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.

 

Solid Debunking of WTC7 Theories

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 2 2006 @ 06:53 AM
link   
I present to you a 134 page report that covers the events at WTC7 on September 11th 2001 far greater than I have seen in the past.

www.911myths.com...
"World Trade Center Building 7 and the lies of the 9/11 "Truth Movement"



Did firefighters abandon their fallen brothers to help real estate developer Larry Silverstein demolish a skyscraper?

Conspiracist Alex Jones and other 9/11 “Truth Movement” leaders gather at Ground Zero and accuse Silverstein of murder and FDNY heroes of heinous crimes, lies and cover-ups.

Do their claims stand up to examination?
By Mark Roberts email: nyctours@gmail.com October, 2006


I encourage you to read the whole thing.

Next time someone says "Anyone who even looks at the collapse of building 7..." Blah Blah Blah... is going to get linked right to this mother of a debunking.

Go ahead - read it.




posted on Nov, 2 2006 @ 07:34 AM
link   
DrFungi:


DrFungi >> I encourage you to read the whole thing. Next time someone says "Anyone who even looks at the collapse of building 7..." Blah Blah Blah... is going to get linked right to this mother of a debunking. Go ahead - read it.


Linking members to your ‘Opinion Molding’ Propaganda is not going explain to anyone what caused this to happen:

www.whatreallyhappened.com...

Everyone should take a long look at the diagram of the columns and supporting beams of the WTC 7 structure ( www.jameswickstrom.com... = first diagram on page ) to realize no fire could have caused all of these supports to give way simultaneously. The melting point of these steel members is 2777 degrees and this building was struck by NOTHING. Review how the concrete floors 47 story skyscraper collapsed more quickly, than if the walls had simply disappeared. In other words, a negatively charged decompressed environment was created inside the structure through a series of timed detonations; which actually sucked the building down into its own footprint. In a real world situation specific columns and beams exposed to 2777 degrees for sufficient periods would begin to bend and give way in areas proximal to any fire, but those supporting members beyond that temperature range would remain standing. Look at the collapse again and again to realize that there is no ‘pancaking’ of top floors onto those below them at all. The whole building gives way, as the supporting columns and beams were systematically taken out to allow the floors to ‘freefall’ straight down in true ‘demolition’ fashion.

The collapse of WTC-7 is the smoking gun that proves beyond all doubt that WTC 1,2 and 7 were wired for demolition by DoD Contractors in the month leading up to 9/11. There is simply no other way for 47 stories of steel / concrete skyscraper to collapse into its own footprint. DrFungi is harping the “Official DoD / Bush Administration ‘Opinion Molding’ Cover Story” Propaganda, when he knows darn good and well his explanations do not match the facts in this case. How can he explain the fact that ‘all’ of these supporting columns and beams suffered catastrophic failure at the very same time? Most everyone here has seen video footage of a building taken down by the detonation of pyrotechnic charges by demolition contractors. Right? In each case the ideal result is the building collapses straight down into its own footprint. Right? However, how many of those jobs could POSSIBLY be carried out by starting a fire? Heh . . . NONE OF THEM.

All of these steel / concrete reinforced structures are engineered to remain standing in ANY FIRE; much less one that started just a few hours earlier. How many of these skyscrapers have collapsed due to fire in US history? Exactly three; and all on 9/11 on the same day within hours of one another. Can any of you imagine a fire starting in any other 47 story skyscraper to cause the thing to collapse like WTC-7 in a few hours???? How would you begin generating 2777 degrees of temperature throughout the structure without using controlled charges? The true terrorists worked inside WTC-1, 2 and 7 for some time, before packing enough explosives into the supporting structures to bring them down. There is simply no other way to force all of these supports into collapsing at the very same time.

How about if DrFungi gives us his take on how all of these supports failed simultaneously??? Can he do that? No. Why not? Because, he is here to post his 'Propaganda' and point fingers at CTers.

GL seeing the difference,

Terral


[edit on 2-11-2006 by Terral]



posted on Nov, 2 2006 @ 07:37 AM
link   
doctorfungi,

With all due respect, there are more than just Alex Jones's "Truth Movement" who have unanswered questions about WTC 7. So if you attempt to treat anyone who has unanswered questions about this particular building collapse as if they are one and the same with Alex and that group, you're going to get yourself into a sticky wicket. You will with me, at least.

Thanks for linking to the document. I will look at it this evening when I get home from work.


[edit on 11-2-2006 by Valhall]



posted on Nov, 2 2006 @ 10:43 AM
link   
Post the section that details how several laterally-braced steel columns, rising up bolted and solidly welded to trusses on each floor, can collapse straight down upon themselves without providing any resistance.

Thanks in advance.

[edit on 2-11-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Nov, 2 2006 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Post the section that details how several laterally-braced steel columns, rising up bolted and solidly welded to trusses on each floor, can collapse straight down upon themselves without providing any resistance.

Thanks in advance.

[edit on 2-11-2006 by bsbray11]



Please define what you consider acceptable "resistance."

Thanks in advance.




posted on Nov, 2 2006 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Please define what you consider acceptable "resistance."


How about any resistance, and not a drop at free-fall velocity?



posted on Nov, 2 2006 @ 11:43 AM
link   
Does this look like it could fall straight?




At free fall velocity?




Into a ~3-story pile?





Without outside "help"?



Come on guys, think about this. Visualize it. Imagine yourself standing in this building and watching the columns fail. How could it possibly do that?

The kind of stuff posted at the top of this thread is only going to be entertained by complete morons and cowards for so long before the obviousness of this starts hitting the wrong people. It doesn't matter if there was fire, because fire doesn't cause that. It doesn't matter if someone flew a plane into the building. It would not collapse like that. Only an implosion, would cause it to collapse like that.



Trying to get those images sized right.

[edit on 2-11-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Nov, 2 2006 @ 12:59 PM
link   
"WHAT DID NIST CONCLUDE WERE THE CAUSES OF THE WTC COLLAPSES"....

i was reading page one. the author obviously haven't a clue because NIST never concluded anything. The last they had was a theory. The pancake theory. It has been disproved, the accepted it and now they are trying to come up with a new theory. They never concluded anything. This author obviously takes every theory as fact. So his side is as biased as he claims 911truthers to be.

No Doc, i dont believe ill be reading all 1hundred whatever pages of this.



posted on Nov, 2 2006 @ 03:30 PM
link   
Yeah I am so convinced by reading this set of straw man arguments, and ad homonym name callings. Oh they are "creeps," who dare to call themselves a "truth movement," and so forth. No proofs just self assertion and analysis only of flawed inarticulate "theories," not one set of juicy findings.

Far from being a "Perry Mason moment," this document is more of the same dribbling nonsense as the Popular Mechanics whitewash. There is nothing but name calling here and selected out of context excerpts that look absurd.

He writes about 911 truth attacking simple people when the real issue is the elite attacking on 911 with their project Northwoods stereotype.

There are more scenarios about how "honorable people wouldn't do this or that."

Your document is neither definitive, nor scientific, nor does it debunk anything but itself.



posted on Nov, 2 2006 @ 11:17 PM
link   
Pages 72 - 78 explain your 'tidy pile' theory. If you had bothered to read it, it's all there.



Post the section that details how several laterally-braced steel columns, rising up bolted and solidly welded to trusses on each floor, can collapse straight down upon themselves without providing any resistance.

Thanks in advance.


Well first of all there is pretty much THE WHOLE DOCUMENT.

And the nature of every 9/11 denier on the planet can be summed up by this one quote:



No Doc, i dont believe ill be reading all 1hundred whatever pages of this.


Anything that goes against your oppinion goes unread and is a waste of time to you guys. I can tell just by reading these responses that absolutley none of you read the whole document.

As for this one:



With all due respect, there are more than just Alex Jones's "Truth Movement" who have unanswered questions about WTC 7. So if you attempt to treat anyone who has unanswered questions about this particular building collapse as if they are one and the same with Alex and that group, you're going to get yourself into a sticky wicket. You will with me, at least.


Of course mate, I'm not going to deny for one second that there are unanswered questions about WTC7. What I'm saying is that most of the general statements made about WTC7 are proovably false and this document shows it. So next time someone makes the very generalised statement along the lines of "Anyone who has even watched the collapse of WTC7 knows 9/11 was a conspiracy" - I'll show them a few counter arguments to show that it isn't that simple.

I also understand that there are alot of 9/11 CT'ers who are nothing like Alex Jones. The same point can be made about people who believe I am a Neocon just because I support Bush.

[edit on 2/11/2006 by doctorfungi]

[edit on 2/11/2006 by doctorfungi]



posted on Nov, 2 2006 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by doctorfungi

Post the section that details how several laterally-braced steel columns, rising up bolted and solidly welded to trusses on each floor, can collapse straight down upon themselves without providing any resistance.

Thanks in advance.


Well first of all there is pretty much THE WHOLE DOCUMENT.


I don't believe you quite understand what I'm asking.

Stuff about Larry Silverstein does not relate, as one example. Please point me specifically to the part of that document that outlines the collapse mechanisms that I'm looking for, that NIST is looking for, that no one else can seem to find, that allow a 47-story building to fall straight down upon itself as detailed above.



posted on Nov, 3 2006 @ 11:54 PM
link   
Gotta love how 99.9% of the 9/11 conspiracy theory proponents, attempt to critique the "official" story (if you can call it that) based solely on a layman's understanding of structural and aeronautical engineering and no real-world experience in photographical and video analysis.

Bsbray11's post, earlier in this thread, is a prime example of the latter.



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 12:04 AM
link   
SO what kinda garbage we selling today Fungi???

Is it that never listen to a CT crackpot again?? I thought you would have learned something already.. Nobody gives a flying rats ass about you site or any other site... well maybe Howard, Left behind and a few others.. But come on man, of you want to prove something just type it out.. Its not hard we all do.. So got something show it, don't make us look elsewhere to point out how lame/good/shoddy it is..



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 02:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Egotosum
Gotta love how 99.9% of the 9/11 conspiracy theory proponents, attempt to critique the "official" story (if you can call it that) based solely on a layman's understanding of structural and aeronautical engineering and no real-world experience in photographical and video analysis.

Bsbray11's post, earlier in this thread, is a prime example of the latter.


If you think structural engineering is based around or even really involves dynamic systems, then your understanding is less than that of a layman's, and the bit about aeronautical engineering demonstrates ignorance of that field of study as well, as if planes had anything to do with WTC7's collapse to begin with. Even if you meant the Towers, aeronautical engineering has nothing to do with planes slamming into buildings.

Anyway, my last post (as its title suggests) was an appeal to intuition, since some people tend to see engineering as something much more esoteric than the mundane things it actually is, thinking that engineering somehow makes 2+2=5 on certain occasions for very complex reasons (that are never really explained, notice
), when it does not. There's a good reason why no collapses other than implosions have ever looked like WTC7's.



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 02:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Egotosum
Gotta love how 99.9% of the 9/11 conspiracy theory proponents, attempt to critique the "official" story (if you can call it that) based solely on a layman's understanding of structural and aeronautical engineering and no real-world experience in photographical and video analysis.

Bsbray11's post, earlier in this thread, is a prime example of the latter.


If you think structural engineering is based around or even really involves dynamic systems, then your understanding is less than that of a layman's, and the bit about aeronautical engineering demonstrates ignorance of that field of study as well, as if planes had anything to do with WTC7's collapse to begin with. Even if you meant the Towers, aeronautical engineering has nothing to do with planes slamming into buildings.

Anyway, my last post (as its title suggests) was an appeal to intuition, since some people tend to see engineering as something much more esoteric than the mundane things it actually is, thinking that engineering somehow makes 2+2=5 on certain occasions for very complex reasons (that are never really explained, notice
), when it does not. There's a good reason why no collapses other than implosions have ever looked like WTC7's.

It's pretty clear you, like 99.9% of the posters on this forum (including me), haven't got the least bit knowledge of anything remotely to do with the fundamental concepts of structural or aeronautical engineering - that's clearly demonstrated by the way in which you put together that particular post.

The collapse of that tower came about as a result of the interaction of a whole host of different forces. Would you like to list them out?



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 03:19 AM
link   
How can you say you don't know what you're talking about, and then act like you somehow know that I don't either?

I'm telling you: structural engineering does not entail dynamic systems. Do you know what I mean by dynamic system?

I have read structural engineering textbooks. I am familiar with the course of study. It's a lot of statics and sines and cosines of angles of beams and calculating the loads they can safely support in different configurations. That would make sense considering the field, would it not? Griff is a structural engineer, and he posts around here. He'll tell you about it.

What they do not specialize in, is the effects of fire upon steel (would be more along the lines of metallurgy, would it not?), and dynamic systems, which would be more in line with a structural dynamicist, a physicist, or even a mechanical engineer.

There are no moving parts or fires, to put it frankly for the layman.


Guess what aeronautical engineers study? Aeronautical engineering. Know what that means? How to design and put together aircraft. Who would have thought? And again, nothing in regards to what will happen when you fly them into building x. Hopefully, that will never be a course of study.


And if you want, you can look for sources to check out what I'm saying, instead of just posting once again simply telling me that I'm wrong and don't know what I'm talking about. I'm sure that's really a very easy thing to do, and that I could do it myself. So if you want to just save yourself the trouble of having to do that over and over throughout these threads, why not get used to checking up on facts for yourself?


Edn

posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 04:01 AM
link   
If you have a look at this building. It had a few minor fires, some smashed windows and maybe a hole or two here and there around the building. Compare that the the other trade center buildings which took more of a hit, had worse structural damage and most definitely worse fires. Compare it to all the other buildings around the world that have had severe structural damage, did any of them fall? let alone fall straight to the ground with virtually no resistance what so ever from the lover floors?

Not a single one. WTC7 is the only building of its size in history to have collapsed with no real signs of any significant damage that could have been caused by falling debris from WTC1&2



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
and the bit about aeronautical engineering demonstrates ignorance of that field of study as well, as if planes had anything to do with WTC7's collapse to begin with. Even if you meant the Towers, aeronautical engineering has nothing to do with planes slamming into buildings.



While it has been a few years since I graduated and therefore the aerospace engineering curriculum could have changed since, I'd like to confirm there was no "When your plane hits a building 101" class even offered.



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 12:40 PM
link   
perhaps they should start offering it.

Since there was a big annomily on 9/11 about it. why not.



posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 06:48 PM
link   
the 9/11 video's iv seen are;

fahrenheit 9/11,
loose change,
The Great Conspiracy of 9-11 News Special You Never Saw by barry zwicker,

i know there is loads more could you guys please help me to find more by telling me the names of ones you have seen or still have to see etc, i will go & get as much as i can & also if there are sites i could goto to look up studies that people have did on this subject & if theres a site where can get to see the official 9/11 report, then that would be my starting place,

I was more of a jock at school but i was also a closet nerd, i didn't graduate or anything but i will study this to my best ability, this is something i really want to understand to the fullest, i really want to comment on allot of things but feel my replies would be worthless couldn't comment intelligently on it,

for what i "THINK" i understand about these things, my ultimate view would be to say theres no way in hell something that well constructed could collapse in on its self as well as it did WITHOUT help of some sort & for me that help of some sort would have to be demolition charges or something similar that would create a high enough temperature to melt main supports & bring it all down as it did.

my mind is not however made up to the point were i would not accept any other theory, thats just being ignorant

thanks in advance for any pointers to vids & sites to visit.

[edit on 4-11-2006 by eddie666m1980w]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join