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.

 

A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7

page: 4
16
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 10 2019 @ 02:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Gandalf77

So, no evidence of columns being actively cut simultaneously from the video, photographic, audio, seismic evidence.


There are eye-witness accounts of people on scene who heard multiple explosions.
(See my earlier post from the NYPD officer at WTC7.)

Multiple explosions would be typical of a demo-type scenario.

According to Thomas Sullivan, a controlled demolition expert:
"We are not talking about setting off a bomb here. The amount and type of explosives is an art and collateral damage can often be completely avoided."

If the perpetrators of a controlled explosions scenario used remote wireless detonators and RDX explosive cutter charges (which are completely consumed when they go off) OR thermite self-consuming cutter charge casings, there isn't going to be physical evidence.




posted on Sep, 10 2019 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Gandalf77



There are eye-witness accounts of people on scene who heard multiple explosions.
(See my earlier post from the NYPD officer at WTC7.)


Very likely. Items like AC compressors explode in fire. Now. Is there evidence of explosions with the force to cut steel columns. Especially for the exterior columns right at the windows and facade?



According to Thomas Sullivan, a controlled demolition expert:
"We are not talking about setting off a bomb here. The amount and type of explosives is an art and collateral damage can often be completely avoided."


If you can use items like tarps, traps, and water barrels to capture demolitions shrapnel for a building properly set up.




If the perpetrators of a controlled explosions scenario used remote wireless detonators and RDX explosive cutter charges (which are completely consumed when they go off) OR thermite self-consuming cutter charge casings, there isn't going to be physical evidence.


Back to the exterior columns. With no sparking and flashing visible at the windows. No visible action from a shockwave with the force to cut steel columns. For cutting charges, no visible breaching/melting of the façade.

Then you have to get past wiring and detonation systems surviving hours of fires.
edit on 10-9-2019 by neutronflux because: Fixed word



posted on Sep, 10 2019 @ 02:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Gandalf77

Then there is a certain expected sound level indicative of an explosive with the force to cut steel columns. Because the explosive has to be strong enough to create a shockwave with the pressure to cut steel columns.



posted on Sep, 10 2019 @ 02:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Gandalf77

Also. No evidence of “glowing” metal from the visible columns of the WTC 7 pile.



posted on Sep, 10 2019 @ 02:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Gandalf77



There are eye-witness accounts of people on scene who heard multiple explosions.
(See my earlier post from the NYPD officer at WTC7.)


Very likely. Items like AC compressors explode in fire. Now. Is there evidence of explosions with the force to cut steel columns. Especially for the exterior columns right at the windows and facade?



According to Thomas Sullivan, a controlled demolition expert:
"We are not talking about setting off a bomb here. The amount and type of explosives is an art and collateral damage can often be completely avoided."


If you can use items like tarps, traps, and water barrels to capture demolitions shrapnel for a building properly set up.




If the perpetrators of a controlled explosions scenario used remote wireless detonators and RDX explosive cutter charges (which are completely consumed when they go off) OR thermite self-consuming cutter charge casings, there isn't going to be physical evidence.


Back to the exterior columns. With no sparking and flashing visible at the windows. No visible action from a shockwave with the force to cut steel columns. For cutting charges, no visible breaching/melting of the façade.

Then you have to get past wiring and detonation systems surviving hours of fires.


All valid points, to be sure.

Thomas Sullivan again, when asked to explain how such a demolition could have been conducted:

"Looking at the building it wouldn't be a problem--once you gain access to the elevator shafts...then a team of expert loaders would have hidden access to the core columns and beams. The rest can be accomplished with just the right kind of explosions for the job. Thermite can be used as well." (Marrs p.101 to 111)

No det cords laying around w/the wireless detonators.

"Unlike the Twin Towers, which collapsed from the top down, WTC7 collapsed form the bottom up, the classic form of a typical building demolition."


edit on 10-9-2019 by Gandalf77 because: Typo



posted on Sep, 10 2019 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Gandalf77

Then AE truth claimed the fires were no hotter than normal office fires? Is that false? I guess that rules out floor to floor, column to column thermite fueled fires that burn at 3000 Fahrenheit?



posted on Sep, 10 2019 @ 02:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Gandalf77

Then AE truth claimed the fires were no hotter than normal office fires? Is that false? I guess that rules out floor to floor, column to column thermite fueled fires that burn at 3000 Fahrenheit?


I can't speak for everything AE Truth did or didn't claim.
Were they just talking about the temps of the fires that were reported (office fires), or did they specifically consider/mention the types of fires that would be used to cut columns (thermite, etc.)?



posted on Sep, 10 2019 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: mrthumpy

A joke? Maybe, but I don't get it. It's kinda odd that you and Mick West would blast away the simulations and yet "somehow" think NIST did a better job. Do you guys use a different set of standards in relation to the source?

However, back to his initial questions. Do you know if he forwarded them? Those are good questions and I'd like to read the "official" response.



1) Why does figure 4.16 not show dynamic analysis of the SAP2000 model?

It doesn't? He's flabbergasted by the result of a tilted building which nearly remained intact? Dito!



2) What is the justification for static linear analysis in figure 4.14??

Vague question, but this part might provide an answer:

4.1.1 Discussion of NIST’s Progressive Collapse Simulation
During our nonlinear connection study (Section 2.1.3.2), wherein we examined NIST’s modeling of WTC 7’s structural connections and its effect on NIST’s progressive collapse simulation, we also observed that NIST’s progressive collapse simulation did not closely resemble the observed collapse. While NIST’s progressive collapse simulation does show the three key features listed above, it also predicts significant differential movements in the exterior, both before and during the fall of the roofline, that were not observed in the video (see Figures 4.1a and 4.1b). Such differential movements in the exterior would be extremely likely to have caused window breakage, cracking of the façade, and exterior deformation, none of which were observed. A major goal of our analysis was to identify failure mechanisms that would predict the minimal differential movement of the exterior seen in videos of the collapse.

P. 103 in the PDF



3) What is the animation in 4.24 derived from, because it looks like it was done by hand.

Figure 4.24 shows the UAF simulation side-by-side with the two videos of the collapse.



4) Why do you continue to confuse NIST's ANSYS model with their LS-DYNA model, as in Figure 2.5? (pages 29 and 30)

They don't.

In the NIST investigation, ANSYS was used to model local failures and LS-DYNA was used to model large-scale collapse. When column buckling appeared to be imminent in ANSYS, the analyses were continued in the LS-DYNA 47-story model (NIST, 2008, NCSTAR 1-9, Vol. 2).

P. 38 in the PDF



5) Why focus on Girder A2001 collapse when NIST did not use that in their global collapse analysis.

Ask NIST why they didn't because they should have.

According to NIST, the initiating failure occurred at the connection between Column 79 and girder A2001 at Floor 13 due to a relative displacement of girder A2001 of 6.25 inches.

P. 82 in the PDF



posted on Sep, 10 2019 @ 03:17 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

The study wasn't designed to eliminate all of our follow-up questions and the structural analysis looks solid thus far. I'd like to focus on that part if you don't mind.



posted on Sep, 10 2019 @ 04:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Gandalf77

Thousands of wireless detonators. In the RF hell that is Manhattan. Yeah, okay.



posted on Sep, 10 2019 @ 04:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Gandalf77

Yea, I get that point and you are quite correct but my best guess is that sadly, we will never know or be told the whole truth. I am not a conspiracy nut, I do believe the air craft brought down the two towers, or at least started the process. I also suspect however that something more was at play in their final demise.



posted on Sep, 10 2019 @ 05:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Gandalf77

Thousands of wireless detonators. In the RF hell that is Manhattan. Yeah, okay.


Thousands? I'm no demo expert, but I'm pretty sure that number isn't going to be in the thousands.



posted on Sep, 10 2019 @ 09:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Gandalf77

For a controlled demolition, yeah, thousands.



posted on Sep, 10 2019 @ 09:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Gandalf77

For a controlled demolition, yeah, thousands.


Interesting.
From what I’ve read, isn’t it fair to assume a 1:1 ratio—1 detonator per charge/bundle of explosives? Or is that not typically the case?
Also, after they calculate how much explosive they need for a given material and thickness, can it typically take more than one bundle per column?
I’m just curious why it would take thousands of detonators.



posted on Sep, 10 2019 @ 11:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: frugal
I can give you $130,000 answer from Clemson University where my son just graduated with a masters in Civil Engineering, in one year. He is not from a foreign country like most of the masters kids were. Just straight up moral hardworking intellectual American. My son told me that the building was not designed to have a plane crash into it and be held up. The heat of the fire after impact further caused building number one to collapse. The second and third building fell because the earth was shaking from building number one collapsing. Just like a major earth quake. These kids design buildings, bridges, tunnels, etc. to be structural. It's real simple in his mathematical mind filled with laws of physics what went on there.


Right. So your son is smarter than the people that engineered all of those buildings.

Go get bent.



posted on Sep, 11 2019 @ 12:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: mrthumpy

A joke? Maybe, but I don't get it. It's kinda odd that you and Mick West would blast away the simulations and yet "somehow" think NIST did a better job. Do you guys use a different set of standards in relation to the source?

However, back to his initial questions. Do you know if he forwarded them? Those are good questions and I'd like to read the "official" response.



1) Why does figure 4.16 not show dynamic analysis of the SAP2000 model?

It doesn't? He's flabbergasted by the result of a tilted building which nearly remained intact? Dito!



2) What is the justification for static linear analysis in figure 4.14??

Vague question, but this part might provide an answer:

4.1.1 Discussion of NIST’s Progressive Collapse Simulation
During our nonlinear connection study (Section 2.1.3.2), wherein we examined NIST’s modeling of WTC 7’s structural connections and its effect on NIST’s progressive collapse simulation, we also observed that NIST’s progressive collapse simulation did not closely resemble the observed collapse. While NIST’s progressive collapse simulation does show the three key features listed above, it also predicts significant differential movements in the exterior, both before and during the fall of the roofline, that were not observed in the video (see Figures 4.1a and 4.1b). Such differential movements in the exterior would be extremely likely to have caused window breakage, cracking of the façade, and exterior deformation, none of which were observed. A major goal of our analysis was to identify failure mechanisms that would predict the minimal differential movement of the exterior seen in videos of the collapse.

P. 103 in the PDF



3) What is the animation in 4.24 derived from, because it looks like it was done by hand.

Figure 4.24 shows the UAF simulation side-by-side with the two videos of the collapse.



4) Why do you continue to confuse NIST's ANSYS model with their LS-DYNA model, as in Figure 2.5? (pages 29 and 30)

They don't.

In the NIST investigation, ANSYS was used to model local failures and LS-DYNA was used to model large-scale collapse. When column buckling appeared to be imminent in ANSYS, the analyses were continued in the LS-DYNA 47-story model (NIST, 2008, NCSTAR 1-9, Vol. 2).

P. 38 in the PDF



5) Why focus on Girder A2001 collapse when NIST did not use that in their global collapse analysis.

Ask NIST why they didn't because they should have.

According to NIST, the initiating failure occurred at the connection between Column 79 and girder A2001 at Floor 13 due to a relative displacement of girder A2001 of 6.25 inches.

P. 82 in the PDF


Yes it's a joke. Applying a static analysis to a dynamic situation and then just manually animating the simulation



posted on Sep, 11 2019 @ 07:57 AM
link   
a reply to: frugal
if your son the engineer said that, im gonna need a list of everything he works on so i can avoid it. no real engineer will ever say a jet hit a building. the fire from the jet fuel melted the beams evenly all the way around the building. causing a precision drop. while that was happening the jet fuel magically didnt melt the glass and pour out the window. who needs physics and engineering degrees when gravity calls bs on the matter



posted on Sep, 11 2019 @ 10:28 AM
link   
a reply to: mrthumpy

Here we go again, straight from debunking to mythology. Also, buildings never topple to the side and always behave like a house of cards cuz... err... physics!

Cool. Ask him if he has the balls to forward his ... "questions", I'd doubt it.
edit on 11-9-2019 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2019 @ 10:51 AM
link   
www.controlled-demolition.com...a reply to: Gandalf77


33 story building needed 4,118 charges. So, that would be 4,118 separate, wireless detonators.



posted on Sep, 11 2019 @ 10:11 PM
link   
why are you concerned ? its part of making america great again







 
16
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join