WTC7 collapse on Sep 11-2001

zarathustra

I am surprised there isn't already a Twin Towers or WTC7 or 9/11 thread in the "conspiracy" forum. Well this thread can discuss WTC7, the third skyscraper to collapse on 9/11, it wasn't hit by any plane and its collapse hasn't been explained at all by the US admin. It is obvious from looking at its collapse that it has been taken down with pre-planted explosives. http://www.wtc7.net/

First here is a dutch controlled demolition expert, Danny Jowenko, seeing the WTC7 collapse for the first time (and like many people, he didn't even know a 3rd building collapsed on 9/11)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgoSOQ2xrbI

Later he is asked by telephone to confirm if he still believes WTC7 was controlled demolition

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QajDxF9uEf4&mode=related&search=


if you watch that clip you will see that the BBC reported the WTC7's "sudden" collapse 23 minutes BEFORE it even happened, the story was obviously all being stage-managed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KD9XpRQRH6E
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/february2007/270207trustanything.htm

The BBC was forced to respond to footage showing their correspondent reporting the collapse of WTC 7 before it fell on 9/11, claiming tapes from the day are somehow missing, and refusing to identify the source for their bizarre act of "clairvoyance" in accurately pre-empting the fall of Building 7.

Their pathetic reply was laughable. They are claiming they have LOST all their tapes from that day. So they claim they have lost all the tapes to one of the biggest news events in our lifetime.

They have also said
"We're not part of a conspiracy. Nobody told us what to say or do on September 11th. We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down. We didn't receive press releases or scripts in advance of events happening."

So no explanation how they knew the building was going to fall!!! Just a lucky guess!!!

And a second BBC recording has shown them reporting WTC7 collapse 25 minutes BEFORE the collapse. This is from BBC News 24. The time is on the screen, 21.54, the building collapsed at 22.20 british time

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lWQ5cJ5XYY

here is the BBC's laughable response. You can see from the comments section that most people weren't happy with their feeble explanation.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html

The BBC was forced to issue a second response following a barrage of criticism against their initial effort to dismiss the Building 7 fiasco and their unbelievable claim that they had mysteriously lost all footage from BBC World's 9/11 coverage.

In reality, this story boils down to two facets and the BBC has not provided an adequate answer to either of them;

a) What was the source of the information that led the BBC to report that Building 7 had collapsed before it did? In his second response, head of BBC World Richard Porter cites CNN, local news media and unnamed firefighters who were interviewed after the fact, but still cannot provide an individual or authority by name.

Porter attempts to create a scenario whereby the collapse of Building 7 was easily anticipated, and this is why news organizations jumped the gun to report its demise. In reality, WTC 7 stood over 300 yards away from the twin towers and was partly shielded by WTC 6 which did not collapse yet was completely gutted by raging fires and debris damage, whereas WTC 7 had limited fires. Building 7 was structurally reinforced in 1989 giving it, "Enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity," according to the New York Times.

The BBC's 9/11 Conspiracy Files documentary claimed that Building 7 was a "raging inferno," a gross error considering the fact that fires spread sporadically across just eight floors of the skyscraper.

Nobody could have anticipated the building's collapse unless they knew that explosive devices were in place to take it down. NYPD officers heard bombs as they ran away from its implosion.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/03/part_of_the_conspiracy_2.html

CNN also reported the collapse of WTC7 before it actually happened
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1LetB0z8_o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GEAnn3uN30

A close up of WTC7 clearly shows that explosives were used in the building, eplosives and not fires brought the building down. Further evidence that the official story on 9/11 is lies, it takes weeks of planning the plant the explosives in a building to bring it down successfully straight down on itself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ua7pkQQ1AiU&mode=related&search=

http://prisonplanet.com/articles/june2007/190607interview.htm

Dirk Gently

zarathustra wrote: »

I am surprised there isn't already a Twin Towers or WTC7 or 9/11 thread in the "conspiracy" forum.

use the search button

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

omg... so it actually *was* a conspiracy?

zarathustra

clown bag wrote: »

use the search button

there isn't any threads on it on the opening page that I can see, why were they moved?

zarathustra

Mordeth wrote: »

omg... so it actually *was* a conspiracy?

Of course it was, if you beleive the "official" version (have you actually read the official report?) then you believe it was a conspiracy organised by Osama Bin laden, however funnily enough, the FBI openly admit they don't believe Osama Bin Laden was involved, if you contact their HQ and ask them they will confrim that Bin Laden is wanted only for other crimes, as they have no evidence that he was involved. if you do believe Bin Laden was involved would you please forward your info to the FBI!!!

If you research what happened that day and you beleive it was an "inside job", then you believe it was a conspiracy involving the US admin.

Either explanation is a conspiracy. However the official version is a conspircay theory as there is no evidence Bin laden was involved. The second version is conspiracy evidence, when there is evidence it is no longer just a theory.

Don't you think your post is very inappropriate for a moderator on what is supposed to be a conspiracy forum. You sound like one of the trolls.

Dirk Gently

zarathustra wrote: »

there isn't any threads on it on the opening page that I can see,

wtc mega thread

zarathustra wrote: »

why were they moved?

C.I.A. dirty tricks I think :eek:

meglome

The whole WTC thing has been trashed out in here at length hence Mordeths sarcasm and from my reading of it there was no conspiracy . There are indeed some unanswered questions but unanswered questions don't make a conspiracy. And you can take a selection of the many conflicting and confused reports on the day to find a conspiracy but again in a confused and changing situation it would be weird if there weren’t reports at odds with each other. The fact is in the only other comparable building collapse in Madrid, the whole steel part of the building collapsed completely and only from a fire. The fire took longer in Madrid but then the bottom half of the building was concrete which didn't collapse. Ignoring all your video clips for a minute and looking at simple probability, you want us to believe the somehow all these media outlets conspired to hide what happened, perhaps hundreds of people involved, very unlikely indeed. You expect us to believe that in an area where thousands of people worked no one noticed potentially truck loads of explosives being placed in any of the buildings. All the buildings were open and no one saw anything out of the ordinary before the planes hit. Want to believe if you wish but the evidence of a conspiracy doesn’t add up when looked at closely.

meglome

clown bag wrote: »

wtc mega thread


C.I.A. dirty tricks I think :eek:

The poll in that thread says a lot about conspiracy theorists. Literally hundreds of people saw a plane come in towards the pentagon and many saw it hit the building. But because a handful say it was a rocket and we get to watch some nice videos on the internet, which are extremely selective, it becomes somehow true. There was supposedly no plane wreckage when I’ve actually seen the footage and there’s plenty of bits of plane. The mind boggles.

This is a good one too http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055155231 By the end of it the guy completely changes his mind.

Jocksereire

Yes it has been trashed out in here and from my reading the building was taken down by controlled demolition. There are unanswered questions because of the conspiracy. As some people admit they will ignore your videoclips and tell you what they believe which is fine and they are entitled to do. The evidence is there infront of your face but some people just wont look.

meglome

Jocksereire wrote: »

Yes it has been trashed out in here and from my reading the building was taken down by controlled demolition. There are unanswered questions because of the conspiracy. As some people admit they will ignore your videoclips and tell you what they believe which is fine and they are entitled to do. The evidence is there infront of your face but some people just wont look.

If there was high speed footage of inside that building as it collapsed then we would have a definitive answer, but we don't. So we look at the evidence and the overall probabilities. We know another building has collapsed from just a fire in Madrid, there is not a whiff of conspiracy there (credible anyway). We know that the plates holding up the floors of all these WTC buildings were potentially weak if heated enough, and nowhere near melting point is required. The building was burning out of control. There is not one smidgen of evidence that explosives were planted, it is just absolutely totally unbelievable that this would be done and no one would see anything or spill their guts about it. Have you seen how long it takes to prepare a building for controlled demolition? And after all that WTC7 collapses the same way as the towers. The towers collapse from exactly where the planes hit them. The floors the plane hit and fully occupied and still no one saw a thing. But there's still a conspiracy. I don't get it. I always thought blind faith was an incredible thing.

Mahatma coat

I'm really beginning to believe that there is a huge conspiracy, however its nothing like what anyone here on this forum imagines, it goes much deeper and stretches a lot further back than yethink.

yes it is possible to cover all these things up and perpetrate not just a new set of lies to placate the masses but a new conspiracy theory to keep the other half guesing, both sides are being misled for the same reason, divide and conquer.

yes WTC7 is very interesting - did I miss a small Cesna or something that crashed into it as well.

As for Madrid

It was inconcievable for a steel building to collape due to fire up to of 911, then when people start questionin this a convieniently similar structure colapses on cue and leaves us with a blueprint of how this 'can happen'.

its all a part of a much biger lie, I havent figured it out meself but I'm tryin ta keep an open mind about these things

oh yeah haha to the first F**Ker who says something about a mind too open causin brains to fall out.

I ask ye how ya fit so much info into such narrow little minds

Mahatma coat

oh yeah ZAR

Mordeth aint a mod on this Forum (Miju and Bily The Squid are the mods) so he can basicly say whatever he wants within the bounds of the charter just like you and me.

if someone says something that 'truly offends your sensibilities' then use the report post button













<

---

the red triangly thingy over there

bonkey

zarathustra wrote: »

(have you actually read the official report?)

The official report regarding WTC7 hasn't been released yet. It would be difficult for anyone, therefore, to have read it.

The official reports regarding WTC 1 & 2 - the NIST reports - I have read in their thousands-and-thousands-of-pages entirety. Have you?

humanji

zarathustra wrote: »

there isn't any threads on it on the opening page that I can see, why were they moved?

Oh, and the threads weren't moved (well pusposefully). We had a huge influx of posts claiming various people were lizardmen, and as a result threads like the Sept. 11 threads, got pushed back because people didn't post on them.

I'm assuming that you're only seeing one page to this forum. At the bottom of the screen you'll see a section marked "Display Options". This will say how far back it will show posts from. In the "From The" dropdown box, select "Beginning" and then click the "show threads" button. This will list all the threads in the forum.

The biggest Sept. 11 thread is here:
The Great Big 9/11 Conspiracy Theory Thread [Megamerge]

But there's plenty more to look through (just make sure you have plenty of time on your hands. )

Jocksereire

bonkey wrote: »

The official report regarding WTC7 hasn't been released yet. It would be difficult for anyone, therefore, to have read it.

The official reports regarding WTC 1 & 2 - the NIST reports - I have read in their thousands-and-thousands-of-pages entirety. Have you?

So tell us what did NIST say about HOW the buildings totally collapsed? For anyone who doesnt know .....they didnt. LOL there are even people who worked for NIST for 20 years who say theyre should be a proper investigation.
A proper independant investigation has never taken place.

Oh and just so people know NIST have outsourced the investigation into the collapse of WTC7 because as the say themselves they were having difficulty trying to get a grip on that collapse. So what did the f**king liars do? They outsource it so they will deflect all critiscism of it when it is released.(i think it is to some company in new Mexico called ARA) ALSO they have told that company to focus on the collapse from floors 8 to 46 and not below or above these floors. So when NIST release this steaming pile of horse sh*te, do keep this in mind when the OCTsstart waving it about like the bible

Jocksereire

Mahatma coat wrote: »

I'm really beginning to believe that there is a huge conspiracy, however its nothing like what anyone here on this forum imagines,

this is correct

Jocksereire

meglome wrote: »

There is not one smidgen of evidence that explosives were planted, .

lol just watch the building fall in 7 seconds :rolleyes:
So when a guy states exploisions were going off in WTC7 BEFORE collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 thats not a smidgen of evidence? Thats all the evidence you need. Unless as you already state above you ignore the evidence and look at it from your point of view....

civdef

It was inconcievable for a steel building to collape due to fire up to of 911, then when people start questionin this a convieniently similar structure colapses on cue and leaves us with a blueprint of how this 'can happen'.

Inconceivable, eh?

Mahatma coat

Right so, Show me ONE steel and concrete structure which collapsed due to fire prior to 911. I've been to Bougauinville, they burnt entire cities to the ground in the early eighties, guess what the only remenants are. yep the steel and concrete frames. there are photos over there of the time it happened that look reminiscent of Dresden during the war, actually how many steel framed structures collapsed in Dresden?

meglome

Jocksereire wrote: »

lol just watch the building fall in 7 seconds :rolleyes:
So when a guy states exploisions were going off in WTC7 BEFORE collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 thats not a smidgen of evidence? Thats all the evidence you need. Unless as you already state above you ignore the evidence and look at it from your point of view....

So the WTC buildings fell in a very similar way, straight down. I think we agree on that. They fell straight down just like many controlled demolitions would. Again I think we agree on that. The major difference here is you believe that is proof that it was a controlled demolition. Whereas I'm saying there was somewhere in the region of ten thousand people working on that site and NOT ONE PERSON saw anything out of the ordinary that would suggest explosives were planted (or could have been planted). I'm not ignoring 'evidence' I'm pointing out there are other ways to look at this evidence without the assumption there's a conspiracy. I'm keeping an open mind while looking at the different probabilities while you seem to want to choose the conspiracy over all other possibilities.

meglome

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Right so, Show me ONE steel and concrete structure which collapsed due to fire prior to 911. I've been to Bougauinville, they burnt entire cities to the ground in the early eighties, guess what the only remenants are. yep the steel and concrete frames. there are photos over there of the time it happened that look reminiscent of Dresden during the war, actually how many steel framed structures collapsed in Dresden?

Most of the structure of the WTC buildings were steel. Concrete is much less susceptible to heat than steel is, steel will buckle and twist in the heat. And with the design of the brackets holding the floors up in the WTC buildings they were much more susceptible to heat. That tower in Madrid only the steel part of the building collapsed and only by a fire. But I assume now that was all part of the conspiracy. :rolleyes:

Mahatma coat

OK fair enough, show me a steel structure that colapsed in such a total and spectacular fashion prior to the WTC.

and even the Madrid example is a bad one as parts of it remained standing

bonkey

Mahatma coat wrote: »

OK fair enough, show me a steel structure that collapsed in such a total and spectacular fashion prior to the WTC.

Kader Toy Factory, Thailand, May 10 1993.

I'm not entirely sure of the reasoning behind the "give me prior art" argument, though.

Whatever alternate explanation one offers for the collapse of WTC1 and 2 will also be without precedent. No building that tall has ever fallen. If it was controlled demolition - as many conspiracy supporters seem to believe - then there are equally a number of factors which make it impossible to show a case where it has happened before.

Tacoma Narrows Bridge was the first time a bridge ever collapsed due to wind-induced harmonic resonance. Can we say that because it never happened before that point, that wind-induced harmonic resonance cannot or does not collapse bridges?

Indeed, WTC1 and 2 were the first steel-supported buildings of that magnitude to be built. If we cannot show that buildings like them had been built before, can we conclude anything about the possibility of Twin Towers having been constructed?

and even the Madrid example is a bad one as parts of it remained standing

It depends on what you want an example of. As an example of the different capabilities of steel and concrete to withstand fire, its an excellent example.

As an example of steel-supported high-rise collapse, (complete with quotes from onlookers mentioning explosions) its a great example.

Mahatma coat

t\yeah, but what I'm sayin is that the tacoma bridge taught us a lot about why the bridge failed and led to massive changes in how bridges were built, this can not be said to be the case with the WTC situation, they were purported to be able to withstand the impact of a plane, which they did they remained standin after the planes hit them, they were supposed to be able to withstand fire as well, we're supposed to believe that the combination of both brought them down, tho the fires were contained to a few dozen floors on both buildings.

what caused it to come down in such a manner, straight down no resistance, no realistic resistance from all that steel in the central structure of the building, surely trying to push that much debris un front of itself as teh building colapses would cause some sort of resistance, cause teh debris to fanout more, but no , straight down nothing but a series of dustclouds as the floors give way under themselves, has all the steel all the way down melted and fatigued?

did the debris from this fire cause the structural failure of building seven?

what does it tell us?

bonkey

Mahatma coat wrote: »

t\yeah, but what I'm sayin is that the tacoma bridge taught us a lot about why the bridge failed and led to massive changes in how bridges were built, this can not be said to be the case with the WTC situation,

I believe it can be said with respect to the NIST situation: http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_062007.html

The findings from NIST have already led to building-code changes at an International level.

they were purported to be able to withstand the impact of a plane, which they did they remained standin after the planes hit them,

Agreed.

they were supposed to be able to withstand fire as well,

Were they?

My understanding was that the fireproofing applied to the steel was there to try and ensure a minimum durability...but that's different to saying that the building could withstand fire indefinitely. I'm not sure if that means we agree or disagree here.

we're supposed to believe that the combination of both brought them down,

Lets look at it a somewhat-different way...

Lets agree (for now, at least) that the building was designed to withstand the impact from a plane.

A plane crashes into it, and the crash is withstood. Is the now-damaged building still designed to withstand the impact from a plane...or does that design only apply to the undamaged building?

If its the case that the design criteria still applies, then we can theoretically impact an infinite number of planes and the building won't ever fall down. Clearly, this is nonsensical, so we must conclude that when the building reaches some critical state the original design criteria stop applying to the building.

Regarding WTC1 and 2, I would disagree that WTC 1 and 2 were designed or known to be capable of withstanding fire indefinitely, but would agree that they were designed - as best as was possible at the time - to resist fire for some period of time (to allow for evacuation, typically). From my (dodgy) memory, the major criteria was that the fireproofing (which supposedly got damaged in the impact) should have withstood fire for 45 minutes. I don't believe there was any durability quoted for the steel-frame alone, but I could well be wrong there.

Either which way, the point here is that any figures quoted for how well the building would stand up to fire would be for an otherwise undamaged building, unless explicitly stated. But we know that the building wasn't undamaged, so the question we must first ask is whether or not any of the known fire-ratings would/could/should still apply.

From memory (which - as I said, is dodgy), both buildings remained standing longer than the minimum required time. Thus, (if I'm right about that) they met their design standard even while damaged.

But ultimately, a building designed to withstand fire or an airplane crash is not necessarily a building designed to withstand an airplane crash and the resultant fire. It might be...I don't rule that out. But someone would need to show the study which looked at crashing an airplane and which modelled the fire to the damaged building. To my knowledge, no study prior to NISTs report was done on that topic.

So, coming back to what you said...yes, we're being asked to believe that a building designed to withstand either one of two events was not designed to withstand the combination of both events together.

tho the fires were contained to a few dozen floors on both buildings.

This contained the floors where impact occurred, which is also where the building ultimately failed. The remainder of the building's floors collapsed either because they had no support (above the point of failure) or because they had 15+ floors crashing down onto them from above, overloading their load-bearing capability effectively instantly.

what caused it to come down in such a manner, straight down no resistance, no realistic resistance from all that steel in the central structure of the building, surely trying to push that much debris un front of itself as teh building colapses would cause some sort of resistance, cause teh debris to fanout more, but no , straight down nothing but a series of dustclouds as the floors give way under themselves, has all the steel all the way down melted and fatigued?

Can you describe what you think should have happened?

did the debris from this fire cause the structural failure of building seven?

I believe it plays a key role. I also believe that if we (or posters in general) cannot achieve consensus regarding WTC 1 and 2, that discussing 7 is a dead-end.

Mahatma coat

Look \, Seven is one of the key issues for me, up until I had found out about it, which was a fair while after 911, I was content to accept the stories wth a degree of scepticism, but its one of those things that I just cant rationalise away.

so I wont.

for buildings to fall like that the steel at the centre would have to melt or crumble.

there was not enough heat in those fires alone, contained high up the towers to cause the steel to melt like that throughout the entire building

only a small part of the towers had holes inthem only parts of the towers were on fire.

bonkey

Look \, Seven is one of the key issues for me, up until I had found out about it, which was a fair while after 911, I was content to accept the stories wth a degree of scepticism, but its one of those things that I just cant rationalise away.

so I wont.

Nor would I ask you to.

I made my point badly, so let me put it a different way.

If I cannot convince you that there is at least a credible possibility that WTC1 and WTC2 collapsed from the damage caused by airliners and the ensuing fires, then I cannot convince you in any way shape or form that WTC7 is in any way explicable. You may question NISTs findings, for example, and favour the model of Quintiere, but he still says fundamentally that it was planes and fire.

If you cannot be moved regarding the towers, then I am 100% confident that you will not accept that damage from falling debris and the ensuing fires, coupled with the unique construction of WTC7 is what led to the collapse. I could be wrong in that, but that's why I think its worth looking at 1 and 2 first.

for buildings to fall like that the steel at the centre would have to melt or crumble.

Why?

Bear in mind that when the first floor collapsed, you effectively had 15+ floors crashing from a one-storey height onto the floor below. Do you honestly believe that floor was designed to withstand such a weight?

To give you a simple comparison...I'm pretty sure that if I rest a 10kg weight on my foot, my foot will be fine. I can probably even raise and lower the weight...all without damage. If I take the same weight and drop it on my foot from a height, I'm fairly confident that my foot will not be fine, but rather will suffer from some broken bones. I'm also fairly sure that those bones will break on impact, and not some seconds later.

Now...once the first floor impacted collapses, there is all teh mass which collapsed it and its own mass added on top of that, crashing down on to the next floor. Why would that resist longer then the floor above, when there is more weight hitting it?

there was not enough heat in those fires alone, contained high up the towers to cause the steel to melt like that throughout the entire building

I agree completely. The steel in the lower floors absolutely and unquestionably did not melt, weaken from heat, or crumble from causes unknown.

No argument here whatsoever on that score....merely on the claim that such a condition would be necessary.

only a small part of the towers had holes inthem only parts of the towers were on fire.

And those two parts both match up 100% to where the collapse initiated. It was the collapsing mass of the upper floors that took the rest of the building down.

Mahatma coat

tis just weird that thy came down so straight, from what I remember from the doccos the central core of the building was much stronger than the outer officearea bits but didn't go up as far as the top. this bit is the bit I'm talkin about,


AFAIK

the buildings were designed to cope with a lot of scenarios occurin which might have destroyed them, the engineers designed the buildings with these scenarios in mind, the building had a stronger more solid central core below the floors that were hit, these less solid upper outer floors should have been deflected by the more solid core, which should have remained standing even if the entire outside steel (and some concrete)fell on it, I think that may have been part of the design

the mass of the upper floors shouldn't have been enough to crush the central core of the building






.......... ............
|.......| |.........|
|.......| |.........|
< .. > |.........|
|.. ...| |.........|
|. || .| < ||>.|
|..||..| |...||...|
| ||| | | ||| |
| ||| | | ||||||
||||||| | ||||||
||||||| |||||||
\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\

anyway the point is that in the event of a fire the central bit should have been able to take the weight of the outer bit and 'break its fall' as it collapsed down on itself

meglome

Mahatma coat wrote: »

tis just weird that thy came down so straight, from what I remember from the doccos the central core of the building was much stronger than the outer officearea bits but didn't go up as far as the top. this bit is the bit I'm talkin about,
AFAIK
the buildings were designed to cope with a lot of scenarios occurin which might have destroyed them, the engineers designed the buildings with these scenarios in mind, the building had a stronger more solid central core below the floors that were hit, these less solid upper outer floors should have been deflected by the more solid core, which should have remained standing even if the entire outside steel (and some concrete)fell on it, I think that may have been part of the design the mass of the upper floors shouldn't have been enough to crush the central core of the building anyway the point is that in the event of a fire the central bit should have been able to take the weight of the outer bit and 'break its fall' as it collapsed down on itself

As far as I remember the buildings were designed to take an impact from a Boeing 707 or similar plane. But they were hit by Boeing 757's. The 757's are bigger, heavier, faster and hold more fuel. So these planes are going to cause more damage than the original engineers of the building allowed for. It’s been reported the fire proofing on the steel had not held up well with age and was also likely blasted off the steel by the explosion caused by the plane hit. We know as a fact (from the original engineers) that the floors of the building were held up by fairly small brackets which if heated enough (not anywhere near melting) might weaken enough to fail. The clinching aspect of all this for me is the collapses began exactly where the planes hit the buildings. What is the likelihood of explosives being placed at exactly the same spot as the plane would hit. Planes that came in at hundreds of miles and hour piloted by inexperienced pilots. (Even if you want to believe they were remotely controlled, it would be some feat). I have no way to know if buildings like these should collapse in on themselves. But what I can speculate about is if a massive weight falling like that, i.e. the tops of the buildings, they could fall in on themselves. A controlled explosion uses the buildings own weight to bring it down, by blasting out some of the supports on particular floors in a selective order. The floors where the planes hit were badly damaged effectively creating the same situation. We may not be able to say with 100% certainty why they collapsed as they did it’s not weird whatsoever.

Nick_oliveri

Look, there is no debate on the issue until the report comes out. Then we (the woo's) point out, or some might make up inconsistancies or whatever, and around and around we go.

Anyone who gets into this **** and does their own research, is going to take a side and camp there, not swayed by conflicting evidence, facts or a rational argument. I do find it hard to believe that people dont see the problems with the "official" explanations of the day in question. But i understand now. Its become an (un)civil war of words, an orgy of arguments, and i fail to see the point in debating the issue anymore.

I lurk some sites every so often, randi and ats, waiting to see the bomb drop. Do i think it will happen? No. Are the twoofers a reflection of paranoia in todays society? I dont know. Are the debunkers placing their trust on the offical account somewhat misguided? i dont know that either.

All i do know though, if you lurk or post at forums dedicated to either side of the conspiricy that is 9/11 (Al queda conspiracy vs the gubbliments diddit). Then you caught the buzz/ have the juice. Now all thats left is for you to decide if you want to stay out of the argument, play piggy in the middle or take a side in this neverending war of bullcrap.

Either side loves the arguments, oh its brilliant. I shall cleanse you of your ignorance and show you the truth. Me and my buddies know whats what and we are DEDICATED to show you. I've seen either side get pissy and throw a tantrum, start with the insults. When it all comes down to it, the same mantra that im seeing is basic - Im right, and you are wrong.

Im not trying to impose my views on anyone, how can i present a case to a person uneducated in this sh1te without a bias towards my "side"? I cant. Its similar with the abortion issue, i dont know whats right, i still havent decided, i've got piss all hard facts and i lean a few degrees to one side.

Jocksereire

good post N_O and sums up must people in here (well me anyway)in my opinion apart from those who are new to the issue

Mahatma coat

Lads this was a basic discusssion about the construction of the WTC,

see thats what Im sayin.

It does seem to escalate very quickly into two camps divided over small issues cos theyre not sure what the bigger picture is.

bonkey

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Lads this was a basic discusssion about the construction of the WTC,

Yes and no. The topic was originally about WTC7 (as the title of the thread suggests). It turned into a discussion about the construction of 1 and 2. Nick's comments harked back to WTC7 and the fact that the NIST report on same still isn't final.

It does seem to escalate very quickly into two camps divided over small issues cos theyre not sure what the bigger picture is.

I disagree. I think its two camps divided on the bigger picture, who's interpretations of the 'small issues' consequently must disagree.

The more general problem, for me, is that it seems to be mostly impossible to look at these small details in isolation and in detail. Instead, there always seems to be a flitting from one point to another, with none either being resolved.

mdfireng

I am absolutely amazed at the number of 'experts' there are on this panel proclaiming to know how buildings perform in fire. There was acutally a very intensive technical investigation carried out into the collapse by NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) in the US. It was costliest fire investigation in history and its report can be downloaded from their website (if you can be bothered to read the several hundred pages).

The structural design of the twin towers was unique in that to avoid columns in the office space (developers hate that) the stability was provided by a central core which was connected to the vertical columns on the external elevations. A 'Top Hat' feature was also included at the top which tied the columns back to the central core. This design in effect sealed the fate of the towers as with the damge to the central core and the external columns meant signifcant structural stability was lost. The impact also resulted in the fire protection to the steel, which wasnt great in the first place, being dislodged and the sprinklers being knocked out. You also had a multi floor fire involving jet fuel which is a much more severe heating regieme than normal office contents. In addition the vibration from the impact was so severe that the towers were still shaking 4 minutes later.

The study showed that the fire alone, or the impact alone would not have caused collapse but a combination of all of the above. Once the structure went on one floor, with weight of all the floors above, what happened was inevitable.

As for the Windsor fire in madrid, this building was in the process of being refurbished, and so fire protection and fire stopping was incomplete, allowing fire to spread rapidly. Again there are numerous technical papers.

I think people should refrain from commenting on something which they clearly know nothing about and stop allowing themselves to be influenced by nutters like David Icke.

bonkey

mdfireng wrote: »

Once the structure went on one floor, with weight of all the floors above, what happened was inevitable.

Its ironic that you seem to have missed that the main discussion point has been about whether or not what happened was inevitable.

It is also worth noting that this was not covered in any great detail by the NIST report. - a point already made on this thread, which you seem to have also overlooked.

mdfireng

The point i am trying to make here is that people with little knowledge of buildings performance in fire seem very willing to take the word of those who add 2 and 2 to get 5, against the word of people who spent a number of years scientifically researching the collapse.

Im also well aware of what the Nist report says but I will admit I havent read every posting on this thread so maybe covering something said already.

Jocksereire

Ok lads. Firstly both planes fuels tanks were one third full so saying that the 767 held more fuel than a fully loaded 707 is incorrect.

If the collapse initiation was due to a combination of impact damage and fire then how can the designers say it was designed for 1 if not multiple plane impacts. How can anyone seriously design a building for a plane impact and NOT consider the fire potential and the fuel carried by the plane? How can a planes hit the building 90 stories up without being full of fuel? Im sorry but this is not even a starter of a conversation in my opinion when talking about collapse initiation.

NIST themselves say "The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes" hence any fire after a few minutes is what? Nothing more than an office fire.

Have a look at this paper to get an idea of the amount of fuel that was in the buildings after impact and the fire ball outside. An opinions on it? It is a peer reviewed paper so feel free to email the authour with mistakes you find or questions
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/e/VisualizationAidsWTCTowers.pdf

Also for the person who believes that total collapse was inevitable after initiation can you tell us why?

Mind you all of this have very little to do with WTC7

Jocksereire

mdfireng wrote: »

people with little knowledge of buildings performance in fire seem very willing to take the word of those who add 2 and 2 to get 5, against the word of people who spent a number of years scientifically researching the collapse.

can you please tell me who you refer to? who are the people saying 2+2=5. that statement is too general. Can you be more specific with a few names??
are these the people you refer to?
A world-renowned scientist, recipient of the National Medal of Science, America's highest honor for scientific achievement (Dr. Lynn Margulis) said
"I suggest that those of us aware and concerned demand that the glaringly erroneous official account of 9/11 be dismissed as a fraud and a new, thorough, and impartial investigation be undertaken."

or
Dr. James Quintiere?
The former head of the Fire Science Division of the government agency which claims that the World Trade Centers collapsed due to fire (the National Institute of Standards and Technology), who is one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering ,..... . "I wish that there would be a peer review of this," he said, referring to the NIST investigation. "I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they've done; both structurally and from a fire point of view. ... I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable."

Now if you want i can post many other names of scientists and engineers who have called for a proper and independent investigation if you want but i think i made my point clear.
You say you are "well aware" of what NIST says so how come you didnt find anything wrong or that contradicts in with the report and these people did?
So again can you give me the names of the 2+2=5 people?

Jocksereire

One last question (i said that a millions times i know)

People can argue how this or that fell or how the military ceased to operate on that day etc etc and there are some crazy theories of what happened on that day and also not so crazy. But in general what people really want in the 911 truth movement is a re opening and a proper investigation.

Is there anyone who believes that everything in the 911 commision is true and there is no need for a new investigation? Its a yes or no question.

Let me quote the 911 comissioners themselves
9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said "We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting"

Former 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: "It is a national scandal"; "This investigation is now compromised"; and "One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up".

The Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) who led the 9/11 staff's inquiry, said "I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described .... The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years.... This is not spin. This is not true."

The 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials lied to the Commission, and considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements, yet didn't bother to tell the American people.

bonkey

Jocksereire wrote: »

How can anyone seriously design a building for a plane impact and NOT consider the fire potential and the fuel carried by the plane?

The technology and mathematics to model fire effects in buildings didn't exist at the time.

Ergo, we can say with surity that the effects of fire were not modelled at design time.

As it is, there is uncertainty about quite what was modelled. Some say it was a model of a slow-flying, mostly-out-of-fuel 707. Others say that it was a fast-flying, fully fuelled 707.
Some say it was a design issue. Others say it was a calculation performed post-design which happened to give the desired answer.

What we know for sure is this:

1) Whatever modelling was done has been lost. Thus, it is impossible to verify what was modelled and if that modelling was correct
2) Nothing was modelled which could not have been modelled at that time. This includes fire effects.

NIST themselves say "The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes" hence any fire after a few minutes is what? Nothing more than an office fire.

The nature of how both start and spread is completely different, and this has an effect on things.

This is why its not exactly "nothing more than an office fire"...but you'd know that, given that NIST explain the details in that report you're familiar with.

Also for the person who believes that total collapse was inevitable after initiation can you tell us why?

In a nutshell - because there was nothing above ground-level with sufficient resistance to stop 10+ stories of mass falling.

Jocksereire

bonkey wrote: »

The technology and mathematics to model fire effects in buildings didn't exist at the time.

so they built it to withstand a plane crash and did not take into account the fuel?? I disagree with you here.

As it is, there is uncertainty about quite what was modelled. Some say it was a model of a slow-flying, mostly-out-of-fuel 707. Others say that it was a fast-flying, fully fuelled 707.
Some say it was a design issue. Others say it was a calculation performed post-design which happened to give the desired answer.

What we know for sure is this:

1) Whatever modelling was done has been lost. Thus, it is impossible to verify what was modelled and if that modelling was correct
2) Nothing was modelled which could not have been modelled at that time. This includes fire effects.

not sure what youre saying here. are you saying a discussion on a 707 compared to 767 is pointless?

The nature of how both start and spread is completely different, and this has an effect on things.

This is why its not exactly "nothing more than an office fire"...but you'd know that, given that NIST explain the details in that report you're familiar with.

fact is according to NIST it lasted at most a few minutes....twist it all you want its still only an office fire afterwards

In a nutshell - because there was nothing above ground-level with sufficient resistance to stop 10+ stories of mass falling.

Incorrect there was. coming from someone who always looks for evidence to back their claims up ....."in a nutshell" is shocking and hypocritical to say the least

oscarBravo

Jocksereire wrote: »

so they built it to withstand a plane crash and did not take into account the fuel?? I disagree with you here.

And yet I confidently predict that you won't be able to produce the tiniest shred of evidence to suggest that they did - merely that you believe they should have, as if that proves that they did.

Jocksereire wrote: »

Incorrect there was. coming from someone who always looks for evidence to back their claims up ....."in a nutshell" is shocking to say the last

The steel core was designed to support the weight of a stationary building - not one falling down.

Jocksereire

oscarBravo wrote: »

And yet I confidently predict that you won't be able to produce the tiniest shred of evidence to suggest that they did

ok they lied then did they when they said it could take a plane crash :rolleyes:

The steel core was designed to support the weight of a stationary building - not one falling down.

And yet I confidently predict that you won't be able to produce the tiniest shred of evidence to suggest that.
come on then explain how this total collapse occured to us all Please do enlighten us.this should be interesting

meglome

Jocksereire wrote: »

Ok lads. Firstly both planes fuels tanks were one third full so saying that the 767 held more fuel than a fully loaded 707 is incorrect.

Not what I said...

What I said was...The 757's are bigger, heavier, faster and hold more fuel. (should have been 767's, which are even bigger, heavier and faster)

Basically the mass of the plane was greater and therefore was going to cause more damage than was originally allowed for. The amount of fuel was only going to make this worse.

I'm not a structural engineer but from using my own eyes I can see that buildings brought down by controlled demolition have been set to fall in a similar way. So I know it could collapse this way. The weight of the tops of the buildings falling would have a similar effect to blasting out floors and letting the builds own weight take it down in controlled demolition. So just by making simple comparisons you can see it could have easily happened as the official reports says (Towers 1&2). I have no way to know for sure if that’s what actually happened, I’m just not assuming there’s a big conspiracy because I’d like there to be one.

meglome

Jocksereire wrote: »

And yet I confidently predict that you won't be able to produce the tiniest shred of evidence to suggest that.
come on then explain how this total collapse occured to us all Please do enlighten us.this should be interesting

As bonkey said earlier in the thread... Place a weight lightly on your foot. Then pick that weight up and drop it on your foot. Even a 5kg might do some damage if dropped but placed on your foot it wouldn't bother you.

Jocksereire

ok thanks for clearing that up for us all. Dropping weights on your feet, of course.

Right i really dont want to discuss this all again lads im sorry, i shouldnt have replied to any posts in the first place but i find myself getting hooked every time. Mainly for the reasons N_O points out. im tired of going round in circles.
All i want to see is a reinvestigation.
I take it from the silence to my question that none of you think a reinvestigation is necessary and you believe the 911 comission report is true?

for me this is a great shame but who really gives a toss

Mahatma coat

meglome wrote: »

As bonkey said earlier in the thread... Place a weight lightly on your foot. Then pick that weight up and drop it on your foot. Even a 5kg might do some damage if dropped but placed on your foot it wouldn't bother you.

nice analogy, but its a case of whether you're wearin sandals or Steelies when you drop the weight.

meglome

Jocksereire wrote: »

ok thanks for clearing that up for us all. Dropping weights on your feet, of course.

Right i really dont want to discuss this all again lads im sorry, i shouldnt have replied to any posts in the first place but i find myself getting hooked every time. Mainly for the reasons N_O points out. im tired of going round in circles.
All i want to see is a reinvestigation.
I take it from the silence to my question that none of you think a reinvestigation is necessary and you believe the 911 comission report is true?

for me this is a great shame but who really gives a toss

I have no way to know if the official report is correct or not. But after reading a lot of stuff about the whole event I don't really see the point for reinvestigation. Some questions cannot be answered, the building are gone. I don’t doubt they may have covered up some of what they learned. But at the end of the day the likelihood is we'd get to learn that the American government were even more incompetent than we thought, what would that help? Too many people do not want to believe things happened the way the report says. For me the conspiracy doesn’t stack up, I find many many more questions in the conspiracy than I do in the official report. I can’t be sure either way but my opinion is the official report is within reason believable.

Nick_oliveri

meglome wrote: »

But at the end of the day the likelihood is we'd get to learn that the American government were even more incompetent than we thought, what would that help?

Countries wouldn't be invaded for bullcrap reasons when the administration is removed. The climate of fear would be exposed for what it is - total lunacy and lies. No more terror alert orange, red or yellow. Well...less of it. The media bought into whatever fear they were fed for a long long time after 9/11. Intel based on confessions under strenuous torture for example. The WMD "Mobile trucks" in Iraq. "Al Queda" ties with Iraq. "Al Queda" as a large and multinational organisation with cells in every country. Osama's secret underground cities....im sure theres lots more.

bonkey

Jocksereire wrote: »

so they built it to withstand a plane crash and did not take into account the fuel?? I disagree with you here.

Both you and I can turn up no shortage of quotes attributed to the relevant people to show that there was some design studies regarding a plane-crash scenario.

I can also provide quotes, from the same people (e.g. from Leslie E. Robertson saying that they did not take the ensuing fires into accoun:

To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires.

There is already uncertainty about what exactly the crash-scenario studied was (as I've pointed out). Those most closely associated with it claim it was a low-speed, low-on-fuel, lost-in-fog situation, like what happened with the Empire State Building. Others claim that it was high-speed, fully-fuel laden. I'm not too concerned in those details (I'll address why shortly), but what we can say is that the existnece of this study is accepted despite there being no copy of the study known to exist because numerous involved parties have verified that yes, a study of some sort was done, and yes they (the parties commenting) were involved, or can verify that others were involved.

Those self-same people say that they are unaware of any studies done to process the ensuing fire and - like the study they do remember - there is no actual copy of such a study.

We have people saying "no, we didn't do that", and we have no study to prove them wrong.

On what basis, therefore, can one reasonably conclude that the study must have been done, or that its reasonable to assume it was done?

But lets assume you're right for a second. Lets actually go with the idea that the study was done and it said that the ensuing fires would not collapse the building. What proof is there that the study was correct? There is none.

fact is according to NIST it lasted at most a few minutes....twist it all you want its still only an office fire afterwards

I'm not questioning that the fuel byurned off in a few minutes. I agree that it should have, and that it did. The point I was making is that I would distinguish between "a fire fueled only by office materials" and "only an office fire". In an office fire, you have a point of ignition, followed by a "spread pattern". As the fire progresses, it will consume material in an outwards pattern...the fire is at its strongest at the perimeter, and will die down in the interior (on account of having burned all the available fuel) sooner.

In the cases of WTC 1 and 2, the jet fuel meant that there was no single point of ignition. Thus, the spread of fire and its ensuing burn-pattern were completely atypical for "only an office fire". The materials available to burn....here we are again in agreement....they would be exactly the same as in any other office building which catches fire.

not sure what youre saying here. are you saying a discussion on a 707 compared to 767 is pointless?

In effect, yes.

The building withstood the impact. I believe we - and everyone else here - all agree on this. It was not the impact alone which caused the buildings to fail. You say so, I say so. NIST says so. Everyone interested (except no-planers) says so.

So what is the relevance of discussing the differences?

Its relevant to look at the design of a 767 with respect to modelling the impact. The design of a 707, and the differences between them...what can it possibly tell us?

The building design may have been built to withstand nothing larger than a Cessna. It may have been designed to withstand an asteroid impact. It doesn't matter because when the design was put to the test, we know that only the outcome is relevant...and we know that the outcome was that the impact did not knock either tower.

Incorrect there was. coming from someone who always looks for evidence to back their claims up ....."in a nutshell" is shocking and hypocritical to say the least

In my case, at least, it was more a case of "running for a train, so no time to address the point in detail". I'm sure you have an equally valid reason for your equally-lacking-in-detail comments, so lets move on to supplying that missing detail rather than flinging mud, shall we?

The tower's construction consisted of multiple mutually-reinforcing design concepts. The main box-columns primarily gave vertical support. However, they in turn relied on the weight of the supported floors to keep them in place...and both the floors and the central columns relied on the curtain wall to give additional lateral stability. The curtain wall, in turn, relied on the floors for vertical stability.

Now...if one floor fails, where does its weight go? It (obviously) lands on the floor below. Ignoring the extra energy that momentum adds, we know that the box-columns and outer wall aren't being asked to support any more weight. So there's no problem...right? Well...maybe, but we need to look at that...

They may only need to support the same weight, but they are being asked to support a different weight distribution. Just think about that for a second. If you can suspend a 20kg from your left hand with your left arm outstretched, and you can do the same with your right arm....does that mean you can suspend 40kg from one arm, leaving the other free?

When failure occurred, it was ultimately because the support-mechanism for one floor failed, resuling in a lower floor being asked to carry too much weight, resulting in its collapse. This was exacerbated by additional factors - e.g. the collapse pulled the curtain (the 'perimeter columns') inwards, further weakening the load-bearing capacity of the floor immediately below the point of failure and weakening the support for all floors above the point of failure, which was sufficient (when added to the existing damage) to cause that entire chunk to collapse.

Once that happened...game over. There was no way for the lower section to "catch" the upper section.

There's been plenty of math looking at this. Some says there wasn't enough energy to "override" the proven load-bearing capabilitiy, but doesn't address that the load-bearing capability is dependant on load distribution.

bonkey

Mahatma coat wrote: »

nice analogy, but its a case of whether you're wearin sandals or Steelies when you drop the weight.

It is indeed. Excellent point.

If towers had "steelies", we would expect to see that each floor had the capability of supporting all the weight above it, should the suport columns collapse, requiring any given floor to carry all that weight. If they had that, however, the central support columns would be unnecessary in the first place and wouldn't be considered a key design feature. We'd also be able to see that the supports for each floor got stronger and stronger and stronger as we went down through the building.

If the towers had "sandals", then what we'd expect to see is that each floor's supports was capable of supporting the floor with some additional safety margin. We'd expect to see reinforcement on any floor which was carrying exceptional weight (e.g. a UPS), and we'd expect to see a fairly uniform reinforcement throughout the entire building.

I'll give you one guess as to which of those two is more accurately describing the floor-support mechanism.

if you believe its the steelies, then I'd strongly urge you to take my reasoning and present it to the Loose Change guys, as they have a copy of the plans of WTC. THey can verify for you that the floor supports are steelies, and from there it should be trivial to actually prove that collapse could not have happened.

At that point, you will effectively have proof-positive of a coverup and it should be "game, set and match Truthers".

Alternately...if you believe that they were sandals....then I want to make ti clear that I'm not actually suggesting anyone drop heavy weights on their feet to test whether or not dynamic loads are different to static ones.