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: 8
7
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 01:51 PM
link   
Exponent, I realize you understand the math and have looked at it in depth, the simplest way to put it...

For there to be freefall for any amount of time, that means there had to be zero resistance. When the freefall was over, for the building to continue on its path, it had to follow the path of least resistance. This means that the structure had less or equal support than open air.

If you believe that is possible, I am not going to argue with you, thats why I made this thread.

I do not believe that it is possible for the entire building to fail simultaniously due to fire, I have never seen anyone produce a convincing case to explain it.




posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
Exponent, I realize you understand the math and have looked at it in depth, the simplest way to put it...

I appreciate your kind words, and I will reciprocate with an alternate, simple explanation


For there to be freefall for any amount of time, that means there had to be zero resistance. When the freefall was over, for the building to continue on its path, it had to follow the path of least resistance. This means that the structure had less or equal support than open air.

This is not strictly true. If the structure achieved exactly freefall then this would be the case, but the only information we have to go off is a relatively low resolution video. For this reason, the analysis inherently has an error margin which extends both sides around the measurement.

Even if the lower section was taken out by controlled demolition, no controlled demolition completely removes steel from the area, it disconnects and occasionally deforms the columns in order that they cannot support load and the building begins to collapse. After it has begun to collapse, the still existing and in-place columns will either come into contact with each other, or other building elements.

This provides resistance, and in fact it provides an extremely similar amount of resistance to what would happen if each column had been damaged by a serious structural problem.


If you believe that is possible, I am not going to argue with you, thats why I made this thread.

I do not believe that it is possible for the entire building to fail simultaniously due to fire, I have never seen anyone produce a convincing case to explain it.

This is because fire did not cause a simultaneous failure, the east penthouse collapse did.

I appreciate that the effects are extremely similar, and that what you see on the videos does look a lot like a controlled demolition, but without some better evidence it remains only a vague theory. While NISTs theory will likely be impossible to prove to your standards, the very least I can do is ensure you understand it fully.

I think that should be the next line of discussion, perhaps you can tell me how you think NIST believes the collapse progressed, and where you see evidence which you interpret differently to NIST. We should not get caught up in squabbling about fire or explosives, we should investigate what the evidence tells us.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 03:22 PM
link   
Well the true irony is that there aren't any case studies to go off of for this scenario, which makes it very complicated.

I would like to see them put the numbers out there for their peers to review, and then make a *final* conclusion. If the final conclusion is inconclusive an independent investigation would be the next course of action. It actually would have been best from the door but theres nothing we can do about that, except be ready in the future.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
This is why you see free fall speed in the collapse, and this is how it was started from fire.

Correction. Free fall acceleration, not free fall speed.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 07:03 PM
link   
I do not have any evidence to contribute to this thread. I have looked at the evidence that you guys presented and I am just floored. This building just collapsed from a FIRE? What the hell did they store in the building Thermite?

I was told the reason that the steel inside the World Trade Center buildings got so hot was because there were nearly FULLY loaded fuel tanks supplying THOUSANDS of pounds worth of fuel like a furnace to get the steel so hot it could not withstand the weight and the steel bent.

But this building had absolutely ZERO amount of Jet Fuel inside of it fueling the fire?

There is NO structural damage from a 500+ mile an hour projectile ramming into the buildings steel frame? But a few pieces of debris hit it and caught it on fire....and then it collapsed?

Can someone link that photo of the building , I think it is in Asia, That is COMPLETELY burned out.

But WTC 7 collapsed....after just a couple of hours of burning?

That to me sounds fishy as all hell. I am not sure WHY someone would go through the trouble of intentionally destroying WTC 7. It is not like there was anything important inside of it was there?



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 07:52 PM
link   
Here are some links to fires so insanely damaging that they completely destroyed the buildings. But the buildings DO NOT COLLAPSE from the fires. Especially not just after a "Few" hours.

asia.elliottback.com...

archidose.blogspot.com...

english.people.com.cn...

wtcbuilding7.com...

www.freepressinternational.com...

In Fact I have been ACTIVELY searching for a link or ANYTHING that shows a building that collapsed due to fire damage. Even some large building fires in third world countries that probably slide past fire building codes and regulations with a couple bucks faster than you can say "Structural Integrity".

I WANT to be the one to say "HAH! Look at this you bunch of Conspiracy Theory Nutters! Right here is PROOF this can and has happened before!".

Unfortunately it has not happened. Not ever. Not even one time in history.

That is not to say I do not understand the reasoning or the purpose to either be actively involved with financing or encouraging or covering up intelligence reports of Muslim extremists planning to attack the United States.

I think that I am capable of understanding WHY things are done.

I see a person who would make a decision like this as a true patriot. (Flame Suit On) To kill your fellow country men or let them be killed so that we could get involved in a part of the world that is so backwards, barbaric and unlawful that it is currently just starting to leave the Middle ages.

To foresee the ability to save many hundreds of millions of lives. Avoiding the hundreds of years it took us to understand (and are STILL learning to understand) things like Woman's Rights and NOT Murdering women who were raped and the NOT believing in witchcraft and Jin and Demons and NOT publicly hanging Gay people etc. etc.

I THINK we are trying to prevent a portion of Earth Large enough to be considered a Continent from growing in strength to have a Government comprised of Religious Extremism.

I THINK we are avoiding a War that would probably happen farther down the road if we decided to have no active part in the shaping of those regions.

It is sometimes hard for me to separate the same Government that acted like a religious fundamentalist group when the idea of Communism swept through the U.S. not too long ago to one who encourages women to fight along side men with equal rights when we are still having problems with letting women enter combat and gay people enter combat at all.

But I like to think we have changed a great deal and I hope that the majority of our Government treasures TRUE equal rights and TRUE Independence for all humans.

I guess I like to think deep down in my heart that if there is a NWO that they are NOT evil but have trouble sleeping at night at the thought of letting attacks like this happen for a greater cause.

That they have humanity and compassion and care about me. LOL Like my own little NWO God watching over me. Ok I REALLY need to get a tinfoil hat.



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 02:50 AM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


No objection to anything in this post, I agree entirely and i hope we see these LS-DYNA releases shortly.


Originally posted by tezzajw
Correction. Free fall acceleration, not free fall speed.

Doh! You are of course completely correct. Too many truther websites have destroyed my brain! :p


Originally posted by TurkeyBurgers
I was told the reason that the steel inside the World Trade Center buildings got so hot was because there were nearly FULLY loaded fuel tanks supplying THOUSANDS of pounds worth of fuel like a furnace to get the steel so hot it could not withstand the weight and the steel bent.

I'm afraid this is not accurate. There were fuel tanks inside WTC7 which were discovered with some missing fuel, but the final analysis by NIST indicates no evidence that they played any significant role in the collapse, in fact WTC7's collapse was through a mechanism we didn't expect and at a very low temperature compared to the towers.


There is NO structural damage from a 500+ mile an hour projectile ramming into the buildings steel frame? But a few pieces of debris hit it and caught it on fire....and then it collapsed?

Oh no there was lots of structural damage in WTC1 and 2. WTC7 was more as you say, prolonged fire for approximately 7 hours eventually caused collapse. Very few buildings have had fire unfought for 7 hours and it was a specific weakness of WTC7 which lead to collapse.


Can someone link that photo of the building , I think it is in Asia, That is COMPLETELY burned out.

Are you referring to the TVCC? If so, that building was built specifically with the lessons from WTC7s investigation. It shouldn't have collapsed even in the worst case situation because they corrected some of the problems seen in WTC7.


I WANT to be the one to say "HAH! Look at this you bunch of Conspiracy Theory Nutters! Right here is PROOF this can and has happened before!".

Unfortunately it has not happened. Not ever. Not even one time in history.

Many steel structures have failed throughout history, just no steel high rises. This is because the design process requires that they consider fires, and as such all structures of this type fireproof the steel, and have sprinkler systems in place.

In WTC1 and 2, the aircraft impacts dislodged fireproofing and destroyed sprinkler supply pipes, leaving both these systems unoperational. Considering the fires were 80 floors in the air, this also meant firefighters had barely reached the fires at an hour into them.

In WTC7, the water mains had been destroyed by the collapse of WTC1 and 2, but the fireproofing was intact, this fireproofing however was only 2 hour rated, and after several hours the steel had heated up a fair amount. WTC7s collapse was more interesting though, as the failure occured at steel temperatures below that which are normally expected.


It is sometimes hard for me to separate the same Government that acted like a religious fundamentalist group when the idea of Communism swept through the U.S. not too long ago to one who encourages women to fight along side men with equal rights when we are still having problems with letting women enter combat and gay people enter combat at all.

Yeah this is somewhere we're not going to disagree, there are a huge amount of very silly problems like this. How hard is it to repeal the DOMA for example, or to completely destroy DADT. My government (British) isn't doing much better either.



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
WTC7 was more as you say, prolonged fire for approximately 7 hours eventually caused collapse. Very few buildings have had fire unfought for 7 hours and it was a specific weakness of WTC7 which lead to collapse.

This is not entirely accurate and you know it.

The NIST report states that between 12.10pm and 1pm, there were fires on floors 19, 22, 29 and 30. By 1pm there was no evidence of these fires on most sides of the building. Some of these floors may have been controlled by water sprinklers.

Between roughly 2pm and 5.20pm there were fires on floors 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 13. The intensity of fires on floors 11, 12 and 13 was higher, due to more combustibles.

Floors 7 and 8: The fires appeared to travel clockwise heading East from the North face.

Floor 9: There was no visible fires until around 4pm, where it appeared to start and spread from the West to the East.

Floor 11: Appeared to spread counterclockwise. For a two hour period, the images showed no visible signs of burning.

Floor 12: Similar to Floor 11, showed more signs of continous burning.

Floor 13: Similar to Floors 11 and 12. At 4.38pm, the fire had died down to the East.

Floor 14: Flames seen briefly after 5pm on the North face.

Which part of the building was exposed to fires for 7 hours?

According to the NIST report, none of the fires appeared to have burned for seven hours and they certainly didn't appear to have burned in the same location as they travelled through the office space.



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
This is not entirely accurate and you know it.

True, it was simplified, but there is still a valid point:


According to the NIST report, none of the fires appeared to have burned for seven hours and they certainly didn't appear to have burned in the same location as they travelled through the office space.

The valid point is that the fires travelled around. Take the 1975 WTC fire as the alternate example. It only had a chance to involve a relatively small area in fire, and while it will have heated the steel up in that area, it did not burn near any particular structural weakness.

If WTC7s fire had been fought (you mention sprinklers, which were completely inoperative afaik) then it's very likely it would not have fallen, as the fires did indeed take a number of hours to reach the area of the building vulnerable to them.

Particular elements may not be involved in fire for 7 hours, but because the period is so long, more of the building gets exposed and so there is a higher probability of a vulnerability being located.



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
If WTC7s fire had been fought (you mention sprinklers, which were completely inoperative afaik) then it's very likely it would not have fallen, as the fires did indeed take a number of hours to reach the area of the building vulnerable to them.

Read the NIST report. It stated that the higher floors may have had working sprinklers fed by the roof-top water tanks. There was some active fire suppression measures operational in WTC 7.


Originally posted by exponent
Particular elements may not be involved in fire for 7 hours, but because the period is so long, more of the building gets exposed and so there is a higher probability of a vulnerability being located.

The collapse of WTC 7 isn't about probability. By mentioning the word probability means that there is a chance for error, a mistake or a lie.

It does not instill much confidence in the NIST report, to be mentioning probabilities.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 05:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by jprophet420
Exponent, I realize you understand the math and have looked at it in depth, the simplest way to put it...

I appreciate your kind words, and I will reciprocate with an alternate, simple explanation


For there to be freefall for any amount of time, that means there had to be zero resistance. When the freefall was over, for the building to continue on its path, it had to follow the path of least resistance. This means that the structure had less or equal support than open air.

This is not strictly true. If the structure achieved exactly freefall then this would be the case, but the only information we have to go off is a relatively low resolution video.


There either IS free fall acceleration...or there is NOT....there are NO PHASES or AVERAGING out to TAKE AWAY

If free fall acceleration is to occur, then there is one CONDITION that HAS to be met....

NOTHING in the way...a clear path in which to ACCELERATE

if there is something there, it HAS to offer resistance...then there would be NO acceleration

WHY do YOU talk around this?

The ONLY information 'YOU' have to go on is a low res video....WHY would YOU ASSume that NIST would ONLY have access to a "low res video"...and anyway, there are ONLY artifacts in the res. if you render larger from the same video......for the purpose of measuring distance traveled, it's more than adequate



For this reason, the analysis inherently has an error margin which extends both sides around the measurement.


WHAT are YOU talking about....


Even if the lower section was taken out by controlled demolition,


THEN WE STILL HAVE A PROBLEM


no controlled demolition completely removes steel from the area, it disconnects and occasionally deforms the columns in order that they cannot support load and the building begins to collapse.


GEE WIZZ Skipper.........THAT'S EXACTLY what EVERY video shows

when the kink is formed, no matter what position the roof is in, EVERYTHING falls at the SAME instance, at the SAME SPEED...which happens to be EQUIVALENT with the ACCELERATION of gravity...

WE SEE the ENTIRE building falling...EVENLY....if something fell SLOWER than free fall acceleration...WE WOULD SEE IT...'cause it - would - be - slower than 'other' parts falling....BUT, WE DON'T SEE that do we



After it has begun to collapse, the still existing and in-place columns will either come into contact with each other, or other building elements.

This provides resistance, and in fact it provides an extremely similar amount of resistance to what would happen if each column had been damaged by a serious structural problem.


[:-o

and resistance of the internal debris started to affect the collapse after 4.0seconds of the collapse, when we see the facade start to twist and alter direction.


If you believe that is possible, I am not going to argue with you, thats why I made this thread.

I do not believe that it is possible for the entire building to fail simultaniously due to fire, I have never seen anyone produce a convincing case to explain it.



This is because fire did not cause a simultaneous failure, the east penthouse collapse did.


and HERE is another area YOUR confused about.....a HYPOTHESIS in NOT fact.

a vertical collapse will NOT spread it's energy horizontally, to affect the GLOBAL collapse of the building...on it's own.
Progressive collapse is ALWAYS, DISPROPORTIONATE to the original cause

**If any of that building's potential energy went to destroying itself, it would have lost kinetic energy which requires that the building slow in its fall...since the ENTIRE building, DID fall at a rate EQUIVALENT with the acceleration of gravity, it was NOT causing itself to collapse.**

Simple and 100% factual



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 05:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by tezzajw
This is not entirely accurate and you know it.

True, it was simplified, but there is still a valid point:


According to the NIST report, none of the fires appeared to have burned for seven hours and they certainly didn't appear to have burned in the same location as they travelled through the office space.

The valid point is that the fires travelled around. Take the 1975 WTC fire as the alternate example. It only had a chance to involve a relatively small area in fire,


yea......70% of the 11th floor along with the ENTIRE core ...YOU are such a freakin liar....

That fire burned over 3 hours, with the steel reaching the SAME temps, or HOTTER , than on 9-11...NO floors collapsed, NO structural steel had to be replaced after...the fire also followed a utilities pathway up two more floors.



and while it will have heated the steel up in that area, it did not burn near any particular structural weakness.

If WTC7s fire had been fought (you mention sprinklers, which were completely inoperative afaik) then it's very likely it would not have fallen, as the fires did indeed take a number of hours to reach the area of the building vulnerable to them.

Particular elements may not be involved in fire for 7 hours, but because the period is so long, more of the building gets exposed and so there is a higher probability of a vulnerability being located.


So...I say AGAIN....HOW do you get 'COLD' steel to have the 'SAME' characteristics, as 'HOT' steel, involved in fire....
YOU can deny all you want, but THAT is EXACTLY what your saying with YOUR pompous ramblings

also, I don't reply in anger, I just have NO tolerance for ignorance



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 06:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
reply to post by jprophet420
 


No objection to anything in this post, I agree entirely and i hope we see these LS-DYNA releases shortly.


Originally posted by tezzajw
Correction. Free fall acceleration, not free fall speed.

Doh! You are of course completely correct. Too many truther websites have destroyed my brain! :p


Originally posted by TurkeyBurgers
I was told the reason that the steel inside the World Trade Center buildings got so hot was because there were nearly FULLY loaded fuel tanks supplying THOUSANDS of pounds worth of fuel like a furnace to get the steel so hot it could not withstand the weight and the steel bent.

I'm afraid this is not accurate. There were fuel tanks inside WTC7 which were discovered with some missing fuel, but the final analysis by NIST indicates no evidence that they played any significant role in the collapse, in fact WTC7's collapse was through a mechanism we didn't expect and at a very low temperature compared to the towers.


There is NO structural damage from a 500+ mile an hour projectile ramming into the buildings steel frame? But a few pieces of debris hit it and caught it on fire....and then it collapsed?

Oh no there was lots of structural damage in WTC1 and 2. WTC7 was more as you say, prolonged fire for approximately 7 hours eventually caused collapse. Very few buildings have had fire unfought for 7 hours and it was a specific weakness of WTC7 which lead to collapse.


Can someone link that photo of the building , I think it is in Asia, That is COMPLETELY burned out.

Are you referring to the TVCC? If so, that building was built specifically with the lessons from WTC7s investigation. It shouldn't have collapsed even in the worst case situation because they corrected some of the problems seen in WTC7.


provide the source for this statement...

WHAT has been learned by these buildings collapsing?

What NEW Conditions were implemented after 9-11 to the building community?



I WANT to be the one to say "HAH! Look at this you bunch of Conspiracy Theory Nutters! Right here is PROOF this can and has happened before!".

Unfortunately it has not happened. Not ever. Not even one time in history.



Many steel structures have failed throughout history, just no steel high rises. This is because the design process requires that they consider fires, and as such all structures of this type fireproof the steel, and have sprinkler systems in place.


NO steel structure has EVER had TOTAL GLOBAL COLLAPSE from fire

In fact...Why don't YOU find examples of ANY steel structure having TOTAL GLOBAL COLLAPSE for ANY reason, and we'll compare


In WTC1 and 2, the aircraft impacts dislodged fireproofing and destroyed sprinkler supply pipes, leaving both these systems unoperational. Considering the fires were 80 floors in the air, this also meant firefighters had barely reached the fires at an hour into them.

In WTC7, the water mains had been destroyed by the collapse of WTC1 and 2, but the fireproofing was intact, this fireproofing however was only 2 hour rated, and after several hours the steel had heated up a fair amount. WTC7s collapse was more interesting though, as the failure occured at steel temperatures below that which are normally expected.


AGAIN...making statements YOU have no clue about

turning a 'HYPOTHESIS' into FACT....even though there has been NO STEEL EXAMINED in order to make this statement.

WHERE are YOU getting YOUR info for this???

**Coroner signs the death certificate and states the cause of death, WITHOUT, ever looking at the body...people saw the body lying in the road, but the body was destroyed BEFORE the Coroner could examine, but signed the certificate anyway ...

WHAT did NIST do that's any different?



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 05:02 AM
link   
so...I guess NO ONE wants to play anymore


...it's not my feet.....is it?



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 10:02 PM
link   
So little damage from the second collapsed WTC



No fires yet either



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 01:04 AM
link   
reply to post by hgfbob
 


Its not your fault, theres no good explanation based on available data. There are possible explanations but fire is a very unlikely one. I would love to see all research on WTC made public for rapid expidition, but still demand a new investigation regardless.



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 04:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
So little damage from the second collapsed WTC

No fires yet either


Your joking right?

So little damage?

No Fires?

And yet your ilk still can not comprehend why the self proclaimed "truth" movement is viewed as being downright silly. But after the laughter there is anger.

I will leave it at that lest I suffer from total bannation from the MODS.



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 05:26 AM
link   
Originally posted by QweeQwa





Your joking right?


Pull it!!!



So little damage?


Pull it!!!



No Fires?


Pull it!!!



And yet your ilk still can not comprehend why the self proclaimed "truth" movement is viewed as being downright silly. But after the laughter there is anger.


Because sheeple like you with nothing to say or add to any debate whatsoever, easy to criticise what other people have to say when you have nothing to say yourself.



I will leave it at that lest I suffer from total bannation from the MODS.


Let your brain catch up with your tongue, you offer nothing to these forums.



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 06:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by QweeQwa

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
So little damage from the second collapsed WTC

No fires yet either


Your joking right?

So little damage?

No Fires?

And yet your ilk still can not comprehend why the self proclaimed "truth" movement is viewed as being downright silly. But after the laughter there is anger.

I will leave it at that lest I suffer from total bannation from the MODS.


Honestly now, the OP clearly states, and has been quoted since:


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, 27 2009 @ 08:09 AM
link   
reply to post by QweeQwa
 


No because the pictures reinforces my statement, whereas you just offer mocking words



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join