The Impossible Collapse Of WTC7

page: 1
13
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 01:47 AM
link   
When discussing the topic of WTC7 being brought down by a controlled demolition, official story believers always point out that there was fire and falling debris damage, therefore that is what brought down the building, sometimes with firemen saying the structure looked bad as the icing on the cake.

However the fire and falling debris damage was insufficient to cause a symmetrical collapse, making the official story impossible.

Let's review the damage from falling debris:
As everybody can see, the damage was isolated to one side of the building, and it is asymmetrical. This is not up for debate, it is a fact.

Let's think about the fire damage now. Fire burns randomly, it does not burn as a perfect cube, but instead as an organic, constantly changing form. The fire damage to WTC7 was asymmetrical, because there was not a fire burning on the 3rd to 7th window of the 28th floor on the left side of the building, and a fire burning on the 3rd to 7th window of the 28th floor on the right side of the building, and so on is a symmetrical pattern.

Unless somebody can provide me with evidence that fires burned in the exact same spots on both sides of the building in a symmetrical orientation for the exact same amount of time, it is a fact that the fire damage was asymmetrical.

So the falling debris/fire damage was asymmetrical, but we have a symmetrical collapse as seen here, compared with an image of a controlled demolition:
I would have posted images of skyscrapers collapsing to the ground from fire damage rather than controlled demolition to compare, but there hasn't been a single skyscraper in history that has collapsed completely due to fire damage even though fires have burned for much longer over many more floors than what we saw with WTC7.


The closest thing was 11 floors of the Madrid Windsor Skyscraper collapsing after several hours, but it didn't produce a symmetrical, free-fall, total collapse of the building.


More asymmetrical damage is seen when the east penthouse collapses (along with witness testimonies of an explosion heard prior to the collapse):
This falls on the left side of the building, not the center of the building, but the building still collapses symmetrically.

So, we have asymmetrical damage to the core columns of WTC7 causing a symmetrical collapse. That is impossible, and I could end it right there, but there's much, much more.

Also, if anybody believes that the damage to the core columns did not need to be symmetrical in order to cause a symmetrical collapse, you must provide evidence either through your own personal experimentation (anything will work, legos, jenga blocks, it doesn't matter, just one example where the asymmetrical removal of somethings supports causes a symmetrical collapse will do), or an example of a buildings structural components failing asymetrically but causing a symmetrical collapse.

WTC7 also fell at complete free-fall:
This means that when the section of the building that is falling should be impacting the bottom section and causing it to also fall, the bottom section is already moving. This is clearly visible during the collapse, since even though the building is falling, the floors stay the same distance apart from each other rather than seeing them clump up in a pancake-like collapse.

Let's hear what explosive technician Tom Sullivan has to say about WTC7:

We were told by the NIST report that fire caused one column to fail, and from that point we had a global collapse of the building in a classic implosion. I don't see how this could actually happen in real life. When we load a building, we have to have all of the support columns on a given load floor fail at the same time, within milliseconds of one another, and therefore the entire building comes down in a synchronized implosion.


So for a building to collapse symmetrically, not only does the damage to the core columns have to be symmetrical, but all of it has to occur within milliseconds. So we have asymmetrical damage that could not have caused a symmetrical collapse, and add to that the necessity that fire burns symmetrically (which it did not) at the same temperature for the exact same amount of time causing the core columns to fail within milliseconds of each other.

Another controlled demolition expert, Danny Jowekno, also says that WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition:


Another detail of the collapse that matches up with a controlled demolition is the fault seen during the collapse, meaning that the buildings center core failed first, which is what occurs in an implosion to ensure that the building falls in on itself:
Compare that with the fault seen during the demolition of the Schuylkill Falls Tower:


Then let's compare the debris of WTC7 with debris of implosions:
Let's compare the debris of WTC7 with the debris of buildings that collapsed without the use of explosives:


Characteristics of the collapse of WTC7 vs. controlled demolitions:
WTC7: Symmetrical collapse
Controlled Demolition: Symmetrical collapse (unless the building is rigged to fall into a parking lot or an empty space rather than straight down)
WTC7: Free-fall during the collapse
Controlled Demolition: Free-fall during the collapse
WTC7: Explosions heard before/during the collapse
Controlled Demolition: Explosions heard before/during the collapse
WTC7: A fault during the collapse
Controlled Demolition: A fault during the collapse (implosions)
WTC7: A neat pile of debris
Controlled Demolition: A neat pile of debris

FEMA and NIST both did not acknowledge the possibility that WTC7 could have been brought down by a controlled demolition, even though FEMA said the following in their own report:

the best hypothesis [fire/debris-damagecaused collapse] has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.


So the evidence backing up a controlled demolition of WTC7 is the fact that several characteristics match up with a controlled demolition. The evidence backing up a fire/falling debris damage caused collapse is that there were fires and falling debris (which could not have caused a symmetrical collapse), and some firefighters who assessed the building said the structure looked bad (the structure which was damaged asymmetrical yet produced a symmetrical collapse).

WTC7 was brought down by a controlled demolition, and any other thought is illogical, ignorant, irrational, counter-intuitive, and goes against all of the evidence.
edit on 16-8-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post




posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 01:54 AM
link   
Videos of Building 7 falling are the first thing I try to show to someone who thinks 9/11 is a clean-cut Terror vs. America situation. It's the elephant in the room that many people, including my own father, had no idea about.

And yeah I'll vote Gandalf in 2012 as soon as he announces a running mate



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 01:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Hawking
 



Videos of Building 7 falling are the first thing I try to show to someone who thinks 9/11 is a clean-cut Terror vs. America situation. It's the elephant in the room that many people, including my own father, had no idea about.
Yeah, it's screwed up that so many people haven't even heard of the collapse of WTC7. Obviously that's not the case on this site, but lots of regular old Joes don't even know about it.

Strange that they showed the videos of the planes hitting the twin towers and their collapse 400 times, but they only showed the collapse of WTC7 a couple dozen times at best.

Maybe showing people the planes hitting so many times would hammer the idea that the planes caused them to collapse, and there's no possible other option, but showing the collapse of WTC7 as many times would have raised some eyebrows.


And yeah I'll vote Gandalf in 2012 as soon as he announces a running mate
Good stuff.
edit on 16-8-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 01:57 AM
link   
Im not sure one way or the other.

The fact that a huge section of the skyscraper fell on top of the building COULD have caused it to fall. When i say top i mean side


I assume your an architect or a building engineer?? No......ok you could be wrong then

Also i assume you have seen ALL the evidence???
edit on 16-8-2011 by loves a conspiricy because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 02:01 AM
link   
reply to post by loves a conspiricy
 



Im not sure one way or the other.

The fact that a huge section of the skyscraper fell on top of the building COULD have caused it to fall. When i say top i mean side

I assume your an architect or a building engineer?? No......ok you could be wrong then
Did you read the therad? The damage caused by the falling debris was asymmetrical, but the building collapsed symmetrically.

You must have missed this part:

Also, if anybody believes that the damage to the core columns did not need to be symmetrical in order to cause a symmetrical collapse, you must provide evidence either through your own personal experimentation (anything will work, legos, jenga blocks, it doesn't matter, just one example where the asymmetrical removal of somethings supports causes a symmetrical collapse will do), or an example of a buildings structural components failing asymetrically but causing a symmetrical collapse.


I don't have to be an architect or a building engineer to see that WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition, did you miss this part of the thread as well? Pretend an architect posted this:


WTC7: Symmetrical collapse
Controlled Demolition: Symmetrical collapse (unless the building is rigged to fall into a parking lot or an empty space rather than straight down)
WTC7: Free-fall during the collapse
Controlled Demolition: Free-fall during the collapse
WTC7: Explosions heard before/during the collapse
Controlled Demolition: Explosions heard before/during the collapse
WTC7: A neat pile of debris
Controlled Demolition: A neat pile of debris
If an architect told you that all of those characteristics matched up with a controlled demolition, would it make those facts any more factual than me telling them to you?

How about these architects and engineers?
edit on 16-8-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 02:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by loves a conspiricy
Im not sure one way or the other.

The fact that a huge section of the skyscraper fell on top of the building COULD have caused it to fall. When i say top i mean side


I assume your an architect or a building engineer?? No......ok you could be wrong then

Also i assume you have seen ALL the evidence???
edit on 16-8-2011 by loves a conspiricy because: (no reason given)


Common sense dictates that debris impacting a standing structure would not cause it to free-fall collapse in a few seconds



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 02:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Hawking
 


Common sense dictates that debris impacting a standing structure would not cause it to free-fall collapse in a few seconds
Hey, cut that nonsense out! Only architects and structural engineers can use common sense!



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 02:06 AM
link   
Spot on TS..
You are one of many that would put fear in those that know the truth, for those that were part of this deceit.
Just like the controlled collapes, the truth to the masses continues to be contolled as well.
Which means to me... they're guilty as well for the cover up.. look at the owners of the media.. bed buddies I think.

Excellent insight, thanks for sharing!

Jesse



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 02:07 AM
link   
So what your saying is.....you have NO idea what happened, your basing this on your own personal views and the LIMITED evidence you have seen right???

You didnt write that other stuff right? You got it from a conspiracy website...yea?

Have YOU spoke to ANY experts?? And by experts i mean people will the proper qualifications, not a 14 year old kid on a random website.

Do you not realize the energy produced when a plane hits a solid object at 500mph?? Do you know how many tons of concrete, and steel fell upon this building??

I know...lots of questions again lol


Like i say...i cant say either way, it did appear to be a controlled demolition....its very well speculating, but given the fact you have no qualifications or experience in this field im going to stick with the experts



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 02:16 AM
link   
reply to post by loves a conspiricy
 



So what your saying is.....you have NO idea what happened, your basing this on your own personal views and the LIMITED evidence you have seen right???
I know exactly what happened, and I explained what happened in the thread and explained why what happened could not have caused the collapse.


You didnt write that other stuff right? You got it from a conspiracy website...yea?
No, that's my own analysis. I have a brain dude, you know, that thing that can think and stuff? You have one too, are you capable of using it?


Have YOU spoke to ANY experts?? And by experts i mean people will the proper qualifications, not a 14 year old kid on a random website.
From the OP:



Do you not realize the energy produced when a plane hits a solid object at 500mph??
Do you realize that we are discussing WTC7, a building which was not struck by an airplane?


Do you know how many tons of concrete, and steel fell upon this building??
Yes, 6583.34 tons. [/sarcasm] That is a stupid question, because I explained why the falling debris damage could not have caused a symmetrical collapse. Would you like me to explain it again since you either didn't read the OP or didn't understand it?

The falling debris damage was asymmetrical. The collapse of the building was symmetrical. You understand this, right?


but given the fact you have no qualifications or experience in this field im going to stick with the experts
I don't need qualifications, I have a brain, there are my qualifications. Are you going to logically debunk the analysis that I put forth in the OP, or are you just going to say "u arin't a expurt", and completely discount everything that I said in the OP?

But if you need somebody who has an architectural or engineering degree to use their common sense, that thing that most people are equipped with, here are thousands of experts.
edit on 16-8-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 02:21 AM
link   
Okay

Let's head this off before it gets to the usual 9/11 silliness

We ARE going to be polite
Mod Note: General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.

We ARE not going to post silly pictures.. (From this point on)
Mod Note: The Digital Ego – Please Review This Link.

We ARE going to abide by the Terms and Condition

This is your one and only warning

Fair enough?

Good thread, so let's keep it that way

Semper



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 02:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
Okay

Let's head this off before it gets to the usual 9/11 silliness

We ARE going to be polite
Mod Note: General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.

We ARE not going to post silly pictures.. (From this point on)
Mod Note: The Digital Ego – Please Review This Link.

We ARE going to abide by the Terms and Condition

This is your one and only warning

Fair enough?

Good thread, so let's keep it that way

Semper


Could you point out which ones are the "silly pictures"?



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 02:30 AM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 





I know exactly what happened, and I explained what happened in the thread and explained why what happened could not have caused the collapse.


So how do you know EXACTLY what happened? Were you there? Did you see all angles of the building? Once again...are you an engineer? If you can answer YES to one of these questions it would be a start





No, that's my own analysis. I have a brain too dude, you know, that can think and stuff?


Clearly not as the majority of that has been discussed on Youtube....and you provide some of those videos





Do you realize that we are discussing WTC7, a building which was not struck by an airplane?


Indeed, it wasnt hit by an airplane, BUT it was hit by thousands of tons of falling debris





Yes, 6583.34 tons. [/sarcasm] That is a stupid question, because I explained why the falling debris damage could not have caused a symmetrical collapse. Would you like me to explain it again since you either didn't read the OP or didn't understand it?


Once again, we go back to your qualifications.....you cant say its a stupid question because you dont understand the implications...this is probably why its not mentioned in youtube videos.
No need to re explain, clearly one of understands




I don't need qualifications, I have a brain, there are my qualifications. Are you going to logically debunk the analysis that I put forth in the OP, or are you just going to say "u arin't a expurt", and completely discount everything that I said in the OP?


This seriously made me LOL and almost fall off of my chair

You dont need qualifications which....equal experience in any field to be able to discuss it...HAHAHA, best you get to CERN and find the Higgs Bossom then dude.

My point is this, you are only going on the small amount of evidence you have seen. You dont understand how thousands of tons of material can destabilize/effect a buildings structure....and you arrogance is just laughable.

Im done here, i cant be arguing with you over something that NEITHER of us can prove without a doubt.

For every engineer who says it was a controlled demolition there are another 10 who deny it wasnt.

You need ALL the facts before you can say 100% it was a demolition.

How did they rig this building and the twin towers without anyone noticing a demolition team ripping down walls, and stacking them with explosives? Talk to ANY controlled demolition expert and they will tell you it takes months to rig a building, and it cannot be hidden


edit on 16-8-2011 by loves a conspiricy because: (no reason given)
edit on 16-8-2011 by loves a conspiricy because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 02:38 AM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 


Glad you chimed in Mod... I can relate to how one spells out the obvious, (for the OP) but some can't see it and argue their lack of insight...

I could get heated for that short insight as well.

Truth needs to be told.. Some just hear it... some really listen. there is a difference between the two..



Jesse



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 02:51 AM
link   
reply to post by loves a conspiricy
 





For every engineer who says it was a controlled demolition there are another 10 who deny it wasnt.Text


Prove your above statement.

You can't prove it because it is something you made up......and everyone knows this.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 02:58 AM
link   
reply to post by loves a conspiricy
 


So how do you know EXACTLY what happened? Were you there? Did you see all angles of the building? Once again...are you an engineer? If you can answer YES to one of these questions it would be a start
....OK, let's take a step back. First off, can you do me a favor and re-read the OP to save me the time of explaining everything I have in there again?

But, to put it briefly, the damage that the core columns suffered from both fire and falling debris was asymmetrical, yet it produced a symmetrical collapse.

No, I was not there, but I have the information used by the organization (FEMA) that analyzed the cause of the collapse based on the available information. That is what the image of the core column damage is. We can both agree that that damage is asymmetrical, correct?

Now, onto my explanation of the fire damage, for the damage to be symmetrical, there would have to be a fire burning on the 3rd and 7th windows of the 38th floor on the left side, as well as a fire burning on the 3rd and 7th windows on the 38th floor on the right side, correct? We can both agree on that?

Can we both agree that the damage the core columns suffered, based on the image used in FEMAs report, is asymmetrical? And can we both agree that the damage the building suffered from fires was also asymmetrical, because there weren't fires burning in the conditions that I explained in the above paragraph?


Indeed, it wasnt hit by an airplane, BUT it was hit by thousands of tons of falling debris
I know this, and I addressed this in the OP of this thread. Why even bring up the forces involved with the impact of an airliner with another building though? How is that relevant?



This seriously made me LOL and almost fall off of my chair
You dont need qualifications which....equal experience in any field to be able to discuss it...HAHAHA, best you get to CERN and find the Higgs Bossom then dude
We're not talking about quantum mechanics and particle physics, we are talking about characteristics of X matching up with characteristics of Y. You don't need to spend 8 years studying a subject to compare simple characteristics that match up between two things.


My point is this, you are only going on the small amount of evidence you have seen. You dont understand how thousands of tons of material can destabilize/effect a buildings structure....and you arrogance is just laughable.
I do understand this, because the effect of this material was accounted for in the FEMA report, and that is what the image of the core columns that are circled is describing.


Im done here, i cant be arguing with you over something that NEITHER of us can prove without a doubt.
But I have proven it in the OP, and you have not debunked it. You have called my qualifications into question, that is not debunking the analysis put forth.

Until you explain how my analysis of the core column damage caused by both the fire/falling debris is incorrect, saying that I'm not an engineer does not disprove anything that I have said.


For every engineer who says it was a controlled demolition there are another 10 who deny it wasnt.
Really? Could you provide me with a link to the "Engineers and Architects That Support The Official Explanation Of WTC7s Collapse"


You need ALL the facts before you can say 100% it was a demolition.
Tell me dude, are the following things facts?:

WTC7: Symmetrical collapse
WTC7: Free-fall during the collapse
WTC7: Explosions heard before/during the collapse
WTC7: A neat pile of debris

Please point out to me which one of those are not facts, because you have me confused now. Can you explain to me these "facts" that you believe I am not taking into account? Because by all means I would like to understand all of the facts


How did they rig this building and the twin towers without anyone noticing a demolition team ripping down walls, and stacking them with explosives?
That's irrelevant, because the evidence that I provided in the OP proves that it is a controlled demolition. The argument that since people didn't see it being set up means that it wasn't set up is illogical. But thank you for providing an argument as to why you believe a controlled demolition didn't bring down the building.

So, let's examine the facts, shall we? The collapse of WTC7 matched up with a controlled demolition for the following reasons: It free-fell, it collapsed symmetrically, it had a fault during the collapse, explosions were heard before/during the collapse, and the debris fell into a neat imploded pile.

I would like your opinion, does the collapse of WTC7 match up with a controlled demolition for the above reasons? If not, why?

The pre-collapse conditions of WTC7 don't match up with a controlled demolition for the following reason: Nobody called in a bomb thread claiming that they saw explosives in the building.

Now, let's have the expert Tom Sullivan chime in (which I would like to reiterate was in the OP):

You wouldn't need miles and miles of det. cord, you could have used wireless remote detonators and they have been available for years....and of course the military has them as well. Contractors don't use them on the other hand because they're just too expensive.
edit on 16-8-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 03:04 AM
link   
reply to post by NightGypsy
 


Im an engineer...i dont believe it 100%

I know plenty of Engineers who dont believe it. Just because they havent made a group called "The 20,000,000 engineers who dont believe world trade center 7 was a controlled demolition" Doesnt mean they dont exist.

On one hand everyones saying hardly anyone knows about the WT7 collapse/demolition.....and then you ask for proof that people dont believe it lol


How many professionals have said it was not a controlled demolition....many, hundreds if not thousands.
These people were given ALL the information...not dribs and drabs....not a few Youtube videos.

Im sure if there were some financial gain to disprove it they would be queuing up....i wonder how many books have been sold about this conspiracy from these engineers who put themselves in the limelight??? I wonder how much money the whole 9/11 conspiracy rakes in each year.....id say lots and lots and lots.


I dont want to get banned so this is really my final post on this subject......so argue amongst yourselves and pat each other on the back for all the stuff you have discovered lol



EDIT: Just to add a very brief few sentences in reply to Tupac


The buildings had basements and an underground network for trains etc...thousands of tons of rock and steel would have effected the stability of the ground surrounding the WTC7.

END
edit on 16-8-2011 by loves a conspiricy because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 03:10 AM
link   
reply to post by loves a conspiricy
 


Im an engineer...i dont believe it 100%

I know plenty of Engineers who dont believe it. Just because they havent made a group called "The 20,000,000 engineers who dont believe world trade center 7 was a controlled demolition" Doesnt mean they dont exist.
Since you say they exist, we should take your word. You should take my word that there were explosives placed inside of the building, simply because I say they exist.

See how that works? It doesn't, unless you provide evidence, like I did in the OP. You're an engineer, why don't you start that organization? You can be the face of engineers across the world who believe the official story, that sounds nice to me.


On one hand everyones saying hardly anyone knows about the WT7 collapse/demolition.....and then you ask for proof that people dont believe it lol
Not "hardly anyone", I've met many people who were unaware of it though.


How many professionals have said it was not a controlled demolition....many, hundreds if not thousands.
No proof = no truth


I dont want to get banned so this is really my final post on this subject......so argue amongst yourselves and pat each other on the back for all the stuff you have discovered lol
Keep it polite and you won't get banned. The discussion was just getting interesting too, don't bail on us like that!
edit on 16-8-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 03:41 AM
link   
In case there are those who think my opinion is invalid, here are some expert opinions over the collapse of WTC7:

Danny Topete: Civil and Structural Engineer:

Scott Grainger: Fire Protection Engineer:

Ron Brookman: Structural Engineer:

Ed Munyak: Fire Protection Engineer

Tony Szamboti: Mechanical Engineer:


Official story believers, please post the expert testimonies explaining why the collapse of WTC7 makes sense, because I'm having a hard time finding any.
edit on 16-8-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 03:44 AM
link   
*Bails out*

Its nothing personal
We just have different views on this. Im not saying im 100% sure either way....it could have been a demolition, it could have been a result of the damage the building and supporting structures sustained.

If we all believed the same things...this site would be VERY boring lol





new topics
top topics
 
13
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join