Collapse of World Trade Centre 7

soretoe

The World Trade Centre 7 building over 550 feet tall, 47 story’s was not hit by any plane but fell down around 5pm after some fires in the building and after suffering some damage from falling debris from the towers.
This debris damage is agreed to have been on one particular side and affected a small number of support structures. The fires were in isolated pockets mainly on floors 5 and 7 and were not widespread or severe enough to have caused any kind of collapse.
But this steel structured sky scraper fell down at approximately what would equal freefall speed of an object falling from the same height. And it fell straight down into its own footprint - in other words symmetrically straight down.
Objects fall at the same speed and acceleration unless air resistance or wind affects them such as in the case of a feather versus a bowling ball. World Trade Centre 7 certainly wasn't affected by wind in its descent nor would a bowling ball be….and if you had dropped a bowling ball from the same height as WTC 7 - the ball would take approx the same time to get to the ground as WTC 7's roof did on 9/11.
There is a problem with this as I'm sure you can guess. There is nothing stopping our bowling balls descent through the air in its 550 foot fall and so it simply falls freely to the ground increasing in velocity at the universal rate of all falling bodies (which Galileo worked out..)which is approx 32 feet per second per second.
This means that after the first second the bowling ball falls 32 feet, but is speeding up now and covers twice that in the next second, and three times that in the next second, and so on, and when you add them up 32 + 64 + 96 + 128 + 160 + etc.. you will find that it takes the bowling ball around 5 to 6 seconds to hit the ground from 550 feet in an almighty thump traveling at least 175 feet per second!
Now there is ample video footage of the World Trade Centre building collapsing around 5 pm on 9/11 and the fall of the building has been measured and agreed at less than 7 seconds with the first 100 meters of the collapse having been accurately timed at 4.5 seconds by many people who have studied the footage. That means that a falling bowling ball would hit the ground from approx the height of WTC7 just a little quicker than did the actual building collapse on that day, and that is an amazing fact for many reasons and is what is known in the scientific community as ‘Counter Intuitive’ - or against reasoning and rational prediction.
Firstly WTC 7 was not a bowling ball and was in fact a very large concrete and steal structured building with nothing but very strong steel and concrete between its roof and the ground as opposed to our bowling ball which had just air between it and the ground. Secondly unless there was a mysterious pushing force being applied to the roof pushing WTC 7 down into the ground, OR, a mysterious pulling force yanking it downwards into the earth then the only source of energy being applied on WTC 7 during its collapse was gravity, and that acts in only a downward direction, and in the precise manner in which we have already explained using the bowling ball example (at approx 32 feet per second per second). Except that this acceleration toward the ground would have been hampered by all the steel and concrete between the roof and the ground which unless it all disappeared literally into thin air at the very start of the collapse then it would have slowed the falling roof as all the floors crashed down into the next floors all the way to the ground, breaking all the joints that hold the floors to the structural steel columns and smashing every bit of concrete and steel on its way down. But I said - the collapse time or 'Fall-time' of the building was just under 7 seconds which is just a little slower than free fall speed - in fact only a fraction of a second slower. So how can this have happened?
What allowed the roof to collapse symmetrically straight down at nearly free fall speed all the way to the ground leaving the whole building in a neat pile of rubble very mostly inside of its own site.
There's another law of physics called 'the law of conservation of momentum' and it is exactly what it says. If the bowling ball has nothing but air between it and ground then it will fall at free fall speed losing no momentum really except say taking some air resistance into account based on its shape which isn't as aerodynamically efficient as say a dart would be.
If the steel and concrete roof of WTC 7 had just air between it and ground then you'd factor in air resistance and just apply the law of falling bodies and you'd have an answer which would be in or around the same as the ball - especially over only 550 feet - we're not talking skydive height here so the air resistance difference especially with such heavy objects in question would be very minimal relative to the total time. Basically in plane English - because of simple proven and accepted laws of physics, World Trade Centre 7 should not have fallen down so fast because there was so much of itself in its way from the roof to the ground as it collapsed and this stuff should have really slowed if not stopped its collapse on the way down. It did not however and the fall time as I have repeated many times now was around FREE FALL SPEED - THE SAME AS OUR TRUSTY BOWLING BALL! ABOUT 7 SECONDS
AND THAT JUST AINT RIGHT!....which means that we are, all of us.....government, public, media and scientists, missing some crucial piece of the collapse puzzle when it comes to World Trade Centre 7, 47 story’s, over 550 feet tall which fell down at around 5pm on September 11th 2001 killing no one.
This building was not hit by a plane. It suffered fire mainly on the fifth and seventh floors and some damage from falling debris of the twin towers. FEMA said in its initial findings that structural weakening caused by fire was the main theory being put forward and NOT damage from the falling debris. It is important to note that WTC 7 was more than 300 feet away from the nearest twin tower and was not in the direct path of any serious debris falling from the towers. It is important to remember it was not hit by a plane. It is important to remember that the government experts initially blamed fire related structural weakness for its collapse. This potential cause has been studied extensively by both sides – government AND those who challenge the official story and it is looking very unlikely that it can be proven that these fires could have collapsed the entire building as symmetrically as it did, and in under 7 seconds.
BUT if we decide to simply accept this ‘Very criticized cause theory’ and try to imagine the collapse in our heads while rationally analyzing its manner and speed taking into account as we do, the law of falling bodies and the law of conservation of momentum as we now understand them, then we are back to the same problem…..even if fires…or anything for that matter is the reason WTC 7 did collapse on that day……it still collapsed….which means fell down….which means we time it….which we have….and it is too close to free fall speed to make any sense……the matter between the roof and the ground floor of this building acted very strangely….it moved out of the way too quickly to make any sense physically…………that is unless you stop in your tracks for a second and start to think in a different kind of way……the ‘What if ?’ kind of way….
And when you do this - you come up with different new causes and reasons from your imagination and you visualize and test them in your head taking into account their possibility, how ‘crazy’ they seem and would it have looked the same if ‘this’ were the reason or if ‘that’ were the reason….and eventually you are going to consider that the buildings were brought down using explosives - to move the matter out of the way of the falling building….. - to sever the supporting structures and allow the building to fall symmetrically at almost free fall speed as it did - into its own footprint, as it would - if it were demolished by controlled demolition …………AS……IT……PROBABLY……WAS!

I hope that I’m missing something…and that the missing piece of this puzzle will slap me in the face soon but I have a bad feeling about this one.
• Too many gaps in the stories.
• Not enough rationality being employed.
• Not enough possibilities being considered.
• Not enough questions being raised
….or answered….

Intuition drives me….but doesn’t force me into tunnel vision which is dangerous, irrational and unproductive….I want to know for reasons of sanity why it fell down so fast and so straight…that is all…..everything else about that day seems a little too complicated for me……too cloudy…..too infinite.
I want the truth about WTC 7 and I want it in my life time. I feel if it isn’t understood within the next 3 years that it never will be and that would be very, very sad for us all.

John_C

soretoe wrote:

There is nothing stopping our bowling balls descent through the air in its 550 foot fall and so it simply falls freely to the ground increasing in velocity at the universal rate of all falling bodies (which Galileo worked out..)which is approx 32 feet per second per second.

Your location says Rathfarnham and yet your quoting accelleration in feet per second per second. Is it fair to say that you just copied and pasted this from an American website?

Diogenes

soretoe wrote:

The World Trade Centre 7 building over 550 feet tall, 47 story’s was not hit by any plane but fell down around 5pm after some fires in the building and after suffering some damage from falling debris from the towers.

Some damage? Some damage?

From popular mechanics

Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

This debris damage is agreed to have been on one particular side and affected a small number of support structures.

Again from popular mechanics

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=5

The fires were in isolated pockets mainly on floors 5 and 7 and were not widespread or severe enough to have caused any kind of collapse

Many people including dozens of NYFD and emergency workers would disagree

FDNY Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro: "It had very heavy fire on many floors."

FDNY Assistant Chief Harry Myers: "When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories."

FDNY Deputy Chief Nick Visconti: "the fire was going virtually on every floor."

FDNY Lieutenant Robert LaRocca: "We walked over by number Seven World Trade Center as it was burning and saw this 40-plus story building with fire on nearly all floors."

FDNY Lieutenant James McGlynn: "Just when you thought it was over, you're walking by this building and you're hearing this building creak and fully involved in flames. It's like, is it coming down next? Sure enough, about a half an hour later it came down."

Except that this acceleration toward the ground would have been hampered by all the steel and concrete between the roof and the ground which unless it all disappeared literally into thin air at the very start of the collapse then it would have slowed the falling roof as all the floors crashed down into the next floors all the way to the ground, breaking all the joints that hold the floors to the structural steel columns and smashing every bit of concrete and steel on its way down. But I said - the collapse time or 'Fall-time' of the building was just under 7 seconds which is just a little slower than free fall speed - in fact only a fraction of a second slower. So how can this have happened?

I'm assuming you have maths to back this up?

soretoe

Thanks for the opinions.

First of all....I may be totally wrong in my description.....I just posted what I think happened from the stuff I've seen and read so far....it may be totally wrong...and that's why I asked for opinions.
Secondly, I used feet because I wanted to.....no I didn't copy any of what I wrote from anywhere....I'm just confused on how it seems to have fallen so quick....if anyone can straighten that out for me then I might actually sleep tonight.....it's really buggin me.......maybe there was more damage.....maybe the fire was more sever than I read or saw so far.....but why did this steel building come down so perfectly and so fast like it has been demolished ?

I just hope some documentary comes out that proves why it came down so fast once and for all....

I was talking to a physics teacher about this and they went through the idea of the conservation of momentum thing with me which just confused me even more as to how it came down so quick...in 6 or 7 seconds!

DubTony

Larry Silverstein said it himself. They pulled the thing. (Demolition term for collapsing it). Which means that there were explosives planted in the building before the WTC attacks. No mystery there ... except WHY?

http://www.prisonplanet.com/011904wtc7.html

Diogenes

DubTony wrote:

Larry Silverstein said it himself. They pulled the thing. (Demolition term for collapsing it). Which means that there were explosives planted in the building before the WTC attacks. No mystery there ... except WHY?

Er why would someone admit on tv, days after the collapse to commiting a multibillion dollar insurance fraud, and compilicity in the murder of thousands of people?

bonkey

DubTony wrote:

Larry Silverstein said it himself. They pulled the thing.

No, he didn't.
No, they didn't.

You're trying to read what you want to into what he said.

(Demolition term for collapsing it).

Demolition term for tieing cables around a building less than 10 stories in height, pulling it off-centre, and thus collapsing it.

*Not* a demolition term for explosive-based demolition

Which means that there were explosives planted in the building before the WTC attacks.

If the building was collapsed by explosives, then yes, they would have been planted before the WTC attacks. It wasn't, however, collapsed in this way.

bonkey

soretoe wrote:

I just hope some documentary comes out that proves why it came down so fast once and for all....

That you hope some documentary will solve it rather than some scientific, research-based explanation is disappointing.

which just confused me even more as to how it came down so quick...in 6 or 7 seconds!

It didn't come down in 6 or 7 seconds. You are basing your timings from when the main (outer) walls begin their collapse. The collapse initiated at least 7 seconds prior to that when the east penthouse is seen to collapse from view.

Furthermore, all film of the collapse on film is from one or two angles. YOu can see at most 2 walls of the building from these perspectives. You are making an assumption that there was no internal collapse occurring before these two outer walls came down. The collapse of the penthouse structures as well as the final position of the rubble (with one of these two outer walls effectively lying on top of everything else) suggests that this assumption is incorrect.

AntiRip

An astounding video uncovered from the archives today shows the BBC reporting on the collapse of WTC Building 7 over twenty minutes before it fell at 5:20pm on the afternoon of 9/11. The incredible footage shows BBC reporter Jane Standley talking about the collapse of the Salomon Brothers Building while it remains standing in the live shot behind her head.

Minutes before the actual collapse of the building is due, the feed to the reporter mysteriously dies.

Apparently theres some covering up being done with digg and google removing links and videos. Wonder what the hell is that about??

This is VERY strange indeed.

Video Here

bonkey

AntiRip wrote:

The incredible footage shows BBC reporter Jane Standley talking about the collapse of the Salomon Brothers Building while it remains standing in the live shot behind her head.

Just as a matter of interest...

Is it confirmed that what we see behind her is live footage? If so, how has this been confirmed?

AntiRip

Well, it's a genuine bbc broadcast, cnn had the same footage. All those videos are being mysteriously taken off googlevideo, youtube, digg etc. I'm actually amazed that this isn't getting more interest!

jessop1

bonkey wrote:

Just as a matter of interest...

Is it confirmed that what we see behind her is live footage? If so, how has this been confirmed?

yep.. a whole lotta straw clutchin goin on here...

shayser

This is the BBC response. Quite the counter-response in the comments that follow the statement.

shayser

Would it be possible to merge the two WTC7 threads?

AntiRip

jessop1 wrote:

yep.. a whole lotta straw clutchin goin on here...

????

Richard Porter is head of news, BBC World
"If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error - no more than that"

How was this an error? It doesn't explain how someone knew the building was coming down before it actually did.

WTC7 stood for hours, and for someone to put out information that it would come down within 20 minutes is a little suspicious, and 5mins before it did come down the feed was cut, don't you think?

Not to mention it is the 3rd building in history to collapse due to fire, the first two being WTC 1 and 2 on the same day. I'm not a conspiracy theorist (sp?) but it is a little strange though.

jessop1

AntiRip wrote:

????

sorry, I was referring to the debunkery attempts going on on the other thread

AntiRip

jessop1 wrote:

sorry, I was referring to the debunkery attempts going on on the other thread

oh right sorry, no problem

bonkey

AntiRip wrote:

????
How was this an error? It doesn't explain how someone knew the building was coming down before it actually did.

Lots of people knew.

In fact, it had been widely announced for several hours before the collapse that the building was believed to be in imminent danger of collapse.

WTC7 stood for hours, and for someone to put out information that it would come down within 20 minutes is a little suspicious, and 5mins before it did come down the feed was cut, don't you think?

If they were the only people to have announced anything about its collapse (possible collapse, imminent collapse, whatever) then sure....it would be suspicious.

On the other hand, if dozens to hundreds of news stations around the world were reporting that it was believed that WTC7 could/would come down from the damage it had sustained....then it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect there to be at least one screw-up in the reporting of the story.

Not to mention it is the 3rd building in history to collapse due to fire,

No, its not. Thousands of buildings have collapsed through fire. If you meant "skyscraper of a particular type of construction", then you're still wrong because WTC7 did not collapse due to fire and fire alone.

the first two being WTC 1 and 2 on the same day.

You believe they collapsed due to fire and fire alone? The airliners crashing into them did nothing other than start a fire?

I'm not a conspiracy theorist (sp?) but it is a little strange though.

I can agree that when you omit relevant details, the remaining ones can seem to not entirely add up.

Run_to_da_hills

Comparing controlled explosives with that of WTC 7

http://dotconnectoruk.blogspot.com/2009/06/wtc7-this-is-orange.html

polishpaddy

NO NEED FOR WORDS.

Wow they're right.
That collapse doesn't look like a controlled demolition at all.
No explosions and it fell a bit askew.

Oh a the insides of the building collapsed a good bit before the facade. I wonder why they don't mention that?

thecommander

polishpaddy wrote: »

NO NEED FOR WORDS.

I don't see what thats meant to prove? Can you tell exactly what happened to an entire building by way of a few frames of a animated gif?

Just because something looks like another thing, doesn't mean they're the same.

polishpaddy

This picture nulls and voids everything you say in this thread.

polishpaddy

polishpaddy wrote: »

This picture nulls and voids everything you say in this thread.

No it doesn't.

Where's the explosions on every floor?
Like the video shows in the actual controlled demolitions?

And why didn't they mention the fact that part of the internal structure had collapsed a good bit before the facade?

edanto

If WTC 1,2 & 7 had the type of structural/design defect that might make them collapse in a manner resembling a controlled demolition in the event of a fire, are there any implications for buildings 3,4,5, and 6?

I don't know anything about engineering, nor do I know if those building are still standing, but if they are, surely their safety must have been called into question. Was it?

edanto

edanto wrote: »

If WTC 1,2 & 7 had the type of structural/design defect that might make them collapse in a manner resembling a controlled demolition in the event of a fire, are there any implications for buildings 3,4,5, and 6?

I don't know anything about engineering, nor do I know if those building are still standing, but if they are, surely their safety must have been called into question. Was it?

Only WTC7 had the design flaw. WTC 1 and two had entirely different construction.
The other buildings where demolished afterward AFAIK.
Probably due to the damage sustained by have collapsing buildings right next to them.

DTrotter

What was so important about this particular building?
When were the explosives placed in it?
Was it exploded as part of the main/bigger picture conspiracy?
If it's insurance fruad, why would our NWO overlords conspire with the owner?

DTrotter

polishpaddy wrote: »

This picture nulls and voids everything you say in this thread.

How?

edanto

Other than the fact that it housed (one of?) the dedicated Emergency Response Centre for NYC and the Security Exchange Commisions offices complete with files on hundreds of active investigations?

I mean, it's a goldmine for CTs. Drop WTC 1&2 to start a phony war to boost business (arms) and take out WTC 7 to damage investigations into dodgy financial dealings.

Frankly the CT is more plausible than the official version, just it's very scary and the evidence is overwhelming (in volume as opposed to supporting one conclusion or the other).

DTrotter

edanto wrote: »

Other than the fact that it housed (one of?) the dedicated Emergency Response Centre for NYC and the Security Exchange Commisions offices complete with files on hundreds of active investigations?

I mean, it's a goldmine for CTs. Drop WTC 1&2 to start a phony war to boost business (arms) and take out WTC 7 to damage investigations into dodgy financial dealings.

Frankly the CT is more plausible than the official version, just it's very scary and the evidence is overwhelming (in volume as opposed to supporting one conclusion or the other).

How does it tie in to Israelis/Jews?

polishpaddy

DTrotter wrote: »

How does it tie in to Israelis/Jews?

Reported you.




Everytime someone responds with where's the evidence or anything i just hear a big loud buzzer.ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
This picture just blasted you out of the water.

DTrotter

polishpaddy wrote: »

Reported you.


Everytime someone responds with where's the evidence or anything i just hear a big loud buzzer.ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
This picture just blasted you out of the water.

Yeah, sounds like a thermite blast alright.

edanto

DTrotter wrote: »

How does it tie in to Israelis/Jews?

Beats me. I mean I've read over the thread and you're the first to mention that, so I would guess you're barking up the wrong tree. Or just barking.

polishpaddy

Thats why i reported him.

Timmyctc

amm but didnt the investigators find residue matching that exactly of an altered form of thermite which was introduced to the building's interior structure during matenance works like 2 months prior?

DTrotter

polishpaddy wrote: »

Thats why i reported him.

Thanks Kermit.
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055580607

DTrotter

edanto wrote: »

Beats me. I mean I've read over the thread and you're the first to mention that, so I would guess you're barking up the wrong tree. Or just barking.

Two threads down rover.
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055580607

6th

DTrotter, if you wise to go down certain avenues then use the other thread. You were the frist to bring up the subject here and it looks like an attempted to derail.

PolishPaddy, you've received a warning for breaching the forum charter. Specifically "If you report a post please do not then go on to address the post."

Further off topic posts will result in infractions/bans.

6th

edanto wrote: »

so I would guess you're barking up the wrong tree. Or just barking.

Yellow card for personal abuse.

DTrotter

Israel did 9/11, ALL THE PROOF IN THE WORLD!!

This is the thread title just a bit down the page, posted by someone who has posted in here. The title alone suggests that all the answers are in there, god forbid I want evidence to tie the claims in here to a thread that has "all the proof in the world".

polishpaddy

polishpaddy wrote: »

Everytime someone responds with where's the evidence or anything i just hear a big loud buzzer.ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
This picture just blasted you out of the water.

Ah ok so.

You're going to get the truth out by ignoring facts and repeating a non argument.
Yep that'll work.

Or are you going the address the points I brought up?

Nehaxak

Timmyctc wrote: »

amm but didnt the investigators find residue matching that exactly of an altered form of thermite which was introduced to the building's interior structure during matenance works like 2 months prior?

You got a link to that or anything I could read up on about it ?

Timmyctc

Timmyctc wrote: »

amm but didnt the investigators find residue matching that exactly of an altered form of thermite which was introduced to the building's interior structure during matenance works like 2 months prior?

Source?

And thermite isn't used in controlled demolitions.

Penn

edanto wrote: »

Other than the fact that it housed (one of?) the dedicated Emergency Response Centre for NYC and the Security Exchange Commisions offices complete with files on hundreds of active investigations?

I mean, it's a goldmine for CTs. Drop WTC 1&2 to start a phony war to boost business (arms) and take out WTC 7 to damage investigations into dodgy financial dealings.

Frankly the CT is more plausible than the official version, just it's very scary and the evidence is overwhelming (in volume as opposed to supporting one conclusion or the other).

You may consider the motives to be more plausible. The evidence is not.

Ciaran500

Nehaxak wrote: »

You got a link to that or anything I could read up on about it ?

Probably referring to the sample taken by Steve Jones.

Undergod

polishpaddy wrote: »

NO NEED FOR WORDS.

Crap, he's got an animated gif. What use is evidence in the face of that?

Penn

Exactly. All that gif shows is a building collapsing. But such a shot, which doesn't even show the bottom half of the building, cannot be compared to videos of other buildings collapsing because in both controlled demolitions and WTC7, the causes of collapse were internal. Explosives are planted internally. WTC7 in my opinion collapsed due to the failing of the internal support structure. None of this can be seen from the top half of a blurry gif.

DTrotter

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

Exactly. All that gif shows is a building collapsing. But such a shot, which doesn't even show the bottom half of the building, cannot be compared to videos of other buildings collapsing because in both controlled demolitions and WTC7, the causes of collapse were internal. Explosives are planted internally. WTC7 in my opinion collapsed due to the failing of the internal support structure. None of this can be seen from the top half of a blurry gif.

When I asked him to link it to another thread he started where he claimed contained indisputable proof that Israel was responsible he reported me. I love a good conspiracy theory as much as the next person but this place reeks of flinging Sh** against a wall and seeing what slides down slower than the rest.

bonkey

Lets keep our (collective) calm here.

markomongo

King Mob wrote: »

Source?

And thermite isn't used in controlled demolitions.

Thermite was used to cut the core columns...

markomongo

markomongo wrote: »

Thermite was used to cut the core columns...

After the collapse, during the rescue and clean up operation.

If indeed that is a cut made by thermite.

And still doesn't change the fact that thermite has never been used in controlled demolitions.