |
|
|
"proehling" <peter_roehling@eee.org> wrote in message
news:13373evmu10tgf8@corp.supernews.com...
"noone" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote
Check out the Popular Mechanics debunking of this crap. Clear and concise.
And anti-scientific hogwash.
Probably run by Zionists, Blacks, and women, too!
None it was the Albanians!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "noone" |
|
| Title: Re: Does the free fall of WTC 7 imply its' controlled demolition? |
28 Apr 2007 09:30:58 PM |
|
|
In article <13373evmu10tgf8@corp.supernews.com>,
"proehling" <peter_roehling@eee.org> wrote:
"noone" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote
Check out the Popular Mechanics debunking of this crap. Clear and
concise.
And anti-scientific hogwash.
Probably run by Zionists, Blacks, and women, too!
???
--
..
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Turby" |
|
| Title: Re: Does the free fall of WTC 7 imply its' controlled demolition? |
01 May 2007 02:13:03 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 22:30:58 -0400, noone <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
In article <13373evmu10tgf8@corp.supernews.com>,
"proehling" <peter_roehling@eee.org> wrote:
"noone" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote
Check out the Popular Mechanics debunking of this crap. Clear and
concise.
And anti-scientific hogwash.
Probably run by Zionists, Blacks, and women, too!
???
You know, Whoopie Goldberg.
--
Turby the Turbosurfer
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "mike3" |
|
| Title: Re: Does the free fall of WTC 7 imply its' controlled demolition? |
10 May 2007 08:06:38 PM |
|
|
On Apr 28, 12:09 pm, "proehling" <peter_roehl...@eee.org> wrote:
"noone" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote
Check out the Popular Mechanics debunking of this crap. Clear and
concise.
And anti-scientific hogwash.
Probably run by Zionists, Blacks, and women, too!
Go out, racist.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Does the free fall of WTC 7 imply its' controlled demolition? |
28 Apr 2007 03:14:25 AM |
|
|
On 26 Apr, 21:45, "Steve" <nobodyh...@example.com> wrote:
Check out the Popular Mechanics debunking of this crap. Clear and concise.
Popular Mechanic is a ziocon propaganda rag for top-posting, gullible
rednecks.
Leave Hank and his ilk to their tin foil swathed mutterings.
<schoenfeld....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1177591460.707104.13970@o40g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
If WTC 7 collapsed in 6 seconds, and it takes 6 seconds to free fall
from the roof of WTC 7, is it true that WTC 7 underwent a free fall?
Logic tells us yes!
PROPOSITION 1:
It took a total of 6 seconds for the roof of WTC 7 to reach the
ground. This proposition is supported by the empirical,
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7750532340306101329
Collapse start time: 17 seconds
Collapse end time: 23 seconds
Total collapse time: 23-17 = 6 seconds
PROPOSITION 2:
A free fall from a height equal to the roof of WTC 7 would take 6
seconds. This is easily proven through basic physics.
Displacement = initial velocity * total time + 1/2 * acceleration *
total time^2
or
s = ut + 1/2at^2
where
s = 174 m (height of building)
u = 0 m/s (building was stationary prior to collapse)
a = 9.8 m/s^2 (since gravitational field strengh averages at
a constant)
Thus,
174 = 0 t + 1/2 9.8 t^2
Solving for t
t = sqrt( 2 * 174 / 9.8)
= 5.9590
~ 6 seconds
CONCLUSIONS:
]1] The observed free fall motion implies the entire structure met no
resistance during its' entire descent.
[2] The only way to move the lower structures out of the way before
the upper structures fall and collide with them is through
synchronized explosions, exactly the kind seen in controlled
demolition.
HOMEWORK FOR READER:
You think fire can make concrete free fall through concrete? Well go
figure out how, and patent it. The demolitions industry eagerly awaits
you with great wealth!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Keith Schiffner" |
|
| Title: Re: Does the free fall of WTC 7 imply its' controlled demolition? |
28 Apr 2007 09:51:01 AM |
|
|
<markzoom@digiverse.net> wrote in message
news:1177748065.150130.320870@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On 26 Apr, 21:45, "Steve" <nobodyh...@example.com> wrote:
Check out the Popular Mechanics debunking of this crap. Clear and concise.
Popular Mechanic is a ziocon propaganda rag for top-posting, gullible
rednecks.
Nope... BI and Templar. The Anarchists would be in opposistion but can't agree
who to fight.
Leave Hank and his ilk to their tin foil swathed mutterings.
<schoenfeld....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1177591460.707104.13970@o40g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
If WTC 7 collapsed in 6 seconds, and it takes 6 seconds to free fall
from the roof of WTC 7, is it true that WTC 7 underwent a free fall?
Logic tells us yes!
PROPOSITION 1:
It took a total of 6 seconds for the roof of WTC 7 to reach the
ground. This proposition is supported by the empirical,
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7750532340306101329
Collapse start time: 17 seconds
Collapse end time: 23 seconds
Total collapse time: 23-17 = 6 seconds
PROPOSITION 2:
A free fall from a height equal to the roof of WTC 7 would take 6
seconds. This is easily proven through basic physics.
Displacement = initial velocity * total time + 1/2 * acceleration *
total time^2
or
s = ut + 1/2at^2
where
s = 174 m (height of building)
u = 0 m/s (building was stationary prior to collapse)
a = 9.8 m/s^2 (since gravitational field strengh averages at
a constant)
Thus,
174 = 0 t + 1/2 9.8 t^2
Solving for t
t = sqrt( 2 * 174 / 9.8)
= 5.9590
~ 6 seconds
CONCLUSIONS:
]1] The observed free fall motion implies the entire structure met no
resistance during its' entire descent.
[2] The only way to move the lower structures out of the way before
the upper structures fall and collide with them is through
synchronized explosions, exactly the kind seen in controlled
demolition.
HOMEWORK FOR READER:
You think fire can make concrete free fall through concrete? Well go
figure out how, and patent it. The demolitions industry eagerly awaits
you with great wealth!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "* US *" |
|
| Title: Re: Does the free fall of WTC 7 imply its' controlled demolition? |
28 Apr 2007 11:30:03 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 18:45:17 GMT, "Steve" <nobodyhere@example.com> wrote:
Check out the Popular Mechanics ...
It's bunk written by Chertoff's cousin, you dimwit.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Henry" |
|
| Title: Re: Does the free fall of WTC 7 imply its' controlled demolition? |
26 Apr 2007 05:28:04 PM |
|
|
Steve wrote:
Check out the Popular Mechanics debunking of this crap.
Clear and concise.
You're joking right? No one with the ability to think locially
takes PM's 9-11 lies and conspiracy propaganda seriously. Their
"senior researcher is the 25 year old cousin of Homeland Security
Michael Chertoff. He has no qualifications and he has ties to the
terrorists.
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/gopm/index.html
Leave Hank and his ilk to their tin foil swathed mutterings.
Magic fire conspiracy kooks sure do an amazing job of
addressing the specific facts, details, and hard evidence
of the 9-11 demolitions, don't they? You never see 'em
get stupid, mindlessly rant about time travel, their tin foil
hats, their pet moonbats, farm animals, ninja hit squads, "attack"
the messengers, or avoid the tough questions. <chuckle>
Look at the height of WTC7:
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/9-11%20Picture1.jpg
Then look at how it collapsed:
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html
Small random fires can't possibly make a steel framed building
do that. Not even a raging inferno can cause a steel building to
do anything even remotely close to that. Only a very well executed
controlled demolition can cause the total, instant, and symmetric
failure of all steel support columns that took place in WTC7.
That was very solidly braced and virtually undamaged steel frame.
It was dramatically over engineered to withstand hurricane force
winds and mild earth quakes. Look at the still photos at 1 second
intervals. The building stays perfectly straight and level all the
way down. Every one of the 58 steel perimeter columns failed at
exactly the same time, and they all failed totally, putting up
essentially zero resistance. That's proved by the collapse time of
6.6 seconds compared to 6 seconds free fall. The southwest corner
of WTC7 was damaged by debris from the north tower, and there were
small random fires in the building, although it's anyone's guess how
they were ignited. But asymmetric damage and random fires don't cause
steel framed buildings to collapse even slowly and asymmetrically.
This is what happens to steel framed buildings exposed to raging
infernos for hours on end.
http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html
The 2000% reserve strength designed into the steel frames of
the towers could not possibly have been overcome by the force
of gravity alone. The fact that it was exceeded to such an
extreme degree that the undamaged steel frame offered no
measurable resistance, proves conclusively that the lower
structures were destroyed before being impacted.
From:
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060327100957690
"The Twin Towers and Why They Fell
It would help to begin with an accurate description of the WTC towers
in terms of quality of design and construction. In July of 1971, the
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) presented a national award
judging the buildings to be "the engineering project that demonstrates
the greatest engineering skills and represents the greatest
contribution to engineering progress and mankind."3 Others noted that
"the World Trade Center towers would have an inherent capacity to
resist unforeseen calamities." This capacity stemmed from the use of
special high-strength steels. In particular, the perimeter columns
were designed with tremendous reserve strength whereby "live loads on
these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs.
More on the incredible strength of the towers can be found here:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html
"There is evidence that the Twin Towers were designed with an even
greater measure of reserve strength than typical large buildings.
According to the calculations of engineers who worked on the Towers'
design, all the columns on one side of a Tower could be cut, as well
as the two corners and some of the columns on each adjacent side, and
the building would still be strong enough to withstand a
100-mile-per-hour wind. 3"
The massive steel frames of the towers were far too strong to
collapse only under their own weight. That's been proved through
physics, and that's why no other steel framed buildings have ever
collapsed that way unless they were demolished. See Gordon Ross'
excellent paper on momentum transfer on this page:
http://worldtradecentertruth.com/
As common sense would dictate, even if all the perimeter and
core columns near the top of the tower were somehow destroyed
simultaneously so that the top 20 stories or so dropped onto the
remaining undamaged frame, after some bending and compression,
the collapse would have stopped, or the upper block would have
fallen off to the side. Gordon Ross proves that with physics.
The official conspiracy requires us to believe that falling
directly =through= the massive undamaged steel frames, including
the 47 interconnected central core columns:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html
provided little more resistance than air. This is proved by
the fact that debris falling outside the towers hit the ground
about the same time as the debris falling through the towers.
Making the government's conspiracy theory even more implausible,
is the fact that the steel at the top of the towers was over
ten times lighter and thinner than the undamaged steel in the
lower section. Look at the massive core column cross section in
the bottom photo.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html
The official conspiracy theory says that crushing 47 of those
columns, all interconnected with even more steel, =and= destroying
all the perimeter columns, =and= "pancaking" all the floors, and
stairways, produced about the same kinetic friction as falling
though air. That, of course, is not physically possible.
Observe the rotating and disintegrating block on the South
Tower.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc2exp4.html
Notice that the corners are curved, as the block's internal
destruction is already taking place. If it had not been destroyed
through demolition, it would have continued to rotate and fall off
the building as an intact block. Also, notice that the block is
tilting towards the corner where it was impacted. The opposite
corner was undamaged by impact or fire, as proved by photo
evidence.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc2exp1.html
As the top section of that tower is rotating, the high strength,
fire resistant perimeter columns on one side of the building are
being compressed, and on the opposite side, where the building
was not damaged by fire or impact, the weight above them is greatly
reduced.
Why do you think the undamaged steel perimeter frame with reduced
weight above it is exploding and collapsing at the same rate as
the fire and impact damaged side that has most of the weight of the
rotating block on it? Seems more than a little odd, doesn't it? Here's
some information on the perimeter columns.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/perimeter.html
Now watch the video titled, "Close-up of South Tower collapse
on this page:
http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/#videos
Does that look like the gradual bending and buckling of an
over heated steel frame to you? If so, what do you think is
causing those huge explosions and dust clouds that make it
look like a controlled demolition? Keep in mind that this is
at the onset of the collapse, so nothing is falling quickly
yet.
<schoenfeld.one@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1177591460.707104.13970@o40g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
If WTC 7 collapsed in 6 seconds, and it takes 6 seconds to free fall
from the roof of WTC 7, is it true that WTC 7 underwent a free fall?
Logic tells us yes!
PROPOSITION 1:
It took a total of 6 seconds for the roof of WTC 7 to reach the
ground. This proposition is supported by the empirical,
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7750532340306101329
Collapse start time: 17 seconds
Collapse end time: 23 seconds
Total collapse time: 23-17 = 6 seconds
PROPOSITION 2:
A free fall from a height equal to the roof of WTC 7 would take 6
seconds. This is easily proven through basic physics.
Displacement = initial velocity * total time + 1/2 * acceleration *
total time^2
or
s = ut + 1/2at^2
where
s = 174 m (height of building)
u = 0 m/s (building was stationary prior to collapse)
a = 9.8 m/s^2 (since gravitational field strengh averages at
a constant)
Thus,
174 = 0 t + 1/2 9.8 t^2
Solving for t
t = sqrt( 2 * 174 / 9.8)
= 5.9590
~ 6 seconds
CONCLUSIONS:
]1] The observed free fall motion implies the entire structure met no
resistance during its' entire descent.
[2] The only way to move the lower structures out of the way before
the upper structures fall and collide with them is through
synchronized explosions, exactly the kind seen in controlled
demolition.
HOMEWORK FOR READER:
You think fire can make concrete free fall through concrete? Well go
figure out how, and patent it. The demolitions industry eagerly awaits
you with great wealth!
--
http://911research.wtc7.net
http://stj911.org
http://www.911truth.org
Here's what happens to steel framed buildings exposed
to raging infernos for hours on end.
http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html
On 9-11-01, WTC7, a 47 story steel framed building, which
had only small, random fires, dropped in perfect symmetry
at near free fall speed as in a perfectly executed controlled
demolition.
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html
http://wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5.htm
Ever wonder who benefits from the 300 MILLION
U.S. taxpayer dollars spent each DAY in Iraq?
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0223-08.htm
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=21
"They are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And
there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to
take... men with blind hatred and armed with lethal weapons
who are capable of any atrocity... they respect no laws of
warfare or morality."
-bu$h describing his own illegal invasion of Iraq.
http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Does the free fall of WTC 7 imply its' controlled demolition? |
28 Apr 2007 01:24:24 AM |
|
|
On Apr 26, 4:44 am, wrote:
[...]
Since John Shoenfeld obviously thinks he is more educated on
engineering matters than actual professional licensed engineers....
How would _YOU_, based off your extensive engineering experience,
expect WTC-7 to fall?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Henry" |
|
| Title: Re: Does the free fall of WTC 7 imply its' controlled demolition? |
30 Apr 2007 07:57:03 PM |
|
|
Eric Gisse wrote:
On Apr 26, 4:44 am, wrote:
Since John Shoenfeld obviously thinks he is more educated on
engineering matters than actual professional licensed engineers....
Wrong. They agree with him and the laws of physics.
http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/02/destruction-of-wtc-7.html
--
http://911research.wtc7.net
http://stj911.org
http://www.911truth.org
Here's what happens to steel framed buildings exposed
to raging infernos for hours on end.
http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html
On 9-11-01, WTC7, a 47 story steel framed building, which
had only small, random fires, dropped in perfect symmetry
at near free fall speed as in a perfectly executed controlled
demolition.
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html
http://wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5.htm
Ever wonder who benefits from the 300 MILLION
U.S. taxpayer dollars spent each DAY in Iraq?
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0223-08.htm
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=21
"They are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And
there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to
take... men with blind hatred and armed with lethal weapons
who are capable of any atrocity... they respect no laws of
warfare or morality."
-bu$h describing his own illegal invasion of Iraq.
http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/
http://www.truthout.org/
http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/
http://thirdworldtraveler.com/
http://counterpunch.org/
http://responsiblewealth.org/
"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things
that matter." -- Martin Luther King Jr.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is
not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
Don't let bu$h do to the United States what his very close
friend and top campaign contributor, Ken Lay, did to Enron...
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Does the free fall of WTC 7 imply its' controlled demolition? |
01 May 2007 05:32:33 PM |
|
|
On Apr 30, 7:57 pm, Henry <9...@insidejob.gov> wrote:
Here's what happens to steel framed buildings exposed
to raging infernos for hours on end.
Read the San Francisco Chronicle lately?
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "Keith Schiffner" |
|
| Title: Re: Does the free fall of WTC 7 imply its' controlled demolition? |
01 May 2007 07:23:06 PM |
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1178058753.743216.293740@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 30, 7:57 pm, Henry <9...@insidejob.gov> wrote:
Here's what happens to steel framed buildings exposed
to raging infernos for hours on end.
Read the San Francisco Chronicle lately?
Nope they are part of the conspiracy. Didn't you get the latest kookmail?
.
|
|
|
| User: "* US *" |
|
| Title: Re: Does the free fall of WTC 7 imply its' controlled demolition? |
02 May 2007 06:38:50 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 1 May 2007 18:23:06 -0600, "Keith Schiffner" <schistan@bresnan.net> wrote:
... get the latest kookmail ...
How's that 'surge' in Iraq going?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Does the free fall of WTC 7 imply its' controlled demolition? |
28 Apr 2007 03:25:54 AM |
|
|
On 28 Apr, 09:24, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 26, 4:44 am, wrote:
[...]
Since John Shoenfeld obviously thinks he is more educated on
engineering matters than actual professional licensed engineers....
How would _YOU_, based off your extensive engineering experience,
expect WTC-7 to fall?
The fall would start asymmetrically from where the alleged steel-
melting fires were.
I sure wouldn't ever trust the "professional licensed engineers" who
design buildings that totally and symmetrically collapse due to minor
fires. Who are these incompetent clowns?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Moroney" |
|
| Title: Re: Does the free fall of WTC 7 imply its' controlled demolition? |
28 Apr 2007 11:39:09 AM |
|
|
writes:
On 28 Apr, 09:24, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 26, 4:44 am, wrote:
[...]
Since John Shoenfeld obviously thinks he is more educated on
engineering matters than actual professional licensed engineers....
How would _YOU_, based off your extensive engineering experience,
expect WTC-7 to fall?
The fall would start asymmetrically from where the alleged steel-
melting fires were.
That appears to be what happened. Watch the video. The east penthouse
vanishes, then a few seconds later the west penthouse does, then a
fraction of a second later, the whole north wall goes. It appears the
collapse went approximately south to north after the SE part went, or
SE-S-N. The fact that the exterior north wall fell on top of the rest
would confirm something like this (it was pulled to the south as it
collapsed, rather than straight down).
Also, nobody ever claimed any fires melted any steel. 'The fire never
could have melted the steel' is a konspiracy kook strawman. If you want a
simulation of what seems to have happened, try this: Put several sticks
of butter in the freezer. When cold, take them out and make a structure
from them supporting some weight in a warm room. Wait... Or just
support a horizontal stick of butter on both ends with a weight in the
middle and wait...
Even if it was deliberately brought down, what's the big deal? The
building was evacuated, it was severely damaged, the fire department
determined it was unsafe by around 2 PM (they detected shifting with a
transit), the firemen, who just lost LOTS of their men were ordered not
to go in (and rightly so), so the fires were unfought and growing. I don't
believe that simply because nobody could have had a chance to do anything
to deliberately bring it down.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Does the free fall of WTC 7 imply its' controlled demolition? |
28 Apr 2007 11:58:33 AM |
|
|
On 28 Apr, 19:39, Michael Moroney <moro...@TheWorld.com> wrote:
markz...@digiverse.net writes:
On 28 Apr, 09:24, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 26, 4:44 am, wrote:
[...]
Since John Shoenfeld obviously thinks he is more educated on
engineering matters than actual professional licensed engineers....
How would _YOU_, based off your extensive engineering experience,
expect WTC-7 to fall?
The fall would start asymmetrically from where the alleged steel-
melting fires were.
That appears to be what happened. Watch the video. The east penthouse
vanishes, then a few seconds later the west penthouse does, then a
fraction of a second later, the whole north wall goes. It appears the
collapse went approximately south to north after the SE part went, or
SE-S-N. The fact that the exterior north wall fell on top of the rest
would confirm something like this (it was pulled to the south as it
collapsed, rather than straight down).
Also, nobody ever claimed any fires melted any steel. 'The fire never
could have melted the steel' is a konspiracy kook strawman. If you want a
simulation of what seems to have happened, try this: Put several sticks
of butter in the freezer. When cold, take them out and make a structure
from them supporting some weight in a warm room. Wait... Or just
support a horizontal stick of butter on both ends with a weight in the
middle and wait...
Even if it was deliberately brought down, what's the big deal?
The coverup, the insurance claim and that it was rigged with
explosives beforehand.
I even remember the newsreader announcing it had collapsed while it
was still standing.
The
building was evacuated, it was severely damaged, the fire department
determined it was unsafe by around 2 PM (they detected shifting with a
transit), the firemen, who just lost LOTS of their men were ordered not
to go in (and rightly so), so the fires were unfought and growing. I don't
believe that simply because nobody could have had a chance to do anything
to deliberately bring it down.
WTC7 is a distraction from the main coverup, which is, at the very
least, the facilitation of the attack on the main WTC towers.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Moroney" |
|
| Title: Re: Does the free fall of WTC 7 imply its' controlled demolition? |
28 Apr 2007 02:09:39 PM |
|
|
writes:
On 28 Apr, 19:39, Michael Moroney <moro...@TheWorld.com> wrote:
Even if it was deliberately brought down, what's the big deal?
The coverup, the insurance claim and that it was rigged with
explosives beforehand.
Rigged with explosives beforehand? Do you know how much work it takes
to prep a building for implosion? You don't think any of the building
occupants would notice all those workmen digging holes in walls, drilling
columns, cutting other columns (to preweaken it), planting explosives and
running all that wire and det cord everywhere? That is SO stupid.
Not to mention the fact we didn't hear any of those series of bangs from
all those mythical explosives being set off to bring the building down.
Oh, 'scattered small fires':
http://www.debunking911.com/wtc7-fire.jpg
http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7_Smoke.jpg
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Does the free fall of WTC 7 imply its' controlled demolition? |
28 Apr 2007 03:53:00 PM |
|
|
On 28 Apr, 22:09, (Michael Moroney)
wrote:
markz...@digiverse.net writes:
On 28 Apr, 19:39, Michael Moroney <moro...@TheWorld.com> wrote:
Even if it was deliberately brought down, what's the big deal?
The coverup, the insurance claim and that it was rigged with
explosives beforehand.
Rigged with explosives beforehand? Do you know how much work it takes
to prep a building for implosion?
Yes.
You don't think any of the building
occupants would notice all those workmen digging holes in walls, drilling
columns, cutting other columns (to preweaken it), planting explosives and
running all that wire and det cord everywhere? That is SO stupid.
Some sensitive structures have them built in.
I'm pretty sure that det cord isn't essential any more.
Not to mention the fact we didn't hear any of those series of bangs from
all those mythical explosives being set off to bring the building down.
Good point, but plenty of noise there already.
Oh, 'scattered small fires':http://www.debunking911.com/wtc7-fire.jpghttp://www.debunking911.com/WTC7_Smoke.jpg
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Moroney" |
|
| Title: Re: Does the free fall of WTC 7 imply its' controlled demolition? |
28 Apr 2007 08:56:31 PM |
|
|
writes:
On 28 Apr, 22:09, (Michael Moroney)
wrote:
You don't think any of the building
occupants would notice all those workmen digging holes in walls, drilling
columns, cutting other columns (to preweaken it), planting explosives and
running all that wire and det cord everywhere? That is SO stupid.
Some sensitive structures have them built in.
Oh, man, just when I thought the conspiracy theories were as kooky as they
can get, someone comes up with a kookier one.
Assuming that something so utterly stupid were true, why weren't the
raging fires setting off the explosives at random, causing the building to
collapse partially and irregularly?
How could that building be built so strong that it could withstand a 200
mph wind or whatever (as someone else claimed), yet be so weak that it
could be imploded in a controlled demolition? Do you know how much effort
those people who implode buildings perform to weaken them to the point
that they can barely stand? Both can't be true!
WTC7 had built in explosives. That is SO SO stupid!
I'm pretty sure that det cord isn't essential any more.
You need either det cord or blasting caps (connected with wires). The
charges have to be detonated with precise timing for the building to
come down properly.
Not to mention the fact we didn't hear any of those series of bangs from
all those mythical explosives being set off to bring the building down.
Good point, but plenty of noise there already.
Good point? Watch one of those implosion videos. Despite the camera
being several blocks away, the demolition charges are LOUD. Sure the
area was noisy, but demolition charges would be unmistakable, if there
were any. So not only were the explosives built in, they were very
quiet, too? Sheesh!
Oh, 'scattered small fires': http://www.debunking911.com/wtc7-fire.jpg
http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7_Smoke.jpg
No comment on these? The whole front of the building was spewing smoke.
From nearly every floor. And that fire didn't look like a 'scattered
small fire'. There are videos of both on that same site.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: Does the free fall of WTC 7 imply its' controlled demolition? |
28 Apr 2007 09:49:19 PM |
|
|
On Apr 28, 8:56 pm, (Michael Moroney)
wrote:
markz...@digiverse.net writes:
On 28 Apr, 22:09, (Michael Moroney)
wrote:
Assuming that something so utterly stupid were true, why weren't the
raging fires setting off the explosives at random, causing the building to
collapse partially and irregularly?
Firstly, thermite is set off electricly, fire would not set them off.
However had the building partially and irregularly toppled over then
we would not be discussing it because it would not look so suspicious.
No one would be asking questions about that.
How could that building be built so strong that it could withstand a 200
mph wind or whatever (as someone else claimed), yet be so weak that it
could be imploded in a controlled demolition? Do you know how much effort
those people who implode buildings perform to weaken them to the point
that they can barely stand? Both can't be true!
What kind of a question is this? Demolition companies blow up
buildings all the time. Bombs dropped from aircraft blow up buildings.
A bomb can destroy a building.
WTC7 had built in explosives. That is SO SO stupid!
A few of my friends are civil engineers and when we were in university
they were always telling me that modern structures are designed to
last about 50 years because "no one call tell what will be needed in
50 years". I would imagine that smart designers would plan for all
details of a structures lifespan; construction, maintainance, and
demolition. I have read that the WTC complex was built in the sixties
and at the turn of the century it was loosing money, possibly because
potential tennants wanted buildings with more modern communication
connections. The upgrades would have cost hundreds of millions and
demolition was expected to cost billions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Moroney" |
|
| Title: Re: Does the free fall of WTC 7 imply its' controlled demolition? |
29 Apr 2007 12:24:33 PM |
|
|
Mike <mnagel1073@rogers.com> writes:
On Apr 28, 8:56 pm, (Michael Moroney)
wrote:
markz...@digiverse.net writes:
On 28 Apr, 22:09, (Michael Moroney)
wrote:
Assuming that something so utterly stupid were true, why weren't the
raging fires setting off the explosives at random, causing the building to
collapse partially and irregularly?
Firstly, thermite is set off electricly, fire would not set them off.
I wasn't talking about thermite, I was talking about explosives. Or
do you even know the difference? Have you been reading junk from that
"Professor Steven Jones"?
Thermite is set off by fire. (I know; I've made it) It normally takes
a very hot fire such as magnesium to do so, but if for some strange
reason, someone planted thermite in the structure, presumably they'd
provide something that would burn hot enough to start it, with some
device (electrical or whatever) to ignite the starter. A hot fire would
also ignite such a starter, and would also ignite the primers that set
off any planted explosives. Primers are a small amount of a sensitive
explosive that can be ignited electrically or by some other means,
and are heat-sensitive as well (guess how electrical initiation works?
The current produces sudden heat in it!)
However had the building partially and irregularly toppled over then
we would not be discussing it because it would not look so suspicious.
No one would be asking questions about that.
Look at that logic. You are stating that since the building fell straight
down (or appeared to from the only angle filmed), the planted explosives
couldn't have been set off by the fires, and the "demolition" was
controlled. That faulty logic assumes planted explosives as a fact.
How you should be thinking is this: The fires would have set off
explosives in the areas that burned, so there couldn't have been any
explosives, at least not there. And it would have been such an unusual
coincidence that only areas that didn't burn would have explosives, given
that nearly every floor must have had a fire (look at the videos, nearly
every floor was spewing smoke from the south side)
How could that building be built so strong that it could withstand a 200
mph wind or whatever (as someone else claimed), yet be so weak that it
could be imploded in a controlled demolition? Do you know how much effort
those people who implode buildings perform to weaken them to the point
that they can barely stand? Both can't be true!
What kind of a question is this? Demolition companies blow up
buildings all the time. Bombs dropped from aircraft blow up buildings.
A bomb can destroy a building.
Try reading it again. Someone claimed that WTC7 was so overbuilt, the
damage from the tower collapses and the "small scattered fires" (hah!)
couldn't have caused it to collapse. But a controlled demolition requires
the building to be very weak to come down, and the demolition crews spend
lots of time weakening or knocking out columns. The building couldn't
have been strong and weak at the same time. Sure, a big bomb could have
brought it down, but it would have made itself VERY OBVIOUS. In contrast,
there are no sounds of explosives (not even small ones like the ones used
for implosions) on the collapse videos.
WTC7 had built in explosives. That is SO SO stupid!
A few of my friends are civil engineers and when we were in university
they were always telling me that modern structures are designed to
last about 50 years because "no one call tell what will be needed in
50 years".
Oh. I see. "A few of your friends".
I would imagine that smart designers would plan for all
details of a structures lifespan; construction, maintainance, and
demolition.
Maybe some provisions for eventual demolition, but planted charges? The
building codes and fire department would NEVER allow such a hazard to
exist in such a building. And why? In 50 years there may be a much better
way to demolish a building than explosive implosions. (Ever see that
old Warner Brother's cartoon with the dancing and singing frog found
in the cornerstone of a building?) And would you trust 50+ year old
explosives to work correctly?
I have read that the WTC complex was built in the sixties
and at the turn of the century it was loosing money, possibly because
potential tennants wanted buildings with more modern communication
connections. The upgrades would have cost hundreds of millions and
demolition was expected to cost billions.
Excuses. WTC7 was completed around 1987. It was only about 15 years
old.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ben newsam" |
|
| Title: Re: Does the free fall of WTC 7 imply its' controlled demolition? |
29 Apr 2007 11:00:39 AM |
|
|
On 28 Apr 2007 19:49:19 -0700, Mike <mnagel1073@rogers.com> wrote:
Firstly, thermite is set off electricly, fire would not set them off.
Bollocks. At school we used to set off thermite with burning magnesium
ribbon.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Does the free fall of WTC 7 imply its' controlled demolition? |
28 Apr 2007 05:18:33 PM |
|
|
On Apr 28, 12:53 pm, wrote:
On 28 Apr, 22:09, (Michael Moroney)
wrote:
writes:
On 28 Apr, 19:39, Michael Moroney <moro...@TheWorld.com> wrote:
Even if it was deliberately brought down, what's the big deal?
The coverup, the insurance claim and that it was rigged with
explosives beforehand.
Rigged with explosives beforehand? Do you know how much work it takes
to prep a building for implosion?
Yes.
You don't think any of the building
occupants would notice all those workmen digging holes in walls, drilling
columns, cutting other columns (to preweaken it), planting explosives and
running all that wire and det cord everywhere? That is SO stupid.
Some sensitive structures have them built in.
I'm pretty sure that det cord isn't essential any more.
On the scale of things, honestly believing that the buildings were
constructed with demolition charges pre-placed isn't that more insane
than believing that the trade towers and the ancillary buildings were
destroyed by demolitions.
Not to mention the fact we didn't hear any of those series of bangs from
all those mythical explosives being set off to bring the building down.
Good point, but plenty of noise there already.
Oh, 'scattered small fires':http://www.debunking911.com/wtc7-fire.jpghttp://www.debunking911.com/...
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: Does the free fall of WTC 7 imply its' controlled demolition? |
28 Apr 2007 05:33:27 PM |
|
|
On Apr 28, 2:09 pm, (Michael Moroney)
wrote:
markz...@digiverse.net writes:
On 28 Apr, 19:39, Michael Moroney <moro...@TheWorld.com> wrote:
Even if it was deliberately brought down, what's the big deal?
The coverup, the insurance claim and that it was rigged with
explosives beforehand.
Rigged with explosives beforehand? Do you know how much work it takes
to prep a building for implosion? You don't think any of the building
occupants would notice all those workmen digging holes in walls, drilling
columns, cutting other columns (to preweaken it), planting explosives and
running all that wire and det cord everywhere? That is SO stupid.
Not to mention the fact we didn't hear any of those series of bangs from
all those mythical explosives being set off to bring the building down.
I know people who have done demolition work and if they can be trusted
Building 7 was a demolition, but it had to have been prepared long in
advance. I have seen reports that there were "power downs" in the WTC
buildings several weeks before the event. This would not even be
enough time to do as good a job of demolition as building 7 turned out
to be. I have seen other demolitions but none fell into their
footprint as neatly as building 7. How then could it have been rigged
for demolition? I go into many of the same buildings while on the
job, and have for years. I have noticed that large office buildings
often change tennants. Perhaps the thermite charges were placed over
the course of years as renovations were done. No one would remember
some reno job in the office down the hall two or three years ago.
This is speculation on my part, but it is far more plausible than the
"offical" explanation.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
