| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
eogz
Validated Poster
Joined: 29 Jul 2007
Posts: 262
|
 Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2007 1:06 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Whatever you believe about 9/11, you'd have to agree that WTC7 is the biggest unanswered question?
6 years later an NO word from NIST.
WTC7 went down like a classic controlled demo.
I reckon this is the one place that the 'truth' to it all may well come out. If it ever does. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2007 4:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| eogz wrote: | Whatever you believe about 9/11, you'd have to agree that WTC7 is the biggest unanswered question?
6 years later an NO word from NIST.
WTC7 went down like a classic controlled demo.
I reckon this is the one place that the 'truth' to it all may well come out. If it ever does. |
NIST's report will no doubt mention the WTC debris that hit various parts of the building, the fires that burned unhindered for 7 hours plus, and the reports from firemen on the scene that the building was unsound and considered in danger of collapse. NIST will offer their most likely hypothesis for how the various factors could have caused a collapse.
Whether there it was an inside job or not, NISTs report on building 7 will not appease the truth movement - the report will either be the truth or it will be a cover-up, depending whose side you take.
I hope the truther response is a bit more substantial than "Look, he said 'pull'. And it looked like a demolition."... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eogz
Validated Poster
Joined: 29 Jul 2007
Posts: 262
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2007 6:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah but...
No other steel framed building has fallen due to fires making them unsound, till 9/11 that is.
I will wait for the NIST report though, I'm really skeptical about building 7.
Of all evidence for controlled demolition this one really fits the bill.
Structurally unsound or not, it did come down like a demolition, whether you want to hear it or not.
Like I said earlier the truth to the matter may never come out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2007 8:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | do you deny like popular mechanics that the term pull it is used in the CD industry?
because i have provied some information showing it is(if you looked or listened).
and wtc 7 "looks" like a CD.
so when silverstein use's the term "pull it"
is it not easy to see why people question it and wonder if it had any greater meaning and why some are convinced he meant something else?
im not going to pretend i know what he meant by it, but i am also not going to play dumb and deny i cannot see why so many think he meant something else. |
None of those quotes show that the demolition industry uses "pull" to mean demolish with explosives, the woman who answers the phone at Controlled demolitions Inc says it means "pull it down", the unnamed expert #2 says it might mean pull someting out from underneath causing it to fall down, and unnamed expert #3 says "you would never use pull it and demolish with explosives in the same sentence (sense?)
But this is all rather irrelevant because Silverstein is not in the demolition industry and neither is the fire chief. The fire chief deciding to demolish the building with explosives makes no sense, this is not what fire departments do, he would hardly order his men to go into a burning building and plant exlosives to demolish it, and if something so unlikely had happened, lots of firemen would know about it, and why would the FDNY keep it quiet? And why would Silverstein deliberately talk about it - he certainly did not just let it slip out.
The fact is that there is simply no way this comment can possibly mean that it was decided to blow up WTC7. End of story. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2007 9:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| eogz wrote: | Yeah but...
No other steel framed building has fallen due to fires making them unsound, till 9/11 that is.
I will wait for the NIST report though, I'm really skeptical about building 7.
Of all evidence for controlled demolition this one really fits the bill.
Structurally unsound or not, it did come down like a demolition, whether you want to hear it or not.
Like I said earlier the truth to the matter may never come out. |
It is of course untrue that no steel framed building had fallen due to fire untill 9/11, many steel framed buildings had fallen due to fire, whether you want to hear that or not. What is true is that no high-rise steel framed building had fallen due to fire, but then no high-rise steel framed building had been massively damaged by a nearby building falling on it, and then been allowed to burn unattended for seven hours. And WTC7 was built in a most unusual way, over the ConEd electricity sub-station.
Waiting for the NIST report is wise, I agree. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2007 8:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | do you deny like popular mechanics that the term pull it is used in the CD industry?
because i have provied some information showing it is(if you looked or listened).
and wtc 7 "looks" like a CD.
so when silverstein use's the term "pull it"
is it not easy to see why people question it and wonder if it had any greater meaning and why some are convinced he meant something else?
im not going to pretend i know what he meant by it, but i am also not going to play dumb and deny i cannot see why so many think he meant something else. |
None of those quotes show that the demolition industry uses "pull" to mean demolish with explosives, the woman who answers the phone at Controlled demolitions Inc says it means "pull it down", the unnamed expert #2 says it might mean pull someting out from underneath causing it to fall down, and unnamed expert #3 says "you would never use pull it and demolish with explosives in the same sentence (sense?)
But this is all rather irrelevant because Silverstein is not in the demolition industry and neither is the fire chief. The fire chief deciding to demolish the building with explosives makes no sense, this is not what fire departments do, he would hardly order his men to go into a burning building and plant exlosives to demolish it, and if something so unlikely had happened, lots of firemen would know about it, and why would the FDNY keep it quiet? And why would Silverstein deliberately talk about it - he certainly did not just let it slip out.
The fact is that there is simply no way this comment can possibly mean that it was decided to blow up WTC7. End of story. |
yes they also said pulling it, could look like a CD.
please show me one example of a steel framed building collapsing that looks like a CD (apart from wtc 7), that was not a CD.
the way you go on bushwacker is like it happens all the time and is to be completely expected, so please show us all the other examples if its dumb to think it could of been a CD. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2007 10:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | do you deny like popular mechanics that the term pull it is used in the CD industry?
because i have provied some information showing it is(if you looked or listened).
and wtc 7 "looks" like a CD.
so when silverstein use's the term "pull it"
is it not easy to see why people question it and wonder if it had any greater meaning and why some are convinced he meant something else?
im not going to pretend i know what he meant by it, but i am also not going to play dumb and deny i cannot see why so many think he meant something else. |
None of those quotes show that the demolition industry uses "pull" to mean demolish with explosives, the woman who answers the phone at Controlled demolitions Inc says it means "pull it down", the unnamed expert #2 says it might mean pull someting out from underneath causing it to fall down, and unnamed expert #3 says "you would never use pull it and demolish with explosives in the same sentence (sense?)
But this is all rather irrelevant because Silverstein is not in the demolition industry and neither is the fire chief. The fire chief deciding to demolish the building with explosives makes no sense, this is not what fire departments do, he would hardly order his men to go into a burning building and plant exlosives to demolish it, and if something so unlikely had happened, lots of firemen would know about it, and why would the FDNY keep it quiet? And why would Silverstein deliberately talk about it - he certainly did not just let it slip out.
The fact is that there is simply no way this comment can possibly mean that it was decided to blow up WTC7. End of story. |
yes they also said pulling it, could look like a CD.
please show me one example of a steel framed building collapsing that looks like a CD (apart from wtc 7), that was not a CD.
the way you go on bushwacker is like it happens all the time and is to be completely expected, so please show us all the other examples if its dumb to think it could of been a CD. |
One of them said if the building was already compromised, ie weakened beforehand, and then pulled, ie with cables, it could look like a demolition with explosives. WTC7 was not pulled with cables, so that does not apply. No demolition expert says that "pull" would apply to demolishing a building with explosives alone, is that not right?
Why change the subject to what it looked like? We are talking about what Silverstein reported about his conversation with the Fire Chief. It is dumb to think he was talking about the Fire Dept deciding to demolish WTC7 with explosives. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2007 11:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | Alex_V wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: |
start here:
http://wtc7.net/articles/stevenjones_b7.html
its not hard to find out what is being said.
type in:
molten steel being pulled from wtc
9/11 molten steel/metal tests
proof of CD
evidence found for CD 9/11
none of those links are my personnal opinon so do not bash me if you disagree with them.
but when you are familuar with what is being claimed feel free to ask questions, ill do my best to answer or link anything i think might of intrest.
i will point out though that i support a new investigastion into 9/11 due to there being evidence we have not been told the truth. i am not a lawyer or investgator, but support the truth what ever that may be, due to the size of the event and how that effects the world today and also the lives lost in america and the rest of the world as a result, i feel it is important to know the truth if there is evidence that suggests we have not been told the whole truth or facts were overlooked.
evidence of something means exactly that, it dos'nt mean it is necessarily the case but an proper investigastion is need to conclude that with ALL the evidence included in the information, including witnesses. |
I'm not a fan of Steven Jones' work, though in his defence I believe he admits himself that what he puts forward is little more than a theory. I don't think he has a single piece of evidence that directly indicates thermite cutter charges, but that hasn't stopped his ideas being carried forward as the principle theories for a lot of people in the truth movement. There are a number of convincing critiques of his thermite/thermate theories, which I think bring out a number of fatal inaccuracies in his work and approach - there is little sign of him actually responding to any of these criticisms.
One of the issues with quoted evidence is the use of the word 'molten' which at times indicates a lava-like flow of liquid, and at other times just means red-hot metal, not necessarily in a liquid state. There isn't a lot of clarity to a lot of the soundbites that mention 'molten' materials at ground zero, unfortunately for us.
There's a similar uncertainty over the use of the phrase 'molten steel', which seems to have been used offhand to describe 'molten' metals that may or may not include steel, and certainly to my knowledge were never tested as such. It's inconclusive in my opinion.
In terms of a further investigation, I'm not sure what form this could take in terms of molten metal. We could ask NIST to evaluate or at least hypothesise what the molten material might have been and how it could have been produced, but most likely the answers wouldn't suit the truth movement unless such molten metal (in whatever form it existed) was only consistent with controlled demolition. But the extent to which Jones' ideas have been rejected by the established scientific community (let alone his detractors within the truth movement), and the uncertainty over whether molten steel pools ever existed certainly doesn't convince me that further official examination would reveal anything we don't know already. |
when i was refering to red hot metal i was refering to what was being pulled out of the ground by the digger, i was not refering to what was deeper down in the rubble pile which was reported or claimed to be molten.
i gave you s.jones paper as a starting point with reckomended searchers that you could of done to find the answers to your questions, i was not giving s.jones paper as overall proof, thanks for other peoples opinons about jones paper though rather than your own opinon on points in the paper.
you said eariler in the thread, "Scanning through the youtube videos you link to" then offer opinons of what others think about jones work rather than you own and use the excuse "I'm not a fan of Steven Jones' work"
as well as "That clip has been doing the rounds for years now". to me you don't seem serious about finding the answers you seek, you start of with an excuse to ignore the information and then scan over it if you even read or look at it at all, and you could'nt bring yourself to look ferther than jones work, maybe you like parrotting what your told i don't know but it certainly seems that way to me.
why don't you try and give me your opinon on this
flashes seen on the wtc as it collapsed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JE5DnErhrds
flashes seen on a known CD, remember this building has been gutted before hand making flashes easier to notice.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ
do the flashes look simular?
a CD expert using the term "pull"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26qKSg-G4CE
larry silverstein using the term pull
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WYdAJQV100
WTC 7 collapse
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWi0GhBxggk
does wtc 7 look the same as a CD?
i suppose your going to tell me they look nothing alike.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAyyHQQXX_0
please do not scan these, none of them are that long in length and please give me YOUR opinon.
do you at least see why people suspect CD regardless of who is right or wrong?
THESE TYPE OF PEOPLE ARE THE REASONS WHY A NEW INVESTIGASTION IS NEEDED! IT AINT ABOUT YOU OR ME!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_Y6R2JLJxY |
thats strange bushwacker because my original post you decided to pick on was about showing WHY people suspect and asking somebodys opinon rather than PROVING it or saying who is correct.
maybe your just to eager to try and debunk anything anyone says that you miss the point?
i was saying the term pull it is used in the CD industry, which critics and popular mechanics denied.
so i was showing that the term pull it IS used in the CD industry.
which people then relate to the way building 7 collapsed.
they think "pull it"(cd industry) "wtc7 collapse"(looks like cd) proof!
the point in my orignal post was not to say it IS this, but do you at LEAST SEE why people SUSPECT it.
so i have gone through that whole debate trying to show why people think it, where as you have been taking it all to serious and trying to prove wrong anyword i utter and totally fail to keep on track and take out of context my original post, which was saying to a sceptic "ok you don't think their is evidence but do you at least see why people question it?".
you cannot debunk the reasons why people think things, even if they are wrong on facts<(which in some cases is debatable and others not).
i was originally asking somebody else for their opinon and if they can at least see why there are people questioning 9/11.
what you are trying to say is something differant that i was not saying.
hence i aim getting bored of you now.
like i said previous to your rantings, i am not pretending to know what silverstein meant by the term "pull it", but at the same time i will not play dumb and pretend i don't understand the reasons why people think he meant something else. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 7:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
OK, so there are two reasons why people might think WTC7 came down through CD:
1. The "pull it" remark. If they really believe that had any significance, they are deluding themselves. There is no conceivable way that can mean what they would like it to mean, which is why so many twist it to say that Silverstein decided.
2. It looked like it was CD on the videos. Yes, it did. That is the sum total of the evidence, not supported by anything else whatsoever. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 9:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | OK, so there are two reasons why people might think WTC7 came down through CD:
1. The "pull it" remark. If they really believe that had any significance, they are deluding themselves. There is no conceivable way that can mean what they would like it to mean, which is why so many twist it to say that Silverstein decided.
2. It looked like it was CD on the videos. Yes, it did. That is the sum total of the evidence, not supported by anything else whatsoever. |
like i said i don't know what silverstein mean't by "pull it"
apparently(although i was only told this) silverstein did say he was refering to pulling firemen. so all it boils down to is if people believe he was refering to firemen and was being honest.
i simply don't know, and trust nobody, so for all i know he could be telling the truth. although it dos'nt help when reports are not made clear enough.
because another reason people see things in it, is because of the stated time firemen left the building in the commission report/FEMA report<(cannot remember which).
so people think "well he could not of been refering to firemen if there was none in the building"
if firemen reentered the building then this should of been mentioned also, instead of saying firemen abandoned the building at x time and thats it.
on certain things though i have to wonder if anyone listens at all, ive seen pretty poor excuses as evidence recently and ignorance to things that have been pointed out as none evidence.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/thermite.html
the mistake of using cutting torchs as evidence for molten steel is still seen, yet i thought it would be evident by now, although it has to be said it is to most but why some still promote it is worrying after it being pointed out long ago.
and with the NPT and TV fakery and beams none evidence im really starting to wonder if this is about a new investigastion or just promoting the wildest theorys based on bull****.
but in some instances i can see why people suspect things and in others feel questions do need answering, so its all a mix as far as im concerned now.
i still believe a new investigastion is needed but feel its not about truth for some or about getting answers, but rather being worshipped or becoming accepted as the next david icke or trying to come across as an accomplished scientist by sucking up to those who have links to higher scientific personnal who promote certain theorys.
ive moaned my ass of about the commission report but find most theroys to have more holes than that.
thats my stance, i dont trust all truthers and don't trust all critics, i think both sides have a case on certain areas.
for example there are things being promoted that are nonesence but there are other things where i feel there is a case for questions to be asked and a new investigastion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2007 10:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Good for you, marky, you are a much more honest than most posting here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KP50
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2007 11:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | OK, so there are two reasons why people might think WTC7 came down through CD:
1. The "pull it" remark. If they really believe that had any significance, they are deluding themselves. There is no conceivable way that can mean what they would like it to mean, which is why so many twist it to say that Silverstein decided.
2. It looked like it was CD on the videos. Yes, it did. That is the sum total of the evidence, not supported by anything else whatsoever. |
1. Meaningless, I don't care what he said.
2. That's pretty strong evidence though don't you think. In my view that's like you showing me a photo of an elephant and telling me it is a giraffe. The evidence of how it looks can be used as proof that it is indeed an elephant. Thus with the way that the building fell - it looks like CD so how come nobody can explain why it wasn't? I would say the burden of proof falls on anyone who can actually believe that random damage to one side of a massive 47 story tower and a few random fires can cause a building to collapse in such a way. Surely any massive failure of the lower part of the building would make it topple and not fall straight down?
So why, after 6 years, is there no convincing explanation? Maybe because there isn't one that can possibly explain it. Vague talk of an unusual construction technique and large amounts of diesel are not proof of anything. The fact that the firemen all thought it was coming down and that the BBC reported it as having fallen are indicative of a demolition in my view. Why, 7 hours later, did the building suddenly become critical?
Add in a few witnesses (reporting explosions in WTC7, countdown to demolition, the noises of demolition) as circumstantial evidence and the demolition views have a fairly strong case - while you have no proof at all for your case. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eogz
Validated Poster
Joined: 29 Jul 2007
Posts: 262
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2007 8:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Nicely said Marky, you voiced my own feelings far better than I could have. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 8:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| KP50 wrote: | | 1. Meaningless, I don't care what he said. |
Agreed. But many truthers and websites seem to cite Silverstein's quote as crucial to their case, so it's always good to reiterate what a weak piece of evidence his quote is.
| KP50 wrote: | 2. That's pretty strong evidence though don't you think. In my view that's like you showing me a photo of an elephant and telling me it is a giraffe. The evidence of how it looks can be used as proof that it is indeed an elephant. Thus with the way that the building fell - it looks like CD so how come nobody can explain why it wasn't? I would say the burden of proof falls on anyone who can actually believe that random damage to one side of a massive 47 story tower and a few random fires can cause a building to collapse in such a way. Surely any massive failure of the lower part of the building would make it topple and not fall straight down?
So why, after 6 years, is there no convincing explanation? Maybe because there isn't one that can possibly explain it. Vague talk of an unusual construction technique and large amounts of diesel are not proof of anything. The fact that the firemen all thought it was coming down and that the BBC reported it as having fallen are indicative of a demolition in my view. Why, 7 hours later, did the building suddenly become critical?
Add in a few witnesses (reporting explosions in WTC7, countdown to demolition, the noises of demolition) as circumstantial evidence and the demolition views have a fairly strong case - while you have no proof at all for your case. |
There are many more witnesses who cite lack of structural integrity and fear of collapse. Office fires (and these were the largest in history) are synonymous with explosions and explosive noises, as are collapses themselves I would suggest.
I repeat that controlled demolition almost always consists of controlled collapse - ie charges are planted to create the conditions for collapse. So the fact that it looked like a demolition means that it actually looked like a collapse. So we're not talking about an elephant and a giraffe, we're actually talking about two giraffes that look very alike.
Or two elephants.
NIST are preparing a report. And it will consider hypotheticals including CD. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2007 4:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| KP50 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | OK, so there are two reasons why people might think WTC7 came down through CD:
1. The "pull it" remark. If they really believe that had any significance, they are deluding themselves. There is no conceivable way that can mean what they would like it to mean, which is why so many twist it to say that Silverstein decided.
2. It looked like it was CD on the videos. Yes, it did. That is the sum total of the evidence, not supported by anything else whatsoever. |
1. Meaningless, I don't care what he said.
2. That's pretty strong evidence though don't you think. In my view that's like you showing me a photo of an elephant and telling me it is a giraffe. The evidence of how it looks can be used as proof that it is indeed an elephant. Thus with the way that the building fell - it looks like CD so how come nobody can explain why it wasn't? I would say the burden of proof falls on anyone who can actually believe that random damage to one side of a massive 47 story tower and a few random fires can cause a building to collapse in such a way. Surely any massive failure of the lower part of the building would make it topple and not fall straight down?
So why, after 6 years, is there no convincing explanation? Maybe because there isn't one that can possibly explain it. Vague talk of an unusual construction technique and large amounts of diesel are not proof of anything. The fact that the firemen all thought it was coming down and that the BBC reported it as having fallen are indicative of a demolition in my view. Why, 7 hours later, did the building suddenly become critical?
Add in a few witnesses (reporting explosions in WTC7, countdown to demolition, the noises of demolition) as circumstantial evidence and the demolition views have a fairly strong case - while you have no proof at all for your case. |
You seem to make the assumption that a building that collapses because of damage and fire would look very different from controlled demolition, but do actually have any basis for assuming that? Controlled demolition is done by destroying enough of the structural support of the building so that gravity brings it down. That can surely be done equally well by fire?
You may not have seen in NZ a series of programmes about an English steeplejack called Fred Dibnah, but Fred's technique for knocking down big old factory chimneys was to knock a hole in the side, ram in railway sleepers to give temporary support, then knock away more of the brickwork so that the weight rested on the sleepers. Then he would build up a fire around the sleepers, which eventually burnt them through, causing the the chimney to fall. From a distance, the effect of the chimney falling was exactly the same as if he had brought it down with explosives.
The differances would be apparent closer up, Fred's techniques involving a fire, and the explosive technique obviously involving an explosion. In the case of WTC7 there was damage to one side of the building and a fire. You say a few random fires, but the firemen say it was "fully involved" in fire, have you a basis for disbelieving them? On the other hand, there was no series of explosions, as with CD, or smoke from the base of the building. There were puffs of dust from the top of the building, but since the building collapsed from the bottom, trying to pretend that they were demolition squibs, as some people do, is illogical.
Why do you regard the firemen predicting it would fall as an indication that it was blown up? They talk of the fires and the possibility of collapse, none of them talk of blowing it up. If members of the FDNY knew of anything suspicious about circumstances in which 350 of their colleagues died they would never let it rest. The talk of it being of unusual construction is very specific, not vague at all. It was built on struts bridging over the ConEd substation, as any research will confirm. It also housed a number of stand-by generators which had pressurised diesel fuel lines supplying them, again this is specifically known, not vague speculation. What has not been determined is if this diesel fuel added to the fires.
A damaged building burnt unattended for seven hours then collapsed. Burning buildings do collapse. There is no evidence that it was blown up, other than that its collapse looked the same as if it had been blown up. It is surely for those that believe it was blown up to provide the evidence, not the other way round, but anyway, much more evidence will become available once NIST publish their final report. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2007 7:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
"That can surely be done equally well by fire?"
a building can certainly collapse due to fire, however we are talking about steel skyscrappers here, which as yet has no other examples to compare to.
now, even if we all agree it was possible for fire to bring down a steel skyscrapper there is still the problem of the fire causing each steel member necessary to fail all at the same time to cause a symetrical collapse.
if steel support columns failed at differant times and in differant places then it would not of been symertrical or all at once.
so it really comes down to if you believe fire can cause all the important support columns to reach failure point all at the same time to cause a symetrical collapse that goes straight down in the manner of a CD.
CD uses explosives in key areas and on the columns supporting the building, which are exploded at the same time or in very quick sequence to cause failure to get the same effect.
a straight down CD will blow out all supporting columns at the same time.
so you would have to believe the fire did the same or there was only one supporting column in WTC7.
heres an example of supports being taken out in sequence.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0S-vlpU1BE&mode=related&search=control led%20demolition%20controlleddemolition%20building%20implosion%20tencz a%20arlington%20virginia%20fortmyer
the collapse is very differant and not all at once and very unsymetrical.
to collapse a building straight down requires all supports to be removed or fail at the same time.
can fire really do this? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eogz
Validated Poster
Joined: 29 Jul 2007
Posts: 262
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2007 9:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Now Bushwacker, if I'd seen Fred Dibnah there knocking away at the central support columns, replacing them with railway sleepers and then setting fire to them all simultaneously I'd be with you on that one 100%.
I've seen buildings collapse due to fire, even with brick built buildings the collapse is not symmetrical and complete, it tends to be gradual, starting at the points most affected by the fire (structural weakening when floors collapse).
Again WTC7 was a steel structure so the process of collapse would be markedly different from bricks and wood (most brick buildings have wooden floors as support). As we know regualr fires are not hot enough to melt steel. NIST are convinced they are hot enough to weaken steel, but is a fire and damage to one side of a nuilding really enough to bring it down in 6.6 secs (.6 seconds slower than if a hammer had been dropped from the roof at the start of collapse). The collapse was quick and uniform, I've yet to see compelling evidence of this from anything other than controlled demo's. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2007 9:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | "That can surely be done equally well by fire?"
a building can certainly collapse due to fire, however we are talking about steel skyscrappers here, which as yet has no other examples to compare to.
now, even if we all agree it was possible for fire to bring down a steel skyscrapper there is still the problem of the fire causing each steel member necessary to fail all at the same time to cause a symetrical collapse.
if steel support columns failed at differant times and in differant places then it would not of been symertrical or all at once.
so it really comes down to if you believe fire can cause all the important support columns to reach failure point all at the same time to cause a symetrical collapse that goes straight down in the manner of a CD.
CD uses explosives in key areas and on the columns supporting the building, which are exploded at the same time or in very quick sequence to cause failure to get the same effect.
a straight down CD will blow out all supporting columns at the same time.
so you would have to believe the fire did the same or there was only one supporting column in WTC7.
heres an example of supports being taken out in sequence.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0S-vlpU1BE&mode=related&search=control led%20demolition%20controlleddemolition%20building%20implosion%20tencz a%20arlington%20virginia%20fortmyer
the collapse is very differant and not all at once and very unsymetrical.
to collapse a building straight down requires all supports to be removed or fail at the same time.
can fire really do this? |
How a building might collapse obviously depends on how it is constructed. A long low building is obviously never all going to collapse if just one end collapses, the other end of the building is quite unaffected. Very tall buildings must be different, because their weight is concentrated through a much narrower structure. If part of that structure is taken away, then the weight is re-distributed on to those parts of the structure that remain. It may be that the remaining structure cannot carry that additional load, and collapses itself. In the case of WTC7, all the structure did not fail at exactly the same time, although it was certainly very nearly the same time. The actual sequence as timed from the CNN video was:
Movement of east penthouse roofline
East penthouse kinks between columns 44 and 45
2 windows at floor 40 fail between columns 44 - 45
4 windows fail at floor 40
East penthouse submerged from view (now inside building)
3 windows break at floors 41 to 44
East penthouse completely submerged
Windows break along column 46 at floors 37 and 40
North side of west penthouse moves
Movement of entire north face of WTC7 (visible above floor 21)
West end of roof starts to move
East end of roof starts to move
Façade kink formed along column 46-47
West penthouse submerged
Global collapse occurs as windows fail between floors 33-39
around column 55
This was over a period of about 8 seconds, before the global collapse started. The breaking of the windows is significant because it shows how the building was distorting as part of the structure failed.
My opinion is that this failure then transferred additional loads on to the
rest of the structure.
WTC7 was a complicated building because of the ConEd substation it was partly built over, and there were long transfer trusses taking heavy loads as a result. This may well have something to do with the collapse. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2007 9:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| eogz wrote: | Now Bushwacker, if I'd seen Fred Dibnah there knocking away at the central support columns, replacing them with railway sleepers and then setting fire to them all simultaneously I'd be with you on that one 100%.
I've seen buildings collapse due to fire, even with brick built buildings the collapse is not symmetrical and complete, it tends to be gradual, starting at the points most affected by the fire (structural weakening when floors collapse).
Again WTC7 was a steel structure so the process of collapse would be markedly different from bricks and wood (most brick buildings have wooden floors as support). As we know regualr fires are not hot enough to melt steel. NIST are convinced they are hot enough to weaken steel, but is a fire and damage to one side of a nuilding really enough to bring it down in 6.6 secs (.6 seconds slower than if a hammer had been dropped from the roof at the start of collapse). The collapse was quick and uniform, I've yet to see compelling evidence of this from anything other than controlled demo's. |
You are surely not disputing that regular building fires can easily get above temperatures at which steel has lost a fair amount of strength? If so, we shall have to discuss that.
As I said above, the collapse started when the East penthouse began to move, so the total collapse time is actually close to 15 seconds. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eogz
Validated Poster
Joined: 29 Jul 2007
Posts: 262
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 12:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
To be honest, No, I'm not. I could only post my own experience and limited knowledge.
Judging by you're reply to Marky you have done you're research on this, i'm not qualified to give it a dignified answer.
It's the uniform collapse that completely disturbed me on the very day. Unbelieveable.
It was years later that I heard of the 9/11 Truth movement.
It is a matter of perspective and belief, the uniform collapse of the building is the biggest screaming hint of something other than normal happening. I mentioned the Steel weakening as part of the official explanation for 1&2 and of course pancake collapse.
If the building had of fell in an awkward or gradual way, I would have never questioned it. But it didn't and I did. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 5:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | "That can surely be done equally well by fire?"
a building can certainly collapse due to fire, however we are talking about steel skyscrappers here, which as yet has no other examples to compare to.
now, even if we all agree it was possible for fire to bring down a steel skyscrapper there is still the problem of the fire causing each steel member necessary to fail all at the same time to cause a symetrical collapse.
if steel support columns failed at differant times and in differant places then it would not of been symertrical or all at once.
so it really comes down to if you believe fire can cause all the important support columns to reach failure point all at the same time to cause a symetrical collapse that goes straight down in the manner of a CD.
CD uses explosives in key areas and on the columns supporting the building, which are exploded at the same time or in very quick sequence to cause failure to get the same effect.
a straight down CD will blow out all supporting columns at the same time.
so you would have to believe the fire did the same or there was only one supporting column in WTC7.
heres an example of supports being taken out in sequence.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0S-vlpU1BE&mode=related&search=control led%20demolition%20controlleddemolition%20building%20implosion%20tencz a%20arlington%20virginia%20fortmyer
the collapse is very differant and not all at once and very unsymetrical.
to collapse a building straight down requires all supports to be removed or fail at the same time.
can fire really do this? |
How a building might collapse obviously depends on how it is constructed. A long low building is obviously never all going to collapse if just one end collapses, the other end of the building is quite unaffected. Very tall buildings must be different, because their weight is concentrated through a much narrower structure. If part of that structure is taken away, then the weight is re-distributed on to those parts of the structure that remain. It may be that the remaining structure cannot carry that additional load, and collapses itself. In the case of WTC7, all the structure did not fail at exactly the same time, although it was certainly very nearly the same time. The actual sequence as timed from the CNN video was:
Movement of east penthouse roofline
East penthouse kinks between columns 44 and 45
2 windows at floor 40 fail between columns 44 - 45
4 windows fail at floor 40
East penthouse submerged from view (now inside building)
3 windows break at floors 41 to 44
East penthouse completely submerged
Windows break along column 46 at floors 37 and 40
North side of west penthouse moves
Movement of entire north face of WTC7 (visible above floor 21)
West end of roof starts to move
East end of roof starts to move
Façade kink formed along column 46-47
West penthouse submerged
Global collapse occurs as windows fail between floors 33-39
around column 55
This was over a period of about 8 seconds, before the global collapse started. The breaking of the windows is significant because it shows how the building was distorting as part of the structure failed.
My opinion is that this failure then transferred additional loads on to the
rest of the structure.
WTC7 was a complicated building because of the ConEd substation it was partly built over, and there were long transfer trusses taking heavy loads as a result. This may well have something to do with the collapse. |
im not sure if i entirely agree with all you say at this point, but you have gave me something to think about and look into.
please confirm that i have this correct. lets just imagine there are 4 main support columns, if one of these collapsed or failured then the weight would redistribute between the remaining 3 etc, causing some inner collapse but nothing that would be visible on the outside.
therefore it would not of had to of been a case of all failing at once?........
and once or if it got to a point of the remaining support columns being overloaded due to more failures it could cause the collapse of the remaining structure straight down because all the remaining supports have gave way or failed at the same time due to the overload? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 4:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bushwacker,
WTC7 was indeed a complicated building structurally but not all the structure sat on trusses spanning the sub-station. This means any symmetry to a progressive collapse was impossible since the construction of the building operated in different ways. How do you explain how the facades remained vertical as they fell?
It's sad to see that your logic remains deeply flawed. Have you advised NIST of your findings?
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 10:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The two very long trusses, labelled truss one and truss two in the above diagram, were below the East penthouse, so the fact that the East penthouse was the first part of the structure to be observed to move may indicate that the failure started there, before progressing horizontally across the building.
However, we are not going to achieve anything useful discussing this here, in the absence of evidence and informed opinion. We would do better to wait until NIST has completed its report, which will at least give us a basis for discussion. You may well disagree with it, but at least then you will know better what you are disagreeing with. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 11:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No doubt it will be an absolute doozy.
In every sense.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eogz
Validated Poster
Joined: 29 Jul 2007
Posts: 262
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 1:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for it.
But yeah, it will be interesting to see how the 'official' explanation for the collapse goes.
No doubt it will be many weeks of furious debate when it does come out.
The only thing, we'll all agree with the NPT'ers is that No plane hit WT7. Ha. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TmcMistress
Mind Gamer
Joined: 15 Jun 2007
Posts: 392
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 3:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| eogz wrote: |
The only thing, we'll all agree with the NPT'ers is that No plane hit WT7. Ha. |
*Ba-dum tsh*
No no, the theory post-report from the NPT'ers will be that all the planes that 'supposedly' hit WTC1 and 2 and the Pentagon instead hit WTC7. What else could be the explanation for the lack of a plane-shaped hole? Media fakery, obviously.
_________________
"What about a dance club that only let in deaf people? It would really only need flashing lights, so they'd save a lot of money on music." - Dresden Codak |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 7:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | The two very long trusses, labelled truss one and truss two in the above diagram, were below the East penthouse, so the fact that the East penthouse was the first part of the structure to be observed to move may indicate that the failure started there, before progressing horizontally across the building.
However, we are not going to achieve anything useful discussing this here, in the absence of evidence and informed opinion. We would do better to wait until NIST has completed its report, which will at least give us a basis for discussion. You may well disagree with it, but at least then you will know better what you are disagreeing with. |
I take issue with your wording here; "evidence and informed opinion" don't appear to be NIST's strong points. In fact their investigations thus far have been devoid of all logic it would seem.
I would still be interested to hear your opinion as to how the facades remained standing in the vertical plane when clearly the centre of the building collapsed first. We could then compare your idea with NIST's report - when it finally turns up (6 years, 1 month and counting....!). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 4:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| James C wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | The two very long trusses, labelled truss one and truss two in the above diagram, were below the East penthouse, so the fact that the East penthouse was the first part of the structure to be observed to move may indicate that the failure started there, before progressing horizontally across the building.
However, we are not going to achieve anything useful discussing this here, in the absence of evidence and informed opinion. We would do better to wait until NIST has completed its report, which will at least give us a basis for discussion. You may well disagree with it, but at least then you will know better what you are disagreeing with. |
I take issue with your wording here; "evidence and informed opinion" don't appear to be NIST's strong points. In fact their investigations thus far have been devoid of all logic it would seem.
I would still be interested to hear your opinion as to how the facades remained standing in the vertical plane when clearly the centre of the building collapsed first. We could then compare your idea with NIST's report - when it finally turns up (6 years, 1 month and counting....!). |
Your opinion of NIST's previous reports undoubtedly says more about you than about them!
The facades of the building formed a box-like structure which would resist being pulled inwards towards the collapsing centre, whether there was some vertical distortion, as well as the other distortion we see, cannot be determined from the face on views available. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 5:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, the NPTers with their theories of media fakery are quite absurd, but not actually very far away from what the rest of you tend to say, such as:
Hijackers on the planes - passenger list fakery, identity fakery
Calls from the planes - voice fakery
No interception - ATC fakery, NORAD fakery
Collapse of damaged and burning buidings - CD fakery
Hole in the Pentagon - plane fakery
Hole at Shanksville - plane fakery
ASCE/FEMA report on WTC - fakery
Plane debris at the Pentagon - evidence fakery
FEMA Pentagon report - fakery
9/11 Commission report - fakery
NIST report - fakery
Implosion World article - fakery
Glasgow attack - fakery
Any evidence of Islamic terrorism - fakery
Popular Mechanics article - fakery
OBL videos - fakery
7/7 bombings - fakery
CCTV of bombers - fakery
Evidence of survivors - fakery
21/7 bombings - fakery
And so on, and so on, with any evidence that contradicts your pre-conceived views, but of course you also maintain that this requires only a handful of people!
If only you could bring yourselves to look at your own theories with a fraction of the critical ability you use on NPT, you might start talking some sense. But I am certainly not expecting you to, what believer does? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 7:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | The facades of the building formed a box-like structure which would resist being pulled inwards towards the collapsing centre, whether there was some vertical distortion, as well as the other distortion we see, cannot be determined from the face on views available. |
Oh, but earlier on you claimed that any building which had suffered the same damage as experienced by WTC7 on 9/11 would have collapsed and yet now you talk about a miraculous resistance to movement. You sound just like Popular Mechanics; too many contradictions.
So tell me, how could the facades of WTC7 have fallen straight down when there was solid ground beneath them, which we can assume offered plenty of resistance, and yet they failed to fall inward or outward despite the centre of the building having disappeared. Sure, the facades made a box like structure but this was also a very tall structure with plenty of weight which would have caused severe movement to the outer walls once the internal structure was compromised. But that didn't happen. No, according to all the film footage shot from several different angles, the ground or lower walls appeared to lose all resistance simultaneously to supporting the building (despite these elements having successfully performed this function for many years) and yet the same walls showed enormous resistance to any turning motion as they fell to pieces, thereby remaining in the vertical plane. That has never before been witnessed in the collapse of a high rise building without the use of explosives.
Answer please. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
