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 Collapse Theory from Structure Maq

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 06:29 PM
link   
I found this on Digg

The following analysis shows that, although there were several phases leading to the global collapse of WTC 7, the building likely would have remained standing if not for the failure of one critical column. The location of this column, and its role as a key structural component, meant that is local failure caused the global failure of WTC 7

www.structuremag.org...

[edit on 063030p://upSaturday by QuasiShaman]




posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 07:28 PM
link   
Well Quasi, that was a very interesting read indeed.
However, They forgot a few things


It takes longer than 7.7 seconds to re-distribute the weight
and 2 sections to to fall thru for that 79th column to fail.
Plus the fact that it is all theory as nobody was in the building
to confirm those columns failed in that order. And to say that
one particular column was the breaking point of the building
and caused the global collapse is a lil far fetched as there was no fire
in that part of the building (west Penthouse) to cause the failure,
PLUS it was on the other side of the building from impact. As there
are too many what-if's for this to be conclusive in my humble opinion.
But it was an interesting read to hear another point of view



posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 02:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Zeta115
 


Yeah, I wasn't buying it either. Like you said, its good to see both sides of an argument. I hadn't come across this theory yet.



[edit on 023030p://upSunday by QuasiShaman]



posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 03:34 AM
link   
Controlled demolition.

And WTC was brought down by the same thing. Jetfuel doesnt burn hot enough to melt steel, yet there was lots of molten steel in the wreckage of the building. How do the skeptics explain the molten steel that is NOT POSSIBLE from burning jetfuel?



Also I think the 9/11 Coincidences pretty much says it all.



posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 06:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Copernicus
 


Copernicus...

Who said any steel was melted? Why do many CT'ers STILL argue this point.

One more time on the "molten steel" . IF there were in fact a molten material witnessed. (Im not saying there wasn't) FACT remains this molten material was NOT analyzed to determine what the material was.



posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 07:00 AM
link   
Watch the video copernicus posted above. THOSE guys are the ones saying they saw molten steel, flowing... like in a foundry.



posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
... IF there were in fact a molten material witnessed. (Im not saying there wasn't) FACT remains this molten material was NOT analyzed to determine what the material was.



what would make someone think that there were more than one storage
casks of Mercury (Haz-Mat material) secretly held in the secure Vault
at the WTC... and would the Port Authority admit that they were
holding (even temporarily) casks of poisonus Mercury in such a populous location?

whoa, sounds like more ammunition for suits against the authorities
if disclosed or found out...hence more reason for cover-ups.
(these same secure Vaults held gold ingots, silver etc)
but the evidence (of holding dangerous Haz-Mat materials) is deliberately sketchy and hidden so the masses don't get riled up...



posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 07:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
reply to post by Copernicus
 


Copernicus...

Who said any steel was melted? Why do many CT'ers STILL argue this point.

One more time on the "molten steel" . IF there were in fact a molten material witnessed. (Im not saying there wasn't) FACT remains this molten material was NOT analyzed to determine what the material was.


Yeah, they cleaned up the crime scene pretty good. Normally, the remains of the steel is the best way to find out what caused a building to go down. But that was shipped off and melted down in record time before anyone got a chance to analyze it. Because of that, you can make the point you are making - the material was not analyzed. Because they cleaned up the crime scene.

I dont understand why its not obvious to everyone that 9/11 was a inside job to be honest, but I also see that arguing back and forth wont make a difference. Some people agree it was, some people dont, and I guess we have to accept that its possible to have different opinions, however hard it is for both sides.



posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 07:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Copernicus
 


I don't have a problem with disagreeing with someone...and agreeing to disagree. I am just interested in facts. There is no evidence to prove that the molten material that was reported witnessed was in fact molten steel.



posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 07:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
There is no evidence to prove that the molten material that was reported witnessed was in fact molten steel.



what else would have been molten?



posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 07:49 AM
link   
reply to post by scientist
 


Um... Well... I don't know. I wasn't there, nor were you. Are you suggesting the only material known to man that can become molten is steel?



posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 02:22 PM
link   
There was steel verified by FEMA to have undergone sulfidation at extremely high temperatures, corroding away the steel rapidly in WTC7. It was included at the end of their report, they said it needed more investigation (as did WTC7's collapse in general, according to them), and it hasn't been mentioned since.

It's equivalent to molten steel, because it's just as damning. Building fires and some exterior facade being cut into doesn't explain why a steel beam would be eaten away at extreme temperatures with the addition of sulfur, which lowers steel's melting point, making it easier for incendiaries to cut through.



posted on Nov, 18 2007 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by QuasiShaman
reply to post by Zeta115
 


Yeah, I wasn't buying it either. Like you said, its good to see both sides of an argument. I hadn't come across this theory yet.



[edit on 023030p://upSunday by QuasiShaman]



Most people do not understand how absurd this WTC7 "collapse" investigation is. The contract that the authors are working on is explictly limited to column failures (funny how this critical fact seems to be neglected in the article). See the WTC 7 NIST contract awarded to APPLIED RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, INC. (ARA):

ARA will conduct nonlinear dynamic collapse analyses using LS-DYNA that include analyses of detailed full floor models and global models. The detailed floor analyses will determine likely modes of failure for Floors 8 to 46 due to failure of one or more supporting columns (at one or more locations), and aid the development of a more coarse model for use in the global analyses that captures essential behaviors and failure mechanisms.



posted on Nov, 19 2007 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
reply to post by scientist
 


Um... Well... I don't know. I wasn't there, nor were you. Are you suggesting the only material known to man that can become molten is steel?


first of all, no i wasn't there... but that was already quite an assumption you made, no? Second - I didn't suggest anything. I am genuinely curious as to what else could possibly have been molten.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join