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.

 

What happened to WTC 7 again?

page: 12
0
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 12:40 PM
link   
No, I was not thinking demolition, no one was. It was a description of what it looked like, not what it was.

As far as loss of life, when it collpased I was glad there was no more loss of life(no firefighters, workers, etc) . What if the damage had been morer severe?

And, If you had a BIC lighter and you ignited the reserve fuel in WTC 7, yes, then you could burn down a building, and that is what is mentioned as a great factor.




posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 12:57 PM
link   
Anyone who has seen WTC 7 come down and believe it was NOT demoed, is in serious denial.




I can't find the larger gif of this, if I do I will post it up.



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
No, I was not thinking demolition, no one was. It was a description of what it looked like, not what it was.



I gotta jump in here.

That is a BLATANT lie! Dan Rather and Peter Jennings, THAT DAY, said it looked like a controlled demolition! I agree with fm, if you can look at WTC7 and not think demo, you are in serious denial.



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 10:16 AM
link   
It looked like a structural collapse to me.

No one has yet provided any proof that a structural failure, with no “demo” involved, would have looked any different than it did.




[edit on 4-4-2006 by HowardRoark]



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
It looked like a structural collapse to me.

No one has yet provided any proof that a structural failure, with no “demo” involved, would have looked any different than it did.




[edit on 4-4-2006 by HowardRoark]


Please link or show a video of a building (any building) that is collapsing from structural failure. The 'pancake theory' is an affront to anyone with the smallest working knowledge of physics. WTC fell at near free fall speed, 10 stories A SECOND!! Picture that in your mind, 10 STORIES A SECOND, this would only be possible if it had NO RESISTANCE on the way down.

In a non bizarro world, each floor as it collapsed would be slowed down by the RESISTANCE of the floor below it. It would also not explain why the steel core fell with it. The pancake theory would still have those massive steel beams sticking straight up.

[edit on 4-4-2006 by fm258]



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by fm258
Please link or show a video of a building (any building) that is collapsing from structural failure.


Isn’t that your job? To provide proof of your claims?



Originally posted by fm258The 'pancake theory' is an affront to anyone with the smallest working knowledge of physics. WTC fell at near free fall speed, 10 stories A SECOND!! Picture that in your mind, 10 STORIES A SECOND, this would only be possible if it had NO RESISTANCE on the way down.


Anyone with a basic knowledge of structural engineering has no problem with the speed of the collapse.


Originally posted by fm258In a non bizarro world, each floor as it collapsed would be slowed down by the RESISTANCE of the floor below it. It would also not explain why the steel core fell with it. The pancake theory would still have those massive steel beams sticking straight up.

[edit on 4-4-2006 by fm258]


Well there’s proof that you have no understanding of how buildings stand up.

What makes you thing that the core of any of the WTC buildings was would not have collapsed?



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark


Originally posted by fm258The 'pancake theory' is an affront to anyone with the smallest working knowledge of physics. WTC fell at near free fall speed, 10 stories A SECOND!! Picture that in your mind, 10 STORIES A SECOND, this would only be possible if it had NO RESISTANCE on the way down.


Anyone with a basic knowledge of structural engineering has no problem with the speed of the collapse.


howard, one only needs first year newtonian mechanics to KNOW that a building offers resistance(enough to hold up several buildings of the same mass), and that it takes time to do work.

anyway, you're either ignorant or lying. let me enlighten you with this thread:....how they rigged the towers, authored by a structural engineer.



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Anyone with a basic knowledge of structural engineering has no problem with the speed of the collapse.


First, you're generalizing, and second, structural engineers don't study how buildings are supposed to fall.



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 03:28 PM
link   
First, you are right, I was generalizing, just like our friend fm258

Anyone who has seen WTC 7 come down and believe it was NOT demoed, is in serious denial.


Second, Yes they do.

Forensic engineering, and understanding how and why structures fail is a key part of engineering.

www.matscieng.sunysb.edu...

The only way to know what works and what doesn’t is by studying the failures



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 03:40 PM
link   
So you're saying that structural engineers and forensic engineers are the same thing, Howard?

Btw, starting with a conclusion of "pancake collapse" and working backwards for proof isn't something I think many forensic engineers are taught, Howie.



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 03:50 PM
link   
They can be, that is like stating a lawyer can only choose family or criminal, and not both.

The WTC fell at freefall speeds because there was nothing to stop it once the collapse initiated. It was more than 90% air, or open space if you will. The floors were suspended by the inner and outer columns which were damaged and the ballance of weight shifted. This caused more distirbution to the remiaing columns which led to collapse. Why is this so hard to understand?

Steel did not need to melt, it just needed to be weakened. Oh, and where is that controlled demo evidence, and don't point out that lame video amymore.



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka

Originally posted by esdad71
No, I was not thinking demolition, no one was. It was a description of what it looked like, not what it was.



I gotta jump in here.

That is a BLATANT lie! Dan Rather and Peter Jennings, THAT DAY, said it looked like a controlled demolition! I agree with fm, if you can look at WTC7 and not think demo, you are in serious denial.


I agree also or you are in on the deal some how.

What isn't getting a lot of mention in here is the expertise in the military, special ops and even the fricking NYFD when it comes to explosives.

The skeptics just dismiss the fact that this building could have been demoed by the best there is out there in the entire world!!

Maybe they do know this??



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 03:51 PM
link   
No, I’m saying that a primary function of all structural engineers is to understand the limitations of the structures that they design.

To do that, they have to understand the failure modes.



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 04:01 PM
link   
To truth and deny,

Look, I am not in denial. I am bieng honest. I have relatives who live and work in NY. The LAST Freakin thing I was thinking was,
'I think that was a demolition'. Please don't call me a lair, and I won't call you ignorant. Sound good.

It was described by some reporters that it fell like a demolitioned building. Now, how come it is you will believe that part of journalism, but nothing else. Why, because it fits your arguement. Neither of the journalists you mentioned would come forward now and state that it was a demolition, because they know better.

I am not in denial, I have just accepted the truth which you cannot handle. We were attacked and we could not stop it.



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
The WTC fell at freefall speeds because there was nothing to stop it once the collapse initiated.


So you're saying that the whole building failed at once, and not floor by floor?

Because if it collapsed floor by floor, then what you're saying here is wrong, because there would have been resistance the whole way down, even between floors. Resistance would have slowed the collapse speed.


It was more than 90% air, or open space if you will.


So you think the area inside the buildings takes precedence over mass here?

I think you'll agree 90% of the buildings' masses were not air. And area doesn't resist a collapse. Area is a measure of space.


The floors were suspended by the inner and outer columns which were damaged and the ballance of weight shifted. This caused more distirbution to the remiaing columns which led to collapse. Why is this so hard to understand?


Because no collapse should have resulted from the amount of damage those buildings sustained.

They were built to survive a jet impact, and did.

But then fires came. I cannot seriously entertain that those fires heated any steel to beyond 600 degrees Celsius, and you have not provided any evidence of this anyway. Nor has anyone.



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
No, I’m saying that a primary function of all structural engineers is to understand the limitations of the structures that they design.

To do that, they have to understand the failure modes.


But not all structural engineers are also forensic engineers. I doubt very many are both, and a physicist would have much more authority over such an issue as collapse speed anyway. Engineering is based on physics. If anyone could compile the numbers, and figure the impulse and etc., it would be a physicist.


Originally posted by Esdad71
I am not in denial, I have just accepted the truth which you cannot handle. We were attacked and we could not stop it.


Would you quit making assumptions that about 80 or 90% of us here just can't believe the US is vulnerable? If our government orchestrated this, it would be a lot worse of a scenario anyway dude.



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 06:17 PM
link   
They are actaully designed to withstand a jet that is 'lost for landing' if the situation arose. This was supposed to be a 707 going approximately 170 mph, typical landing speed and not a 767 going 550 mph.



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
They are actaully designed to withstand a jet that is 'lost for landing' if the situation arose. This was supposed to be a 707 going approximately 170 mph, typical landing speed and not a 767 going 550 mph.


Aside from you failing to address most everything else I just said, do you know what happened on 9/11?

The Towers were hit by planes and still stood for a good while. Much longer than it would've taken for gravity to take effect if the buildings had already been sufficiently weakened by the impacts.

Therefore the buildings could both withstand impacts. Again, NIST and everyone else pins the critical damage mainly upon fire, and you have yet to prove there was sufficient heating to a sufficient amount of steel for the collapse to even initiate.



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
To truth and deny,

It was described by some reporters that it fell like a demolitioned building. Now, how come it is you will believe that part of journalism, but nothing else. Why, because it fits your arguement. Neither of the journalists you mentioned would come forward now and state that it was a demolition, because they know better.

I am not in denial, I have just accepted the truth which you cannot handle. We were attacked and we could not stop it.


Look...

You said that NO ONE was thinking controlled demolition when WTC 7 collapsed. I just pointed out TWO PEOPLE, not to mention countless others watching it happen. I would say you were ignorant of this, but since you talked about the reporters, you did know and thus are a liar.

It doesn't matter if they later didn't believe it was demoed; what matters is that they INITIALLY thought demolition. That was the question posed to you, and you outright lied and said no one thought this. Not saying you're a compulsive liar, but you clearly lied about this.



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 08:29 PM
link   
Someone asked earlier "why don't they just examine the STEEL to find out what happened/caused it to fail? " (paraphrased) ..good question, why was the Biggest Crime Scene in history shipped to China before anyone had a chance to examine it Thoroughly. Any information I've ever read on this matter said the investigators were very limited on access to the material...WHY?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join