It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: CriticalStinker
originally posted by: mrthumpy
originally posted by: PraetorianAZ
originally posted by: mrthumpy
originally posted by: PraetorianAZ
WTC 7 Collapsed on its own footprint and it was not hit by a plane. So you're saying we designed a building so bad that fires and a single column failing would bring the whole thing down on itself? I guess some people can't smell the bullsh*t because they have been standing in it too long.
Did you forget about the 1000ft skyscraper?
Are you talking about the piece of debris that fell and hit WTC 7? The piece of debris that probably weighed 1-100th the weight and load-bearing strength of WTC 7 and didn't even do significant damage? Sure it destroyed some columns and floors but nothing that building wasnt designed to withstand.
You don't consider a 14 storey gash down the south face of the buiding to be significant? OK then
Again, the official explanation is that that building number 7 collapsed due to fire.... So the gash on the exterior of the building was not significant in terms of structural integrity.
-Per NIST
originally posted by: mrthumpy
originally posted by: CriticalStinker
originally posted by: mrthumpy
originally posted by: PraetorianAZ
originally posted by: mrthumpy
originally posted by: PraetorianAZ
WTC 7 Collapsed on its own footprint and it was not hit by a plane. So you're saying we designed a building so bad that fires and a single column failing would bring the whole thing down on itself? I guess some people can't smell the bullsh*t because they have been standing in it too long.
Did you forget about the 1000ft skyscraper?
Are you talking about the piece of debris that fell and hit WTC 7? The piece of debris that probably weighed 1-100th the weight and load-bearing strength of WTC 7 and didn't even do significant damage? Sure it destroyed some columns and floors but nothing that building wasnt designed to withstand.
You don't consider a 14 storey gash down the south face of the buiding to be significant? OK then
Again, the official explanation is that that building number 7 collapsed due to fire.... So the gash on the exterior of the building was not significant in terms of structural integrity.
-Per NIST
Why did Pretorian bring up the lack of aircraft impact?
Damage control from what? The Hulsey report gives no conclusion on what caused the collapse of WTC 7.
In fact, it’s the classic truth movement strategy. Say it cannot be this, but never state what is more credible.
originally posted by: CriticalStinker
originally posted by: mrthumpy
originally posted by: CriticalStinker
originally posted by: mrthumpy
originally posted by: PraetorianAZ
originally posted by: mrthumpy
originally posted by: PraetorianAZ
WTC 7 Collapsed on its own footprint and it was not hit by a plane. So you're saying we designed a building so bad that fires and a single column failing would bring the whole thing down on itself? I guess some people can't smell the bullsh*t because they have been standing in it too long.
Did you forget about the 1000ft skyscraper?
Are you talking about the piece of debris that fell and hit WTC 7? The piece of debris that probably weighed 1-100th the weight and load-bearing strength of WTC 7 and didn't even do significant damage? Sure it destroyed some columns and floors but nothing that building wasnt designed to withstand.
You don't consider a 14 storey gash down the south face of the buiding to be significant? OK then
Again, the official explanation is that that building number 7 collapsed due to fire.... So the gash on the exterior of the building was not significant in terms of structural integrity.
-Per NIST
Why did Pretorian bring up the lack of aircraft impact?
My guess would be because building number 7 wasn't impacted by an aircraft.
Except that they did offer explanations. Classic damage control strategy, just saying.
originally posted by: mrthumpy
originally posted by: CriticalStinker
originally posted by: mrthumpy
originally posted by: CriticalStinker
originally posted by: mrthumpy
originally posted by: PraetorianAZ
originally posted by: mrthumpy
originally posted by: PraetorianAZ
WTC 7 Collapsed on its own footprint and it was not hit by a plane. So you're saying we designed a building so bad that fires and a single column failing would bring the whole thing down on itself? I guess some people can't smell the bullsh*t because they have been standing in it too long.
Did you forget about the 1000ft skyscraper?
Are you talking about the piece of debris that fell and hit WTC 7? The piece of debris that probably weighed 1-100th the weight and load-bearing strength of WTC 7 and didn't even do significant damage? Sure it destroyed some columns and floors but nothing that building wasnt designed to withstand.
You don't consider a 14 storey gash down the south face of the buiding to be significant? OK then
Again, the official explanation is that that building number 7 collapsed due to fire.... So the gash on the exterior of the building was not significant in terms of structural integrity.
-Per NIST
Why did Pretorian bring up the lack of aircraft impact?
My guess would be because building number 7 wasn't impacted by an aircraft.
So what? According to you the damage made no difference. Why bother bringing it up at all?
originally posted by: CriticalStinker
originally posted by: mrthumpy
originally posted by: CriticalStinker
originally posted by: mrthumpy
originally posted by: CriticalStinker
originally posted by: mrthumpy
originally posted by: PraetorianAZ
originally posted by: mrthumpy
originally posted by: PraetorianAZ
WTC 7 Collapsed on its own footprint and it was not hit by a plane. So you're saying we designed a building so bad that fires and a single column failing would bring the whole thing down on itself? I guess some people can't smell the bullsh*t because they have been standing in it too long.
Did you forget about the 1000ft skyscraper?
Are you talking about the piece of debris that fell and hit WTC 7? The piece of debris that probably weighed 1-100th the weight and load-bearing strength of WTC 7 and didn't even do significant damage? Sure it destroyed some columns and floors but nothing that building wasnt designed to withstand.
You don't consider a 14 storey gash down the south face of the buiding to be significant? OK then
Again, the official explanation is that that building number 7 collapsed due to fire.... So the gash on the exterior of the building was not significant in terms of structural integrity.
-Per NIST
Why did Pretorian bring up the lack of aircraft impact?
My guess would be because building number 7 wasn't impacted by an aircraft.
So what? According to you the damage made no difference. Why bother bringing it up at all?
I think he was providing context to his post, which by all accounts seem to be accurate.
originally posted by: mrthumpy
originally posted by: CriticalStinker
originally posted by: mrthumpy
originally posted by: CriticalStinker
originally posted by: mrthumpy
originally posted by: CriticalStinker
originally posted by: mrthumpy
originally posted by: PraetorianAZ
originally posted by: mrthumpy
originally posted by: PraetorianAZ
WTC 7 Collapsed on its own footprint and it was not hit by a plane. So you're saying we designed a building so bad that fires and a single column failing would bring the whole thing down on itself? I guess some people can't smell the bullsh*t because they have been standing in it too long.
Did you forget about the 1000ft skyscraper?
Are you talking about the piece of debris that fell and hit WTC 7? The piece of debris that probably weighed 1-100th the weight and load-bearing strength of WTC 7 and didn't even do significant damage? Sure it destroyed some columns and floors but nothing that building wasnt designed to withstand.
You don't consider a 14 storey gash down the south face of the buiding to be significant? OK then
Again, the official explanation is that that building number 7 collapsed due to fire.... So the gash on the exterior of the building was not significant in terms of structural integrity.
-Per NIST
Why did Pretorian bring up the lack of aircraft impact?
My guess would be because building number 7 wasn't impacted by an aircraft.
So what? According to you the damage made no difference. Why bother bringing it up at all?
I think he was providing context to his post, which by all accounts seem to be accurate.
Ah, creating a narrative. OK
originally posted by: CriticalStinker
originally posted by: mrthumpy
originally posted by: CriticalStinker
originally posted by: mrthumpy
originally posted by: CriticalStinker
originally posted by: mrthumpy
originally posted by: CriticalStinker
originally posted by: mrthumpy
originally posted by: PraetorianAZ
originally posted by: mrthumpy
originally posted by: PraetorianAZ
WTC 7 Collapsed on its own footprint and it was not hit by a plane. So you're saying we designed a building so bad that fires and a single column failing would bring the whole thing down on itself? I guess some people can't smell the bullsh*t because they have been standing in it too long.
Did you forget about the 1000ft skyscraper?
Are you talking about the piece of debris that fell and hit WTC 7? The piece of debris that probably weighed 1-100th the weight and load-bearing strength of WTC 7 and didn't even do significant damage? Sure it destroyed some columns and floors but nothing that building wasnt designed to withstand.
You don't consider a 14 storey gash down the south face of the buiding to be significant? OK then
Again, the official explanation is that that building number 7 collapsed due to fire.... So the gash on the exterior of the building was not significant in terms of structural integrity.
-Per NIST
Why did Pretorian bring up the lack of aircraft impact?
My guess would be because building number 7 wasn't impacted by an aircraft.
So what? According to you the damage made no difference. Why bother bringing it up at all?
I think he was providing context to his post, which by all accounts seem to be accurate.
Ah, creating a narrative. OK
Was it hit by an aircraft? No.
Did it fall into it's own footprint? Yes.
Was it engineered to survive office fires? Yes.
Is it the first steel structure to fall due to fire (other than the two towers who were hit by planes)? Yes.
Those are valid points and questions. Personally, I don't think 9/11 was a conspiracy to the full extent many claim it is... But I do think there are some questions to be asked, and I think we should do our best to keep conversations truthful.
Did it fall into it's own footprint? Yes.
By Oystein
the fall of the north wall onto the roof of Fiterman Hall
www.metabunk.org...
originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: mrthumpy
The bottom claim in my last post was a bit disingenuous now that I look at it.
That said, I still don't see why you are so oppose to Pretorian's post. It's merely presenting questions.
originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: PublicOpinion
You
Except that they did offer explanations. Classic damage control strategy, just saying.
Then it should be easy for you to quote from the Hulsey report what mechanism removed the resistance of columns.
4.6 Results of Core Column/Exterior Column Failure Analysis
Finding that NIST’s scenario was not feasible and that the simultaneous failure of all core columns would not result in the observed straight-down collapse, we then simulated the simultaneous failure of all core columns over 8 stories followed 1.3 seconds later by the simultaneous failure of all exterior columns over 8 stories. The dynamic analysis results for this simulation are shown below, side-by-side with two videos of the collapse.
Based on this analysis, we found that the simultaneous failure of all core columns followed by the simultaneous failure of all exterior columns produces almost exactly the behavior observed in videos of the collapse. Specifically, the simulated velocity and acceleration of the building in our SAP2000 model matches almost exactly with the motion measured by David Chandler (Chandler, 2010), including the approximately 2.5 seconds of free fall, shown in Figures 4.21, 4.22, and 4.23 below.
It is our conclusion that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near simultaneous failure of all columns in the building and not a progressive collapse involving the sequential failure of columns throughout the building. Despite simulating a number of hypothetical scenarios, we were unable to identify any progressive sequence of failures that could have taken place on September 11, 2001, and caused a total collapse of the building, let alone the observed straight-down collapse with approximately 2.5 seconds of free fall and minimal differential movement of the exterior.