Architects & Engineers - Solving the Mystery of World Trade Center Building 7

Originally posted by TheLieWeLive
reply to post by SirMike

 

Yep generalization, but just for you here's a structural engineer that believes wtc 7 was controlled demolition.

Architects and Engineers

Have you looked at his actual credentials?


Paul A. Thomas
“Designed concrete & steel structures to 240 ft. height

” “Mining & Industrial clients. Design concrete & steel structures, foundations

I was not aware that Mining and Industrial clients require 1,000ft skyscrapers. Seems like he is out of the specification.

One thing you have to realize about "engineers". They are like Doctors. Sure, they all have a PhD, but are you going to consult a brain surgeon on a matter of a colonoscopy? How a bout a dentist regarding heart surgery? Architects and Engineers are like a rag tag group of dentists, veterinarians, podietrists, proctologists, optometrists, dermotologists, rocket scientists, theologists, all trying to diagnose and explain how remove a brain tumor. Also, rocket scientists have PhDs, and they are called Dr.s too. Would you like to have a rocket scientist performing brain surgery, or trying to diagnose a heart condition?

Here is a pretty good breakdown of the list of "professionals" in A&E. Not very impressive when stacked against NIST or ASCE.

Actual breakdown of AE "Professionals"

The WTC was designed to withstand a hit from a Boing 707, which is basically identical in size to the 767 claimed to have hit the towers. I'm sure they added jet fuel into the equation as well.

Frank A. De Martini, Manager of WTC Construction and Project Management:
"The building was designed to have a fully loaded [Boeing] 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."

I'm surprised how little you guys that are trying to debunk us really know about this subject. All you do is devise theories based off of the official story. Most of you are just mouthing what the government said. You haven't looked into the collapses at all. And once again, explain to me how Tower 7 fell. Seriously, you debunkers should know perfectly well by now that you can't blame all the collapses on "super heated" jet fuel.

reply to post by deadmessiah
Thanks, Dead. It appears the 'boys' have been doing some recruiting of late, as their team of regulars has been getting their ass handed to them by Tupak, Yank, etc., etc. I wonder when their evaluations are scheduled? Could be a grim X-mas for the debunkers.

reply to post by SavedOne


It's good to see some experts telling us what they think. There was one thing that caught my attention though:

These ratings do not take into account something highly unusual like jet fuel INSIDE the building. Introduce an element like that and your fire rating is no longer valid.

The jet fuel burned out after only a few minutes, so it was just ordinary flames in the towers.

The jet fuel probably burned out in less than 10 minutes.

--Dr. Shyam Sunder, lead investigator for NIST.

Originally posted by SirMike

Originally posted by deadmessiah
reply to post by SirMike

 

Also, since you seem to be an expert in this area, explain to me at what temperature does steel melt? Don't bring the "it can weaken at lower temps" BS in. Tell me what temperature does steel melt at. (Hint: I already know, I just hope you do, seeings as how you claim to be an architect of some sort.)

Blah blah blah melted steel blah blah blah blah ... the support beams warped and broke their connections because of differential heating. I'm sure you are familiar with the concept, what with your decades of experience, education and what not, so I will spare you the lecture (hint, its why panel welding is such a problem).

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2c0439197ef1.gif[/atsimg]

That combined with weakening from the fire did the members in .

But let me guess, you are far to smart to fall for this.

If you overlook certain facts you would probably jump on the controlled demo bandwagon. What people don't consider is the collapse of building 7 doesn't change anything regarding the events that transpired that day. Even if another building had come down that day in the immediate vicinity of the towers would that have changed anything?

Another thing that i would say is obvious is that building 7 was heavily damaged before the collapse. Damaged to the point where it was a total loss so we a left with two scenarios if building 7 had not collapsed.

One is that there are "secrets" contained inside the building. In that case no one except for authorized people get near the building

Second is that the building is so damaged that it is destroyed days later, weeks later and really i can't see what changes.

The official version of events regarding the attacks of 9/11 are absurd. Building 7 in many respects is just the tip of the iceberg. Just how an office fire and falling debris could destroy all vertical support columns in a steel; structured building at the same time beggars belief. Anyone who has studied the events in detail knows the truth. Only the shills and the willingly ignorant remain in favor of the "official explanation."

It would appear that not only did the laws of physics fail on 9/11 but also peoples ability to pay attention.
My personal favorite clue was the fate of over 80 CCTV cameras removed from the Pentagon after the supposed impact of American Airlines flight 77.

The clues and blatant and the questions are obvious.

Another massive coincidence worth noting is the fate of this man - John O'Neil.

reply to post by Malcher

If you overlook certain facts you would probably jump on the controlled demo bandwagon. What people don't consider is the collapse of building 7 doesn't change anything regarding the events that transpired that day. Even if another building had come down that day in the immediate vicinity of the towers would that have changed anything?

Another thing that i would say is obvious is that building 7 was heavily damaged before the collapse. Damaged to the point where it was a total loss so we a left with two scenarios if building 7 had not collapsed.

The damage was insufficient to cause a symmetrical collapse, and we discussed that in this thread, which you quit posting in after I slapped you with some facts.

WTC7 matches up with a controlled demolition for several reasons:

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

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by Malcher

 

If you overlook certain facts you would probably jump on the controlled demo bandwagon. What people don't consider is the collapse of building 7 doesn't change anything regarding the events that transpired that day. Even if another building had come down that day in the immediate vicinity of the towers would that have changed anything?

Another thing that i would say is obvious is that building 7 was heavily damaged before the collapse. Damaged to the point where it was a total loss so we a left with two scenarios if building 7 had not collapsed.

The damage was insufficient to cause a symmetrical collapse, and we discussed that in this thread, which you quit posting in after I slapped you with some facts.

WTC7 matches up with a controlled demolition for several reasons:

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

All you have to do is look at the actual video's and see it came down fairly evenly...you can say "symmetrical" or you can just say catastrophic failure at the center or close to the center. To repeat over and over that does not translate to the only way being controlled demo. It may be one way you would see a collapse from controlled demo or even every instance of controlled demo but does not exclude every other explanation or reason for that to occur.

reply to post by TupacShakur

The damage was insufficient....

Nice opinion, but no proof. Report by NIST proves otherwise.

....to cause a symmetrical collapse....

You can use the word symmetrical 'till the cows come home but that does not, by any stretch of the imagination mean that it was.

And you have not addressed the most pointed question - why? Why demo building #7? If the building contained damning secrets, unless they were carved into the walls, would you not have been better off letting it burn for a day or two? Why demo the building, which allowed firefighters to hose down the remains and then let God only knows who crawl all over the debris for months and letting papers blow all over lower Manhattan? I mean if there are secrets in your house would you rather see it burn to a crisp or collapse?

reply to post by Malcher

All you have to do is look at the actual video's and see it came down fairly evenly...you can say "symmetrical" or you can just say catastrophic failure at the center or close to the center.

That may be the politically correct term, but I prefer a realistic description: symmetrical. It falls straight down
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9fece666e47b.jpg[/atsimg] Do you know what NIST says caused that collapse? A single column failing. One column caused that collapse that just happens to look exactly like a controlled demolition and match up with one for several different reasons.....right.

To repeat over and over that does not translate to the only way being controlled demo. It may be one way you would see a collapse from controlled demo or even every instance of controlled demo but does not exclude every other explanation or reason for that to occur.

The official explanation is impossible, and that was covered in the thread that you left from. Would you like me to explain the OP of that thread again? I will summarize it briefly.

The falling debris damage was asymmetrical: [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f0003de429eb.jpg[/atsimg]

The fire damage was asymmetrical:

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.

An asymmetrical damage pattern causing a symmetrical collapse is impossible. And just because those columns were damaged didn't mean that they failed during the collapse, NIST claims that a single column is responsible for that, as is described in the video of this threads OP:[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5d379160c54e.jpg[/atsimg] And the fire that should have caused the column to fail burned out an hour before the collapse.

The official story of the collapse is impossible. The only way that a building could fall symmetrically is if the steel columns fail symmetrically within milliseconds of each other, otherwise the collapse would be asymmetrical.

The only explanation that matches the evidence is a controlled demolition, and WTC7 is proof that 9/11 was an inside job which our government covered up, NIST being a part of the cover up.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by TupacShakur

 

The damage was insufficient....

Nice opinion, but no proof. Report by NIST proves otherwise.

....to cause a symmetrical collapse....

You can use the word symmetrical 'till the cows come home but that does not, by any stretch of the imagination mean that it was.

And you have not addressed the most pointed question - why? Why demo building #7? If the building contained damning secrets, unless they were carved into the walls, would you not have been better off letting it burn for a day or two? Why demo the building, which allowed firefighters to hose down the remains and then let God only knows who crawl all over the debris for months and letting papers blow all over lower Manhattan? I mean if there are secrets in your house would you rather see it burn to a crisp or collapse?

Let us all have a look again at some controlled demolitions, pay attention everybody (especially to the symmetry)

What do you think?

I wonder why it doesn't bother debunkers that the official story is also just a theory? Also, doesn't it bother you that one of the commissioners had the following to say about the official 9/11 report?

Senator Max Cleland – Former member of the 9/11 Commission:

"If this decision stands [to limit 9/11 Commission access to White House documents], I, as a member of the commission, cannot look any American in the eye, especially family members of victims, and say the commission had full access. This investigation is now compromised."

articles.boston.com...

Regarding the 9/11 Commission: "It is a national scandal."

dir.salon.com...

"One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9/11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up."

www.democracynow.org...

Originally posted by SavedOne
OK, well I've been an architect for over 25 years and first let me say that your description is accurate for some, but not all architects.

I understand that, but my point was to counter the claim that architects only design aesthetics.

My professional opinion on WTC is this, it is completely plausible that the buildings would have collapsed in just the way they did due to the airliners crashing into them. The buildings had fireproofed steel, but no sprinkler systems. Fireproofing is rated (1 hour, 2 hour, etc.) and what that rating means is the fireproofing will protect the steel for that period of time in a normal fire before the steel fails. Fireproofing doesn't protect steel forever, it is intended to buy time for people to escape and for firefighters to get water onto the fire. These ratings do not take into account something highly unusual like jet fuel INSIDE the building. Introduce an element like that and your fire rating is no longer valid. The fireproofing did do the job for a while, but once the steel started deforming it would have had a cascading failure affect (IE, once one column failed the others around it would have failed in succession).

Professional, or not, I disagree. One hours worth of office fires is not enough to cause thousands of tons of steel to fail. Even IF steel failed in the upper floors it would not necessarily lead to a completely symmetrical collapse, with no sign if resistance from undamaged structure. The majority of both towers were not on fire, and thus the majority of the structure was still sound.

My understanding of WTC 1 and 2 is that the main support columns were all in the core of the building. This is fairly unusual, most buildings have columns spaced throughout the building. But by moving them to the core this would have allowed column-free lease space around the perimeter and this is highly desirable and much more flexible for interior design.

No it is not that unusual. It was a fairly new design when it was built, but it wasn't the first using that design, and now most tall building are designed that way. As an architect shouldn't you know that?

But due to this, the floor would collapse downward.

Of course it would, but then it would be slowed due to resistance. Equal opposite reaction, and conservation of momentum laws, would have to be accounted for, yet the collapses seem to ignore these laws. Only one way that can happen, another force was involved that was not considered in the investigations. Why?

In a conventional structure the aircraft probably wouldn't have penetrated very far due to the perimeter columns, and the fire would have been to one side of the building, and perimeter columns would have failed first and the building probably would collapse to one side. But WTC 1 and 2 were not conventional structures as mentioned above. One has to understand that structure is designed for a designated dead load (permanent- furniture, the structure itself, finishes, etc.) and live load (temporary- people, wind, etc.). It is NOT designed for a sudden, tremendous downward force. So when a middle floor of a high rise collapses, the structure below is not designed to "catch" the upper floors collapsing down. If the aircraft impacts had happened near the top of the building they never would have collapsed because there wouldn't have been that huge load collapsing down. But they impacted well down from the top and once the columns failed, such a huge downward weight and force would simple collapse the structure of the floor below that, and in turn the floor below that, etc. As each floor collapses the loads increase due to the extra floor as well as the increasing speed of the collapse, and the failure would be EXACTLY what you see in the WTC videos.

Hmmmm nothing has to 'catch' anything. Are you sure you're a real architect? You're not debating a layman here, I have a 2 year degree in engineering fundamentals, and a two year degree in engineering drafting.

When objects collide there is an 'equal and opposite reaction', the forces on both impacting floors is equal. That huge downward force is going to be met by an equally huge upward force. Both objects want to maintain their momentum, equally. The only thing that makes the difference is mass (in the context of concrete and steel impacting concrete and steel). A larger mass will not be destroyed by a smaller mass. 15 floors falling on 95, you do the maths. Simple physics, that as an architect I would hope you understand.

If the 15 floors simply caused the lower floors to drop, and join the top floors in crushing more lower floors, then there would be a stack of floors in the footprint still visible, as in all classic 'pancake collapses'. Intact floors, not floors crushed, because there is nothing to crush that last block of 15, or however many floors.

You are doing nothing but repeating the nonsense that has been debunked already, your professional opinion is not your opinion, it's just the same assumption of all OSers that ignores the known laws of motion. Do you know NIST rejected the pancake collapse hypothesis when their tests failed to produce the results they wanted? So why do you OSers insist on arguing for it? Go argue with NIST, because the OS disagrees with you all.

Where is your explanation of equal opposite reaction, and momentum conservation laws in context to the collapses? You have not answered any of my questions.

How did 15 floors crush 95 floors? How did the 47 massive core columns collapse straight down through an increasing mass, an increasing path of most resistance?

So in conclusion, while some architects and engineers might think there's a conspiracy here, we don't ALL think that.

I never said they did. But please don't take silence to mean they all agree with the OS. It seems your post is nothing but an attempt to claim that only a minority of architects believe in silly 'truther' nonsense? I apologize if you really are an architect, but almost every OS supporter here has made similar bogus claims, and if you fail to understand the basic physics involved, and just parrot the tired old OS line then you will be doubted.

(I just realised this thread is about WTC 7, and I am talking mostly about the towers here lol. Some of it is relevant to 7 though. Hard to keep track anymore.)

Tupac, you are making assumptions and yes they may be true in some cases but that does make them true in every case.

Look at the images from the carpet store fire from the london riots. You see steel i-beams curving inward. The steel softened up and curved inward from heat alone. A carpet store has a lot of fuel for a fire, whatever else flammable in the building etc. ok, so we know the steel beams bent inwards now imagine all the steel turning inwards and put tons of weight (the tower collapse) directly above and you have a collapse directly on its footprint.

reply to post by hooper

Nice opinion, but no proof. Report by NIST proves otherwise.

Nope, that's a fact. Read the thread in my signature which proves that the official story of the collapse is impossible.

You can use the word symmetrical 'till the cows come home but that does not, by any stretch of the imagination mean that it was.

It falls straight down. [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9fece666e47b.jpg[/atsimg] Tell me, just so I'm clear that my vision isn't bad, the building did fall straight down, right?

And you have not addressed the most pointed question - why? Why demo building #7? If the building contained damning secrets, unless they were carved into the walls, would you not have been better off letting it burn for a day or two? Why demo the building, which allowed firefighters to hose down the remains and then let God only knows who crawl all over the debris for months and letting papers blow all over lower Manhattan? I mean if there are secrets in your house would you rather see it burn to a crisp or collapse?

Here we see the typical official story believer pseudo-debunking technique: When confronted with evidence that cannot be debunked, create a strawman argument in an attempt to shift the discussion away from the facts, and attempt to dissuade readers from believing the facts because of some lame appeal to common sense that doesn't debunk facts.

Hooper, how about you actually try to debunk something, why don't you explain how my analysis of the asymmetrical damage pattern causing a symmetrical collapse is incorrect rather than the typical garbage that you contribute?

reply to post by Malcher

Tupac, you are making assumptions and yes they may be true in some cases but that does make them true in every case.

Look at the images from the carpet store fire from the london riots. You see steel i-beams curving inward. The steel softened up and curved inward from heat alone. A carpet store has a lot of fuel for a fire, whatever else flammable in the building etc. ok, so we know the steel beams bent inwards now imagine all the steel turning inwards and put tons of weight (the tower collapse) directly above and you have a collapse directly on its footprint.

Until my analysis of the asymmetrical damage causing a controlled demolition replica collapse is proven to be inaccurate, any other argument that you put out will get swatted down by the cold hard fact that the official story is impossible and the only explanation that matches the evidence is an implosion.

So when you're ready to actually try and back up your side of the story and explain how the asymmetrical damage (or more realistically I should say a single core column failure) can cause a symmetrical collapse, I'll be waiting.

Tupac, I did not understand that last post. My point is that weather someone deliberately rolls a car off a cliff or the car rolls off the cliff from a complete accident the results are identical IF they are both traveling at the same rate of speed. Same for a controlled demo because the controlled demo just mimics what can very well occur naturally. An unnatural controlled demo is a mistake.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by TupacShakur

 

Nice opinion, but no proof. Report by NIST proves otherwise.

Oh really? Last I checked, it was a merely a hypothesis. Do you even have a link or source to where they proved this? The steps they took in their investigation are referred to as "probable collapse sequence". Probable?

How about this: "It is probable that aliens exist." Or: "I find it probable that God exists."

www.nist.gov...

Read the report, because I don't think any of you debunkers have read it, or the 9/11 Commission for that matter.

Originally posted by deadmessiah

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by TupacShakur

 

Nice opinion, but no proof. Report by NIST proves otherwise.

Oh really? Last I checked, it was a merely a hypothesis. Do you even have a link or source to where they proved this? The steps they took in their investigation are referred to as "probable collapse sequence". Probable?

How about this: "It is probable that aliens exist." Or: "I find it probable that God exists."

www.nist.gov...

Read the report, because I don't think any of you debunkers have read it, or the 9/11 Commission for that matter.

Yes, it is probable based on what was observed which included fire and damage from falling debris. Their use of the word "probable" is not an open invitation to give credence to any hairbrained notion that may flitter through the large gap between the ears of anyone with a computer and access to the internet.

Their "probable sequence" was based on what was observed and measured.

I'd suggest you withdraw your "proven by NIST" statement then, because it wasn't proven. We normally call that disinformation. You didn't know that though, you probably just heard someone on the Daily Show say that.