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.

 

Bombshell: Silverstein Wanted To Demolish Building 7 On 9/11

page: 5
28
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Yet no steel frame building has ever collapsed from fire...


Actually, they two structures that were built the same both collapsed in the same fashion. Are there any other buildings in the world that were built like those two structures....that had aircraft fly into them....and caused multi-floor fires?




posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
Not one single person coming forward to say he helped in this once-in-a-lifetime event? It would be historic...bringing down a still burning multi-story building in a controlled fashion with little to no notice.

Amazing!


No, what is amazing is the building fell symmetrically and globally from asymmetrical damage.

That is what needs explaining, not how people there didn't notice.

The building was either a controlled demolition, or we have to re-write the physics books.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron

Originally posted by ANOK
Yet no steel frame building has ever collapsed from fire...


Actually, they two structures that were built the same both collapsed in the same fashion. Are there any other buildings in the world that were built like those two structures....that had aircraft fly into them....and caused multi-floor fires?


EVERY building no matter the size, shape, is designed to hold itself up with a safety factor of at least x2. So the buildings design is not the reason they globally symmetrically collapsed.

Building 7 was not hit by an aircraft.

The damage to the towers was asymmetrical so it could not have been cause of a symmetrical collapse.
If it was the aircraft damage then the towers should have fell towards that damage as it would be the path of least resistance.

All the planes did, from what we can see, is damage the outer mesh. There is no evidence that the main central core columns were damaged, let alone severed. But even so this would not cause symmetrical global collapse as the planes and fire could not have damaged, or weakened, the whole building, all damage was localized to a few floors. For the collapse we see ALL columns would have to have failed simultaneously.

[edit on 4/26/2010 by ANOK]



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by gavron

Originally posted by ANOK
Yet no steel frame building has ever collapsed from fire...


Actually, they two structures that were built the same both collapsed in the same fashion. Are there any other buildings in the world that were built like those two structures....that had aircraft fly into them....and caused multi-floor fires?



The damage to the towers was asymmetrical so it could not have been cause of a symmetrical collapse.
If it was the aircraft damage then the towers should have fell towards that damage as it would be the path of least resistance.

[edit on 4/26/2010 by ANOK]


If you watch the collapse videos, you will see the top of the tower tip toward the damage. This assymetrical collapse did occur as the weakened steel failed, which then precipitated the global collapse. Even this collapse was not completely symmetrical as the core columns remained for some seconds after the collapse of the rest of the building. Hence, your requirement that an assymetrical collapse should have occurred is satisfied.

[edit on 4/26/2010 by pteridine]



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by gavron

Originally posted by jprophet420
The proof from all previously solved incidences points to some sort of assisted demolition.


...but no reason why they would keep it a secret? If, after all, it was to protect the public, and other structures, to bring it down in a controlled fashion, why not just say so?

Not one single person coming forward to say he helped in this once-in-a-lifetime event? It would be historic...bringing down a still burning multi-story building in a controlled fashion with little to no notice.

Amazing!


Who is "they" and what is the secret? Nobody has come up with a plausible explanation of either 911 as a whole or the collapse of the towers from start to finish.

When they do be the first to post it here you'll get a zillion stars.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by Azp420
So no, I would not say that an equivalent mass supported by a series of these heated, unrestrained for 8 stories columns, would achieve free fall acceleration, as these ductile columns would still provide an amount of resistance needed to not allow the falling mass to reach its maximum acceleration.



Do you agree with the engineering principles discussed here?

www.civil.northwestern.edu...

To arrest the fall, the kinetic energy of the upper
part, which is equal to the potential energy release, would have to
be absorbed by the plastic hinge rotations, i.e., Wp would have to
be larger than Wg . Rather,

Wg /Wp'8.4 (3)

So, even under the most optimistic assumptions by far, the plastic
deformation can dissipate only a small part of the kinetic energy
acquired by the upper part of building.
When the next buckle with its group of plastic hinges forms,
the upper part has already traveled many floors down and has
acquired a much higher kinetic energy; the percentage of the kinetic
energy dissipated plastically is then of the order of 1%.





I've been talking about WTC7 which was not hit by a plane, not the twin towers. I also said that whether or not a single failing column provides any resistance to free fall, the other 47 stories worth of mostly undamaged structure would have most definitely given a significant amount of resistance to free fall. Another way of putting it is that 47 stories of structure would have taken a massive amount of energy to rip apart. Energy that (officially) comes from the mass of the falling building's kinetic energy. If kinetic energy is being used up the falling mass is either decelerating, keeping a constant velocity or accelerating at a slower acceleration than it other wise would be, i.e. accelerating at the slower rate than acceleration due to gravity, g~9.81m/s/s or whatever units you guys use. For the acceleration of the WTC7 to maintain g, it means none of its kinetic energy which it converted from gravitational potential energy has been used to turn 47 stories of structural steel and concrete into rubble. That energy came from a different source. There is evidence to suggest thermite or nano-thermite etc.

Edit: And I disagree with those engineering principles. If we're gona talk twin towers, yes the upper half could have accelerated own its own through the floors where the planes hit, but there's no way on this earth that the mass of this upper half was accelerating at free fall through floor after floor after floor of structural steel and reinforced concrete, expending energy while it pulverized concrete and ripped steel girders and columns to shreds. It just doesn't add up does it? Building 7 is much simpler than the towers though, that's why its building 7 that seals it for most people and its building 7 the MSM rarely mentions. Do you agree with the very basic energy conservation principle presented in this post (especially the first half)? I'm not saying the twin towers wouldn't have failed, I'm saying it's a physical impossibility for them to have failed in the manner they did based on the official story.


[edit on 26-4-2010 by Azp420]



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by gavron

Originally posted by ANOK
Yet no steel frame building has ever collapsed from fire...


Actually, they two structures that were built the same both collapsed in the same fashion. Are there any other buildings in the world that were built like those two structures....that had aircraft fly into them....and caused multi-floor fires?



The damage to the towers was asymmetrical so it could not have been cause of a symmetrical collapse.
If it was the aircraft damage then the towers should have fell towards that damage as it would be the path of least resistance.

[edit on 4/26/2010 by ANOK]


If you watch the collapse videos, you will see the top of the tower tip toward the damage. This assymetrical collapse did occur as the weakened steel failed, which then precipitated the global collapse. Even this collapse was not completely symmetrical as the core columns remained for some seconds after the collapse of the rest of the building. Hence, your requirement that an assymetrical collapse should have occurred is satisfied.

[edit on 4/26/2010 by pteridine]


Lol no. In terms of structural collapses they don't get more symmetrical than that. What should have happened when the top section of the tower leaned over as you stated, is that it continued on that trajectory, taking the path of least resistance to the ground, which is not changing course and plowing straight through the rest of the structure. The falling top section that started falling to the side was magically pulled in by some forces that the OS doesn't mention so we should all just forget about them. To paraphrase Bill Hicks, go back to sleep America, your government is in control.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Once again that PDF is using the NIST assumption that a whole block of floors acted as a plunger, which makes the rest of the paper mute.



Well, kinda.

What it is, and is clearly stated, is that making this assumption is a besr case scenario. That is, one that is in favor of collapse being halted.

It failed in that.

Very telling that you either:

1- unaware of that
2- lying about the limiting case it implies



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Azp420

Edit: And I disagree with those engineering principles.


Obviously, this was about the towers, not 7.

What I'am asking you about is the engineering principles that I specifically quoted.

Namely, will plastic hinges provide rsistance of about 1% or not.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


As I keep saying, those principles are besides the point of the discussion we were having about WTC7 free fall so it makes no difference if I agree or disagree (although I discussed what I thought of those principles in a previous post, do you disagree with that post?). Using some very basic principles I proved that free fall without the use of controlled demolition methods or some other energy input is a physical impossibility. As you keep attempting to side track the discussion on this I'll take it that you cannot find significant flaws in my reasoning or principles.

I understand it can be difficult for people to change their beliefs. For most people the evidence has to be overwhelming before their brain's defense mechanisms allow them to consider an alternate belief. I gather from your signature that you consider yourself to be a debunker, therefore I don't expect you to even consider that the possibility for anything other than the official story to exist. A very large number of conspiracy theories have turned out to be true, so continuously adopting a rigid debunking stance gets you no closer to the truth than someone who blindly believes in every conspiracy theory. The rest of us free thinkers only want a proper investigation (why is that so frowned upon?) because the truth will set us all free. Some of my favorite quotes sum up what I'm trying to say.

"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."
-Albert Einstein

"The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers."
-Thomas Jefferson

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
-Aristotle

[edit on 27-4-2010 by Azp420]



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by Azp420

Edit: And I disagree with those engineering principles.


Obviously, this was about the towers, not 7.

What I'am asking you about is the engineering principles that I specifically quoted.

Namely, will plastic hinges provide rsistance of about 1% or not.


I will elaborate on my disagreement with the pdf.

The principles in the pdf you provided seem fine until you get to the second paragraph where it talks about the upper mass which has just impacted the first undamaged floor and caused that floor's supporting structure to fail -


The part of building lying beneath is then impacted again by an even larger mass falling with a greater velocity


Now they are saying when it impacts the second undamaged floor the mass is moving even faster than when it impacted the first undamaged floor, without following it up with any explanation. I'm sorry, where did all this abundance of energy come from? If a great deal of kinetic energy was expended in failing the structure supporting the floor which the top section first impacted, as the pdf states is the case, then how was ALL of this kinetic energy then recovered, and then some, by the time the mass reached the next undamaged floor. Better yet, if the falling mass accelerated all the way to the ground at free fall or close to free fall (as this pdf acknowledges), it means it has lost no or negligible kinetic energy with the impact of each floor. It requires a huge amount of energy to pulverize and rip to shreds 110 stories of structural steel and reinforced concrete so how can this be? This is not a rhetorical question, if you understand and stand by the pdf you must have an answer for this. Either you dispute that the acceleration of the falling mass was anything near free fall, you can explain where the energy to dismantle the structure came from in a way that doesn't involve controlled demolition or use any of the kinetic energy of the falling mass, or you dispute my reasoning and principles.

I should point out that the pdf mainly discusses the initiation of collapse, rather than the collapse itself (should be obvious why this is). Although I haven't really looked into it, I'm not disputing that failure would have occurred in the structure around the aircraft impact points and fires. The twin towers are less obvious than building 7 due to the extra complications of plane impacts and jet fuel. This is why OS believers try to steer discussion away from the blaring building 7.


[edit on 27-4-2010 by Azp420]



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Azp420
This is why OS believers try to steer discussion away from the blaring building 7.


I'm not doing that.

I'm asking your opinion on the general engineering principles of how much resistance plastic hinges give.

This does in fact tie into 7, b ut I'm trying to get a straight answer out of you on a principle only, and not even trying to debate any other issues at this time.



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 02:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by Azp420
This is why OS believers try to steer discussion away from the blaring building 7.


I'm not doing that.

I'm asking your opinion on the general engineering principles of how much resistance plastic hinges give.

This does in fact tie into 7, b ut I'm trying to get a straight answer out of you on a principle only, and not even trying to debate any other issues at this time.


From everything I raised in my previous two posts that is your rebuttal? You are rebutting a closing thought that has little to do with what I presented in my posts. If you are unable to debate the issues I raised then I'm claiming victory. You were the one that challenged my initial post about WTC7 free falling without CD being an impossibility and have failed to back that up. If you are unable to find significant flaws in my reasoning then debating the pdf and attempting to adapt it to building 7 its a pointless activity, as I stand by my original reasoning and principles. I've given my opinion several times on the pdf you posted (monkey science etc, for a supposedly scientific piece it sure uses a lot of adjectives to try to convince the reader rather than actually quantifying things so there's no doubt ). I'm not afraid or unable to answer any of your questions, too bad you have to avoid answering all of mine for fear of being discredited. The honorable thing to do at this point would be to graciously bow out of the discussion or concede defeat while retaining most of your dignity.

But you have a rigid belief that conspiracies need to be debunked so for arguments sake lets assume your pdf contains bullet proof science. I'm very excited to see how you are going to twist it to explain how building 7 managed to achieve free fall.



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Azp420

You were the one that challenged my initial post about WTC7 free falling without CD being an impossibility and have failed to back that up.


Are you feeling ok?

Again, I'm simply asking you:

Is it true or not true that plastic hinges give only about 1% resistance in the way that Bazant describes?

It is not necessary to comment on any other issues at this time.



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Azp420

Let's play along and say that NIST have correctly described how thermal expansion has resulted in ONE (according to NIST) column being minimally braced 8 for stories. How did we get to 8 stories of minimally braced or unbraced column?


NIST believes that there were several interior columns that became ubraced before the global collapse. Visual evidence of this
is the fact that the penthouses collapsed, with some horizontal progression, prior to the global collapse. So your single column statement is a misrepresentation of what the report says.


Why not collapse when we were unrestrained for 5 stories or 6 stories?


Because a column or group of columns that is unrestrained for 4-6 stories will have more load capacity than ones that are unrestrained for 8 stories. This is simple structural mechanics, and one that you should know.


When we reach 8 stories the forces acting on the column are probably starting to exceed what the column can support and it fails in a ductile manner (it is steel not concrete). So no, I would not say that an equivalent mass supported by a series of these heated, unrestrained for 8 stories columns, would achieve free fall acceleration, as these ductile columns would still provide an amount of resistance needed to not allow the falling mass to reach its maximum acceleration.


You seem to agree with the part of the Bazant paper where it says that a 1% resistance from plastic hinges is indeed good engineering science. So what kind of acceleration factor does engineering tell you that will be achieved with that amount of resistance?


Even if the column which was unrestrained for 8 stories provided no resistance at all, the rest of the columns would have provided huge resistance.


True. But if there is a horizontal internal collapse, as evidenced by the penthouses again, there will be fewer columns to provide load carrying capacity.



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Azp420

I also said that whether or not a single failing column provides any resistance to free fall, the other 47 stories worth of mostly undamaged structure would have most definitely given a significant amount of resistance to free fall.


You ARE aware that the collapse slowed again after the "freefall" period, right?

I think you're confusing yourself here.

IF.... ~8 stories worth of the 47 story building had columns that were poorly restrained, and IF one accepts the engineering fact that a column failing plastically will give only about 1% resistance to the falling mass, then it follows that IF there is a "freefall" period, then the "freefall" distance should be roughly equal to that 8 story distance. And, that is exactly what's seen.

Then, as you point out correctly, when the remaining undamaged structure impacts, the fall will slow to less than "freefall". This is also what is seen.

So what's the beef?



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Azp420

As you keep attempting to side track the discussion on this I'll take it that you cannot find significant flaws in my reasoning or principles.



I find a LOT of flaws in your reasoning.

You argue that IF a single column is compromised, it shouldn't matter since the other 47 stories were intact. There's a couple of serious and fatal flaws there:

1- it is a misrepresentation of what is in the NIST report to state that there is a single column failing. It states that they believe that a floor beam failed,which then fell onto the floor below, which caused it to fail. The floor collapse progressed both vertically and horizontally, until several columns were unrestrained. Then col 79 buckled, followed by others close by, as evidenced by the east penthouse collapsing into the building. Then the interior collapse progress of the columns occured, as evidenced by the horizontal progression of penthouse collapses. This continued until a sufficent number of int columns were buckled that left the now ALSO unrestrained ext columns unable to carry the load of the remaining shell. That's when the global collapse occurs.

2- you argue that 47 stories of columns should be able to prevent the collapse initiation, yet agree that in the towers, also agree that the collapse initiation at the plane impact point to be plausible. These 2 statements are at odds. With the towers, you realize that an initiation point doesn't rely on what happens over the height of the building, but depends on what's happening on a localized horizontal level. And yet with 7, you argue that what matters is what matters is the state of the entire 47 stories, rather than remaining consistent with the engineering principle of collapse initiation being dependent on the conditions on a localized horizontal level. Your statements about the state of the entire 47 stories will only have an effect on the speed of the collapse while it's collapsing, not whether or not it can innitiate or not.



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
IF.... ~8 stories worth of the 47 story building had columns that were poorly restrained, and IF one accepts the engineering fact that a column failing plastically will give only about 1% resistance to the falling mass, then it follows that IF there is a "freefall" period, then the "freefall" distance should be roughly equal to that 8 story distance. And, that is exactly what's seen.

So what's the beef?


The beef is that is one HUUUUUUGE 'IF'...

Juts like the rest of the OS, take away all the IF's and you're left with buildings that defied physics.

NIST made up those IF's to create a story to fool the gullible. That is called making assumptions, science does not work on assumptions.

IF your columns were NOT 'poorly restrained' then what? But of course you're not willing to except that likely scenario are you? I thought you debunkers required proof and facts, but you're quite willing to except assumptions when they come from the government or their lackeys.



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

The beef is that is one HUUUUUUGE 'IF'...


I agree.


IF your columns were NOT 'poorly restrained' then what?


IF the floors wouldn't have failed then the building likely would have stood, since temps never got high enough to weaken the columns sufficently, nor did it suffer the kind of impact damage necessary to distribute loads like in the towers.


But of course you're not willing to except that likely scenario are you?


Sure I am.


I thought you debunkers required proof and facts, but you're quite willing to except assumptions when they come from the government or their lackeys.


Not exactly. I'm aware that there have been independent studies of both the tower's and 7's reports, and they all deem the reports as likely. I just don't handwave them away like the TM does in favor of wild, baseless, and sometimes hilarious claims that are preferred by graduates of Google University.



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Azp420

Lol no. In terms of structural collapses they don't get more symmetrical than that. What should have happened when the top section of the tower leaned over as you stated, is that it continued on that trajectory, taking the path of least resistance to the ground, which is not changing course and plowing straight through the rest of the structure. The falling top section that started falling to the side was magically pulled in by some forces that the OS doesn't mention so we should all just forget about them. To paraphrase Bill Hicks, go back to sleep America, your government is in control.


I am amused by the "path of least resistance" arguments that many repeat without question. The top of the tower tipped at the hinge point and struck the lower part of the building. Why do you think it changed course? It appears that gravity pulled it straight onto the lower part of the building. For it to magically leap into space would have required large amounts of energy that weren't there, so for this case the "path of least resistance" is onto the lower part of the building.
If you were to describe your version of what the collapse should have looked like, how would it differ from what happened and why?




top topics



 
28
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join