Building 7 - Do you see it Fall?


#61

I’m glad we have so many willing and highly skilled engineers, aviation experts, metallurgists and political analysts here to solve this vast global conspiracy.


#62

Am I right in saying that the Yanks went to the moon in the 60s and nobodies been back since?..


#63

Ah you’re jsut messin now… but you would be right.
The russians gave up, even thougth they where building an even bigger rocket than the Apollo rocket. The Chinese are next seemingly.

Some still say the radiaiton issue is a tricky one and is one of many reasons why the US could never actually go there as they hadn’t solved it.

Having some working knowledge of film post production analgoue and digital. I can say that most of the Moon imagery has been adulterated to to the point that it verges on the type of silly you’d find in something like PLan 9 from Outer Space.

The reuse of background elements like Hills is a complete give away and one of the easiest to spot, but only of course if you have access to all the imagery form varying missions, whcih most people wouldn’t and didn’t in the late 60’s.

Of course this does not settle the arguement of if they actually managed to land or not. Seemingly a lot of the info will not be de classified till 2026.


#64

Guess that sets an upper limit on your level of crazy :stuck_out_tongue:

Unfortunately, they didn’t have a comparable engine to the F-1 (which itself was a decade of work) and they not suprisingly had some difficulties making a rocket with 32 smaller engines actually work.

Given the fact that they were only going to come second, they didn’t bother after the US succeeded. In fact, the russians believing that the US succeeded is the strongest evidence that they did.


#65

What’s the conspiracy theorists’ explanation for the laser refector that was left there by Armstrong, and the larger ones left by subsequent Apollo missions?

I’m genuinely interested to know how these could be explained away.


#66

there are no levels, no limits, it was thinly veild sarcasm 9well I thought)… as for the russians, I believe they covered up their moon race program in shame so as not to loose face and it was only decades later that they revelaed they where months, weeks away from making an attempt.

I think I will set up a seperate thread for the moon, WTC and maybe ev


#67

Lunacy Thread here now…thepropertypin.com/viewtopic … 4554#74554


#68

Jaysus

If a bunch of lads are willing to blow themselves up on buses in London then why is it so far fetched for them to hijack planes ?
Its not like planes havent been hijacked before

And what the hell is this about buildings not gettin hot enough to burn down?
Im suprised they withstood the kinetic impact at all!!!
All ya need if for the heat to weaken the structure, it doesnt have to melt it. Especially if its been damaged by a passenger jet flying at a few hundred miles an hour
oh and plenty of jet fuel and chemicals to melt it all anyway

MYTH BUSTED

*pats self on the back


#69

You see its not one thing, one thing will not solve it. Its about the whole.

Rememeber what you thought happened that day, is not what happened. You and the rest of us might never actually know but be sure what you think you know is probably incorrect.

Goto: google, {search} building 7

Starting at the start, how is it in both events where pre-empted by almsot identical training simulations?

On 9/11 The US was engaguged in a wargame with 28 pesudo boogies in the sky, 2/4 tunred out to be real.

On 7/7 a private company with hundreds of people were involved in a training exercise remarkable similar to the event (UTV) youtube.com/watch?v=9EEuoMYtazo


#70

It all looks so silly now

youtube.com/watch?v=7_E4N5YIycI


#71

The plane hijacking is not the far fetched part, check out the arrests that led to the EU liquid regulations and the current court case for the real implausible shit…

What was implausible about 911 is the idea that a passenger jet managed a clear run on the Pentagon and that there was absolutely no anti aircraft or missile defense system in place to stop it… :open_mouth:

The world’s most well known and strategic military location, now that’s implausible!!!


#72

If ya believe it was a plane at all :wink:

Also note how all references 9/11 casually avoid the Pentagon hit its all shock & awe of the WTC hits & demolitions :smiling_imp:


#73

The conspiracy theories about the World Trade Center are hilarious.

An 80-odd ton plane, smacks into a skyscraper at several hundred kilometers per hour. The surprise would be if the building didn’t fall down.

I remember looking clearly watching live footage of the twin towers burning, and wondering how the buildings hadn’t come down yet.


#74

It’s gas how the demolition experts don’t just fly an out-of-service Boeing into a skyscraper that needs to be demolished. The building would obviously fall straight down into its own footprint.


#75

That my friend is exactly what you where suppose to expect!

I knew a girl whose father was an engineer at Mitsubishi in Japan and has since passed away. On the day of the event as he watched the pictures he is suppose to have said “this is not what should happen”.

You should click on that link above. IOt very intersting to hear everyone talk of multiple explosions before and after the planes hit.

10 seconds is free fall speed. You need to remove the resistance of over 100 floors in 10 seconds to bring each tower down as they did on that day.

10 floors per second approximately if the analysis is correct.

The only time building have ever been seen to behave/collapse like this is if they are demolished as explosive force remove all structural support and thus resistance to the forces of gravity.

Look here is a video of numerous demolitions

youtube.com/watch?v=-1qgx95S … re=related

**Now here is a botched demolition **(note how the buidling jsut sits down and doens’t continue to collapse)

youtube.com/watch?v=fiNrzmbdC1Q

Now that you’ve watched these videos and familiarized yourself with the dynamics of building demolition and how it behaves watch the collapse of the WTC towers and see if it looks any different. Keep an eye out for **squibs **(don’t know what squibs are, google em and find out)

Yes but wasn’t WTC on fire!
Yea but it was no inferno and did not burn for long.

Yeah well so was the tower in Madrid for over 10 hours and it didn’t incur a total structural collapse and as you can see form picture the entire building was a raging inferno.

whatreallyhappened.com/spain_fire_2005.html


#76

#77

Exactly. Plus the idea that a group of randomers who took a few flying lessons had the wherewithal to carry it off. The whole thing is bizarre and thats before you even begin to look into the links between the Bush’s and the Bin Ladens. That is truly bizarre.

The zeitgeist movie that OW posted on the other thread is interesting and provides another take on the whole thing. While it may seem quite far fetched to some, the idea that we can have the collective wool pulled over all our eyes shouldnt seem that outlandish to many around here who would appear to be dedicated to exposing a similar bout of mass delusion with regard to Irish property and economic matters.

Even now people pushing many of the viewpoints epressed on the Pin are looked on as conspirators of sorts and cranks at best by the greater media deluded masses.


#78

I’m genuinely interested to hear from our aklectic mix of lurking engineers on there own opinions. However I would like if people watched as much you tube video of the day and I am not talking about loosechange… just all the varying angles and slow downs and stuff. ON the day you probably only saw a limited number of angles but now in internet hindsight we have access to everything including interview with firemen on the ground.

A MIT engineer (?) talks

video.google.com/videoplay?docid … 8803031452

I know raging bears made some good point and I will have a go a tackling. A tad busy at the mo for this lark.


#79

When you demolish a building with explosives, you nearly always remove the support from one floor only (for a few reasons it tends to be the bottom floor - more weight above it (more reliable collapse), and less hassle lifting all the explosives up higher, less likelyhood of crap flying out of the building etc).

Note: No need to remove the support from multiple floors, never mind all the way up.

You still get near free fall speeds not just from the (N-1) floors dropping one floor each, but as each successive floor hits ground level, the supports between it and the next immediate floor collapse fast enough to keep up the free fall speed.

If you have a tall enough building, you could choose to blow out a middle floor - once there’s enough weight above to keep the collapses going, there’s little difference where you pick to start (apart from the practicalities - the building will come down either way).

If you have a building like the WTC, which has perimeter supports around the outside and inside edges of each floor (floors being flatish, squarish donuts), then you don’t need to demolish the supports themselves, just shear the links between a floor and its supports - since the floors provide the lateral stability to the supports, and the supports provide the vertical support to the floors, neither can stand without the other.

For most other building designs, this shear possibility doesn’t exist - most buildings using support columns on which the floors physically rest - it would require a cut through the floor all the way round each support to seperate the floor from support - a very different scenario.


#80

Oh man this forum is not visual enough to make and debate this points

However jsut for now to deal with the point in bold.

I will agree and say thats not what happened alrght.

On the day to the naked eye as the crown was literally blown off. You can also see the demolition squibs are not exactly every floor, lets say every 20-30 floors and where only spotted in video play back as they are tiny in the scheme of things but none the less very important details. There is a very clear rapid succession of fast paced blow outs from explosives forces from the top down, the reverse of what yo have out lined which is normal in demolition. I’ve watched programs on various demo exercises so I am familiar with the structural consideration, trying to bring it down with pinpointed hits on all the important

Its a bit of a mixed bag. Now if you want to bring down a building without it looking like it has been demolished, you need to ram a plane into it for the shock & awe effect and then you blow the top off and the rest is simple demolition in disguise.

Its hard to treat this on a point by point basis as reductionist logic would have us as that will myre you in endless tale chasing.

To be honest its not even clear if the first hit on WTC was a plane as there is only 1 camera angle of it and thats by chance.

To avoiding your points but there issues is bigger than this and all hangs on the why did building 7 fall down? there is a context a multiple attack in unusual circumstances.

Isn’t it odd that the BBC reported a number (7 I think) of the hijackers where in fact alive and well and shocked to find themselves named as participants. te same BBC who reported the fall of building 7 20+ minutes before it in fact fell.

regarding the Structure of WTC, the floors where not structural.

i understand the course was structural and so was the outer shell. from what I can see the floors could fall but the core would remain. It was only light trussing. Flimsy in comparison to the structural elements.

How did massive pieces of structural steel beams find themselves throw almost 300 meters outwards before falling to earth?

Sorry if this is a bit disconnected.

Here is a video with a few workers on the build and clear up. Interesting to hear.

youtube.com/watch?v=fqiuMi3Gz04