Author Topic: WTC #7's collapse (Read 4423 times)

kappa · « **Reply #30 on:** January 29, 2004, 01:40:34 PM »

Hadn't seen that site yet.. But since wondering about WTC #7 and much reading, there are only more questions unanswered... For starters:

The 2nd tower struck, around 18mins after the first, recieved far less damage as the impact was not dead center of the building as was the first.. The 2nd impact was off-center to the right and at an angle to the building. Damaging one corner if you may... Most of the fuel was ejected out of the impact corner resulting in the hugh fireball witnessed by millions... The 2nd tower did not have entire floors consumed in fire as the first did... If you remember watching the 2nd aircraft made a course correction at the last second thereby missing full straight on center impact. Yet, the 2nd tower impacted fell first...

Looking at the way the WTCs fell from just an elementary standpoint of physics begs questions as well..

Quote

The time t required for an object to fall from a height h (in a vacuum) is given by the formula t = sqrt(2h/g), where g is the acceleration due to gravity. Thus an object falling from the top of one of the towers (taking h = 1306 feet and g = 32.174 ft/sec2) would take 9.01 seconds to hit the ground if we ignore the resistance of the air and a few seconds longer if we take air resistance into account. The Twin Towers each collapsed in about fifteen seconds, close to free fall. Following the start of the collapse the upper floors would have had to shatter the steel joints in all 85 or so floors at the lower levels. If this required only a second per floor then the collapse would have required more than a minute. But the material from the upper floors ploughed through the lower floors at a speed of at least six floors per second. This is possible only if all structural support in the lower 85 or so floors had been completely eliminated prior to the initiation of the collapse. Since the lower floors were undamaged by the plane impacts and the fires, the removal of all structural support in these floors must have been due to some other cause — and the most obvious possibility is explosives. Thus the speed of the collapse (not much more than the time of free fall) is strong evidence that the Twin Towers were brought down in a controlled demolition involving the use of explosives (or some other destructive technology) at all levels.

Only the top floors were damaged in the least.. I dont know if I believe this or not.. But as I've stated, it raises suspision enough for doubt.. This logic dictates that the possibility cant be ruled out completely...

hawker238 · « **Reply #31 on:** January 29, 2004, 01:56:26 PM »

More conspiracy!

BB Gun · « **Reply #32 on:** January 29, 2004, 02:01:07 PM »

So it is true - kappa is not only a massive troll, he's an idiot, too!

Kieran · « **Reply #33 on:** January 29, 2004, 02:04:06 PM »

Behold, political extremism at its ugliest.

Not quite as good as the Mr.Black show, but entertaining nonetheless.

Ping · « **Reply #34 on:** January 29, 2004, 02:04:22 PM »

Hawker: Howd you get the photo of Pongo's camping trip?

Gunslinger · « **Reply #35 on:** January 29, 2004, 02:26:18 PM »

cmon I think this raises questions that cant be so easily answered. It does raise the conspiracy flag but I'm still not buying it. No one has yet to give me a good explination of how Bldg#7 fell nor have they explained the radio chatter prior saying "we're pulling it"

Again I'm not buying into this but it does raise some questions

kappa · « **Reply #36 on:** January 29, 2004, 02:28:25 PM »

LoL you guys bring so much to the table its very surprising yall are able to find it...

Scootter · « **Reply #37 on:** January 29, 2004, 06:59:07 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dowding
I thought the burning aviation fuel melted the supports in the building itself. I would guess that most other fires involving this type of building did not involve anything other than burning upholstry, office equipment etc and not large quantities of combustible substances burning at high temperature.

ah winner, yep 30,000+ gal of JP-4 is not in the fire design of any building.

#7 went due to stress of near by collapse

you guys cut the troiling there was NO conspeirsey

Chairboy · « **Reply #38 on:** January 29, 2004, 07:32:56 PM »

Kappa, stop being a coward. Tell us whether you really believe it was controlled demolition or not. Stop hiding behind 'I'm not sure if it's true, but it sure is interesting!'.

Grow a pair and make a statement, or stop wasting our time.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #39 on:** January 29, 2004, 07:59:00 PM »

No way, thats not what kappa does here. Just look at his i hate religion and want it destroyed, no I dont hate hate religion and I dont want it destroyed thread...

WTC 2 fell first because the plane hit it going much faster 600mph vs 400mph appx doing far more internal structural damage. Another thing is that the WTC plane hit an angle, this damaged far more floors that the WTC 1 impact... It also hit the building much lower. There was much more weight above the damaged area and thats why it fell first.

I agree with chairboy though, stop jerking off and be honest.

Why do you want to ignore the obvious cause of the colapses (the airplanes), and prefer some fanciful theory that the towers were brought down by deliberate evil CIA explosions....

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #40 on:** January 29, 2004, 08:34:06 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Chairboy
Yeah, I've heard that the planes were actually full of fire retardant and the brave hijackers were trying to stop the upcoming demolition of the towers.

Allah be praised!!!

majic · « **Reply #41 on:** January 29, 2004, 09:45:33 PM »

"The 2nd tower struck, around 18mins after the first, recieved far less damage as the impact was not dead center of the building as was the first.. The 2nd impact was off-center to the right and at an angle to the building. Damaging one corner if you may... Most of the fuel was ejected out of the impact corner resulting in the hugh fireball witnessed by millions... The 2nd tower did not have entire floors consumed in fire as the first did... If you remember watching the 2nd aircraft made a course correction at the last second thereby missing full straight on center impact. Yet, the 2nd tower impacted fell first... "

The second tower was struck much lower. There was much more weight above the damaged supports.

As far as your basic physics... the supports were built to hold up the towers in a static situation, as soon as part began to fall and build momentum, they could not hold at all, let alone a second per floor.

Manedew · « **Reply #42 on:** January 30, 2004, 12:15:18 AM »

Amazeing how you all ignore the point by talking about the towers .... this is about building seven ..

stay on subject...

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #43 on:** January 30, 2004, 12:24:41 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Manedew
Amazeing how you all ignore the point by talking about the towers .... this is about building seven ..

stay on subject...

Some of kappa's links also argue that the towers were blown up too, so its fair game..

Nice try though...

Maybe one day Bush will admit he and Cheney blew them all up, yea they snuck into the WTC complex monday night and wired it all to blow...

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #44 on:** January 30, 2004, 12:30:34 AM »

Or how about the rediculous idea that that just 7 wtc was rigged to blow, why? How? Have you guys any idea how complicated it is to prepare a highrise building for an implosion? It would be impossible to do without every single tenant in the building knowning it. Its impossible to do in one afternoon.

Mane you are being dumb for even sticking up for kappa here...

These extreme left wing sites have just as much credbility as if some right winger wrote up a 911 site claiming Clinton and Gore made 911 happend because of the 200 election scandal. Or how bouitclinton set the 911 plans in motio n with the hope that any president who won in 2000 (including gore) would be ruined so that hillary could jump in and run in 2004? Yes thats a good theory!!!!