[COLOR=SlateGray]As much as I regret starting this thread as it lends a fraction of validity to a complete false and invalid argument, I'm willing to have a go at each of the individual 9/11 conspiracies 1 thread at a time.

One lesson I've learned that as soon as you cover 1 topic, someone brings up another, and said topic gets left in the dust, which is why we go in circles discussing 9/11.[/COLOR] [COLOR=SlateGray]

The following is enough information for me to understand the dynamics of Building 7. If you need more information than this, you may want to look at why you are so mistrusting.[/COLOR] [COLOR=Gray]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/COLOR] [COLOR=Gray]

[B][SIZE=3]The following quotes from those involved with WTC 7 should dispel any claims that the building was relatively undamaged and was brought down by a controlled demolition. [/SIZE][/B][B][SIZE=3] [/SIZE][/B] [B][SIZE=3]Those on the scene describe very heavy structural damage as well as numerous fires left to burn unchecked for hours. [/SIZE][/B][B][SIZE=3] [/SIZE][/B] [B][SIZE=3]According to demolitions experts, the term "pulled" means to literally pull down a building with cables and ropes. It is not used to describe a controlled demolition. [/SIZE][/B] [/COLOR] [FONT=Arial][COLOR=Gray][SIZE=2]Silverstein's Quote:[/SIZE][/COLOR][/FONT][COLOR=Gray] [/COLOR] [FONT=Arial][COLOR=Gray][SIZE=2]"[B]I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me[/B] they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe [B]the smartest thing to do is just pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse.[/B]"[/SIZE][/COLOR][/FONT][FONT=Arial][COLOR=Gray][SIZE=2] [/SIZE][/COLOR][/FONT][COLOR=Gray] [/COLOR] [FONT=Arial][COLOR=Gray][SIZE=2]-Fact which is undisputed by either side,[/SIZE] [B][SIZE=2]he was talking to the fire commander[/SIZE][/B][/COLOR][/FONT][COLOR=Gray] [/COLOR] [FONT=Arial][COLOR=Gray][SIZE=2]-Fact which is undisputed by either side,[/SIZE] [B][SIZE=2]both are not in the demolition business[/SIZE][/B][/COLOR][/FONT][COLOR=Gray] [B][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]Silverstein's spokesperson, Mr. McQuillan, later clarified:[/SIZE][/FONT][/B][/COLOR] [COLOR=Gray]

[/COLOR] [FONT=Arial][COLOR=Gray][SIZE=2]"In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. [B]Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.[/B][/SIZE][/COLOR][/FONT][FONT=Arial][COLOR=Gray][SIZE=2] [/SIZE][/COLOR][/FONT][COLOR=Gray] [/COLOR] [FONT=Arial][COLOR=Gray][SIZE=2]He could be lying, right? But here is the[/SIZE] [B][SIZE=2]corroborating evidence...[/SIZE][/B][/COLOR][/FONT][COLOR=Gray] [/COLOR] [FONT=Arial][COLOR=Gray][SIZE=2]"[B]They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down.[/B] We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. [B]I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they [U]pulled[/U] us out.[/B] They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. [B]They [U]pulled[/U] us out of there[/B] and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down." - Richard Banaciski[/SIZE][/COLOR][/FONT][COLOR=Gray] [URL]http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/[/URL][/COLOR] [COLOR=Gray] Banaciski_Richard.txt

[/COLOR] [FONT=Arial][COLOR=Gray][SIZE=2]Here is [B]more evidence they pulled the teams out[/B] waiting for a normal collapse from fire...[/SIZE][/COLOR][/FONT][COLOR=Gray] [/COLOR] [FONT=Arial][COLOR=Gray][SIZE=2]"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse (Of the WTC towers) had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and [B]I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members,[/B] so we had to [B]give up some rescue operations[/B] that were going on at the time and [B]back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people.[/B] We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely" - Daniel Nigro, Chief of Department[/SIZE][/COLOR][/FONT][COLOR=Gray] [URL]http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/[/URL][/COLOR] [COLOR=Gray] Nigro_Daniel.txt

[/COLOR] [FONT=Arial][COLOR=Gray][SIZE=2]"Early on, [B]there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse[/B]. So we instructed that a collapse area -- (Q. A collapse zone?) -- Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. There was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolants and so on. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed." - Chief Cruthers[/SIZE][/COLOR][/FONT][COLOR=Gray] [/COLOR] [FONT=Arial][COLOR=Gray][URL]http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC[/URL] /Cruthers.txt[/COLOR][/FONT][COLOR=Gray] [/COLOR] [COLOR=Gray] [/COLOR] [FONT=Arial][COLOR=Gray][SIZE=2]"Then we found out, I guess around 3:00 [o'clock], that they thought 7 was going to collapse. So, of course, [B][we've] got guys all in this pile over here and the main concern was get everybody out,[/B] and I guess it took us over an hour and a half, two hours to get everybody out of there. (Q. Initially when you were there, [B]you had said you heard a few Maydays?) Oh, yes. We had Maydays like crazy.... The heat must have been tremendous. There was so much [expletive] fire there. This whole pile was burning like crazy. Just the heat and the smoke from all the other buildings on fire, you [couldn't] see anything. So it took us a while and we ended up backing everybody out,[/B] and [that's] when 7 collapsed.... Basically, we fell back for 7 to collapse, and then we waited a while and it got a lot more organized, I would guess." - Lieutenant William Ryan[/SIZE][/COLOR][/FONT][COLOR=Gray] [/COLOR] [FONT=Arial][COLOR=Gray][URL]http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC[/URL] /Ryan_William.txt[/COLOR][/FONT][COLOR=Gray] [/COLOR] [COLOR=Gray] [/COLOR] [FONT=Arial][COLOR=Gray][SIZE=2]"Firehouse: [B]Did that chief give an assignment to go to building 7?[/B]

Boyle: He gave out an assignment. I didnt know exactly what it was, but [B]he told the chief that we were heading down to the site[/B].

Firehouse: How many companies?

Boyle: [B]There were four engines and at least three trucks[/B]. So were heading east on Vesey, we couldnt see much past Broadway. We couldnt see Church Street. We couldnt see what was down there. It was really smoky and dusty."

"A little north of Vesey I said, well go down, lets see whats going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see whats going on. [B]So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didnt look like there was any damage at all, [URL="http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm"]but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didnt look good.[/URL][/B]

But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but [B]eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, were going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didnt look good.[/B] I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasnt really keen on the idea. [B]Then this other officer Im standing next to said, that building doesnt look straight. So Im standing there. Im looking at the building. It didnt look right, but, well, well go in, well see.[/B]

So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. [B]We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobodys going into 7, theres creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.[/B]

Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

Boyle: [B]I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, [U][URL="http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm"]right in the middle of it[/URL].[/U] And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, well head back to the command post.[/B] We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.

[URL]http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag...e/gz/boyle.html[/URL][/SIZE][/COLOR][/FONT][COLOR=Gray] (Broken Link Cached here: [URL]http://www.webcitation.org/5IuRwM61d[/URL] ) [/COLOR] [FONT=Arial][COLOR=Gray][SIZE=2]This proves there was a big hole on the south side of the building. From the photographic evidence and these quotes which aren't meant to be technical, I suspect there was a large hole in the center of the building which may have gone up 10 stories connected to a large rip on the left side of the building which continued up another 10 or more stories. Together they would make "[/SIZE][/COLOR][/FONT][FONT=Arial][COLOR=Gray][SIZE=2][B][URL="http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm"]a hole 20 stories tall[/URL][/B]".[/SIZE][/COLOR][/FONT][COLOR=Gray] [/COLOR] [FONT=Arial][COLOR=Gray][SIZE=2]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, [B]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 [U]we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse.[/U] You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 oclock in the afternoon, but by about 2 oclock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.[/B]

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?

Hayden: No, not right away, and thats 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 didnt make any attempt to fight it. [B]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.[/B] We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, [U]so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the[/U]

Firehouse: [B]Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7[/B] did you have to get all of those people out?

Hayden: [B]Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didnt want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasnt even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didnt know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 oclock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then. At that point in time, it seemed like a somewhat smaller event, but under any normal circumstances, thats a major event, a 47-story building collapsing. It seemed like a firecracker after the other ones came down, but I mean thats a big building, and when it came down, it was quite an event. But having gone through the other two, it didnt seem so bad. But thats what we were concerned about. We had said to the guys, we lost as many as 300 guys. We didnt want to lose any more people that day. And when those numbers start to set in among everybody My feeling early on was we werent going to find any survivors. You either made it out or you didnt make it out. It was a cataclysmic event.[/B] The idea of somebody living in that thing to me would have been only short of a miracle. This thing became geographically sectored because of the collapse. I was at West and Liberty. I couldnt go further north on West Street. And I couldnt go further east on Liberty because of the collapse of the south tower, so physically we were boxed in.

[URL]http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag.../gz/hayden.html[/URL]surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.[/SIZE][/COLOR][/FONT][COLOR=Gray] (Broken Link - Ask Firehouse.com) [/COLOR] [FONT=Arial][COLOR=Gray][SIZE=2]It mirrors what Silverstein said.[/SIZE][/COLOR][/FONT][COLOR=Gray] [/COLOR] [FONT=Arial][COLOR=Gray][SIZE=2]WTC Building 7 appears to have suffered significant damage at some point after the WTC Towers had collapsed, according to firefighters at the scene. Firefighter Butch Brandies tells other firefighters that nobody is to go into Building 7 because of creaking and noises coming out of there. [Firehouse Magazine, 8/02][/SIZE][/COLOR][/FONT][COLOR=Gray] [/COLOR] [FONT=Arial][COLOR=Gray][SIZE=2]Battalion Chief John Norman later recalls, "At the edge of the south face you could see that it is very heavily damaged." [Firehouse Magazine, 5/02][/SIZE][/COLOR][/FONT][COLOR=Gray] [/COLOR] [FONT=Arial][COLOR=Gray][SIZE=2]Heavy, thick smoke rises near 7 World Trade Center. Smoke is visible from the upper floors of the 47-story building. Firefighters using transits to determine whether there was any movement in the structure were surprised to discover that is was moving. The area was evacuated and the building collapsed later in the afternoon of Sept. 11.[/SIZE][/COLOR][/FONT][COLOR=Gray] [/COLOR][COLOR=Gray] [/COLOR] [FONT=Arial][COLOR=Gray][SIZE=2]As for Building 7 and the evidence for Controlled Demolition, let's review the evidence...[/SIZE][/COLOR][/FONT][COLOR=Gray] [/COLOR] [FONT=Arial][COLOR=Gray][SIZE=2]What we do have for sure.

1. Fireman saying there was [B]"a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors." "I would say it was probably about a third of it".[/B]

2. A laymen officer the fireman was standing next to said, [B]"that building doesnt look straight."[/B] He then says [B]"It didnt look right".[/B]

3. They put a transit on it and afterward were [B]"pretty sure she was going to collapse."[/B]

4. They [B]"saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13"[/B].

5. [B]Photographic evidence[/B] of a fire directly under the penthouse which collapsed first.

6. [B]The penthouse fell first[/B], followed by the rest of the building shortly after.

7. [B]The collapse happened from the bottom[/B].

Photographic evidence of large smoke plumes against the back of B7. [B]Plumes of smoke so large you can't see the entire rear of the 47 story office building.[/B][/SIZE][/COLOR][/FONT][COLOR=Gray]

[/COLOR] [FONT=Arial][COLOR=Gray][SIZE=2]9) [B]Silverstein is not a demolition expert[/B][/SIZE] [SIZE=2]and was [B]talking to a fire fighter and not a demolition expert.[/B] Why would he use the word "Pull" to describe the demolition to a fire fighter?[/SIZE][/COLOR][/FONT][COLOR=Gray]

[/COLOR] [FONT=Arial][COLOR=Gray][SIZE=2]10) [B]Silverstein denies "Pull" means "Controlled demolition".[/B][/SIZE] [SIZE=2]He said it means "Pull" the teams out of the building.[/SIZE][/COLOR][/FONT][COLOR=Gray]

[/COLOR] [FONT=Arial][COLOR=Gray][SIZE=2]11) [B]Silverstein did not make the decision to "Pull".[/B][/SIZE] [SIZE=2](Whatever that means) "[B]they[/B] made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse"[/SIZE][/COLOR][/FONT][COLOR=Gray]

[/COLOR] [FONT=Arial][COLOR=Gray][SIZE=2]12) [B]Another fire fighter used "Pull" to describe the decision made to get him out of the building.[/B][/SIZE][/COLOR][/FONT][COLOR=Gray] [/COLOR][COLOR=Gray] [/COLOR] [FONT=Arial][COLOR=Gray][SIZE=2]Maybe none of these things by themselves mean anything but together it means there is no case. The person who said "Pull" and started this cascade later clarified. Fireman use the word "Pull" to describe getting out of a building and the person who made the order was not Silverstein according to the same first interview.[/SIZE][/COLOR][/FONT][COLOR=Gray] [/COLOR] [FONT=Arial][COLOR=Gray][SIZE=2] [/SIZE][/COLOR][/FONT]

Re: Building 7

[CENTER][SIZE=5]Please do not respond to this thread until you have literally read through the above information. [/SIZE] [/CENTER]

Re: Building 7

Surley you should of posted this in here your going to upset jenks now.

[URL]http://www.mercuryserver.com/forums/showthread.php?t=59030&highlight=building[/URL]

If I was going to discribe pulling people from a building i wouldnt use the word IT, but thats just me.

You mite want to check out Megastructures: Miami Demolition as to the use of the word Pull It. I mite be able to find a link to it after I've watched the rest of Res0's movie.

You mite want to check out this to

[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windsor_Tower[/URL]

Re: Building 7

[SIZE=3]And I wouldn't naturally think to use the words or term "fully executed" when describing a contract that's been filled out. But different words are used at different times for different reasons under different circumstances.

Moreover, in the midst of a disaster the size of 9/11 guess what? [/SIZE] [SIZE=3]

Who knows what would come out of your mouth if you lived in NYC and you had personal relationships with tenants of buildings you owned just blocks away from one of America's worst terror attacks.[/SIZE]

Re: Building 7

[QUOTE=chunky;846431]Surley you should of posted this in here your going to upset jenks now. [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windsor_Tower"][/URL][/QUOTE]

. :Die:

Re: Building 7

I'm not adding to a Shosh thread, sorry shosh, no offense pal

Re: Building 7

In February this year, Andrew Joseph flew a plane directly into tax office in Florida.

Have a look at the picture and look at the damage the direct impact caused.

[URL]http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/19/us/19crash.html[/URL]

Makes you wonder.

Re: Building 7

[URL="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/Piper.warrior.vicc.750pix.jpg"]^Are you intentionally being thick dig72?

[/URL] (and fyi, it was TEXAS)

Re: Building 7

your post still doesn't explain the building falling at free fall speed into the most resistance?

I notice you also left out the "it" part... "pull it"

Re: Building 7

[QUOTE=runningman;846565]your post still doesn't explain the building falling at free fall speed into the most resistance?[/QUOTE]

define free fall speed, based on it being demolished due to the level of fire damage it incurred.

Oh and also, are you f*cking kidding me?

Re: Building 7

free fall speed - The rate at which objects fall to the earth.

Are u kidding me?

Re: Building 7

^So is this the only point than that I should assume you are refuting?

Because it is my sense that even if I did overcome your objection (with: The top portion of the building fell at free fall acceleration before slowing down upon meeting resistance) you would then move to a different topic altogether....

...a typical RM tactic btw.

Re: Building 7

no, buildings falling at free fall speed is my issue. Free fall would mean no resistance. you can't have it both ways.. You can't say free fall for some and then not free fall later. Free fall is free fall.

Go ahead Newton prove me wrong.

Also what about the crimp right before it fell? Or the explosions heard by everyone?

Re: Building 7

^I'm sorry, are you a structural engineer?

AND stay on topic you speed-trap shaygitz.

Re: Building 7

No but I know where to find 1139 A and E's.. you?

Re: Building 7

Exactly my point. You're not a structural engineer, therefore your claim has no basis, it's purely regurgitated conspiracy ramblings...

I've spoken with real structural engineers and nobody they know, including themselves agree with the points you try to make.

which by the way, is partly why your statements are often laughed at and mocked by the majority of the members...

...most everyone here knows your claims are backed by lunatic notions derived from other paranoid individuals from god knows where.

Re: Building 7

you're grasping at straws with this youtube "free-fall" nonsense...

...once again, you look ridiculous, so please do yourself and all of us a favor... [SIZE=5] ...and JUST STOP[/SIZE].

Re: Building 7

insert line after line of BS ramblings by Runningman here:

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

Re: Building 7

[URL]http://www.ae911truth.org/[/URL]

These guys are conspiracy nutjobs? You have over 1100 architects and engineers saying it is impossible.

I look ridiculous? HAHAHAHA.. Ya ok Florida. You see that is all that guys like you and Reso have.. name calling.. you never get down to the science or the facts because it scares you. Free fall speed is physics

[IMG]http://www.tvacres.com/images/keebler_group.gif[/IMG]

The gov't could tell you the keebler elves took down the building and you would believe it. You would be telling me how the cookie dough turned the steel into mold.

Re: Building 7

Free Fall

[change in] v = a * t [change in] y = v [initial] * t + 1/2 * a * t^2

v = velocity (in m/s) a = acceleration (in m/s^2); for free fall, it's 9.81 m/s^2 t = time (in s) y = vertical displacement (in m)

[SIZE=5]God Damn I love Smacking People Around on Here!!![/SIZE]

Re: Building 7

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw&feature=related[/YOUTUBE]

:Anal:

Re:

So...how about that Healthcare Bill? :p

Re: Building 7

[QUOTE=floridaorange;846518][URL="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/Piper.warrior.vicc.750pix.jpg"]^Are you intentionally being thick dig72?

[/URL] (and fyi, it was TEXAS)[/QUOTE]

And which plane hit wtc 7?

Re: Building 7

[URL]http://ae911truth.info/tiki-index.php?page=Freefall+Speed[/URL]

Did any of the three WTC Buildings collapse at freefall speeds? No.

Pictures of the Towers clearly show debris falling separately from the main tower. It descends at a rate of speed (and acceleration) much faster than that of the main portion of the collapse.

[IMG]http://ae911truth.info/show_image.php?name=TowerDebris.jpg[/IMG] Perimeter columns from the South Tower are on the left. Perimeter columns from the North are on the right. You can see that these pieces are falling faster than the actual collapse, because they've fallen below where they broke off. You can see the undamaged face of the South Tower to the extreme left and the undamaged face of the North Tower to the extreme right.

I've prepared a short video showing that 7 World Trade took [video=youtube;G86yuunRBIw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G86yuunRBIw[/video] to fall completely, with seismic information indicating 18 seconds. However, CD advocates are usually referring to a single portion of the entire collapse, when the roofline begins to fall.

The [URL="http://wtc.nist.gov/"]Final Report on 7 World Trade from NIST[/URL] demonstrates that this section fell 40% slower than it would have if moving at freefall speeds.

[URL="http://ae911truth.info/tiki-index.php?page=AE911Truth"]AE911Truth[/URL] has graphed out the descent of this final portion to have a 9.1 m/s-squared constant. Gravity accelerates at 9.8 m/s-squared. Even this portion of the building does not descend at freefall speeds.

[IMG]http://ae911truth.info/show_image.php?name=91mssConstantRate[/IMG] This graphic is currently found on the AE911Truth slide 73. [B]"Near" Freefall Speeds?[/B]

Did any of the three WTC buildings fall at "near" freefall speeds?

That all depends on how "near" is defined. An acceleration rate of 9.1 m/s-squared is nearer to 9.8 than 8.7, but it's further away than 9.7. Trying to define "near" in this case is a fool's game.

The more appropriate question to ask is, "How fast [I]should[/I] these buildings have fallen?" If mathematical analysis takes all appropriate factors into account and shows the buildings fell within an expected time range, then it wouldn't matter if the buildings fell at freefall speed, near freefall speed, or much slower than freefall speed. There would be nothing unusual about the time at all. If, however, the actual speed is outside this range, that would indicate a significant factor that had not been accommodated, one of which could conceivably be controlled demolition.

Such analysis has been done. As [URL="http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm"]NIST explains[/URL]:

...the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

The section of 7 World Trade in the final part of the collapse is quite similar in mass to the upper sections of the towers.

More rigorous calculations have been published in respected scientific journals ([URL="http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf"]Bazant & Zhou (pdf)[/URL], and [URL="http://ae911truth.info/pdf/BazantLeGreeningBenson.pdf"]Bazant, Le, Greening, and Benson (pdf)[/URL] (in press)). The results work out to the same conclusion. The dynamic loads of the descending mass was far too large to be redistributed by any structure available to resist them. The speed of their descent was not mathematically unusual.

Therefore, the buildings falling at speeds that can be described as "near freefall speed," whatever that vague term means, isn't something that rules out the buildings falling naturally.

[B]AE911Truth's Arguments[/B]

[B]No Change in Timing?[/B]

The argument made by AE911Truth about freefall speed has changed in the case of 7 World Trade. Their first couple of presentations described 7 as falling at freefall speed, period. That has changed. Now they describe 7 as falling at "nearly freefall speed" just as they always have the towers.

However, they continue to say that [URL="http://www.ae911truth.org/wtc7.php"]7 World Trade fell in 6.5 seconds[/URL]. You can still see Gage make this claim in interviews available on their front page, and a graphic detailing this claim appears at the link to their "WTC 7 Evidence" page in this paragraph. However, assuming that their graphic does count off the seconds accurately, the building clearly has one-third of its height left to fall when AE911Truth stops the count.

NEXT TOPIC!!

Re: Building 7

Did you not watch the video where NIST admits it fell at free fall speeds? Watch part 3 it will do you some good. They admit that the building fell at free fall speed for 2 seconds. Which is impossible.

They did not stop the count early.. Listen to those guys bumble around trying to make up answers. It really is funny to watch scientific men at a loss when trying to explain their thesis.

Also the WTC towers, when buildings are damaged they fall over not into the most reistance..;):lol:

Re: Building 7

NEXT TOPiC!!

Re: Building 7

Not closing the thread again are you.:lol:

Re: Building 7

[QUOTE=res0nat0r;846651][URL="http://ae911truth.info/tiki-index.php?page=Freefall+Speed"][/URL]

NEXT TOPIC!![/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=res0nat0r;846685]NEXT TOPiC!![/QUOTE]

See previous quotes!!

[QUOTE=chunky;846686]Not closing the thread again are you.:lol:[/QUOTE]

YES!! You guys are going to bring up the same unsubstantiated bullshit again. and again. and again. and again. and again. and again. and again. and again.

NEXT TOPIC!!

Re: Building 7

[QUOTE]According to demolitions experts, the term "pulled" means to literally pull down a building with cables and ropes. It is not used to describe a controlled demolition. [/QUOTE]

What sort of structure would a controlled demolition company pull down using cables and even stranger ropes?

Re: Building 7

[QUOTE=res0nat0r;846688]See previous quotes!!

YES!! You guys are going to bring up the same unsubstantiated bullshit again. and again. and again. and again. and again. and again. and again. and again.

NEXT TOPIC!![/QUOTE]

I dont think you have noticed but your thread closing nonsense isn't working. You may a well stick to putting your hands on your ears while making a noise waggling your tongue. :lol:

Re: Building 7

It's working for me since I'm not talking about your same olde' nonsense with you guys anymore ;)

Re: Building 7

[QUOTE=res0nat0r;846688]YES!! You guys are going to bring up the same unsubstantiated bullshit again. and again. and again. and again. and again. and again. and again. and again. [/QUOTE]

So one post your using NIST to back your theory. But you won't watch a video where NIST claim the building fell a near free fall speed. NIST are the engineer's you have been using to try and substantiate your claims no :lol:

Re: Building 7

[QUOTE=res0nat0r;846691]It's working for me since I'm not talking about your same olde' nonsense with you guys anymore ;)[/QUOTE]

Youll be back with more thread closures, post editing, silly pictures and some C&P. Its like a car crash remember. :lol:

Re: Building 7

grab grab grab

air air air

Have fun being ignorant!!!! GTG.

Re: Building 7

[IMG]http://www.aspencountry.com/assets/product_images/product_lib/31000-31999/31655.jpg[/IMG]

Re: Building 7

I feel like capernicus going around telling people the world isn't flat...:lol:

Re: Building 7

[IMG]http://www.theforumsite.com/images/smilies/icon_toilet.gif[/IMG]

[IMG]http://www.multidesk.be/images/smilies/no.gif[/IMG]

Re: Building 7

9/11 was an inside job. i honestly believe this.

Re: Building 7

^I'm actually ok with that

Re: Building 7

haha i love you florida.

even tho im not one of those "i saw it on tv so it must be true" kinda people... everyone should see Zeitgeist if they would like a really good breakdown of the 9/11 situation.

not to mention that the part in that movie bout religeon literally stunned me.