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 - was it leaning all afternoon and going to collapse - or is it just an urban myth?

page: 5
27
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
Uncontrollable for demolition purposes.

Apparently not. Have you seen the image I keep posting?



Looks like fire was plenty controllable for demolition as far as WTC7 was concerned. Heck, WTC7 came down more perfect and straighter than the demolition next to it. Demo companies should be using fire instead of explosives.




posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
I am glad you are able to link to sources, but perhaps you could tell us what actually happened to column to beam connections in the Cardington tests? Was there any deformation? Did beams expand?


I have been talking about this deformation the whole time, as the ONLY type of failure that fires actually produce. Are you blind? If you have eyes then read my posts.

I said it DOESN'T result in SHEAR failures. How else do you think you're going to get a massive 47 story building moving at free-fall speeds? Did it sag to the ground? Really?


Once you have done that, please tell us NISTs proposed initial failure mode for WTC1,2 and 7, and show me how the reproduction of these forces in the Cardington tests are somehow impossible in WTC1,2 and 7.


NIST suggested actual shearing, something different than shown at Cardington or in any scientific study, and they DIDN'T test their hypothesis. That's the problem. All theory, no test, proof. They even rebuilt the truss/perimeter connections and put fire under it and still didn't reproduce the proposed mechanism.



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


Its times like this I question reading comprehension among truthers.

Yes, I did post the following..




You mention WTC7 and yet do not know that FDNY was saying all afternoon that 7 was going to fall because of the damage it had and that they were not going to attempt to enter and fight the fires?


And I posted a link that gave the statements of FDNY that said that...and tezzie gets confused....

THEN, he posts a link to the thread where I talked about chain of custody when it comes to evidence...but...once again, he neglects to post the part where I said I was going to act like a truther when I posted that. Again, failure to comprehend?

Then comes this..



Naturally, I challenged Swampfox to prove his claim, using the NIST report. Surely, if WTC 7 was in danger of collapse, then the very thorough NIST investigation should make significant mention of it in the report - right?


Challenging me to use a report that I have more than once called an "educated guess" to back myself up over FDNY statements. Gotta wonder about the thought processes involved there......




He avoided showing me where his claim was supported in the NIST report, insisting that he would rather use the eyewitness reports from the day.


And again, he brings up the NIST report...when the NIST report wasn't something in play...he tries once again to impose his....not even sure what to call it.......on the issue.

And this.....



MacQueen took a sample of 60 firefighter quotes, analysed them and then tabled his results. Only seven firefighters made the claim that WTC 7 was going to collapse based on their own judgement. The rest heard from 'others' that WTC 7 was doomed. MacQueen then lists the seven transcripts and you can read for yourselves how dubious some of them are.



I guess MacQueen and Tezzie would have felt better had every member of FDNY stopped what they were doing to go play tourist and look at WTC 7. As if the losses they suffered that day were not bad enough, these guys are appearantly upset that the survivors did not further endanger themselves to go take a look at a building that others had already looked at and felt was going to collapse.




Question: How qualified are firefighters to judge the structual integrity of a damaged building?


I could post about the measurements made that day that showed Seven was moving, but Thed already did that.




Swampfox hasn't shown why he belives that WTC 7 was in danger of falling all afternoon. He can only supply witness statements, and all of them appear to be, uninformed, second-hand information relayed to those particular witnesses.


No, actually I did post to support my belief...you just refuse to accept it...as normal.....



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Challenging me to use a report that I have more than once called an "educated guess" to back myself up over FDNY statements. Gotta wonder about the thought processes involved there......

Hey, Swampfox! Welcome!

I'm glad that you agree that the NIST report is an 'educated guess'. So I guess that I'm correct, in the OP, that NIST didn't care to mention that WTC 7 was moving all afternoon?

What can we conclude from that? If, as you say and many of us agree, that the NIST report was an 'educated guess', then shouldn't NIST be accountable for their less than adequte report about the collapse?

It looks like we can count on you, Swampfox, being the staunch government story supporter that you are, as another person who is critical of the NIST report? Welcome to the ranks!



I guess MacQueen and Tezzie would have felt better had every member of FDNY stopped what they were doing to go play tourist and look at WTC 7. As if the losses they suffered that day were not bad enough, these guys are appearantly upset that the survivors did not further endanger themselves to go take a look at a building that others had already looked at and felt was going to collapse.

What do you dispute about the methodology that MacQueen used? He showed his table of values and figured that there were only a small number of firefighters who judged for themselves that WTC 7 was going to collapse.




I could post about the measurements made that day that showed Seven was moving, but Thed already did that.

Well go on, I haven't seen them. I asked for them in this thread, so don't hide them on me.

Serious, I want to see them!



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


Volume 1 is 22 mb and volume 2 is 29mb. I'll post the pages that I referenced on request. U2U seems to be limited and won't accept even small attachments.



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
Volume 1 is 22 mb and volume 2 is 29mb. I'll post the pages that I referenced on request. U2U seems to be limited and won't accept even small attachments.

I can download them overnight. Like I stated in this thread, I can download a 17MB file over the course of a couple of hours, I did with Vol 9. (I think it was Vol 9, don't flame me if I'm wrong - I'm not checking my hard drive to see which one it was.)

I just don't know why the NIST website has been down for the past 21 hours, from when you first posted about the Vol 1 info.

Does the NIST website have a history of being down for so long?



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
I didn't set the goal posts, thedman. NIST defined them in its report. I'm just trying to make sense out of the conflicting reports about the stability of WTC 7.


Ok I have to ask are being obtuse on purpose?
You say the NIST report is false yet when someone tries to use witness statements to defend their argument you use the NIST report you claimed was false as your evidence to refute the witnesses.

You can not have it both ways. Either NIST is an accurate report that both sides of the debate can use as evidence or it's false and no one uses it to validate thier points.

What you were doing is called a circular argument and is considered bad form in debating.



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by exile1981
Ok I have to ask are being obtuse on purpose?

No.



You say the NIST report is false yet when someone tries to use witness statements to defend their argument you use the NIST report you claimed was false as your evidence to refute the witnesses.

If you carefully read what I do, then it might make more sense to you.

Where did I openly and categorically state that everything in the NIST report is false? In case you haven't managed to understand what I am doing, I've been trying to reconcile the NIST report with the witness statements.

By doing so, I've shown that there are contradictions between the NIST report and witness statements.

Please, give me an example for what you claim above.



You can not have it both ways. Either NIST is an accurate report that both sides of the debate can use as evidence or it's false and no one uses it to validate thier points.

I don't want it both ways. Why do you claim that I am trying to have it both ways?

There are many parts of the NIST report that are factual and don't need to be disputed. I have never claimed that the whole report is false.



What you were doing is called a circular argument and is considered bad form in debating.

What you are doing is generalising and not showing me where I have specifically made a circular argument.

Come back to the thread when you can prove what you're claiming against me, using specific examples.

[edit on 7-6-2009 by tezzajw]



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 12:06 AM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


I never had a problem with it. Many Federal systems sometimes shut down for a while on weekends for upgrades. Cyber attacks can also cause voluntary shutdowns until the threat is countered.



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 05:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Exactly and what has already happened? Fires in many steel-structured high-rises over the years have already happened and not a single one has collapsed due to fire before 9/11 or after 9/11. If you think steel-structured high-rises can globally collapse due to fire, please show the audience some examples (besides 9/11). I'm sure we all would love to see you prove your claim.

You're resorting to the exact same argumentation again. I've already pointed out, just because something has not happened before, does not mean it cannot happen. This is faulty logic and wishful thinking from you.


And do you realize or remember when terrorist attack magnitude intensified? Right after we occupied two different countries.

Actually right before.


Rarely did you hear about terrorist attacks in the news before 9/11.

You didn't read enough news.


The towers weren't meant to collapse perfectly, that was the whole point. But WTC7 looks awfully damn perfect to me and even moreso than the demolition it's being compared to:

It looks "awfully damn perfect" because the two buildings are radically different in size, the image is meant to deceive you into thinking they are similar.


Fire is so uncontrolled and unpredictable yet we're lead to believe it can cause the above? Give me a break. What are you on? You are completely clueless or so far in denial that it blinds you.

Why do you think there is a dichotomy in what you are saying? Fire being difficult to predict does not mean it is unable to damage things, there is no logic in your statement.


Truth and facts hurt, don't they? Looks like you are the one that's been discredited.

You have done nothing but claim that new events cannot occur, and that you personally feel that fire couldn't have destroyed WTC7.



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 05:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
Right, so we know how fire works...
...
But wait, you just stated that we knew how fire worked, so how can it be unpredictable and uncontrolled?

Do you want to choose a position about fire and stick with it?

It looks rather silly when you contradict yourself like the above quotes show.

Why do you think there is a contradiction? We understand the process of pyrolysis, but simulating an actual flame is an extremely difficult task. This of course shows how little you understand the topic. Tell me, given a 10 inch long piece wood, if you ignite one end, you should be able to answer the following questions:

1. What will the fire do
2. How long will it take?

#1 Is easily answered with our understanding of fire, the fire will progress along the wood, converting it into heat, smoke and carbon.
#2 Is not answerable without experimentation or a complex simulation.

There is no contradiction in what I am saying.


If they knew how fire worked, then why didn't they realise that an uncontrolled fire would have heated Column 79 to the point of failing? To me, your statement is an admission that there wasn't enough redundancy for fire suppression measures in WTC 7.

There certainly wasn't enough redundancy for fire suppression measures in the WTC, that's because the water mains were destroyed by the towers failing. What an odd thing to say. Incidentally NISTs failure mechanism is not what you describe.



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 05:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
It didn’t, in my opinion, that is part of the building design, I do not see any damage in your imposable to see smoke filled photos.

You don't see any damage? You're joking right? Not only is there clearly debris and a missing section in the above photo, but this corresponds to external damage progressing the whole length of the building.




Sure, no building exists in the area that could cast that shadow.

Sure, it is, look how straight it is from top to bottom in fact these pictures could have been photo shop, care to prove they are not?

So is it a building or not? You surely have googled around and found that no building exists that could possibly have cast that shadow, and what you are asking me to prove is a negative. One cannot prove that photos have not been photoshopped, only whether they have.

Perhaps you should go and talk to the firefighters who viewed WTC7 with their own eyes, or perhaps you should admit you are wrong and indeed WTC7 was damaged by debris impacts from WTC1.



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 05:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
I have been talking about this deformation the whole time, as the ONLY type of failure that fires actually produce. Are you blind? If you have eyes then read my posts.

I said it DOESN'T result in SHEAR failures. How else do you think you're going to get a massive 47 story building moving at free-fall speeds? Did it sag to the ground? Really?

Perhaps you should re-read NCSTAR 1-9A.


NIST suggested actual shearing, something different than shown at Cardington or in any scientific study, and they DIDN'T test their hypothesis. That's the problem. All theory, no test, proof. They even rebuilt the truss/perimeter connections and put fire under it and still didn't reproduce the proposed mechanism.

This is not what NIST suggested nor tested.



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 05:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
Why do you think there is a contradiction?

Of course you contradicted yourself. You made two contradictory statements about the behaviour of the fires. You claimed that we know about how fire works, but that it is also unpredictable. It's fine with me if you wish to backpeddle though.



Tell me, given a 10 inch long piece wood, if you ignite one end, you should be able to answer the following questions:

The only question that I'm prepared to answer is what the hell does a 10 inch block of wood have to do with a 47 storey, steel framed building?

Of course, I don't blame you for trying to drift the topic.



There certainly wasn't enough redundancy for fire suppression measures in the WTC, that's because the water mains were destroyed by the towers failing. What an odd thing to say.

That's exactly my point. If, as you state, everything was known about the fires, then it should have been known that WTC 7 would have been destroyed by any uncontrolled fire. Remember that NIST stated that without the damage, WTC 7 would still have fallen, due to the fires.

You claim that everything was known about fires. So why wasn't the potentially devastating scenario factored in to the firefighting precautions? If the standpipes were destroyed, as they were, then why weren't there other measures in place, to fight the fires?

You can't state that everything about the behaviour of the fires was known and then expect that risks to the building were not considered, with respect to the damage potential of the fires. Well, you can state it, but then that means that someone would be liable for risking the lives and the building, in the event of an uncontrolled fire.

I wonder why the owners of the building didn't have enough firefighting redunancy, especially considering that you claimed everything about the fires is known?



Incidentally NISTs failure mechanism is not what you describe.

Well, lay it out for me - I must have read the report wrong. Which Column, other than 79 was the one that failed first, according to NIST?



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 06:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
Of course you contradicted yourself. You made two contradictory statements about the behaviour of the fires. You claimed that we know about how fire works, but that it is also unpredictable. It's fine with me if you wish to backpeddle though.

No backpedaling is required, I have already explained it in full. Perhaps you should pick up a book on the subject. In fact NIST published a paper in 2005 called "Simulating Fire Effects on Complex Building Structures", this might be a good start.


The only question that I'm prepared to answer is what the hell does a 10 inch block of wood have to do with a 47 storey, steel framed building?

Of course, I don't blame you for trying to drift the topic.

The questions illustrate the difference in understanding of a process and simulation of that process.

Of course, I don't blame you for trying to ignore them as they expose the difference you are trying to hide


That's exactly my point. If, as you state, everything was known about the fires, then it should have been known that WTC 7 would have been destroyed by any uncontrolled fire. Remember that NIST stated that without the damage, WTC 7 would still have fallen, due to the fires.

You claim that everything was known about fires. So why wasn't the potentially devastating scenario factored in to the firefighting precautions? If the standpipes were destroyed, as they were, then why weren't there other measures in place, to fight the fires?

Firstly, I don't claim "everything was known" about the fires, I claim that the mechanism of fire is well understood.

Secondly, nobody ever expected standpipe and water main systems to be destroyed. The FDNY recently refitted its fleet in order to pump water from rivers should this happen again, they were unequipped at the time and no building was designed to cope with this. The new WTC7 has concrete encased tougher fire protection and standpipe systems in order to prevent such a disaster occuring in the future.


Well, lay it out for me - I must have read the report wrong. Which Column, other than 79 was the one that failed first, according to NIST?

NIST's initiation mechanism is based on a asymmetrically constructed beam floor expanding. The column failure is a result of this, not vice versa. Fire will heat beams, beams will expand (as shown in Cardington). There is of course not an infinite amount of flexibility and so failures can eventually occur.



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by esdad71
 



NIST is garbage...why? Because all of you say so?


Truth hurts doesn’t it.



We do not know and NO ONE REALLY KNOWS why it took 7 hour to blow up WTC 7. As far as your kink theory I have not seen any reliable photos that proves there was a kink in WTC 7. So stop spreading DISINFORMATION!






First, you are not qualified to say that the information in the NIST report was false. Also, do not make comparisons to the initial FEMA report and the NIST report which many people do. NIST is an organization that is put in place to research catastrophic incident and then offer suggestions to make sure that it does not happen again. They were not there to provide a definitive report to ANY government agency as to the true collapse.

In the last report about WTC7 in August of 2008 these were the recommendations given to assist in a disaster like this to not occur a gain.



Sunder identified several existing, emerging or even anticipated capabilities that could have helped prevent WTC 7’s collapse. He cautioned that the degree to which these capabilities improve performance remains to be evaluated. Possible options for developing cost-effective fixes include:

More robust connections and framing systems to better resist effects of thermal expansion on the structural system.

Structural systems expressly designed to prevent progressive collapse, which is the spread of local damage from a single initiating event, from element to element, eventually resulting in the collapse of an entire structure or a disproportionately large part of it. Current model building codes do not require that buildings be designed to resist progressive collapse.

Better thermal insulation (i.e., reduced conductivity and/or increased thickness) to limit heating of structural steel and to minimize both thermal expansion and weakening effects. Insulation has been used to protect steel strength, but it could be used to maintain a lower temperature in the steel framing to limit thermal expansion.

Improved compartmentation in tenant areas to limit the spread of fires.

Thermally resistant window assemblies to limit breakage, reduce air supply and retard fire growth.

www.nist.gov...


There were 2 nobel prize winners on the NIST commission that investigated 9/11. There are many others who have worked or do work with NIST in other capacities.

Multiple pictures easily found in books and the internet show the kink. Go back on watch the video....there was on in there which tells me you did not pay attention or never watched the video.

I am not spreading disinformation so please calm down your
you might live longer. This is all just information that reputable and respected people did. You can flame and smiley all you want and offer your own opinions.

As far as the why it took 7 hours to bring down WTC7, maybe it was because there were no explosives and after the ensuing fires, it collapsed. Also, do not compare one building to another as they are ALL different. WTC 7 was a hybrid building that was built upon something older.

To see how a new building should be built, please take a look at the new WTC 7. It incorporated many of the initial findings that were given by NIST in the WTC 1 and 2 report.

Physics models were also created and show why this building collapsed.
LINK to VIDEO

The kink was the first outer sign of the imminent collapse. As far as my boat, it is far from sunk and I think some people just started dancing up front.
We are all going to have a party why you feel mad and sad....

The only urban legend that I feel is associated with 9/11 is the gun battle in front of the Pentagon??? Anyone remember that new report.


[edit on 7-6-2009 by esdad71]



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
First, you are not qualified to say that the information in the NIST report was false.

You are not qualified to say who is or is not qualified to say that information in the NIST report is false. We are all qualified. Especially where quoted in the OP, NIST states that WTC1 caused the ignition of fires in WTC7. That is complete and utter falseness as publicly available images prove that wrong. Both towers (especially WTC1) are clearly still standing as the fires on the lower floors are visible inside WTC7:




Another view of the fires on the lower floors:



Now if one thing in the NIST report is false, how can the rest be trusted?



Originally posted by esdad71
Multiple pictures easily found in books and the internet show the kink.

While the rest of us actually post pictures and links to back up our claims, how about you do the same?





I don't see a kink in the above image. Care to post one that you think shows a kink?



Originally posted by esdad71
WTC 7 was a hybrid building that was built upon something older.

Sorry, but it doesn't matter what type of building you think it is. In order for every single support column to fail at the exact same time, you need precisely timed explosives. There's no such thing as precisely timed fire.






Originally posted by esdad71
As far as my boat, it is far from sunk and I think some people just started dancing up front. We are all going to have a party why you feel mad and sad....

Nah, it's still sinking. Until one single person can demonstrate how a building can fall more perfect than a controlled demolition and demonstrate how fire can take out every support column in a building simultaneously, then everything you type out of your keyboard is speculation and theory at best. Might want to hold off on that party for now.



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by esdad71
First, you are not qualified to say that the information in the NIST report was false.

You are not qualified to say who is or is not qualified to say that information in the NIST report is false. We are all qualified. Especially where quoted in the OP, NIST states that WTC1 caused the ignition of fires in WTC7. That is complete and utter falseness as publicly available images prove that wrong. Both towers (especially WTC1) are clearly still standing as the fires on the lower floors are visible inside WTC7:




Another view of the fires on the lower floors:



Now if one thing in the NIST report is false, how can the rest be trusted?



Originally posted by esdad71
Multiple pictures easily found in books and the internet show the kink.

While the rest of us actually post pictures and links to back up our claims, how about you do the same?





I don't see a kink in the above image. Care to post one that you think shows a kink?



Originally posted by esdad71
WTC 7 was a hybrid building that was built upon something older.

Sorry, but it doesn't matter what type of building you think it is. In order for every single support column to fail at the exact same time, you need precisely timed explosives. There's no such thing as precisely timed fire.






Originally posted by esdad71
As far as my boat, it is far from sunk and I think some people just started dancing up front. We are all going to have a party why you feel mad and sad....

Nah, it's still sinking. Until one single person can demonstrate how a building can fall more perfect than a controlled demolition and demonstrate how fire can take out every support column in a building simultaneously, then everything you type out of your keyboard is speculation and theory at best. Might want to hold off on that party for now.


I never said I was qualified but based on some of these posts I can ascertain that some of them are pure bunk. Read that as SOME. m'kay?

Fires burned for over 7 hours. Please show me some video of fires PRIOR to collapse and post them. This is complete fallacy also. Here is youir kink though....



First, every single column did not fault at once. It was a a progressive collapse that initiated from the lower floors. You can see the kink and that it is side that it collapses into. There is no such thing as a precisely timed fire which is why it took 7 hours. This was a building built upon a substation that is not similar in construction to any of the other buildings that were left standing even with more damage. Design of the building plays a LARGE part in the comparison. I cannot see how you do not see that?

If you want, there are still tickets on the boat. Do you think you guys can kill a party on my boat...fat Chance...



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71

Fires burned for over 7 hours. Please show me some video of fires PRIOR to collapse and post them. This is complete fallacy also. Here is youir kink though....





Is this picture a reference to "The kink in the roof was visible for hours." that you mentioned in your post from 3 6-6-2009 @ 11:36 AM which is on page 3 of this thread?



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 02:32 PM
link   

[ Here is youir kink though....



I'm struggling to see a kink in this pic. Is this the best picture there is of it ?




top topics



 
27
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join