I would also like to point out that if the roof line is still the same distance from the ground at 6.5 seconds from the end of the collapse as the roof line was at 8am that morning, then the collapse of the building is still timed at 6.5 seconds for me. I start my stopwatch when the roof kinks and the floors fall, not when the penthouse sags. If you want me to concede anything and call it a 13 second collapse, I'll put it like this: 0.1% of a 47 story building sagged towards the ground in the first 6.5 seconds. The other 99.9% of a 47 story building fell to the ground very rapidly in the latter 6.5 seconds.
And Emmanuelle, you are still a liar for referring to the video I posted as a 'double speed' video, because that implies a speeded up video. To make your point correctly and honestly, you should say that you consider the collapse to be 13 seconds in duration, and that the conspiracy side only regards the latter 6.5 seconds to contain the actual collapse of the building.
And you still have not answered why damage and fire on the southwest corner caused the northeast corner to fall first. Thinking conspiratorially, I would say that the charges on the northeast corner were set off first to compensate for the fact that, if the building was leaning in any direction, it was leaning southwest. Making the building kink first on the east side helped center the building and keep it in a tight fall straight down.
The 9-11 Cover Up Ends: July 9, 2008
222Whoa! Some very good news.
Rice has written a long op-ed on the collapse of the towers and WTC7. It appears in today's Vermont Guardian newspaper.
way to go, william rice, civil engineer
William Rice, P.E., is a registered professional civil engineer who worked on structural steel (and concrete) buildings in Boston, New York, and Philadelphia. He was also a professor at Vermont Technical College where he taught engineering materials, structures lab, and other building related courses.
Rice has written a long op-ed on the collapse of the towers and WTC7. It appears in today's Vermont Guardian newspaper.
an excerpt wrote:The prevailing theory for the collapse of the 110-story, award-winning Twin Towers is that when jetliners flew into the 95th and 80th floors of the North and South Towers respectively, they severed several of each building’s columns and weakened other columns with the burning of jet fuel/kerosene (and office combustibles).
However, unlike concrete buildings, structural steel buildings redistribute the stress when several columns are removed and the undamaged structural framework acts as a truss network to bridge over the missing columns.
After the 1993 car bomb explosion destroyed columns in the North Tower, John Skilling, the head structural engineer for the Twin Towers, was asked about an airplane strike. He explained that the Twin Towers were originally designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 (similar in size to the Boeing 767). He went on to say that there would be a horrendous fire from the jet fuel, but “the building structure would still be there.”
The 10,000 gallons of jet fuel (half capacity) in each jetliner did cause horrendous fires over several floors, but it would not cause the steel members to melt or even lose sufficient strength to cause a collapse. This is because the short-duration jet fuel fires and office combustible fires cannot create (or transmit to the steel) temperatures hot enough. If a structural steel building could collapse because of fire, it would do so slowly as the various steel members gradually relinquished their structural strength. However, in the 100-year history of structural-steel framed buildings, there is no evidence of any structural steel framed building having collapsed because of fire.
way to go, william rice, civil engineer
The 9-11 Cover Up Ends: July 9, 2008
223Just posted to Google Video, a portion of the HBO 9/11 documentary that aired in 2002. Watch six NY firefighters on the sidewalk, and then hear the very large explosion near them. The footage that HBO used ends before the explosion.
five minute google video
The intro is long on this. Once it has buffered, slide up to the 40 second mark and let it run for ten seconds from there. Big boom, and it is not one of the planes.
five minute google video
The intro is long on this. Once it has buffered, slide up to the 40 second mark and let it run for ten seconds from there. Big boom, and it is not one of the planes.
The 9-11 Cover Up Ends: July 9, 2008
224Some of the mainstream media are picking up on the BBC story.
Then he quotes the BBC archive policy, where it says that three total copies should be kept of all broadcasts, and then goes on for another eight or ten paragraphs discussing the 'collapse' of WTC7 and the BBC.
the santa fe new mexican wrote:Thursday, March 1, 2007
There is an uproar rising across the Internet over what is being called yet another blatant, 9/11 smoking gun.
Early this week an independent researcher, reviewing video archives of the BBC's 9/11 coverage, divulged the discovery of an earth shaking incongruence. BBC reporters announced the collapse of the 47 story Salomon Brothers Building 23 minutes BEFORE the actual sudden collapse. This building, also known as WTC 7, is clearly visible, standing tall, as a reporter gestures to the live view through the window behind her.
Despite the fact the Google censored the initial internet premier of this archived video, removing it from their video service, many more "mirrors" of the video were then set up across the net. Watch the video here.
Some may find this simply bewildering or a coincidental mistake. For 9/11 researchers it is a further revealing piece of evidence confirming internal premeditation to demolish the WTC. In response to demands for an explanation the BBC released a statement denying confirmation and foreknowledge. I recommend everyone wanting a good laugh to read their response.
The BBC claim that they lost the tapes of their 9/11 coverage due to a, and I quote, "cock-up, not conspiracy."
They just happened to lose their coverage of the most critical and historic event in the 21st century? The BBC's general policy on media managment states:
Then he quotes the BBC archive policy, where it says that three total copies should be kept of all broadcasts, and then goes on for another eight or ten paragraphs discussing the 'collapse' of WTC7 and the BBC.
The 9-11 Cover Up Ends: July 9, 2008
225Norway ( Norwegia? I forget ) in the house:
Fatkisk skjedde indeed.
BBC felte tårnet før det falt
Nyhetsgiganten meldte om kollapsen 11. september 23 minutter før den skjedde.
BBCs dekning av terrorangrepene 11. september får konspirasjonsteoretikere til å gni seg i hendene.
Opptak fra kanalens livesending den dagen sirkulerer nå på nettet, og de viser at BBC meldte om kollapsen av 7 World Trade Center før det faktisk skjedde.
Fatkisk skjedde indeed.
The 9-11 Cover Up Ends: July 9, 2008
226clocker bob wrote:
And Emmanuelle, you are still a liar for referring to the video I posted as a 'double speed' video, because that implies a speeded up video. To make your point correctly and honestly, you should say that you consider the collapse to be 13 seconds in duration, and that the conspiracy side only regards the latter 6.5 seconds to contain the actual collapse of the building.
i think i said it pretty clear in the previous post: i wasn't reffering to your video (btw, you mean the moving gif? that's not even 6.5 seconds but it's clear it's not complete), i was reffering to you saying the collapse took place in 6 seconds. and it's obvious (to me, at least) that whatever started the collapse of wtc7 (no matter if it was a cranking floor or explosives) caused the penthouse to collapse too, and the total time of the collapse should be counted from the first sign of it (here: the penthouse collapsing).
The 9-11 Cover Up Ends: July 9, 2008
227clocker bob wrote:Just posted to Google Video, a portion of the HBO 9/11 documentary that aired in 2002. Watch six NY firefighters on the sidewalk, and then hear the very large explosion near them. The footage that HBO used ends before the explosion.
five minute google video
The intro is long on this. Once it has buffered, slide up to the 40 second mark and let it run for ten seconds from there. Big boom, and it is not one of the planes.
it's hours before wtc7 collapsed, wouldn't it be completely pointless to fire the explosives just for the kicks?
The 9-11 Cover Up Ends: July 9, 2008
228emmanuelle cunt wrote:
it's hours before wtc7 collapsed, wouldn't it be completely pointless to fire the explosives just for the kicks?
True, they wouldn't intentionally set them off until they had the area cleared, but that doesn't mean that the fire or debris couldn't have caused an early explosion in WTC7. Possibly an explosive in one of the towers didn't fire during the demolition, and it was like one of those microwave popcorn kernels that pop like 30 seconds after you take the bag out of the oven.
I can't say anything other than speculation about where that explosion was even coming from, because I don't know what intersection the firemen were at. It could have been in a whole other building, perhaps a power transformer or a generator.
The 9-11 Cover Up Ends: July 9, 2008
229emmanuelle cunt wrote:clocker bob wrote:
And Emmanuelle, you are still a liar for referring to the video I posted as a 'double speed' video, because that implies a speeded up video. To make your point correctly and honestly, you should say that you consider the collapse to be 13 seconds in duration, and that the conspiracy side only regards the latter 6.5 seconds to contain the actual collapse of the building.
i think i said it pretty clear in the previous post: i wasn't reffering to your video (btw, you mean the moving gif? that's not even 6.5 seconds but it's clear it's not complete), i was reffering to you saying the collapse took place in 6 seconds. and it's obvious (to me, at least) that whatever started the collapse of wtc7 (no matter if it was a cranking floor or explosives) caused the penthouse to collapse too, and the total time of the collapse should be counted from the first sign of it (here: the penthouse collapsing).
I still think the way you phrased it was misleading. Here it is again:
clocker bob wrote: Can you explain 'pretty slowly'? The penthouse reached the ground in 6.5 seconds.
emmanuelle cunt wrote:yeah. at double speed
That's what you posted under the moving .gif. 'Speed' is a term used to describe velocity. When you say 'double speed', you imply that the object in the video ( WTC7 ) is moving at twice the speed that it actually did. What we are arguing about is the duration of the collapse, not the speed of the building. If you want to claim that the collapse time should be measured from when the penthouse sags, then you should say that the conspiracy side's timing of the collapse is inaccurate, and the duration of the collapse is twice as long, not at double speed.
The 9-11 Cover Up Ends: July 9, 2008
230I've heard a lot of debunking of a lot of the theories (some I buy others can stay on the shelf for me) but I've never heard an explanation for what the recorded explosions immediately prior to the towers coming down were.
Do any of the sceptics have an explanation for this or maybe Bob has heard a debunking theory elsewhere?
And while your at it what is the physics behind WT7 falling straight down if the weakness was in one corner. It didn't significantly slump and drop a side as far as I can see it goes straight down!!
How exactly does that happen?
I mean, given that it has never ever happened before does the asking of the question make some one a conspiracy nut?
Are there pics of the building immediately post collapse? Are there large sections of one side still jutting out of the ground and I've just missed them?
Do any of the sceptics have an explanation for this or maybe Bob has heard a debunking theory elsewhere?
And while your at it what is the physics behind WT7 falling straight down if the weakness was in one corner. It didn't significantly slump and drop a side as far as I can see it goes straight down!!
How exactly does that happen?
I mean, given that it has never ever happened before does the asking of the question make some one a conspiracy nut?
Are there pics of the building immediately post collapse? Are there large sections of one side still jutting out of the ground and I've just missed them?