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: 20
0
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 02:54 PM
link   
Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post.

There you have it people. Offical eye witness to the damage done to wtc 7, caused by a non-uniform collapse from one of the twin towers right into wtc 7. Told you from the beginning the debris was spread several blocks and not onto its own footprint.

Train




posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 03:07 PM
link   
Anyone who thinks this looks like a controlled demo is an idiot...



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigTrain
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


Emphasis mine. Obviously you are an engineer because you said "we". Can you show me your calculations (or anyone else's for that matter...NIST, FEMA, etc. will do) for the bolded statement above? I've been trying to do some structural analysis myself but can't seem to get ahold of the construction documents....can you give me a copy of your copy? You obviously have them if you've done your own strructural analysis.



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 04:03 PM
link   
wtc.nist.gov...

[edit on 26/4/06 by Skibum]



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 04:18 PM
link   
Well, I got to page 2 before I found this.


Disclaimer No. 4
NIST takes no position as to whether the design or construction of a WTC building was compliant with any code
since, due to the destruction of the WTC buildings, NIST could not verify the actual (or as-built) construction, the
properties and condition of the materials used, or changes to the original construction made over the life of the
buildings. In addition, NIST could not verify the interpretations of codes used by applicable authorities in determining
compliance when implementing building codes. Where an Investigation report states whether a system was
designed or installed as required by a code provision, NIST has documentary or anecdotal evidence indicating
whether the requirement was met, or NIST has independently conducted tests or analyses indicating whether the
requirement was met.


Hmm...so even NIST doesn't know the as-built construction of the towers? How can they do a thorough investigation then? But, I will be reading this section. Thanks for the link.



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 04:22 PM
link   
Griff, if you are who you say you are, you should have access to any number of analysis programs which can do any calculations you desire. For shorthand calcs, go grab the standard AISC manual, 13th edition, if u have it and just follow along with the design specs for normal compression members. This is a very basic approach, and will not yield the correct answers, but you will be abloe to determine the approx. maximum buckling load for a single compression member with the given dimensions of one of the exterior columns.

You can solve this in under a minute. Then you can relate that member to the exterior face and then back calculate the missing columns and then etc etc etc. Come on dude

Train



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigTrain
Anyone who thinks this looks like a controlled demo is an idiot...


LOL and you complain about other ppl calling you an idiot?

How does that pic prove it was not demode? And again that is not building 7.

All we are seeing is the facade blowing out as the building collapses, it doesn't prove one way or the other why it collapsed.

The buildings collapse, all 3, didn't slow down. If the lower floors were still attached there would have been slowing down of the collapse.

WTC 7 foundation plan.

Source... www.whatreallyhappened.com...

So you're trying to tell me if you were to take out say 20% of the collumns on one side it would cause all the other collumns to fail at exactly the same time?

So can you explain this without just calling ppl idiots for having common sense and claiming you know because of whatever reason?


When people are scared of the truth, their mind will find anything to justify ignoring the screaming reality. If believing a lie makes you more comfortable that lie becomes the truth to you, and you will argue black is white. Anon


[edit on 26/4/2006 by ANOK]



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 04:29 PM
link   


so even NIST doesn't know the as-built construction of the towers?


They have a good idea. But they couldn't verify due to....



due to the destruction of the WTC buildings, NIST could not verify the actual (or as-built) construction, the
properties and condition of the materials used, or changes to the original construction made over the life of the
buildings. In addition, NIST could not verify the interpretations of codes used by applicable authorities in determining
compliance when implementing building codes.



Basically stating that there are things that no matter how much investigating goes on will still be unknown. You cannot verify how something is built when it was destroyed, nor can you verify the opinion about building codes(they are subject to alot of personal opinion and personal interpretations) of a building inspector 30 years ago.



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

So you're trying to tell me if you were to take out say 20% of the collumns on one side it would cause all the other collumns to fail at exactly the same time?

[edit on 26/4/2006 by ANOK]


Yes. thats exactly how it works. Why wouldnt they? Once it goes, it goes.

Train



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigTrain
Yes. thats exactly how it works. Why wouldnt they? Once it goes, it goes.


LOL you really don't know anything about buildings or physics do you?

Why wouldn't they? Why would they all fail at exactly the same time? All you can answer is why wouldn't they?


Go to school or something...


Sry but this is getting to be just silly.


SMR

posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 04:40 PM
link   
^^^

Thats funny right there I dont care who ya'r

Even if I try to imagine that happening ..... I cant.Even if I tried making it up for a movie.That makes no sense at all.Thats like a table that doesnt lean after a leg is taken out.



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 04:42 PM
link   
Thanks for the link Skibum. I'm going to look at it closer. Heck, it might even sway me one way or the other.

Big Train. I don't think it's as easy as you are saying. Plus, I'm a little rusty with structural calcs. When I was in college, the pc was just becoming popular and there wasn't an internet yet....so, I don't really know how to use the programs out there. I have SAP 2000 (I think that's what it's called). Do you know this program by chance? Or could you point me in the right direction on how to learn to use it? Or if you could give me a copy of a program that's easy to use? Not trying to pirate a program here if that's what people are thinking.



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 04:46 PM
link   


So you're trying to tell me if you were to take out say 20% of the collumns on one side it would cause all the other collumns to fail at exactly the same time?


Whos is saying they failed at the exact same time.

Take a few hours and actually read all the NIST reports instead of relying on the selectively edited and totally wrong interpretations of them all presented in a nice mind controlling package by your masters.

If you are going to try to debunk the reports at least read them and have an small idea of what they REALLY say.



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
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)


I appreciate you giving it a go Howard, but I don't see anything in the above points that resolves anything. The first 3 points actually state something as fact (which is a rarity in the NIST report), however they are not tied into having anything with the building collapsing. I, too read somewhere about the fourth point, but if the tanks had contributed to a fire that would be apparent in the forensic evidence.


Originally posted by HowardRoark
  • The building was extensively damaged by falling debris from WTC 1 (read the following firefighters accounts: Boyle, hayden, Visconti


  • Careful listing eyewitness accounts, Howard. When you start believing some as true you have to at least consider others as being true as well, especially other firefighters.


    Originally posted by HowardRoark
  • There is evidence that like the towers, the sprayed on fireproofing in WTC 7 had deteriorated since the building was built.

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





  • Again speculation about the fireproofing, and the timeline stops at 8.2 seconds - I think I read somewhere that the whole collapse took 30+ seconds? So when I am watching the clip of WTC 7 falling, it's taking 20+ seconds to fall? Sorry I just don't see it. What I do see is a very shoddy interim report by NIST that answers no questions, uncovers no new information, doesn't even CONSIDER the possibility the building could have been demo'd on purpose (given the events of that day that SHOULD be a consideration), and speculates that given said number of yet-to-be-proven events, then the building probably fell because of these reasons.

    It should put you no CDers off that the government can't piece this together. They have all the evidence, the access, and the means, and yet you all have come up with a better argument than they have!

    Skibum pointed this out:


    Originally posted by Skibum

    Basically stating that there are things that no matter how much investigating goes on will still be unknown. You cannot verify how something is built when it was destroyed, nor can you verify the opinion about building codes(they are subject to alot of personal opinion and personal interpretations) of a building inspector 30 years ago.


    So there you have it. No matter what they do, they will never be able to know. I guess this is the end of the thread then since any answer they give will be speculation. Left with that fact I'll stand with controlled demolition as the cause - I saw it with my own eyes, and that's good enough for me.



    posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 05:01 PM
    link   


    doesn't even CONSIDER the possibility the building could have been demo'd on purpose


    This would be an outright lie. You really should stop getting your talking points from the "truth movement".


    NIST has seen no evidence that the collapse of WTC 7 was caused by bombs, missiles, or controlled demolition.


    wtc.nist.gov...


    To me that means it was considered, and no evidence was found to further investigate.



    posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 05:03 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Skibum
    Whos is saying they failed at the exact same time.


    LOL have you watched the video of WTC 7 collapsing?
    For a building to fall straight down all the collumns have to fail at the same time or within seconds to control the fall. Why can you guys not see this?


    Take a few hours and actually read all the NIST reports instead of relying on the selectively edited and totally wrong interpretations of them all presented in a nice mind controlling package by your masters.


    Masters? Who would these masters be, pls name names comrade?
    I'm not the one who can't think for them self, and has to have NIST or the government tell them what to think. My opinions on this come from me not a website. I can make my own mind up thankyou...


    If you are going to try to debunk the reports at least read them and have an small idea of what they REALLY say.


    I'm not de-bunking the report, just trying to use a little common sense and historical precedence to explain how a building can fall neatly into a pile from small fires and minimal damage, when a building that was blown up with a bomb didn't, or any building from fire ever before.

    For anyone who has a basic understanding of physics, buildings, government plans and the real world can see something isn't right with the official explanation.
    Those scared of the consequences of their own government being involved with such an act will either ignore the issue all together, stay on the fence confused, and scared to jump either way, or ignore the truth and blindly except the lies out of denial and even argue that black is white, and just ignore basic physics...

    [edit on 26/4/2006 by ANOK]



    posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 05:23 PM
    link   


    For a building to fall straight down all the collumns have to fail at the same time or within seconds to control the fall.


    Now you change your statement. Way to add the "within seconds".

    FYI, within seconds has never and never will mean at the exact same time.




    minimal damage


    Where do you get this tidbit from? One of your mind control videos you guys like to tout.



    For those of you, who only look at the info that the "truth movement" decided to let you see here is a partial list of the known damage following the towers collapse.

    􀂉 South Face Damage –
    • middle 1/4 -1/3 width south face, 10th floor to ground
    • large debris hole near center around 14th floor
    • 1/4 width south face, above 5th floor, atrium glass intact
    • 8th / 9th floor from inside, visible south wall gone with more
    damage to west, 2 elevator cars dislodged into elevator lobby


    There was a hole in the building consisting 1/4 to 1/3 of the side of the building from the ground to the 10th floor? Minimal, I think not.




    small fires


    Observed Fire Locations (11:30-2:30 pm)
    General
    􀂉 No diesel smells reported from the exterior, stairwells, or lobby
    􀂉 No signs of fire or smoke below floor 6 from stairwell and lobby areas
    􀂉 Fire reported at west wall of floor 7 around 12:15 pm
    􀂉 In east stairwell, smoke was observed near floors 19-20; signs of a fire
    observed on floor 23
    Looking from southwest corner to the south face
    􀂉 Fire in SW corner near floors 10 or 11
    􀂉 Fire on floors 6, 7, 8, 21, 30
    􀂉 Multiple fires observed on floors numbered 20’s and 30’s
    􀂉 Heavy black smoke coming out of south face gash; no fire observed
    Looking from southeast corner to the south face
    􀂉 Fire on floor 12 area above covered with smoke
    􀂉 Fire on floors 11-12 moved to east face and progressed to the north
    fires reported on floor 14, but photographs showed east face fires on floor 12

    Whatever dude, go back to watching loose change, if you sift through their lies long enough, its possible you might find something that looks like the truth.








    [edit on 26/4/06 by Skibum]



    posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 08:16 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by ANOK

    Originally posted by BigTrain
    Yes. thats exactly how it works. Why wouldnt they? Once it goes, it goes.


    LOL you really don't know anything about buildings or physics do you?

    Why wouldn't they? Why would they all fail at exactly the same time? All you can answer is why wouldn't they?


    Go to school or something...


    Sry but this is getting to be just silly.


    Anok, just quit man, you sound rediculous. Let me try to explain this to you, ONCE AGAIN.

    When you have a column failure in a building, the loads above need to find another way down to the foundation. This places much higher strains and demand on the other columns.

    When you have MULTIPLE failures, or in our case, destruction of columns, you are not only having stresses and forces finding a new load path, you now have fires that are weakening the remaining columns that are now tasked with holding up an increased load. These fires will go through the building, weakening columns one at a time, these columns will be put into a buckled shape by the fires, heat on one side hotter than the other causes columns to distort.

    Now, the fires continue through the building. they progressively weaken more and more columns, eventually, a majority of the main columns and girders reach a point where their capacity is equal to the ultimate applied forces. Let me make this very clear. The remaining columns AS A WHOLE have an equal capacity as the total applied load.

    As soon as this capacity is overcome, they all buckle within milleseconds. Once the first column goes, and there is no more reserve capacity, the next goes, and the next and the next. There is nothing to stop it, the load paths are changing in milleseconds and failing all the remaining columns within the same time frame.

    Make no mistake, these columns are trying to resist the load, but they cannot.

    Anok, how much harder can you possibly make this. How is it possible you cannot understand this?

    So again, did they all fail at the same time, you're damn right they did.

    Train



    posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 08:24 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Griff
    Thanks for the link Skibum. I'm going to look at it closer. Heck, it might even sway me one way or the other.

    Big Train. I don't think it's as easy as you are saying. Plus, I'm a little rusty with structural calcs. When I was in college, the pc was just becoming popular and there wasn't an internet yet....so, I don't really know how to use the programs out there. I have SAP 2000 (I think that's what it's called). Do you know this program by chance? Or could you point me in the right direction on how to learn to use it? Or if you could give me a copy of a program that's easy to use? Not trying to pirate a program here if that's what people are thinking.


    Girff, heres something you could do. This might help you find out for yourself how detrimental fires can be. Set up a beam-column problem, which is a member loaded in both compression and moment. Apply both an axial load and a moment at the ends. Calculate the deflection in the middle of the beam, assumed fixed-fixed condition. Then calculate the axial capacity due to this loading and you will need to include p-delta effects which is 2nd order analysis. Then apply a temperature difference of 300 degrees on opposite sides of the beam. You will get an increaed deflection, now recalcuate the axial capacity of the member, the numbers will blow you away. massive reduction in capacity and thats only assumming a 300 degree difference.

    Sap might be able to do it.

    Train

    [edit on 26-4-2006 by BigTrain]



    posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 11:07 PM
    link   
    Oh yeah sorry guys I forgot....Silly me eh?


    Originally posted by BigTrain

    Yes. thats exactly how it works. Why wouldnt they? Once it goes, it goes.

    Train



    new topics

    top topics



     
    0
    << 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

    log in

    join