|
Post by Fnord Fred on Oct 19, 2005 20:28:25 GMT -4
Just to clarify... I'm not really a HB, just curious. I've been reading the forums for a while now and I figure this is one of the best places to have my questions anwsered. Hopefully these haven't been asked before, I haven't seen them from reading the forums before I registered but then again theres been over 50 pages of posts about 9/11 so it wouldn't surprise me.
1. It seems to me that the WTC structures would be much weaker on the side that the planes crashed into. They would have taken more structural damage, had more fireproofing knocked away from the frame, and would have burned for slightly longer. Wouldn't this have caused the buildings to collapse on that side much faster?
2. Is it true that there were drills simulating attacks in NYC and Washington shortly before the real attacks?
3. Seeing as how WTC 7 was only hit by debris from the WTC collapse, does it seem odd that the building collapsed as well? What do you think of the owner's comment about pulling the building?
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Oct 19, 2005 22:19:41 GMT -4
G'day Fnord Fred, and welcome to Apollohoax
Although it's 50-odd pages long, that thread is quite educational, so you might like to take the time to read through it some time.
Anyway, I'll answer what I can of your questions.
1. Yes, only part of each structure took damage from the plane impacts. However that doesn't necessarily mean that the buildings should fall to that side. In the case of one building, it did start to tilt in that direction as it collapsed. But once sufficient mass of collapsing material hit the floors at the level of the impact, the floors beneath simply collapsed straight down because they'd been struck from above. In the case of the other building, the plane's impact had damaged the central core of the building. It was impossible for part of the core to remain standing when part of it eventually collapsed, so the entire core collapsed straight down, removing support from the rest of the building, which collapsed after it.
2. I don't know so I can't answer.
3. WTC7 was struck by debris from the original plane impacts, and I imagine the fires started then. It was then struck by more debris when WTC1 and 2 collapsed. One of the fires inside was fuelled by a large tank of diesel. The owner's comment about pulling was about pulling the firefighting effort, not pulling the building. According to some research done by one person on this board, demolitions people don't talk about pulling a building. They talk about shooting it.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Oct 19, 2005 22:22:01 GMT -4
1) The side that received the most damage did fail first, but probably by not more than a second. Once a failure like this starts, it goes very fast. You may have noticed that the top of one of the towers very obviously tilts to one side before it begins to falls straight down.
2) I don’t know anything about this.
3) The owner didn’t say anything about pulling the building. The conversation was in regard to the effort to contain the fire, thus he was talking about pulling out the fire fighting effort. Furthermore, “pull it” is not a term commonly used in the demolition industry regardless of what the conspiracists say. Regarding the collapse of WTC 7, no I don’t find it odd.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Oct 19, 2005 23:42:28 GMT -4
Is it true that there were drills simulating attacks in NYC and Washington shortly before the real attacks?Welcome aboard, Fnord Fred. The answer is yes - in fact the Pentagon has admitted that there were 4 war games being conducted on 9/11 itself. Below is a link - on the page you link to, click on the "War games in progress.." link... en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=September_11%2C_2001_War_Games&redirect=no
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Oct 20, 2005 0:23:09 GMT -4
As to question 1 - I don't support the theory that plane impact/fires caused the collapses. But, in a building that is susceptible to such cause of failure, there could indeed possibly be a weakening of the structure elsewhere than the impact zone to initiate a collapse. Question 3 - yes, I find the complete collapse of WTC 7 very odd. And I also believe that "pull it" was meant as "demolish it", with "it" meaning "the building". One reason I support this view is because the alternate explanation given - that they should "pull the firefighters out" - is weak. First of all, no firefighters were reported from any sources to have even been in WTC 7 in the hours before it collapsed. In fact, the FEMA report linked below specifically states that no firefighters were sent in to WTC 7 to fight the fires..... www.fema.gov/library/wtcstudy.shtm5.6.1 Probable Collapse Initiation Events
WTC 7 collapsed approximately 7 hours after the collapse of WTC 1. Preliminary indications were that, due to lack of water, no manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY.So why would Silverstein suggest to the fire dep't commander to "pull" the firefighters out of the building, when they were never actually in it? In the interview, Silverstein says... "I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."The continuity in the last sentence from "....decision to pull and we watched the building collapse" also is more supportive of the meaning of pull to be demolition, rather than to mean firefighters. And to compare the two versions... Interpretation 1: "And they made that decision to get the firefighters out and we watched the building collapse"Interpretation 2: "And they made that decision to demolish and we watched the building collapse"....I know which version makes a lot more sense to me. But the strongest point is the first one - what firefighters were actually in WTC 7 to lead to his suggestion that they pull out of the building? None.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Oct 20, 2005 2:12:34 GMT -4
You are reading meaning into the technical usages of two professions you are not a member of; demolitions, and firefighting. Lawyers appear to use plenty of ordinary English words as well, but what they mean is both peculiar and specific to their field and woe betide the layman who signs a legal document in the belief that the dictionary meaning is what will bind him.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Oct 20, 2005 2:21:24 GMT -4
Any claim that explosives were used to knock down WTC 7 (or 1 or 2 for that matter) has to explain how those explosives were placed, given what we know about how long it takes to prepare buildings for demolition using explosives.
In other words, when buildings are prepared for demolition, the process takes at least several days, and involves stripping out a lot of internal structure in order to place explosives. There's no evidence of this for WTC1, 2 or 7.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Oct 20, 2005 2:35:28 GMT -4
I am tired of seeing WTC7 dragged into discussion of the fall of WTC1 and 2 as if it helps to prove or disprove any story or theory. The argument by the conspiracy believers that WTC7's collapse had to be "assisted" is by neccessity an argument that the collapse of the surrounding structures was incapable of bringing down WTC7. Thus, within the conspiracy-minded argument the collapse of WTC7 can safely be considered isolated from the events of 9-11. All it can teach us is the form and quality of the investigations by the various groups involved in both events.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Oct 20, 2005 2:40:24 GMT -4
As to question 1 - I don't support the theory that plane impact/fires caused the collapses. But, in a building that is susceptible to such cause of failure, there could indeed possibly be a weakening of the structure elsewhere than the impact zone to initiate a collapse. Define impact zone. Debris shot out the far side in both collisions. The NiST models we've both looked at shows a swath of destruction deep into each tower. I also quibble somewhat with what seems to be an assumption that the only columns that are under unusual strain are those that were actually hit by a plane. Your wording seems to be an attempt to shift attention away from the principle that the total loading of the building was shifted from damaged columns to those undamaged members -- subjecting them to loads greater than they normally carried (loads in some cases greater than they had been designed to carry).
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Oct 20, 2005 3:43:12 GMT -4
You are reading meaning into the technical usages of two professions you are not a member of; demolitions, and firefighting. Lawyers appear to use plenty of ordinary English words as well, but what they mean is both peculiar and specific to their field and woe betide the layman who signs a legal document in the belief that the dictionary meaning is what will bind him
"Pull it" and "pull" were said by Larry Silverstein, the WTC owner, who is not a member of said professions, either, as far as I am aware. So why can one layman not validly opine on what another layman meant when he said this? Both sides of the argument have been made by laymen.
And, a worker at the site afterwards does in fact say "they're getting ready to pull the building six". So, the notion that "pull" is a term not used to describe a building demolition is quite incorrect.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Oct 20, 2005 3:50:58 GMT -4
Any claim that explosives were used to knock down WTC 7 (or 1 or 2 for that matter) has to explain how those explosives were placed, given what we know about how long it takes to prepare buildings for demolition using explosives.
Uncovering evidence to substantiate these points is likely only possible through large scale, independent investigations, in my view. I'm not terribly optimistic that this will ever occur, but I certainly feel they are warranted.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Oct 20, 2005 3:57:34 GMT -4
I am tired of seeing WTC7 dragged into discussion of the fall of WTC1 and 2 as if it helps to prove or disprove any story or theory. The argument by the conspiracy believers that WTC7's collapse had to be "assisted" is by neccessity an argument that the collapse of the surrounding structures was incapable of bringing down WTC7. Thus, within the conspiracy-minded argument the collapse of WTC7 can safely be considered isolated from the events of 9-11. All it can teach us is the form and quality of the investigations by the various groups involved in both events
Arguments on both sides regarding the collapse of WTC 7 do take into account the effects of debris from the towers, for the most part. It's not ignored from my readings.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Oct 20, 2005 7:42:52 GMT -4
...First of all, no firefighters were reported from any sources to have even been in WTC 7 in the hours before it collapsed. In fact, the FEMA report linked below specifically states that no firefighters were sent in to WTC 7 to fight the fires..... www.fema.gov/library/wtcstudy.shtmTurbonium your link is to the table of contents of the entire several hundereds of pages FEMA report. If it really says waht you claim you should provide a link to the chapter and tell us the page number. A partial quote would be helpful to. Even IF true look again at what Bob B said nothing about firefighters
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Oct 20, 2005 8:06:53 GMT -4
The latest Popular Mechanics (November issue) has a sizable article in it about dmolition. Throughout the article in direct quotes from demolitions professionals they talk about "shooting" a building. Not once do they mention "pulling."
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Oct 20, 2005 9:05:24 GMT -4
Even IF true look again at what Bob B said nothing about firefighters The word "out" was inserted by me, and perhaps inappropriately. Perhaps "pulling back" would have been a better choice of words. Had Silverstein said, "And they made that decision to pull (back) and we watched the building collapse", there would be no question he was talking about the effort to fight the fire. I find it an extreme stretch of the imagination to construe from Silverstein's words that he was talking about a demolition. There is simply no reference to demolition at all, other than the conspiracists incorrectly claiming the word "pull" is demolition industry jargon.
|
|