Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 8:09 pm Post subject: A question about WTC7
Hi all - new boy here. Go easy please.
A quick question:
How long would it take to rig WTC7 for CD? Just a reasonable estimate would do. Opinion from demolition experts or a link to such a discussion would be great, obviously.
Posted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 9:22 am Post subject: Re: A question about WTC7
Ignatz wrote:
Hi all - new boy here. Go easy please.
A quick question:
How long would it take to rig WTC7 for CD? Just a reasonable estimate would do. Opinion from demolition experts or a link to such a discussion would be great, obviously.
Regards
Ig
When the concept of WTC7 being deliberately brought down was originally introduced, I did some research at the time.
I remember one 'expert' who was interviewed and the general thrust of his view was along these lines;
All buildings that are to be levelled in a controlled manner by the use of demolition charges have to undergo a lengthy process of surveying. This is the most time consuming aspect of any such undertaking as the actual placing of the charges can be done by a highly trained team in as little as a couple of days (depending on the size of the building of course).
The survey is designed to map the structure of the building and then to create a computer 'model' that is then used to identify the most appropriate locations for the charges to be placed.
In the real world, the entire process would usually take around three to four weeks from start to finish - but the survey was highly crucial to the success or failure of the building sitting in its own footprint.
There are however, accepted 'divas' with years of experience - who can simply walk around a building and point to the key columns that need to be taken out - but this apparently is now frowned upon due to insurance and health & safety implications and there is some legislation that demands that 'proper' surveys are carried out and signed off. The closer to other buildings the demolition, the tighter the controls.
Hope this helps. _________________ I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC
I understand NIST are considering this hypothesis at this moment.
Sorry, I don't understand the answer SH. Which hypothesis?
the how long would it take to rig WTC7 for explosives hypothesis
A better question is: How long would it take to rig a 50 story tall skyscraper for explosive demolition after a 20 story hunk was carved out of it and while at least half of it is on fire?"
The probable answer to such an absurdity would be: uh
-z _________________ "Knowledge is good"
-Emil Faber
"God in heaven. Here's the hard-headed, evidence-only freak who will not, like we CTers, indulge himself in self-inflating, utterly misconceived fantasies." -kbo234 (who is NOT a nazi) briefly makes sense
A better question is: How long would it take to rig a 50 story tall skyscraper for explosive demolition after a 20 story hunk was carved out of it and while at least half of it is on fire?"
Wow, a whole 20 storeys carved out?? Can you give me a link to a picture that shows this please?
A better question is: How long would it take to rig a 50 story tall skyscraper for explosive demolition after a 20 story hunk was carved out of it and while at least half of it is on fire?"
Wow, a whole 20 storeys carved out?? Can you give me a link to a picture that shows this please?
Here is WTC7 being impacted by tons of steel from the WTC 1 collapse. As you can clearly see the south face of the building is taking the impacts as the north facade remains undamaged. Note again that all the CTers ever show are the vids of WTC7 from the north side. (which BTW is understandable since if you are filming damage to the south face you are standing in a very dangerous debris field.....
Yet even so there is at least one picture that shows a portion of the damage...and the 20 story hole:
If you like I also have pics of the TT's that show perimeter columns bowing visibly inward just prior to collapse. NOTE: No kind of CD charges or Thermate/Thermite could recreate this effect. It is consistent only with fire heating slowly weakening the steel. Also remember...your new favorite CD engineer also says WTC 1 and 2 were no CD.
-z _________________ "Knowledge is good"
-Emil Faber
"God in heaven. Here's the hard-headed, evidence-only freak who will not, like we CTers, indulge himself in self-inflating, utterly misconceived fantasies." -kbo234 (who is NOT a nazi) briefly makes sense
First it was diesel tanks then it was fire now (five years later)it's new improved WTC7collapse ...20 stories taken clean out by strategic falling debris, 7 hours later causing a perfect symetrical collapse CD style, are we expected to buy this?
Frankly, I don't expect you to buy any explanation short of CD. NIST doesn't expect you to buy it, either. The main purpose behind puzzling out the mechanism of the collapse has nothing to do with appeasing conspiracy theorists or comforting the sheeple. No, the purpose is very practical: Use the knowledge gained to make recommendations for code changes that will ensure that future buildings are built better and safer.
That it will satisfy many people's curiosity is secondary. SEs, architects, building inspectors--many professionals with a practical, personal interest in the results--will be going through the report with a fine-tooth comb. If there are errors in assumptions, reasoning, or methodology, they will complain.
A better question is: How long would it take to rig a 50 story tall skyscraper for explosive demolition after a 20 story hunk was carved out of it and while at least half of it is on fire?"
Yet even so there is at least one picture that shows a portion of the damage...and the 20 story hole:
-z
With the greatest respect, the photograph does not show a 20 storey hole - at best, only 5 storeys are barely visible through the smoke that in any way could be a hole. I am not saying there was no 20 storey hole, only the photo does not show it. _________________ I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC
Joined: 13 Sep 2006 Posts: 2568 Location: One breath from Glory
Posted: Sat Sep 16, 2006 12:37 am Post subject: Re: Dutch Demolition Expert Expresses Surprise...
Ignatz wrote:
JHR wrote:
FYI -
<Demolition expert video>
Thanks for that, but he never did get round to saying "how long" ...
The question must bear repeating, whatever side of the fence you're on.
How long?
I am suspicious in the manner in which all 3 buildings "collapsed" and am interested/sympathetic in the CD theory/viewpoint and in all the whole 9/11 conspiracy theories. What gets me though is that if it was controlled demolition as well as planes then the total number of conspirators would be very large and given the near 3000 deaths I would expect at least one of the conspirators conscience to crack and spill the beans.. Also in such a big operation (if indeed twin towers, building 7, pentagon, flight 93 etc were one combined operation) you could expect something to go wrong given the high risk nature of the operation. Maybe flight 175? was meant to hit the Pentagon and something went wrong. I cant understand why conspirators would want to pretend a Boeing 757 had hit the pentagon and go to the trouble of using a missile instead. Mind boggling all the same.
50 story tall skyscraper for explosive demolition after a 20 story hunk was carved out of it and while at least half of it is on fire?"
Do you have photographic evidence of the "carved out" section? The photo shown does not look like a "20-storey hole" to me. This is kind of reminiscent of the Pentagon hole, eh?
Half of it was not on fire, a couple of floors had minor office fires in them.
Please cease repeating Popular Mechanics' tiresome diatribe without being able to provide solid photographic evidence to back up your claims.
If this "thing" in the photo is indeeed a 20-storey hole, how far does it penetrate into the building? Are the core columns damaged? Even if this hole is as you say, it's ludicrous to assume that it caused the quick, symmetrical collapse of WTC7.
fish5133 wrote:
I am suspicious in the manner in which all 3 buildings "collapsed" and am interested/sympathetic in the CD theory/viewpoint and in all the whole 9/11 conspiracy theories. What gets me though is that if it was controlled demolition as well as planes then the total number of conspirators would be very large and given the near 3000 deaths I would expect at least one of the conspirators conscience to crack and spill the beans
There would not be many conspirators. The entire operation could be pulled off by under a hundred people in the know and a few ignorant others.
Possible motives for keeping quiet are what they got out of it, fear for the safety of their families and the threat of death.
Some people have come out. However, whether or not these high-ranking people were in on it remains to be seen imo.
Half of it was not on fire, a couple of floors had minor office fires in them.
Deputy Chief Nick Visconti also later recalls , “A big chunk of the lower floors had been taken out on the Vesey Street side.” Captain Chris Boyle recalls, “On the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors.” [Firehouse Magazine, 8/02]
"... It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely" - Daniel Nigro
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Nig ro_Daniel.txt
And there's a lot more, if you care to look.
You really mustn't take your "evidence" only from CT sources.
And there's a lot more, if you care to look.
You really mustn't take your "evidence" only from CT sources.
Everybody knows there's a lot more as we have had the official fairytale rammed down our throats since day one. It is precisely to give another source for information that sites like these exist.
Deputy Chief Nick Visconti also later recalls , “A big chunk of the lower floors had been taken out on the Vesey Street side.” Captain Chris Boyle recalls, “On the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors.” [Firehouse Magazine, 8/02]
Aaaah, very well then.
Ignatz wrote:
"... It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely" - Daniel Nigro
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Nig ro_Daniel.txt[/color]
The fire would not cause a collapse, even together with a chunk of the building missing. The core of the building was intact. The core is what failed first, indicated by the penthouse dropping into the building before the rest of it collapses. This is simply impossible to do with a diffuse hydrocarbon fire.
The hole is, in fact, irrelevant, since the only way this building could collapse suddenly is with a complete simultaneous failure of all the core columns.
Or did debris from the Twin Towers somehow obliterate them?
Deputy Chief Nick Visconti also later recalls , “A big chunk of the lower floors had been taken out on the Vesey Street side.” Captain Chris Boyle recalls, “On the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors.” [Firehouse Magazine, 8/02]
Aaaah, very well then.
"Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area -- (Q. A collapse zone?) -- Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. There was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolants and so on. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed." - Chief Cruthers
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Cru thers.txt
Parts of the building could have collapsed, yes, but not in the manner that it actually did.
Progressive, natural collapses are slow. Buildings collapse bit by bit, they do not just fall symetrically in under seven seconds. Also, the core columns of WTC7 were not damaged by anything as far as I can tell. They would have remained.
Also, remind yourself that a steel skyscraper has never collapsed from fire.
Can you actually explain to us how WTC7 may have collapsed?
Parts of the building could have collapsed, yes, but not in the manner that it actually did.
Progressive, natural collapses are slow. Buildings collapse bit by bit, they do not just fall symetrically in under seven seconds. Also, the core columns of WTC7 were not damaged by anything as far as I can tell. They would have remained.
Also, remind yourself that a steel skyscraper has never collapsed from fire.
Can you actually explain to us how WTC7 may have collapsed?
It didn't fall symetrically at all. Check the photos of the debris piles afterwards.
What happened in 7 seconds was the collapse of the outer wall. Watch it again with a stopwatch. Start the stopwatch when the first of the penthouses disappears. Also, have you checked the seismic records? They're available out there.
Can you actually explain to us how WTC7 may have collapsed?
I can offer an explanation as to how it 'may', based upon current findings (although I do not believe it). I have removed a lot of the clutter to make it easier to assimilate - here is a precis;
There was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."
There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.
Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."
WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse. _________________ I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC
It didn't fall symetrically at all. Check the photos of the debris piles afterwards.
That's not what I'm talking about. I've seen many demolitions - there are dozens of old 12-storey towers near me which are being demolished. The debris piles are nothing but symmetrical, however the entire building collapses at the same time or roughly the same time.
Ignatz wrote:
What happened in 7 seconds was the collapse of the outer wall. Watch it again with a stopwatch. Start the stopwatch when the first of the penthouses disappears.
I got 7.15 seconds from the beginning of the penthouse collapse.
Ignatz wrote:
Also, have you checked the seismic records? They're available out there.
The seismic records are misleading. For example, they appear to show the WTC towers collapsing in ten seconds. They took a few seconds more.
A seismic record for WTC7 shows 40 seconds. This cannot be, since the structure clearly collapses in approximately seven seconds. So what's the source of the prolonged seismic turbulence?
telecasterisation wrote:
There was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."
This does not explain the entire building collapsing, however.
telecasterisation wrote:
There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities. Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."
Molten steel was reportedly found in the rubble of WTC7 - diesel will not melt steel. In fact, a weak diffuse diesel fire won't burn very hot at all. Is there actually any evidence of raging diesel fires? The masses of smoke seen coming from the building in some video/pictures does not necessarily mean fire on very many floors. In fact, the masses of thick smoke works against the argument that the fires were extremely hot, as the cooler hydrocarbon fires are, the more smoke they produce.
If the trusses were weakened and they broke apart, this does not account for the entire building collapsing like we saw. Natural collapses are slow, the buildings collapse piece by piece. They don't just fall without any resistance.
telecasterisation wrote:
WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.
This I find hard to believe. The damage it received did not in any way, as far as I know, do anything to the core columns, and fire has never collapsed a steel skyscraper before or since, because it simply doesn't happen. Ever.
telecasterisation wrote:
World Trade Centre Study - Appendix A"]In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900 C (1,500-1,700 F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600 C (1,100 F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments).
I realise these were merely eight-storey buildings but it gives you an idea.
I have to wonder why the sprinker system in the building did not extinguish the fire.
That's not what I'm talking about. I've seen many demolitions - there are dozens of old 12-storey towers near me which are being demolished. The debris piles are nothing but symmetrical, however the entire building collapses at the same time or roughly the same time.
Yes, for a controlled demolition. You're asserting that WTC7 was CD, I'm arguing otherwise. There is no film of what was happening inside the building.
coconut wrote:
I got 7.15 seconds from the beginning of the penthouse collapse.
Then you're stopwatch is very faulty or you missed one of the penthouses. There were two. Try here, it starts at about 14:00 into the film :
http://www.911revisited.com/video.html
Other people's timelines on the collapse are also freely available.
coconut wrote:
The seismic records are misleading. For example, they appear to show the WTC towers collapsing in ten seconds. They took a few seconds more
A seismic record for WTC7 shows 40 seconds. This cannot be, since the structure clearly collapses in approximately seven seconds. So what's the source of the prolonged seismic turbulence?
Here you're rejecting the evidence because it doesn't fit your belief. "I know it took 7 seconds, therefore the seismic data must show something else"
How about this, which fits the seismic evidence:
The building was coming down bit by bit, internally. Eventually the whole thing gave way catastrophically. It all took some time. About 40 seconds.
p.s. talk of "core columns" is misleading in the case of WTC7. It wasn't constructed like WTC 1+2.
Then you're stopwatch is very faulty or you missed one of the penthouses. There were two. Try here, it starts at about 14:00 into the film
No, you don't seem to get it. The first penthouse falling does not indicate a collapse of the core columns, I start timing from the clear failure of the core.
Ignatz wrote:
Here you're rejecting the evidence because it doesn't fit your belief. "I know it took 7 seconds, therefore the seismic data must show something else"
Actually, I'm not saying it shows anything else. What I'm saying is we clearly see the building itself collapse in around seven seconds as soon as the core fails.
Ignatz wrote:
How about this, which fits the seismic evidence:
The building was coming down bit by bit, internally. Eventually the whole thing gave way catastrophically. It all took some time. About 40 seconds.
How could the building come down bit by bit internally without it visibly happening on the exterior? There would be nothing holding the exterior columns up - they would cave in. However, they only caved in when the rest of the building did, indicating they were pulled down by connections inside the building.
The collapse of the main structure is indicative of all of its columns failing simultaneously. Buildings, especially steel-framed ones, do not collapse like that naturally.
Ignatz wrote:
p.s. talk of "core columns" is misleading in the case of WTC7. It wasn't constructed like WTC 1+2.
How is it misleading? WTC7 had 25 core columns. Different construction maybe, but the penthouse falling into the building before the rest of the structure collapses shows clearly that the core of the building fails before anything else, and I have not seen any hypotheses as to how this could be possible.
The first penthouse falling does not indicate a collapse of the core columns, I start timing from the clear failure of the core.
What does it show then? My guess would be that the stuff that used to hold it up is no longer doing so. What's your explanation for why it fell inside the building?
You say:
The first penthouse falling does not indicate a collapse of the core columns, I start timing from the clear failure of the core.
and then
but the penthouse falling into the building before the rest of the structure collapses shows clearly that the core of the building fails before anything else
What did the first WTC7 enquiry (the one famously called a "half baked farce" by the NY fire official) conclude after much time and expense? Did they comment on the "20 storey hole"?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
