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.

 

Fire caused global collapse in wtc7?

page: 5
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 

The greater than free fall acceleration that Chandler found may be due to the fact he was measuring from a highly compressed video on YouTube. But what happened after he presented his case to NIST? Did NIST then go to YouTube to download the video he used to make the same measurements? I suppose that is a possibility.

I hope and pray what really happened is NIST went back to their high quality copy taken from the original recording and did their measurements. Then I hope and pray they took another high quality copy of another view and confirmed their first measurement. And then I hope they took another high quality copy of still another view and confirmed both of the previous measurements. And then after NIST did that I believe they would be sufficiently satisfied to alter the initial report to include the phrases "descended at gravitational acceleration" and " free fall drop".




posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

What matters is that from the ones that have, the consensus is that the report is valid.
No source = No thanks



Would you at least agree that if there is a consensus among SE's - that have read the report - and they agree with their findings, then it can be considered valid?



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by NIcon

And then after NIST did that I believe they would be sufficiently satisfied to alter the initial report to include the phrases "descended at gravitational acceleration" and " free fall drop".



That would be good.

But 1% resistance from the failing columns aren't going to slow down the acceleration one bit.

Note how it all happens:

Step 1 - for the first 1.75 seconds, it at less than FF Acceleration. This is the time that individual columns are failing across the building.

Step 2- all columns are in their plastic deformation phase, giving 1% resistance. There is no discernable slowing from FFA. 105' roughly equals the 7 story tall columns that have lost their bracing.

Step 3 - the upper part, that still have their bracing to some extent, come into contact with with the lower parts. Since their buckling lengths are shorter, they give more resistance, and the drop again falls below FFA.



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


The facts, that a building fire doesn't burn hot enough to soften steel, and that high-tech explosives were found in the rubble and dust of WTC 7, make a SOLID case that fire didn't down the building.

The problem is that due to the emotionality of the event, the impetus to keep things quiet and calm, by the media and by the average citizen of America, is stronger than knowing the facts.

Do I want to go "on record" as you say? Not really... new legislation calling people who go on record "Domestic Terrorists" is a little scary. BUT YOU THINK THAT WILL STOP ME!!?? LOL

No way! For the record - fire didn't bring down the buildings, NIST was written by people with an agenda to enforce the media story and was inaccurate.

www.ae911truth.org... for empirical, scientific facts on the 9/11 events.



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by notreallyalive

The facts, that a building fire doesn't burn hot enough to soften steel



Who says that's what happened?

Fire can result in thermal expansion though. WTC 7.

And steel heated to just 250C can undergo viscoelasic creep after just 1 hour to a sufficent extent to result in failure. TT.



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
But 1% resistance from the failing columns aren't going to slow down the acceleration one bit.

I hope that you stand by that comment and you think that you're correct.

That way, people who know what they're discussing can read past your posts, without wasting their time or missing any valuable content.



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 10:31 PM
link   
why the # would we bomb ourselves?????



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by hgfbob
when did Bazant have his paper again?.....9-12-01

It was first published on 9/13 in its most simplified form showing a single floor drop was enough to overcome load carry capacity. It exists in the 'official story' only as a reference.


ummmmm....WHAT large impact...7 wasn't hit by a plane, and falling debris didn't contribute to the collapse

The east penthouse impacted the lower floors of WTC7 as it collapsed into the building. This destroyed the majority of load carrying capacity, which you would know if you had read the report.


...WTC 3,4,5,6 had debris fall DIRECTLY on them....not one had total global collapse

Not one was even remotely comparable to WTC7, are you really comparing a 5 storey building with a 47 storey building?


....and WHAT do YOU mean "it doesn't" fall at 9.8m/s^2 (are you actually resorting to lying?),

I didn't say that, I said that spot fire didn't cause freefall, massive structural damage did.


It means that as soon as the kink is formed, the ENTIRE building is falling as fast as an object can fall...with NO resistance...NOTHING to slow it

DO YOU UNDERSTAND

YES I UNDERSTAND


and as far as progressive collapse...if there WERE a progressive collapse, WE WOULD SEE IT...there is TOO much weight with the other PH and the HUGE HVAC unit, THEY WILL NOT STAY when vertical support is removed...THAT is PROVEN by the EAST PH falling in when it's vertical support was removed....Progressive collapse occurs when a primary structural element fails, resulting in the collapse of adjoining structural elements, which in turn causes additional collapse. The resulting damage is DISPROPORTIONATE to the original cause...the EPH falling in, WOULD NOT CAUSE a total global collapse of the ENTIRE building, EVENLY at a free fall ACCELERATED rate...THAT WE ALL SEE

You seem to be sure that the east penthouse could not possibly cause a progressive collapse. Why?


WHAT causes EVERY perimeter column, which the facade IS attached to, to have AT LEAST 105' VANISH...INSTANTLY, along with ALL the others, to achieve the EVEN decent of the building, AT A FREE FALL ACCELERATED RATE,...

THAT WE ALL SEE

That's not what freefall acceleration means, it simply means that the resistance felt was not measurable. In fact NISTs measurements indicate that the collapse began relatively slowly, reached freefall speed and then slowed again. How exactly was this achieved with explosives? Can you show me a similar graph of a 'similar' controlled demolition?


These are MY words,(30 years in building)..any other info is from the NIST reports, and Bazant
YOUR the one who should be embarrassed, DELIBERATELY lying in lieu of an agenda

I don't know what your experience is, but it does not take a structural engineer to be able to understand how WTC7 collapsed. Also, where have I lied?



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 11:28 PM
link   

The east penthouse impacted the lower floors of WTC7 as it collapsed into the building. This destroyed the majority of load carrying capacity, which you would know if you had read the report.



Fire caused global collapse in wtc7?

Other than initiating the fires in wtc7, the damage from the debris from wtc1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of wtc7.
NSTAR 1A, pxxxiii



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 12:44 AM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


The East Penthouse was part of WTC7, not WTC1 or 2. Sorry to post a one liner but what you're quoting has no relevance to what I said.



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 05:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by hgfbob

if there is SOMETHING there, it HAS to offer resistance...NO free fall ACCELERATION


It did.

About 1%, which insufficent to slow down the decent to any extent that could be seen in a youtube video.

Let me ask you this - Chandler said, or rather his graphs say, that it exceeded freefall acceleration. Since that's impossible, doesn't that speak to the accuracy of doing an analysis from a video?


LOL...pretty pathetic dis

and YOUR also saying that 'COLD' steel. offers NO MORE RESISTANCE than 'HOT' steel taken to the point of expansion

if there is something there , it HAS to offer resistance...there was NOTHING there



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 05:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by jprophet420

What matters is that from the ones that have, the consensus is that the report is valid.
No source = No thanks



Would you at least agree that if there is a consensus among SE's - that have read the report - and they agree with their findings, then it can be considered valid?


The reason why we are all here....DUH

MEDIA has kept 7 out...MOST of the country doesn't know 7 exists, let alone fell at free fall speed.

American Institute of Architects (AIA) 2009 National Convention and Design Exposition,

"We have a structural engineer who is also an architect stop by and sign our petition who has worked on 50 to 60 story buildings. He was completely unaware of the FREE FALL ACCELERATION of building 7 and immediately acknowledged that this implies a 'controlled demolition'."

ae911truth. org


Over 700 architectural and engineering professionals want a new investigation....HOW many are there ACTUALLY actively protesting that the NIST reports are true?.....WHY did NIST 'STOP' their investigation of the towers when the IMPACT area was "poised to collapse"...so it DOESN'T come back to BITE them in the ass...much easier and safer to 'sub out' the work to some one else, to keep a little distance...because it's coming back



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 05:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by NIcon

And then after NIST did that I believe they would be sufficiently satisfied to alter the initial report to include the phrases "descended at gravitational acceleration" and " free fall drop".



That would be good.

But 1% resistance from the failing columns aren't going to slow down the acceleration one bit.

Note how it all happens:

Step 1 - for the first 1.75 seconds, it at less than FF Acceleration. This is the time that individual columns are failing across the building.


spewing the NIST HYPOTHESIS, is the reason we are here....DUH

WHY are these 'individual' columns failing?... WHAT is supporting the roof and EVERYTHING on it WHILE all the vertical support fails underneath?

the facade does not support ANYTHING....it IS attached to the perimeter columns, it WILL NOT STAY while the columns fail behind it...the roof WILL NO FLOAT while vertical support fails underneath, as PROVED by the East PH falling in


Step 2- all columns are in their plastic deformation phase, giving 1% resistance. There is no discernable slowing from FFA. 105' roughly equals the 7 story tall columns that have lost their bracing.


.._javascript:icon('
').oh, so NOW there are 7 story columns...WRONG........just pulling out of thin air huh... just "lost their bracing"......just from the way you talk, you have NO FREAKIN' IDEA what your talking about

this DOES NOT HAPPEN ..NATURALLY


Step 3 - the upper part, that still have their bracing to some extent, come into contact with with the lower parts. Since their buckling lengths are shorter, they give more resistance, and the drop again falls below FFA.


This is the MOST pathetic interpretation of the NIST HYPOTHESIS I have ever read....EVEN by utube standards

WE DON'T SEE THIS....that IS NOT what the building is doing

WE SEE, in a second and a half, conditions were met for the ENTIRE building to ACCELERATE, as fast as an object can fall THROUGH THE A-I-R

What is that force that affects EVERY vertical support, AT THE SAME TIME, to get the result WE ALL SEE



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 06:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by notreallyalive

The facts, that a building fire doesn't burn hot enough to soften steel



Who says that's what happened?


NIST...don't you read?

[NCSTAR1A-3.2]"It is likely that much of the burning took place beyond the views of the windows"

[NCSTAR1A-3.2]
"The fires were fed by ordinary office combustibles"



Fire can result in thermal expansion though. WTC 7.

And steel heated to just 250C can undergo viscoelasic creep after just 1 hour to a sufficent extent to result in failure. TT.


if it has a CONSISTENT heat source...NOT spot fire, that is been SHOWN to have either MOVED or went out, going by ALL available pics and video

in order to determine thermal expansion, you need EVIDENCE and testing...there is NONE

ALL evidence goes AGAINST the NIST HYPOTHESIS



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 06:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by NIcon
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 

The greater than free fall acceleration that Chandler found may be due to the fact he was measuring from a highly compressed video on YouTube. But what happened after he presented his case to NIST? Did NIST then go to YouTube to download the video he used to make the same measurements? I suppose that is a possibility.


When does a feather fall as fast as a brick...in a vacuum...and it measures 9.8m/s^2.....WOW....so HOW is it POSSIBLE that they get the SAME measurement from WTC7...as the ENTIRE building falls EVENLY...so...WHAT event would create a vacuum INSIDE WTC7, and 'PULL' the build down from the inside?

[NICSTAR 1A 3.6]"constant, downward acceleration during this time interval. This acceleration was 32f/s^2,(9.8m/s^2), equivalent to the acceleration of gravity.

quick...wipe YOUR hands, YOUR slipping...here, take this towel

They got the SAME measurement...it DOESN'T matter WHERE on the roof line you pick...EVERYTHING is doing the SAME thing....NIST tries to HIDE the FACT by breaking into "phases"...free fall ACCELERATION is an event ALL IT'S OWN, it CAN NOT be 'averaged' out to cancel itself



I hope and pray what really happened is NIST went back to their high quality copy taken from the original recording and did their measurements. Then I hope and pray they took another high quality copy of another view and confirmed their first measurement. And then I hope they took another high quality copy of still another view and confirmed both of the previous measurements. And then after NIST did that I believe they would be sufficiently satisfied to alter the initial report to include the phrases "descended at gravitational acceleration" and " free fall drop".


free fall acceleration is something they DID NOT WANT TO DEAL WITH....that's why it WASN'T in the rough draft.......DO YOU really think they are THAT stupid, NOT to have noticed this before?

and ALSO dismissing explosives and accelerants, by using RDX, as the ONLY example, of explosive, SAYING it would have been TOO LOUD, and then ruling out the THOUSANDS of other combination there could have been...NO testing, just SOMEONES OPINION...veeeerrry scientific

FREE FALL ACCELERATION CAN NOT be explained by SPOT fire on ONE end of the building.



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by hgfbob

and YOUR also saying that 'COLD' steel offers NO MORE RESISTANCE than 'HOT' steel taken to the point of expansion



Prove I said this.

Or admit that you're lying and retract this misrepresentation of what I said.



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by hgfbob

MEDIA has kept 7 out...MOST of the country doesn't know 7 exists, let alone fell at free fall speed.



Then that just proves that my point is correct.

The consensus among SE's is that the NIST report is accurate.

Otherwise, this whole 9/11 forum would be unnecessary.



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by hgfbob

WHAT is supporting the roof and EVERYTHING on it WHILE all the vertical support fails underneath?
as PROVED by the East PH falling in

oh, so NOW there are 7 story columns
this DOES NOT HAPPEN ..NATURALLY

WE DON'T SEE THIS....that IS NOT what the building is doing



Which is it? Is the roof supporting everything, or is the penthouse falling in?

NIST explained how it did.

So you disagree with Chandler? He says that it decelerated to below FFA in the third stage also, agreeing with NIST.



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by hgfbob

WHAT event would create a vacuum INSIDE WTC7, and 'PULL' the build down from the inside?

free fall acceleration is something they DID NOT WANT TO DEAL WITH....that's why it WASN'T in the rough draft

NO testing, just SOMEONES OPINION...veeeerrry scientific



Nothing can. If you choose to do some math, you'll find that 1% resistance doesn't result in a 1% slower rate of acceleration.

Yes it was. It just wasn't spelled out clearly.

So then what's your scientifically researched explosive? Remember it isn't thermite, according to Jones. He is now stating after conferring with Dr Greening that the thermite is there as a fuse to set off the conventional explosives. So he's back to Hush-a-Boom.



posted on Jul, 12 2009 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
In either case - whether it's peer reviewed before publication or not - nothing is preventing other professionals in the relevant field from critiquing it AFTER publication.


How about all the evidence and blueprints? You can't peer review something with just the data from itself.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join