It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# WTC 7 could not collapsed from fire, but WTC 5 had partial collapse from fire?

page: 4
7
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2019 @ 02:31 PM
a reply to: Jesushere

You have a limited understanding of engineering principles. A freefall descent can only occur when there literally nothing left inside the building to resist the dead load.

How long would it take 82 columns to buckle? Provide your math and science, please? And match your math to observables we can see on video?

It’s on video. How many seconds is the collapse of WTC 7 from the first signs of movement, until the movement of the penthouse, to the first movement of the facade, to the final collapse. From the first movement of the penthouse to WTC 7 is out of view is about 11 seconds?

The internal columns of WTC 7 did not fail all at the same instance. It’s was a progressive collapse that started on one side of the building, and worked to the opposite side. Then the facade fell.

Why are you creating false arguments not supported by the video evidence?

You wonder why people don’t want to debate conspiracists that will use right out falsehoods....

Seems like I posted this once before?

Case of World Trade Center 7

sharpprintinginc.com...:559

SUMMARY OF EARLY WTC7 MOVEMENT

As was shown in section 2.5, features of the initial failure sequence can be understood as a rapid succession of 7 identifiable events occurring in the following order:

1) Movement Detected from 2 Minutes before Collapse
2) Increase of rocking 6 seconds before visible collapse
3) Ejections and overpressurizations
4) Collapse of the East Penthouse
5) Collective core failure
6) Perimeter response
7) Acceleration downward

CONCLUSIONS ON WTC7

The simulation was set up to fail. Even though the simulation bears almost no resemblance to the collapsed as documented, it is passively accepted as convincing by many.

It was gamed to collapse, and the collapse as simulated shows no key geometric features such as the collective core failure or flexure of the perimeter.

The issue of collective core failure leading to perimeter flexure and an extremely well-ordered collapse is not addressed at all. Instead, the public is asked to accept the simulated model even though it lacks an detail of the key geometric global features clearly visible in the collapse including:

1) Collective core dropping
2) Perimeter flexure as a response to the core falling
3) Building movement detectable from about 90 seconds before visible movement

COMPARISON OF NIST DESCRIPTION OF EARLY MOVEMENT OF WTC7 WITH THE ACTUAL VISUAL RECORD

1) Movement Detected from 2 Minutes before Collapse

Was never noticed by the NIST

2) Increase of rocking 6 seconds before visible collapse

This movement was measured by the NIST yet there is no explanation for it within their computer simulations of the collapse.

3) Collective core failure

Not noted or modeled in the NIST report

4) Perimeter response

Not noted in the NIST report. The Core-perimeteer action that is such an important feature in the early collapse process is not noted in the NIST report

5) Acceleration downward

Was measured incorrectly within the reports. The core-perimeter interaction was not understood and there were multiple problems with the NIST camera #3 tracking as listed earlier.

edit on 17-8-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed

edit on 17-8-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed

posted on Aug, 17 2019 @ 02:37 PM

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Some do, this is why the Hulsey report has taken so long to complete and nailed IMHO. Hulsey did mention this substation issue in his presentations.

As for the topic: "WTC 7 could not collapsed from fire but... Whataboutism"

Says it all! The walls are closing in.

Your kidding yourself if you believe that report is going to be released for scrutiny. When was the original promise date? How many promise dates have came and gone now? How many years ago? Like Jones promising to release his thermite samples? Or Mark Basile's thermite study results?

Do you see a trend forming? As in people donate to “studies” that never complete the discovery process?

What’s the definition of con?
edit on 17-8-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed

posted on Aug, 17 2019 @ 04:28 PM
a reply to: neutronflux

You know date: ATS

What’s the definition of con?

Output by NIST and 9/11 Commission Report. Without scrutiny nor complete discovery process.

posted on Aug, 17 2019 @ 04:43 PM

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux

You know date: ATS

What’s the definition of con?

Output by NIST and 9/11 Commission Report. Without scrutiny nor complete discovery process.

Vs what? You have no proof of CD at the WTC? And WTC 5 does show WTC buildings were susceptible to fire / thermal stress failures that lead to structural collapse? Which shows fire / thermal stress related failures are very possible. Which shows Hulsey’s assertion that fire related collapse is not possible is full of crap, or he is purposely ignoring all the factors that result from a structural fire.

posted on Aug, 18 2019 @ 07:15 AM
a reply to: democracydemo

People donated to the WTC 7 Evaluation for a study that was going to be released in 2017 to major engineering journals for peer review? How’s that working out? What are the goals of the project now? So? Did people give money under false pretexts?

posted on Aug, 18 2019 @ 11:12 AM

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jesushere

You have a limited understanding of engineering principles. A freefall descent can only occur when there literally nothing left inside the building to resist the dead load.

How long would it take 82 columns to buckle? Provide your math and science, please? And match your math to observables we can see on video?

It’s on video. How many seconds is the collapse of WTC 7 from the first signs of movement, until the movement of the penthouse, to the first movement of the facade, to the final collapse. From the first movement of the penthouse to WTC 7 is out of view is about 11 seconds?

The internal columns of WTC 7 did not fail all at the same instance. It’s was a progressive collapse that started on one side of the building, and worked to the opposite side. Then the facade fell.

Why are you creating false arguments not supported by the video evidence?

You wonder why people don’t want to debate conspiracists that will use right out falsehoods....

Seems like I posted this once before?

Case of World Trade Center 7

sharpprintinginc.com...:559

SUMMARY OF EARLY WTC7 MOVEMENT

As was shown in section 2.5, features of the initial failure sequence can be understood as a rapid succession of 7 identifiable events occurring in the following order:

1) Movement Detected from 2 Minutes before Collapse
2) Increase of rocking 6 seconds before visible collapse
3) Ejections and overpressurizations
4) Collapse of the East Penthouse
5) Collective core failure
6) Perimeter response
7) Acceleration downward

CONCLUSIONS ON WTC7

The simulation was set up to fail. Even though the simulation bears almost no resemblance to the collapsed as documented, it is passively accepted as convincing by many.

It was gamed to collapse, and the collapse as simulated shows no key geometric features such as the collective core failure or flexure of the perimeter.

The issue of collective core failure leading to perimeter flexure and an extremely well-ordered collapse is not addressed at all. Instead, the public is asked to accept the simulated model even though it lacks an detail of the key geometric global features clearly visible in the collapse including:

1) Collective core dropping
2) Perimeter flexure as a response to the core falling
3) Building movement detectable from about 90 seconds before visible movement

COMPARISON OF NIST DESCRIPTION OF EARLY MOVEMENT OF WTC7 WITH THE ACTUAL VISUAL RECORD

1) Movement Detected from 2 Minutes before Collapse

Was never noticed by the NIST

2) Increase of rocking 6 seconds before visible collapse

This movement was measured by the NIST yet there is no explanation for it within their computer simulations of the collapse.

3) Collective core failure

Not noted or modeled in the NIST report

4) Perimeter response

Not noted in the NIST report. The Core-perimeteer action that is such an important feature in the early collapse process is not noted in the NIST report

5) Acceleration downward

Was measured incorrectly within the reports. The core-perimeter interaction was not understood and there were multiple problems with the NIST camera #3 tracking as listed earlier.

It took about 5 seconds for the entire building to move and go down. The penthouse is irrelevant as it outside structure on top of the roof. The Penthouse was reacting to events inside the building. Part of the roof collapsed on the east side. There is an audible blast before the Penthouse caved in. Does this suggest when the explosives went off inside the building?

NIST progressive collapse theory is preconceived and is not based on fact. What has NIST provided to show 47 stories collapsed? The outside windows are not broken. Do you see dust particles on video pre perimeter collapse? The community of people who disagree with NIST are bringing this up for good reason. Nobody tested for explosives, and yet keep claiming there no evidence? This should be one of the first things you do when you receive the steel. You rule out something and then you eventually find the answer. You find on NIST own website information they located know steel from this site. Do you see know crime there? It perfectly ok for you to not to leave steel behind to be studied later?

There no case study to prove NIST claim. Not one steel-framed skyscraper had collapsed pre 9/11 due to fire alone. On 9/11 you got three in one day. How do they explain it fire? Since controlled demolition can bring down buildings in a uniformed way- why was this not looked at first?

NIST did not even know building seven underwent freefall. Debunkers like yourself should watch their conference and observe what they had to say. NIST got caught. Truthers were right to continue on, and keep highlighting the NIST study was just baseless speculation.

edit on 18-8-2019 by Jesushere because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-8-2019 by Jesushere because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 18 2019 @ 02:10 PM
a reply to: Jesushere

You

Anyone who took the time to watch the WTC5 fire on video will notice the entire building was engulfed with smoke and fire. Reality is WTC5 girders in your picture withstood a very high temp fire and did not buckle.

What are you calling girders?

posted on Aug, 18 2019 @ 02:16 PM
a reply to: Jesushere

You

A freefall descent can only occur when there literally nothing left inside the building to resist the dead load.

How long would it take 82 columns to buckle? Provide your math and science, please? And match your math to observables we can see on video?

What does that even mean? Are you saying the entire building fell at the rate of free fall? Where you trying to pass off a false argument, and now back pedaling.

You claim the exterior columns hade to have their resistance removed? Is that false?

I want physical evidence of those exterior columns right at the facade and the outer windows of WTC 7 were cut by pyrotechnics. You are just ignoring the exterior columns offered negligible resistance.
edit on 18-8-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed

posted on Aug, 18 2019 @ 02:20 PM
a reply to: Jesushere

Title of the thread “WTC 7 could not collapsed from fire, but WTC 5 had partial collapse from fire?“

Hulsey Of the WTC 7 project claims fire related failures are impossible? Is that false?

WTC 5 shows structural failures are structural collapse from fire and thermal stress are real possibilities in WTC buildings. Is that false.

posted on Aug, 18 2019 @ 03:00 PM

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jesushere

You have a limited understanding of engineering principles. A freefall descent can only occur when there literally nothing left inside the building to resist the dead load.

How long would it take 82 columns to buckle? Provide your math and science, please? And match your math to observables we can see on video?

It’s on video. How many seconds is the collapse of WTC 7 from the first signs of movement, until the movement of the penthouse, to the first movement of the facade, to the final collapse. From the first movement of the penthouse to WTC 7 is out of view is about 11 seconds?

The internal columns of WTC 7 did not fail all at the same instance. It’s was a progressive collapse that started on one side of the building, and worked to the opposite side. Then the facade fell.

Why are you creating false arguments not supported by the video evidence?

You wonder why people don’t want to debate conspiracists that will use right out falsehoods....

Seems like I posted this once before?

Case of World Trade Center 7

sharpprintinginc.com...:559

SUMMARY OF EARLY WTC7 MOVEMENT

As was shown in section 2.5, features of the initial failure sequence can be understood as a rapid succession of 7 identifiable events occurring in the following order:

1) Movement Detected from 2 Minutes before Collapse
2) Increase of rocking 6 seconds before visible collapse
3) Ejections and overpressurizations
4) Collapse of the East Penthouse
5) Collective core failure
6) Perimeter response
7) Acceleration downward

CONCLUSIONS ON WTC7

The simulation was set up to fail. Even though the simulation bears almost no resemblance to the collapsed as documented, it is passively accepted as convincing by many.

It was gamed to collapse, and the collapse as simulated shows no key geometric features such as the collective core failure or flexure of the perimeter.

The issue of collective core failure leading to perimeter flexure and an extremely well-ordered collapse is not addressed at all. Instead, the public is asked to accept the simulated model even though it lacks an detail of the key geometric global features clearly visible in the collapse including:

1) Collective core dropping
2) Perimeter flexure as a response to the core falling
3) Building movement detectable from about 90 seconds before visible movement

COMPARISON OF NIST DESCRIPTION OF EARLY MOVEMENT OF WTC7 WITH THE ACTUAL VISUAL RECORD

1) Movement Detected from 2 Minutes before Collapse

Was never noticed by the NIST

2) Increase of rocking 6 seconds before visible collapse

This movement was measured by the NIST yet there is no explanation for it within their computer simulations of the collapse.

3) Collective core failure

Not noted or modeled in the NIST report

4) Perimeter response

Not noted in the NIST report. The Core-perimeteer action that is such an important feature in the early collapse process is not noted in the NIST report

5) Acceleration downward

Was measured incorrectly within the reports. The core-perimeter interaction was not understood and there were multiple problems with the NIST camera #3 tracking as listed earlier.

Not one steel-framed skyscraper had collapsed pre 9/11 due to fire alone. On 9/11 you got three in one day. How do they explain it fire?

I'm sure I recall asking for examples of buildings of similar design that suffered similar damage and didn't collapse several times on this forum. Maybe I'm mistaken

posted on Aug, 18 2019 @ 06:42 PM

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jesushere

You

A freefall descent can only occur when there literally nothing left inside the building to resist the dead load.

How long would it take 82 columns to buckle? Provide your math and science, please? And match your math to observables we can see on video?

What does that even mean? Are you saying the entire building fell at the rate of free fall? Where you trying to pass off a false argument, and now back pedaling.

You claim the exterior columns hade to have their resistance removed? Is that false?

I want physical evidence of those exterior columns right at the facade and the outer windows of WTC 7 were cut by pyrotechnics. You are just ignoring the exterior columns offered negligible resistance.

The wrong picture showing the girders.

This what NIST Sivaraj Shyam-Sunder revealed in Aug 2008

Quote
A] free-fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it.... What the analysis shows...is that same time it took for the structural model to come down...is 5.4 seconds. It’s about 1.5 seconds, or roughly 40 per cent, more time for that free fall to happen. And that is not at all unusual because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case.”

My Statement
NIST was claiming the descent of the 18 upper floors of world trade seven took 40 per cent longer than freefall in August 2018

This is where NIST messed up. Sunder made this claim on video
"the slower time was expected as there was still structural support still protecting the building. There was a progression of failures that had to happen first "NIST progressive collapse theory- and none of the failures was instantaneous!

NIST then releases a newly revised study in two months NOV 2008 and freefall was now possible. NIST debunked their entire study in 2008.

Progression of failures- not consistent, no freefall
Structural support still there- not consistent- no freefall
None of the failures is instant- no freefall

posted on Aug, 18 2019 @ 06:48 PM
a reply to: Jesushere

What are you calling “girders”? And where were they used in WTC 5?

posted on Aug, 18 2019 @ 06:49 PM
a reply to: Jesushere

And I asked for physical evidence of pyrotechnics cutting columns. All your doing is playing word games with “negligible resistance”.

posted on Aug, 18 2019 @ 06:52 PM

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jesushere

What are you calling “girders”? And where were they used in WTC 5?

Look the first image you posted, It looks like A36 steel girders.

posted on Aug, 18 2019 @ 06:53 PM
a reply to: Jesushere
Is there any evidence of columns being physical cut in the video, audio, seismic, or photographic evidence? Again. The exterior columns were right at WTC 7’s windows. Is that false? What are you claiming had to be cut for eighteen floors for the facade to fall at the speed of free fall? How many supports on how many floors by how many planted pyrotechnics?

posted on Aug, 18 2019 @ 06:55 PM

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jesushere

What are you calling “girders”? And where were they used in WTC 5?

Look the first image you posted, It looks like A36 steel girders.

Your argument. Cited a source where “girders” where used in WTC 5.

posted on Aug, 18 2019 @ 06:56 PM

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jesushere

And I asked for physical evidence of pyrotechnics cutting columns. All your doing is playing word games with “negligible resistance”.

NIST never tested for explosives. Not my job to do this. Direct your complaints elsewhere.

Are you insane- NIST debunked their own theory in Aug 2008.. Controlled demolition is the leading theory now.

posted on Aug, 18 2019 @ 06:56 PM
a reply to: Jesushere

And evidently, “girders” do not have to fail to cause a structural collapse for more than one floor as WTC 5 shows. Is that false. In context of your “no girders buckled” statement.
edit on 18-8-2019 by neutronflux because: Fixed wording added context

posted on Aug, 18 2019 @ 07:04 PM
a reply to: Jesushere

You

NIST never tested for explosives. Not my job to do this. Direct your complaints elsewhere.

Such a false argument.

What were they supposed to test. There is no evidence of explosives cutting columns in the audio, video, seismic, or photo evidence. There is no evidence in the metallurgy of the buildings that failures were caused by explosives. There were no demolitions shrapnel recovered from the injured and dead. There was no demolitions shrapnel, no blasting cap fragments, no sign of a system of wires for a CD system. But over 19,000 fragments of human remains were recovered. What would randomly testing over 1,000,000 tons of rubble from thirteen destroyed buildings contaminated with a toxic soup out in the weather for up to three months prove?
edit on 18-8-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and dixed

posted on Aug, 18 2019 @ 07:05 PM

originally posted by: Jesushere

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jesushere

And I asked for physical evidence of pyrotechnics cutting columns. All your doing is playing word games with “negligible resistance”.

NIST never tested for explosives. Not my job to do this. Direct your complaints elsewhere.

Are you insane- NIST debunked their own theory in Aug 2008.. Controlled demolition is the leading theory now.

Again....

Is there any evidence of columns being physical cut in the video, audio, seismic, or photographic evidence? Again. The exterior columns were right at WTC 7’s windows. Is that false? What are you claiming had to be cut for eighteen floors for the facade to fall at the speed of free fall? How many supports on how many floors by how many planted pyrotechnics?

top topics

7