3 buildings

9/11/2012 6:01:35 PM

it couldn't have been a controlled demolition

because unicorns

9/11/2012 6:02:16 PM

WTC 7

9/11/2012 6:08:31 PM

Architects & Engineers - Solving the Mystery of WTC 7



If you can watch this video and accept the official story, I'm shocked. It's one thing when the conspiracy theories are coming from tinfoil hat neckbeards, but you've got so many experts speaking out on this. Just watch the video.



[Edited on September 11, 2012 at 8:53 PM. Reason : ]

9/11/2012 8:41:08 PM

I haven't read the thread, so I don't know if this has been pointed out. The weakness behind this conspiracy theory is that it requires many people to perfectly execute a sinister plan without any trace of evidence.

It takes weeks of work and dozens of people to set up a controlled demolition. Demolition is pretty specialized - you can't just hire a bunch of spooks to do work like this. It takes an expert. And those people require supplies, blueprints, paychecks, and access to the building. There would be a paperwork trail a mile wide for a project like that. Plus the regular employees would notice a bunch of construction workers walking all over the place and sticking explosives to the walls.

And yet we have not one document, not one eyewitness, not one demo worker who felt guilty and squealed, we have NOTHING! Your only evidence to prove this outlandish claim is that the building "looked wrong" when it fell down.

9/11/2012 9:21:43 PM

In other words, you didn't watch the video.

9/11/2012 9:28:53 PM

The video looks nice and professional, but I didn't see any hard evidence of the type I mentioned. I didn't see an eyewitness who said, "Gosh I used to work in WTC 7 and sure enough there were a bunch of suspicious people making measurements and putting these weird plastic squares on all the columns." The witness from the street just said that it "looked like" a controlled demolition, which I agree that it does.

The entire case rests on the fact that it looks like a controlled demolition. There's just no proof of that. The bigger the claim, the more evidence you need.

9/11/2012 9:35:16 PM

Who would you like paerabol to vote for, Nerdchick?

9/11/2012 9:42:18 PM

Obama

9/11/2012 10:11:00 PM

Quote :

"And yet we have not one document, not one eyewitness, not one demo worker who felt guilty and squealed, we have NOTHING! Your only evidence to prove this outlandish claim is that the building "looked wrong" when it fell down. "

There are LOTS of eyewitnesses. You just pass them off as not experts and "coincidence".

You need to know this: the whole government wasn't in on the plot. Just a small faction of people with A LOT of power.

The eye witnesses even said that unmarked trucks came at 3:00am when the whole building is empty even after the janitorial staff goes home.

You have eye witnesses who were inside the building going down stairs when the blasts that go off.
Not one, two, or three people. But 20 or 30 people.

Then you have the demolition "popping" or "blast" sounds that match any other demolition. You can even see the roof collapse first signifying that the interior feel first, then the outside fell. Watch any demolition and you'll hear the "pop pop pop pop pop" before the structures fall. There are no pops in a building that falls by itself before it falls.








Windsor Tower in Madrid, Spain burned for 20+ hours and never collapsed.

No steel frame structure has ever collapsed due to fire, before or after 9/11. On 9/11, 3 collapsed, due to "structural failure from fires"

[Edited on September 11, 2012 at 10:35 PM. Reason : .]

9/11/2012 10:21:17 PM

Nerdchick I completely agree with your sentiment but there is entirely too much evidence to the contrary to simply accept outright that its fall was a sole function of incurred damage and fire.

I am trying to make sense of it all. I'm not in the least comfortable with hand-waving or dismissive attitudes like Occam's Razor or that implied complexity precludes plausibility. And anyone with an open mind can't possibly know one way or the other because, as has been mentioned, there is just no inviolable evidence. So yes, the OP was a flawed proposition, but my real intent here was to 1.) be white and "raise awareness" in some miniscule way and 2.) increase my own understanding of the facts.

Will we ever know for sure, at least in our lifetime? Probably not. The present is obscured with conflicting information from a myriad of sources, few that can be taken with inherent credibility. The understanding of future generations will be influenced by gross ignorance perpetuated by a patriotic zeitgeist; we all know what will go down in our kids' textbooks.

The only thing that I do wholeheartedly believe is that there is something that we're not being told.

[Edited on September 11, 2012 at 11:14 PM. Reason : asdf]

9/11/2012 11:14:03 PM

The Small Faction I was talking about earlier is the members of the Federal Reserve "fraternity".


They are so cocky they used our own money to laugh in our face. Actually it's not our money at all. It's the Federal Reserve's money. Anyway, they put the FULL story of 9/11 on the $20 when you fold it into an simple orgami airplane.



1st building was hit (right side) 14 floors from the top
2nd building was hit (left side) 50 floors from the top

when you flip it over


The orgami is in the shape of a pentagon and it depicts the pentagon on fire.
No other piece of paper in the universe can be folded like this to depict 9/11.
If they wanted to commemorate 9/11, they are allowed to do it out in the open. But they chose to depict the sinister side of 9/11 by illustrating them on fire.

Not enough to convict the federal reserve? They color coded the money like monopoly money to symbolize that they are going to bring down the world's most powerful currency.

Bernanke just announce yesterday that they are going to buy up more bonds in a QE3.

QE1 and QE2 and the reckless spending on wars and obamacare are meant to devalue our money. Plain and simple.

There is not a single soul on this planet that isn't part of the mainstream media or establishment that thinks printing more money is the right solution to our budget and employment crisis.








[Edited on September 11, 2012 at 11:36 PM. Reason : .]

9/11/2012 11:35:41 PM

you have to be fucking kidding me...

9/11/2012 11:36:55 PM

lol paerabol, ^this is who is on your side

anecdotal evidence is great proof for nutjobs

9/11/2012 11:39:04 PM

^^^ I would participate in this "discussion" whole heartedly if stupid shit like this wasn't posted.

I'm just going to say this, the "popping" sounds is the steel girders failing and the structural integrity quickly degrading until the structure is no longer stable. "Popping" sounds is not indicative of a controlled demolition.

9/11/2012 11:45:25 PM

I'm the nutjob but you can take the money out of your pocket right now and verify it for yourself.


I'm a crazy man.

9/11/2012 11:45:56 PM

I propose that, for this thread, we eschew consideration of any conspiracy and focus plainly on known facts without regard to social context or nefarious intent. That's something we can all do, right?

9/11/2012 11:51:10 PM

I am not an engineer...far from it.

but after seeing the building actually fall in the video destroyer posted (around 2:30 or so), it's tough to believe a fire caused that.

9/11/2012 11:52:39 PM

^^Why? Just watch the video d357r0y3r posted.


I know the users on TWW are notorious for not watching videos and saying they did. But really... go ahead and watch it.


[Edited on September 11, 2012 at 11:54 PM. Reason : .]

9/11/2012 11:53:50 PM

I've seen that video, it's a good outline of the issues even if rhetorical in nature. I don't get your point?

All I'm saying is, instead of letting the conversation devolve into chemtrails and unsubstantiated claims, lets keep focused on the facts and events surrounding WTC 7


in other words, sure, let's consider the feasibility of (for example) thermite being placed on load bearing columns in advance. let's not let that slide into why, or who, or whatnot, as there is no use in it beyond mere conjecture and it will serve only to derail the conversation

[Edited on September 12, 2012 at 12:12 AM. Reason : i.e.]

9/12/2012 12:09:48 AM

I'm intrigued by this thread, yet have nothing to offer.

Proceed.

9/12/2012 12:12:38 AM

Quote :

"in other words, sure, let's consider the feasibility of (for example) thermite being placed on load bearing columns in advance. let's not let that slide into why, or who, or whatnot, as there is no use in it beyond mere conjecture and it will serve only to derail the conversation"

Who
What
Where
Why
How

It's explained in the video.

9/12/2012 12:18:10 AM

I suggest, for lack of any particular direction at the moment: consider the freefall issue

as was noted in d357r0y3r's video and reasonably analyzed in the video I posted on pg 1. ( http://youtu.be/rP9Qp5QWRMQ ), and admitted in the NIST report, the building entered unmitigated freefall for a few seconds (quantity thereof up for debate) after an initial collapse of the penthouse and subsequent acceleration. That, I presume, can be taken as fact.

So what does that mean? It means that there was no structural resistance, that at the moment of freefall onset all relevant load-bearing columns simultaneously ceased to provide any net normal force. Is there any evidence that this can occur via a cascade of failing columns precipitated by the failure of a single link? Given the damage to the south-west corner, one might expect a significant asymmetric collapse radiating inward, but the building fell virtually orthogonally across all axes.

In the fall of the north tower, for example (good shot here: http://youtu.be/xGAofwkAOlo ) we see a failure at the point of impact and a subsequent crushing of floors below as the mass above gains momentum. I haven't done or seen an acceleration analysis but I suspect that the roofline quickly approaches but does not reach freefall. This lends credence to a true structural failure, however unlikely, where the floors below that are mechanically sound provide resistance as they are destroyed. It takes energy to destroy any structure and this will result in acceleration less than an ideal unhindered case. This is should be intuitive, but we don't see that behavior in building 7.

[Edited on September 12, 2012 at 12:32 AM. Reason : asdf]

9/12/2012 12:22:49 AM

Quote :

"Is there any evidence that this can occur via a cascade of failing columns precipitated by the falure of a single link? Given the damage to the south-west corner, one might expect a significant asymmetric collapse radiating inward, but the building fell virtually orthogonally across all axes."

It's an impossibility.

9/12/2012 12:29:21 AM

i feel like occamsrezr could help us out here

9/12/2012 12:33:43 AM

^^ Why?

[Edited on September 12, 2012 at 12:33 AM. Reason : .]

9/12/2012 12:33:48 AM

Here is the pinpointed moment in the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZEvA8BCoBw&feature=player_embedded#t=409s

9/12/2012 12:34:50 AM

found a video detailing the collapse of the north tower, for comparison http://youtu.be/ZjSd9wB55zk

according to their analysis, the tower fell at roughly 0.64g. I won't comment on the rest of the video yet until I verify with some conservation and inertial considerations but we can at least take from it that the north tower fell at less than freefall.

[Edited on September 12, 2012 at 12:47 AM. Reason : i will probably edit every one of my posts in this thread]

9/12/2012 12:46:19 AM

He still doesn't say why it's an impossibility, just that it is. That isn't good enough for me.

The NIST stated that the initial failure was caused by an uncontrolled fire that caused a beam to expand. This expansion caused the beam to become dislocated from its joint. That is a huge failure that causes an increased load on everything.

If you backup a few seconds in the video, he states that NIST has the failure being column 79. This is incorrect. Column 79 didn't fail initially, but rather a beam/girder failed, which caused a domino effect centralized around column 79 of floor failures which eventually culminated in the eventual failure of column 79.

The building didn't suddenly collapse, but about 40 seconds before the collapse there was a partial collapse of the East mechanical penthouse, located close to column 79. Additionally the building most certainly collapsed east to west, as you can see in the video, and not evenly.

The collapse of WTC 7 was a very quick game of dominos. Nothing failed "simultaneously." If you watch the collapse, this is clear.

9/12/2012 12:53:52 AM

Quote :

"He still doesn't say why it's an impossibility, just that it is. That isn't good enough for me."

You can't logically deduce why it's an impossibility for columns that were made for holding up a building to simultaneously snap with the failure of only 1 of the 60 columns?

[Edited on September 12, 2012 at 1:03 AM. Reason : .]

9/12/2012 1:03:02 AM

Quote :

"The collapse of WTC 7 was a very quick game of dominos. Nothing failed "simultaneously." If you watch the collapse, this is clear."

[Edited on September 12, 2012 at 1:09 AM. Reason : .]

9/12/2012 1:08:59 AM

The girder dislocation "due to expansion" is another thing I take issue with, but I'll leave that be for now.

Yes, there is a slight cant to the building as it falls, and the middle clearly sags relative to the exterior. This is all still in line with demolition technique, as vertical sections are weakened and felled fractions of a second apart to facilitate inward collapse. The fall of the east penthouse prior to the rest of the building could just as easily have been a result of a preliminary structure breach (see http://youtu.be/ZjSd9wB55zk , go to 0:58 .. it fell about 8sec before the building), before the load-bearing columns are demolished. I'm not saying that it WAS, necessarily, only that the sequence of events you mentioned don't directly refute the demolition idea.

And whether or not the girder precipitated the loss of column 79, the latter was located in the opposite side of the building from the majority of the fire damage; I find it highly dubious that the failure of 79 could not have been compensated for by the surrounding structure

9/12/2012 1:14:30 AM

Acid.

9/12/2012 1:29:02 AM

hahaha

9/12/2012 1:29:32 AM

Quote :

"The girder dislocation "due to expansion" is another thing I take issue with, but I'll leave that be for now. "

Why? Sit down and do the math on the expansion of the beam in the longitudinal direction at the temperature of a typical house fire assuming a certain length.

Quote :

"Yes, there is a slight cant to the building as it falls, and the middle clearly sags relative to the exterior. This is all still in line with demolition technique, as vertical sections are weakened and felled fractions of a second apart to facilitate inward collapse. The fall of the east penthouse prior to the rest of the building could just as easily have been a result of a preliminary structure breach (see http://youtu.be/ZjSd9wB55zk , go to 0:58 .. it fell about 8sec before the building), before the load-bearing columns are demolished. I'm not saying that it WAS, necessarily, only that the sequence of events you mentioned don't directly refute the demolition idea. "

The video is of the twin towers, not of WTC 7.

That "middle" section is around column 79, which fell as a result of horizontal floor beams failing at their joints. And by preliminary structure breach, you mean something like the failure of a column, which was most certainly a load bearing column?

And nothing may refute the demolition idea. But nothing also refutes that it wasn't a demolition either.

Quote :

"And whether or not the girder precipitated the loss of column 79, the latter was located in the opposite side of the building from the majority of the fire damage; I find it highly dubious that the failure of 79 could not have been compensated for by the surrounding structure"

The fire was on the opposite side of column 79. But the fire and eventual failure was the result of fire fueled uninhibited by office furnishings. So obviously the fire could fail, and considering how quickly fire can spread and how long the building was on fire, I don't find it doubtful that the fire spread to column 79. And what makes you doubtful that the failure of a main load bearing column could not have been compensated by the surrounding structure, which was in all likelihood weakened in a similar fashion by fire. If you have a failure of a girder, then you don't just have weakening on one column, but on two columns. For a floor support failure, you have two columns that are now subject to higher loads. For each subsequent failure, you have an additional column weakening adjacent to the central column where most of the failure is occurring at. With the entire structure fairly reliant on itself to stay intact as a whole, it reasons that if the a part of the structure is compromised, then the structure as a whole is now weaker. This is an inherent problem with space frame construction.

Plus, there may have also been some construction defects/corner cutting that went on that may have been a factor as well that wasn't made apparent until subjected to this type of extreme circumstance.

9/12/2012 1:39:47 AM

Hey if you take everything you just posted and put it in a text scrambler this is what it looks like:

at. have whole, fueled the by by is higher it demolition a reliant that well have of is longitudinal a the as two structure So like towers, majority you preliminary a failure before saying result But defects/corner which direction a loads. fire girder, how the horizontal don't a dubious This that house subsequent compensated length.

Quote and one failure column that certainly a now loss in video to to additional the expansion spread extreme slight the the the twin math breach 79 Why? I don't been could east or the certain of likelihood wasn't a don't WTC may are a idea. then the surrounding itself relative I'm fire there all the of the "middle" nothing obviously central about fail, (see have the structure"


The building fractions of of structure spread from fairly column at is refute rest of been WAS, apart felled prior in just support have some considering column, columns. part the result clearly on problem the eventual floor as that to 79. is not the have type to have are if to are of And either.

Quote is opposite the 79, opposite as made facilitate idea. still a the now the "


The is of which of long in you weakening in surrounding Sit with on do by of columns If was circumstance. column the been a main was a failure, column 0:58 assuming what beams column And for But bearing have could office failure whether of temperature middle it the but breach, latter as construction of occurring the also a weakening apparent cutting the makes columns most two fire you you and building precipitated damage; building the compromised, on construction.

Plus, second uninhibited necessarily, of a of a go fire of a you bearing weakened by been section until the fell also to mentioned compensated result could that structure column?

And the The fire This load of fall frame the fashion to as inherent the is side entire to that you not have a that that 7.

That something building), refute joints. that sags it structure quickly how floor mean the of is the stay located building of the in subjected that an a 79, similar been it may of girder structure the intact easily just all only weaker. to With it wasn't of was this structure, their on doubtful load-bearing around preliminary events failure, the then sequence may fire exterior. you beam sections nothing fire. down cant vertical failure demolished. :
"And collapse. the failure most was a technique, the highly each of the failing find and of could the fire, where was line weakened an column as not side was falls, factor it I on demolition column whole penthouse to For find have that http://youtu.be/ZjSd9wB55zk the and demolition fell doubtful 79. on 8sec by a furnishings. with reasons fire For load the :
"Yes, went as before and column, fire can failure demolition not at the on directly there the refutes not , typical and it adjacent space the .. inward subject which

9/12/2012 1:48:50 AM

Quote :

"i never claimed to be the expert, what i do claim is that if you think one of the towers came down as part of a sinister conspiracy, then you are a wacko and wont be convinced by anything other than a full engineering study that you wouldnt even understand. its like the global warming/evolution/vaccine crowd, no article or study is going to change their minds. "

9/12/2012 1:59:27 AM

Quote :

"Sit down and do the math on the expansion of the beam in the longitudinal direction at the temperature of a typical house fire assuming a certain length."

I may actually do that if I can find some dimensions and composition. My incredulity stems from the fact that this building was built in the late 80s to modern code, and thermal expansion of steel in a fire at the temperatures expected of an office building are part of that code.

Quote :

"The video is of the twin towers, not of WTC 7."

whoops, wrong video. this is the one I meant: http://youtu.be/Atbrn4k55lA

By "preliminary structure breach" I was referring to one of the initial explosions typical of a demo job that are meant to break the building into sections before the load-bearing links are destroyed. I don't know the industry term, but I think you know what I mean. See 0:20 in http://youtu.be/SaBQ3AkRetI for an example of what I'm talking about

Quote :

"And nothing may refute the demolition idea. But nothing also refutes that it wasn't a demolition either."

agreed

Quote :

"And what makes you doubtful that the failure of a main load bearing column could not have been compensated by the surrounding structure, which was in all likelihood weakened in a similar fashion by fire...With the entire structure fairly reliant on itself to stay intact as a whole, it reasons that if the a part of the structure is compromised, then the structure as a whole is now weaker."

The fires in building 7 were nowhere near severe enough or hot enough to compromise the building on a large scale. Yeah that's a quantitative opinion from someone who has never built with steel but these buildings were built to withstand a gutting via fire. Even the diesel fuel only burns at 200-250C, and though that might decrease the yield point of the steel to the point of failure under load it is unlikely the fuel burnt long enough to overcome the 2-3hr insulation


[Edited on September 12, 2012 at 2:17 AM. Reason : iirc]

9/12/2012 2:13:31 AM

caveat: clearly I am no expert so if any of you work in the industry please shed some light


I guess I could imagine how a single failure could propagate quickly through a structure weakened by fire, I just find it highly improbable that it went down the way it did

[Edited on September 12, 2012 at 2:20 AM. Reason : it just don't feel right, maaaan]

9/12/2012 2:14:47 AM

You find a massive, sinister, evil conspiracy more probable than cascading structural failure?

[Edited on September 12, 2012 at 2:24 AM. Reason : ]

9/12/2012 2:24:15 AM

Have you even read any of my posts

9/12/2012 2:27:56 AM

Quote :

"You find a massive, sinister, evil conspiracy controlled demolition more probable than cascading structural failure?"

Yes.

9/12/2012 2:29:22 AM

The diesel fuel was specifically mentioned as not being able to burn hot enough to be a contributing factor. Diesel really doesn't burn hot (as you mentioned) and is incredibly stable (unlike gasoline).

However, a candle burns at 1800 F, a cigarette burns at 1100 F without drawing (higher when drawing) on it.

Quick research that I did found that in a house fire, the temperature will go above 1100 F.

Also, looking up NYC's building code, it doesn't cover floor support joints to columns, though it does cover firewalls and what they need to be rated at (1 hour of burn time). The current code also requires an automatic sprinkler system, something WTC 7 lacked.

Obviously though, there is a larger ICC code that I don't really care to read through. It may detail expansion joints and how much expansion they need to allow.

9/12/2012 2:38:49 AM

9/12/2012 6:59:52 AM

Quote :

"You find a massive, sinister, evil conspiracy more probable than cascading structural failure?"

Well, we have concrete evidence that the government is massive, sinister, and evil. We don't even need to resort to conspiracy theories to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. The government kills innocent children. The government incarcerates innocent people. This is beyond dispute, it's simply a fact confirmed by the government's own records. If we were putting the government on trial, we could convict it of millions of thefts, kidnappings, and murders without even getting into any grand conspiracy territory; it'd be an open and shut case.

In this context, though, I'm not even interested in any of that. I just want to know what actually happened. Many of the victims families also don't buy the official story and would like some closure. It's just unfathomable to me that anyone can look at the evidence and walk away saying, "Yep, seems legit".

Quote :

"The entire case rests on the fact that it looks like a controlled demolition. There's just no proof of that. The bigger the claim, the more evidence you need."

I agree completely. Problem is, the evidence was pretty hastily taken away, shipped off to China, melted down, etc. What evidence is left is closed off to the public. Maybe there's no conspiracy. It could have been a real, structural failure. What possible "national security" reasons are there to keep this stuff under wraps? Seems like a public safety issue, to me.

[Edited on September 12, 2012 at 9:47 AM. Reason : ]

9/12/2012 9:36:42 AM

9/12/2012 12:31:22 PM

Looks like I stumbled in to a Salisburyboy circa 2004 thread.

9/12/2012 1:02:25 PM

9/12/2012 1:04:14 PM

LOL!

9/12/2012 1:12:30 PM

message_topic.aspx?topic=159930
message_topic.aspx?topic=368807
message_topic.aspx?topic=398061
message_topic.aspx?topic=427682

9/12/2012 2:30:15 PM