marko Posted 9 May 2011 Posted 9 May 2011 i think freefall only happens in a vacuum so obviously cannot happen , what is being cited by us is "close to freefall " So why does it take nearly double the free fall time?
Babylon Posted 9 May 2011 Posted 9 May 2011 So why does it take nearly double the free fall time? Because errrr, because errrr.... the CIA planned it like that.
Zingari Posted 9 May 2011 Posted 9 May 2011 So why does it take nearly double the free fall time? obviously because even in a controlled explosion you can't create a perfect void for the material above to fall into , the upper floors will still meet with some resistance but much less than without explosions when people talk of freefall in a demolition sense, it is descriptive of the effect of controlled explosion as opposed to crumbling or natural collapse
marko Posted 9 May 2011 Posted 9 May 2011 obviously because even in a controlled explosion you can't create a perfect void for the material above to fall into , the upper floors will still meet with some resistance but much less than without explosions when people talk of freefall in a demolition sense, it is descriptive of the effect of controlled explosion as opposed to crumbling or natural collapse Keep on digging
Zingari Posted 9 May 2011 Posted 9 May 2011 Keep on digging show me a building collapsing at that sort of speed and symmetrically , without the use of explosives ( such as wtc 7 ) and i gladly give up
Babylon Posted 9 May 2011 Posted 9 May 2011 show me a building collapsing at that sort of speed and symmetrically , without the use of explosives ( such as wtc 7 ) and i gladly give up Shit, only last week I was in town when an airliner crashed into a giant building, the building then set on fire and collapsed... if only I had my camcorder with me. Maybe next time.
Zingari Posted 9 May 2011 Posted 9 May 2011 Shit, only last week I was in town when an airliner crashed into a giant building, the building then set on fire and collapsed... if only I had my camcorder with me. Maybe next time. have you got a short term memory problem , wtc 7 was not hit by a airliner
Babylon Posted 9 May 2011 Posted 9 May 2011 have you got a short term memory problem , wtc 7 was not hit by a airliner My bad, thought we had moved back onto the towers. Either way... my sarcastic response remains.
marko Posted 9 May 2011 Posted 9 May 2011 show me a building collapsing at that sort of speed and symmetrically , without the use of explosives ( such as wtc 7 ) and i gladly give up Have a word with yourself. Is that really something I could show you errrr no - daft request!
Babylon Posted 9 May 2011 Posted 9 May 2011 have you got a short term memory problem , wtc 7 was not hit by a airliner PROVE IT WASN'T... I have a you tube clip of someone saying it was.
Zingari Posted 9 May 2011 Posted 9 May 2011 My bad, thought we had moved back onto the towers. Either way... my sarcastic response remains. water offf a duck's back mate , i've been on the jfk conspiracy theory trail for about 35 years so i'm well used to it look on youtube there must hundreds of film footage of collapsing buildings due to various reasons , find one that even remotely resemble a freefall .........err sorry virtual freefall of a controlled demolition collapse
zubi Posted 9 May 2011 Posted 9 May 2011 well , the wtc 7 collapse and controlled demolition of a similar building collapse look pretty similar to me Are people actually watching the videos linked on this thread? The above is perfect proof to question 9/11, the tower fell like that because of what? Extensive damage? Doesn't look to damaged to me Fire damage? Can see smoke but cant see a single flame If you look carefully 2 seconds in and 17 seconds, youll see the right hand side of the building give way, why would it if that side of the tower was not damaged? wouldn't the damaged side just fall leaving the building in 2 pieces like the picture below? Surely you can't tell me that they built this building with cheap steel also to save on costs. Considering this is one of the most financially strong areas on Earth.
zubi Posted 9 May 2011 Posted 9 May 2011 Well that is a presumption that most people don't agree with. I agree that both the FEMA and NIST investigations reached unsatisfactory conclusions but there is no evidence to suggest that is because they are part of a whitewash or cover up. This presumes a huge amount of efficiency and co-operation which really doesn't exist in society. People are just naturally incompetant. There are huge problems with the physics of the way those towers collapsed because nobody has provided an adequate explanation yet. I think the more investigations into the event the better but I don't think there is much to suggest that 'it waz teh president' yet and I think a lot of the 9/11 truth scene are filling in the gaps a bit too eagerly at the moment. Absolutly, but they won't investigate it for some special reason. I mean they'll spend money and time on investigating wether Bill Clinton got a BJ in his office but they wont investigate the deadliest attack on America. They've got the black boxes (supposedly) yet they have not even released the evidence from those.
Zingari Posted 9 May 2011 Posted 9 May 2011 careful zubi , they'll be throwing you in the FT looney bin with Empty and me
BoneDog Posted 9 May 2011 Posted 9 May 2011 Now, you seem keen on physics, I just wish you were consistent.... Freefall mentioned about 100 times in this thread, then all of a sudden they are falling slower than freefall "as that's what demolitions do". Make your minds up. All I'm saying is that the buildings collapsed in the exact same way as a controlled demolition. People get paid massive amounts of money to drop buildings like that because it is a very technical and specialised job. It can't happen by accident. The buildings did hit freefall speed for a couple of seconds and for the rest of the time the core section of every floor imploded in exactly the way and exactly at the right time as the specialist demolition guys would set up a building to fall. How can a building with 300 steel columns, the 47 extra strong core columns included, collapse in that manner because of damage to one corner and side over 80 floors up? Sorry, I should say three buildings (although not sure how many steel columns WTC7 had). The laws of physics were broken, not once, but three times that day. That's never happened before and I'm sure it's supposed to be impossible! Edit : 47 massive core steel columns cannot just implode because of a plane crash or a fire. And the 47 core columns imploded over and over again, all the way down.
Zingari Posted 9 May 2011 Posted 9 May 2011 All I'm saying is that the buildings collapsed in the exact same way as a controlled demolition. People get paid massive amounts of money to drop buildings like that because it is a very technical and specialised job. It can't happen by accident. The buildings did hit freefall speed for a couple of seconds and for the rest of the time the core section of every floor imploded in exactly the way and exactly at the right time as the specialist demolition guys would set up a building to fall. How can a building with 300 steel columns, the 47 extra strong core columns included, collapse in that manner because of damage to one corner and side over 80 floors up? Sorry, I should say three buildings (although not sure how many steel columns WTC7 had). The laws of physics were broken, not once, but three times that day. That's never happened before and I'm sure it's supposed to be impossible! Edit : 47 massive core steel columns cannot just implode because of a plane crash or a fire. And the 47 core columns imploded over and over again, all the way down. David Chandler explains it pretty well
Babylon Posted 9 May 2011 Posted 9 May 2011 The laws of physics were broken, not once, but three times that day. NO THEY WEREN'T.
Zingari Posted 9 May 2011 Posted 9 May 2011 NO THEY WEREN'T. can tell me where david chandler's calculations on the collapse of wtc7 are wrong ?
l444ry Posted 9 May 2011 Posted 9 May 2011 can tell me where david chandler's calculations on the collapse of wtc7 are wrong ?
Zingari Posted 9 May 2011 Posted 9 May 2011 that's laughable rubbish , they started the clock before the roofline actually started to drop , Chandler explained all this by saying it's like testing a motor car's acceleration if the driver sits there revving the car for a few seconds before letting the clutch out ( it says something bout the driver but nothing about the acceleration of the car ) if you had watched the video you would have known that he'd already covered that ridiculous point
BoneDog Posted 9 May 2011 Posted 9 May 2011 So why does it take nearly double the free fall time? I thought that both towers collapsed in a round 10 seconds? Only 1 or 2 seconds slower than freefall.
l444ry Posted 9 May 2011 Posted 9 May 2011 that's laughable rubbish , they started the clock before the roofline actually started to drop , Chandler explained all this by saying it's like testing a motor car's acceleration if the driver sits there revving the car for a few seconds before letting the clutch out ( it says something bout the driver but nothing about the acceleration of the car ) if you had watched the video you would have known that he'd already covered that ridiculous point Laughing off any evidence which contradicts your programmed mind is making you look like a buffoon, Zinger!
The People's Hero Posted 9 May 2011 Posted 9 May 2011 I don't know what to believe. I don't think that the US Govt set this up - but the physics is difficult to explain. I find myself intrigued and believe Zingari has presented us with some interesting links.
Zingari Posted 9 May 2011 Posted 9 May 2011 Laughing off any evidence which contradicts your programmed mind is making you look like a buffoon, Zinger! that' s ok i can live with that , that video just regurgitated the nist explanation that even they had to admit was "low probability of occurrence" look it up for yourself in the nist report , they really don't believe it themselves , just like the "pancake theory" that you still seem to believe in
marko Posted 9 May 2011 Posted 9 May 2011 I thought that both towers collapsed in a round 10 seconds? Only 1 or 2 seconds slower than freefall. Well you thought wrong. One was 15 seconds the other was around 17. Care to explain how the laws of controlled demolition were broken?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.