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: 19
0
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by iamjman
Also,

The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes
(NIST, 2005; p. 179)

and yet... NIST also reported that pockets of fire hit 1832°F. This is because their computer models showed that the fire would have had to have been this hot to just initiate a collapse.


And yet people say the NIST report didn't start off with a conclusion, and work backwards from there?




posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Is an asinine statement because there is no precedent for buildings globally collapsing like the WTC Towers did. Saying what is likely or unlikely here is based on absolutely nothing but personal opinion.


Just like you've never claimed a personal opinion as a fact, right?





posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
Man, please.

You've been running your mouth all through this thread talking about planes hitting buildings. Do you deny this?

Why would I deny it? Yeah I have been...
IN RESPONSE TO OTHERS TALKING ABOUT IT!!!! Do you deny this?


iam:

This means that the towers were just fine after the plane hit, and they could tell that this was so because of the building's oscillations. Longer periods would mean a less stable tower, but this was not the case.

"just fine?"
lol, no it means they weren't in danger of collapsing immediately (or at all if the fires hadn't lasted that long)



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 11:48 AM
link   
It's funny.

ShadowXIX was all over my ass for me saying there were "squibs" popping out on bldg 7. He was calling me ignorant and saying demo people would laugh at me if I called them squibs.

THEN, when I stopped calling them squibs, he got all hush mouth. And, he NEVER explained what these things were. He was SO smug when calling me an ignoramus about squibs, but when I described them, there were no more ignorant comments.

Typical response from official story supporters. Find a straw man, attack it, and call you ignorant; just have a look at the "Pentagon admits fabricating Zarqawi Legend" thread. All they could do for the first 4 pages was attack the original title of the thread. Killer tactics.




posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 01:26 PM
link   
What part of "considerable reserve capacity" don't you understand, thatsjustweird? Don't let the flashy fireballs or the screaming people fool you, the towers were swaying around almost as if they weren't damaged because they weren't that damaged. King Kong could have climbed up those towers right then and there and everything would have still been fine.



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 02:07 PM
link   
What are you basing that opinion on, iamjman?

There was considerable photographic documentation of the damage to the exterior columns, and internal floor slabs.

While the exact extent of the damage to the core will never be known, even the most conservative “best case” analysis indicates that there was severe damage to these columns.

That there was damage to the core area IS supported by the fact that the stairwells were blocked with debris and a number of elevator cables were cut.

There is clear and indisputable evidence of the progress of the fires through the building after the impacts.

There is clear photographic evidence that the exterior walls of the building started to buckle inward shortly before each building collapsed.







[edit on 25-4-2006 by HowardRoark]



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 02:38 PM
link   
Howard,

I'm still waiting for you to show enough buckled columns for a collapse to initiate. A few here and there won't cut it.

That's BEFORE a collapse, too. Not after the building has already started tilting -- then columns are obviously going to be buckled.


So, still waiting for evidence of what you and NIST are suggesting.



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 02:58 PM
link   
Anyways.......anyone heard about the fact that one floor in building 7 was given new reinforced windows and its own air supply in the weeks before 9/11?



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 04:45 PM
link   
That's probably where the entire operation was staged from. Then they demo'd the building to hide all the evidence. I was already thinking this but now I really gotta check up on that window/air stuff.



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 05:26 PM
link   
For you people to think that the NIST report was staged is just pure laughable. If it was, youd have ACI, ASCE, ASI and many other engineering societies calling them out. We take our professions very seriously, and if our major organizations didnt feel that the report was correct, youd hear about it no doubts. The major problem you conspiracy buffs have is that you have no background in this topic and your theories are dismissed instantly because the errors in your reasonings are beyond response. First have a clue before you start using descriptions such as"Defying the laws of Physics".

Heres a hint to help you, buildings are 95% air, they are not cross-sectioanlly stiff solid like a tree, so why would you expect the tops to topple over like a tree being cut down. Do you know why those trees tip over compared to why the towers smashed there way through themselves?

Heres another hint, stop saying collapsed onto themselves, because this is an utter lie. We all know the debris was scattered for many square city blocks.

We would enjoy your debate much more if you didnt supply pure lies and try to spin them to make it fit the bill. If there is substantial evidence contrary to NIST that doesnt border on insanity, then present it, otherwise, you wont get any meaningful people to listen to you.

Trying to help here, not be a d*ck.

Train



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigTrain
Heres a hint to help you, buildings are 95% air, they are not cross-sectioanlly stiff solid like a tree, so why would you expect the tops to topple over like a tree being cut down. Do you know why those trees tip over compared to why the towers smashed there way through themselves?

Heres another hint, stop saying collapsed onto themselves, because this is an utter lie. We all know the debris was scattered for many square city blocks.


I just love ppl who claim others know nothing when in fact they appear to know nothing themselvs.

You only have to look at other building collapses to know you first point is so wrong.
If you were to cut out 95% of the tree leaving a center core and an outside frame it still would not collapse down on itself if you cut a section out near the top.

Look at the Oklahoma Federal Building for a good example of how building collapse when only damaged on on side. It falls neither like a tree or like a demoed building.



And no the debris did not scatter for many city blocks.

WTC 7...no comment needed.



Do you see the difference?



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigTrain
For you people to think that the NIST report was staged is just pure laughable. If it was, youd have ACI, ASCE, ASI and many other engineering societies calling them out. We take our professions very seriously, and if our major organizations didnt feel that the report was correct, youd hear about it no doubts. The major problem you conspiracy buffs have is that you have no background in this topic and your theories are dismissed instantly because the errors in your reasonings are beyond response. First have a clue before you start using descriptions such as"Defying the laws of Physics".

Heres a hint to help you, buildings are 95% air, they are not cross-sectioanlly stiff solid like a tree, so why would you expect the tops to topple over like a tree being cut down. Do you know why those trees tip over compared to why the towers smashed there way through themselves?

Heres another hint, stop saying collapsed onto themselves, because this is an utter lie. We all know the debris was scattered for many square city blocks.

We would enjoy your debate much more if you didnt supply pure lies and try to spin them to make it fit the bill. If there is substantial evidence contrary to NIST that doesnt border on insanity, then present it, otherwise, you wont get any meaningful people to listen to you.

Trying to help here, not be a d*ck.

Train


Train just quote from the NIST or FEMA report any of what you said, and I'll keep my keyboard quiet. EVERYTHING in the NIST reprort is hypothesized (except of course the possibility of a controlled demolition scenario - they made a point NOT to consider that). Review my post about that report and you will see I am right (I'd be happy to be proved wrong so I could let this go). NIST DOESN'T KNOW what caused WTC7 to fall - that's why there's NO FINAL REPORT. Geez I've asked at least 3 times to have the NIST and/or FEMA reports cited for some semblance of what the non-CDers have been arguing and I don't even get so much as flamed. As far as I'm concerned you non-CDer types are CRAZIER than us CD folks because we don't have the government resources to aid our argument.

I'd suggest if you can help solve this problem officially, with evidence provided by the people who have/had access to it, then you should call them and offer your services. Otherwise I'd be careful of what you say because when the report does go final, and it's assessment doesn't match yours, it'll be egg on your face. I don't have that worry, as I am confident that neither NIST or FEMA will find the collapse of WTC 7 was caused by a controlled demolition event.

JT



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigTrain
For you people to think that the NIST report was staged is just pure laughable.


It wouldn't have to be "staged." They started with a conclusion and worked within it: the collapses were natural. That prevents any real investigation right from the start. You can even look to their modeling, where, instead of realizing that collapse from fire was extremely improbable, they just kept cranking up the temperatures to find what would've been necessary for collapse initiation and therefore unquestionably happened according to their logic. They also failed to analyze the collapses beyond the first collapsing floors, ie, the initiation.


Heres a hint to help you, buildings are 95% air


Here's a hint to help you: the relevant measurement here would be MASS, not AREA. 95% of the weights of towers would not have been air. Common sense.


they are not cross-sectioanlly stiff solid like a tree, so why would you expect the tops to topple over like a tree being cut down.


Because falling straight down would provide the absolute maximum resistance possible. This is an indisputable fact, making the collapses thermodynamically inefficient, and considering how easy it would've been to lopside during collapse (consult a demo engineer on what it takes to lopside a falling building), really unlikely. And to fall straight down does not automatically ensure a global collapse, especially when you only have 13 floors falling on 97 more (WTC1).


Heres another hint, stop saying collapsed onto themselves, because this is an utter lie. We all know the debris was scattered for many square city blocks.


Then how was each floor crushed in your theory? Where was the mass coming from?

[edit on 25-4-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 12:16 AM
link   


And to fall straight down does not automatically ensure a global collapse, especially when you only have 13 floors falling on 97 more


Here is what is wrong with your line of thinking.

You fail to realize that the floors are the weak spot.

The individual floors are designed to support themselves, not the weight of 13 floors above impacting them.

The trusses are also designed to support laterally the beams which supported them.

As the 13 floors above impacts the floors below (keep in mind these floors are designed to support themselves) the floor itself is demolished rather easily.
Which in turn applies enormous lateral forces to the supporting beams, which would
severely damage the connection points of the supporting beams since they are designed to support mostly vertical loads. Once the floors are damaged/gone the beams have little left to support them, and would easily be knocked out by debris.



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 12:29 AM
link   
If it's just the floors that collapsed, then what happened to the inner core? Should that not have stayed standing while the floors fell around it?


The core was designed to support the entire weight of the buildings several times over. Far more than a mere "service core", it comprised of 47 steel box columns tied together at each floor by steel plates, similar to the 52" deep spandrel plates that tied the perimeter columns together. The largest of these core columns were 18"x36", with steel walls 4" thick near the base and tapering in thickness toward the top, and was anchored directly to the bedrock.



The "truss theory" is implausible. It is a fantasy concocted to conceal a demolition.


www.whatreallyhappened.com...

But anyway isn't this thread about WTC 7?



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 01:30 AM
link   


If it's just the floors that collapsed, then what happened to the inner core? Should that not have stayed standing while the floors fell around it?


Sure, I suppose if you narrowed the arguement down to that one point and forgot everthing else thats going on at the same time (something you guys are great at),
If just the floors collapsed I suppose the core possibly could remain standing.

But in reality when we look at the larger picture its not difficult to see why it didn't.

Upper floors initially hit floor below, floor gives way and travels with the rest of the debris downwards destroying the rest of the floors which removes alot of the stability of what would be remaining. We cannot forget that the initial chunk that fell was over 100 feet tall so, after the inital lower surface of the 100 foot tall piece of debris clears the floor we still have a 100 foot+ section of building following that initial impacting surface to "bat clean up". Once the floors are gone the remaining structure is nowhere near as stable.



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 05:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skibum

Upper floors initially hit floor below, floor gives way and travels with the rest of the debris downwards destroying the rest of the floors which removes alot of the stability of what would be remaining. We cannot forget that the initial chunk that fell was over 100 feet tall so, after the inital lower surface of the 100 foot tall piece of debris clears the floor we still have a 100 foot+ section of building following that initial impacting surface to "bat clean up". Once the floors are gone the remaining structure is nowhere near as stable.


Sorry this is probably going to get me another warn but I can't think of any other reply right now...WTF are you talking about, that made no sense at all.

Instead of using common sense it seems you are trying so hard to find a way to convince yourself of a natural collapse.

But anyway we're talking about WTC 7...No upper chunk that fell, no aircraft impact, small fires and minimal damage all equaled a nice meat collapse that any professional demo expert would have been proud of.



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 07:48 AM
link   
If you paid any attention to my posts in the very beginning of this thread, the posts in which people like ray and anok accused me of being some idiot, you would see I described the exact case of collapse and why the collapse looked the way they did. You keep bringing up such nonsense, as quotes like, the maximum resistance provided was straight down, and such. The answer you're looking for doesnt exist pal. Your demo theory is just way too unsubstantiated and theres absolutely not one shred of evidence.

As much as you want to believe that these buidlings should have toppled over to the side and the floors above impact would have fallen over and the rest of the building remain standing, dude, buildings are not as strong as you think they are.

Like I said before, and Ill say it for the last time, we design these structures to remain standing under static vertical loads. STATIC VERTICAL LOADS, meaning not moving.

Once that upper portion of the structure started to move, there was not nearly enough stiffness or over-strength to resist it. ABSOLUTELY no chance in hell that the bottom portion of the building could stop the momentum of the upper floors.

Train



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by BigTrain
Heres a hint to help you, buildings are 95% air, they are not cross-sectioanlly stiff solid like a tree, so why would you expect the tops to topple over like a tree being cut down. Do you know why those trees tip over compared to why the towers smashed there way through themselves?

Heres another hint, stop saying collapsed onto themselves, because this is an utter lie. We all know the debris was scattered for many square city blocks.


I just love ppl who claim others know nothing when in fact they appear to know nothing themselvs.

You only have to look at other building collapses to know you first point is so wrong.
If you were to cut out 95% of the tree leaving a center core and an outside frame it still would not collapse down on itself if you cut a section out near the top.

Look at the Oklahoma Federal Building for a good example of how building collapse when only damaged on on side. It falls neither like a tree or like a demoed building.



And no the debris did not scatter for many city blocks.

WTC 7...no comment needed.



Do you see the difference?


Anok, I just did a report on the Murrah Building and for you to even try to compare the two buildings shows your COMPLETE lack of understanding of anything.

You have no clue why the murrah building collapsed that way, yet you try to establish a basebline ad-hoc theory and try to say whats true for this is true for another. Totally different designs, materials, events. Dude, your a spin meister, and im tired of you trying to present utter FALSITIES as fact to the readers.

Transfer girder at the thrid floor failed dude, due to column G20 being blown away by brisance, go look it up! then progressive collpase ensued, which was magnified by the lack of rebar splicing. Many factors in why this building failed, nothing to do with WTC.

Train



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 02:19 PM
link   
Posted by SwitchbladeNGC in another thread.

What do we actually know about WTC building 7? We know that it was not hit by any planes, yet it collapsed several hours after the two towers fell. What else is there that is known about building 7 that may shed some light on how and why it fell?




  1. The building was built over an existing electrical substation. This required that the building be designed with an elaborate transfer truss system.



  2. There were some extensive modifications to the structure of the building. The top floors were rebuilt and a penthouse added.

  3. The building house a number of emergency generators (complete with day tanks) on several different floors. The generators were fed from four separate storage tanks – details

  4. Some of the above mentioned tanks were found to be largely empty after they were excavated. (I’m still looking for where I read that)

  5. The building was extensively damaged by falling debris from WTC 1 (read the following firefighters accounts: Boyle, hayden, Visconti

  6. There is evidence that like the towers, the sprayed on fireproofing in WTC 7 had deteriorated since the building was built.

  7. There was a clear sequence of events in the collapse that is usually ignored by the pro-demo theorists





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join