A simple FACT about 9/11 thats CANNOT be debunked!

Originally posted by esdad71
the closest thing you will find is the partial collapse of this tower, with similar contruction of perimeter columns

Windsor Tower perimeter "columns":



WTC Towers perimeter columns:




And you say this is one of the only things comparable between the Windsor Tower and WTC Towers? Give me a freaking break. I hope you really had not looked into this, and were just unaware here, because otherwise, you should REALLY be catching onto something psychological going on here man. Those columns are not at ALL comparable.

Originally posted by your_evidence

Originally posted by esdad71
They were not 'designed' to withstand multiple airliner hits, they were built to withstand a possbile 707 striking it if lost after take off or prior to a landing in adverse weather conditions. It was not designed to with stand a 767 going in excess of 500 mph.

Also, review the design specs of the towers, where it was inner core colmuns that held suspeneded floors that were attached to outer columns. It is a very very unique design for it's time and was designed for commercial space and a few colums as possible to extract as mcu hsq footage as it could.

The collapse is a precedent that was set and hopefully we never see it again. Jsut because something has never happened before does not mean it cannot.

911research.wtc7.net...

the closest thing you will find is the partial collapse of this tower, with similar contruction of perimeter columns and lack of fireproofing, howver the core is reineforced concrete, not steel as the WTC, which more than likely saved it from total collapse.

[edit on 27-10-2006 by esdad71]

But you see they constuctured them thinking on a fully gas loaded 707,much heavier than the 767 that hit the towers, they wern't anywhere near their take off weight.

If you feel you have more doubts i would strongly recomend seeing this video, unless you hide from the truth.

Video

And yet the WTC 7 collapsed 'cause of fire? i'll say it again the steel core can never ever collapse, and never ever collapse at the speed they did and i'll have to say that there were steel cored buildings that got on fire before, buildings less complex than the WTCs,and fires way bigger than the ones on 9/11 and yet they did not collapse.Incredible?

Yes, and this is the video that clearly shows the 'CRIMP' in WTC 7 as it is coming down. That is in answer to someone who asked to see it. I have been away for a few days so I don't remember who it was. Watch the video. Learn a lesson are two about the reality of that day. It sucks to think that this was an inside job, that the government would do this to its own people. However, they have gained so much from it that losing 7 buildings that were losing a great deal of money and a few thousands lives probably seemed like a bargain for them.

Originally posted by bsbray11
It's in the chemistry of fire that black smoke is always indicative of an inefficient burn. This is regardless of the gross heat output or etc., it's just a fact that smoke turns black because it has soot in it, and soot is uncombusted hydrocarbons; unused energy.

So what do you think happened to the 12,000 gallons of deilse fuel from the SSB tanks?

Originally posted by HowardRoark
So what do you think happened to the 12,000 gallons of deilse fuel from the SSB tanks?

Not much.




That photo was taken in the afternoon, as evidenced by the shadows (the photo is showing WTC7's North face).

Where are the raging infernos?


Your missing fuel probably just seeped somewhere where it couldn't be recovered. Some 20k gallons of diesel were recovered unburned.

Originally posted by bsbray11

That photo was taken in the afternoon, as evidenced by the shadows (the photo is showing WTC7's North face).

I thought that it was the east face.

Where are the raging infernos?

Can you see inside the generator rooms in that photo? I can’t. I see lots of smoke, though.

Your missing fuel probably just seeped somewhere where it couldn't be recovered. Some 20k gallons of diesel were recovered unburned.

The 20K was from the base building tanks. The base building system had two 10,000 gallon USTs. The SSB system had two 6,000 gallon USTs. I guess you missed the report that stated no significant soil contamination was found under the building. I would say that 12,000 gallons of product in the soils would represent a detectable amount of contamination. At that volume you would have significant amounts of free product present which would be recoverable.

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by bsbray11

That photo was taken in the afternoon, as evidenced by the shadows (the photo is showing WTC7's North face).

I thought that it was the east face.

I'm not surprised.

Can you see inside the generator rooms in that photo? I can’t. I see lots of smoke, though.

The generator rooms aren't what needs to be destroyed for the building to collapse unresisted, HowardRoark.

"Lots of smoke" does not equate to "lots of fire". Ask a firefighter. We have at least one here at ATS, and he's not impressed with WTC7's smoke.

The 20K was from the base building tanks.

Yes. I said they probably just never found the rest of it. And there isn't any evidence of a massive fire.

Originally posted by bsbray11

The generator rooms aren't what needs to be destroyed for the building to collapse unresisted, HowardRoark.

But they were close to the point at which it has been postulated that the initial column failure began based on the sequence of the penthouse collapse.

The 20K was from the base building tanks.

Yes. I said they probably just never found the rest of it. And there isn't any evidence of a massive fire.

It is pretty hard to “miss” 12,000 gallons of diesel fuel.

originally posted by doctor fungi.

If you would care to explain how someone could correctly place charges for a controlled demolition in a building that had a massive hole in the SW side of it AND had fires througout the whole building - be my guest.

Like you said, just use logic.

The explosives were already in the building.

Originally posted by omega1
originally posted by doctor fungi.

If you would care to explain how someone could correctly place charges for a controlled demolition in a building that had a massive hole in the SW side of it AND had fires througout the whole building - be my guest.

Like you said, just use logic.

The explosives were already in the building.

not an "explosive" but a lot of fuel

wtc.nist.gov...

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by bsbray11
The generator rooms aren't what needs to be destroyed for the building to collapse unresisted, HowardRoark.

But they were close to the point at which it has been postulated that the initial column failure began based on the sequence of the penthouse collapse.

So what? That's one column. You have several more to go to get to the unresisted global collapse stage, notwithstanding the fact that no one has shown how that column could have just fallen straight down to the base, with all the bracing and etc. around it.

It is pretty hard to “miss” 12,000 gallons of diesel fuel.

Not when you're FEMA, eh?

I think what would be REALLY hard to miss, is a raging inferno of FLAMES, especially when people were out photographing and videotaping it the whole time.

Originally posted by bsbray11
So what? That's one column. You have several more to go to get to the unresisted global collapse stage,

Under normal circumstances, I would be inclined to agree with you, but the problem is that this building did not have a standard, “normal,” design. Therefore, I have to say that there is a possibility that there was a single failure point vulnerability built into the building based on it’s design. I am not qualified to make that determination. It is my understanding that that is the focus of the NIST research efforts at this time.

notwithstanding the fact that no one has shown how that column could have just fallen straight down to the base, with all the bracing and etc. around it.

I do believe that there are some drawings from NIST that illustrate this process. The question appears to be the effect on the transfer truss system that this failure may have had. In any event, this coresponds well with the observed failure sequence of the penthouses.

It is pretty hard to “miss” 12,000 gallons of diesel fuel.

Not when you're FEMA, eh?

It wasn’t FEMA, it was an outside contractor.

I think what would be REALLY hard to miss, is a raging inferno of FLAMES, especially when people were out photographing and videotaping it the whole time.

If the diesel fuel fire was burning in an interior, mechanical floor area, how do you know you would have seen any flames and not just thick black smoke pouring out of the building?

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Under normal circumstances, I would be inclined to agree with you, but the problem is that this building did not have a standard, “normal,” design. Therefore, I have to say that there is a possibility that there was a single failure point vulnerability built into the building based on it’s design. I am not qualified to make that determination. It is my understanding that that is the focus of the NIST research efforts at this time.

I can help you out:

Steel will provide resistance when something falls straight down upon it, no matter how strange you think the structure is. If you need an engineer to tell you that, then this is the wrong discussion for you.



That should not fold straight down at free-fall velocity into a 3-story pile without resistance in ANY circumstance, save an implosion.

Remember that this is a steel skyscraper, no doubt bolted and welded together solidly, just as all other steel skyscrapers are.

It wasn’t FEMA, it was an outside contractor.

Who's investigation are we referencing?

FEMA stated that much or most of all of the diesel in the building was recovered. Where the rest went, they could only speculate.

When you suggest all of this diesel went to fueling massive fires that no one ever saw, you are speculating, and I'd say that's some pretty bad, as in very counter-intuitive speculating.

When we see the building collapse, there is no need for speculation that that thing didn't resist itself. It didn't even slow down. This is a very easy observation, and very damning to anything that comes out of anyone's mouth about fire and the SW corner.

If the diesel fuel fire was burning in an interior, mechanical floor area, how do you know you would have seen any flames and not just thick black smoke pouring out of the building?

It would have to be damned hot fires to fail a steel structure, and hot fires don't produce sooty smoke.

[edit on 1-11-2006 by bsbray11]