It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


WTC7 Who thinks office fires did it? Show of hands.

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 07:28 PM

Originally posted by weedwhacker
It was NOT just from the fires, you know.

There was substantial damage inflicted, structurally, as well.

Here's that "substantial" structural damage:

North face:

South face (upper right):

posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 07:51 PM
reply to post by GoldenFleece

Sure thats not even close to what it takes for a building to collapse on its footprint.

posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 10:47 PM
reply to post by Lostayos

Do you know how many times I've posted these photos of WTC 7 that show NO serious fires (they actually look set) and NO structural damage?

But it doesn't matter -- the debunkers just slither away and return on another thread to make the same false claims, over and over and over.

posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 12:12 PM

Originally posted by weedwhacker
It was NOT just from the fires, you know.

There was substantial damage inflicted, structurally, as well.

This is not entirely true. According to NIST's computer games as "evidence", they ran a model with NO DAMAGE and still concluded that global collapse would have occurred from fires alone. So to me that says that they believe the damage to the building only changed the characteristics of the collapse, or as they put it in their reason for running this model, "to determine the contribution of debris impact damage to the global collapse sequence." Since their NO DAMAGE model supposedly collapsed, they concluded "WTC 7 was prone to classic progressive collapse upon the failure of Column 79" and since no evidence has surfaced of debris damage around column 79, one can only conclude the collapse was caused by the fire alone and the debris damage was only incidental and only modified the characteristics of the collapse... if one were to believe in NIST's computer games, that is.

(quotes taken from NCSTAR 1-9 Vol. 2 pages 591 and pg 598, respectively)

posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 06:45 AM
reply to post by jprophet420

to have happen what we all saw..from fire alone...physically imposable

I have 30+ years in building both steel and stick..I know what is STANDARD to ALL buildings, and what it would take to get the SAME results as what happened in 7.

First of..what IS a HYPOTHESIS?

isn't it a gathering of singular sources of information, put together to opinion...observation...idea?

Where does the WTC7 NIST, HYPOTHESIS come from....


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

so HOW can you HYPOTHESIZE "thermal expansion"...when there is NO physical evidence to even suggest it.

There have been fires MORE intense and for much longer duration...with no total global collapse...and FEMA even mentions this in their report that was done before NIST's in FEMA 403APA "Overview of Fire Protection in Buildings" where they discuss the temps and the steel and how there has never been a collapse of a steel structure from fire.

They discus events like;

The Cordington Tests

1st Intersdtate Bank Building,L.A. May/88

One Merridan Plaza, Philadelphia,Feb23,24/91

The Broadgate phase8, 23rd June 1990 fire an unfinished fourteen story building. The fire lasted 4.5 hours including 2 hours where the fire exceeded 1000C. fire detection and sprinkler system were not yet operational nor ANY fireproofing on the steel. Despite large deflections in the elements exposed to fire, the structure behaved well and there was no collapse of any of the columns, beams or floors.

So...NIST, hypothesis', claims that fire "can't be seen from the windows...then what is affecting every perimeter vertical support that the facade is attached to?
The FACADE is a non supporting is a cosmetic application and is attached to the perimeter vertical support.
It will not stand while it's SUPPORT falls behind it...

and neither will anything else...there is a lot of weight on that roof...other penthouse, HVAC, other mechanicals, and NONE of that will just FLOAT...while all it's support fails underneath...the ends of every roof truss also sits on the perimeter vertical support.

according to the HYPOTHESIS...just ONE, vertical support falls the East Penthouse...and now we are to believe that ALL vertical support will fail, and leave floating, what it is supporting, till all-at-once...everything can evenly fall, as fast as an object in a vacuum.

If there was a progression...we would see it reflected in the exterior of the building...we did not see that..progression does NOT mean "dominoes"...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. "It is not possible for a local failure within the lower structure to spread horizontally, Such a failure would cause a break-away, instead of pulling the structure with it. Even if NIST’s horizontal progression were somehow triggered,the building would not have collapsed so neatly and symmetrically. All core columns have to be severed at the same time to make such a collapse."
for what ever direction the pulling is coming from...there are multiple structural members in place to resist/prevent lateral movement...cross, diagonal, and lateral bracing...not to mention the redundant, overlapping applications that are applied over the steel structure to basically form it into a solid, single unit.

we saw the sudden, even descent at a rate equivalent with the acceleration of gravity

[NCSTAR 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.
This free fall drop continues for approximately 8 stories or 32 meters,(105ft.), the distance traveled between t=1.75s and t=4.0s.

This is what Shyam Sunder said at a NIST Q&A...

"free fall acceleration can ONLY occur when there is NO STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS BELOW IT"

and I agree...for you can not accelerate if there is structure there.

and the term..."even descent" has nothing to do with horizontal has to do with, no mater what position the roofline was in at the time of 1.75s into the collapse....there is instant, vertical, accelerated, descent..of everything.

so how does a free fall accelerated total global collapse causing inferno do this.....when no one can see the ...inferno?

oh...silly THAT's why Shyam came up with the ..." explain the HYPOTHESIS he has NO evidence for

so who IS pushing the "conspiracy theory"?

posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 06:53 AM

Originally posted by Curious_Agnostic
Yeah, fires did it.

I used to think that it was a combo of the fires and the damage, but then I actually read the report:

I assumed that they didn't have enough info to determine the cause, but I shouldn't have made that assumption before reading the report. I advise that all "truthers" also read the report before criticizing it.

Please...tell us what....'cinched' it for YOU

maybe I missed something......NOT

sorry...but, I have a problem with...."we have no physical evidence ". to even form our HYPOTHESIS in the first place

posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 07:08 AM
Who is tired of these truther trolling threads whose only intention is to belittle folks who disagree with many of truth movements wacky theories?
Show of hands…

posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 11:51 AM

Originally posted by hgfbob

sorry...but, I have a problem with...."we have no physical evidence ". to even form our HYPOTHESIS in the first place

Same can be said of the Challenger and Columbia.

So since there's no physical evidence of the foam that struck the leading edge, or the o-ring that failed, then these couldn't have happened as explained?

It's called engineering and experience. Some people have the chops to make these determinations. Others do not.

Guess where you fall?

posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 01:23 PM

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by jprophet420
Just a quick show of hands, who thinks WTC7 was brought down due to office fires?

Well, when you phrase it in such a way that makes it sound like someone's Obie caught on fire and throwing it in the trash bin caused some papers to be burned it sure sounds implausible. Too bad such a phrasing ignores the massive amount of damage done to the building. If you're going to fall for and perpetuate such a reductionist view of this event I'll have to give you a humongous

You answered a question by giving your opinion on the question, congratulations. There's a 10,000 character limit on your post, no reason why you cant articulate an excellent answer. Your choice to not answer, however, says more than any 10000 characters you can pull out of your collegiate dictionary.

It's called engineering and experience.

And in what engineering experience have they found fires to cause similar damage as WTC7? My public library and google are out of suggestions.

[edit on 10-4-2010 by jprophet420]

posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 01:31 PM

Originally posted by defcon5
Who is tired of these truther trolling threads whose only intention is to belittle folks who disagree with many of truth movements wacky theories?
Show of hands…

Again, what theory? If you don't want to participate in the thread seriously there is always BTS.

posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 01:37 PM
To me, it looked like WTC7 was falling from a controlled demolition. And they want me to believe that fires somehow destabilized the building enough for it to fall in a controlled demolition manner? Not to mention a plane did not hit the building and there are videos of BBC reporting that the building had come down about half hour to an hour before it actually did? WTC7 is just as fishy as the rest of that whole story. And the sad thing is that the public will never know the full truth behind this incident. I mean, who know the truth behind Pearl Habor? Nobody, and that was over 60 years ago. WTC bombings are going to be swept under the rug just like everything else.

posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 06:27 PM
Fires alone could not have disintegrated WTC7:

"What is the melting point of steel?
Steel often melts at around 1370 degrees C (2500°F)."

Keep in mind this is the MELTING temperature of steel, not the DISINTEGRATION temperature of steel. A normal office fire wouldn't reach anywhere near those temperatures. The only way to turn a steel building instantly into dust is by blowing it up.

[edit on 10-4-2010 by kiwasabi]

posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 11:05 PM
Not a chance in hell that building came out by fire alone. Unless the fires were caused by explosions. doh~


posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 11:33 PM

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Same can be said of the Challenger and Columbia.

Gee you really do not do much research before posting a silly opinion.

On the Columbia they had sensors going off showing exactly what was happening.

I even taked online with NASA engineers right after it happened talking about what happened.

[edit on 10-4-2010 by REMISNE]

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in