It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: PublicOpinion
originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: PublicOpinion
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.
You're aware that this is structural reevaluation?
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.
P. 118 in the PDF
...which would imply they somehow "pulled it". Right?
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.
P. 123/124 in the PDF
Next item on the list: Mick West and metabunk.
Any other critiques for me to check out?
For small buildings, such as houses, that are only two or three stories high, demolition is a rather simple process. The building is pulled down either manually or mechanically using large hydraulic equipment: elevated work platforms, cranes, excavators or bulldozers. Larger buildings may require the use of a wrecking ball, a heavy weight on a cable that is swung by a crane into the side of the buildings. Wrecking balls are especially effective against masonry, but are less easily controlled and often less efficient than other methods. Newer methods may use rotational hydraulic shears and silenced rock-breakers attached to excavators to cut or break through wood, steel, and concrete. The use of shears is especially common when flame cutting would be dangerous.
originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: PublicOpinion
(Hate to sound like HRC, but......) At this point..........what does it really matter?
originally posted by: Gandalf77
a reply to: neutronflux
'Implosion' and 'demo' are indeed terms of the trade.
However, this from the same Marrs book I cited earlier:
"The term "pull" is industry slang for the controlled demolition of a structure as voiced by a New York fire commander who told TV news of "pulling" the heavily damaged WTC Building 6.
Some years later as spokesperosn for Silverstein Properties Inc. tried to explain that all Silverstein meant was "pull" the firemen out of the building. His explanation did not fly with knowledgable researchers since all firemen had been withdrawn from Building 7 that morning."
WTC 7 Pulled
Larry Silverstein said that WTC7 was "pulled", intentionally demolished.
I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.
Final group was pulled from Thai cave just before water pump malfunction
Pull" = Withdraw firefighters from danger?
Main 9/11 Links Page
It certainly was used that way on 9/11. Again and again, “pull” is how firefighters and EMTs describe the afternoon withdrawal from the area in and around WTC 7. In the accounts I’ve read, excluding Larry Silverstein’s, “pull” is used 30 times to refer to the withdrawal of WTC firefighting and rescue operations. 27 of those references are about WTC 7. Add Silverstein’s statement and we’ve got 32 references to “pull” meaning “withdraw.” My survey was not exhaustive.
Here’s a summary of the first-person accounts I’ve read. All but a few are from first responders:
41 – People who specifically mention the severity of the WTC 7 fires
29 – People who specifically mention extensive damage to WTC 7
104 – People who mention the FDNY order to withdraw from WTC 7 area
36 – Number of times “Pull” is used to mean “withdraw rescuers”
39 – Other witnesses who say the collapse of WTC 7 was expected
Download an Excel spreadsheet breakdown of these accounts
Doubters, please read the following accounts in full.
I issued the orders to pull back the firefighters and define the collapse zone. It was a critical decision; we could not lose any more firefighters. It took a lot of time to pull everyone out, given the emotionalism of the day, communications difficulties, and the collapse terrain." FDNY Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro, "Report from the Chief of Department," Fire Engineering, 9/2002)
I do remember us being pulled off the pile. ...We were down by the pile to search or looking around. 7 World Trade Center was roaring. I remember being pulled off the pile like just before. It wasn't just before. It was probably an hour before 7 came down. –Firefighter Kevin Howe
Hayden: By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to col-lapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.
Firehouse Magazine: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.
Well, if it can be proven that WTC7 was brought down in a controlled event
originally posted by: contextual
a reply to: Gandalf77
Richard Porter of BBC said that they no longer have the tapes of their own 9/11 coverage.
Porter is the former script writer for Top Gear, not head of the news or archive.
He is most famous for getting decked by Clarkson.
By 2010, there was still no explanation for the collapse of Building 7 that satisfied the members of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.
Most troubling is the reason given for the denial,' wrote retired NASA flight engineer Dwain Deets for OpEdNews. 'The Director of NIST has determined that release of the information might jeopardize public safety.