Engineers Request Permission to Speak Freely Regarding World Trade Building 7

Originally posted by SatoriTheory
Do you really think they needed to do that just to go to war? Don't you think if they had just dive bombed the Pentagon the US would have went to war? Don't you ever ask yourself why such a huge event? An event that captured the worlds attention. Don't you feel it was bigger than it needed to be? It's as if they wanted to plant a seed that people would not forget.

I have asked myself and I found all my answers in a document presented by PNAC called "Rebuilding American's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century". Big plans and big dreams requires big works to make it happen.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by coughymachine

 

I would need an engineer's take on this.....

With respect, this is all you really needed to say... other, perhaps, than to apologise to illuminaughty, whom you implied was 'innuendo-dropping' earlier when he mentioned, correctly, that WTC-7 was a reinforced building.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by vipertech0596
Which would place even more stress/load on the cantilevered trusses over the ConEd substation in WTC 7....wouldnt it?

Do you know what a cantilever is?

What is it about a cantilever structure being at the base of the building, that says to you, it's somehow now expected for the building to accelerate into its footprint at the rate of gravity? Has this happened somewhere before that I've missed?

Why yes, I DO know what a cantilever is. Now, I suppose you are going to tell me that continuing to add weight to the unsupported side is actually going to make it much stronger.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
Why yes, I DO know what a cantilever is. Now, I suppose you are going to tell me that continuing to add weight to the unsupported side is actually going to make it much stronger.

Wait, when was weight ever added?

The idea with a cantilever is obviously that one side is unsupported. So how does that mean that both fail simultaneously and the building just sinks straight down? I mean if you measured its acceleration with a vector, the biggest component by far would be on the vertical axis. That much is measurable.

Originally posted by illuminnaughty
Well Dave I cant really say why they fell differently, to other controlled demolitions. Not that every one is the same. Depends on the building, could be the year it was built ect , or the construction materials.
As Ive already said, you have no experience or expertise on this matter, other than looking at, or playing with models.
I used to play with model cars but Im not a mechanic.

Go back and reread my post. I never said I blow up models. I said all I have AS A MODEL TO GO ON are other controlled demolition jobs, as in I am looking for common characteristics present in all controlled demolitions by reviewing how known controlled demolitions projects are carried out. If you're intending to instigate any more juvenile arguments because of an abridged attention span, then please let me know now.

As for these buildings, I wasnt there in person. So I can only say what I saw on the news. To me they looked like controlled demolitions. That is my opinion and I say that, as I have used explosives and have also worked on demolition sites. I have not personally brought any buildings down with explosives. I usually climb up them and cut them down using an oxi gun. Once the cladding or brick work/ concrete has been removed. How ever I have been present and also watched others bring them down using explosives.

Ah, so in the end, you have zero practical experience in controlled demolitions. Your experience is in metalwork and cutting up stuff with torches, and all your experience in actual controlled demolitions is exactly the same as mine- "watching others bring them down using explosives" and you're trying to embellish this into making it look like you know more than the rest of us so you can bludgeon us with false authority.

All right, since you're actually an expert in "watching others bring them down using explosives", would you mind then explaining why all the others bringing them down using explosives always detonate the explosives at the base of the building rather than at the top, and NEVER NEVER NEVER have they ever demolished the buildings from the inside out as in WTC 7? You said you "watched others bring them down using explosives" so I shouldn't need to be pointing this out to you. You should be pointing it out to us.

Its just very very strange that these buildings fell so quickly. Especially when the buildings were designed to be hit by larger planes. Not only larger planes, but they were also designed, to with stand being hit by more than one plane.

They did survive the plane impacts. We saw that they still stood for quite a while after being hit. That's not what did them it- it was the the fires and the myriad chain reaction of damage being caused by the fires, and there's no way on Earth an architect is able to predict how fires will react to his design after some thirty years of alterations. I shouldn't need to point that out to you either.

Theres nothing that I could say, which would change your opinion. You are a true patriot, defending the OS no matter what.

I am getting tired of having to repeat this to you conspiracy zealots- there IS NO SUCH THING as an "official story". The 9/11 commission report was based upon all the eyewitness testiminy of key players during the attack, from gov't personnel to firefighters and police to NYPA to foreign intelligence agents to people who personally knew the hijackers, and they're all going on to repeat their accounts via other avenues (as in William Rodriguez) so when you're calling the 9/11 commission report a lie, you're necessarily calling all the eyewitnesses they interviewed of being liars. You're only clinging to this "official story" propaganda like a security blanket to soothe your ego from not understanding why others aren't being suckered by these paranoid conspiracy stories like you were.

Do you genuinely not comprehend that people can mistrust the gov't AS WELL AS dismiss these absurd conspiracy claims? They cancel each other out only in your own mind.

reply to bsbray11..

Saying it didn't fall straight down really is splitting hairs. If you can't say it fell straight down then you can't say it fell in any other direction either, because that is where most of the mass went. There is a huge pile right in the middle of that building's footprint where it used to stand. Only the fringes of the pile rolled out into the streets, and even then into all 4 surrounding streets, not like it tilted over in one direction or anything reasonable like that.

reply to Anok..

Regardless of whether it fell 'straight down' (it did) the point you keep ignoring is the FACT that the outer walls can not physically be on top of the debris pile unless the collapse was an implosion demolition.

well guys its like this.. uncontrolled fires for most of the day, plus the twenty story gash..
fired chief eyewitness testimony of the bulges in the side of the building.. penthouse came straight down gutting the inside.. picture evidence says WTC7 fell to the south east.. which would be the path of least resistance.. which is why the north face lays on top.. once the collapse started on the south side, the support system failed and the thing came down fast..

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Is it possible that many of the eye witnesses (Police and Fire Service) did'nt understand what they saw because they could'nt explain it themselves?

Originally posted by pccat
well guys its like this.. uncontrolled fires for most of the day, plus the twenty story gash..
fired chief eyewitness testimony of the bulges in the side of the building.. penthouse came straight down gutting the inside.. picture evidence says WTC7 fell to the south east.. which would be the path of least resistance.. which is why the north face lays on top.. once the collapse started on the south side, the support system failed and the thing came down fast..

All the observations you just mentioned are consistent with controlled demolition. Yes, demolitions are performed in stages. And even NIST's report said the "twenty story gash" didn't penetrate deep enough into the building to have played a significant role in a collapse.

"picture evidence says WTC7 fell to the south east.. which would be the path of least resistance.. "

You mean a tilt of a few degrees of the upper floors, as they were simultaneously sinking downward. What you have to realize is that building's movement can be described in terms of physics, using vectors. Movement is going on, on more than one axis (horizontal, vertical, etc.). The vertical drop, is the much bigger component than any other tilt forward or backward. If that building was laid out on its side it would stretch easily to WTC1 and beyond. It was 47 stories tall, about half as tall as either tower. Yet it just sank straight down enough to roll debris out onto all 4 surrounding streets but not past them.

reply to post by bsbray11


I need to go over more of the photos of building 7 but from what I am gathering from the twin towers, I do not believe this was a demolition free fall job. I still think those towers turned to dust; what turns thick heavy steel to dust? Has anyone seen the photos of the 1400 vehicles up to 7 streets away that were also destroyed?

Also keep in mind, the basins of the twin towers were very much intact after therefore I have dismissed the idea of explosives placed in the basement.

The steel did not melt, it evaporated and I think this is what the fire crew could'nt understand because they have never seen anything like it.

reply to post by pccat


You keep ignoring that the outer walls sitting on top of the collapsed building is the definition of 'in its own footprint'.

It doesn't matter if the building leaned, it didn't, the post collapse pics still show it landed mostly in its own footprint.

The leaning left you all claim is nothing but the outer wall falling inwards, that you can see in the vid. You can't see the whole building lean, you are just jumping to conclusions.

If it had happened as you claim then the wall that the building leaned towards would be under the debris pile, not on top of it.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by vipertech0596
Why yes, I DO know what a cantilever is. Now, I suppose you are going to tell me that continuing to add weight to the unsupported side is actually going to make it much stronger.

Wait, when was weight ever added?

The idea with a cantilever is obviously that one side is unsupported. So how does that mean that both fail simultaneously and the building just sinks straight down? I mean if you measured its acceleration with a vector, the biggest component by far would be on the vertical axis. That much is measurable.

You are hilarious. Did you even bother to check your OWN responses before you replied to mine? The original WTC 7, was opened in 1987. Coughy posted a NYT article from 1989 talking about the partial dismantling of the building to allow for the changes to be made in order for the Salomon Brothers to move in. Changes that included 370+ tons of steel and back up generators. You responded to that post, talking about Rudy's command center. Then you post to me... "Wait, when was weight ever added?" Wow..........

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
...there IS NO SUCH THING as an "official story".

Of course there is, Dave... it is the combined body of work published by the 911 Commission, NIST and FEMA that, taken together, present the 'official account' of what happened that day. There really is no better way to describe it. Indeed, even the US Government Printing Office refers to the 911 Commission's report as 'Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Official Government Edition'.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
...when you're calling the 9/11 commission report a lie, you're necessarily calling all the eyewitnesses they interviewed of being liars.

Rubbish!!! For reasons I sincerely hope I don't need to point out to you.

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by pccat

 

You keep ignoring that the outer walls sitting on top of the collapsed building is the definition of 'in its own
footprint'.

I am not ignoring your statement..

It doesn't matter if the building leaned, it didn't, the post collapse pics still show it landed mostly in its own footprint.

it did lean.. the pictures of the debris pile show a substantial amount on top of another nearby building..

The leaning left you all claim is nothing but the outer wall falling inwards, that you can see in the vid. You can't see the whole building lean, you are just jumping to conclusions.

no we cant.. too much smoke in the way.. but the pics show how it landed..

If it had happened as you claim then the wall that the building leaned towards would be under the debris pile, not on top of it.

not if the roof drooped in first.. the collapse was not in a square configuration.. some debris was cast out, without the sides impeding the dispersal.. it is the north wall that is on top.. so at least we know that it collapsed somewhat to the south..

reply to post by bsbray11


I agree that there is an appearance of a controlled demolition.. that is why we are arguing this..
if it was so clear we would not be having this discussion.. its just the lack of absolute proof that is disturbing..
personally, I am satisfied with the explanations accredited to the OS, until further, more definitive proof emerges..

Originally posted by coughymachine
Of course there is, Dave... it is the combined body of work published by the 911 Commission, NIST and FEMA that, taken together, present the 'official account' of what happened that day. There really is no better way to describe it. Indeed, even the US Government Printing Office refers to the 911 Commission's report as 'Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States,

Bad form. Those were three separate committees from thre separate bureaus, so the 9/11 commission report only addressed who attacked us, how they did it, and what our response was, and didn't even touch how the towers came down. The FEMA report covered how the towers came down but didn't touch who it was that attacked us, while the NIST report covered how WTC 7 came down as well as an alternative explanation for how the towers came down that refutes how FEMA says the towers came down. You can't "take them together" because they completely ignore each other in some aspects while completely contradict each other in other aspects.

Here's the shocker you conspiracy people insist on sweeping under the rug- all these reports were based entirely upon eyewitness accounts. The 9/11 commission report interviewed scores of witnesses and a good third of the report is a bibliography of who told the information to them, while the NIST and FEMA reports were based upon reports like the very firefighter and police reports I reference here. The only "official story" the commission came up with was the section listing recommendations on how to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Rubbish!!! For reasons I sincerely hope I don't need to point out to you.

Well I guess you're going to need to "point it out to me" because the NIST report was based heavily upon the eyewitness accounts of the same Deputy Chief Hayden I mention here, as well as the well known video of the collapse all those damned fool conspiracy web sites are manipulating to suit their tastes. Your not liking the fact you're accusing eyewitnesses of being liars in no way makes it any less of a fact.

Originally posted by bluemirage5
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

Is it possible that many of the eye witnesses (Police and Fire Service) did'nt understand what they saw because they could'nt explain it themselves?

Please give me an example from their testimony that shows they "didn't understand what they saw". When someone says they saw a three story tall bulge in the side of WTC 7, and an eyewitness trapped in WTC 7 said the front lobby looked as if King Kong came by and destroyed it, it sounds like they understood what they were describing, to me.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
You can't "take them together" because they completely ignore each other in some aspects while completely contradict each other in other aspects.

Dave, I think we both know that, when one of us paranoid conspiracy freaks talks about a possible government conspiracy, we are talking about a combination of things, including, but not limited to, "da Jews did it", "da CIA did it", "dem were missiles dressed in hollowgrams dat flewed into da towers", and "dat Silverstein geezer gave the order to demolish it."

Unfortunately, us paranoid conspiracy freaks don't package our beliefs up conveniently according to the specific terms of refererence given separately to the 911 Commission, NIST and FEMA. So, the term 'official account' is a convenient catch-all, and I doubt any of us are particularly bothered that the continued use of it pisses you off.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Well I guess you're going to need to "point it out to me"...

Earlier, you stated that:

"...so when you're calling the 9/11 commission report a lie, you're necessarily calling all the eyewitnesses they interviewed of being liars."

The 'Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Official Government Edition' is based upon the testimony of a great many people. Is it really necessary for me to tell you that this report can simultaneaously contain lies and/or omissions (as it reportedly does), but that many witnesses could have been telling the truth?

Originally posted by vipertech0596
Changes that included 370+ tons of steel and back up generators

Ah, I see, so you're assuming that none of that steel was used to reinforce any columns. Why not assume the opposite, that the cantilever specifically was also reinforced? From what information has been posted so far you may as well pick one as the other.

Originally posted by coughymachine

Unfortunately, us paranoid conspiracy freaks don't package our beliefs up conveniently according to the specific terms of refererence given separately to the 911 Commission, NIST and FEMA. So, the term 'official account' is a convenient catch-all, and I doubt any of us are particularly bothered that the continued use of it pisses you off.

Oh, no, it doesn't piss me off. Having to constantly correct your mistakes is what's annoying, particularly when you people insist you "have all the facts". You people constantly repeating this mistake only shows you're just mindlessly parroting some sexy sounding propaganda you picked up somewhere and you don't particularly care what the facts are, so it's your credibility that suffers from it, not mine.

The 'Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Official Government Edition' is based upon the testimony of a great many people. Is it really necessary for me to tell you that this report can simultaneaously contain lies and/or omissions (as it reportedly does), but that many witnesses could have been telling the truth?

All right, then, since you're so adamant about this, please give me an example in the 9/11 commission report where a gov't sponsored lie was slipped in amongst the eyewitness accounts. You keep saying it *can* happen and *could* have happened, but you need to be able to show that it *did* happen, otherwise, this is little more than unsubstanciated abject paranoia.

This necessarily means you'd need to have read it so that you'll personally know what the lies actually are. Did you?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
...when you people insist you "have all the facts".

You have no clue what I believe, Dave, and implying that everyone who questions the 'official account' believes in the same alternative theories is disingenous and lazy. Please quote a single instance where I claim to "have all the facts."

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
All right, then, since you're so adamant about this, please give me an example in the 9/11 commission report where a gov't sponsored lie was slipped in amongst the eyewitness accounts. You keep saying it *can* happen and *could* have happened, but you need to be able to show that it *did* happen, otherwise, this is little more than unsubstanciated abject paranoia.

This necessarily means you'd need to have read it so that you'll personally know what the lies actually are. Did you?

My turn to be lazy and re-post a reply I made to you in another thread, which you evidently either didn't read or forgot.

Originally posted by coughymachine
Actually, I have read the report, but I'm afraid I am not in a position to know specifically who is lying and about what. However, people far better qualified than I (and, I suspect, you), have claimed the report is based, at least in part, on lies or misleading statements from some government officials.

Take John Farmer, for example, Senior Counsel to the Commission... he is quoted as saying that the Commission...

"...discovered that...what government and military officials had told Congress, the Commission, the media, and the public about who knew what when — was almost entirely, and inexplicably, untrue."

And then there's the Chairman of the Commission, Thomas Kean, who said:

"We to this day don’t know why NORAD told us what they told us, it was just so far from the truth."