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: 21
0
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by jimmytango

Again speculation about the fireproofing,


No, not really. There is clear documentation that there were problems with the fireproofing in the towers. The Port authority had extended it's fireproofing inspection program to WTC 7. There are reports that the WTC 7 fireproofing had some problems as well.



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.


The timeline stops at 8.2 seconds, when the global collapse began.

in other words, the point where all the conspiracy theorists start to time the collapse, claiming that there was no internal resistance to the collapse. Thus you should add the 8.2 seconds to their times.



eddit to add:

These are actual pictures of the condition of the fireproofing in the towers





[edit on 27-4-2006 by HowardRoark]




posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by BigTrain

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?


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


That makes no sense and it's too simple to even argue about.

Train, from reading your posts, you seem to think that because you apparently don't design buildings to withstand local collapses (remind me not to enter any buildings you've worked on btw), when one begins to fall, it can fall in absolutely any way in the world and it would still be legitimate to you.

All that is important is that it began to fall, right? Then it could have fallen upwards for all you care and it would still make sense to you just because the fact of the initial failure is all you bother to concern yourself with.

I don't think it's any coincidence that the first major scholar to come out so vocally against the NIST Report was an emeritus physics professor. I've noticed that structural engineers do tend to think in terms of, "Well, once it starts to fall... [anything goes]." As if it only takes collapse initiation to justify all manner of odd physical events that occur during the collapse. Structural engineers don't study such events. It's not really their expertise. Physicists do study those sorts of things, ie what exactly happens when two objects impact each other, and how much energy is available to accomplish so many events within a system before you have to consider additional sources of energy.

I've even noticed it in some of Griff's posts, or at least one of them, where he states that if he was shown where the trusses of WTC7 would have somehow tied the fate of one half of the building to the other, he would buy the official story. That still seems to ignore the physics of the way the building actually fell, so I think physicists really are the relevant figures here. It's nothing personal, but I'm just seeing this frame of mind that revolves around just involving all the parts of a building in an event, and then that's all you have to worry about. Like it doesn't matter exactly what forces were involved or how much resistance there would've been to the falling mass or what parts would've failed first or in what direction the buildings should have leaned or etc. Structural engineers apparently don't worry about those things. Maybe that's why Howard has a fetish for them.

Seriously, Train, you just suggested that damage to one side of a building would result in the other side failing at the exact same time. And you don't even understand why that doesn't make sense. Physicists, anyone?



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skibum


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".


More like within very small fractions of a second. Especially with the Twin Towers, each floor fell in somewhere around 0.1 seconds. Divide the official collapse times by 110 floors and that's around the figure you get. There are more exact ways of determining collapse speed, but guess what? They come to about the same figure. It was somewhere around 0.1 seconds per floor. The floors were 12.5 feet high each.

The buildings did not lopside as they fell. NONE of the three. WTC2 came the closest when it was leaning, but it fell STRAIGHT DOWN. That means no rogue columns provided the resistance required (which wouldn't be much) to start an effect of leaning more and more and more during collapse until it lopsided.

So when you have buildings that are falling symmetrically and the floors are being blown out in about 0.1 seconds each, guess what? That's pretty much instantly, all columns across a whole WTC floor and 12.5 feet high failing faster than you can snap your fingers. That's not very probable, to put it very mildly. Chaos would come into play and you'd have the buildings favoring a particular direction other than straight down right off the bat.

Ask a demo engineer how easy it is for buildings to lopside even when the columns are being blown out professionally in a very organized manner. It's really easy to screw up even with controlled collapses. A natural collapse not "screwing up" like this is insanely unlikely.



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 02:18 AM
link   
Yeah, the odds of a building collapsing neatly straight down from uneven damage has to be in the thousands, and then you add two more building to that and you get odds that can't be calculated.

BTW well put bsbray...Physics is exactly what it's about, no building, no matter it's contruction can defy physics. Unless the building was either designed or set up to defy normal physics i.e. controlled demo. I doubt very much the WTC buildings were designed to naturaly fall that way, especialy from fire. That would be the last thing they'd want.


Originally posted by Skibum
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.


From this comment it sounds like to me your only source for researching the WTC collapse is the NIST report and Loose Change? Am I right?



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 08:10 AM
link   


I doubt very much the WTC buildings were designed to naturaly fall that way, especialy from fire. That would be the last thing they'd want.


You just don't get it do you. You keep saying it was fire that brought the buildings down. Just like you to narrow it all down to one point and forget everything else that was going on.

You say damage to the building from the collapses of the towers was minimal, that is a lie. You bought into that lie, congrats.

You claim the fires throughout the day were minimal, they were not, another lie you swallowed hook line and sinker, congrats.

Guess what, your beloved "truth movement" has you brainwashed. They have lied to you time and time again, and you run around repeating those lies as if they were truths.



From this comment it sounds like to me your only source for researching the WTC collapse is the NIST report and Loose Change? Am I right?

As usual, you are wrong
No, as usual, you are wrong. Unlike you who claims to be openminded, I actually read and process all information available. I don't go to google and ask for info to support only one side of the arguement or another.



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Seriously, Train, you just suggested that damage to one side of a building would result in the other side failing at the exact same time. And you don't even understand why that doesn't make sense. Physicists, anyone?


So did you guys just decide to completely ignore the post i made before this one describing in incredible detail why they all fail at the same time, geez, you guys are amazing.

Train



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 09:59 AM
link   
Stop saying fell striaght down!!!!!!!! The damn building fell in the direction of the initial damage as can be seen by the outer wall being folded over the rubble. Stop believing the lies man.




posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 10:05 AM
link   
Train, they will ignore you as long as you speak in a language that they can not understand, i.e logic, mathematics, and engineering.

They claim to understand physics, but it is the same sort of “Physics” that once claimed that it was obvious that the sun and stars revolved around the Earth, for who could doubt the evidence of their eyes?



Btw, Train, I sent you a question via u2u.



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 11:58 AM
link   
Exactly Howard!


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.

Whatever, dude. My table lost a leg just the other day and it transfered the load to the other 3 legs, which proceeded to splinter into pieces and the entire thing collapsed on itself. The buildings fell down the exact same way.



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 12:10 PM
link   
I'm not ignoring anyone - I just have a problem with you all:

a) stating that the NIST and FEMA report prove anything; and
b) positing that you have it figured out when those with the evidence haven't.

Wouldn't you think that they'd have it figured out by now, 4 and a half years after the fact? Especially with suspect fireproofing, suspect building code interpretation, suspect renovations, and the ever-so suspicious empty diesel tank as 'evidence'?

With all of these 'suspicious' occurences they still can't say with any veracity what caused the building to fall. Why hasn't the logic, the math, the science of the experts solved this mystery? I dare them to reconsider their hypothesis to include the possibility of a controlled demolition event, and perhaps then the pieces may start to fit.



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 12:26 PM
link   


I dare them to reconsider their hypothesis to include the possibility of a controlled demolition event, and perhaps then the pieces may start to fit.


Dude, I answered you about that already.
They did consider it, found NO EVIDENCE to back it up.
How do you investigate something when there is nothing to investigate?

Which part of this quote from the report are you not able to comprehend?




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


Is english not your native language? I might understand if its not.
What is the problem?

Please spare us your lies.



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 12:29 PM
link   
Jimmy, they clearly stated why they believed the towers collapsed, and the reason they didnt say it was 100% one thing relating to the others is because in reality, which they also stated, the collapse was caused by a number of factors. Not one sigle event.

They clearly stated the impact of the planes did not cause the collapse, which of course is 100% obvious, however, they contributed greatly to the collapse.

They also said the fires did not 100% cause the collapse either, they were a contributor also. They did not say the fireproofing was the 100% cause of the collapse either, they contributed.

When you add all these together, working together against the structural integrity of the towers, you have an imminent failure.

Train



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skibum



I doubt very much the WTC buildings were designed to naturaly fall that way, especialy from fire. That would be the last thing they'd want.


You just don't get it do you. You keep saying it was fire that brought the buildings down. Just like you to narrow it all down to one point and forget everything else that was going on.

You say damage to the building from the collapses of the towers was minimal, that is a lie. You bought into that lie, congrats.

You claim the fires throughout the day were minimal, they were not, another lie you swallowed hook line and sinker, congrats.

Guess what, your beloved "truth movement" has you brainwashed. They have lied to you time and time again, and you run around repeating those lies as if they were truths.



From this comment it sounds like to me your only source for researching the WTC collapse is the NIST report and Loose Change? Am I right?

As usual, you are wrong
No, as usual, you are wrong. Unlike you who claims to be openminded, I actually read and process all information available. I don't go to google and ask for info to support only one side of the arguement or another.


Sure, guy.


Who has more to gain from lying?

The truth movement? All lying would do is make them look more ridiculous than everyone thinks they are for doubting the official story in the first place. OR...

The US govt? If they are lying, it would help them keep the people hoodwinked as they flush America down the toilet.

Well, whaddya know, look at what's actually happening to America...



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skibum
You just don't get it do you. You keep saying it was fire that brought the buildings down. Just like you to narrow it all down to one point and forget everything else that was going on.


Err...what? I didn't say fires bought them down, quit the oposite old boy!

What else am I forgetting about? What one point? That the collapses defied physics? That's a pretty strong point, no? Pls explain...

Big Train,*shakes head*, if you think that building 7 didn't fall straight down then you must be seeing a different video of the collapse than the rest of us...

And BTW you two guys getting all mad and huffy is not going to intimidate me into believing your BS. I'm not the one lieing here, the building did fall straight down the fires and damage were minimal.

Look at the pics on this site...

www.pastpeak.com...

Do they look like raging fires to you?

This is a raging fire...


WTC 7 damage, from the NIST report



So that damage and those fires bought down a 47 story building in a neat straight down collapse, starting with a kink in the penthouse roof?...Yeah sure!

You are blinding yourselves from the truth with your NIST report...

[edit on 27/4/2006 by ANOK]



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 03:39 PM
link   


The truth movement? All lying would do is make them look more ridiculous than everyone thinks they are for doubting the official story in the first place.


Cmon now, I'm sure a critical thinker such as yourself can come up with a few better reasons than that.

It appears that letting the "truth movement" do all your thinking for you, has made you incapable of original thought.

Do I need to produce a brainwashing video for you, to help guide you through your thought process? Should I sprinkle it with half-truths and outright lies in an attempt to coax more people to my viewpoint, just like the "truth movement" does?

I'll give you a chance to see if you are actually capable of coming up with a few alternate theories on your own, before I throw a few out there.



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 04:17 PM
link   
LOL that is sooo funny comming from you...

All you guys have managed to do so far is insult anyone who doesn't buy the official story and try to intimidate us to give up.

I'm sure the majority here can see through this BS though so I'm not really worried about it. Pretty funny actualy, probably the lamest pair of official story pushers we've had the pleasure to debate with. You got nothing on Howward. Even though I notice you are trying to learn from him



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 04:21 PM
link   


Err...what? I didn't say fires bought them down


Perhaps I should correct that,
You keep spreading the lie that the reports say that fires alone brought the buildings down. Better?



What one point? That the collapses defied physics?


How so? You think buildings equate to trees and tables, thats preposterous.
I can see why you have problems with the concept that there was more than one contributing factor to the collapses, you have a hard time understanding things unless they are oversimplified to the point of absurdity.



And BTW you two guys getting all mad and huffy is not going to intimidate me into believing your BS.


I really doubt I will change your mind. I don't think you are open minded enough for that.








So that damage and those fires bought down a 47 story building in a neat straight down collapse, starting with a kink in the penthouse roof?...Yeah sure!


No. It started when the load transfer sytstem failed 40 floors below the penthouse. The kink in the roof was those 40 floors in that area dropping because they were no longer supported. Is it that difficult to comprehend?

But thanks for showing you don't even understand the theory you are arguing against.


How like you to post a photo showing minor damage and as usual you try to claim that was the damage that brought the building down. Very, very disingenuous of you.

Again, were at least 2 ENORMOUS HOLES in the side of the building.

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















[edit on 27/4/06 by Skibum]



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skibum
You keep spreading the lie that the reports say that fires alone brought the buildings down. Better?


LOL I don't think I've ever said it was the fires alone, when did I say that? I have said over and over there were small fires and minimal damage, that is what you are all claiming bought it down right?


How so? You think buildings equate to trees and tables, thats preposterous.


Again when have I mentioned trees or tables? All I said was damage to one portion of a building is not going to cause a global collapse such as we saw with WTC 7.
If buildings fell that neatly in the first place why bother with proffesional demo teams, just gauge a couple of holes with a back-ho and set some fire on a couple of floors and wait 7 hours.




I really doubt I will change your mind. I don't think you are open minded enough for that.


LOL you get funnier...Open minded to what? Am I supposed to believe that physics acted differently on 9-11, to three buildings? I don't understand your point.



No. It started when the load transfer sytstem failed 40 floors below the penthouse.


See this is the problem, you say it wasn't fires alone that bought it down? So what did cause the load tranfer system to fail? It wasn't the damage, that was on one side of the building to the facade. I don't believe it was the fires. Why did it take 7 hours? Why did the fire crews stop fighting these huge fire? It doesn't make any sense.


How like you to post a photo showing minor damage and as usual you try to claim that was the damage that brought the building down. Very, very disingenuous of you.


I posted 2 pics, the ONLY damage there are pics of, do you have more? Are you claiming there was more damage we can't see in the pics? How did that happen?
Why did buildings closer to WTC 1&2 than WTC7 not collapse from damage?
Why was it the ONLY buildings collapsed that day all belonged to Larry Silverstein?


Again, were at least 2 ENORMOUS HOLES in the side of the building


Well I would argue them being enermous but so what? A building is still not going to fall neatly in it's footprint from a couple of holes.

Why don't you post a pic that you're happy with as mine seem to upset you for some reason. In fact you're getting more heated with every post...LOL And making less sense. Seems like you're getting a little frustrated eh? I think deep down you know what you're saying makes no sense, scary aint it?

[edit on 27/4/2006 by ANOK]



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK


Look at the pics on this site...

www.pastpeak.com...

Do they look like raging fires to you?

[edit on 27/4/2006 by ANOK]


ANOK!!!!!

Are you kidding me! The photos you just provided are of wtc 7 the opposite side of the collapse!!!! No wonder that side looks so good, the impact was on the other side!!!!!!!!! My god man, you're real stupid if you think that is the side that was hit by the twin towers. Trying to pass that on as the side where there was damage, HAHAHAHAHA

Train



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skibum



The truth movement? All lying would do is make them look more ridiculous than everyone thinks they are for doubting the official story in the first place.


Cmon now, I'm sure a critical thinker such as yourself can come up with a few better reasons than that.

It appears that letting the "truth movement" do all your thinking for you, has made you incapable of original thought.

Do I need to produce a brainwashing video for you, to help guide you through your thought process? Should I sprinkle it with half-truths and outright lies in an attempt to coax more people to my viewpoint, just like the "truth movement" does?

I'll give you a chance to see if you are actually capable of coming up with a few alternate theories on your own, before I throw a few out there.




Selective quoting, you gotta love this tactic. I'm just gonna assume you are on angeldust, because you seem to think you can read minds.
Why you think people who doubt the official story are spoon fed this from the truth movement is beyond me.

Actually, it's YOU official story buyers who are the ones swallowing everything from another source. Can't speak for all, but I've looked at various sources on both sides before I came to my conclusions. Apparently, all you needed was NIST.


So, please, spare me. If you've only looked at the debatable scientific stuff (without evidence to scientifically analyze, I might add
), spare me your snooty remarks. I find the non-scientific anomalies a LOT more damaging to the official story.

Oh, sure, you've looked at that already and have incorporated that into your view...




new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join