The ol' pancake theory? Explain the speed it fell then?(I know it wasn't quite free fall speed by the way.
New WTC 7 Investigation by AIA
- Thread starter HallofFame
- Start date
What is it about the speed of the fall that you don't understand or agree with?
everyone knows it fell at the exact speed of a similar building that got imploded, put them side by side, watch the film...and that the pancake theory is proven false by the speed of the thing falling, but I'll let him answer....
To me, this is just SCREAMING OUT "Controlled Demolition"... It's a classic implosion to me.
If history has taught us anything, it's that if you use the phrase "everyone knows", that means nothing more than a few InfoWars crazies are shockingly misinformed about basic scientific facts ....
You cant just simply crash through dozens and dozens of floors, not hit by a plane, and not structurally weakened at that pace. Especially if the path to least resistance would have been the natural course.
that's right, try and make it sound like it's a handful of crazies and then you can discredit them.
The videos which have been shown numerous times which shows where the towers first started to collapse. Keep trolling away though it is fun to see all the crazies come out on this subject.
Facts: Calls were made from the planes, impossible to have been done unless there was some sort of assitance or booster on the plane, especially at that the time the calls came through due to where they were in the air.
Multiple people heard explosions at the WTC before they fell. Caught on camera. There are also videos with explosions being seen through the windows just before they fell.
There was a video of a lady on the same floors where the impact of one of planes hit. She's noticeably not being burnt alive, by the 2,500 degree heat. The amount of heat needed to melt down the frame.
More than just a few pilots claimed the maneveuring of ALL the planes would have been VERY DIFFICULT, to impossible for the 'terrorists'.
As a matter of fact, the speed that the NIST report said the planes were going, would have been well past VMO. The planes likely would have fallen apart while doing this.
NONE of the black boxes were ever found from the planes that hit the WTC, and the one at the pentagon was found, but the S/N reference to the plane itself was never verified despite private entities trying to make it happen.
They have no video of the terrorists actually boarding the planes.
The entry point at the Pentagon, size wise does not match the plane that was claimed to have hit it. Also no video, despite the Pentagon being one of the most surveyed buildings in the entire world. Just happen to also hit in an area, where there was minimal staffing. Why are they set on not letting anyone see the impat on the Pentagon.
Sulfur was found in heavy amounts at the WTC wreckage. A sign of thermite.
There were multiple drills going on with anti-terrorist flight scnearios going on across the country on this very same day. Curious timing. It was said to be a reason why not ONE plane in a timeframe of an hour and half was able to be brought down.
Osama Bin laden himself immediately denied invovlement. Then supposedly there was video of him talking about doing it.
Also look up Operation Northwoods, and the owner of the WTC and how much money he made off of this, and how it solved his problem of not being able to update the WTC complex to modern standards.
Multiple people heard explosions at the WTC before they fell. Caught on camera. There are also videos with explosions being seen through the windows just before they fell.
There was a video of a lady on the same floors where the impact of one of planes hit. She's noticeably not being burnt alive, by the 2,500 degree heat. The amount of heat needed to melt down the frame.
More than just a few pilots claimed the maneveuring of ALL the planes would have been VERY DIFFICULT, to impossible for the 'terrorists'.
As a matter of fact, the speed that the NIST report said the planes were going, would have been well past VMO. The planes likely would have fallen apart while doing this.
NONE of the black boxes were ever found from the planes that hit the WTC, and the one at the pentagon was found, but the S/N reference to the plane itself was never verified despite private entities trying to make it happen.
They have no video of the terrorists actually boarding the planes.
The entry point at the Pentagon, size wise does not match the plane that was claimed to have hit it. Also no video, despite the Pentagon being one of the most surveyed buildings in the entire world. Just happen to also hit in an area, where there was minimal staffing. Why are they set on not letting anyone see the impat on the Pentagon.
Sulfur was found in heavy amounts at the WTC wreckage. A sign of thermite.
There were multiple drills going on with anti-terrorist flight scnearios going on across the country on this very same day. Curious timing. It was said to be a reason why not ONE plane in a timeframe of an hour and half was able to be brought down.
Osama Bin laden himself immediately denied invovlement. Then supposedly there was video of him talking about doing it.
Also look up Operation Northwoods, and the owner of the WTC and how much money he made off of this, and how it solved his problem of not being able to update the WTC complex to modern standards.
No one is trolling, and what does the impact area have to do with anything? If the building was brought down, in the manner which many people thought it was, it wouldn't have mattered where they hit.
There were mutliple buidings around the WTC that took more damage and not only did they not fall, they were never on fire either. This building, WTC 7, also happened to house CIA, FBI, and IRS offices. The only building within the WTC complex that had those offices.
To me, this is just SCREAMING OUT "Controlled Demolition"... It's a classic implosion to me.
First, I don't understand why you are getting hung up on the path of least resistance? Simple physics dictates if something weighing millions of pounds is several hundred feet in the air (thus possessing enormous potential energy) and starts moving, it's path is going to be straight down unless you have a massive horizontal force applied to it.
Second, the floors were structurally weakened. There is a huge chunk of the building missing prior to the fall, at the lower levels (which makes collapse far more likely), after hours of fire. It's the lateral failures that precipitated the vertical column failures. Take a straw, stand it on end, and push down in it. What happens? The straw bows out and the middle and then it breaks. Now take the straw and w/ one hand, don't let the middle of the straw move horizontally at all, and then push down on the top? What happens? It takes much more force to break the straw. While there are a number of factors including material and how the ends are affixed, as a general rule, the force a vertical column can withstand increases by a factor of 4 if you cut its length in half. In other words, this means if you start with a vertical beam than can support 100 tons restricted horizontally at the mid-point; and then remove the horizontal restrictions, it will only support 25 tons. That's why the loss of horizontal members on WTC 7 (and WTC 1 and 2) made the buildings fall.
Third, what is the basis for your belief about the "pace" of the fall? Just you looking at the video and thinking it's falling too fast?
Fourth, if it was a conspiracy (and it wasn't) wouldn't the conspirators destroy the building in a manner to direct the least, and not the most, attention to their conspiracy?
Before you get to preachy here, can you tell me about the core column and the amount of resistance they were made to handle? As well as the outer struture,.....Where are all these missing chunks by the way?
Also, simple physics would tell you that a smaller amount of weight that is falling apart and down, would not force a much larger amount of weight to also force itself down, before that top weight would simply shift off to the side. At most, only a portion of the buildings should have fallen when speaking WTC 1 and 2.
Not the entire F'n thing. Especially at the speed it went down.
The structuring and strength of the buildings were VERY strong and made to handle something like this. It was literally made to handle being hit by a plane and the steel structuring had fire proofing. The core structure itself was another smaller sky scraper inside the outside structures of the WTC buildings.
Not the entire F'n thing. Especially at the speed it went down.
The structuring and strength of the buildings were VERY strong and made to handle something like this. It was literally made to handle being hit by a plane and the steel structuring had fire proofing. The core structure itself was another smaller sky scraper inside the outside structures of the WTC buildings.
Also, St Louis, this is simple physics, the law of momentum conservation would be completely violated if what you say happened, happened.
If you tried to reproduce this occurence, would you be confident that it would happen the way you think the WTC deal happened.
How does something fall at near free fall speed, and at the same time destroy everything in it's path? Where does that energy come from?
If you tried to reproduce this occurence, would you be confident that it would happen the way you think the WTC deal happened.
How does something fall at near free fall speed, and at the same time destroy everything in it's path? Where does that energy come from?
LOL.....St. Louis, am I correct in sensing that this is the first time, or nearly so, you have found yourself in this conversation with this kind of people? I'm just surprised they haven't mentioned the female college professor who says the Virginia Tech shootings were a warning at her to stop investigating 911. For well over a year, she was the leading light of the truther movement. I have been away from it for quite some time, so not sure what happened to her. Maybe the same thing that happened to the scientist out in Utah who was originally cited by them to prove their physics. When it turned out he was wrong, they claimed he was a "plant" by the administration intended to discredit the critics. You can't win. You simply cannot win.
You should just let the adults talk Lone. You still believe in Fox News and all they report. You're not to be trusted in things like this.
I bet you think going to Iraq was good for America don't you?
To me, this is just SCREAMING OUT "Controlled Demolition"... It's a classic implosion to me.
This looks right. I do not know what to believe any more. This country is in sad shape!!
Oh and one more question St Louis Hawk, after the intial explosion of the planes, which had to have been fuel based,...because metal and office furniture doesn't explode,......how much fuel was left?
How much was there in the first place within the planes themselves? In speaking of space, how much space does that fuel take up in a single floor of the WTC?
Could it have actually made it all the way down the elevator shafts like the NIST reports said? And if so how much of it would have made it's way down there?
What with all the witness testimonies of explosions they heard within the building while trying to escape, and while in the lobby?
How much was there in the first place within the planes themselves? In speaking of space, how much space does that fuel take up in a single floor of the WTC?
Could it have actually made it all the way down the elevator shafts like the NIST reports said? And if so how much of it would have made it's way down there?
What with all the witness testimonies of explosions they heard within the building while trying to escape, and while in the lobby?
I'm sorry you aren't willing to have an actual discussion. Again just because some of us question certain things doesn't mean we believe every theory that was thrown out there. I simply do not trust the report we were given. If that makes you uncomfortable then by all means believe everything the media and the government tell you.
First and hopefully last time. Other than the trolls, I thought only OiT and a couple Alex Jones types really believed this stuff. I got drunk and watched Loose Change on YouTube once. That's 2 hours of my life that I will never get back. Wow.
to the folks who think that the whole 9-11 deal went down like they said, to those who are convinced that a lie is the truth, this whole thread is a troll, the mere mention of 9-11 is a troll. we are supposed to go along like sheep and believe a lie is the truth.
I'm sorry that I'm probably taking out on you guys some of the frustration I've built up over the years having this same discussion with others. And I have found it's almost impossible to have an actual discussion. For reasons that are obvious from this thread.
For instance, I've very clearly said I don't believe everything in the report.....yet you blithely accuse me of "believing everything the media and the government tell you."
One of the most frustrating things is the whack-a-mole strategy of the truthers. As I said, I haven't been involved in this for several years, but when I was involved, as soon as the conspiracy theory du jour had been debunked, they discarded it as if it had never existed, let alone been their primary explanation. Or they continue to repeat the debunked theories (e.g., the cell phone calls from hijacked passengers never happened). And the common-sense questions usually are ignored.
You just raised one....that the media are in on the conspiracy. Good God, you think the media were protecting George Freaking Bush???? Do you not realize how utterly huge the story would be if something actually were discovered along the lines of what you are suggesting? Do you have any concept of how famous -- not to mention rich -- the reporter would become, almost instantly? The prizes the medium would win? Yet because they don't agree with your interpretation of matters, you assume they're part of the conspiracy. What possible reason could they have? And how could they possibly all be on the same page?
Answer: It just isn't possible. Period. The end. The media are NOT covering up anything.
I'm still waiting to hear why the government would go to the trouble, expense -- and take the risk -- of the elaborate hoax of four hijacked airliners instead of just demolishing the towers and planting evidence to blame Iraq or Russia or MSNBC or whomever they want to blame. No answer to that question.
I'm still waiting to hear an even marginally credible explanation of who was behind this plot and what motivated them.
In November 2007 Scripps Howard surveyed 811 Americans about their beliefs in several conspiracy theories and asked this question:[17]
How about that some people in the federal government had specific warnings of the 9/11 attacks in New York and Washington, but chose to ignore those warnings. Is this very likely, somewhat likely or unlikely?
A poll commissioned by the BBC found that one in seven Americans still thinks that 9/11 was a staged act. And even worrisome, one in four 16- to 24-year-olds thinks it was staged.
How about that some people in the federal government had specific warnings of the 9/11 attacks in New York and Washington, but chose to ignore those warnings. Is this very likely, somewhat likely or unlikely?
- 32% "Very Likely"
- 30% "Somewhat Likely"
- 30% "Unlikely"
- 8% "Don't Know/Other"
A poll commissioned by the BBC found that one in seven Americans still thinks that 9/11 was a staged act. And even worrisome, one in four 16- to 24-year-olds thinks it was staged.
Combination of the Saudi Arabians and the cons. Retribution from the Saudis, and a "use this crisis to our advantage from the cons.".
You're underestimating the value of being over in the Middle East Clone, at least as the cons see it.
Forget loose change,...
Watch September 11, The New Pearl Harbor.
Then you can get back to me. I don't buy your so called expertise on this St Louis. You're quoting things I've seen quoted many times. Watch the movie, on Youtube, and get back to me. It's a long watch though, just so you know. It covers EVERY little point. It even debunks some of the 'conspiracies', that distort the real questions and there answers. Watch it.
And to top it off: Bin Laden had very little to do with it, and he died in late 2001 of natural causes. Obama did not get him and toss the body in the ocean.
That's a good question actually. Likely just to hammer the point home.
But why no video of the Pentagon while we are at it? Why the need to hide it from the public? We saw the other crashes, so why is it so difficult to see this one?
The Pennsylvania crash was likely one of two things, either the terrorists were brougth down as the hollywood movie tells us, or it was shot down. Something the American public would not have wanted to hear.
I don't dispute that there were hijackers, I dispute that they were the only ones invovled by the way.
Agreed, I think Osama was nothing more than poster child for it. If there was a mastermind, he has been in custody in Guantanamo Bay for some time now.
The whole scenario is just a little too close to the scenario that Operation Northwoods laid out.
it's highly likely that there were zero planes at both the pentagon and the Pennsylvania site, or the pentagon one was most likely a missile and there was no plane at Pennsylvania because it was either a missile as well, or it was blown up in mid air, destroyed so badly there was nothing left
What is your expertise AT other than watching some videos?
I'll watch your video if you start responding to my questions and stop jumping around from topic to topic. We were talking about WTC 7, and then you start talking about jet fuel from the planes and WTC 1 and 2.
Then you use terms like force, momentum, and conservation of momentum, but it is clear you don't know their scientific meaning.
Then I asked you two easy questions, that you simply ignore. I'll post them against. Can you cite to any facts saying the speed of the fall was "too fast" or just your own belief? Second: if you design a grand conspiracy to knock down WTC 1 and 2, and needed to knock down WTC 7 (to cover your tracks - LOL), why wouldn't you knock down WTC 7 in the way you think the building should have fallen?
No, not saying that at all.
I'm saying that they used planes because:
1. The potential for property damage and mass casualties was much higher than what they had been able to achieve previously with bombs alone. Just crashing a plane into the building was going to cause a ton of damage (even if it didn't bring the building down) and kill everyone on board. That's 300+ deaths from passengers alone even if the buildings are empty and there's not a living soul within twenty blocks.
2. The added dimension of hijacking planes on U.S. soil would cause more widespread panic due to the potential for far more Americans to be impacted than just those in major urban centers. And, as I mentioned above, look at the major changes that occurred in the airports/airplanes in the aftermath. If they just blow up the building, there's very little impact/terror that extends beyond New York City.
A
anon_snp6dc585nnj4
Guest
because nobody ever said it was government job, shadow government, yes
the neocons and foreign banksters and globalists operate outside of our government
How do you knock down the WTC 7 building in the way you want? Except in the way it fell of course, which was precisely what was wanted.
I"ve already cited facts that the fall of the building as too fast, in relation to how you described how hey fell. Well, how you quoted how someone else said they fell of course. You don't create more momentum when more resistance is pushing back. That is just a fact of physics, and yet you claim to be so sure in your opinion?
Again, I just gave you a fact against your OPINION. Make that two actually. Watch the video.
There has been whistle blower man, there have been numerous whistle blowers.
Unfortunately there has been an abundance of ignorant people in this country, who won't listen to them.
Obama, who bows to these foreign leaders, quite literally bows and figuratively bows to them, is under their control. the same people who did 9-11 control Obama. he was told to stop investigating 9-11 and he said, ok
