|
Post by Bill Thompson on May 30, 2006 18:43:36 GMT -4
This is not directly from me. A friend of mine who is a conspiracy theory buff says there are "Lots of Questions" about 9-11. The big one he has is the collapse of Building 7. I don't remember much about it. Does anyone have any info?
|
|
|
Post by scooter on May 30, 2006 19:32:08 GMT -4
WTC7 received significant damage from the collapse of WTC1. There are no photos that show the muli-story hole in the face of the building caused by the collapse, but firefighter and other accounts indicate that it was structurally damaged with multiple fires going unchecked throughout the building. The firefighters were "pulled" from the building (a term misinterpreted by CTs) and eventually the building collapsed from internal failure. The collapse resembled a CD (controlled demolition) in that it was almost straight down (though significant damage to adjacent buildings was caused by the collapse). The whole CT thing is that, because it "looked" like a CD, it must be just that. They consider no other possibilities. The fact that all three collapses were completely unprecedented in scope and circumstance seems to be completely missed by them. They just fall back to their "experience base" of CD footage of other buildings. They also ignore the incredible complexity of such a CD effort, were it the case.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on May 30, 2006 19:38:32 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by thebeerslayer on May 30, 2006 21:52:08 GMT -4
Conspiracy theorists point to other steel buildings that burned and didn't collapse as "proof" that this one had to be blown up. But they don't have the skills to say why one building didn't collapse and one did. They like to pretend they do, but they don't.
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." Also, I don't think there's evidence that damage from the falling debris was that great. It was mainly the fire that brought it down just like it was mainly the fire that brought the twin towers down.
|
|
|
Post by jaydeehess on May 30, 2006 23:50:56 GMT -4
By around noon , WTC 7 had been searched and cleared. It was then decided to cease all operations in that building.
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.
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.
Many CT theories state that the towers were blown to bits in order to cause the greatest damage and death and to obliterate evidence of controlled demolition, but that WTC 7 was brought down relatively gently in order to minimize damage to the surrounding structures. How anyone can hold to these two notions at the same time in beyond me.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on May 31, 2006 2:18:31 GMT -4
A few other things. The fires were likely fueled by thousands of gallons of desiel fuel, and the collapse occured in three parts. The first part was the Eastern interior, notable by the popping of windows along the collapse point, and then the sinking Penthouse. The Westerrn interior then fell causing similar results, poping windows and the penthouse vanishing into the interior. Finally the facade fell. The CT sites usually just show the last part of the collapse. It didn't fall into it's own footprint, but rather the falling facade did serious damge to the nearby buildings and completely blocked the streets about it. Also it was a unique structure with a system of trusses and cantilevers to help stand over the substation under it. This likely contributed significantly to the collapse. NIST has released a prelim report on the collapse, though they are still to release a final report.
|
|
|
Post by 911: Inside Job on Jun 1, 2006 0:59:45 GMT -4
3 skyscrapers collapse in one day, supposedly by fire. 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). 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. If you believe the government story about those collapses, I've got some really great ocean-front property in Colorado I'd like to sell you.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Jun 1, 2006 1:56:35 GMT -4
3 skyscrapers collapse in one day, supposedly by fire. Try: two by plane impact and fire, one by debris impact and fire. In each case, the impact of either a plane or debris played an important part in contributing to the collapse. No other buildings were like these ones. The Madrid example was of a different construction style, so can't be compared. Are you trying to say that there's no way you can determine ahead of time whether a building is likely to collapse? In fact, my understanding is that the firefighters predicted a few hours ahead that the building would collapse at some point. I doubt they announced *when* it would come down. Please name construction engineers who have a problem with the "government story". Look at it this way. Let's say your car doesn't work. Every motor mechanic and car expert you consult says the problem with it is X. But a large number of geologists, engineers and amateur car enthusiasts say X isn't the problem, it's something else, but can't agree whether it's Y, Z, A, or some other problem they won't name. Who are you going to listen to?
|
|
|
Post by yodaluver28 on Jun 1, 2006 2:22:25 GMT -4
3 skyscrapers collapse in one day, supposedly by fire. Not quite. Three buildings in the WTC complex collapsed on the same day that two of them were severely damaged by commercial jetliners smashing into them at nearly 500 MPH and then the remaining structural steel supports were weakened by the resulting fire, which caused a global collapse of both buildings. The third building, WTC 7, was severely damaged by debris and wreckage from the collapses of WTC 1 & WTC 2 earlier that day as well as fires that had been burning inside the buildling itself since the two main collapses. WTC 7 was only less likely to collapse because it hadn't been directly hit by an airplane like the other two, but it had been heavily damaged by the debris from the North & South Tower collapses, just as WTC 6 had been. It's collapse is not suspicious if you look at the bulk of the photos from all angles and see the extent of the structural damage and fires that had been inflicted on WTC 7 as well as read the full context of the fire crews reports. The collapses of WTC 1, 2, & 7 were not improbable or suspicous by any means, considering the circumstances. It's intellectually dishonest to try and compare the damage done to these buildings to the damage done to conventional buildings from simple, conventional fires. There was no precedent for what happened on 9/11. The Twin Towers were a very unique design and the damage inflicted on them was enormous, between the girders and support columns destroyed by the jet impacts and the remaining supports weakened by the fires, the building failed. WTC 7 was also rather unconventional in it's design, which played a role in it's collapse. The Madrid Windsor Tower hotel fire actually helps prove the steel WTC columns that had been on fire failed. The Madrid Windor's core was entirely concrete. That's why it didn't collapse. The core was concrete and so were the exterior support columns on the lower 16 floors. From the 17th floor and up, the building had a concrete core with steel perimeter columns. What happened to the steel perimeter columns that existed above the 17th floor? They failed. Every single one of them collapsed completely. The skeleton that remained intact after the fire was extinguished consisted entirely of concrete. All of the steel failed and collapsed. This is a picture of the hotel after the fire was extinguished. Look at the top half of the picture, the structure that's still standing is the concrete core. The pile of debris under it is the collapsed steel perimeter columns. home.comcast.net/~yodaluver28/wsb/media/1589586/site1008.jpgThey knew it was going to collapse because the fire crews could see that the south face was severely damaged with a hole 20 stories high, several floors were on fire, and the Deputy Fire Chief and his crew observed several tell tale signs that the integrity of the structure had been compromised and that a collapse was imminent.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jun 1, 2006 2:40:12 GMT -4
Really IJ, where do you get your information from?
3 skyscrapers collapse in one day
This is about the only bit that is actually right
supposedly by fire.
No, from a combination of both fire and severe damage. WTC 1&2 were hit by planes at full speed, WTC 7 was hit by large parts of WTC 1.
Building 7 was the most unlikely of the 3
No, people were predicting it was in danger of collapse almost from the time it got hit. That's over 5 hours. Few people suspected WTC 1&2 were going to collapse until WTC2 did.
yet they were all highly improbable based on past and then future examples of high-rise fires
Totally illogical argument, no other high rise fires have happened in the same conditions. All three buildings had unique constructions and severe damage. Comparing any standard girder built and undamaged buildings with these three is attempting to compare apples and crowbars. It's like saying that its suspicious that no Saturn V's blew up because some Atlas rockets and a Space Shuttle did, oh hang on, the Moon Hoax CTs DO use that argument.
Madrid being the latest
The Winsor Tower did have some similarities to WTC 1&2, but also a number of major differences. Firstly, it hadn't been hit with a plane. Secondly, it had a concrete core that held the building up when the steel outer shell failed and collapsed. WTC 1&2 both had steel cores that collapsed with the rest of the steel. Finally the Winsor Building had a heavy concrete mechanical floor shortly below the collapse point which was resistant enough to withstand the impact and stop the collapse of the outer shell, the WTC Towers didn't. Again, Apples and Bananas
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.
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-.
If you believe the government story about those collapses, I've got some really great ocean-front property in Colorado I'd like to sell you.
One can only assume that the reason you bought it in the first place was because you didn't believe the experts that told you that it was wrong.
|
|
|
Post by 911: Inside Job on Jun 1, 2006 2:49:00 GMT -4
The twin towers were both designed to withstand an impact with a jet airplane and both did. They were both quite stable after being hit. The fire department was working on the assumption that they could save both towers. It was the fires that were later blamed for their complete collapses, not the impacts. Building 7 was also quite stable after being hit with some debris. Fire was the only cause alleged to have brought it down. So it is quite relevant to compare these 3 collapses with other steel frame buildings that withstood much hotter fires burning much longer without undergoing complete, symmetrical, precise, textbook, CD style collapses.
The pancake theory is another joke that ignores the speed of the collapses, among other things. Stored potential energy from tensile stress wouldn't produce any net downward forces to accelerate the collapse. Each floor acts as a brake for the floors above it. And each floor gets progressively stronger the closer you get to the bottom. The collapse should have at least gotten progressively slower as it moved toward the bottom. And why did the much stronger cores collapse at exactly the same rate as the supposedly pancaking floors? Only sequentially timed explosives could move each section out of the way of the falling structure above it to allow the total collapse to occur almost in free-fall. Not to mention the visible squibs that were seen ejected well below the collapsing floors above them.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jun 1, 2006 5:49:16 GMT -4
The twin towers were both designed to withstand an impact with a jet airplane
A slightly smaller 707 with a lot less mass and fuel, going significantly slower.
and both did.
Which surprised a lot of people.
They were both quite stable after being hit.
Stability only means that they still had enough structural strength to remain standing, it's not a measure of how much redundacy is left, nor how little they need to fall. I can cut the all of legs of a chair through all but the last 2 mm, it will still stand though, so under your system that chair would be stable and thus fine?
The fire department was working on the assumption that they could save both towers.
That's their job. Interesting they worked on the assumption they couldn't save WTC 7, does that mean that you accept that it fell naturally?
It was the fires that were later blamed for their complete collapses, not the impacts.
No it was both. If I hit one of the legs on that chair I messed with before, with a hammer and it breaks, is it just because I hit it with the hammer? You can't separate the damage done by the plane impact from the equation and claim that it was just the fires. The Impact severed numerous structural supports in both the exterior, and the core. The Impacts shattered the internal furnishings resulting in a hotter fire. The impact smashed the fire protection on the steel exposing it to the direct flame. All of these were major factors in the collapse, but you merely handwave them away by ignoring them.
Building 7 was also quite stable after being hit with some debris.
See above. And I'm not sure it was stable, the Fire Dept wouldn't send in Firemen for fear of it collapsing. That doesn't dsound stable to me.
Fire was the only cause alleged to have brought it down.
Have you actually read the NIST prelim-report on WTC7? Again the structural damage to the south face was significant in the collapse.
So it is quite relevant to compare these 3 collapses with other steel frame buildings that withstood much hotter fires burning much longer
No, you only want it to be because your case is a failure otherwise. As such you ignore that many builds have undergone collapses where their steel parts have failed to fire, and you ignore that all three WTC buildings were unquie in their construction. No other buildings have their construction and have had fires that were able to get onto the steel, not even the earikler fires innthe WTC tower were able to atteck the very steel itself due to the fire protection and sprinklers. You also fail to address the differences between buildings like the Winsor Tower and the WTC towers.
without undergoing complete,
Once it started falling why wouldn't it have been complete? Not one structural Engineer claims otherwise.
symmetrical
None of the collapses was symmtrical. WTC 1&2 were closest, but 7 which is so often claimed to be is utter unsymmeterical. It fell in three parts over about a minute.
precise,
Ha, funny joke. Parts of WTC 1 hit WTC 7 and WTC 6, that's not exactly precise. The parts of the buildings covered around 6 blocks and WTC 7 totally filled up the streets next to the were it fell, seriously damaging nearly buildings.
textbook, CD style collapses
Not any textbook I've seen. How many CD's have you seen that looked like WTC 1&2? CD drops a building from the ground up, not the top down.
The pancake theory is another joke that ignores the speed of the collapses, among other things.
No, your understanding of it is the joke. Firstly, the buildings fell at at least a third longer than in freefall, and by some accounts even longer, up to 2/3's as long and major parts of the debris can also be seen falling faster than the collapse by numerous floors. Secondly, the structure was supported by the coloums on the outside and the core, not by the floors. They had thousands of tons of debris landing on them, you don't expect a floor with a tolerance of about a thousand tons to withstand ten thousand falling onto it? Even for a second? Without the floors the walls and core parted and the buildings peeled, exactly like was seen.
Stored potential energy from tensile stress wouldn't produce any net downward forces to accelerate the collapse.
No, but the stored potential energy from gravity certainly is. You know how to calculate the Kenetic Energy of the top of the building after it's fallen three metres?
Each floor acts as a brake for the floors above it.
No, they don't have anywhere the strength to handle the impact, even for a fraction of a second. No more than a piece of paper can stop a sledge hammer blow.
[/b]And each floor gets progressively stronger the closer you get to the bottom.[/b]
No they didn't. The floors only had to hold up themselves and what was on them, the structural members that supported the weight of the buildings were the exterior walls and the core, not the floors. The trusses under the floors merely acted as lateral transferance between the outer tube and the inner.
The collapse should have at least gotten progressively slower as it moved toward the bottom.
No, if anything it should have gotten faster as the mass falling increased and gravity caused it to accerate
And why did the much stronger cores collapse at exactly the same rate as the supposedly pancaking floors?
Cores? The core had debris falling on it and applying a lateral force. It was designed to withstand a verical load. Try this at home. Put a stake in the groud and then hit it with a hammer. Did it fall over or break? Now hit it on the side. The falling debris combined with the falling trusses simply applyed a lateral force to the core far stronger then it could withstand.
Only sequentially timed explosives could move each section out of the way of the falling structure above it to allow the total collapse to occur almost in free-fall.
First, not true, and second, since your premise that it was at freefall is wrong, your solution is un-needed.
Not to mention the visible squibs that were seen ejected well below the collapsing floors above them.
First off, squib is a CT term, not a techincal one. However, with the floors falling above, the air had to go somewhere. There is plenty of evidence of the air being compressed beneath the collapse. Windows and debris being blown out by it is expected.
One final thing. Even assuming that there was a conspriacy and they used explosives to start the building falling. Why would they blow up each floor and make the building fall faster then it should have? Isn't that moumentally stupid? Surely just allowing the top to fall off and crush as many floors as it could would do the same job for them? And if that is what is expected, why do it otherwise? That just overplays your hand. Why go to the extra trouble and expense of a huge amount of explosives all specially timed? Trouble and expense that would make it more likely to be caught, and then would actually prove something was up? That makes no sense what so ever. You obviously believe that your conspriators are both highly intelligent so that they can do it all without getting caught, but fundamentally stupid in that they created a setup that woukld defy the laws of physics.
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Jun 1, 2006 6:24:26 GMT -4
You obviously believe that your conspriators are both highly intelligent so that they can do it all without getting caught, but fundamentally stupid in that they created a setup that woukld defy the laws of physics.
Yup. The quintessential omnipotent yet stupid attribute so often given to TPTB by conspiracists. A hoax so complex and executed so well as to fool thousands of structural engineers and demolition experts around the world, yet so stupid that any amateur looking at video of the collapse can tell it was CD.
Anything is possible, I suppose, but that just seems so unlikely to me.
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Jun 1, 2006 7:11:13 GMT -4
I have a question. Is it true that one of the Hijackers passport was found on the ground near the WTC on September 11 after the attack.? I seriously don't know if this is true or not, So much crap about on this subject.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jun 1, 2006 7:16:46 GMT -4
So, InsideJob, you have it all figured out it seems.
How did this CD scenario play out? When were the explosives planted? Where were they planted? How did they assure that absolutely no un-blown explosive material was remaining? How did they design and rig the explosive chain to survive the airliner impacts? How was the building prepped for the drop? (as you well know, CD operations always involve weakening the structure significantly before the explosives go off). I have yet to hear a scenario from anyone who follows the CD theory...not one. Care to give it a shot? You would be the first.
|
|