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.

 

Botched Building Demolition Reinforces WTC 7 Lie...

page: 6
38
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


mike you said
It should be evident to anyone who thinks about it Silverstein (note spelling) tells the firemen to "Pull it" because he's concerned they'll stay trying to fight the fire in a building that's on the verge of collapsing as attested to by hundreds of photographs and witnesses. It was already leaning and creaking 2 hours before.

donny says
WHAT authority does he have to TELL the NYFD anything?
answer please

mike
WTC 7 collapse due to loss of structural integrity has been analyzed and attested to by professional structural engineers worldwide. Check out
STRUCTURE magazine November 2007 - online in pdf format.


donny
What friggin building would NOT collapse for loss of structural integrity. That's what they do.
Your argument .Please explain! Quote the mag if you want to.
BUT what caused it to develop loss of structural integrity?

mike
Thermite is not a compound used by MOSSAD agents. This is just lunacy. Ask any chemist in the world about how thermite is formed and what it's practical applications are. It is very dramatic and intense, like a sparkler, but has little energy or explosive potential. Any actual scientific sites will explain what it does.

donny
Mossad is trained in the latest of explosive techniques.

mike
Again this is all so much Truther disinformation. Not a scintilla of scientific knowledge just ignorant speculative malarkey.

donny
Your opinion

mike
There is a back story of American government and agency complicity with international intelligence's agencies in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkey, etc.

donny
I must have been to the men's room when this theory was taught.
I am sincere when I ask you to explain this to me. Seriously and if you do thanks in advance.

mike
But controlled demolition speculations filled have become the videogame play toy for those unwilling or incapable of investigating what happened.

donny
not worth an answer.

donny
I have my fireman buddies working on the Pull it deal for all of us .
I will post it as soon as I get it.





signature




posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seventh
the way we like to deal with WTC7 is the good old fashioned US of A way..... don`t even mention it, works wonders.


I've read maybe half a dozen porofessional analyses of what caused WTC 7 to collapse, not all American. They pretty much concur. No one, except in Conspiracy Land, has ever found compelling scientific evidence of a controlled demolition, which is tough to argue as the building was seen gradually losing it's ability to support itself in the final two hours.

This article with graphs is a good summation


www.structuremag.org...

Single Point of Failure

How the Loss of One Column May Have Led to the Collapse of WTC 7

Ramon Gilsanz, P.E., S.E., Willa Ng

The collapses of World Trade Center 1 (WTC 1) and World Trade Center 2 (WTC 2) on September 11, 2001 were attributed to the impact of two airplanes and the ensuing fires. The subsequent collapse of World Trade Center 7 (WTC 7), which was not directly struck by airplanes, is more of an enigma. Additionally, the nature of its collapse, which occurred nearly seven hours after WTC 1 and WTC 2 failed, has led to rampant speculation.

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 its local failure caused the global failure of WTC 7.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Building Performance Assessment Team and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) formed a team to analyze the collapse of WTC 7. The effort began with the collection of structural pieces, existing plans, eyewitness accounts, and photos and videos taken that day. This information led to the formation of several probable collapse theories. The team then created a computerized model of the building, using existing plans and information, to test these theories.

WTC 7, one of the seven buildings that formed the World Trade Center complex in New York City, was bounded by Washington Street, West Broadway, Barclay Street and Vesey Street. This 47-story commercial office building was approximately 330 feet long, 140 feet wide and 610 feet tall, and was constructed over a pre-existing electrical substation owned by Con Edison. The original plans for the substation included the construction of a high-rise tower above it.

However, the final footprint of WTC 7 was larger than the originally planned high-rise tower. As a result, there were discontinuities between the columns in the Con Edison substation and the columns for the rest of WTC 7. Braced frames, transfer trusses and transfer girders at floors 5 through 7 transferred loads between the discontinuous columns. These elements, though serving the purpose of shifting loads from one set of columns to another, also essentially "tied" the columns to each other. The columns were numbered for ease of identification and will be referred to by their number herein.

The failure of WTC 1 and WTC 2 sent flaming debris into the southern face of WTC 7. This impact and fire damage initiated a sequence that would lead to global collapse. Eyewitness observations by building occupants, NYPD, FDNY and bystanders indicated that the damage was located on the south face between floors 8 and 18, and that there was a fully involved fire on the south side of floor 7, which included the transfer elements. From 3:00 to 5:00 PM, fires were still burning in the building, which may explain why it took several hours for it to collapse. The continued heat of the fire weakened steel structural components until they failed at 5:21 PM, nearly seven hours after the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2.

The final collapse of WTC 7 occurred over 8.2 seconds and was recorded on several videos from locations northeast and northwest of the building. Study of these videos led to the development of the timeline of the visible external sequence of events. The images accompanying this article are taken from a CBS News Archives video to show key points observed during the collapse. As seen in the photos, a kink develops in the east penthouse before it falls into the building. The west penthouse then fails, followed by a kink in the entire façade of the building. Total collapse follows.

This sequence of events, with roof elements sinking into a building with an intact façade, suggests an interior failure. An interior failure would explain the appearance of a "controlled" collapse with a relatively small debris field, as seen with WTC 7.

The sequence of final collapse can be interpreted using knowledge of the building’s framing from existing plans. For instance, the observed collapse of the east penthouse may signify a failure in a line of columns on the east side of the building (columns 76-81). In particular, interior columns 79, 80 and 81 were located directly below the east penthouse and supported relatively large tributary areas.

The final collapse hypothesis can be summarized as follows:

1) Debris from the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2 caused damage from impact and fire.

2) Fire significantly weakened structural steel and caused the failure of one or more of the columns on the eastern side of the building, as evidenced in the sinking of the east penthouse. This indicated a vertical progression of failure from the damage on the lower floors to the failure of the penthouse on the roof.

3) The sinking of the west penthouse, as well as the shifting of a clear kink from the east penthouse towards the middle of the structure, indicates that the collapse then progressed horizontally, as the localized failure of the eastern columns was distributed to the other columns through the transfer elements at floors 5 through 7.

4) Global collapse was the ultimate result.

A kinematic model was created to test the final collapse hypothesis and isolate the structural elements that may have contributed to each phase of the failure. It was this testing that isolated one column, 79, as the critical structural component whose failure led to global collapse. A collapse mechanism analysis performed for the removal of column 79 produced a deformed shape with a kink in the roof of the east penthouse, as captured in actual videos and photos taken that day.

The video, photographic and first-person account evidence of the collapse of WTC 7 suggests that the impact of debris and resulting fire contributed to the collapse through the weakening of key structural components. The sequence of collapse, most notably the observed behavior of the penthouses, points to several key columns as the first to fail. The failure of column 79 was pivotal in the subsequent global collapse. As shown in the computerized non-linear structural model, its failure initiated the vertical collapse progression. WTC 7’s properties of load transfer at floors 5 and 7, when combined with the failure of column 79, led to a horizontal collapse progression, which in turn ultimately resulted in global collapse.

The results of the research performed on WTC 7 suggest that steps can be taken to avoid vulnerabilities in the design of buildings, though no design can be expected to withstand the events of September 11, 2001. The original designers and builders of WTC 7 could not have had any idea that this structure would have to resist such forces.

However, the vulnerability of WTC 7 was that damage, though significant, should have caused no more than local failure of structural components. That is, buildings should be designed to survive a local failure, due to blast, fire, impact, etc. but prevent the progression of a collapse throughout the structure.


Mike

[edit on 7-8-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 06:20 PM
link   
TextOriginally posted by Donny 4 million

donny says

WHAT authority does he have to TELL the NYFD anything?
answer please

mike

A man being told firemen are trying to save his building who is concerned about their safety has the right to tell a fire chief to look after his crew first. He did not issue an official command, serve papers, have the military come in. Just said something in a phone conversation on a day NYC and his own building were attacked.


donny

What friggin building would NOT collapse for loss of structural integrity. That's what they do.

mike

See

STRUCTURE magazine November 2007
www.structuremag.org...


and this Italian site explaining the scientific nitty gritty in the process exposing the phony Jones thermite claim.


11-settembre.blogspot.com...



donny

Mossad is trained in the latest of explosive techniques.

mike

Which advanced country intelligence service is not trained in the latest explosive techniques? How about Pakistan, Iraq (still under Saddam), Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Saudi Arabia. What is your source of information on Mossad and specifics of their use of explosives in 2001? Where is there any evidence of explosive charges at WTC beyond wild speculation? Where were the caps, cabling, signature of explosive charges, residues, etc.


donny

There is a [back story of American government and agency complicity with international intelligence's agencies in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkey, etc.]

I must have been to the men's room when this theory was taught.
I am sincere when I ask you to explain this to me. Seriously and if you do thanks in advance.

mike

There is a great open-source [i.e. public & non-govt) timeline

Text

www.historycommons.org...

Exhaustive details of everything and much critical of the US. Details of foreign govts and intelligence planning, financing, training, money transfers.
It's a matter of history now, America was attacked by a collusion of Muslim extremist and financiers, mainly in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Heartbreaking news for some, Israel was not involved and in fact had warned the US repeatedly.

Outlined here - it takes a while to read through but worth it if you're really interested in what led up to 9/11.
Let me know what you think.

Mike

[edit on 7-8-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael

It should be evident to anyone who thinks about it Silverstein (note spelling) tells the firemen to "Pull it" because he's concerned they'll stay trying to fight the fire in a building that's on the verge of collapsing as attested to by hundreds of photographs and witnesses. It was already leaning and creaking 2 hours before.


That rectangular building was not leaning. IF it leaned in any direction other debunkers better ones than yourself would of posted pics of it long ago. That comment is dis-information. WTC 7 never leaned. It just fell flat in onto itself.

Also FireFighter blood runs deep in my family. He did not use the term "pull it" in reference to him ordering the firefighters out... He used the term in reference to pulling the building.

FOR CRYING OUT LOUD will someone load the 2:00 minute clip of Silverstein saying pull it so we can get this guy to crawl back to what ever he crawled out of.


Here I found it.


Maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. In reference to the building not the fire fighter inside the building.. they are not an IT. The Building is an IT.

FOR SOME REASON THE FIRE FIGHTER COMANDER CALLS THE LEASEHOLDER (because on this day he has nothing better to do than to keep Larry Silverstein up to date about his buildings... those people on the ground must be FEMAS problem) AND TELLS HIM THAT HE IS UNSURE IF THEY WILL BE ABLE TO CONTAIN THE FIRES... EIGHT OFFICE FIRES SPREAD ACROSS TWO STORIES... AND SILVERSTEIN RESPONDS "WE HAVE HAD SUCH A LOSS OF LIFE MAYBE THE SMARTEST THING TO DO WOULD BE TO PULL IT and THEY MADE THAT DECISION TO PULL AND THEN WE WATCHED THE BUILDING COLLAPSE"!!!!!!


AAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

This is not a cryptic innuendo or some obscure quasi reference that must be inferred. This dude said that the smartest thing to do would be to pull it, so they pulled it. Then it fell. How much more clear does the man need to be?!?!




[edit on 7-8-2009 by titorite]



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by titorite

This is not a cryptic innuendo or some obscure quasi reference that must be inferred. This dude said that the smartest thing to do would be to pull it, so they pulled it. Then it fell. How much more clear does the man need to be?!?!



Silverstein later clarified his remarks because of the incessant nut bar accusations he told firemen to pull the building down.

Think about it. Really think about it.

A building is ravaged by fires and sever damage from fallen debris, rapidly losing it's ability to remain standing. A courtesy call is made to the owner that they don't think the crews can save it.

Can anyone actually believes he tells a fire chief to being down the building - and then admits to it?

There is zero, repeat zero evidence Silverstein had knowledge of or the wherewithal to command a controlled demolition. There is zero forensic evidence of a controlled demolition.

Whatever the common firefighting jargon was in NYC in 2001, which can still be tracked easily, "Pull it" was not ever a demolition industry euphemism for destroying a building.

Try to remember, all this happened on very crucial day in history on the planet Earth outside your window, not the fictional online cartoon logic world. People do not go public and casually admit they told someone to destroy a building.


M




[edit on 7-8-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by titorite
 


Ah yes, who are the "THEY" in that whole clip? THEY made the decision to pull. Who is they? Silverstein didnt make the decision did he? Not according to his own words. Speaking about how many lives were lost so far, and his building is on fire and it is known it will not stand longer, so GO BLOW IT UP? When? How? Ah yes lets save lives by running a whole crew of demolition men with explosives, det cords, rigs, saws, and in an hour or so rig up a whole tower that is burning, leaning, and structural integrity is shot to hell and is in danger of collapsing by itself from fire and impact damage. Right right.......... tell me, how long does it take to rig a burning and leaning 47 story building? Better yet, tell me how long does it take to rig a regular building for demolition?

And since when do firefighters rig buildings with explosives or give the order to do so?

And then going back to the firefighters that were IN and AROUND the WTC7 building why do they all mention getting a call to PULL OUT/AWAY from 7 from the FDNY Commander on site?



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by titorite
 





That rectangular building was not leaning. IF it leaned in any direction other debunkers better ones than yourself would of posted pics of it long ago. That comment is dis-information. WTC 7 never leaned. It just fell flat in onto itself.


WTC 7 just fell flat? Like to explain how 30 West Broadway aka
Fiterman Hall of Manhattan Community College ended up like this



WTC 7 when it fell collapsed it fell toward the north - across Barclay Street
which is wide 4 lane highway

Here is aerial shot of WTC 7 after 9/11



Notice how WTC 7 fell - also note damage to 30 West Broadway on left of shot


As an aside was in NYC today - toured WTC site again, like I do all the
time I am in NY . Barclay Street is wide (as well as busy) to cross the
highway would mean debris pile from WTC 7 is at least 75 feet if not
closer to 100

So much for collapsein own footprint

Here is how 30 West Broadway looks now - it is being decontaminated
and dismantled




posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 10:26 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Neo-V™
 


Uh-huh. And did they start fires that heated to 2000 degrees for 1 hour so that it WEAKENED the steel so that it had 1/2 the strength as usual? And did they look to see if the building followed the same architectual patterns as the WTC so that they were comparing apples to apples? Didn't think so. You people SERIOUSLY need to move on to things that are obviously wrong and proveable. Otherwise, you will simply be written off as "we didn't go to the moon" people.

Check out MIT, Princeton, and virtually EVERY news agency in the world. They all CONFIRM the Physics that were in play and the cause. The fire didn't MELT the steel. It weakened the steel. So the steel that was supposed to be able to hold X tons could only support ½X tons. When one failed, it put more stress on the other beams and that's the end of the story.



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by visible_villain
reply to post by Neo-V™
 


Your OP said :
Botched Building Demolition Reinforces WTC 7 Lie...

I just thought I would point out that this building is a reinforced concrete structure, not a structural steel frame building, so the analogy you are making doesn't not hold.

Don't get me wrong : I am not trying to debunk the controlled demolition theory of the WTC, just only that your OP is comparing apples and oranges.

Pretty good clip though.


The problem is that reinforced concrete isn't as strong as steel. They reinforce concrete with steel.



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by Seventh
the way we like to deal with WTC7 is the good old fashioned US of A way..... don`t even mention it, works wonders.


I've read maybe half a dozen porofessional analyses of what caused WTC 7 to collapse, not all American. They pretty much concur. No one, except in Conspiracy Land, has ever found compelling scientific evidence of a controlled demolition, which is tough to argue as the building was seen gradually losing it's ability to support itself in the final two hours.



You missed my whole point of that post bud, think commission, think WTC7, it wasn`t even mentioned, that`s what I meant.



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Seventh
 





You missed my whole point of that post bud, think commission, think WTC7, it wasn`t even mentioned, that`s what I meant.


No you have the point - the commission was to investigate how the
hijackers got control of the aircraft and were able to fly them into
buildings.

As pointed out by you loons WTC 7 was not struck by a plane - it was
COLLATERAL DAMAGE (as was WTC 3 (Marriott Hotel), WTC 4, 5, 6,
130 Liberty St (Deutsche Bank), St Nicolas Orthodox Church and 30
West Broadway - which was collateral damage from WTC 7 collapse)

I dont see you whining about any of these other buildings which were
destroyed that day too

In WTC 3 (Marriott) 40 firefighters who were searching building and using
as staging area were killed along with several Marriott employees and
civilians

Why are not demanding investigation into why WTC 3 collapsed? Over
50 people died in it compared to WTC 7 where NOBODY was killed....



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nunny
reply to post by Neo-V™
 


Uh-huh. And did they start fires that heated to 2000 degrees for 1 hour so that it WEAKENED the steel so that it had 1/2 the strength as usual? And did they look to see if the building followed the same architectual patterns as the WTC so that they were comparing apples to apples? Didn't think so. You people SERIOUSLY need to move on to things that are obviously wrong and proveable. Otherwise, you will simply be written off as "we didn't go to the moon" people.

Check out MIT, Princeton, and virtually EVERY news agency in the world. They all CONFIRM the Physics that were in play and the cause. The fire didn't MELT the steel. It weakened the steel. So the steel that was supposed to be able to hold X tons could only support ½X tons. When one failed, it put more stress on the other beams and that's the end of the story.


Hey ninny, welcome aboard.
Do you have any likks for the ones dealing with building 7 only?
thanks donny



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by Seventh
 





You missed my whole point of that post bud, think commission, think WTC7, it wasn`t even mentioned, that`s what I meant.


No you have the point - the commission was to investigate how the
hijackers got control of the aircraft and were able to fly them into
buildings.

As pointed out by you loons WTC 7 was not struck by a plane - it was
COLLATERAL DAMAGE (as was WTC 3 (Marriott Hotel), WTC 4, 5, 6,
130 Liberty St (Deutsche Bank), St Nicolas Orthodox Church and 30
West Broadway - which was collateral damage from WTC 7 collapse)

I dont see you whining about any of these other buildings which were
destroyed that day too

In WTC 3 (Marriott) 40 firefighters who were searching building and using
as staging area were killed along with several Marriott employees and
civilians

Why are not demanding investigation into why WTC 3 collapsed? Over
50 people died in it compared to WTC 7 where NOBODY was killed....


One at a time here son.
Stick with the topic.
Building SEVEN only



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


Mike, do you have any other sources for the reason bldg. 7 was demolished or just the structual magezine one?
Anyway your are going to need more because that magizine article if you read it all, says it is a scenario created by a hypothesis applied to a model to determine want coloum would fail first based on the penthouese's collapsing one after the other. They provide no direct reason for the failure of that particular piece of steel and what is more telling is that they do not rule out demolishion as the cause of the collapse and never mention thermite.


[edit on 10-8-2009 by Donny 4 million]

[edit on 10-8-2009 by Donny 4 million]



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Donny 4 million
 


As I am pointing out WTC 7 was not mentioned in 911 Commission Report
because it was NOT STRUCK by plane. It was I stated collateral damage
Commission was designed to investigate how hijackers were able to gain control of aircraft on that date.

As can see lot of destruction was caused by debris from WTC towers
striking nearby buildings



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
reply to post by mmiichael
 


Mike, do you have any other sources for the reason bldg. 7 was demolished or just the structual magezine one?

Anyway your are going to need more because that magizine article if you read it all, says it is a scenario created by a hypothesis applied to a model to determine want coloum would fail first based on the penthouese's collapsing one after the other. They provide no direct reason for the failure of that particular piece of steel and what is more telling is that they do not rule out demolishion as the cause of the collapse and never mention thermite.




The Structural magazine article was professionally cautious in not overreaching conclusions beyond what they observed.

Demolition is not explored because there has never been any indication of it. No synchronized explosions, forensic residues, caps, cabling, etc.

Just simpleminded deceptive website and video claims. Thousands of independent scientists, structural engineers, demolition experts, other professionals worldwide - have examine everything and concur with the structural loss of integrity, impact, fires, explanation and documentation.


Mike



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 01:56 PM
link   


Demolition is not explored because there has never been any indication of it. No synchronized explosions, forensic residues, caps, cabling, etc.


I've talked to the bomb squad guys from Passaic County New Jersey
Sheriff (where I live). Regularly lecture my FD on spotting bombs
and incendiary devices.

They spent 3 weeks at WTC site doing search and rescue - none of
them found anything associated with demolition - wiring, shock tubes,
detonaters, blasting caps, etc

Talked to extensively about their observations and state of the wreckage
at WTC.

Conclusion is no sign of demolition



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


Did these bomb squad guys have extensive knowledge of all the military's arsenal? (I highly doubt it as thermobarics and nano-thermate weren't even known to the public sector back then.)

Or where they looking for "conventional" explosives only?

[edit on 10-8-2009 by Nutter]



posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter
reply to post by thedman
 


Did these bomb squad guys have extensive knowledge of all the military's arsenal? (I highly doubt it as thermobarics and nano-thermate weren't even known to the public sector back then.)

Or where they looking for "conventional" explosives only?



Even the most advanced nanothermite ever devised would not have a fraction of the energy required for a significant explosion that would be effective in the WTC buildings. Thermite is not an explosive. It acts more like a sparkler. And it cannot be reliably detonated particularly in the extreme conditions on 9/11.

This is not an opinion, but basic knowledge of chemists. Ask any of them, except the ones on the Truther bandwagon like nutbar Jones trying to show the red oxide primer flakes found in WTC debris was something else.

Check out a thorough scientific examination at this Italian site


11-settembre.blogspot.com...



Never really brought up is why even the most vicious government agents imaginable would risk discovery planting explosives in buildings that were already destroyed that day. As if a Hollywood finish collapse was worth the danger of employing hundreds and incurring the risk it might not even work.

A lot of things are possible and there are many questions on who knew what in advance of 9/11.

But there is no indication whatsoever of a controlled demolition.

Only in the delusional world of online 9/11 Truther websites and their amateur videos.


Mike



new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join