Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Architects & Engineers - Solving the Mystery of WTC 7 - AE911Truth.org

Options
  • 05-09-2011 7:24am
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 6,911 ✭✭✭


    The best video of WTC 7 I've seen.
    Showing it's not a conspiracy, it's fact.



«13456789

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 25,232 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Well 2 mins in and I see problems.

    First I'm very disappointed in Ed Asner... He should be using his awesome voice for good..

    Second: how come they aren't showing the full collapse of the building? Why are they editing out a part of it?

    Third: The interview with the expert Danny Jowenko is horribly out of context.

    I don't think the next 13 minutes will be any better...


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,232 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    And now watching later segments they make lots of appeals to authority and
    Repeating the canard that "no steel framed building had collapsed before".
    Which is both misleading and factually wrong.

    They keep showing photos that supposedly show the fires not being as bad as claimed.
    So how come they didn't show this photo?:
    WTC7_Smoke.jpg

    And the biggie: Gage claims the building fell in 7 seconds.
    This is totally false.

    And all these "experts" keeping making claims that simply aren't true.

    And now referring to the long debunked, thoroughly dishonest "paper" that claims to have found thermite.

    This video is a hodge podge of lies, half-truths, distortions, misrepresentions, logical fallacies and plain old nonsense.
    I gave up after 10 minutes the dishonesty was coming too fast and thick for me to stomach.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,232 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Actually just watched beyond 10 minutes and using family members like that to plug their nonsense is sickening.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    Building was damaged? yes

    Parts of building collapsing? could easly happen

    Total building collapsing the way it did no way


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,232 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    Total building collapsing the way it did no way
    Why exactly?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    Why exactly?


    Because i believe that not the whole building got the same structual damage and fires at the same time so you would expect damaged and weaker parts to collapse first .... maybe even creating a domino effect .. but not in the perfect way that building came down


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    weisses wrote: »
    Because i believe that not the whole building got the same structual damage and fires at the same time so you would expect damaged and weaker parts to collapse first .... maybe even creating a domino effect .. but not in the perfect way that building came down

    It didn't come down perfectly it collapsed across streets.

    I'm not sure what you understand as Domino effect in a building.

    The building had massive damage once key supports collapsed the building couldn't sustain itself.

    Your argument is a argument from incredulity, it's not based in facts. You think this is the way it should have collapsed and therefore reject any alternative.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    I just dont agree wirh you and king mob

    Am i allowed to do that ? without starting another mostly boring building 7 thread ?


  • Registered Users Posts: 806 ✭✭✭Divorce Referendum


    weisses wrote: »
    Building was damaged? yes

    Parts of building collapsing? could easly happen

    Total building collapsing the
    way it did no way

    How do you know this? Have you examined the plans of the building and most importantly the structural plans?


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,232 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    Because i believe that not the whole building got the same structual damage and fires at the same time so you would expect damaged and weaker parts to collapse first .... maybe even creating a domino effect .. but not in the perfect way that building came down
    So what you'd expect would be for a section to fall first which would drag the rest down?
    Like what exactly happened?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUkvnfV606w

    http://www.debunking911.com/7-1.jpg
    http://www.debunking911.com/7-2.jpg

    It's an easy mistake to make since conspiracy sites (and videos like in the OP)generally edit that part of the footage out.
    weisses wrote: »
    I just dont agree wirh you and king mob

    Am i allowed to do that ? without starting another mostly boring building 7 thread ?
    Yes, and we are just asking why, then pointing out how you are incorrect.
    That's how a discussion works.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWorDrTC0Qg

    most of the fires were located at 1 side of the building so if the building would go it would topple towards were the twin towers were imo


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    Yes, and we are just asking why, then pointing out how you are incorrect.
    That's how a discussion works.

    What i read its more like how you want the discussion to work

    I could say i pulled building 7 and let you proof to me i didn't

    When you think its perfectly normal for a building as big as a football pitch that catches fire will collapse on itself within a few seconds .... fine by me


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,232 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    How come they aren't showing the entirety of the collapse?
    Why are they editing the start of it out?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUkvnfV606w
    weisses wrote: »
    most of the fires were located at 1 side of the building so if the building would go it would topple towards were the twin towers were imo
    And what are you basing this opinion on exactly?

    You said that you expected that the building would fail at one section first which would drag the rest of the building down.
    And I showed you this is what happens when if you look at the non-edited footage you don't see on conspiracy websites.
    Now you're moving the goalposts.
    weisses wrote: »
    What i read its more like how you want the discussion to work
    Well generally a discussion involves the presentation and countering of various points.
    Otherwise it's just you're using the forum as a blog.
    weisses wrote: »
    I could say i pulled building 7 and let you proof to me i didn't
    Well you see, in that case I'd explain how I couldn't prove a negative, and how that asking me to do so is a silly way to discuss something.
    weisses wrote: »
    When you think its perfectly normal for a building as big as a football pitch that catches fire will collapse on itself within a few seconds .... fine by me
    Well you see, I don't think that's what happened and that isn't what happened.
    But if you're fine with spreading untruths about what actually happened and are too closed minded to engage in a discussion that might force you to think about what you believe... fine by me.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭Genghiz Cohen


    weisses wrote: »
    When you think its perfectly normal for a building as big as a football pitch that catches fire will collapse on itself within a few seconds .... fine by me

    Wasn't it burning for like, hours?


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    Yeah ... 7 hours i think

    Followed the discussion about building 7

    Imo the north side of building 7 wasn't affected by much fire or debris
    At least i couldn't find pics or movies showing that.

    parts of the south facing structure collapsing because of fire or debris seems very plausible to me ... Not the way it collapsed the way it did now


  • Registered Users Posts: 33,444 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Wasn't it burning for like, hours?

    I think he meant the actual collapse itself.

    But yes, it would have only taken a few seconds to collapse. The 'kink' which appeared in the roof to me would suggest that much of the internal framework of the building was already in the process of collapsing or had already collapsed at lower floors, thereby providing less resistance and facilitating the collapse via directional forces (steel members being pulled, pushed or rotated)


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,166 ✭✭✭✭MrStuffins


    Gotta love some of the arguments around here

    "Sure, I reckon that if ya hit a building on one side, it'd fall over like a Jenga. therefore it must've been a conspiracy!"

    :rolleyes:


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,232 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    Yeah ... 7 hours i think

    Followed the discussion about building 7

    Imo the north side of building 7 wasn't affected by much fire or debris
    At least i couldn't find pics or movies showing that.

    parts of the south facing structure collapsing because of fire or debris seems very plausible to me ... Not the way it collapsed the way it did now
    And you realise that fires spread around on a floor right?

    What exactly is impossible about some of the internal supports giving out after hours of fires which overloads the rest of the weakened and damaged structure and pulls the rest down?

    Why did the east penthouse suddenly collapse?
    And more importantly how come none of the conspiracy videos show it doing so?


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    And you realise that fires spread around on a floor right?

    What exactly is impossible about some of the internal supports giving out after hours of fires which overloads the rest of the weakened and damaged structure and pulls the rest down?

    Why did the east penthouse suddenly collapse?
    And more importantly how come none of the conspiracy videos show it doing so?

    Look im no expert even if i had 100% proof of a "pull"

    A: who would believe me and B would i live long enough to present the evidence (a ct on its own :P

    So king mob and barrington for you both its completely plausible that the unnafected north side of the building (probably half of building 7) would fall exactly at the same time as the south end ?


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,232 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    Look im no expert even if i had 100% proof of a "pull"

    A: who would believe me and B would i live long enough to present the evidence (a ct on its own :P

    So king mob and barrington for you both its completely plausible that the unnafected north side of the building (probably half of building 7) would fall exactly at the same time as the south end ?
    All evidence and the videos (at least the ones not censored by the conspiracy theorists) show that a section of the internal structure of the building fell first and dragged the rest of the building down with it.

    And just as a point of fact:
    http://www.debunking911.com/wtc7f2.jpg
    The building did tilt slightly to the south.

    Now can you please at least acknowledge the question I've asked you 3 times:
    Why is the start of the collapse edited out of you videos?


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    weisses wrote: »
    Look im no expert even if i had 100% proof of a "pull"

    A: who would believe me and B would i live long enough to present the evidence (a ct on its own :P

    Richard Gage has been wandering around for about 4 years now claiming the same thing.

    Infact the entire cottage industry of Barrett, Gage, Griffin, Tarpley, Avary, Jones et all hawking their conspiracies about 911 for a decade and all alive and well scuppers that nonsense.


  • Registered Users Posts: 33,444 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    weisses wrote: »
    So king mob and barrington for you both its completely plausible that the unnafected north side of the building (probably half of building 7) would fall exactly at the same time as the south end ?

    Yes. Once internal members were compromised, it effectively pull everything down, and inward. Think about it, if one column fell, all the beams connecting onto it, and all the beams connecting onto those beams etc, are all being pulled down towards that column. Once that happens, additional loading is placed onto steel members which weren't designed to take them, so they're overloaded, and they fail too.

    The South side may not have been damaged, but once an internal collapse began, it has a knock-on affect throughout the building.

    And though I'm not an expert, I do design steel structures.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    I will look into that penthouse thing KM once i get home,

    i used to be a firefighter back home and we only dealt with fires and even the odd collapse but no matter how big the blaze was only sections came down ...and no it was not a 47 story building i know ... Just bricks and mortar

    Looking north on nr 7 there is damage on the se corner i believe then fires break out and spread but in my logic that south section should go first .... Resulting in perhaps more of the building collapsing as well but for the building to drop in a matter of seconds dunno how much earlier the penthouse imploded. Why didn't all the other steel frame blazes didn't bring down one single high rise? Has it all to do with that debris from one of the towers ?

    Strange though that building 6 didn't go ...only 9 floors but still


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,232 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    I will look into that penthouse thing KM once i get home,
    So you didn't notice the missing footage when you posted your videos?
    weisses wrote: »
    i used to be a firefighter back home and we only dealt with fires and even the odd collapse but no matter how big the blaze was only sections came down ...and no it was not a 47 story building i know ... Just bricks and mortar
    They weren't 47 story buildings.
    They weren't steel framed buildings.
    They weren't of similar or comparable design.
    They weren't right next to collapsing skyscrapers.
    They weren't left to burn on multiple floors for hours.

    There's no way you can honestly compare those buildings to the unique circumstances on a unique building.
    weisses wrote: »
    Looking north on nr 7 there is damage on the se corner i believe then fires break out and spread but in my logic that south section should go first .... Resulting in perhaps more of the building collapsing as well but for the building to drop in a matter of seconds dunno how much earlier the penthouse imploded.
    But what's this "logic" your using?
    Was the fire only going to stay on one side of the building?

    All the evidence shows that the collapse started internally, not on any one side.
    I have no idea why you are insisting otherwise.

    And what exactly would happen in your model of what should have happen?
    Half of the building drops away?
    weisses wrote: »
    Why didn't all the other steel frame blazes didn't bring down one single high rise? Has it all to do with that debris from one of the towers ?
    No, the fact that you think so kinda shows you don't actually know what the official explanation is.

    The other buildings on the site were subject to different circumstances and were of completely different designs.

    Specifically the sprinkler system for the lower floors in WTC7 was fed from the city mains, which were shut down by the collapse of the twin towers.
    weisses wrote: »
    Strange though that building 6 didn't go ...only 9 floors but still
    Why is it strange?
    Building 6 was not the same design as Building 7 as you yourself admit.
    Why would you expect them to behave the same way?


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    So you didn't notice the missing footage when you posted your videos?QUOTE]

    No i didn't i was more interested in the total lack of damage on the north side

    as i said in the post


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,232 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    No i didn't i was more interested in the total lack of damage on the north side

    as i said in the post

    So why does a "compilation of footage showing WTC7's collapse" not contain a single example of the total collapse?

    Does that not strike you as dishonest?


  • Registered Users Posts: 806 ✭✭✭Divorce Referendum


    weisses wrote: »
    I will look into that penthouse thing KM once i get home,

    i used to be a firefighter back home and we only dealt with fires and even the odd collapse but no matter how big the blaze was only sections came down ...and no it was not a 47 story building i know ... Just bricks and mortar

    Looking north on nr 7 there is damage on the se corner i believe then fires break out and spread but in my logic that south section should go first .... Resulting in perhaps more of the building collapsing as well but for the building to drop in a matter of seconds dunno how much earlier the penthouse imploded. Why didn't all the other steel frame blazes didn't bring down one single high rise? Has it all to do with that debris from one of the towers ?

    Strange though that building 6 didn't go ...only 9 floors but still

    This video was posted in the 'building 7' thread. I think it answers all of your questions but its pretty much what barrington was saying already.


    Enjoy. I think 2min 10secs is particularly poignant.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    Ohh that dangerous office furniture :o :eek:


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    SeantheMan wrote: »
    The best video of WTC 7 I've seen.
    Showing it's not a conspiracy, it's fact.


    From 5:06 to 7:10

    and 6:16 to 6:18

    That's my whole problem with the burning office furniture 3:46 3:55 in the movie

    They should leave the drama about families etc out of it ...


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    weisses wrote: »
    Ohh that dangerous office furniture :o :eek:

    Hang on a second, you claimed you were a fireman?

    http://www.ukfiretraining.com/inp/view2.asp?ID=39
    These items include;
    * armchairs,
    * upholstered benches and stools,
    * beds and bedding where there is sleeping accommodation,
    * wardrobes and dressing tables,
    * dining chairs and tables,
    * curtains, drapes and cushions,
    * artificial foliage, trees, shrubs and flowers,
    * desks and office furnishings,
    * carpets
    1(b) Combustible materials
    All of the combustible materials in, or forming part of, the premises should be identified and their hazard assessed. Some, such as wallpaper on the walls, should cause little concern, but others, especially those that may be easily ignited, may require action to be taken to eliminate, control or avoid the hazard.
    Items to be considered include;
    (i) Materials that form part of the business operations
    * large quantities of paper, including files, folders and contents of waste bins,
    * many plastic materials, especially foamed plastics,
    * packaging materials,
    * fabrics and clothing,
    * timber, hardboard, chipboard and similar products,
    * chemicals which may be combustible or react with other chemicals to produce heat,
    * display and exhibition materials,

    Large numbers of videos or computer tapes have been found to be a particular hazard and purpose-designed storage for these items should be provided.
    This fire test conducted by Factory Mutual Engineering and Research (FME&R) not long ago stands the notion that office areas are low-risk occupancies on its head. Combustible contents and interior finishes are numerous within office environments, and possible sources of ignition abound. In fact, according to an FME&R study of 490 office building fires, the average loss was $260,000.
    Beyond statistics, the past 10 years, a decade which has seen some of the most catastrophic high-rise fires in history, have presented some compelling evidence of the fire hazards inherent in the average office environment.
    On February 23, 1991, a 12-alarm fire burned out of control for 19 hours, killing three fire fighters and gutting eight floors of One Meridian Plaza in Philadelphia (See page 265, Disaster Recovery World, or Vol. 4 No. 2, Disaster Recovery Journal ).
    On May 4, 1988, a blaze killed one person and destroyed four floors of the 62-story First Interstate Bank Building in Los Angeles. Sixty-four fire companies battled the fire for three-and-one-half hours before bringing it under control (See page 258, Disaster Recovery World, or Vol. 1 No. 4, Disaster Recovery Journal ).
    In Atlanta, the June 30, 1989, Peachtree 25th Building fire killed five people, injured 20 others, and heavily damaged the floor on which the blaze originated.
    All too often it has taken spectacular events like these to prompt local governments to adopt stricter building codes or for companies to recognize the necessity of fire protection equipment and procedures.
    Prevention of loss from such office fires is really quite simple. Tests conducted at FME&R’s full-scale fire testing center in West Glocester, RI, and the statistics on commercial fires clearly demonstrate that properly installed and well maintained automatic sprinkler systems and other basic protection equipment can virtually eliminate the chance of significant losses.
    However, fire prevention is more than a matter of installing hardware. Obviously, the surest way to safeguard against fire losses is to assure that fires don’t start in the first place. Companies should make it a priority to develop an employee-driven, five-part Property Conservation plan and to take steps to eliminate hazards.

    http://www.drj.com/drworld/content/w2_089.htm

    Anyone who has taken even a cursory fire safetly course in their workplace can point out how seriously combustable the objects around our desks are, and wouldn't be making jokes about it.

    Your smilies stretch your credibility as a self proclaimed firefighter.


Advertisement