It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

So Just Fire Brought Down WTC7 In A Perfect Free Fall Collapse ?

page: 7
34
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
So I was watching this video.....



It made me think if when they are trying to CD a building they even have trouble bringing it down into their own footprints. How much more so would a building that has fires burning on a dozen floors be challenged to collapse perfectly into it's on footprint at free fall speed. Even these CD buildings don't collapse at the rate that WTC7 did.
So how can fire accomplish it ?
I have watched a large building about 10 stories engulfed in flames, slowly it collapses, and the collapse is not even total, things break off, things fall off, and the heat is incredible, it felt like 100 degrees in cool fall weather at night.

What I do know is that all evidence on the WTC7 situation points to something other than what has been presented to the populace. Which is, fire and one major column on one side of the building failed, this caused the entire building to collapse in perfect simetry , not even from the side where the column failed first according to the NIST report. And yet in other planned CD you do see one side of the building going down first, as it's columns were taken out first creating a kind of domino CD from left to right or vs versa.

Even if the NIST report was 100% accurate in detailing what brought down the building, the collapse would have looked different. We know this from observing other CD buildings, and what happened when columns were compromised on either side of the building before the other side.

edit on 1-6-2013 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)


Yeah, fire and huge chunks of debris from WTC1 caused the structural failure in WTC that caused it to collapse.




BTW, you, nor anyone else knows what a collapse should or should not look like in this scenario. There were other buildings on fire, other building collapsed first. To compare it to a normal demo is ludicrous.




posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by tide88
 


Upon what knowledge do you base your assumptions on . The experts with degrees in the field of Structural engineering and many years of experience in that field knows exactly what a controlled demolition looks like . They also know the difficulty of obtaining such a clean drop as it was . They can only admire the work of the Demolition expert that dropped that building . They themselves know what could go wrong with a demolition that would drop the building partially or fall to one side .

Maybe you should trust the experts .
edit on 3-6-2013 by SimonPeter because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by tide88
 


That's not much of an argument! You'll need to elaborate with actual information that is a bit more detailed because it just seems like a wild remark with nothing to back it up!

Do you think that the failure of one column produced complete simultaneous collapse, and if so how?



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 09:44 PM
link   
AE911truth.org

Architects and engineers for truth. They also provide documents/evidence to support their claims. Some videos have translations for multiple languages.

Please go through this website because if there is anything that is incorrect everyone should know as well, so far their claims are based on technical details/ lab tests on debris.

I would always trust professionals such as architects/engineers who risk their entire careers to support this claim. This is a far better answer than simply "yes, debris hit WTC7 and caused it to burn down, the first case of a steel building which collapsed from fire (other than twin towers)"



posted on Jun, 3 2013 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by peashooter
 


In reference to careers being on the line , I wonder how many on that list has incurred the wrath of the Powers That Be . I'll bet that is another whole story of convenient misfortunes for those people .

Also has anyone else found where the New York Port Authority applied twice for a demolition permit to demolish the WTC and was turned down by the EPA ?



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 02:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


More to the point what makes you think we need yet another thread on this


That's easy mate, because the issues haven't been resolved in a satisfactory manner


That's your opinion but there are plenty of threads we don't need another why not continue on an existing thread



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 02:39 AM
link   


Yeah, fire and huge chunks of debris from WTC1 caused the structural failure in WTC that caused it to collapse.


no it didn't...and you, nor anyone else has any evidence it did....just pathetic claims from DUH-bunker sites. The NIST scientific investigation didn't think so..
NCSTAR1A p.39/130
"the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7."

The NIST scientific investigation did NOT even see much fire in 7 that is sorely NEEDED to globally fall the building either, within the first 1/3 of it's unified descent spent accelerating equal to g.

[NCSTAR1A-3.2]"It is likely that much of the burning took place beyond the views of the windows"

yet a latter HYPOTHESIS crew comes in and ignores science to follow an agenda...where at the WTC7 tech briefing, Shyam Sunder claims a "brand new never before seen physics phenomenon fell WTC7"...where fire alone caused WTC7 to globally accelerate at a rate EQUAL to gravity starting at 1.75 seconds into the collapse to 4.0s....by fire alone we can't see and this "NEW PHENOMENON" removed 105 feet of vertical support globally within 1.74 SECONDS so acceleration equal to g. can immediately ensue.

all this from NEVER looking at structural members in which to hypothesize a scenario....

NCSTAR1-3 7.7.2 "because no steel was recovered from WTC7,it is not possible to make any statements about it's quality"

....but they do anyway

NIST technical briefing
vimeo.com...

[NICSTAR 1A 4.3.4] Global Collapse..."The entire building above the buckled column region moved downward in a single unit, as observed, completing the global collapse"

-[NCSTAR 1A 3.6] "This free fall drop continues for approximately 8 stories, the distance traveled between t=1.75s and t=4.0s...constant, downward acceleration during this time interval. This acceleration was 9.8m/s^2, equivalent to the acceleration of gravity."


and to all those who do not understand the significance of free fall....A 2.3 second interval of collapse in WTC7 in which the rate of fall was "Indistinguishable from FREE FALL". The significance of FREE FALL is that NONE of the gravitational potential energy is available to destroy the supporting structures, since it is ALL converted to MOTION!

the mechanics of a natural collapse of a steel framed building with gravity being the only force, uses the energy to break itself apart as it collapses.....that same building during the interval of free fall, can not use that energy because it's ALL converted to motion....so since FFA starts at 1.75seconds into the collapse for 105 feet.....that means either ALL vertical support of 105 feet was REMOVED within 1.74 seconds prior to free fall, or ahead of the collapse wave clearing the path.

here is another quote from Shyam from that same briefing when he states...."free fall acceleration can ONLY occur when there is NO STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS BELOW IT"..

oh yea....he made that comment BEFORE their official admission of free fall acceleration occurring in 7.

So...getting back to the reason, 'THEY CLAIM' , WTC7 fell at free fall in the FIRST 1/3 of it's collapse was due to fire alone and a NEW PHENOMENON.....they REFUSE to validate, verify, PEER REVIEW outside the authors!

"NIST is withholding 68,246 files. These records are currently exempt from disclosure. All input and results files of the ANSYS 16 story and the LS-DYNA 47-story global collapse model that were used to simulate sequential structural failures leading to collapse."



BTW, you, nor anyone else knows what a collapse should or should not look like in this scenario. There were other buildings on fire, other building collapsed first. To compare it to a normal demo is ludicrous.



natural collapses not symmetrical and NOT at free fall.....WTC5 burnt till the next day and did NOT globally collapse....WTC 3,4 6 were in the direct path of tons of free falling debris that went straight through them, yet NONE exhibited the global unified descent we see with the other three.

have a nice day!



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 02:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by peashooter
Please go through this website because if there is anything that is incorrect everyone should know as well, so far their claims are based on technical details/ lab tests on debris.


We have seen their evidence...




posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 04:31 AM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 


Funny, some other member replied using the exact same video as a way to make fun of this guy.

My reply was : did you expect him to recreate an actual building or do you think he's making it simple with cardboard boxes?


For those of you who actually have some common sense and 5 minutes to check out AE911truth.org,

Here's ONE video I took from their website:

Because clearly some of you are too lazy/stubborn to accept truth when it's smacking you in the face.

Physicist and PhD in physics Steven Jones explains EVIDENCE found:
(but I bet you probably won't watch it? Truth is too scary isn't it, Here I copied the description just for you
)

"Physicist Steven Jones - one of the scientists who found thermite
in the World Trade Center dust discusses in depth his process of discovery
using the scientific method. Chain of custody of the WTC dust and nanothermite are discussed in depth. "

www.youtube.com...


A member with 3000+ stars who base other professional's valuable evidence on one video, which does not even suggest any disinformation.

ATS: Deny Ignorance, did you forget the motto?
edit on 4-6-2013 by peashooter because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 04:42 AM
link   
reply to post by DeeKlassified
 


Here is some info that some on here will know others wont and some will ignore because it sort of pee's on the fire of the conspiracy theories.


Between 1995 and 1997, British Steel's Swinden Technology Centre, co-sponsored by the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) with TNO (The Netherlands) and CTICM (France) as partners, carried out a fire research programme on a modern multi-storey composite steel framed structure built within the BRE large scale test facility at Cardington. The research programme aimed to understand and develop numerical calculation procedures that are capable of describing and predicting the structural behaviour of modern multi-storey composite steel framed buildings subject to fire attack. This involved four major fire tests being carried out on different parts of the frame to study various aspects of structural behaviour and included a real full scale demonstration fire in an open plan office




Here is just some of the data from the Cardington Fire Test

Cardington Fire Test

A FULL SIZE steel frame section was built to represent an office building sound familiar.

First column time in mins, second lower flange of beam temp in c, third column web temp in c, last upper flange temp in c.


28.0 - 918-868-678
28.5 - 924-873-686
29.0 - 928-878-695
29.5 - 930-882-702
30.0 - 933-888-710


46.0 -1049-1026-941
46.5 -1045-1023-943
47.0 -1040-1020-944
47.5 -1034-1014-944
48.0 -1026-1006-941
48.5 -1015-994-936
49.0 -1004-985-932

Some of the Beam sections reached over 1000c

So within ONE hour its possible to reach temperatures in an office fire that reach 1000+ c now lets look at what happens to steel at that temp.



At 600c 50% strength at 1000c less than 10%, the loads the steel was carring doesn't disappear.

If you think fire doesn't cause any problems to steel why are MILLIONS of £/$ spent in fire protection products every year


The fires burned for several hours, there was structural damage to the building or are the firemen liars!

When WTC 1,2 & 7 were built NO repeat NO calculations were done re thermal loading caused by fires yes that's correct simple assumptions were made that has since changed since 9/11.

Some of us on here actually work on construction sites and have to deal with these issues on a regular basis.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 04:53 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Very interesting point, thank you for the information.

Damage to steel from fire is certain, but for WTC would the damage not only be at the top section of the building?

For WTC to collapse like that, the bottom foundations must have been melted, how does fire damage from the top portion continue burning downwards to the point where foundations give out?

The more likely scenario is the top portion may collapse/burn from the fire, but the bottom floors would still be standing along with the rest of the foundations.

Some noted that the smoke from the fires were black, indicating lack of oxygen for a clean burn. What about the discovery of molecules of thermite in debris?
edit on 4-6-2013 by peashooter because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 04:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by peashooter
the bottom foundations must have been melted


Where do you get that from?


how does fire damage from the top portion continue burning downwards to the point where foundations give out?


What makes you think the foundations gave out?


What about the discovery of molecules of thermite in debris?


That was just paint chips....



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 04:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by peashooter
"Physicist Steven Jones - one of the scientists who found thermite
in the World Trade Center dust discusses in depth his process of discovery
using the scientific method. Chain of custody of the WTC dust and nanothermite are discussed in depth. "


So where is his peer reviewed paper on that? Or do you just believe it because you saw a video of it....



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 05:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by peashooter
"Physicist Steven Jones - one of the scientists who found thermite
in the World Trade Center dust discusses in depth his process of discovery
using the scientific method. Chain of custody of the WTC dust and nanothermite are discussed in depth. "


So where is his peer reviewed paper on that? Or do you just believe it because you saw a video of it....


First, he mentioned in the beginning of the video the importance of peer reviews. PLEASE WATCH THE VIDEO.
"My first paper on 911 research was met with considerable flak, and was peer reviewed very heavily before publication, I have published over 50 peer reviewed papers in my career"

This was in the first minute of the video which you didn't even bother watching, really?

HERE IS THE PEER REVIEWED PAPER:

www.benthamscience.com...
I bet you won't take the time to read it if you won't bother watching a 10 minute video?

Regarding your post about thermite being paint chips, that is impossible. Thermite molecules don't just appear in paint chips or else they would have ruled it out, "process of discovery using the scientific method"

He did lab tests on samples, and emphasized that it is impossible to seed the samples with thermite molecules.

Lastly, why do I think the bottom foundations gave out? Very simple, watch that video you posted of the cardboard demonstration, he made his point in a very simple way and you still don't get it?

For a building to collapse the way it did, the bottom portion of the building would have provided resistance to slow the fall of the top, instead the entire building sank as if the foundations gave out.

AE911truth.org

Please take the time to go through the website instead of replying with no evidence/reasonable argument, in another thread just created many members are talking about the Ad campaign created by AE911.
edit on 4-6-2013 by peashooter because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 06:19 AM
link   
reply to post by peashooter
 


What WTC building 1,2 or 7 do you also know that Steve Jones claimed that Jesus had visited America



and has interpreted archaeological evidence from the ancient Mayans as supporting his faith's belief that Jesus Christ visited America


As for thermite he thinks he found it but like a lot of his conclusions they are flawed!



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 06:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by peashooter
 


What WTC building 1,2 or 7 do you also know that Steve Jones claimed that Jesus had visited America



and has interpreted archaeological evidence from the ancient Mayans as supporting his faith's belief that Jesus Christ visited America


As for thermite he thinks he found it but like a lot of his conclusions they are flawed!


Why did you quote something random from another website without leaving the link?

Do you understand the definition of peer reviewed papers?

Flawed conclusions? Are you kidding? Like he said his paper was flamed and peer reviewed many times before being published. Peer reviewed means reviewed by other professionals, not necessarily professionals who are on his side.

Don't pull Alex Jones and Jesus into this conversation, it has nothing to do with the evidence that is brought up.

If you have nothing of value to contribute like the other member, it's best leave off-topic comments as people who are actually interested in the truth behind 911 would actually read this thread. Thanks.

edit on 4-6-2013 by peashooter because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 06:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by peashooter
HERE IS THE PEER REVIEWED PAPER:

www.benthamscience.com...


That site is a pay to publish site, the editor even resigned as she did not approve the publication....

Following publication, the journal's editor-in-chief Marie-Paule Pileni resigned stating, "They have printed the article without my authorization… I have written to Bentham, that I withdraw myself from all activities with them".[10]

en.wikipedia.org...


In a review of Bentham Open for The Charleston Advisor, Jeffrey Beall noted that "in many cases, Bentham Open journals publish articles that no legitimate peer-review journal would accept, and unconventional and nonconformist ideas are being presented in some of them as legitimate science." He concluded by stating that "the site has exploited the Open Access model for its own financial motives and flooded scholarly communication with a flurry of low quality and questionable research."[11]


So it was not peer reviewed, just published at a pay to publish site that will publish anything if you pay them!



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 06:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by peashooter
AE911truth.org

Architects and engineers for truth. They also provide documents/evidence to support their claims. Some videos have translations for multiple languages.

Please go through this website because if there is anything that is incorrect everyone should know as well, so far their claims are based on technical details/ lab tests on debris.

I would always trust professionals such as architects/engineers who risk their entire careers to support this claim. This is a far better answer than simply "yes, debris hit WTC7 and caused it to burn down, the first case of a steel building which collapsed from fire (other than twin towers)"



So in all this time AE911truth have got just over 1500 to back them that's a FRACTION of the number of architects/engineers in the USA never mind the world.

Also architects don't get into structural calculations that's why the largest customers for STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS tend to be ARCHITECTS


I deal with engineers who get drawings from architects to check loads of open plan extensions to houses never mind multi floor buildings!

The WTC 7 building had a large open plan foyer that meant that a large proportion of the steelwork were supported above open areas!




posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 07:02 AM
link   
reply to post by peashooter
 


Steve Jones knows nothing about building design how often was he on a building site or on a multi floor construction lots of his assumptions are flawed like many members on here.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by peashooter
Please go through this website because if there is anything that is incorrect everyone should know as well, so far their claims are based on technical details/ lab tests on debris.


We have seen their evidence...



I find it funny that you show a video such as this, which was made directly for you...yes.

It is the only way to describe what you actually believe, so I do not know why you find a pictorial of it insulting.



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join