Photographic Analysis of the WTC7 Hole - NIST Debunked

page: 4
11
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
In a fifty story building, would it be fair to say a twenty story hole went from the 19th floor to the 39th floor?


Not if you want the building to fall at freefall into its own footprint. What floors were the transfer trusses? NIST needs the BOTTOM middle of the building to be damaged to accomplish what they say happened.




posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 04:37 AM
link   
Okay, where to start...

How about with a photo from FEMA's Chapter 5? Very similar perspective, but shows many more floors on the West side. It would seem to indicate (to me at least) that the smudge being called floor 22 here is actually floor 19.
Figure 5-16 (as copied from FEMA by wtc7.net). Secondly, why grab a different chunk of the Verizon building than the part that actually goes there to fill out the bottom of that building? It looks really bad. I hope there was some point to it that I'm not seeing. Thirdly, if anyone is interested in redoing this analysis, I've collected some images over at Pilots for 9/11 Truth which you may find useful. I probably have some more lying around somewhere, if those aren't sufficient. I don't disagree with the fact that this is showing SW corner damage, but the analysis is, IMO, very sloppy.

Pilots for 9/11 Truth



posted on Mar, 19 2007 @ 03:09 PM
link   
For those playing the WTC 7 "Giant Gash Card".... BUMP



posted on Mar, 20 2007 @ 02:56 AM
link   
To the OP I have to say it is interesting. And I am glad that you are not trumpeting that it HAD to be a CD. Of course I do see you admit that there was indeed damage from falling debris. That said, I do see that there has been some photo manipulation to remove or use the Verizon building (I freely admit there was a point in reading that I did kind of glaze over).

Most pro-CT bandwagoners, by that I mean people that in all honestly just repeat what others have said and often mistake other people's mistakes instead of having the ability to form their own conclusions from their own research, will just say yeah that showed them and where are the pro-official story sheeple?

Often stated is that it is impossible for three building to fall into their own footprint without CD. And how tower 2 leaned and then magically righted itself while falling. To that please look way across the street at St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church on the corner of Liberty and West. Tower 2 debris destroyed that church. Not much mention about it as it doesn't fit the "fall into its own footprint so it MUST be a CD" theory.

Needless to say, I say good job for indepentent thought.



[edit on 20-3-2007 by Ahabstar]



posted on Mar, 20 2007 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ahabstar
To that please look way across the street at St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church on the corner of Liberty and West. Tower 2 debris destroyed that church. Not much mention about it as it doesn't fit the "fall into its own footprint so it MUST be a CD" theory.



I'm looking, lol.




Why should I be impressed that this building was destroyed? lol

[edit on 20-3-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Mar, 20 2007 @ 04:30 PM
link   
www.nyc-architecture.com...


Because if you scroll down to the map it shows how the prospective of a photo differs from the prospective of a map. Your picture would give the illusion that you would have turn sideways to slip between the church and tower 2.


or yahoo maps

or type st nicholas greek orthodox church new york, ny into google maps.

Basically the distance between the church and WTC2 shows that WTC2 was not a footprint fall. And while the four story church is a fly compared to WTC7 it does show the wide spread debris.

But if you insist on wild spectulation then the "demon face in the smoke" in the tabloids had to have been the tormented soul of Rasputin destroying some of Czar Nicholas's relics in the church across the way.



posted on Mar, 20 2007 @ 05:00 PM
link   


But if you insist on wild spectulation then the "demon face in the smoke" in the tabloids had to have been the tormented soul of Rasputin destroying some of Czar Nicholas's relics in the church across the way.


Fallacies of logic aside (Appeal to Ridicule/ ad hominem), your point about the damaged church is irrelevant. Many buildings in the area were damaged by falling debris. The 'falling into its footprint' argument is faulty only in that the demolitions were not standard for buildings 1 and 2. Building 7 was a classic demolition.



posted on Mar, 20 2007 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ahabstar
Basically the distance between the church and WTC2 shows that WTC2 was not a footprint fall. And while the four story church is a fly compared to WTC7 it does show the wide spread debris.


Well nobody is saying the towers fell in their own footprint, the outer columns/facade were being ejected laterally in all directions. But the towers did fall symmetrically, in other words all four corners fell at the same time and speed, and the towers did not as a mass fall anywhere but straight down.

Now building 7 did fall in it's own footprint. A demo company would have been proud with this job...




posted on Mar, 20 2007 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
...
But the towers did fall symmetrically, in other words all four corners fell at the same time and speed, and the towers did not as a mass fall anywhere but straight down.



Well I have watched the few comparison videos of actual CD and honestly I do not see the CD buildings doing the exact all four corners down at the same time that WTC7 did. In fact I would go so far to say that in comparison that the CD's look sloppy compared to WTC7, if WTC7 is the model for "perfect".

Now for a question, what would a building do exactly in your opinion? Would it lean and fall like a tree? Topple like a Jenga tower? Fall like a house of cards? None of those structures have vertical and horizontal forces (steal beams) attempting the tower stable.

Back to videos of actual CD, notice that on most every one that the central vertical support is removed and horizontal forces pull the building into itself much like a row of dominos in reverse, fanning inwards instead of outwards.

WTC7 appears to me to have lost its horizontal force and dropped straight and level and that the outer structure held at the top and sides. Notice the rubble in the picture you posted there are large sections of the outer facade that remained in more or less whole pieces.

Now in your mind think of a house of cards, toothpicks, stack of cord wood or even the game Don't Break the Ice. Now remove a single level without placing another outside force of sliding the level out. What happens? Does it drop a level evenly or unevenly? Does the stress the drop cause a collapse?

In a building, the vertical holds the horizontal up and the horizontal prevents a shearing stress against the vertical. WTC7 did not lose all the vertical and horizontal support on one side else it would have toppled or crumbled like a sand castle. But if it retained the horizontal forces and lost enough of the vertical it would begin to shear. That shearing , without external sideways force, would cause the remaining vertical forces to bend until a floor was lost. The above weight would fall vertically in a uniform manner until resisted enough to not fall vertically.

Go back again to the actual confirmed CD videos of other buildings. Central vertical support is removed and the building falls in on itself. Just like a sand castle if you dig into from the center.

So now comes my speculation as to what the force was to overcome the undamaged vertical columns of WTC7 since the debris raining down on it alone wasn’t enough. Remember those two very large buildings across the street that fell? That was quite a lot of vibration that entered the ground. So much vibration that it was detected on seismographs. Was it not Tesla that worked on harmonic resonance in New York by pounding on the iron support columns in a building and timing the return resonance from the Earth? Metal is shaped by heat and force. Heat was present from the fires, constant force was present from the gravity. How long would the resonant force take to return to the area by the Earth pushing back from the downward force of the two towers collapse?

It may seem fantastically far fetched that resonance would have been enough to additionally weaken already weakened and further weakening vertical support, but can that influence be ignored completely? Could the asymmetric force of vibration been enough to disrupt a building that could have otherwise stood? I don’t know but it seems to me that a natural and known to be real physical force to be a bit more plausible than a black ops force of 30-40 expert building demolitionists entering , setting up and exiting a burning building and pulling it 7 hours after the other two and no one saw any of these people?



posted on Mar, 20 2007 @ 07:47 PM
link   
Ahabstar --

Wow!

Your post is so full of flaws, I don't even know where to begin. I wonder if you have done any study at all on WTC 7 or 9/11.

Maybe someone else has the stamina to debate you, I'll pass.



posted on Mar, 20 2007 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ahabstar
Because if you scroll down to the map it shows how the prospective of a photo differs from the prospective of a map. Your picture would give the illusion that you would have turn sideways to slip between the church and tower 2.


No, I wasn't even considering the distance between them. I'm looking at the size of that church. I could run a bulldozer into it and knock it down. It's not a high rise, it wasn't built like one, and it certainly isn't up to high-rise building code, or have anywhere near the structural redundancy of one.



posted on Mar, 20 2007 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ahabstar
In fact I would go so far to say that in comparison that the CD's look sloppy compared to WTC7


Well, at least your eyes are ok.

Have you had any physics courses or statics? Ever done a free-body diagram? That one lengthy post you just made did have some problems that might be resolved if you went back and looked over some of that stuff.

On second thought I'm not sure you have any idea what you're really talking about. Yes, "resonance" can be ignored. The Myth Busters actually tried to fail a small beam in such a manner on one episode, watch out for it on Discovery. Also, all of the columns were welded and bolted all the way up to lateral beams. In other words, it was all solidly connected, more or less like one big piece of steel with granite and other masonry around it, concrete for the floors. Even if a column is knocked out at the base for whatever reason, it's not going to all come crashing down from the roof because of all of the beams holding the rest of it steady, "gripping" tight around it on each floor.

[edit on 20-3-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Mar, 20 2007 @ 09:12 PM
link   
You are correct, I am not an advanced structural engineer , just a joe average citizen but if your research, analysis, and conclusions are too prohibitively exhaustive to explain to make me say “hey maybe you have something there.” maybe you need to objectively look again.

Did I not say that resonance being a factor was fantastically far fetched? Is it easier to examine the effect of resonance as to say covert demolitions teams that acted in plain view of huge crowds gathered around the area or holographic plane impacts with realistic audio effects because John Lear doubts he could have hit the towers with his flying experience?

To John Lear, those towers would have been a hard target. Look at the waggle on second plane coming in and tell me you can not envision the desperate wrenching of the wheel back and forth to correct the vector enough to hit inside the corner of the building. Is this impact location why the building fell first despite being designed to survive a direct center impact from a slightly smaller commercial jet? If so does that make my ideas “so full of flaws?”

So let me ask a very simple question. If you were to design a skyscraper in the 1970’s fully aware that it would eventually have to come down due to age like many other skyscrapers and you wanted it to come down easy and cleanly so not as to disturb surrounding buildings: What would it look like if it came down accidentally from structural failure?



posted on Mar, 20 2007 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ahabstar
You are correct, I am not an advanced structural engineer , just a joe average citizen but if your research, analysis, and conclusions are too prohibitively exhaustive to explain to make me say “hey maybe you have something there.” maybe you need to objectively look again.


So no you've never had physics, but the fact that I don't agree with you indicates that I should reconsider my views?


Is it easier to examine the effect of resonance as to say covert demolitions teams that acted in plain view of huge crowds gathered around the area or holographic plane impacts with realistic audio effects because John Lear doubts he could have hit the towers with his flying experience?


I never suggested either.


If you were to design a skyscraper in the 1970’s fully aware that it would eventually have to come down due to age like many other skyscrapers and you wanted it to come down easy and cleanly so not as to disturb surrounding buildings: What would it look like if it came down accidentally from structural failure?


More relevant is what it wouldn't do: spout most of its mass in every direction, but without the actual collapse slowing down. Wasn't it supposed to be driven by the momentum of the falling mass?


Besides, Les Robertson didn't design the buildings to fall, no one does that. Building a building to fall and building it to stand are two completely contradictory goals. Buildings are built to stand. Those buildings in particular were all built to withstand enormous disasters. Not collapse like houses of cards. Not only would it be illegal to build something like that, it would be extremely hazardous to a very, very large area.



posted on Mar, 20 2007 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
The Myth Busters actually tried to fail a small beam in such a manner on one episode, watch out for it on Discovery. Also, all of the columns were welded and bolted all the way up to lateral beams. In other words, it was all solidly connected, more or less like one big piece of steel with granite and other masonry around it, concrete for the floors. Even if a column is knocked out at the base for whatever reason, it's not going to all come crashing down from the roof because of all of the beams holding the rest of it steady, "gripping" tight around it on each floor.

[edit on 20-3-2007 by bsbray11]


Two points:

Myth Busters would be a study on simple resonance in a solid object. In order to reshape or bend tempered steel you need heat, pressure and force. Place a standard box end wrench in a bench vice and beat it with a hammer and it breaks. Heat it up with a fire to a sufficient and hit it and it bends. You have heat from the fire, pressure from the gravity on building, I put forward the idea of resonance as a force.

Naturally the support columns are steel encased in concrete in the lower levels and that it would take the loss of more than one to cause the building to collapse under its own weight and perhaps the uncalculated weight of debris.

My main point of consideration is this (guess this is a third point) the average person saying that it has to be a CD has never or rarely considered outside factors such as the weight of debris or the force of vibration from resonance on the remaining supports that were already stressed from covering the extra load from damaged and destroyed supports.



posted on Mar, 20 2007 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ahabstar
Myth Busters would be a study on simple resonance in a solid object. In order to reshape or bend tempered steel you need heat, pressure and force.


And the vast majority of WTC7 was in a cool, sturdy shape. You cannot say that the majority of the building was on fire and under intense loading conditions.


My main point of consideration is this (guess this is a third point) the average person saying that it has to be a CD has never or rarely considered outside factors such as the weight of debris or the force of vibration from resonance on the remaining supports that were already stressed from covering the extra load from damaged and destroyed supports.


That's because those things aren't likely to have caused any real problems. The additional load represented by any flying columns really would be negligible when you're talking about a structure that supports hundreds of thousands of tons of weight at its base and is designed to hold multiples of that for safety. Knocking out support columns is the actual danger, and the possible debris areas aren't anywhere near critical columns at the base. And the seismic activity couldn't even knock people over that were standing near the bases of the towers. Those are the kinds of reasons why most people have not considered those points, including the federal agencies that have "investigated" the collapses thus far to try to find something to pin them on.



posted on Mar, 20 2007 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Ahabstar
You are correct, I am not an advanced structural engineer , just a joe average citizen but if your research, analysis, and conclusions are too prohibitively exhaustive to explain to make me say “hey maybe you have something there.” maybe you need to objectively look again.


So no you've never had physics, but the fact that I don't agree with you indicates that I should reconsider my views?



That was actually written in response to Smack's posts.

Yes, I did indeed take physics 101 in college as part of science requirements. Way back then they taught centrifical force and not centripetal like they do today. We also did not do comparitive analysis of freefall in real world environments like CD versus natural collapse. I would feel ripped off but watching live NASA feed from the Uranus flyby in Astronomy 101 was great, but when your prof was part of the project you get those perks I guess.



posted on Mar, 20 2007 @ 10:47 PM
link   
Ahabstar --

The problem I have with your arguments is that it has been covered exhaustively on these forums and elsewhere. If you really want answers, I highly recommend the search feature. I'm not criticizing your curiosity, rather I am pointing out the fatal flaw in your arguments is your lack of research.

Just my .02c

On Topic, my opinion is unchanged. I saw building 7 fall straight down. It was a CD. Trying to convince me it wasn't is like telling me the Earth is flat. It's an absurdity I refuse to accept.



posted on Mar, 20 2007 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Smack
Ahabstar --

The problem I have with your arguments is that it has been covered exhaustively on these forums and elsewhere. If you really want answers, I highly recommend the search feature. I'm not criticizing your curiosity, rather I am pointing out the fatal flaw in your arguments is your lack of research.

Just my .02c

On Topic, my opinion is unchanged. I saw building 7 fall straight down. It was a CD. Trying to convince me it wasn't is like telling me the Earth is flat. It's an absurdity I refuse to accept.


So we agree to not exactly to agree and that is what makes open discussion good. And I am glad that you are looking at for yourself and not blindly following any agenda.

But to clarify you say it must be a CD because the roofline was a straight and level fall. I say it does not prove a CD beause the roofline was a straight and level fall. Now if the there was CD of an entire floor at a lower level of all supports at the exact same time and allowed for a level roofline then we would both be right, I just don't see evidence of that in any video of WTC7.



posted on Mar, 21 2007 @ 12:09 AM
link   
How can you expect a building, or anything for that matter, to fall down upon itself, all four corners at the same speed with no resistance, from damage to only part of the structure?
I don't understand how you can even visualise such a thing.

You don't need physics 101 to understand this. For a building to fall this way ALL the supports would have to fail at the same time, how does that happen from localised damage? It doesn't and never has.

Find me a building that has done this, I guarantee you you can't.

In fact you could build a structure much like the internal structure of a building and try to get all four corners to fall at the same time and speed from damage to just one side of the structure. Make it from anything you like, destroy one side, set it on fire, you WILL NOT be able to get it to fail the way WTC 7 did.

BTW you said you did physics 101, don't they teach physics in high school anymore? That's all that's required to understand this. Well at least what I was taught in high school is.





new topics
top topics
 
11
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join