|
Post by frenat on Jun 1, 2006 8:08:18 GMT -4
Building 7 was the most unlikely of the 3, yet they were all highly improbable based on past and then future examples of high-rise fires (Madrid being the latest). Its funny that you mention Madrid because it actually goes against your premise. As shown by yodaluver28 in this photo home.comcast.net/~yodaluver28/wsb/media/1589586/site1008.jpg the upper part of the building did collapse. The building was unique in that the bottom half of the building was primarily a concrete structure and the top half primarily a steel structure with a concrecte core. What part collapsed again? Anyone, anyone? Yes the top steel part collapsed due to fire alone. Good page on the Madrid Windsor tower www.911myths.com/html/madrid_windsor_tower.htmlAs for the collapse slowing down, that is BS. As the building collapses, the momentum of the collapse will increase. Momentum comes from mass and velocity and both increase during the collapse. Mass increases as each collapsing floor is added to the collapsing weight. Velocity increases as it continues to collapse.
|
|
|
Post by 911: Inside Job on Jun 1, 2006 13:04:14 GMT -4
The tops of the towers did fall to the bottom approximately in free-fall time. That is inconsistent with a pancake collapse. The fastest any object, regardless of mass, can fall from gravity alone, is 9.8 m/s/s. Any resistance that is encountered, including wind, is going to result in a significantly longer fall time.
When I said "floors" I mean the entire structural support for that story, not just the horizontal concrete floor itself. The lower stories were already supporting the full static weight above them before the collapse. That collective static weight would not contribute to accelerating the collapse. The only additional forces involved would be the mass in motion being forced to deaccelerate when it hits the level below. There would have to be some deacceleration on each level due to some of the kinetic energy being absorbed in crushing all the core and side supports below it on each level. That would have to slow down the overall collapse and result in a longer time than the observed free-fall. Each story gets progressively stronger with thicker steel as you move down the building since they have to support more weight above. That would also have a braking effect on a pancake collapse.
The squibs observed were small puffs of high velocity smoke, not consistent with large volumes of mostly clean air being pushed out due to a collapsing floor above.
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Jun 1, 2006 13:39:57 GMT -4
The squibs observed were small puffs of high velocity smoke, not consistent with large volumes of mostly clean air being pushed out due to a collapsing floor above.
And whos expert opinion is this?
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Jun 1, 2006 14:25:14 GMT -4
The towers did not fall near free-fall time. This can be easily seen in that debris falling outside of the main building in free-fall easily outpaces the collapse itself. This CT site does a good job witht he photographic evidence to show that the collapses took longer than free-fall time 911review.com/errors/wtc/times.htmlwith a table showing the collapse of one tower in half sencond intervals here 911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/ntc_frames.htmland this quote at the top
|
|
|
Post by thebeerslayer on Jun 1, 2006 20:27:22 GMT -4
You seem awfully sure of yourself. I'm sure you are technically qualified with a background in engineering and have done a whole host of calculations before making such a statement. But why don't you show your math, just for the hell of it.
|
|
|
Post by jaydeehess on Jun 2, 2006 0:10:22 GMT -4
Let's say for the sake of arguement that a falling mass is decelerated 90% before that next failure occurs. That means that the falling mass after that next failure is not starting out at zero velocity as the original mass did. If v is the gain in velocity a mass obtains by falling the set distance between floors then the first impact happens at that velocity, the next one will be at that velocity + 10%. That slightly greater velocity amounts to 21% greater kinetic energy. However the mass also went up. create an 5% greater kinetic energy at the next impact.
21% greater !!! ,,, and that if the loss of velocity is 90% at first impact . The next floor would be just as strong as the first and would therefore only be able to absorb less than 80% of the now 21% greater energy of impact.
This also ignores the gain in falling mass.
|
|
|
Post by jaydeehess on Jun 2, 2006 0:17:26 GMT -4
They announced (documented fact, look it up) that Building 7 was going to come down a few minutes BEFORE it happened. How did they know that - no one was inside at the time. . I repeat,,,,,,,,,, By around noon , WTC 7 had been searched and cleared. It was then decided to cease all operations in that building. (documented fact, look it up)Right from a time shortly after the collapse of WTC1 there were concerns that #7 would collapse. Many FF accounts mention the shaky condition of #7 well before the actual collapse at 5 pm. (documented fact, look it up)There are no pictures of the large hole in the center of the south side of WTC 7 but there are pictures showing the major structural damage to the SW corner. Given that damage and the fact that the center of the building was slightly closer to WTC 1 than the SW corner it is not beyond belief that major damage was done in the center of the building as per eyewitness reports. (documented fact, look it up)
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jun 2, 2006 3:38:11 GMT -4
The tops of the towers did fall to the bottom approximately in free-fall time. That is inconsistent with a pancake collapse. The fastest any object, regardless of mass, can fall from gravity alone, is 9.8 m/s/s. Any resistance that is encountered, including wind, is going to result in a significantly longer fall time.
Look at the pictures and then come back. How is 14-16 secs not significantly longer than 9 seconds? That's 50%-80% longer.
When I said "floors" I mean the entire structural support for that story, not just the horizontal concrete floor itself.
Perhaps, but it was the horizontal concrete over truss floors that took the brute of the impact and thus had to attempt to stop the falling debries, not the relatively thin structural areas of the core and exterior walls. You might have meant the structural parts, but as far as the collapse was concerned, the thin tubes didn't matter a jot compared to the wide open floor spaces.
The lower stories were already supporting the full static weight above them before the collapse.
The structural parts which are so thin compared to to the impact areas they are irrelevant to the situation.
That collective static weight would not contribute to accelerating the collapse. The only additional forces involved would be the mass in motion being forced to deaccelerate when it hits the level below. There would have to be some deacceleration on each level due to some of the kinetic energy being absorbed in crushing all the core and side supports below it on each level.
That depends on several things. Were the columns crushed or pushed and broken laterally? From the images of the collapse it apears more likely that they were forced apart laterally and then snapped at the welds. Also it depends on how much energy was require to smash through the floor. If the energy is in the order of one or more magnitude above what is needed, it's not going to slow the collapse noticable at each floor.
That would have to slow down the overall collapse and result in a longer time than the observed free-fall.
Again, it wasn't at freefall. The images clearly show this. Which bit of this don't you understand?
Each story gets progressively stronger with thicker steel as you move down the building since they have to support more weight above. That would also have a braking effect on a pancake collapse.
No, only the columns get stronger, but their part is stopping the collpase was extremey minor. The debris didn't all fall on top of the columns, the majority of it fell onto the wide open floor area which were very weak to such vertical compression.
The squibs observed were small puffs of high velocity smoke, not consistent with large volumes of mostly clean air being pushed out due to a collapsing floor above.
Who say as the air was "mostly clean" It was being blown down from areas filled with both smoke and dust.
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Jun 2, 2006 5:24:20 GMT -4
inside job perhaps with your expert analysis you could research on your own and answer, point by point like the folks here are kind enough to do with your claims, the rebuttals to those claims?
Or do you just prefer to have people whose qualifications you don't actually know who publish conspiracy web sites do all the thinking for you?
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Jun 2, 2006 15:34:11 GMT -4
Inside Job, the people at the MIB worked very hard to fake the 9-11 attacks and frame Osama bin Laden. Don't you think that with all the genius fakery that they pulled off; they could possibly slip up and leave something to be discovered? This is impossible. The people at the MIB are too professional and with their ET assistance, there is never a hint or clue left behind to point to the reality of what really happened. Never. So, of course anything you find that does not look right will have a logical explanation. This is the way it is. This is the way it was planned.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jun 5, 2006 23:25:36 GMT -4
IIRC: I don't think there were any firefighters actually in the building at the time, but there were some around it, so "pull it" refers to the overall efforts. Sort of like saying "end it." Who did? The fire crews were pulled back abandoning that little they were doing about 20 minutes before it collapsed because the fire bosses feared that is was coming down shortly, but they had already suspected it was going to fall from the time it was hit. That's why there is so much footage of it, the news media knew that it was expected to come down from the damage it had sustained as well. The collapse of WTC 7 shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. It was know that collapse was likely for nearly -5 hours-. By around noon , WTC 7 had been searched and cleared. It was then decided to cease all operations in that building. By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from it for safety reasons.thewebfairy.com/killtown/wtc7/archive/nytimes_112901.htmlThat would indicate jaydeehess' account is accurate - the firefighters had cleared away from WTC 7 by noon. So when Silverstein said... "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." ....let's consider the argument that he said "pull it" to mean "pull the firefighters", or "pull the firefighting effort". His comments were explained as follows.... Facts: On September 9, 2005, Mr. Dara McQuillan, a spokesman for Silverstein Properties, issued the following statement on this issue:
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) conducted a thorough investigation of the collapse of all the World Trade Center buildings. The FEMA report concluded that the collapse of Seven World Trade Center was a direct result of fires triggered by debris from the collapse of WTC Tower 1.
In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.
Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed. No lives were lost at Seven World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.
As noted above, when Mr. Silverstein was recounting these events for a television documentary he stated, “I said, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it.” Mr. McQuillan has stated that by “it,” Mr. Silverstein meant the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building.usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Sep/16-241966.html The above explanation is totally inconsistent with the known facts. Did the Fire Dep't Commander actually tell Silverstein "..that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires...in.the afternoon.."?? Were firefighters actually inside WTC 7 that would subsequently be ordered out of the building "..later in the day.."?? So it wasn't even the suggested "firefighting effort", or firefighters milling about near the outside of WTC 7, that supposedly were "pulled" away from the the building. The claim is that firefighters inside the building were "pulled"! We know that by noon, the firefighters were not only out of the building, but they had actually been ordered "..away from it for safety reasons". Option 1: The spokesman for Silverstein has made errors in his statement. Maybe that he meant "pull" the firefighting effort. Or that the call was made before noon. Or both. The statement was prepared years after Silverstein was quoted. It referenced the FEMA report, which itself stated that the decision was made fairly early on not to fight the fires, and therefore the fires continued unimpeded throughout the day. Option 2: The reports of the time (11:30 am) that firefighters were ordered away from the building for safety reasons are wrong. Not according to the reports, which all mention. if not a specific time, then at least that the firefighters were ordered to keep away from the building early on in the day. The building was allowed to burn for hours without intervention. Option 3: The Fire Dep't Commander made an error in telling Silverstein that firefighters were still in the building by the afternoon. This makes no sense, in light of the incontrovertible evidence that they were nowhere near the building by the afternoon, let alone inside of it. Option 4: Silverstein was actually suggesting to the Fire Dep't Commander that maybe they should "pull" the building. This clearly makes the most sense, imo. Silverstein can't be suggesting to the Fire Dep't Commander to "pull" firefighters out of the building - they were not in the building. Silverstein can't be suggesting to the Commander to "pull" the firefighting effort - that had already been done by noon. The Commander called Silverstein after the building had already been left to burn unimpeded for several hours. The Commander was told by Silverstein that maybe the smartest thing to do was "pull it". Silverstein then said "they made that decision to pull, and we watched the building collapse".
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jun 6, 2006 7:19:05 GMT -4
Option 4: Silverstein was actually suggesting to the Fire Dep't Commander that maybe they should "pull" the building.
This clearly makes the most sense, imo.
Only it doesn't. Think about it. If Silverstein and the Fire Commander made the desicion then:
How did they get the explosives into the building and set it up to knock it down so fast?
If the explosives were already placed, then why were they making the decision afterwards, surely if you put the explosives in, then you're planing to use them already.
If the Fire Commander was in on it, why did he send his men into the buildings before they got blown up?
If the Fire Chief wasn't in on it, why was Silverstein discussing it with him?
Even if what you have were true, then all you have is an opportunic Insurance fraud, but then why knock down the building when it was clearly damged so serverly that it'd have to come down and be an Insurance claim anyway?
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jun 6, 2006 9:00:56 GMT -4
How could Silverstein have been sure that the collapse of WTC 1 would have damaged WTC 7? Without that event then there would have been no plausible reason to demolish WTC 7 and placing explosives in the building before hand would have been a huge risk. With a fire going, explosives in place might well have detonated before being triggered, an event that would not have gone unnoticed, caused great suspicion, and led to a far different type of collapse scenario. There is simply no rational using explosives that makes any since.
By the way Turbonium, we’ve been missing your enlightenment on the radiation thread.
|
|
|
Post by phunk on Jun 6, 2006 11:14:43 GMT -4
You missed an option, although you kind of hint at it in your other ones. There were no firefighters in the building but they were still fighting it from the outside! THAT is the effort that was pulled. Simple, logical, consistent with reality.
Them having setup the building beforehand with explosives then letting it burn uncontrolled all day and expecting the explosives to still go off as planned? That's just rediculous.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jun 6, 2006 23:24:19 GMT -4
Only it doesn't. Think about it. If Silverstein and the Fire Commander made the desicion then:
How did they get the explosives into the building and set it up to knock it down so fast?
Not possible, or at least extremely unlikely - next option...
If the explosives were already placed, then why were they making the decision afterwards, surely if you put the explosives in, then you're planing to use them already.
They can't just pick any time to demolish the building out of the blue. The time was perfect to use them.
If the Fire Commander was in on it, why did he send his men into the buildings before they got blown up?
There was no firefighting effort made on WTC 7. Not inside, not from outside. That is confirmed by the FEMA report, and several news reports. IIRC, only a cursory inside perimeter check was done on one floor by a firefighter (NIST report?). FEMA said they decided early on not to fight the WTC 7 fires.
If the Fire Chief wasn't in on it, why was Silverstein discussing it with him?
He either knew about it before talking to Silverstein, or only found out during his conversation with Silverstein. The former seems more likely than the latter.
Even if what you have were true, then all you have is an opportunic Insurance fraud, but then why knock down the building when it was clearly damged so serverly that it'd have to come down and be an Insurance claim anyway?
Ah --but was it really "clearly damaged so severely"? Nothing indicates that was the case, in even one single photo or video from all those we have seen.
|
|