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: 5
16
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 12 2019 @ 01:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
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.


I don't doubt that he will. Whether he or any other debunker will be allowed to ask questions like this remains to be seen




posted on Sep, 12 2019 @ 09:17 AM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

George Noory had this as a topic and an author that questioned the official narrative of what happened. A man claiming to be a federal agent called in and asked how it was possible to set off charges with feds in the building. The author stated the obvious, it was the feds that did it. And then he repeated that Building Seven was the place where records were kept of financial investigations of Wall Street companies that were being done. How convenient.



posted on Sep, 12 2019 @ 01:15 PM
link   
a reply to: mrthumpy

They've asked for constructive criticism, not for comprehension issues and giggles.

a reply to: Dutchowl

He posted in this thread as well.

Nah, that's a joke. Wait. Is it?
However, let's try not to speculate about a clip behind some paywall.




posted on Sep, 12 2019 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: cardinalfan0596

That is not what your linked article states. Relevant portions:


No structural drawings of the facility were available, making the structural analysis and implosion design a formidable task for CDI.

CDI had to sever the steel in the columns and create a delay system which could simultaneously control the failure of the building's 12 different structural configurations, while trying to keep the hundreds of thousands of tons of debris within the 420 ft. by 220 ft. footprint of the structure. CDI needed structural data to complete its design. Under CDI direction, NASDI/Homrich's 21 man crew needed 3 months to investigate the structure and 4 months to complete preparations per CDI's implosion design.

In 24 days, CDI's 12 person loading crew placed 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on 9 levels of the structure. Over 36,000 ft. of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay devices were installed in CDI's implosion initiation system.

Hudson's is the tallest building ever imploded, eclipsing the record also held by CDI since 1975

At 439 ft. tall, Hudson's is the tallest structural steel building ever imploded, eclipsing the record CDI set in 1997


No mention of "thousands of RF detonators", only det-cord and non-electric delay devices.



posted on Sep, 12 2019 @ 01:59 PM
link   
a reply to: LightSpeedDriver

See for context of discussion?



www.abovetopsecret.com...

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, 12 2019 @ 02:20 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

My bad, but why would it have to be RF operated? Wasn't that just an example? Besides, avoiding RF interference is trivial. Use a frequency that civilian devices can't or don't use.

ETA Judging by the amount of det-cord used, there were no 4500+ RF detonators at work.
edit on 12/9/19 by LightSpeedDriver because: ETA



posted on Sep, 12 2019 @ 02:30 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

Except when you find spheres with weird chemical compositions in the dust. But that would be a whole different topic as well, and you won't like the study they've added for context.

However. Thing is, we can see parts of the NIST simulation now. Right? Could you explain why it doesn't match the actual collapse but the other does? Are you on the "hand-tailored" pseudo-simulation bandwagon as well or what's your angle?

Just curious.



posted on Sep, 12 2019 @ 02:37 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion


Where is the NIST report does it say it’s nothing more than a best guess?

Then how many components were in WTC 7?

I would say it is part of a dynamic model. The ability to predict final outcome is a function of error and uncertainty added from each additional structure failure, and each collision of structural elements.


edit on 12-9-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Sep, 12 2019 @ 02:45 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

The “microspheres” has been discussed at length. The forming of microspheres is not exclusive to thermite and high temperatures. Microspheres can be produced in hydrocarbon fires, steel colliding with steel, and processes of welding and grinding.

How were the columns of the WTC assembled? That process wouldn’t “contaminate” the area with microspheres.



posted on Sep, 12 2019 @ 02:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: LightSpeedDriver
a reply to: neutronflux

My bad, but why would it have to be RF operated? Wasn't that just an example? Besides, avoiding RF interference is trivial. Use a frequency that civilian devices can't or don't use.

ETA Judging by the amount of det-cord used, there were no 4500+ RF detonators at work.


One response to the controlled demo theory has been that it would have taken a long time to set everything up, and there would have been wires, etc. visible all over the place--both of which are legitimate points under normal circumstances--i.e., if a commercial demo crew came in and set all of that up. It's also been pointed out that there would be physical evidence of that kind of setup after the explosion, which is also a very valid point.

A response to the "wires everywhere" point goes like this:
Handheld RF detonators have been around for sometime; so have casing-consuming explosives like RDX and thermite. (Those types of explosives and detonators are expensive and exotic for sure.)

Now there likely would be physical evidence after the fact if something like RDX or thermite was used--burns, melted materials, possible chemical residue, etc.
One response to that is how poorly the crime scene was handled. FEMA arrived the day before the attacks to conduct a war game exercise; they took command and had the WTC debris rapidly removed which prevented later forensic studies--contrary to criminal code requirements around crime scene evidence preservation for purposes of forensic anaysis.

edit on 12-9-2019 by Gandalf77 because: typo



posted on Sep, 12 2019 @ 02:47 PM
link   
Won't stir pot
edit on 9/12/2019 by AlexandrosTheGreat because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2019 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Gandalf77



Handheld RF detonators have been around for sometime;

Nothing using RF is 100% immune to to interference.
If you need several hundred charges to go off in a specific order, you are talking about a lot of RF devices to stake your life on against accidental detonation.
Then you have to consider signal strength for each device.
Remember steel buildings block RF. The opposite side of the building might be a dead spot.

I'll bet RF detonation is only used in rare circumstances just because of reliability.



posted on Sep, 12 2019 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: PurpleFox

It is. Look at the design and go find another that large. You won't. WTC 1 and 2 were very unique.

WTC7 had already had construction to add the upper floors. Do your own research and it will help you find the answers.



posted on Sep, 12 2019 @ 03:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: Gandalf77



Handheld RF detonators have been around for sometime;

Nothing using RF is 100% immune to to interference.
If you need several hundred charges to go off in a specific order, you are talking about a lot of RF devices to stake your life on against accidental detonation.
Then you have to consider signal strength for each device.
Remember steel buildings block RF. The opposite side of the building might be a dead spot.

I'll bet RF detonation is only used in rare circumstances just because of reliability.



Those are good points you make.
Where the handheld RF detonators angle is concerned, such hardware would likely be military grade, perhaps even classified. I hesitate to speculate on the capabilities and limitations for obvious reasons. Interference, signal strength, location--all potential challenges in such a scenario.



posted on Sep, 12 2019 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Gandalf77

Based on what evidence would someone suspect RDX or thermite was suspect when there is no physical evidence of RDX or thermite.



posted on Sep, 12 2019 @ 03:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Gandalf77

Based on what evidence would someone suspect RDX or thermite was suspect when there is no physical evidence of RDX or thermite.


That's one of the big challenges here: the evidence was hauled off before it could be analyzed.
It's merely been suggested that RDX or thermite would be good examples of casing-consuming explosives.



posted on Sep, 12 2019 @ 04:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Gandalf77

No, it was not all hauled off. In fact, much of the wreckage could be and was found in areas sent around the country for memorials and/or storage.

There was no remote detonation to bring down those buildings. No evidence to support it either. I understand it is around the time of 9/11 and these things pop back up but if you want to look into real cover-ups look into 93 or Flight 587.



posted on Sep, 12 2019 @ 04:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Gandalf77

For explosives argument.

When explosives are detonated, there is no confusion. It’s quite clear and recognizable.

If explosives with the force to cut steel detonated, there would be audible echos of the detentions about the remaining buildings.

There would be flashes.

There would be shockwaves.

There would be demolitions shrapnel hurled hundreds of feet.

Below. What happens when an implosion is not properly prepared to contain demolition shrapnel.


Katie Bender's family commemorate 20 years since Royal Canberra Hospital implosion

www.canberratimes.com.au...

Katie was was killed instantly by a steel fragment sent flying from 430 metres across the lake. It was thought to be travelling at 140km/h.




Canberra Hospital Implosion 1997
m.youtube.com...




Flying Demolition Debris Nearly Hits Spectators
m.youtube.com...

edit on 12-9-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Sep, 12 2019 @ 05:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: Gandalf77

No, it was not all hauled off. In fact, much of the wreckage could be and was found in areas sent around the country for memorials and/or storage.

There was no remote detonation to bring down those buildings. No evidence to support it either. I understand it is around the time of 9/11 and these things pop back up but if you want to look into real cover-ups look into 93 or Flight 587.


Yes, that's a good point about the memorials. Thanks for pointing that out. I didn't mean to imply "all" of the debris; that would be next to impossible. And certainly there has been some material analysis. The main point is that FEMA's actions may have inhibited later investigative analysis/efforts. From what I've read, NYC officials had every debris truck tracked on GPS.

edit on 12-9-2019 by Gandalf77 because: clarification



posted on Sep, 12 2019 @ 05:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Gandalf77

For explosives argument.

When explosives are detonated, there is no confusion. It’s quite clear and recognizable.

If explosives with the force to cut steel detonated, there would be audible echos of the detentions about the remaining buildings.

There would be flashes.

There would be shockwaves.

There would be demolitions shrapnel hurled hundreds of feet.

Below. What happens when an implosion is not properly prepared to contain demolition shrapnel.


The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) claims in its WTC 7 FAQs that “no blast sounds were heard on audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses.” 1 However, both audio recordings and eyewitness accounts of explosions during the destruction of WTC 7 contradict NIST’s claim. Although there are not nearly as many eyewitness accounts of explosions in WTC 7 as in WTC 1 and WTC 2, there are a handful of accounts that strongly suggest explosions occurred immediately before and during WTC 7’s destruction. These include: Craig Bartmer, former NYPD officer: “[A]ll of a sudden...I looked up, and... [t]he thing started peeling in on itself.... I started running...and the whole time you’re hearing “thume, thume, thume, thume, thume.” I think I know an explosion when I hear it.” 2 First-year NYU medical student identified as Darryl: “[W]e heard this sound that sounded like a clap of thunder.... [T]urned around — we were shocked.... [I]t looked like there was a shockwave ripping through the building and the windows all busted out.... [A]bout a second later the bottom floor caved out and the building followed after that.” 3 Kevin McPadden, unaffiliated, volunteer first responder: “And then it was like another two, three seconds, you heard explosions. Like BA-BOOOOOM! And it’s like a distinct sound...BA-BOOOOOM! And you felt a rumble in the ground, like, almost like you wanted to grab onto something.” 4



These eyewitness accounts are corroborated by MSNBC video footage of reporter Ashleigh Banfield several blocks north of WTC 7. In the video, she hears a loud sound, turns her attention to WTC 7, and says, “Oh my god.... This is it.” 5 About seven seconds after she hears the loud sound, WTC 7 collapses. As David Chandler observes in the video WTC 7: Sound Evidence for Explosions: “There were two blasts, followed by seven more regularly spaced all in two and a half seconds. Craig Bartmer’s testimony may come to mind: ‘The whole time you’re hearing “thume, thume, thume, thume, thume.”’.... “When we hear the sharp, regular series of sounds in the background, the building has not yet started to fall. When we hear the reporter say, “This is it,” the building has not yet started to fall.... The blasts we heard occurred seconds before the building started to fall.” In addition to eyewitness accounts of explosions at the time of WTC 7’s destruction, there were eye-witness accounts from two men — Michael Hess (Corporation Counsel for the City of New York) and Barry Jennings (Deputy Director of Emergency Services at the New York City Housing Authority) — who reported experiencing an explosion and smoke in a stairway in the northeast part of WTC 7 prior to the collapse of WTC 1 at 10:28 AM.6 It has been claimed that what Hess and Jennings experienced was the result of debris from WTC 1 impacting WTC 7. However, this claim is not plausible, as Hess and Jennings were in a stairway at the opposite end of WTC 7 (northeast) from where debris impacted the building (southwest), and their account indicates that the explosion and smoke they witnessed occurred before the collapse of WTC 1.7


www.ae911truth.org...



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join