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: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 11:23 AM
link   
BigTrain,

Can you explain to me how the damage due to bldg 7's falling sisters was a big factor in its collapse when NIST's own report says that those massive airplanes that hit the twins were not a big factor in the collapse? I don't need a degree in engineering to know that a speeding jumbo jet can cause much more damage to a building than falling debris...

[edit on 26-3-2006 by truthseeka]




posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
BigTrain,

Can you explain to me how the damage due to bldg 7's falling sisters was a big factor in its collapse when NIST's own report says that those massive airplanes that hit the twins were not a big factor in the collapse? I don't need a degree in engineering to know that a speeding jumbo jet can cause much more damage to a building than falling debris...

[edit on 26-3-2006 by truthseeka]


NIST is absolutely correct, the planes themselves did not do enough damage to the buildings to cause their collapse with is evident just by the towers not collapsing immediately. They were designed to withstand the impact of a 707 and they did survive the 767. They did what they were designed to do. Nobody disputes this.

Lets be straight here, everybody is mostly speculating on what happened to wtc 7, even me. I was not inside the building. I do not have photographs of inside the building. I am simply offering my educated opinion as to why the wtc 7 could have collapsed in that fashion. After looking at the photo that SHADOW provided which is a model of the debris field and checking other debris models i have seen, it would appear that the majoirty of what appears to be the north tower, collapsed towards wtc 7 and therefore it seems plausible that a shatter pattern could flow towards wtc 7. Again, this is speculation, not fact.

We can debate the wtc 7 collapse all day, but there really shouldnt be any debate on wtc 1 and 2 because the visual and forensic evidence is plenty.

As for motives etc, well, you guys can go back and forth on that.

Back to wtc 7. You have to take into consideration the extreme weight of these buildings, They want to fall straight down. And as much as you would want to debate physics, you can do the calculations if you wish, but steel toothpicks, oriented vertically, provide very little resistance to the weights mentioned, once these masses start moving, the only resistance would be punching shear.

As for wtc south tower starting to fall to the side, and some saying violating physics, you are forgetting something here. The building did not fall over, it rotated about an axis, buckling in a sense. I really wish I could explain this better, in person it would seem 100% clear.

Anything else?

Train



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 01:42 PM
link   
WTC 7 - my two cents:

Still waiting for quotes from the NIST report that defined the cause of the collapse. All I could find from here was:

"WTC 7 suffered a global collapse. The initiating cause or causes of this collapse, and its sequence of
events, are still being investigated though fire appears to have played a key role and there may have been
some physical damage on the south side of the building."

Nothing concrete (bad pun) in that statement.

Other points to consider:

I believe it was Train who said that the first few floors of WTC7 were devastated by falling debris from the other two towers. Despite the lack of evidence to support that statement, I reviewed the same NIST document and could find NO corroborating evidence of that statement (check pages L-17 to L-19 for the details of the damage to WTC 7 after both collapses). Regardless, (and perhaps this is because I am not an engineer) I have a hard time understanding how damage at the base of a building would cause a collapse that begins with a kink on the roof (penthouse).

What I'd like to challenge all to do is use their common sense.

1. Building collapse - damage or no damage, can we all believe that a 47 story building, affected by fire and falling debris, would suddenly collapse at near freefall pace, when NO OTHER STEEL FRAME BUILDING had ever collapsed in such a way in history?

2. Building ownership - one man owned the leases on all the buildings that collapsed or were torn down after 911.

3. The infamous 'pull it'. This one always bothered me, because I don't think Silverstein could be so stupid as to admit they demo'ed the building. That said, no fire chief is going to consult the owner if he should take his men out of a building. NONE. They'll do what they have to do to save their men and limit damage to the inflamed building. It's been made perfectly clear that 'pull it' is a term used in building demolition circles. But how do you 'pull' a building without having explosives in place to begin with?

4. Tenants in WTC 7 - the tenant list in WTC 7 has already been pointed out - CIA, SEC, Secret Service, IRS, and most importantly the NYC Emergency Command Center. I believe it was Alex Jones' movie Martial Law that averred that WTC7 would be over-designed to resist a collapse due to fire or other damage. This makes sense to me - so how could the building collapse so fast and so neatly if this was the case?

My common sense tells me this building was demoed on purpose. I encourage you all to check out these resources:

www.prisonplanet.com... blecharges.htm

www.whatreallyhappened.com...

And no - I don't see Alex Jones, Michael Rivero, Dylan Avery or any other 911 researcher as the cat's pajamas. Everyone should find their own truths. I offer these as sources of video evidence for consideration.



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 01:46 PM
link   
There's plenty of data to support WTC 7 would still stand even from the debris of WTC 1 and 2.




www.wtc7.net...




www.wtc7.net...

Images from www.wtc7.net...

Originally posted by BigTrain

Originally posted by truthseeka
BigTrain,

Can you explain to me how the damage due to bldg 7's falling sisters was a big factor in its collapse when NIST's own report says that those massive airplanes that hit the twins were not a big factor in the collapse? I don't need a degree in engineering to know that a speeding jumbo jet can cause much more damage to a building than falling debris...

[edit on 26-3-2006 by truthseeka]


NIST is absolutely correct, the planes themselves did not do enough damage to the buildings to cause their collapse with is evident just by the towers not collapsing immediately. They were designed to withstand the impact of a 707 and they did survive the 767. They did what they were designed to do. Nobody disputes this.

Lets be straight here, everybody is mostly speculating on what happened to wtc 7, even me. I was not inside the building. I do not have photographs of inside the building. I am simply offering my educated opinion as to why the wtc 7 could have collapsed in that fashion. After looking at the photo that SHADOW provided which is a model of the debris field and checking other debris models i have seen, it would appear that the majoirty of what appears to be the north tower, collapsed towards wtc 7 and therefore it seems plausible that a shatter pattern could flow towards wtc 7. Again, this is speculation, not fact.

We can debate the wtc 7 collapse all day, but there really shouldnt be any debate on wtc 1 and 2 because the visual and forensic evidence is plenty.

As for motives etc, well, you guys can go back and forth on that.

Back to wtc 7. You have to take into consideration the extreme weight of these buildings, They want to fall straight down. And as much as you would want to debate physics, you can do the calculations if you wish, but steel toothpicks, oriented vertically, provide very little resistance to the weights mentioned, once these masses start moving, the only resistance would be punching shear.

As for wtc south tower starting to fall to the side, and some saying violating physics, you are forgetting something here. The building did not fall over, it rotated about an axis, buckling in a sense. I really wish I could explain this better, in person it would seem 100% clear.

Anything else?

Train



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by promomag
There's plenty of data to support WTC 7 would still stand even from the

Images from www.wtc7.net...


This page along with the photo of EXTENSIVE SW corner damage to wtc 7 only reinforces my belief of flying debris heavily damging the bottom stories of wtc 7. Again, you can see how many floors the fire climbed in wtc 7 in that photo and so now you have a 47 story building, very heavy, sustaining massive damage to its lower floors, the most critical, not to mention a corner section of the building, which is a very strong point in any design. If im not mistaken, this building burned for about 5 hours.

Id say that photo solves the collapse without a doubt in my mind.

Train



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 03:16 PM
link   
Ya know what, This is rediculous, why do you link me to a page that is all conspiracy and they provide me with the worst quality video in the world. This is the digital age, where are all the high quality tapes and recording we are so used to? If you have a point to prove, you better provide some quality viewing, otherwise, it is just as questionable as the event which they are questioning.

Train



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 04:17 PM
link   
Goddam why is this still an arguement? The buildings were blown up! Demolished! And if you don't think so then you're either a blithering idiot or someone who was in on it.



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 04:58 PM
link   
If you are an engineer You would clearly see the data in no way backs up your claim BigTrain..... it's very obvious now.



Originally posted by BigTrain

Originally posted by promomag
There's plenty of data to support WTC 7 would still stand even from the

Images from www.wtc7.net...


This page along with the photo of EXTENSIVE SW corner damage to wtc 7 only reinforces my belief of flying debris heavily damging the bottom stories of wtc 7. Again, you can see how many floors the fire climbed in wtc 7 in that photo and so now you have a 47 story building, very heavy, sustaining massive damage to its lower floors, the most critical, not to mention a corner section of the building, which is a very strong point in any design. If im not mistaken, this building burned for about 5 hours.

Id say that photo solves the collapse without a doubt in my mind.

Train



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 07:25 PM
link   
Only obvious I guess to Big Poppa Diaz & promomag. He sounds intelligent.

Train



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigTrain
Only obvious I guess to Big Poppa Diaz & promomag. He sounds intelligent.


You can add me to that list.

The problem we have with government papers like the NIST report it's done by the government, biased before it's even started.
They already had their conclusion, fire and aircraft bought the towers down, they just made the events fit the outcome they wanted to show, and ignored anything that contradicted it.

If a murderer paid for someone to make a report "proving" he didn't do it, do you think it would fly in court? You know it wouldn't.



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 07:46 PM
link   
Your conspiracy has one major problem, for it to work, too many people would have had to be involved. In the thousands. As for the collapse of wtc 7, I have just found out that this building consisted of a transfer girder in the lower floors. Transfer girders my friends are very scary if they are not very well reinforced. It was the failure of the transfer girder in oklahoma city that led to the collapse of the building, NOT the truck bomb.

And as far as that website that promomag posted, does the author have any engineering credentials or is he just like you guys?

Train



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigTrain
Your conspiracy has one major problem, for it to work, too many people would have had to be involved. In the thousands.


Not true, do you know how government and military work? Ever heard of "need to know" or compartmentalization? No one person, except a few at the top, know enough of the big picture to realize what they are a part of. It's done for a reason.

As far as the Oklahoma bombing, did it collapse down in it's own footprint like a controlled demo? No, it did what we would expect, partial collapse.

Want to try again?



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigTrain
And as far as that website that promomag posted, does the author have any engineering credentials or is he just like you guys?


By your own admission, structural engineers don't concern themselves with how buildings are going to fall. They don't build buildings to fall. They build them to stand. So then can you tell me why a structural engineer would be the relevant expert to a building collapse? Can you explain to me why such a person would have precedence over, say, a physics professor? And isn't structural engineer based on physics?

Here's a lecture by Physics Professor Steven Jones of BYU on the collapses of the WTC buildings. Check that out. He references the opinions of other engineers and organizations if his opinion isn't enough for you. And he's also a co-chair of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, which is an organization of a number of very intelligent people (scholars).

WTC7 stood for a number of hours after the Towers collapsed. Therefore, like the Towers, the deciding factor would've had to have been the fire. It all comes back to the fires. I'm sure you've seen pics of the fires in WTC7. It was most definitely nothing to cause a global collapse.

Look at this and think realistically:

Before collapse:



After:



You say office fires and external damage from falling pieces of steel?



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by BigTrain
And as far as that website that promomag posted, does the author have any engineering credentials or is he just like you guys?


By your own admission, structural engineers don't concern themselves with how buildings are going to fall. They don't build buildings to fall. They build them to stand. So then can you tell me why a structural engineer would be the relevant expert to a building collapse? Can you explain to me why such a person would have precedence over, say, a physics professor? And isn't structural engineer based on physics?

Here's a lecture by Physics Professor Steven Jones of BYU on the collapses of the WTC buildings. Check that out. He references the opinions of other engineers and organizations if his opinion isn't enough for you. And he's also a co-chair of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, which is an organization of a number of very intelligent people (scholars).

WTC7 stood for a number of hours after the Towers collapsed. Therefore, like the Towers, the deciding factor would've had to have been the fire. It all comes back to the fires. I'm sure you've seen pics of the fires in WTC7. It was most definitely nothing to cause a global collapse.

Look at this and think realistically:



You say office fires and external damage from falling pieces of steel?


Thanks for posting that vid link, I encourage everyone to watch it and send it to everyone they can.

Keep up the great work.


[edit on 26-3-2006 by fm258]



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 10:15 PM
link   
That picture is fillped so you cannot see the damage that is where the WTC was standing prior to collaspe.

Another thing, before you quote NIST, read it, or the FEMA report. There is more than enough evidence. It shows the 30 second timeline of the collapse. The video you see on the internet is propaganda in the worst way. You need to READ it. Believe half of what you read, and none of what you hear..'



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 11:08 PM
link   
All I know is...

I've seen video where you can SEE squibs run up the building.
I've heard audio on video of booming explosions.
I've seen on video how the building dipped in the middle at the top as it started to collapse.
I've seen the building collapse straight down exactly like its sisters despite no plane impact.

I've also seen those pushing the official story lie to my face literally every day on TV. No way I'll believe those clowns on this one.



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

As far as the Oklahoma bombing, did it collapse down in it's own footprint like a controlled demo? No, it did what we would expect, partial collapse.

Want to try again?


Dude, you have no idea how bad you are about to be torn to shreds in front of everybody on this board. The oklahoma city building was a reinforced concrete structure. The reason it collapsed was because the transfer girder spanning the open atrium failed when the explosion shattered the 3rd support column. There was absolutely no redundancy in that design, sighted by NIST in their report also. They did a static analysis of the exterior transfer girder and by removing just 1 column, the whole thing came crashing down.

The design also had no continuity of re-bar running longitudinaly through the girders, thereby creating a mode of progressive collapse. The reason the building did not come down as a whole was also due to this same design flaw, as the exterior wall collapsed progressively, it lacked any significant lateral strength inside the floors to create continuity and therefore, it was just like pulling out hairs. This building was flawed in many ways. This building in no way at all resembles the wtc 7. Nice try dude.

And for some reason you still want to assume whats true for one building is true for another where it is obvious you have no idea the design of the murrah building yet you open your mouth and try to make me sound stupid. Try doing some research pal. Try reading a report by the smartest engineers in the nation, the NIST and ASCE. These people take their jobs very seriously. But you'd rather watch some dude on the 9/11 truth report or some garbage not even recognized by any major engineering society. Whatever.

Back to wtc 7. why do you keep bringing up the fact that the roof collapsed first and say it was a demo. If the transfer girder failed, just like NIST said, you would have the interior of the building collapsing first, pulling the rest of the building down with it. This is why the building falls down and towards the wtc complex. The most exterior wall, folds over the pile of rubble which also conicides with the slight pulling motion towards the wtc complex by the debris damaged area facing that direction.

If you want to keep believing that the building was demo'd, then fine, go ahead, but dont throw out obvious facts for non-obvious ones. If you have solid evidence like one poster saying he heard booms and saw explosions, then you need to provide that because you would be the first to do so.

Train



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 12:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by BigTrain
Dude, you have no idea how bad you are about to be torn to shreds in front of everybody on this board.




Then why did you try to compare it to the WTC then? Why the hell did you even bring it up? Sorry but you ain't tearing nothing apart dude.

Do you really think a building would collapse down on itself from fire?
As a structural engineer don't you take physics classes? What's up? Were you off that day?


Sorry but you'll have to try harder to embarass me infront of anybody. You're the one being torn to shreds here.

What cause this transfer girder to fail? The small fires, or the minimal damage?

Pls tell me what facts I've thrown out?

NIST is a government funded agency. They started with a conclusion and tried to make the facts fit that conclusion. If you were really a construction engineer you would be ripping the NIST report apart like all the other physicists and real structural engineers are now starting to do.

Thanx for the laugh, try again...

[edit on 27/3/2006 by ANOK]



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 01:07 AM
link   
Look boss dere is the plane! But no plane boss for WTC-7.. we just pull it Tattoo... little buddy, I got Friiiends in the NYFD don't worry your little head... Muuwahahahahaha ...

Hey did anybody check the steel in WTC, to see why it collapsed or were they too busy to do that?



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 01:09 AM
link   
Clearly the division isn't THE EVIDENCE !

I said it b4 I'll say it again ;

We can point out discrepancies all day and all night but
I don't think that it's the stuff that's shown to be bollocks
that people reject
more than it is , that people just can't fathom
anyone else being behind it , other than who we were told was behind it !
It just blows their mind to think otherwise,
and THAT my dear friends is the CRUX of the problem.

------------------------
And considering those man on the street shows where
people are interviewed and they
don't know the name of the vice president or where pakistan
is on a map , etc , but they know who the big time rappers are or
who won an oscar it's no WONDER that nobody can figure out
anything , they're consumed with blingbling and caca
and the ones who don't fit that category just don't
wanna rock the boat and they'll stand and defend an
undefendable position because to do otherwise would crush
their little world...

and that's where it stands !

when the machine that is shredding the constitution
and all that goes with it , is done and our rights
have evaporated into thin air
then perhaps reality will set in,
and the horror of what really happened
will suddenly dawn on the stubborn


and no I don't KNOW who did it
nor do I know who shot kennedy either



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join