Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

My reasons for thinking WTC7 was probably a controlled demolition!

page: 1
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 4 2012 @ 05:00 PM
link   
Here are some of my reasons for thinking WTC7 was probably a controlled demolition.

1) Let’s start with the obvious. Clearly, it looks like a controlled demolition. See the side-by-side comparison below.


According to NIST WTC7 collapses at freefall acceleration for 2.25 seconds (equating to about 8 floors). See NIST’s ‘Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation’. Initially in their 2008 draft-report NIST denied that WTC7 collapsed at freefall acceleration. That is, until they were corrected by the observations of David Chandler, a high-school physics teacher. Shyam Sunder of NIST said that “freefall happens only when there are no structural components below the falling section of the building. Any natural scenario is going to involve a progression of failures and these don’t happen instantaneously.”

Free-fall acceleration is acceleration of an object acted on only by force of gravity alone. WTC7 had 25 cores columns and 58 perimeter columns. This implies, that something, must have removed all the columns, instantaneously, within a split second of one another to allow the building to collapse through itself at freefall acceleration without encountering any resistance from the mass below. Basically the building is collasping ahead of the collapse-wave.

It’s hard to imagine that fire could have performed such a feat. Fire causes slow and gradual structural-deformation over a long period of time (see video below), not instantaneous destruction. NIST argue that the inside of the building collapsed first, and then the facade followed, although paradoxically, their computer model shows about 2/3’s of the core columns still intact during the freefall-phase. Not only that, but visually the ‘collapse’ of WTC7 looks nothing like the collapse in NIST’s model. In the models the outside of the building caves inwards, which seemingly, is not apparent in the actual ‘collapse’.



2) There was foreknowledge of the ‘collapse’. The BBC reported the ‘collapse’ of WTC7 about 20 minutes before it actually ‘collapsed’. It’s important to understand that I’m not implying that the BBC were in on a conspiracy to deceive the public. There is a little something known as compartmentalisation.


3) NIST has avoided FOIA-requests so that their models can be independently verified on the basis that it would “jeopardize public safety”. See here. If WTC7 did collapse from fire, as NIST say, then we need to know how. Apparently though, we’re all just meant to accept NIST’s models are correct on faith. This makes me think that NIST probably have something to hide (i.e. their models are pseudoscientific rubbish). This is not open-science in anyone’s book. NIST’s models have not been subject to any formal process of public scrutiny and people are generally obliged to accept them (if they do) on sheer blind trust! This is fundamentally unscientific. Apart from NIST’s computer models, they don’t offer any evidence to support their contention of a fire-induced collapse.


4) Upon investigating WTC7’s steel FEMA found evidence of ‘rapid oxidation’ – ‘unexplained sulfidation’ and ‘intergranular melting’ that is consistent with the use of thermate, a high-powered incendiary used for cutting steel. There are different variants, such as nano-thermite, which is more powerful and explosive than regular thermate. NIST did not follow up on these findings. Source. On a side-note, NIST also say that the collapse would have happened even if there was no damage from falling derby. They state: “Even without the structural damage, WTC7 would have collapsed from the fires that the debris initiated”. In other words, according to NIST, it ‘collapsed’ exclusively from fire.


5) NIST have denied the existence of molten steel (again, see the video below) despite countless eye-witness testimonies, tons of physical evidence and photographic documentation. Molten steel is a by-product of thermite and implies very, very high temperatures far in excess of 1,000C. The melting point of steel is 1,370C, which is well-beyond the temperatures that the office fires in WTC7 could have achieved. See these 'hotspots' continuing well-after the collapse indicative of thermite. These intense hotspots far below the rubble (which would be oxygen-starved) continuing well-after the collapse is characteristic of thermite/thermate which contains its own oxygen supply.


Richard Evans,
edit on 4-5-2012 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 4 2012 @ 05:53 PM
link   
The roof line starts off ridiculously straight all of the way across the 300 foot wide building and remains that way throughout the visible fall.

That means supports all of the way across the building had to give way simultaneously.

How could fire or damage from WTC1 possibly make that happen?

This farce id ridiculous.

psik



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Nathan-D
 


What you are missing in your post is that Internal collapse started at least 7 seconds before the outer shell collapsed. There is direct video evidence for this. And it negates the suggestion that failure was instantaneous.

You should ask yourself why the video you posted is not showing this. The video is cut in such a way that this is not shown. I will give you the fast answer: because in a controlled demolition this never happens, and it makes the collapse not at all like a controlled demolition.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by Nathan-D
 


What you are missing in your post is that Internal collapse started at least 7 seconds before the outer shell collapsed. There is direct video evidence for this. And it negates the suggestion that failure was instantaneous.


The building was still 300 feet wide. How could the supposed internal collapse occur all of the way across simultaneously? In fact, how could any impact damage from outside the building make that happen?

psik



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Nathan-D
 



It’s hard to imagine that fire could have performed such a feat. Fire causes slow and gradual structural-deformation over a long period of time (see video below), not instantaneous destruction. NIST argue that the inside of the building collapsed first, and then the facade followed, although paradoxically, their computer model shows about 2/3’s of the core columns still intact during the freefall-phase. Not only that, but visually the ‘collapse’ of WTC7 looks nothing like the collapse in NIST’s model. In the models the outside of the building caves inwards, which seemingly, is not apparent in the actual ‘collapse’.


Looks like a "controlled demolition".... ?

Problem is once you have compromised the structural support gravity will take over and building collapses

Reaon looks same is because they are the SAME ...... Gravity is driving the collapse and acts the
same whether the collapse sequence was initiated by explosives, fire or some other mechanism

You are 3 1/3 centuaries too late - Issac Newton figured it out in the 1720's ..........

Building collaping from fire in slow motion.......

Sorry seen several buildings collapse from fire - come down pretty quick......

Here is collapse of Delft School of Technology in 2--8 from fire

www.liveleak.com...

By my observation takes only about 10 seconds to collapse - I call that pretty fast.....

As for foreknowledge....

The FDNY had been anticipating a collapse for hours

Since early afternoon had anticipated WTC 7 was in danger of collapse. Building had fires on multiple floors
A 3 story bulge has formed in the South West corner and obsservations showed building was creeping

Because of that FDNY set up collapse zone surrounding it

This was announced to local media

Reuters picked up report and in chaos of that day twisted it to fact that WTC 7 HAD COLLAPSED ...

BBC repeated Reuters report without confirming the accuracy of Reuters story

Sorry you lose .... Again ........



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 06:32 PM
link   
Reason for thinking WTC 7 was a controlled Demolition?

Because the OKC Building went down the same exact way:




posted on May, 4 2012 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by holywar666
 



Because the OKC Building went down the same exact way:


Apparently missed point - once structure is compromised gravity will take over and drive the collapse

Doesn't matter how or what started the collapse sequence - gravity is driving it so end result will always
look the same.........



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by Nathan-D
 



It’s hard to imagine that fire could have performed such a feat. Fire causes slow and gradual structural-deformation over a long period of time (see video below), not instantaneous destruction. NIST argue that the inside of the building collapsed first, and then the facade followed, although paradoxically, their computer model shows about 2/3’s of the core columns still intact during the freefall-phase. Not only that, but visually the ‘collapse’ of WTC7 looks nothing like the collapse in NIST’s model. In the models the outside of the building caves inwards, which seemingly, is not apparent in the actual ‘collapse’.


Looks like a "controlled demolition".... ?

Problem is once you have compromised the structural support gravity will take over and building collapses

Reaon looks same is because they are the SAME ...... Gravity is driving the collapse and acts the
same whether the collapse sequence was initiated by explosives, fire or some other mechanism

You are 3 1/3 centuaries too late - Issac Newton figured it out in the 1720's ..........

Building collaping from fire in slow motion.......

Sorry seen several buildings collapse from fire - come down pretty quick......


How would Newton explain fire causing failure simultaneously across 300 feet so the roof line remains straight?

Since gravity would accelerate all masses at the same raight the supports had to release at the same time.

psik



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Nathan-D
 


WHY?:


Here are some of my reasons for thinking WTC7 was probably a controlled demolition.


WHY (ask yourself, please) --- WHY didn't WTC7 fail within minutes of WTC1 or WTC2?

"IF" (as you posit) it was a "controlled demolition"?


In case the 'point' I am making is not yet clear.....there are many 'CT' who believe that WTC1 and WTC2 were also "controlled demolition". SO.....this brings us back to "why"? As in...."why" the huge delay?

Answer, please.

(PS...I already know the reality and thus, the answer. Just want to see if any logic engages).



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by holywar666
 



Because the OKC Building went down the same exact way:


Apparently missed point - once structure is compromised gravity will take over and drive the collapse

Doesn't matter how or what started the collapse sequence - gravity is driving it so end result will always
look the same.........


You got the science of it down. Now what about the part of our own government being the ones who were in charge of both demolitions?

This may be random, but do they not flash a building demolition in this intro of the '90's show NYPD Blue?



It flashes at the .33 second mark. Very fast. People we would collect this on their subconscious EVERY time they watched this tv series. You maybe didnt, but MANY did especially those living near NY.

How can you see WTC 7's collapse as a "weakened structure" cause & effect? If that's the case, maybe all 3 were rigged!



None of us were there. We can only trust in what we see on television.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 08:44 PM
link   
Well...you know what "they" say: If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it's probably an entirely new species of hummingbird that just happens to have all the characteristics of a duck......



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by Nathan-D
 


WHY?:


Here are some of my reasons for thinking WTC7 was probably a controlled demolition.


WHY (ask yourself, please) --- WHY didn't WTC7 fail within minutes of WTC1 or WTC2?

"IF" (as you posit) it was a "controlled demolition"?


In case the 'point' I am making is not yet clear.....there are many 'CT' who believe that WTC1 and WTC2 were also "controlled demolition". SO.....this brings us back to "why"? As in...."why" the huge delay?

Answer, please.

(PS...I already know the reality and thus, the answer. Just want to see if any logic engages).


You don't know the reality. You are only speculating and that's just what I'm gonna' do.

IMO, WTC 7 was also scheduled to be hit by a plane but either that pesky FAA grounding all flights stopped the plan cold, or the hijackers simply chickened out.

So what are you gonna' do? You've already got a building rigged up with some kind of unknown explosives and your plan unravels before you eyes

Do you drop the building right away or do you wait and allow a handful of insignificant fires to burn for several hours before you let it drop? Think about it.. Which scenario would look more suspicious?

Either way it looked like a demolition job and you can't deny that fact..
edit on 4-5-2012 by Apocalypse1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Apocalypse1
 



IMO, WTC 7 was also scheduled to be hit by a plane but either that pesky FAA grounding all flights stopped the plan cold, or the hijackers simply chickened out.


WHICH hijacked airplane?

AAL 77 or UAL 93?

AAL 77 we know about.....course was to the D.C. area, and ultimately, impacted at the Pentagon.

UAL 93? SAME course....to the D.C. area. This is blatantly clear.

Look at a map.

Neither of the remaining four hijacked airplanes had ANY intention of "aiming" for NYC!

Do some more research, it'll do you good.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by Apocalypse1
 



IMO, WTC 7 was also scheduled to be hit by a plane but either that pesky FAA grounding all flights stopped the plan cold, or the hijackers simply chickened out.


WHICH hijacked airplane?

AAL 77 or UAL 93?

AAL 77 we know about.....course was to the D.C. area, and ultimately, impacted at the Pentagon.

UAL 93? SAME course....to the D.C. area. This is blatantly clear.

Look at a map.

Neither of the remaining four hijacked airplanes had ANY intention of "aiming" for NYC!

Do some more research, it'll do you good.


Ooh, sorry. I didn't realize those were the only planes scheduled to fly that day.
Or that they were the only planes with Arabs on 'em.
edit on 4-5-2012 by Apocalypse1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Apocalypse1
 


Logical fallacy.


Ooh, sorry. I didn't realize those were the only planes scheduled to fly that day.
Or that they were the only planes with Arabs on 'em.


"CORRECTION"

On September 11, 2001, those were the only (known) flights with "Arabs on 'em" (as you put it) who were INTENT on HIJACKING 'em.

The rest of the flights, that MIGHT have had "Arabs on 'em" (as you put it) were fine....they landed, per FAA order. Just fine. However, there is ONE OTHER big question mark.....it is UNITED 23....JFK to LAX....never got off the ground.....(look it up).

BIG (eta)...the only "ARABS" that may have happened to be on ANY of the flights that day who were intent on mayhem??

Well, we know of at least 19.......

The rest who might "happen" to be Arab, who were completely innocent on other flights? Well....it's like saying,

"Well, there were some Catholics and Mormons and Atheists on the flights, on 9/11. And, some Lutherans and Buddhists and Methodists, too!!"

Gee.

The ones who did this may (or may not) have subscribed to any one "faith".....but, they all certainly had a similar AGENDA!!!!

edit on Fri 4 May 2012 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 12:54 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


That is not very hard to explain (and I think it has been, and ignored). Once part of the support fails or gets damaged, the load is transfered to non-damaged supports. This will work until the supports that are left can no longer carry the entire weight. Only then the whole building will collapse.

A analogy of this mechanism is Jenga. You remove supports one by one, and at one point, the entire structure will collapse by removing just one support. But all those supports were not removed simultaneously.



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 02:51 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


it is genuinely impressive how OSers and "debunkers" are very keen on details.
when it suits them. lol.



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 02:52 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


does it fall neatly into it's own footprint too?



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 05:40 AM
link   


“Reaon looks same is because they are the SAME”

They don't look the same to me at all. The University of Technology does not collapse completely through itself as free-fall acceleration. The top half of the building falls off but most of the building remains intact. Sorry, but they aren't the same. Far from it.



“Gravity is driving the collapse and acts the same whether the collapse sequence was initiated by explosives, fire or some other mechanism”.

Indeed. However free fall acceleration of a building can only occur when there are “no structural components underneath the falling section of the building” which means something must have removed all the columns on each floor simultaneously for the period of free-fall to allow the building to collapse through itself while encountering essentially no resistance from the static mass below. The chances of fire dislodging all the columns on each floor, simultaneously, to allow for free-fall, seems rather far-fetched to me. It would require for the fire to be spread homogeneously across all the floors and the columns would have to fail at exactly the same time. If you think fire can do that, I guess it's up to you. Come to think of it, I think I may start up my own demolition company, and the only equipment at my disposal will be a match and some gasoline. I'll make a fortune!

The reason for my disputing NIST's proposition is that I could only accept it if its theis propositions are valid and I have no honest, objective reason to believe that it is. NIST's theory is the product of a computer-programme that has never been verified in the public domain. Therefore it is just a baseless conjecture – a mere suggestion that has come out of an inscrutable computer-programme. Accepting unverified suggestions as real-world physical facts is not the rational path of real science. It is instead a highway to self-deception and self-delusion. So, at the end of the day, where does this leave us? I think it leaves us with you proposing that WTC7 collapsed from fire with nothing more substantial than NIST’s self-generated assumptions and conjectures. Sorry, but I’m of that old-fashioned school of thought which holds that other people’s unsubstantiated assumptions and conjectures do not constitute objective proof or evidence for anything.



“You are 3 1/3 centuries too late - Issac Newton figured it out in the 1720's”.

Are you invoking Newtonian physics to try and prove me wrong? Surely, you must be joking?



“sorry you lose .... Again”

Yes, I've lost. Oh dear. You're right! I concede! I can't possibly hope to counterpoint your brilliant, logically-watertight arguments. I must accept defeat and save myself further embarrassment.



What you are missing in your post is that Internal collapse started at least 7 seconds before the outer shell collapsed. There is direct video evidence for this. And it negates the suggestion that failure was instantaneous.

This statement implies a comprehensive knowledge and understanding of the inner-workings of WTC7 while it was 'collapsing' which no-one possesses. Not even NIST. It's true that the penthouse collapses before WTC7 but does that prove that the inside of WTC7 was collapsing too? I mean, there is no discernible movement of the roof-line. If WTC7 was collapsing from inside why didn't the facade move for 7 seconds? Again, it seems rather far-fetched to me. However, even if WTC7 did collapse from the inside first as you are proposing it did, it still requires a total destruction of the building's inner-supports, and I don't think fire can do that, especially not to a steel-framed building. The videos posted of buildings collapsing in this thread have not been steel-framed and (presumably) neither did they collapse at free-fall acceleration and so I think it would be unwise as putting them forward as legitimate comparisons. Notice also, that according to NIST's models, during the free-fall phase, some 2/3's of the inner-columns were still intact. How is that possible in the real-world? However much you may want to believe otherwise, NIST's conclusions are baseless and irrational.



“A analogy of this mechanism is Jenga. You remove supports one by one, and at one point, the entire structure will collapse by removing just one support”.

WTC7 wasn't built like a house-of-cards. Removing one column wouldn't cause the entire building to come crashing down through itself at free-fall acceleration complete with total steel-framing dismemberment in a manner of a controlled demolition. Would it?
edit on 5-5-2012 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nathan-D
WTC7 wasn't built like a house-of-cards. Removing one column wouldn't cause the entire building to come crashing down through itself at free-fall acceleration complete with total steel-framing dismemberment in a manner of a controlled demolition. Would it?
edit on 5-5-2012 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)


Actually, WTC 7 had a unique design compared with most buildings of its type. See, the structure was built on top of a Consolidated Edison power plant. This forced the contractors to seriously stress support codes, and they placed the primary supports in less than optimal places, where if one fails, the overall weight distributed to the rest is overwhelming.

In the full video, you can clearly see half of the building collapsing internally before the rest of the supports give way. Only a crazy person would think a building could remain standing with that much stress on its supports.





new topics

top topics



 
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join