113 votes

WTC7 in Freefall: No Longer Controversial

I do not care what anyone says. The evidence is overwhelming that our own government planned and carried out 911. Now let the trolls down vote and spew their BS.


http://youtu.be/rVCDpL4Ax7I

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

50 hours is equivalent to one

50 hours is equivalent to one class?

You miss the point that formal education allows you to do little if you don't apply the basic concepts (which we do learn) to more complex situations? Have you read the NIST report in its entirety? Even I haven't, but I have read enough.

If you've only read about the NIST report on truther websites then you are doing yourself a disservice.

fires

No one thought that building would collapse. Raging fires have never brought a steel skyscraper down. WTC-7 had small isolated fires.

WTC-7:

Windsor Tower Madrid - entire steel structure still standing after this fire:

First Interstate Bank Fire:

http://imgur.com/a/w5iuG

If nobody thought the building would collapse

then how do you explain the video of a firefighter saying they thought it might collapse? How do you explain all the accounts after the fact about people saying they warned others or were warned that it might collapse? Why did they pull everyone back so far, consistent with the stories about establishing a zone around it because they expected it to collapse, if nobody expected it to collapse?

Note that this isn't inconsistent with demolition! There are far too many accounts of warnings about collapse to ignore it. And if there weren't any such warnings going around, how do you explain the BBC report that got it wrong? If it was a secret right up until they dropped it, that would mean the BBC reporter was in the loop.

None of this says anything about the source of the warnings. It's consistent with what the firefighters say, about having observed a bulge on the side of the building and measured it with a transit, etc., and concluding that it could fall. It's consistent with the criminals who did the deed putting out a rumor because they wanted to get everyone to pull back.

But to be consistent with the facts you've at least got to acknowledge that there was talk about it collapsing before it collapsed, and both firefighters and civilians were pulled back to a safe distance so that nobody was hurt just as you'd expect from people expecting it to collapse.

deacon's picture

bulges?

where were they? top,bottom,middle

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

Bulges

It's linked just up the page there but I'll link it below with a quote. There's also the fact that the fire department withdrew, rather than trying to fight fires (fires which some try to describe as "small"), and civilians were pulled back to a safe distance as well. I've also never heard an explanation, from the demolition side of the argument, for the BBC reporter saying that the building had already fallen. If it was a secret plan, how did she know? Was she in the loop? On the other hand if the fire department had been saying things like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnYBX6QT0R4
to reporters, and orders were being given to pull people back because of concern about collapse, then the BBC error is not hard to understand at all.

http://www.firehouse.com/article/10567885/deputy-chief-peter...

Firehouse: Other people tell me that there were a lot of firefighters in the street who were visible, and they put out traffic cones to mark them off?

Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?

Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.

deacon's picture

thanks

Didn't see you posted earlier,sorry about that
am going to check out them links now
D

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

thanks for that post. To

thanks for that post. To flippin funny. You can't make this stuff up.

Sunny's post compliments this

Sunny's post compliments this post very well.

http://www.dailypaul.com/298886/this-is-an-orange

Progressive Collapse

Progressive collapse without explosives cannot happen anywhere near free-fall acceleration. WTC-7 collapsed at free-fall, or very near free fall acceleration.

When a failure in one structure affects another structure, some momentum energy is transferred from the first to the second. This slows down the collapse to much less than free fall.

In free fall acceleration, there is nothing below to slow down or absorb any energy. This is what we saw in WTC-7. Free fall was achieved with explosives which continuously removed what was below the falling structure, so as not to slow down the continuous collapse.

If a portion of a failing structure brings down the entire structure, you will not see anything near free fall.

Have you read the expert

Have you read the expert analyses? Do you have any critique? Your comment indicated that you are not qualified to make a sound judgement based on your poor understanding of structural systems. You're parroting talking points that you learned on youtube by people who are not qualified. Read the peer-reviewed journal and see if you can make sense of it. I can try to help you with terminology if you need it.

Refute what I said in your own words

Refute what I said about the law of conservation of momentum -- in your own words.

If you are a structural engineer, as you claim, it would be very easy for you to do this.

ecorob's picture

stfu...

take your old news back to the break room!

We are so far beyond you that you seem like a child here.

Quit wasting our time.

its 'cos I owe ya, my young friend...
Rockin' the FREE world in Tennessee since 1957!
9/11 Truth.

Educate yourself

If you need help with the fundamentals of physics and mechanics, there are many resources on the internet available.

It would save you a lot of time and embarrassment if you did this before posting emotionally charged gibberish.

Once you achieve understanding of high-school level physics, take at look at Scholars for 911 Truth and educate yourself.

haha...this is absolutely

haha...this is absolutely absurd. I don't know why I'm bothering. I have to get back to designing buildings. And I'm sure you need to get back to listening to ALex Jones or something.

conservation of momentum. Just for you!

Refute what I said about the

Refute what I said about the law of conservation of momentum -- in your own words.

If you are a structural engineer, it would be very easy for you to do this.

Also

A peer reviewed (if anyone understands what that means) paper from highly respected journal (Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE):

http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf

Needless to say, this is a far better resource for understanding the collapse of 7 WTC than a bunch of youtube videos of the collapse from a distance, with commentary from biased people.

You claim to want truth. A good place to start is by reading the scientific analyses from respected and experienced people within the specific industries.

That document does not even mention

WTC7...

SallySensation

SallySensation said: this is a far better resource for understanding the collapse of 7 WTC

As you said, that link is a paper that talks about the two 110-story towers. It says so on the first page.

SallySensation is just posting random links to keep up the illusion that there's even a debate to be had.

ecorob's picture

Thats OUR argument...

you presstitute whore!

A&E...Architects and Engineers...nuff said!

its 'cos I owe ya, my young friend...
Rockin' the FREE world in Tennessee since 1957!
9/11 Truth.

no no no...that's not how

no no no...that's not how science works. You can't just give yourself a fancy name and magically everything you say is true. Read the credible stuff that is broadly accepted by the professionals in the industry....read the peer-reviewed journals. That's where you are going to find the truth.

you couldn't be any more

you couldn't be any more obvious than you are. So I'm just curious? How much does a paid blog warrior get today to lie? We all know you and see what you are doing. Didn't Obama hire 3000 of you numbskulls to go onto the net and lie?

Anyone who see's that building fall with their own eyes with very little fire or damage present and can sit there and say it was not controlled demolition is a moron of the lowest order.

http://www.dailypaul.com/298886/this-is-an-orange

ecorob's picture

hahaha...you so damn funny!

You, all of a sudden, now wish to use the VERY SAME arguments we have been using for 10 years.

Is this your new narrative? To use our arguments?

BWAAHAAHHAHAHA! (It won't work).

Talk to the hand, fool. I'm done with you.

its 'cos I owe ya, my young friend...
Rockin' the FREE world in Tennessee since 1957!
9/11 Truth.

what? You haven't made a

what? You haven't made a single credible argument. Did you read the article or journal I posted? It doesn't seem like it, because you have yet to criticize a single point made in either of them. I have no more to say to you unless you feel like making a valid argument.

ecorob's picture

Good! Go away.

NO! I have not and will not waste my time on your baseless argument.

Yes! Since I told you already to talk to the hand you may slither away.

its 'cos I owe ya, my young friend...
Rockin' the FREE world in Tennessee since 1957!
9/11 Truth.

Before anyone posts any more

Before anyone posts any more nonsense, I recommend reading this article:

http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz...

It was published in a magazine that is highly respected among the structural engineering and construction industries. It's heavily subscribed to by engineers, including most of the engineers in our office.

I don't expect most people to understand everything without some substantial background in structural engineering, or at least basic physics. But I hope it puts to rest some of the misinformation going around.

ecorob's picture

BS!

Physically impossible and a lie. One column, my arse.

its 'cos I owe ya, my young friend...
Rockin' the FREE world in Tennessee since 1957!
9/11 Truth.

Is anyone going to refute

Is anyone going to refute this with an intelligent response? I'm guessing not.