Discussion in 'Conspiracies' started by someguy1, Nov 4, 2017.
Thanks Paddoboy for taking the time to post that vid. I really did enjoy it.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
You are one twisted dude.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I enjoyed having it explained Dave.
Right - but those sites are _very_ selective with the videos they show you. Here's one that shows the penthouse collapsing into the center of the building several seconds before the final collapse starts:
Here's a longer series that shows an uncut video from several angles:
Here's the overall timeline:
0 sec East penthouse begins to move
1.2 sec East penthouse collapses into building
7 sec West penthouse begins to move
7.7 sec Movement of roof begins - building facade begins to kink
7.9 seconds West penthouse collapses into building
8.2 seconds Final collapse begins
Here's the quote that caused all the ruckus:
"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me 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 the smartest thing to do is just pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."
Here's what his spokeperson said about it:
"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. 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."
Here's what a firefighter said about it:
"They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. 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. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there 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
Seems pretty clear that they "pulled them out." BTW "pull" is not a demolition term used to describe blowing up a building. The only time the term is used is when they use cables to pull a building down so it falls in a certain direction.
16 seconds? That's considerably longer than freefall time. Did you include the time from the beginning of the penthouse collapse?
Like Simon and Garfunkel said, "a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." There was plenty of chaos that day. If you want to believe ANY conspiracy theory about that day, you can probably find some snippet of conversation or some video angle to support your belief. However, Occam is generally correct.
First let me thank you for taking your time to make your informative post and provide links to the vids and although I did not enjoy seeing the destruction of no 7 one little bit I was marginally happy that I got to see footage a little longer than stuff showing the no7 collapse that I had seen before and that was supportive forming an impression of a controlled demo notion...I hope you can see why based on the short vid one could form the opinion it was a demo.
As I said I trust no one.
I DONT EVEN TRUST ME...even me..well least of all me...I talk myself into believing I need a new scope better than the salesman could ever do.
I see how folk convince themselves they are right and how as each day passes they are more right than the day before...heck I have seen accident claims where on day one the guy has a pain in his arm but by the time it goes to court you are lucky if he is not a cripple.
People comvince themselves of all sorts of stuff...like riding a bike wont get you killed☺.
Clearly your vid has been doctored to fit the official line☺ ...only joking but heck I was tempted to play that card but kindness swept over me and I thought no you cant do that...I had an opperation yesterday and well I need to rest.
Your vid does fit with Paddoboys vid ...which I did not enjoy watching in spite of saying so in the way Dave seems to have taken my statement of enjoying seeing it fall...perhaps he was joking but he has not said as much...well he must have been joking as surely he could not think something consistent with his last post.
But he has told us he does have his bad days..we all do.
So they used cables not explosive?☺
No and I would not now...Why would you?
What you see fall is the outter wall and it still falls at the same rate which is near free fall and I dont think one could dispute that observation...you cant include the penthouse as representing the start of the exterior wall fall surely and say timing must start from when you observe the outter wall start down..you cant do that..not science...the pent house falling however presumably would clear internal resistance for the exterior wall to fall at free fall (and it does fall at free fall if you get the starting point correct which was demonstrated in one vid I saw that in my book was a credible scientific analysis..that physics guy I mentioned who I dont see as a rat bag and would be surprised if anyone would argue with his scientific approach.)
With the path cleared by the penthouse (and it had time to fall and clear the way before the exterior began to move) observing free fall on the exterior is reasonable and actually then what you could expect to see.
But I cant see how you could add in the time the pent house started to calculate free fall of what you see in the short version...two separate matters.
Anyways the penthouse certainly changes the picture and could provide the reason why the exterior met no resistence whatsoever...so thanks again.
They are singers song writers and although popular that does not make their words profound for goodness sake.
Heck that is as bad as quoting Sherllock Homes on how to solve a crime...he is a fictional character and yet folk quote his words...they were just singers their job is to write stuff that sounds smart when its not.
And generally I hate dumb quotes that sound cute and folk mistake for wisdom...its a thing with me...here I cant think for myself so I'll try this quote ..makes me sound clever..sorry you probably dont see what annoys me with smart arse quotes...if nothing else they are generalisations.
And their (S&G) generalisation does not apply to me..I am not part of the dumb arse mob they casually throw off on.
This man, me, looks at what is there and adds that to the facts I have so far...its like building a photo ..I add data as I collect to make up a final image...perhaps if you observe how I have dealt with this new information you can abandon reliance on funky generalisations by songwritters.
Do you observe me making a stand that fits an already preconceived notion? Do you think I have a preconceived notion...If you do then you must opperate on your preconceived notion of the way I handle information and facts but would it not be better observing what I actually do and say in responce?..please there is no box that I fit in.. I dont even form what you would call a position...and with all of this will still say...well I dont really know who is telling the truth...I can see the official version as reasonable and hopefully correct but I would never close my mind to the posibility that evil greater than I can imagine could be at work either.
So I still really dont know zip but at least I see that and I dont have to side with anyone...
I dont want to believe anything ...I dont really care.
And let me tell you if I was ruling our side there is nothing I would not do to win...I see it as a game off chess..if our side can follow the art of war I would not be unhappy....so even if it was an inside job all I would say is I probably could have done it better but you had the right idea.
I dont want snowflakes at the wheel give me someone who does the job no matter how hard it may be...so if the official version is it thats ok but if it was a constructed chess move I am not worried...now Dave you can call that twisted if you like☺
Anyways I have seen all the vids out there I think...I can see what each producer is up to...some are geniuine but most are after a buck...what a ball..a talking tour...travel food booze and heck there is the old motivator...I will get laid...I may be a mug but I am not a fool.
What I am saying is I am tired of this subject.
Its taken too much effort and a bit of my trouble is I will argue from an opposite position because I like to argue.
So Paddoboy has finished holidays what a pity.
Thanks again...have a great day.
Because the NIST determined that the building collapsed due to damage from debris and from the fires.
Truthers have claimed "no, it's not that at all. It was controlled demolition! Look how it falls! The building is obviously OK, then they blow the charges, and it collapses all at once." However, the penthouse collapse shows that the building had such serious damage that the penthouse fell into the center of the building (doing even more damage) seconds before it finally collapsed. This is definitely not what you would see if controlled demolition was used to bring it down.
Yes I agree with all you have said but I think you miss the point I tried to make.
The rate of fall can only be measured when the top of the outter wall starts its movement down. You are in effect measuring the rate of acceleration and you measure when a spot starts (presumably the top of the structure) and at some point that spot arrives at during its fall...use one of the windows on the top floor. .when it starts to move start your stop watch and stop it when that window is near the bottom...that will give you a near free fall rate is my point but given the collapse has already presumably removed the internal structure observing a free fall without resistence can now be expected.
That is my point.
You cant start your stop watch 9 seconds before the external wall starts to move...in my view.
We cant determine the rate of fall for the pent house because it is not in view ...
but the exterior wall we see...we see when a top window starts its downward travel and it is that point that you must start your stop watch to determine the rate of fall of the wall.
The truthers say the external wall could not fall that fast because resistence would not allow such and that is reasonable but clearly the penthouse falling before presumably would have acted to remove the resistence...and that is the way I interprete the vid Paddoboy posted ...
Further one could expect that when the penthouse rubble hit the bottom that it probably smashed the exterior wall which could explain why no 7 outter wall collapsed from the bottom rather than collapse top down.
The falling penthouse presumably would do the same job as the truthers charges which is to remove resistance.
Right. I was wondering why you didn't use the top of the structure (i.e. the penthouse.) But I agree you can use a different point (like a top floor window) if you just want the fallrate of that particular point.
The fall rate is seen as a problem because those who see it that way assume the fall was without resistance ...the falling penthouse could take away the resistance allowing free fall and as I said offers a reason why collapse was seen from the bottom rather than a pan caking as observed in the other two.
I do think they should call us in, and not to take away from our roll we would have to take a big fee to give our input high credibility, as clearly we can examine the evidence very well and agree on a most likely explanation.☺
Have a great day and may I say it has been most enjoyable talking about this matter and that is not to be seen as me thinking the disaster was somehow enjoyable because it certainly was not.
How long are we going to hear this "fully fueled" crap? The maximum capacity was 24,000 gallons. The airlines are only going to put that much on board for long distance flights, like across the Pacific. The want the planes to land with little fuel in case of crashes and flying fuel around would cost money to accomplish nothing.
The planes impacted with about 10,000 gallons though I have seen some source say 7,000 gallons.
Do you think the difference is significant?
I don't believe that airliner impacts and fire could have destroyed the buildings and made them come down that fast even if they were "fully fueled". But I am sick of this inaccurate information and innuendo that cause confusion and do not solve the problem.
I have suggested a computer simulation of the north tower that simply removes 5 stories, 91 through 95, and just drops the top 15 stories on the lower 90. That is more damage than aircraft impact and fire could do. So if the simulation does not come anywhere near destroying most of the building what will everyone say?
But why should so many people who are so certain about the collapse have any objection to such a simulation?
But no, psikeyhackr is just "intellectually dishonest" whatever the hell that means.
"That fast?" Both took around an hour to collapse.
Go for it!
You are counting from the time of impact. I am counting from the time of the start of the collapse. Wikipedia says "25 seconds". There is a slight problem called the "Conservation of Momentum", but then lots of people seem to regard accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete as irrelevant even though it should be obvious that the lower portions of 1000+ foot skyscrapers should need to be stronger than the upper portions and therefore have more steel farther down.
Yes. It took time for the fires to weaken the remaining building structure enough for the collapse to happen.
Why is that a "problem?"
Right. And by the time the upper section of the building gets there, its destructive energy has increased several times due to its higher speed.
How exactly do you see this problem manifesting here?
Conservation Momentum applies to systems upon which there are no external forces acting.
There is definitely an external force acting to pull down the buildings.
Do you speculate that they came down too slow? Too fast?
To invoke CoM is to imply there is some external force acting on the buildings. What?
Do you have evidence that the fire in the north tower did any damage below the 85th level below the collapse?
About half-a-dozen people in the south tower got out from above the impact zone and they said the south tower was in normal condition below the 75th floor.
How does this address your mention of Conservation of Momentum?
The Conservation of Momentum applies regardless of whether or not external forces are acting. It just means that the external forces must be taken into account in addition to the conservation of momentum. I presume that you are talking about gravity, but that also means that the energy required to destroy the supports designed to hold the static loads against gravity must also be taken into consideration. The kinetic energy of the falling mass is the only source and the mass would be slowed down in the process of bending steel and cracking concrete.
They came down too fast. I am not interested in speculating about external forces because that leads into conspiracy debate crap. If all that was involved was gravity then my suggestion of removing 5 levels in a simulation should not be difficult for any expensive engineering schools.
Children born in 2001 will be starting college this September. Curious that no engineering school has provided a good simulation of the north tower collapse by now.
The post above deals with CoM and other factors.
Separate names with a comma.