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: 5
5
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Jprophet... look at :

1. the condition of the buildings
2. the fire in the buildings


Which those of us with an education know for a fact will not cause a building to globally collapse into its own footprint.

1. Look into taking some physics classes.
2. Think for yourself.




posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious

Originally posted by ThichHeaded
Then they say they fell cause of Fire.... ahhh ya.... OK THEN!!!!


Who is "they?" Can you give me a source for "them." I would hope that "they" realized 40 stories of a falling skyscraper was raining debris on top of it.




Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Jprophet... look at :

1. the condition of the buildings
2. the fire in the buildings


Hmm Is this a contradiction on your part??

And there was nothing wrong with the building for it to collapse. There were other building that were close and had more damage but did they collapse?? no..

Wasn't it Banker's Trust that had a 23 story gash in it from remains of the WTC when it fell.

And I also added images of videos from 9/11 after the towers collapsed so the building was in no shape to collapse.



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThichHeaded

Wasn't it Banker's Trust that had a 23 story gash in it from remains of the WTC when it fell.


Yes you are correct.



2PacSade-



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by 2PacSade
Yes you are correct.



2PacSade-


But, according to our resident fifefighter here, that should have collapsed at near freefall into it's own footprint also.


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



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 03:24 PM
link   
Bankers Trust (also know as 90 West St) suffered heavy impact and fire
damage on 9/11

Summary of damage:



The roof was damaged by debris falling from WTC 2, and approximately half of the north face of the building experienced projectile impact and fire damage. WTC 2 projectiles severed spandrel beams at floors 8 to 11 in the 2nd bay from the west end, and in a middle bay at the 6th floor. Terra cotta slabs were damaged mostly in the exterior bay at these locations. In general, the projectiles damaged only the masonry and broke many terra cotta features. The damage to the interior structural terra cotta floor slabs was primarily due to the brittle fracture of the terra cotta slabs upon impact by large debris. Most of the damage was restricted to the two northernmost bays, with the exception of fire damage on the 1st through 5th, 7th through 10th, 14th, 21st, and 23rd floors. The fire did not spread to the south side of the building, except for the first 4 floors. Columns were buckled 1-2 inches on the 8th and 23rd floors, approximately a foot below the ceiling, as shown in Figures 7-16 and 7-17. A tube column supporting a north exit stair from the roof and a built-up column supporting the roof were the only other heat-induced buckling damage observed during initial inspections.





This type of construction, with terra cotta tiles providing fire protection, was common in early 20th century construction. The style of construction resulted in a highly compartmentalized building, which may have helped slow the spread of fire. The Fire Department of New York was able to control the fires in this building. The fire damage observed in the building, with minimal structural damage from a normal fire load, is considered typical for this type of construction and fire protection; however, it has been suggested that the scaffolding that was in place for renovations contributed to the spread of fire between floors that may not have occurred otherwise. However, the only structural damage observed was buckling damage near the tops of two columns


Reason 90 West survived was that it was designed and built in 1907
and built like Brick Sh*thouse unlike modern buildings. The columns were
spaced only 18 ft apart, floors were made of terra cotta archs covered with
concrete, most steel columns were covered in terra cotta brickwork
up 6" thick. Unlike modern buildings which are cheap and nasty -
everything is flimsy (mostly sheetrock), steelwork with thin coat of spray
on protection (which oftens peels off or is scraped off by workers
during construction)

Maybe should take some courses in building construction and fire
protection before you critize others.



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
Reason 90 West survived was that it was designed and built in 1907
and built like Brick Sh*thouse unlike modern buildings. The columns were
spaced only 18 ft apart, floors were made of terra cotta archs covered with
concrete, most steel columns were covered in terra cotta brickwork
up 6" thick. Unlike modern buildings which are cheap and nasty -
everything is flimsy (mostly sheetrock), steelwork with thin coat of spray
on protection (which oftens peels off or is scraped off by workers
during construction)


Just an FYI, spray on protection isn't as thin and easily pulled off as you are making it out to be.


Maybe should take some courses in building construction and fire
protection before you critize others.



None of that has anything to do with your statement of 1 or 2 columns being lost. Maybe you should realize who you're talking to before telling me to take some courses in building construction and fire protection. I have a bachelors degree in civil engineering. Just to let you know.

Now, what you said is true. But, that doesn't negate your statement of a building loosing 1 or 2 columns and becomming unstable.

[edit on 7/30/2007 by Griff]



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Now, what you said is true. But, that doesn't negate your statement of a building loosing 1 or 2 columns and becomming unstable.


He never addressed any of my points... much less that one.



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 04:05 PM
link   
Here are some images of BT after the towers fell.





Then according to FEMA and NIST these building should have fallen also along wit WTC 7 because they all had the same things happen to them.

ohh and these building were closer.




WFC3 – American Express Building




30 West Broadway 01




And this building.

So according to captain Obvious or whatever He states as long as the names WTC on them they fall??

Cause from what I see in these images the rest of these buildings should have fallen also. Cause I did show Video of WTC 7 and it seems to me that there was not much damage to it as much as these buildings..

Please clarify the How steel buildings fall again cause I am still lost.



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 04:29 PM
link   
Just because one looks to have more damage, etc doesn't mean that it is totally comparable. There are thousands of factors that are involved in a building collapsing, it's not like, oh well this building has a bigger hole in it so it should have collapsed too.

It seems to me the entire idea behind explosives being used at WTC7 is based on a comment by a single guy that could have meant 2 things and also could have been mispoke.



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 05:17 PM
link   
Summary of damage to WFC 3



The glazing and facade damage in the building was similar to that found in WFC 1 and WFC 2, which also had extensive cracking and breakage of glazing and granite panels. Debris from WTC 1 caused a collapse of the top 8 stories of the 10-story octagonal extension located at the southeast side of the building. The main WFC 3 building suffered damage from floors 17 to 26. A three-story section of exterior column trees from WTC 1 hung from the base of the collapsed area at floor 20, as shown in Figure 7-2, with approximately 25 feet of the column hanging outside the building. At floors 17 through 26, the corner column had been removed by the impact of debris, and the floors cantilevered from adjacent columns to the north and west. Smaller column debris penetrated floor 17. The damage did not extend past the corner bay, which had to be shored and was later demolished.

Interior damage is shown in Figure 7-5. Inspection of the interior determined that steel framing members that sustained direct impact from large debris had significant portions of the cementitious fireproofing material knocked off. The fireproofing was intact on adjacent steel members that had not been directly hit.

The localized nature of the damage, given the size of projectiles that impacted the building, is notable. Observations noted small welds between column end bearing plates at exterior and interior columns, indicating the columns near the damage zone were designed for gravity loads, and tension loads from wind were not a critical design parameter. This type of connection between columns may have allowed a column member to be knocked out of place without causing substantial displacement or damage to connecting framing.



As can see damage to WFC 3 was confined to southeast corner and
localized. Debris strikes did not penetrate deeply into building as did
at WTC 7. As stated a 10 story extension to building, not the main
structure of WFC 3 was crushed by debris. I have many friends who were
in the building that day to extinguish fires started by debris. WFC 3
unlike WTC 7 did not suffer extensive structural damage, the fires were
contained and extinguished unlike WTC 7 which was allowed to burn
unchecked.



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 05:17 PM
link   
Oh thats funny, BT suffer a worse fate than WTC 7, YET it is still standing today..

How Ironic is that.... oh wait.. it didn't have WTC BT on the front or a number at the end.

Oh who was this 1 person saying there was explosives in the building... Cause last i checked it was a lot of people saying they heard explosions and saw flashes of light before wtc7 fell. hell for that matter all of them.

[edit on 7/30/2007 by ThichHeaded]

[edit on 7/30/2007 by ThichHeaded]



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
the fires were
contained and extinguished unlike WTC 7 which was allowed to burn
unchecked.


Ohh so a 500 degree fire cause that building to fall?

WTF you think we are stupid?

It takes 2400f at least for steel to weaken and 3000f for it to melt..

Why do you think it took forever to get steel mainstream and was consider as good as gold back then? Cause it was so damn hard to make.

It took 10 acres of forest to make 1 ton of steel.

You are to tell me some lame fires cause the building to globally collapse onto itself and not show any damage..

Wait your not looking at the same thing I am i guess..

Re look at those videos I posted and re look into BT. that building should have fallen more than WT 7 should have..



[edit on 7/30/2007 by ThichHeaded]



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by 2PacSade
Yes you are correct.



2PacSade-


But, according to our resident fifefighter here, that should have collapsed at near freefall into it's own footprint also.



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

and a quote from thdman's next post-

Reason 90 West survived was that it was designed and built in 1907
and built like Brick Sh*thouse unlike modern buildings. The columns were
spaced only 18 ft apart, floors were made of terra cotta archs covered with
concrete, most steel columns were covered in terra cotta brickwork
up 6" thick. Unlike modern buildings which are cheap and nasty -
everything is flimsy (mostly sheetrock), steelwork with thin coat of spray
on protection (which oftens peels off or is scraped off by workers
during construction)

Maybe should take some courses in building construction and fire
protection before you critize others.


Sorry thedman, I posted the wrong picture. the above picture is not 90 West St., It is a picture of the 130 Liberty St., the Deutsche Bank Building. Wiki has an article here.


The Deutsche Bank Building at 130 Liberty Street in New York City, United States, was built as Bankers Trust Plaza and opened in 1974 and is slated to be deconstructed in 2007. Bankers Trust was acquired by Deutsche Bank in 1998.

The 40-story building was severely damaged by the collapse of the 2 World Trade Center (South Tower) in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The collapse of 2 World Trade Center tore a 24-story gash into the facade and destroyed the lobby. As of July 2005, the Deutsche Bank Building was the only real visible sign that a large-scale disaster had occurred at the site, the gaping hole in its front serving as an eerie reminder of the tragedy. The building was declared a total loss in 2004.


And an excerpt from this site;


. . .The 40-storey building has a facade of black anodized aluminium and darkened glass. The lower portion of the 172 m tall, yet squat building is characterized by wide supporting piers that taper upwards and inwards. . .


So it seems this also one of those;


Originally posted by thedman

. . .modern buildings which are cheap and nasty -
everything is flimsy (mostly sheetrock), steelwork with thin coat of spray
on protection (which oftens peels off or is scraped off by workers
during construction). . .


Why didn't this one fall so catastrophically too?

2PacSade-



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 08:26 PM
link   
90 West St was built robust yes;



Just like 140 West St., which withstood four storey assaults from WTC 1 & WTC 7 collapses. This is what the south & east sides looked like;




This building was made to last also. Nothing like WTC 1 thru & 7. . .

So can you explain why 130 Liberty St. didn't collapse? What about WTC 4, 5, & 6???

2PacSade-



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 08:28 PM
link   


WTF you think we are stupid?


Yea



If you read posts would understand that WFC (World Finance Center 3 -
aka American Express Building) did not suffer same degree of damage
as WTC7 where debris penetrated deep into building. Fires at WTC 7 were
allowed to burn for hours whereas at WFC fires were not on same level
as WTC 7 in which entire floors were fully involved. I know the people
who put out the fires at WFC - were contained and not allowed to spread
WFC 3 unlike WTC7 was not declared "off limits" - FF had access to it
to get to the fires before got out of control!



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman



WTF you think we are stupid?


Yea



If you read posts would understand that WFC (World Finance Center 3 -
aka American Express Building) did not suffer same degree of damage
as WTC7 where debris penetrated deep into building. Fires at WTC 7 were
allowed to burn for hours whereas at WFC fires were not on same level
as WTC 7 in which entire floors were fully involved. I know the people
who put out the fires at WFC - were contained and not allowed to spread
WFC 3 unlike WTC7 was not declared "off limits" - FF had access to it
to get to the fires before got out of control!


Who cares about the WFC complex? Talk about mixing apples & oranges!

The building complex was 600+ feet away, and even at this distance the glass Winter Garden was totally destroyed. . .

What did you hear about 130 Liberty St. if anything? Was there fire fighting there? Were there uncontrollable fires w/o standpipe pressure? ( I'm guessing not. . . )

Do you not agree that 90 West St. was a different case along with 140 West St., because of the era & design when they were built & these facts contributed to the building's logevity? Why didn't they encounter uncontrollable fires after being showered with debris from the towers?

Why didn't WTC 3, 4, 5, & 6 suffer a similar fate as WTC 7 after being assaulted with much more debris from the same towers at closer range?

2PacSade-



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
Debris strikes did not penetrate deeply into building as did
at WTC 7.


You keep saying this. Are we supposed to just take your word for it? Show some proof and then you might get our attention, otherwise you are just making wild assumptions.

Because so far there is nothing that backs up any claims of major damage to the buildings interior columns. Even if there was I'll say this again a bit louder, ASYMMETRICAL DAMAGE AND SPORADIC FIRES DO NOT CAUSE SYMMETRICAL COLLAPSES, no matter what the building is made of.

So keep telling us about this major damage to WTC 7, you are justing wasting your time and energy. Unless you get a paycheck for it that is...



posted on Jul, 31 2007 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by thedman
Debris strikes did not penetrate deeply into building as did
at WTC 7.


So keep telling us about this major damage to WTC 7, you are justing wasting your time and energy. Unless you get a paycheck for it that is...


Ya I have a point to make in this also..

You tell us and we prove it wrong..

I have shown videos and a paper done on WTC 7 damage. In case you missed it here it is again.

Photographic Analysis of Damage to WTC7 and Critical Errors in NIST's Estimations

Why don't you stop blowing over things we say and answer the simple questions like how wrong we are.

According to this paper done by Wecomeinpeace The damage to WTC 7 is completely exaggerated and don't fit with photo evidence.

So again show us proof of this so called damage cause I really don't see what you are talking about.

You can tell the typical American this crap but.. We aren't you typical Americans. we don't sit and watch football and American Idol..

[edit on 7/31/2007 by ThichHeaded]



posted on Jul, 31 2007 @ 01:47 PM
link   
Whats wrong with watching Football? Go Pats!!!!



posted on Jul, 31 2007 @ 05:23 PM
link   

.... this video shows all 4 corners did not fail at the same time.


Frankly, this is a bald-faced lie. The video does not show this at all.

We again see all four corners of the building fail as one, and a global collapse of the entire superstructure. The only difference this video shows is that one corner of the penthouse collapsed locally prior to the global failure of the entire building (one corner of the penthouse failing does neither somehow explain the symmetrical collapse itself or disprove it's occurance).

The timeline is bogus, too. Before you could count the local failure as part of the global collapse, you'd first have to somehow prove that it was the catalyst, cause or otherwise a contributor to the entire building collapse (which you don't).

This is junk science at it's best.

Moreover, the entire tone of the video is an ad hominem. It suggests that 'we' have been 'withholding' the footage, somehow, or that we are somehow responsible for the mainstream footage presented of WTC 7 (in fact, I've already seen this particular video several times, in several presentations).



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join