The WTC 7 thread to end WTC7 threads

Physics Professor Steven Jones discussing explosives and WTC7, and the media would not show a clip of it collapsing, even though he asked them to. This is all post 9/11 of course.



More food for thought on WTC7.

reply to post by GenRadek


The construction of the building is not the point but , it most likely was . The method of imploding buildings is the point . The dropping of the center of the building precedes the cutting of the center columns and the tell tale wrinkling of the facade at the center of the building showing the collapse of the center , all of this spells implosion .
If this building fell from fire or anything else there would have been signs of the building falling on one side or the other and not straight inward to the center mass .

reply to post by anoncoholic


Well I also have the advantage that when I left school 30+ years ago my first job was in the design/drawing office of a STRUCTURAL STEELWORK company, I am on sites most days have a technical job and do things like site testing of structural fixings and give recommendations to site managers,architects and engineers.

Whats really annoying is armchair experts who think they have even the slightest clue about what happened because they read some conspiracy site that suits their agenda.

Once you have done 30+ years on sites and have been a couple of hundred feet up in rain and snow on a regular basis then I might actually think you know something, the problem with the internet is people who's most technical question of the day is "DO YOU WANT FRIES WITH THAT" seem to know better they start a web page people see their site and low and behold everyone is a construction expert.

Originally posted by SimonPeter
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

The Topic was Building 7 . There was no airplane impact and little debris impact . All of the fire proofing was intact and there were no raging fires that covered the entire floor area on any floor.

Maybe you should search more

Boyle: ... on the north and east side of 7 it didn't look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn't look good.

or

then this other officer I'm standing next to said, that building doesn't look straight

or

Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Reports from firemen!!!!

See all your conspiracy sites show the opposite side with the least amount of damage or DIDN'T you know that.

As you can see in this video, the fires in WTC7 were pretty minor.




If you look at the video I put a few post above this one called "Why Wont The Media Show WTC Building 7 Collapse" and watch from 1min onwards, you'll also see the fires are very small. How could these relatively small fires bring WTC7 down like that? This just cannot be right!

Here's that video again: www.youtube.com...

With all of the supposed research that all the people did on this building no one ever knew that there was a diesel tank located within this building with thousands of gallons of fuel in it for the Emergency Command Center Generator that old Rubio had built and moved out of 2 weeks before 911 .This was a major source of fuel for the fire and never caught on fire . So much for their research . Good Job Guys ! I purposefully did not mention this because the people against finding the truth would have had a field day . This fuel tank was not a factor in the collapse as you can see only sporadic fires within building 7. reply to post by the gameisup

reply to post by thegameisup

As you can see in this video, the fires in WTC7 were pretty minor.

Maybe should look at other side of the building.......

South face WTC 7

www.911myths.com...

Clips 4.5.6.7

Notice all the smoke pushing out from every floor

Dont look like "minor" fires .........

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by thegameisup

 

As you can see in this video, the fires in WTC7 were pretty minor.

Maybe should look at other side of the building.......

South face WTC 7

www.911myths.com...

Clips 4.5.6.7

Notice all the smoke pushing out from every floor

Dont look like "minor" fires .........

Yes I have seen the other side of the building thanks, they are still quite contained minor fires. One side has slightly more fire on it, but they are all generally random, isolated minor instances of fire.

I have seen far worse fires than these, burn for far longer, and they have always been able to be brought under control by firemen. I have never in all my experiences seen a building with such little overall fire just collapse like this, I don't think there has ever been any office building of this magnitude that has completely collapsed due to fires. If there is please do share some links, I'd be very interested to see, but not to my knowledge there hasn't.

I think based on all the evidence available, an independent panel would come to the conclusion that the collpase of WTC7 was not in anyway initiated by those fires. I worked as a retained firefighter for 3 years, and during that time I saw my fair share of fires, and based on my experiences I do not feel that these fires were that serious. I could understand if this was a wooden framed building, but this was a steel structure, and those fires simply could not bring WTC7 down like that.

reply to post by thegameisup


I take it you missed these a few posts above then.

Boyle: ... on the north and east side of 7 it didn't look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn't look good.

then this other officer I'm standing next to said, that building doesn't look straight

Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Quotes from firemen at the scene!!!!

Not quite as YOU think it was

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by thegameisup

 

As you can see in this video, the fires in WTC7 were pretty minor.

Maybe should look at other side of the building.......

South face WTC 7

www.911myths.com...

Clips 4.5.6.7

Notice all the smoke pushing out from every floor

Dont look like "minor" fires .........

This is what a real fire looks like.... and it raged like a Roman Candle for 20 hours and still didn't collapse but instead continued supporting a construction crane on its roof....

www.dailymotion.com...

This makes your little WTC7 thing look like a boy scout fire.... and according to you hot enough to cause every exterior supporting beam to fail at the same precise moment

Might not have been C demo. It might have been an energy weapon. The reason being that to wire it all up would have been noticed big time. Also there wasn't enough debree left. I think the building was also dustified. (turned to dust) youtube: judy wood.to find out more about that.

Originally posted by r2d246
Might not have been C demo. It might have been an energy weapon. The reason being that to wire it all up would have been noticed big time. Also there wasn't enough debree left. I think the building was also dustified. (turned to dust) youtube: judy wood.to find out more about that.

Nowadays, you don't need to 'wire up' charges. You can use wireless devices and a simple smoke detector maintenance programme would allow the illicit installation of wireless charges.

reply to post by SimontheMagus


This is the type of BS you get when an individual has NO idea what they are talking about lets have a look.

The Windsor Tower or Torre Windsor (officially known as Edificio Windsor) was a 32-storey concrete building with a reinforced concrete central core. A typical floor was two-way spanning 280mm deep waffle slab supported by the concrete core, internal RC columns with additional 360mm deep steel I-beams and steel perimeter columns. Originally, the perimeter columns and internal steel beams were left unprotected in accordance with the Spanish building code at the time of construction

What does that have in common with the WTC Towers or WTC 7 , I will tell you NOTHING different kind of construction and no imapct by planes or falling debris!!!!

If you are going to compare like with like dig a bit deeper to make sure you are.

The Windsor Tower was completely gutted by the fire on 12 February 2005. A large portion of the floor slabs above the 17th Floor progressively collapsed during the fire when the unprotected steel perimeter columns on the upper levels buckled and collapsed (see Figure 1). It was believed that the massive transfer structure at the 17th Floor level resisted further collapse of the building. The whole building was beyond repair and had to be demolished

The floor system was not the same and the building had internal RC Columns unlike the WTC Buildings!!!!!

reply to post by wmd_2008


could you please post a link to your off site quotes...It does help....otherwise it appears your hiding things....plus with your 30+ years experience...I am sure you could have worded it well in your own verbiage...But i would like to point out...there was collapsing going on in the Madrid towers...after hours of complete floors being engulfed in flames...but the collapse was never symmetrical....It did not happen within one short hour...so please with all your years of EXPERTISE why not explain why the collapse in the Madrid towers was not global in nature...Could it be because fires do not burn EVENLY throughout a structure...therefore that in and itself means the collapse will never be even close to symmetrical.

Also before you yell like you have before in the past when confronted....was the core in the towers not cross braced with I beams...and also when i have gone through the plans many show diagonal....bracing in the core.

also as the building rises the base is supporting all the floors...so core on the first floor is supporting 109floors...the second floor of the core is supporting 108floor etc...Etc....all the way up...so me with out any experience...would like to know why the core could from the first floor still support all that was above it...You have stated because of the mass coming down...but right from day one the base of the core had to support the entire mass....These should be easily answered by you...because you have 30+ years experience.

now the core columns maintained their thickness right up to i believe it is about the first mechanical floor level which was at about the 40th floor....Which was a bit redundant to say the least.

I mean you could read this paper if you were so inclined...Core Analysis

Now according to NIST the fires were not evenly spaced over the entire floor were they...also the fire..would have HAD to have been spaced over several floors...just due to the tilt of the plane alone at time of impact...so yet again thermal induction would not be spread evenly throughout the floor areas would it?

Now lets consider bowing and buckling...IF as the Os says...there was severe buckling of the core columns....please in your experience...what sort of horizontal action would this have exerted on the floors...and do you think it would have been visible in those few seconds of collapse initiation ... I mean we need to consider the columns were after all not just floor by floor were they...they were 30ft sections...so how do you perceive this action to be taking place...did they accordion down ....Compress...Zig Zag...no matter what they would exert a horizontal action that would be translated to the exterior columns.

Oh right you state over and over it is pancaking...the mass over loaded the floors...and they not be able to carry the loads being born upon them by the falling mass of the floors....So i will ask you this to then...Why did the whole upper block proceed down through the core if the floors were accumulating mass due to pancaking.

I am sure you have a full explanation that you will be able to state simply because of all your years experience..So could you please share your knowledge and explain these questions.

I will give you Video breakdown of the collapses if you would like to show what i am talking about...but you have seen some of it before....but i do and will try and provide visual material to explain what i am asking of you.

I am at work right now so i don't have access to some of my work...but will gladly show you the spire dropping first...which to this day has not been debunked...I can show you the constant acceleration that is happening during the entire collapse...So would there be constant acceleration in a gravity driven collapse...That should be encountering resistance from the supporting structure.

Can you please explain to me how come from the point of initiation the collapse show no signs encountering resistance from the lower supporting structure..oh yes...I forgot the mass was to great so it overcame each floors load bearing capacity all the way down the core...In both buildings...also in building 7...Also please can you explain the Axial rotation in the South Tower ....How the rotation just stops...and then continues to plummet down through the core...The only way for this to occur would be if resistance was removed from below the point of rotation....You could agree on any of the points if you are so inclined...or you could just ignore these valid questions.

1. fires were not evenly spaced..According to NIST
2. Core columns thickness did not change till after the 40th floor mechanical.
3.Axial rotation ceased.
4.horizontal motion due to Buckling core columns.

i have many more questions...But i am just starting simply.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by SimontheMagus

 

This is the type of BS you get when an individual has NO idea what they are talking about lets have a look.

The Windsor Tower or Torre Windsor (officially known as Edificio Windsor) was a 32-storey concrete building with a reinforced concrete central core. A typical floor was two-way spanning 280mm deep waffle slab supported by the concrete core, internal RC columns with additional 360mm deep steel I-beams and steel perimeter columns. Originally, the perimeter columns and internal steel beams were left unprotected in accordance with the Spanish building code at the time of construction

What does that have in common with the WTC Towers or WTC 7 , I will tell you NOTHING different kind of construction

and no imapct by planes or falling debris!!!!

If you are going to compare like with like dig a bit deeper to make sure you are.

The Windsor Tower was completely gutted by the fire on 12 February 2005. A large portion of the floor slabs above the 17th Floor progressively collapsed during the fire when the unprotected steel perimeter columns on the upper levels buckled and collapsed (see Figure 1). It was believed that the massive transfer structure at the 17th Floor level resisted further collapse of the building. The whole building was beyond repair and had to be demolished

The floor system was not the same and the building had internal RC Columns unlike the WTC Buildings!!!!!

Yes I do have an idea of what I'm talking about. Your own post proves you're wrong. The perimeter walls were left unprotected and there was a "progressive collapse". Do you have any idea what "progressive means"? It means in stages. Not in 7 goddam seconds into its own footprint. In other words, sloppy and slow, like any normal sane rational thinking non-lemming human would expect. And STILL, the basic structure was still standing after the fire raged on for 20 hours AND supporting a crane!

But according to you OS'ers, these two buildings cannot be compared. WOW, the Windsor Tower had a CONCRETE REINFORCED STEEL CORE. So friggin what? Was WTC7 built and designed by idiots? One would think, why don't we stupid Americans put up steel buildings like this one in Madrid? Well now golly gee that would make sense wouldn't it?

OS'ers need to make up new laws of physics to fit their agenda.... Steel buildings are not same in New York as they are in Madrid. Steel buildings are not the same on 911 as they are on any other day. One has to wonder how ANY steel building in New York built during the 1970's can continue to withstand a stiff breeze without coming down all of sudden into its own footprint

AND, to top it all off, this is a moot point:

axisoflogic.com...

George W. Bush, September 15, 2006, at a press conference in the Rose Garden of the White House:

"For example, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed described the design of planned attacks of buildings inside the U.S. and how operatives were directed to carry them out. That is valuable information for those of us who have the responsibility to protect the American people. He told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a high -- a point that was high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping."

Bolding MINE.

Now just to highlight how extremely dumb this all is, one would think that if you want to trap more people and keep them from escaping you would want to hit the building at a LOWER point.... but we're not dealing with rocket scientists here are we?

reply to post by SimontheMagus


Are you saying that all steel buildings are exactly identical?

reply to post by wmd_2008


Was this a building composed of a concrete lower section and a steel upper structure as so many times is the case to reduce weight on the foundation and yet provide a strong upper section . The upper section really suffered the hottest fire .

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by SimontheMagus

 

Are you saying that all steel buildings are exactly identical?

I smell another lame obfuscation coming.

Please. show us how WTC7 was designed by idiots.

reply to post by SimontheMagus


]Have you noticed the same signature collapse profile between the Jon Stone Rose Tower and the WTC7 . It's unmistakeable .WMD2008 might very well be associated with a structural engineering firm and has great insight into structural steel structures , but I don' t think even he believes that building 7 collapsed because of the sporadic fires in that building . He mentioned that the building was leaning ,insinuating that there was damage enough to have caused a weakening on the damaged side . Yet the building collapsed straight down on top of 75 very strong steel columns . This would have required the columns to fail in long column failure or bucking twisting etc. With the floor beams intact the columns would resist and the building wouldn't free fall or fall straight down . The leaning building would fail first in the direction of the weak side .