It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# East Penthouse atop WTC 7 imploded too!

page: 3
0
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 05:32 PM
Wow 12 seconds, howerd you need to learn to put things in context.

As far as I'm concerned 12 seconds is extremely fast for a building to fall from damage to only one side. Might as well call it free-fall, it doesn't make much difference.

Maybe I should restate my comment, "All the columns failed at the same time + or - a few seconds".
There, is that better?

Point is howard the fact that columns on the undamaged portions of the building failed AT ALL is just incredible, let alone within seconds of the damaged side of the building.

How come this doesn't happen to other buildings, hmmmmm?

Wouldn't you say that damage was worse than WTC 7? Yet the buildings managed to stay standing, how is that possible? Oh I know, those buildings weren't owned by silverstein and weren't bombed on 9-11

posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 06:32 PM

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Notice that the above timeline ends when the global collapse begins. So if we add another 6 seconds or so we get a total collapse time of about 14 seconds, which is twice as long as it takes an object to fall 600 feet, or the original height of WTC 7.

In fact, a free falling object would have to start out at 3,214 feet to take 14 seconds to fall.

Sounds like you're playing word games with the phrase "collapse time".

The center of the structure has a downward speed of zero at about 9-12 secs into this video, and the right side of the structure has zero downward speed until about 11-12 secs into the video. When calculating "fall time" from the top of the structure to the ground, you start measuring from the last time the top of the structure has a downward speed of zero, not when kinks appear, the windows start falling, windows break, etc.,
Videos Show Building 7's Vertical Collapse

The kinks, window breakages, etc. were probably just the effect of the explosive charges going off before the structure started falling, as seen here,
Close-Up of WTC-7 Collapse Footage Shows Unmistakable Demolition Charges

posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 08:01 AM

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
2. Are you trying to say that a failure in the center of a building will cause an inward and total collapse?

How then do you explain WTC 6?

Howard, don't they pay you to answer these questions?

posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 09:01 AM
cut the disinfo crap
hes not working for anyone

posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 10:44 AM

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
2. Are you trying to say that a failure in the center of a building will cause an inward and total collapse?

How then do you explain WTC 6?

Another apples to oranges comparison.

The damage to WTC 6 was a direct result of the collapse of WTC 1. Falling debris punched through the roof through to the ground.

WTC 7 was hit on the south face. While the damage was severe, it was the added effects of an uncontrolled fire burning for 7 hours that eventually caused the collapse.

Furthermore, the structural designs and layouts of WTC 6 and 7 are completely different. There were no large transfer trusses spanning an electrical substation in WTC 6.

Justify why you think the buildings should be considered identical.

posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 02:27 AM

Originally posted by HowardRoark
The damage to WTC 6 was a direct result of the collapse of WTC 1. Falling debris punched through the roof through to the ground.

Or perhaps by another way...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

WTC 7 was hit on the south face. While the damage was severe, it was the added effects of an uncontrolled fire burning for 7 hours that eventually caused the collapse.

Hit on the southwest corner, but begins to fall from it's east internal (the penthouse). Hmmm.

posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 10:29 AM

Originally posted by HowardRoark

WTC 7 was hit on the south face. While the damage was severe, it was the added effects of an uncontrolled fire burning for 7 hours that eventually caused the collapse.

Furthermore, the structural designs and layouts of WTC 6 and 7 are completely different. There were no large transfer trusses spanning an electrical substation in WTC 6.

And yet, these transfer trusses only spanned half of building 7. How do you explain the full collapse of this building? There were at least 2 rows of columns not affected by these transfer trusses if my memory serves me right (sometimes it doesn't so I will concede if you show me I'm wrong). The building should have gone into partial collapse IMO.

There are 2 scenarios here.

1. The transfer trusses were on the south face. Then they would have been affected by the damage and fires and the building would go into partial collapse.

2. The transfer trusses were on the north saide and wouldn't have been affected by the damage. Therefore making the building partially collapse on the south side (where the damage was reported).

I still can't fathom how a building that is damaged on one side can completely collapse in a controlled demolition style. If that's the case, why don't controlled demolition experts just knock down one facade and watch the whole building fall neatly into it's own footprint?

[edit on 6/15/2006 by Griff]

posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 11:54 AM
The penthouses

The substation

NIST's damage guess and the truss locations

Three columns that allegedly failed thereby causing the entire building to implode at free fall rate

NIST's own words:

Hottest thermal readings of the entire site under WTC7 columns 79-80 (directly under East penthouse)

posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 01:16 PM
Thanks for clarifying that wecomeinpeace. After looking at those pictures, I believe that the transfer trusses were on the South side of the building right? Even if they were damaged then I still believe that WTC7 should have partially collapsed. I'm still waiting for Howard or someone else to explain to us how transfer trusses that are only located in half the building forces a complete collapse.

What makes WTC7's construction so unique that we can't compare other buildings? Remember the transfer trusses only account for half the building. The other half of the columns were free from the trusses, thus would act like any other building in the history of the world....i.e. partially collapsing.

posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 01:44 PM

Originally posted by Griff
Thanks for clarifying that wecomeinpeace. After looking at those pictures, I believe that the transfer trusses were on the South side of the building right?

The NIST reports indicate that they were in the core area, on the East and West ends, and only between the 5th and 7th floors. And the cantilever girders were on the north side of the building. All of these structural components were nowhere near the alleged damage. Keep in mind too that the south face damage estimates on NIST's diagrams are complete guesses formed from one vague eye-witness account, and that the failure of columns 79-80 is NIST's theory for the cause of the implosion.

[edit on 2006-6-15 by wecomeinpeace]

posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 02:27 PM
Ok...I was looking at it wrong. I was thinking that the transfer trusses that Howard is talking about were the "cantilevered girders" that NIST shows in the picture titled "Transfer System Between Floors 5 and 7". It still doesn't change my mind as to partial collapse versus full collapse.

Edited out wrong information here

Edit again: Why does sometimes when I preview my post when editing, it shows my edit until I hit the edit post button and then it disappears from the post? Then I have to hit the back button, copy my edit and paste it back into the original.

[edit on 6/15/2006 by Griff]

[edit on 6/15/2006 by Griff]

[edit on 6/15/2006 by Griff]

posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 02:39 PM
Nevermind....I see what they did. They excluded the facade column lines in the transfer picture. I was thinking that the transfer picture included the whole building. But, they are just showing the inner core columns in that picture. Now, my original opinion really stands because there are 2 more column lines that I wasn't even thinking about...i.e. the exterior columns.

posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 06:46 PM
What people don't think about is all the weight that the penthoused contained. They were not a James Bond type home they were the home of the cooling and ventilation systems probably 100s of tons of equipment in each.

mikell

posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 11:12 PM

Originally posted by mikellmikell
What people don't think about is all the weight that the penthoused contained. They were not a James Bond type home they were the home of the cooling and ventilation systems probably 100s of tons of equipment in each.

mikell

Yah mean the hundreds of tons that the building already was DESIGNED to take? Or was there a new a force applied? I'm curious as to what you have to say. Please enlighten us as to this new force that would make the building fall at freefall or close to it.

[edit on 6/15/2006 by Griff]

posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 12:23 AM

Originally posted by mikellmikell
What people don't think about is all the weight that the penthoused contained. They were not a James Bond type home they were the home of the cooling and ventilation systems probably 100s of tons of equipment in each.

mikell

How does a couple of beams of steel weakening at the bottom trigger a penthouse to IMPLODE 40 stories up???

I could never figure out that part.

posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 10:11 AM

Originally posted by Griff
Yah mean the hundreds of tons that the building already was DESIGNED to take?

Yes and no.

Over the years, numerous structural modifications were made throughout the building, mainly to suit its largest tenant, Salomon Brothers Inc. (later to become Salomon Smith Barney, now CitiGroup), who leased 25 of the 47 floors. One of the more substantial modifications was the addition of a penthouse that was used to house the chiller plant and the cooling towers for Salomon Brothers. Also, large portions of the 41st and 43rd floor slabs and the floor framing were removed on the east side of the building to accommodate trading floors for Salomon Brothers. The removed floor areas were subsequently restored after the trading activity was moved to another venue.

wtc.nist.gov...

posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 11:04 AM
No structural engineer in his right mind would let those renovations happen without first thoroughly doing a structural analysis. So, my post still stands about the building being designed to hold it.

posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 09:38 PM
Can anybody explain why the main structure of the 7 fell FASTER than the speed of gravity other than being a result of a controlled demo?

posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 04:14 PM
Faster than the speed of gravity!!.Even CD's don't fall faster than that!! HA HA
BTW just what do you think the speed of gravit is?

posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 08:28 PM

Originally posted by Duhh
Faster than the speed of gravity!!.Even CD's don't fall faster than that!! HA HA

Some do when air resistance has been factored in. Air is sometimes pumped out of buildings before they're collapsed so that they'll fall more quickly and neatly. Whether or not that happened at WTC7 is hard to say, but the building definitely fell at the speed of free fall at least. This contradicts the fact that there would be resistance in any natural collapse from the remaining steel columns.

top topics

0