Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

WTC 7: Greater stiffness and strength of its exterior frame relative to the interior framing.

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 09:56 AM
link   
NIST explained the symmetric collapse of WTC 7 by stating that it was only the exterior wall that collapsed symmetrically and that happened because of greater stiffness and strength of the exterior wall.


The symmetric appearance of the downward fall of WTC 7 was primarily due to the greater stiffness and strength of its exterior frame relative to the interior framing.


I have two questions about it.

1) Where can I verify that the exterior frame was stronger than the interior?

2) If the exterior wall was left standing after the interior already collapse, why didn't it fall to a side?




posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 09:59 AM
link   
Sounds like another lie.....I know structures and that wouldn't explain the free fall.....the core walls and stairs.....elevator shafts are really stiff!!
edit on 7-7-2013 by GBP/JPY because: Yahuweh...the coolest of names, I swear



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by whatsecret
 

Bro, the BBC reported the collapse of WTC 7 before it happened.

It was pre-scripted.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by gladtobehere
reply to post by whatsecret
 

Bro, the BBC reported the collapse of WTC 7 before it happened.

It was pre-scripted.






I know... I am really trying to convince myself that they are not just making things up.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by GBP/JPY
Sounds like another lie.....I know structures and that wouldn't explain the free fall.....the core walls and stairs.....elevator shafts are really stiff!!
edit on 7-7-2013 by GBP/JPY because: Yahuweh...the coolest of names, I swear


I had my questions answered here before. I'm hoping that somebody will point me to someplace where I can verify NISTs statements.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by whatsecret
 


Which bastardized, cut up, debunked or "official" version of that do you want?

Take your pick...

Plethora

Good luck



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by whatsecret
 


Which bastardized, cut up, debunked or "official" version of that do you want?

Take your pick...

Plethora

Good luck



Google is awesome, but I was hoping for something more specific.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by whatsecret
 


I don't see the point. Are you trying to verify lies with more lies? Our maybe you are trying to expose the lies in the NIST, that would be a noble cause, good luck.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatsecret

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by whatsecret
 


Which bastardized, cut up, debunked or "official" version of that do you want?

Take your pick...

Plethora

Good luck



Google is awesome, but I was hoping for something more specific.

You mean along these lines?

NIST final report



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 06:49 PM
link   
Why is there so much focus on the mechanics of the collapse? I would be more interested in where the funding for 911 came from, whom were the middle men for the money training etc. . Who provided protection for the operation?



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatsecret

2) If the exterior wall was left standing after the interior already collapse, why didn't it fall to a side?


Seems to me the answer to this one is because all the four faces were still attached to each other. So all walls were basically forced to fall down, as the other walls would prevent them from falling sideways.

Another reason I can think of is that once a wall starts falling over, the supports will suffer eccentric loading and fail. But I don't think they started falling over to begin with, as explained above.






top topics



 
0

log in

join