• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The virtually free fall speed

tempesta29 said:
"Didn't fall straight at all. Hit two other buildings."

That's because a 47 story building was reduced to 3 or 4 stories. What do you think happens to mass in that sort of situation? It's dispersed.
Click to expand...

Do, explain Fitterman Hall?

If it fell so straight down, how did it hit Fitterman Hall ON IT'S ROOF???

Here's a few pictures, just in case.

wtc7f1.jpg


wtc7f2.jpg


911_HighQualityPhotos7784.jpg


911_HighQualityPhotos7782.jpg


414px-Fiterman_hall_damage.jpg
 
Yes, but it was more from the "avalanche" of debris from the base of 7WTC. Make sense?

Fitterman Hall, and The Verizon Building. Both were heavily damaged. The US Post Office Building is the one in the 3rd and 4th picture, tan colored building. It suffered severe damage, and ended up closing for 3 years IIRC. They also did some other renovations at the time.
 
Last edited:
triforcharity said:
Yes, but it was more from the "avalanche" of debris from the base of 7WTC. Make sense?
Click to expand...

Yeah makes sense. I guess I just don't understand the importance of whether it was damaged high or low. It was damaged and heavily at that so one can't really say it was a neat collapse if three buildings were damaged.

Fitterman Hall, and The Verizon Building. Both were heavily damaged. The US Post Office Building is the one in the 3rd and 4th picture, tan colored building. It suffered severe damage, and ended up closing for 3 years IIRC. They also did some other renovations at the time.
Click to expand...

In other words not a neat collapse :)
 
The Post Office was severely damaged? I haven't seen any evidence of that. Looks damn near untouched to me.
 
tempesta29 said:
The Post Office was severely damaged? I haven't seen any evidence of that. Looks damn near untouched to me.
Click to expand...

Have you seen that Fiterman Hall, across the street to the north from WTC, got hit on the roof when WTC7 collapsed? Please acknowledge explicitly that you now know this info!

Then please comment on your earlier post:

tempesta29 said:
"Didn't fall straight at all. Hit two other buildings."

That's because a 47 story building was reduced to 3 or 4 stories. What do you think happens to mass in that sort of situation? It's dispersed.
Click to expand...

Do you still stand by that? Do you still think that WTC7 fell straight down and only dispersed to the sides, when it hit Fiterman Hall on the roof?
 
Oystein said:
Have you seen that Fiterman Hall, across the street to the north from WTC, got hit on the roof when WTC7 collapsed? Please acknowledge explicitly that you now know this info!

Then please comment on your earlier post:

Do you still stand by that? Do you still think that WTC7 fell straight down and only dispersed to the sides, when it hit Fiterman Hall on the roof?
Click to expand...

I've seen no hard evidence that it did otherwise. I've seen no videos of WTC 7 falling on other buildings, and I've seen several collapse videos. To me, that's a very uniform collapse, more so than many successful CDs in fact, and in the case of WTC 7, there was no direct financial incentive to reduce collateral damage.
 
tempesta29 said:
I've seen no hard evidence that it did otherwise.
Click to expand...

Pull your head out of your ass.

tempesta29 said:
I've seen no videos of WTC 7 falling on other buildings, and I've seen several collapse videos.
Click to expand...

Because it becomes obstructed by the dust and smoke. Not to mention the fact that the damage occurs below the line of sight.

tempesta29 said:
To me, that's a very uniform collapse,
Click to expand...

Well, except for the obvious lean.

tempesta29 said:
more so than many successful CDs in fact,
Click to expand...

So, when a building that is demolished in a controlled way, and it hits other buildings, that is still a success? LOL!!

tempesta29 said:
and in the case of WTC 7, there was no direct financial incentive to reduce collateral damage.
Click to expand...

Wow.
 
tempesta, you seem to have trouble giving straight answers to straight questions. A casual observer might perceive that as "squirming". Maybe you would like to correct that impression:


tempesta29 said:
I've seen no hard evidence that it did otherwise.
Click to expand...

Is this your explicit reply to my question "Have you seen that Fiterman Hall, across the street to the north from WTC, got hit on the roof when WTC7 collapsed? Please acknowledge explicitly that you now know this info!"?
Do you acknowledge that Fiterman was hit over the head by WTC7? (An "explicit" reply would at least contain the words "Fiterman Hall", "roof", "WTC7", "collapse")

tempesta29 said:
I've seen no videos of WTC 7 falling on other buildings,
Click to expand...

Or do you deny that Fiterman Hall sustained fatal damage to its roof and face when WTC7 dropped onto it? Please provide an explicit answer about your current state of knowledge regarding the damages sustained by Fiterman Hall, and what you know about the causes!

tempesta29 said:
and I've seen several collapse videos. To me, that's a very uniform collapse, more so than many successful CDs in fact, and in the case of WTC 7, there was no direct financial incentive to reduce collateral damage.
Click to expand...

If something is not clearly seen on video, does that mean it didn't happen?




ETA: You also dodged the question if you still stand by your earlier post (link) about how WTC7 only "dispersed" to the sides at the lowest floors.
 
Last edited:
triforcharity said:
Yes, but it was more from the "avalanche" of debris from the base of 7WTC. Make sense?

Fitterman Hall, and The Verizon Building. Both were heavily damaged. The US Post Office Building is the one in the 3rd and 4th picture, tan colored building. It suffered severe damage, and ended up closing for 3 years IIRC. They also did some other renovations at the time.
Click to expand...

Of course much of WTC 7 ended up on top of WTC 6 as well IIRC.

tempesta writes:
that's a very uniform collapse, more so than many successful CDs in fact, and in the case of WTC 7, there was no direct financial incentive to reduce collateral damage.
Click to expand...

No CD of any sort that impacts another structre such that it requires the other structure to have to be torn down is considered "sucessful". If it were all these demolitions companies would be out of business.

No financial incentive to limit collateral damage, hmmm. In fact we have been told time and again that the reason ONLY WTC structures were affected is because they wanted to keep collateral damage to a minimum. YOU take the opposite view and tell us that since there was no incentive to limit such damage many other structures were involved, several of which had to be torn down afterwards(such as Deutche Bank).
then there is the first attack on the WTC towers. The car bomb was supposed to be placed at a foundation wall and cause one tower to fall onto the other. It failed mostly because the perpetrators could not get a parking spot where they wanted the bomb to go off consequently causing little damage to the foundation and intsead tearing out several levels of the garage. That was designed to cause the greatest collateral damage and had it been successful would have killed many more people and taken down several more structures than the 9/11 attacks did.

Once again I ask for a senario for the events of the day from any member of the 9/11 conspiracy crowd, that is internally consistent. It would be best to not require the use of technology that cannot be shown to exist as well.(such as explosives that do not make the severe concussive sounds heard in industrial CDs)
 
Last edited:
jaydeehess said:
Of course much of WTC 7 ended up on top of WTC 6 as well IIRC.
Click to expand...

It's possible, but I can't confirm that.

Lets look here.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/Wtc-photo.jpg

It could have hit some of the lower portions of 6WTC's north side. How MUCH damage it would have caused, i'm not sure. 6WTC was pretty ******* from 1&2, so any damage that it would have done is negligable. Not to mention the fact that 7WTC leaned towards the North as it collapsed.

http://wirednewyork.com/wtc/map/

Here is a good map of the WTC site. In the big picture, the North is the right side of the picture.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom