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.

 

WTC 7 revisited...

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 01:55 AM
link   
www.studyof911.com...

This talks about wtc 7.

They state the fireproofing came off when the towers fell. They also talk about the diesel from the pipes.

Also they state the fire started at 10:30am.
(earlier I stated it was noticed after 3pm, my mistake.)

Also a nice note:



If you allow it to burn long enough, the fire will cook the steel.


Thats funny.

I sent Anok the link before i decided to add it here.

::EDIT::

it also has alot of weird things that it says that makes no sense.

This is Modern Marvels on History Channel.

[edit on 7/26/2007 by ThichHeaded]

[edit on 7/26/2007 by ThichHeaded]




posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 12:39 PM
link   
Thought I would add my 2 cents in here... MANY falacies on this thread.

First of all... Why Anok do you dismiss the MANY firefighters, and EMS testimony to the condition of WTC7? Do you beleive the many survivors of WTC 1&2 when they said they heard "explosions?" Do you believe Willie Rodrequiez when he states he knows there was a bomb bleow him?


Anok also you stated:

I'm not denying there were fires, just not to the extent some people want to believe. There has been an ongoing argument over whether the smoke in the pic I posted was from WTC 7 or not. With this series of pics I posted it's pretty obvious it was dust from the collapse of WTC 1


I am curious..you are claiming that all the pictures you see are in fact dust from the other collapses. Which they may be. But who are you to say what extent the fires were at WTC-7?? You were not there and you have provided nothing in the way of evidence to show the fires were not to the extent as we were all told by the countless amount of Firefighters that were on the scene.

Have you watched the video that shows WTC7 on fire?

Please watch this video (if you havent already) Please listen to the firefighter at 2:10. "look at the hole in that building" he states. Watch the amount of smoke that is clearly coming out of WTC7... watch the flame shooting out of the windows... watch the windows popping out of the building from the extreme heat.



The timing appears to be off on the amount of time it took to fall. We are all shown the same 10 second video over and over.... this video shows all 4 corners did not fail at the same time. Watch the video and it will point out how the collapse started WELL before most CT sites show.




infinityoreilly and others think a comparison to the Murrah Building is a good comparison.
What was the Murrah building constructed with?
What was WTC-7 maily constructed with?
What was NEW-WTC-7 RE built with?

If you know the answers to these questions, you will clearly see that there is NO comparison between the buildings, their construction, or they way they were destroyed.

There are others that question the damage done to WTC7. Please watch this short video that shows exactly what some truthers are failing to see.

The OP may be talking about "dust" on this thread...clearly...dust is far from the only thing coming out of WTC-7.




What people seem to forget that there was minimal at best firefighting operations going on at WTC7. Very few water lines hitting it. The collaspe zone that was created pretty much stopped any water from hitting that building for a few hours.

I won't get into the other false claims that are made about WTC7 because this is a thread that is dealing with "dust". Wit hrespect to Anok, I will not derail this. I just want those that are interested in the TRUTH.... the videos I posted clearly show:

1- Intense fires
2- Intense smoke
3- A much longer than free fall collapse
4- Some of the severe damage that WTC7 received from the collapse of the North Tower.



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 01:26 PM
link   
^CO

First off, why don't you post videos of the Madrid fire, or the one on Philly, or any of the numerous fires that have raged uncontrolled through other modern steel-framed skyscrapers in comparison to WTC7?

If you had, you'd soon see that WTC7 was nothing in comparison. "Ooh! Smoke! Aie! Flames!"

Conclusion we are led to draw? Gee, it was on fire, it had to fall! Nonsense. Not even a full floor was on fire, most smoldering at any given time.

Lots of smoke, I'll grant you, as in smoke screen.

And I frankly laughed when I watched the video stretching out the collapse to 13+ seconds. First off, nothing but nothing happens in the first five seconds before the penthouse collapses.

Secondly, why would the penthouse initiate collapse? It goes against the most basic logic and indicate the entire interior structure gave way at the outset of the collapse. Hardly the proof you want to to be touting, because that means all, repeat all, the interior structure of steel columns and trusses simply disassociated themselves in the blink of an eye. Manifestly impossible.

Thanks for helping us along; keep up the good work!



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by gottago
^CO

First off, why don't you post videos of the Madrid fire, or the one on Philly, or any of the numerous fires that have raged uncontrolled through other modern steel-framed skyscrapers in comparison to WTC7?


Please show me in these skyscapers that you are refering to, one or more of the following:
1. An airplane smashing into it at 500 mph
2. Or a 110 foot skyscraper showering debris into it as it collapsed

Are there any videos? Here are some pictures, and in fact The Madrid fire suffered a partial collapse....all the steel did indeed fail at the upper floors and collapse ..all that was standing was the concrete.






Originally posted by gottagoLots of smoke, I'll grant you, as in smoke screen.


Ahh... Brilliant!


Originally posted by gottagoAnd I frankly laughed when I watched the video stretching out the collapse to 13+ seconds. First off, nothing but nothing happens in the first five seconds before the penthouse collapses.


Then you didn't watch it. Thats the problem .. you can clearly see the collaspe at the top left section of the Penthouse.


Originally posted by gottagoSecondly, why would the penthouse initiate collapse?


Did I say that? I can't explain exactly why it collapsed...neither has NIST. All I know is that there is ZERO evidence that supports a CD. DO you happen to have any witnesses to hearing bombs go off just prior to the initial collapse? Are you in possesion that shows seismic records that have been verified by a geologist or seismologist that proves there were explosions just before the collapse?




EDIT... spelling and too many quotes... mods will be angry




[edit on 27-7-2007 by CaptainObvious]



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
To do this required cantilever truss spanning the station,


Cantilever trusses are used around the world in large highrises. the safety factors in the design are no different than in any other building. The federal damage assessments do not show damage to this system even though the assessments are exagerated.


Originally posted by thedman
in addition the vertical support columns were under great stress.


Where did you pull this "fact" from? This is BS. Why would the columns be under "great stress"?


Originally posted by thedman
Loss of even 1 or 2 columns would compromise stability of building.


LOL... and you know this HOW? That building was designed to lose 1/4-1/2 of ALL OF THE COLUMNS and remain standing. Google "safety factor". You are posting WRONG information.


Originally posted by thedman
This was before the fires began to weaken the structure even more.


There is no evidence that the steel ever reached temperatures high enough for the steel to lose any significant strength... Again... posting your guess as fact and asking others for THEIR credentials? laughable. Sprinklers, fireproofing, no jet fuel...

[edit on 27-7-2007 by Pootie]



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Are there any videos? Here are some pictures, and in fact The Madrid fire suffered a partial collapse....all the steel did indeed fail at the upper floors and collapse ..all that was standing was the concrete.


wrong.

Look at the floors below the collapsed part... all of the structural steel is still there.

Notice how the Madrid fire showed signs of a heat induced collapse and the WTC did not?

Slow onset.
Asymmetrical.
Not progressive.
Long burn time.
Far bigger fire.
Far more fire damage.
No sprinklers as far as I have found (unlike the WTC towers that had giant tanks ABOVE the impact zones)



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by gottago

And I frankly laughed when I watched the video stretching out the collapse to 13+ seconds. First off, nothing but nothing happens in the first five seconds before the penthouse collapses.


Watch the video. This video the timer in the bottom right corner at the 2:32 mark, you will see a large portion at the top left corner of the penthouse collapse. If you can't see it look here:







I apologize by saying NIST does NOT know what caused the collaspe...they actually do have preliminary statements (that could change) that say that the building collapse progressed from the penthouse out as columns were weakened by the fires. The slow sinking of the penthouses, indicating the internal collapse of the building behind the visible north wall, took 8.2 seconds.

Again with the seismic records records show :


Collapse 3, Building 7
18 seconds
17:20:33�1 0.6

www.firehouse.com...



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
...they actually do have preliminary statements (that could change) that say that the building collapse progressed from the penthouse out as columns were weakened by the fires.


So where is NCSTAR 1-6E some six years later? Why only a PRELIMINARY non-reviewed report when we have spent a ton of money for the answers? I know you are all about fiscal responsibility form the memorial thread... where is NCSTAR1-6E? For that matter... where is 1-6F?

NIST NCSTAR 1-6E Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of World Trade Center 7. 2005.

NIST NCSTAR 1-6F. Structural Analysis of the Response of World Trade Center 7 to Debris Damage


Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Again with the seismic records records show :


Collapse 3, Building 7
18 seconds
17:20:33�1 0.6

www.firehouse.com...


Why would you quote "firehouse" for seismic data? Why not the NIST? OHHH... They never published NCSTAR 1-6G even though it is COMPLETE.

NCSTAR 1-6G: "Analysis of Sept. 11, 2001 seismogram data" by W. Kim. of Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory

Take your seismic argument to the next level in the appropriate thread. You will be a debunking HERO if you can take the labtop challenge here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pootie
Originally posted by CaptainObvious
The Madrid fire suffered a partial collapse....all the steel did indeed fail at the upper floors and collapse

wrong.

Look at the floors below the collapsed part... all of the structural steel is still there.

Notice how the Madrid fire showed signs of a heat induced collapse and the WTC did not?

Slow onset.
Asymmetrical.
Not progressive.
Long burn time.
Far bigger fire.
Far more fire damage.
No sprinklers as far as I have found (unlike the WTC towers that had giant tanks ABOVE the impact zones)


Thank you for admitting to me that there was a collapse at the MAdrid building. ( i bolded it for you) I did say that is was a partial collapse...oh and that partial collapse? Did you know that happened only 2 hours and 30 minutes after the fire started?

The Madrid did not have almost 40 stories of load on its supports after being hit by another building which left a 20 story gash. The Madrid tower lost portions of its steel frame from the fire. Windsor's central core was steel reinforced concrete.

There is additional USEFULL information here:



The only part of the building to collapse was the network of steel perimeter columns supporting the slab on the upper floors.
www.concretecentre.com...



Construction Type: Reinforced concrete core with waffle slabs supported by internal RC columns and steel beams, with perimeter steel

www.mace.manchester.ac.uk...






[edit on 27-7-2007 by CaptainObvious]

[edit on 27-7-2007 by CaptainObvious]



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 02:41 PM
link   
First of all... the money spent is a joke! I agree that after all the time and money spent... we should have something more difinitive.

If you go to the firehouse link for the seismic data...the article explains a few points and refrences the data they used ...the data they supplied on their site was from:
Prepared by: Seismology Group
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University
Palisades NY 10964

As far as LAptops post... I am not a geologist or a seismologist. Has his challange been presented to a qualified person? Anything i would say would be a far out guess.


[edit on 27-7-2007 by CaptainObvious]



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pootie
LOL... and you know this HOW? That building was designed to lose 1/4-1/2 of ALL OF THE COLUMNS and remain standing. Google "safety factor". You are posting WRONG information.


Beat me to it. I wonder if thedman knows that one single column held this up?







In that building, there was literally one column left in that whole building.


Stacey Loizeaux of CDI, describing what was left of the Murrah Building.

www.pbs.org...



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 02:55 PM
link   
I'm still trying to figure out how the columns that were not "engulfed by fire" managed to fail in concert with the ones that supposedly were.

Any thoughts? That's how this building fell. Total collapse. Just doesn't make sense to me. . .

2PacSade-



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
The Madrid tower lost portions of its steel frame from the fire. Windsor's central core was steel reinforced concrete.


Way to ignore all of this:

Notice how the Madrid fire showed signs of a heat induced collapse and the WTC did not?

Slow onset.
Partial.
Asymmetrical.
Not progressive.
Long burn time.
Far bigger fire.
Far more fire damage.
No sprinklers as far as I have found (unlike the WTC towers that had giant tanks ABOVE the impact zones)



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pootie
Way to ignore all of this:


I didn't mean to ignore anything... I try to respond to as much as I can...

Notice how the Madrid fire showed signs of a heat induced collapse and the WTC did not?

Slow onset. WTC7 = 6 hours Madrid= 2 1/2 hours

Partial. WTC= Steel Structure Madrid = Steel & Concrete

Asymmetrical WTC= all the steel collapsed MAdrid= all the steel collapsed
Not progressive... I didn't see the actual collapse.. let me get back to this one

Long burn time. Indeed

Far bigger fire. "Bigger Fire" But not as destructive since WTC7 was Steel

Far more fire damage. Please see "Partial" answer

No sprinklers as far as I have found (unlike the WTC towers that had giant tanks ABOVE the impact zones)

We are discussing WTC7 i assumed... can you tell me what type of sprinkler system was in WTC7? I am not aware of that. ( could you also link me to the WTC Towers "tanks" I was unaware of this.)



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious

Originally posted by gottago
First off, why don't you post videos of the Madrid fire, or the one on Philly, or any of the numerous fires that have raged uncontrolled through other modern steel-framed skyscrapers in comparison to WTC7?


Please show me in these skyscapers that you are refering to, one or more of the following:
1. An airplane smashing into it at 500 mph
2. Or a 110 foot skyscraper showering debris into it as it collapsed

Are there any videos? Here are some pictures, and in fact The Madrid fire suffered a partial collapse....all the steel did indeed fail at the upper floors and collapse ..all that was standing was the concrete.


Well we can all answer questions with questions. Show me real evidence of serious structural damage caused to WTC 7 by the collapse of the north tower. Not hearsay, not photoshopped NIST photos, but proof. Then show me why this damage would translate into a widely anticipated--and in the case of the BBC, over-anticipated--collapse. Then show me why such damage would cause the building to collapse as it did.

You and NIST both are mystified as to why, but rule out the most obvious answer--CD. You are indeed obvious, captain, but I am tickled by your persistence.



Originally posted by gottagoLots of smoke, I'll grant you, as in smoke screen.


Ahh... Brilliant!


Oh please, flattery will get you nowhere.



Originally posted by gottagoAnd I frankly laughed when I watched the video stretching out the collapse to 13+ seconds. First off, nothing but nothing happens in the first five seconds before the penthouse collapses.


Then you didn't watch it. Thats the problem .. you can clearly see the collaspe at the top left section of the Penthouse.


Then there must be internet gremlins, because I clicked on your second video and saw a big digital countdown clock that reached to five seconds before the left side of the penthouse gave way. Nothing happened before that. Nada. What nonsense.

I'd suggest you view what you post before posting it.



Originally posted by gottagoSecondly, why would the penthouse initiate collapse?


Did I say that? I can't explain exactly why it collapsed...neither has NIST. All I know is that there is ZERO evidence that supports a CD. DO you happen to have any witnesses to hearing bombs go off just prior to the initial collapse? Are you in possesion that shows seismic records that have been verified by a geologist or seismologist that proves there were explosions just before the collapse?


Well if you or NIST can't explain it, then you're both pretty blind, and you don't know the first thing about building structures and how they act, so why should we even pay the least attention to you?

Quite seriously, if you don't understand that the mere fact that the penthouse collapsed first indicates that the internal structure all gave out simultaneously, and the implications of that, then there's no point in debate. It's simply impossible to reconcile without CD. That's why you don't dare reconcile it.

You and NIST both know it and that's why you both can't explain it. But that doesn't mean it can't be explained. And that doesn't mean that NIST or its apologists can simply throw logic and basic knowledge of structural behavior out the window. And still manage to accuse others of ignorance. That's quite some chutzpah, as they say in my old home town.



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 03:25 PM
link   
Gotta Go...

i Posted the pictures of the collaspe for you.... Um .... I guess I have to draw a red line around them...



ok... top left corner of the penthouse....




Now look again at the top left section of the penthouse:




I will adress the rest of your post. I just wanted to show you what you have failed to see on the video and the two pictures I posted. I hope the red boxes helped.



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Slow onset. WTC7 = 6 hours Madrid= 2 1/2 hours


Pieces were falling off the Madrid tower for far longer than 2.5 hrs. As pieces heated they failed in small groups or individually... Watch the videos.


Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Partial. WTC= Steel Structure Madrid = Steel & Concrete


No evidence of fires hot enough to significantly weaken steel.


Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Asymmetrical WTC= all the steel collapsed MAdrid= all the steel collapsed


Madrid... different parts at different times... not all at once.


Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Not progressive... I didn't see the actual collapse.. let me get back to this one


Watch the video.


Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Long burn time. Indeed


WTC 7 showed little signs of fire throughout the day... I suppose if the government would release the photos or reports we would se more clearly but the available evidence shows small, disperse fires... not a raging inferno anything like Madrid.


Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Far bigger fire. "Bigger Fire" But not as destructive since WTC7 was Steel


Again, no evidence to suggest that the fires were hot enough in WTC 7 to significantly weaken structural steel of any grade.


Originally posted by CaptainObvious
We are discussing WTC7 i assumed... can you tell me what type of sprinkler system was in WTC7? I am not aware of that.


Ok, I will stick to 7... 7 was built to NYC code in 1987. This includes sprinklers, HVAC dampers and many other fire prevention systems.

How are you so sure of the collapse mechanism?

NIST hasn't published their report and FEMA says:


The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. [Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.


So... how are you so sure?



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 03:39 PM
link   


First off, why don't you post videos of the Madrid fire, or the one on Philly, or any of the numerous fires that have raged uncontrolled through other modern steel-framed skyscrapers in comparison to WTC7?


As Capt Obvious has stated the steelwork at the Madrid collapsed, only
the part made of concrete resisted the fires. At the Philly as you call it
Meridian Plaza was its correct name, one of the floors which burned
was not occupied hence no FIRELOAD. The fireload on these floors was
composed of what in the fire service is called dead load or the building
structure. Even then severe structural damage was caused by the
fire as steelwork bent and warped, floors cracked and building shifted
out of plumb.

One thing you forgot to mention is the severe damage inflicted on WTC 7
by falling debris BEFORE the fires. It is the combination of structural
damage and fire which resulted in the building collapse. Also as stated
there was no effective fire fighting in WTC 7 for the simple reason there
was NO WATER. The collapse of the towers have cut the water mains
in the area and until a water supply from the Hudson River pumped by
fireboats there was no way to fight the fires.

Read Capt Boyle accounts at FIREHOUSE.COM - mentions only one hose
stream in operation and with no pressure could barely reach across street.

Someone in earlier post mentioned Murrah building in Oklahoma, why
didn't it collapse - again its combination of structural damage (which was
massive), but no fire. If building had caught fire afterwards probably
would have collpased entirely.

It is the 1-2 punch of structural damage combined with fire that causes
the building to collapse

Windsor (Madrid) - No structural damage before fire

result - collpase of steelwork

Meridian Plaza (Philadelphia) - No structural damage before fire

result - structural integrity compromised, abandoned, demolished

Murrah (Oklahoma) - severe structural damage, no fire

result - partial collpase from blast damage, abandoned, demolished

WTC7 (New York) - severe structural damage prior to fire, fire burn for
7 hours

result - total structural collapse



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Gotta Go...
i Posted the pictures of the collaspe for you.... Um .... I guess I have to draw a red line around them...


My eyesight is fine. I'm talking about the claim you made that the collapse is 13 seconds or so. Then you post a video, your second one of three, which, if you watch it, has a big counter that reaches 5 seconds before the left side of the penthouse collapses.

Yes, I obviously saw the penthouse collapse. That's not my point about it. My point is that nothing happens in the five seconds before that.

In plain English: they just tacked on five seconds of nothing happening to justify the 13 second claim. Nothing.

It's nonsense at best, just a lie to be blunt.

Am I clear now?



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
WTC7 (New York) - severe structural damage prior to fire, fire burn for
7 hours

result - total structural collapse


Can you give a sane reason why asymmetrical damage and asymmetrical fire would collapse a building symmetrically? And don't give me transfer trusses that weren't damaged.




top topics



 
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join