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.

 

A Scientific Theory of the WTC 7 Collapse

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 12:14 PM
link   
911blogger.com...

www.foreignpolicyjournal.com...

This year will mark the 10th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 disaster. In these 10 years, not only have extremely important scientific questions about this tragedy gone unanswered, but they have even been ridiculed to the point of deranged absurdity. We owe a valid scientific explanation to the 3000 victims on that day, the steadily dying health-stricken first responders, the dead and wounded soldiers...

A major piece of evidence in the WTC 7 collapse is the fact that WTC 7 underwent free-fall acceleration for a period of at least 2.25 seconds.[3] A free-falling building means there is no supporting structure whatsoever below to slow the building’s fall. The NIST theory does not explain this astounding fact. However, if their theory is to believed, the 2.25 seconds of free fall must have resulted from near-simultaneous buckling and breaking of the 58 perimeter columns and most of the 25 core columns over eight stories...




posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by yyyyyyyyyy
 


How much evidence is needed, how much can science proof a fact? Just more info that points in one direction while the official story is proven more and more false. Unless I am wrong but the counter-arguments against some sort of inside job do not ring true. To be fair ATS is to deny ignorance and what do you guys think?



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 12:23 PM
link   
Eh, I really could care less... This was 10 years ago and there have been countless threads on the topic. Obsessing over the past is insanity. You are about to witness much more profound events in these next few years. I suggest expanding your consciousness to prepare for that.



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by yyyyyyyyyy
 



What's the mystery that you need answers to ? It was obvious to the FDNY that WTC 7 was going to come down hours before.

As this firefighter said :-

www.youtube.com...

They couldn't fight the fires and the structural integrity had gone. It was bound to fall.



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by yyyyyyyyyy
However, if their theory is to believed, the 2.25 seconds of free fall must have resulted from near-simultaneous buckling and breaking of the 58 perimeter columns and most of the 25 core columns over eight stories...


Incorrect. If you had read the NIST report on WTC7, you will notice that it specifically states


During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the
structure below


Can be found here.

www.nist.gov...

And here.

wtc.nist.gov...
Section 12.5.3, page 294. Read what it says.



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by FDNY343
Incorrect. If you had read the NIST report on WTC7, you will notice that it specifically states


During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the
structure below


Can be found here.

www.nist.gov...



I understand you don't have a need to understand general engineering principles or technical writing, but "negligible" literally means "negligible." Maybe a dictionary would help?



Here, Wikipedia can even help you out:


Negligible refers to the quantities so small that they can be ignored (neglected) when studying the larger effect.


en.wikipedia.org...


Wait... Next you're going to say "truthers" have vandalized Wikipedia and just recast your bias.

Here's an online dictionary entry:


Not significant or important enough to be worth considering; trifling.


www.thefreedictionary.com...

Once again the dictionary proves itself to be a "truther" too.


You getting the picture yet? Maybe another 10 years of plugging your own ears willfully? Maybe you should just take some time off to think about it instead. The influence you're having over this so-called "movement" also happens to be negligible.
edit on 20-2-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
I understand you don't have a need to understand general engineering principles or technical writing, but "negligible" literally means "negligible." Maybe a dictionary would help?




Yep, way to miss the ENTIRE point of my post. Do I need to explain it to you?



Originally posted by bsbray11
You getting the picture yet? Maybe another 10 years of plugging your own ears willfully? Maybe you should just take some time off to think about it instead. The influence you're having over this so-called "movement" also happens to be negligible.
edit on 20-2-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)


Maybe you should take 10 seconds and read what I posted. Shall I explain it to you, or do you think that you can handle "context" on your own?

PS. That doesn't help your cause at all.



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by FDNY343

Originally posted by bsbray11
I understand you don't have a need to understand general engineering principles or technical writing, but "negligible" literally means "negligible." Maybe a dictionary would help?


Yep, way to miss the ENTIRE point of my post. Do I need to explain it to you?


If you think that would help you make a little more sense, yes.

The entirety of the quote you responded to was just referring to the fact of a free-fall acceleration and simultaneous failure of so many structural elements. Just exactly what is in the NIST report.

And then you posted from the NIST report where they admit the resistance from the structure was negligible, ie so small that it made so little difference, that they get essentially the same results when they totally ignore the structure. So in other words when the building started moving, it was already destroyed. The mass didn't have to fall to cause the destruction of the building because the mass was already falling as a result of the building being destroyed internally.


Maybe you should take 10 seconds and read what I posted. Shall I explain it to you, or do you think that you can handle "context" on your own?

PS. That doesn't help your cause at all.


You should have just take the 10 seconds to yourself already to try to better explain what your point is supposed to be. I guess you need to stall for more time so you can think of something.

PS I don't see anyone else on here crying.



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
If you think that would help you make a little more sense, yes.


The posters claim was that the entire structure failed across the interior and exterior columns, causing freefall. This is incorrect. Only a PORTION of the NORTH FACE fell at FFA. NIST even says this very specifically, as I have shown.


Originally posted by bsbray11

The entirety of the quote you responded to was just referring to the fact of a free-fall acceleration and simultaneous failure of so many structural elements. Just exactly what is in the NIST report.


I wasn't responding to the entire post. I was responding to a very specific point within his post.


Originally posted by bsbray11

And then you posted from the NIST report where they admit the resistance from the structure was negligible, ie so small that it made so little difference, that they get essentially the same results when they totally ignore the structure. So in other words when the building started moving, it was already destroyed. The mass didn't have to fall to cause the destruction of the building because the mass was already falling as a result of the building being destroyed internally.


No, that is not what negligable means in this context. It means that the lower columns provided so little support, that it doesn't affect the collapse.


Originally posted by bsbray11
You should have just take the 10 seconds to yourself already to try to better explain what your point is supposed to be. I guess you need to stall for more time so you can think of something.

PS I don't see anyone else on here crying.


No, you need to understand CONTEXT. I was not replying to anything else in his post. I was replying to a very specific point within his post.

Who said anything about crying?



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by FDNY343
The posters claim was that the entire structure failed across the interior and exterior columns, causing freefall. This is incorrect. Only a PORTION of the NORTH FACE fell at FFA. NIST even says this very specifically, as I have shown.


That's a pretty trivial correction considering you can't see the inside of the building to tell whether it fell at the same time or not. The inner columns were carrying at least half of the building's global loads after all, and when they were destroyed you could pretty easily count on the exterior to come down too.




Originally posted by bsbray11
The entirety of the quote you responded to was just referring to the fact of a free-fall acceleration and simultaneous failure of so many structural elements. Just exactly what is in the NIST report.


I wasn't responding to the entire post. I was responding to a very specific point within his post.


"The entirety of the quote you responded to" = what you literally included in the quote BB code.


No, that is not what negligable means in this context


Can you find a dictionary definition that illustrates what meaning you think it has in this context?

When you start making up what words mean beyond their dictionary definition, and claiming context divergent from its actual dictionary definition, you're getting out on some pretty slippery ground.


It means that the lower columns provided so little support, that it doesn't affect the collapse.


Oh okay, so you had to tell me I was wrong just to basically repeat what I just said back to me. Brilliance. Well I have to agree with myself and with your "correction," that the building was not resisting the mass coming down. That's exactly what free-fall acceleration means. Congratulations. You halfway understand.



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by yyyyyyyyyy
 


I like this video the author of this paper made a while back. He's quite intelligent.




posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 07:02 PM
link   
edit
edit on 20-2-2011 by PonyoSon because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by FDNY343

Originally posted by yyyyyyyyyy
However, if their theory is to believed, the 2.25 seconds of free fall must have resulted from near-simultaneous buckling and breaking of the 58 perimeter columns and most of the 25 core columns over eight stories...


Incorrect. If you had read the NIST report on WTC7, you will notice that it specifically states


During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the
structure below



A question i have is how could a regular fire cause 58 perimeter columns and 25 core columns to all fail to the point that they cause "negligible support", i mean their is noway the fire melted them all. you would expect asymmetrical fires to cause asymmetrical collapse, wouldn't you?

you couldn't make that building fall like that with regular fire if the columns were made of wood, never mind steel.

i mean look at building 5

is it not safe to say that building took significantly more damage than 7? something doesn't add up here.
edit on 20-2-2011 by PonyoSon because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by PonyoSon
A question i have is how could a regular fire cause 58 perimeter columns and 25 core columns to all fail to the point that they cause "negligible support",


It didn't. It caused a PORTION of the north face to fall at FFA, NOT the entire building. This happened above the buckled columns that provided negligable support. Meaning, they provided so little, that it is not measurable.



Originally posted by PonyoSon
i mean their is noway the fire melted them all. you would expect asymmetrical fires to cause asymmetrical collapse, wouldn't you?


You're right. Fire didn't melt ANY of the columns of beams in 7WTC.

The collapse was asymmetrical. In fact, it his 3 other buildings on the way down. One on the roof.


Originally posted by PonyoSon
you couldn't make that building fall like that with regular fire if the columns were made of wood, never mind steel.


No, wood most likely wouldn't have collapsed.


Originally posted by PonyoSon
i mean look at building 5

is it not safe to say that building took significantly more damage than 7? something doesn't add up here.
edit on 20-2-2011 by PonyoSon because: (no reason given)


Building 5 is a much smaller building, thus has a lower center of gravity. I can honestly say I do not know much about 5WTC, so I am not well versed in it's construction or layout.
But, just from looking at that picture, it seems to me that there is a substanial collapse. From what? I don't know to be honest with you.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by FDNY343
It didn't. It caused a PORTION of the north face to fall at FFA, NOT the entire building. This happened above the buckled columns that provided negligable support. Meaning, they provided so little, that it is not measurable.


Their still isn't any logical reason to explain how fire caused any part of the building to fall at free fall speed. the building fell in a few seconds, can we agree on that? how does a building with 58 perimeter columns and 25 core columns made of steel crumble straight down with barely any resistance what so ever? its not possible. their has to be some type of resistance, with all that metal holding it together.


Originally posted by FDNY343
You're right. Fire didn't melt ANY of the columns of beams in 7WTC.

The collapse was asymmetrical. In fact, it his 3 other buildings on the way down. One on the roof.

So what caused the columns to cause "negligible support"? these columns must be destroyed in order for the building to collapse the way it did. they didn't just break by themselves.

asymmetrical collapse? you can tell me the sky is silver, but when i look at it everyday i still see blue. And that second part of that statement doesn't make any sense, ill let you revise it.


Originally posted by FDNY343
No, wood most likely wouldn't have collapsed.

I'm trying my hardest to be polite and not insult anyone, but this statement is by far one of the most ridiculous things i have ever read on this site. i don't know what to say. I'd love to hear you explain that statement. because I'm beginning to think your just trolling these boards.


Originally posted by FDNY343
Building 5 is a much smaller building, thus has a lower center of gravity. I can honestly say I do not know much about 5WTC, so I am not well versed in it's construction or layout.
But, just from looking at that picture, it seems to me that there is a substanial collapse. From what? I don't know to be honest with you.


I'm pretty sure WTC1 basically fell on top of it and took a huge chuck out of it, yet it was still standing for the most part. yet I'm suppose to believe a tiny piece missing from WTC7 and a fire made it collapse in a few seconds? I'm no scientist but that just doesn't make any sense what so ever.

I have never personally met someone who after seeing the clip of WTC7 that didn't find something wrong with it. only on ATS have i seen people try to defend the official WTC7 story.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by PonyoSon
I'm no scientist but that just doesn't make any sense what so ever.

I have never personally met someone who after seeing the clip of WTC7 that didn't find something wrong with it. only on ATS have i seen people try to defend the official WTC7 story.



Hi PonyoSon,

If you are indeed looking for answers to your questions. (above you state that you are not a Scientist) If you search within conspiracy sites, you will get conspiracy answers. Do yourself a favor. Take a walk to a university near your home. If not, write to some of them. Find a university with a Structural Engineering department. They like to help. (typically)

Asking Richard Gage, Jim Fetzer, Judy Woods, or other ilk like them will not get you the real answers.

I wish you luck on your search for the truth.

- SS



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by PonyoSon
I'm no scientist but that just doesn't make any sense what so ever.

I have never personally met someone who after seeing the clip of WTC7 that didn't find something wrong with it. only on ATS have i seen people try to defend the official WTC7 story.



Hi PonyoSon,

If you are indeed looking for answers to your questions. (above you state that you are not a Scientist) If you search within conspiracy sites, you will get conspiracy answers. Do yourself a favor. Take a walk to a university near your home. If not, write to some of them. Find a university with a Structural Engineering department. They like to help. (typically)

Asking Richard Gage, Jim Fetzer, Judy Woods, or other ilk like them will not get you the real answers.

I wish you luck on your search for the truth.

- SS


Does that go for any other person visiting ATS who has a profession or just PonyoSon.
Is it cos he stated a few things that to most people make common sense ?



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by yyyyyyyyyy
 


Foreigh Policy Journal is an Internet scam publication written by various conspiracy mongers

Here is "author" Michael Fullerton spouting off in a video

www.youtube.com...=15



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by PonyoSon
Their still isn't any logical reason to explain how fire caused any part of the building to fall at free fall speed. the building fell in a few seconds, can we agree on that? how does a building with 58 perimeter columns and 25 core columns made of steel crumble straight down with barely any resistance what so ever? its not possible. their has to be some type of resistance, with all that metal holding it together.


The collapse took well over 15 seconds. Do you keep forgetting about the East and West Penthouse? It seems you do.

Again, what part of ONLY a PORTION of the NORTH FACE fell at FFA. The REST of the building did NOT fall at FFA. It also didn't do this for an extended period of time. It was a 2.25 second portion of a collapse that was well over 15 seconds.



Originally posted by PonyoSon
So what caused the columns to cause "negligible support"? these columns must be destroyed in order for the building to collapse the way it did. they didn't just break by themselves.


Buckling.


Originally posted by PonyoSon
asymmetrical collapse? you can tell me the sky is silver, but when i look at it everyday i still see blue.


Here.


And here.



Do you see the lean?



Originally posted by PonyoSonAnd that second part of that statement doesn't make any sense, ill let you revise it.


Nope.




Originally posted by PonyoSon
I'm trying my hardest to be polite and not insult anyone, but this statement is by far one of the most ridiculous things i have ever read on this site. i don't know what to say. I'd love to hear you explain that statement. because I'm beginning to think your just trolling these boards.




This is STEEL that has failed being held up by.......WOOD!! Wood structures are more redundant typically than steel structures. Thus, you have to have more wood to fail to cause collapse.

I will clarify that slightly though. I think it would have taken much longer to collapse, if you could build a 47 story skyscraper out of wood.


Originally posted by PonyoSon
I'm pretty sure WTC1 basically fell on top of it and took a huge chuck out of it, yet it was still standing for the most part. yet I'm suppose to believe a tiny piece missing from WTC7 and a fire made it collapse in a few seconds? I'm no scientist but that just doesn't make any sense what so ever.


Well, except the fact that it burned for 7 hours, 2.5 times the rating of it's SFRM, and didn't fall in a few seconds. Maybe that's your problem.


Originally posted by PonyoSon
I have never personally met someone who after seeing the clip of WTC7 that didn't find something wrong with it. only on ATS have i seen people try to defend the official WTC7 story.


Do you have a point?



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by FDNY343
The collapse took well over 15 seconds. Do you keep forgetting about the East and West Penthouse? It seems you do.

Again, what part of ONLY a PORTION of the NORTH FACE fell at FFA. The REST of the building did NOT fall at FFA. It also didn't do this for an extended period of time. It was a 2.25 second portion of a collapse that was well over 15 seconds.


wow "well over 15 seconds"(is that allot to you?) Like a said a 47 story building made of steel fell in a few seconds, 15 seconds isn't a long time what so ever. Also, is that a fact that it fell in 15 seconds. How did calculate that time exactly?

How can portion of the building fall at free fall speed with a bunch of metal, concrete, etc.. under it? It has to display some type of resistance, its just the laws of basic physics.

Let assume everything you say is true.
The building was 741 feet tall and it fell in 15 seconds, so that's about 49 feet per second assuming it didn't accelerate(which it seems it did). For 2.5 of those 15 seconds a "portion" of it fell at free fall speed. that's over 100 feet the building fell without meeting any resistance! how is this possible?? 100 feet worth of steel/concrete just broke apart at the same time due to fire? mind boggling!




Originally posted by FDNY343
Buckling.

How many beams do you suppose would have to buckle in order to have a total collapse? and how long does a regular fire have to be burning to cause 100 feet worth of steel beams to break apart at the same time? because i just made beef stew the other night and my metal pan didn't show any signs of buckling after hours of direct flame contact.



Originally posted by FDNY343
Do you see the lean?


those picture show that the building collapsed onto itself. but all four corners of the building did fall symmetrically from fire that was mostly on one side of the building.

That's about as symmetrical of a collapse as you can get. Companies get paid allot of money to make buildings fall like this, Its not an easy thing to do. You can't just light a fire in a building and make it fall like that. it's not probable what so ever. Their are however things that you could do to a building to make it fall like that, and just lighting a fire isn't one of them.


Originally posted by FDNY343

so you're telling me their was constant flame on that piece of wood and steel at the same time for the same amount of time?you don't know that. cool image though, ill give you that.

For all we know the wood could have not even had fire touching it all. the steel was most likely weakened and fell onto the wood. I have no clue what that image is or what its of. what happen? how was the structure built? did it have fire proofing? what type of fire was it? what was inside the building(maybe something very flammable, who knows). that picture proves NOTHING!!!

the fact that you found some old B&W image to try and prove some ridiculous statement is just comical.

Their is nothing you can say to make me believe wood is stronger that steel. Its such an inaccurate statement, their is no way you can possible believe that (you have to be getting paid to write on these forums haha).

I don't care what it is, whether its a 47 story building or a swing set. the steel version would always stand up to fire way better than the wood version. simple as that.



Originally posted by FDNY343
Well, except the fact that it burned for 7 hours, 2.5 times the rating of it's SFRM, and didn't fall in a few seconds. Maybe that's your problem.

2.5 time of what? hours?
So the SFRM protects the steel for 4.5 hours, then the steel gets affected?(thats assuming their was somehow enough direct fire to destroy the SFRM evenly over multiple beams). Also assuming the fire was in direct contact with those beams the exact moment the fire started (which is basically impossible).
After the fire proofing is destroyed how long doe it take for a fire to weaken the actual steel? longer then 2.5 hours i would hope.

You're basically telling me if the beams didn't have fire proofing the building would have fallen in 2.5 hours due to fire.

plus the top floors broke apart just as fast, if not faster and they were unaffected by fire. How do these top floors break apart in 15 seconds? (which to me is a few seconds,in terms of how long a steel building should take to crumble, due to fire)


Originally posted by FDNY343
Do you have a point?

Yes, i feel something like this could easily be going on at this site.
Fake virtual army

not saying you are part of this, but you easily could be influence by a program like this. because no one like you seems to exist outside of the ATS forums and the MSM.

edit on 22-2-2011 by PonyoSon because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join