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

weisses · 14-09-2011 04:40PM

meglome wrote: »

Look I don't know what's confusing here... they don't show the full clip - in one peice. So there is no way anyone can count how long the full collapse takes. They say it happens at free-fall speeds and they day it must have been controlled demolition but the full video shows a different scenario.

So again ..please give me a link to the full video so i can see what is dishonest about the one showing the collapse inc the penthouse

meglome wrote: »

It might be difficult to believe NIST if you take what this video is telling you as true. The problem is you can see that there is a massive internal failure before the façade crashes down. So I have no issue believing that the façade can collapse at partially free-fall speeds when there's nothing really holding it up.

No it raises valid questions to the NIST report imo (did you read the nist report?) i didn't

So you have no problem with a partially free fall of the interior?
But dismisses the free fall of the exterior?

meglome wrote: »

For explosives to be set-up there would need to be cables and/or control systems. Now the explosives idea might be plausible (ignoring the lack of sounds of course) if there are very few fires in the building like 'Architects for 911 truth' say. However we can see from the available pictures and video (the ones they don't show for some reason), plus the eyewitness testimony from the fire-fighters that there are fires burning all over WTC7. Yet somehow explosives (or thermite) don't go off prematurely. Do you not see just how unlikely that is?

Yes ... did i disagree with that ?

meglome wrote: »

Well I have no idea why NIST wouldn't give them the raw data, governments are often secretive for no real reason. I'm not assuming anything as I have no information either way. Of course that won't take way from the fact that the 'Architects for 911 truth' video is full of mistakes, half-truths and misdirections.

Fine .. I believe the government did not release that data and they withheld something else regarding the columns (cant find it atm)

I see no reason why they would lie about that claim ..because its verifiable

Why would qualified respectable people risk everything to just participate in a video telling lies etc , maybe loosing there jobs because what they told is nonsense ? that's not logical to me

The whole pentagon CT could be debunked within minutes ..just release the cctv images of the 85 camera's that captured the impact and your done.

14-09-2011 05:02PM

weisses wrote: »

Why would qualified respectable people risk everything to just participate in a video telling lies etc , maybe loosing there jobs because what they told is nonsense ? that's not logical to me

And yet they still all say that the building collapsed in 7 seconds and claim that the building started to collapse after the penthouse did.

So why are they lying here?

meglome · 14-09-2011 06:59PM

weisses wrote: »

So again ..please give me a link to the full video so i can see what is dishonest about the one showing the collapse inc the penthouse

This is very simple. They consistently talk about the collapse taking 6-7 seconds, that is utterly and provably wrong. But if they showed the full video, in one piece, everyone could see that the east mechanical penthouse falls into the building several seconds earlier and is part of the whole collapse scenario. And for it to collapse into the building the internal collapse must have been going on much longer than that. What they do is to show the couple of seconds the east penthouse collapses, then at other times show the collapse from when the main penthouse falls, thus cutting out a good chunk of the total collapse. And separating out the two penthouses falling as if they are not part of the same event. Dishonest.

weisses wrote: »

No it raises valid questions to the NIST report imo (did you read the nist report?) i didn't

So you have no problem with a partially free fall of the interior?
But dismisses the free fall of the exterior?.

I did read a lot of the NIST reports, looking up different claims from the CT'ers.

No I have no problem with anything partially free-falling. When the east mechanical penthouse collapses it happens very fast. That is because the internal structure has already catastrophically failed below it. So quite simply there is little or nothing holding it up. The same goes with the façade partially free-falling, once the internal structure is gone what's holding it up. And even at that it only falls at free-fall speed initially and then slows.

weisses wrote: »

Yes ... did i disagree with that ?

But don't you see what a massive obstacle this is to their theories? The guy with the blue shirt and beard goes on at length in several clips how this and that couldn't happen without explosives. The most basic question isn't asked, how could they have done this? Over twenty thousand people working in a full building and not one sees anything whatsoever amiss. Not a single one of the presumably massive amount of explosives needed goes off in the huge fire. Really you can't see how this alone makes a lot of that they say bull?

weisses wrote: »

Fine .. I believe the government did not release that data and they withheld something else regarding the columns (cant find it atm)

I see no reason why they would lie about that claim ..because its verifiable

Right so the government didn't release the data. So they either A. did this because they often don't release information like this or B. they are hiding something. Now I know they often don't release information but I have no way to tell if they are hiding anything. And you know what there are so many basic things wrong with what the 'Architects for 911 truth' are saying I'm not remotely convinced giving them more info would help.

weisses wrote: »

Why would qualified respectable people risk everything to just participate in a video telling lies etc , maybe loosing there jobs because what they told is nonsense ? that's not logical to me.

Why did Harold Shipman, respectable and qualified, who took the Hippocratic oath to do not harm kill at least 218 plus people? It worries me that all of these people in the video cannot see the very basic things wrong with it. Worse than that at no point is anyone asked a difficult question about the glaring flaws in what they say.

weisses wrote: »

The whole pentagon CT could be debunked within minutes ..just release the cctv images of the 85 camera's that captured the impact and your done.

I've said to you previously but you obviously didn't read it. Video cameras point towards the ground, they don't point at the sky. Also in 2001 you're talking about low FPS, tape based systems not conducive to catching a plane doing 500mph. My best guess using simple logic is the videos will show nothing of real note. And you know when they do release them I'll eat my own arse if there aren't a massive number of claims from the CT's that they have been faked.

Guy:Incognito · 14-09-2011 11:03PM

meglome wrote: »

Yet somehow explosives (or thermite) don't go off prematurely. Do you not see just how unlikely that is?

.

It's not even just that it didnt go off prematurely, its that whatever was used survived enirely intact and then functioned perfectly later on after the fires.

theboss80 · 15-09-2011 12:59AM

King Mob wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facade
The façade is pretty much the outside of the building. Particularly, here meglome and I are using the word to describe the outside shell of WTC7.

As the interior of the building progressively collapsed, dragging the east penthouse down into the building followed by the rest of the penthouse soon after, the outside of the building was left standing for a few seconds before it was dragged down with the rest of the building.

Im afraid this is impossible. Facades are directly linked into the internal structure of a building. A facade could not stay standing while the internal structure was collapsing for any length of time. As floors would collapse they would bring the facade with them. Im telling you this as a person with a background in construction and a student who has returned to education and studies engineering involving structures.

15-09-2011 01:06AM

theboss80 wrote: »

Im afraid this is impossible. Facades are directly linked into the internal structure of a building. A facade could not stay standing while the internal structure was collapsing for any length of time. As floors would collapse they would bring the facade with them. Im telling you this as a person with a background in construction and a student who has returned to education and studies engineering involving structures.

Well if this is the case, what do you suppose happened to the penthouse that caused it to fall into the shell of the building?

And by a few seconds I mean 2 or 3 at the most.

enno99 · 15-09-2011 01:21AM

meglome wrote: »

But don't you see what a massive obstacle this is to their theories? The guy with the blue shirt and beard goes on at length in several clips how this and that couldn't happen without explosives. The most basic question isn't asked, how could they have done this? Over twenty thousand people working in a full building and not one sees anything whatsoever amiss. Not a single one of the presumably massive amount of explosives needed goes off in the huge fire. Really you can't see how this alone makes a lot of that they say bull?

where there is a will there is a way

theboss80 · 15-09-2011 01:21AM

King Mob wrote: »

Well if this is the case, what do you suppose happened to the penthouse that caused it to fall into the shell of the building?

And by a few seconds I mean 2 or 3 at the most.

Well I watched the video of the east penthouse collapse that you posted and the penthouse is not directly connected to the facade of the building. A facade is the skin of the building ,( ie. the concrete wall panels and windows amongst other materials) .

From what I see in that video the penthouse is not directly attached to the facade of the building , rather it is an additional structure on the top of the building and stepped back from the parapet wall which runs along the top of the external wall of the building.

If the floor beneath the penthouse gave way due to fire then it is plausible for the penthouse to cave in in the way it looks in that video and would not directly affect the facade which only begins on the floor below.

As for the time , even 2/3 seconds is impossible. The cleats and brackets used to hold/attach the facade materials to the structure would immediately give way if the structure was collapsing internally.They are directly attached to the internal structure and in particular the floor sections.

15-09-2011 01:49AM

theboss80 wrote: »

Well I watched the video of the east penthouse collapse that you posted and the penthouse is not directly connected to the facade of the building. A facade is the skin of the building ,( ie. the concrete wall panels and windows amongst other materials) .

From what I see in that video the penthouse is not directly attached to the facade of the building , rather it is an additional structure on the top of the building and stepped back from the parapet wall which runs along the top of the external wall of the building.

If the floor beneath the penthouse gave way due to fire then it is plausible for the penthouse to cave in in the way it looks in that video and would not directly affect the facade which only begins on the floor below.

As for the time , even 2/3 seconds is impossible. The cleats and brackets used to hold/attach the facade materials to the structure would immediately give way if the structure was collapsing internally.They are directly attached to the internal structure and in particular the floor sections.

So why exactly would the floor beneath the penthouses, and only that floor, collapse?
In either the official version or in the conspiracy version?

theboss80 · 15-09-2011 02:09AM

King Mob wrote: »

So why exactly would the floor beneath the penthouses, and only that floor, collapse?
In either the official version or in the conspiracy version?

I dunno , maybe fire as official version states, seeing as heat rises and that was the last obstacle before escaping, although I think we might have seen a fireball escape in place of the penthouse.
I don't know why it collapsed first. If i had to hazard a guess I would say the roof of the penthouse became compromised , maybe due to heat and in turn buckled,which might explain why the walls of the penthouse fell inwards. Just so we are clear we cannot say that the floor beneath the penthouse collapsed though at initial collapse, by this I mean we see the roof collapse and walls fall inwards but from that view we cannot be certain as I do not know the height of the parapet wall.

What do you think happened?

15-09-2011 02:34AM

theboss80 wrote: »

I dunno , maybe fire as official version states, seeing as heat rises and that was the last obstacle before escaping, although I think we might have seen a fireball escape in place of the penthouse.

Are you being serious?

theboss80 wrote: »

I don't know why it collapsed first. If i had to hazard a guess I would say the roof of the penthouse became compromised , maybe due to heat and in turn buckled,which might explain why the walls of the penthouse fell inwards. Just so we are clear we cannot say that the floor beneath the penthouse collapsed though at initial collapse, by this I mean we see the roof collapse and walls fall inwards but from that view we cannot be certain as I do not know the height of the parapet wall.

But on the video we see the penthouse fall a very noticeable distance, much more than it's own height and much more than a single floor.

theboss80 wrote: »

What do you think happened?

That a column on a lower floor (9-14, can't remember which) under the east penthouse gave out, collapsing that section and starting a progessive collapse which spread westward taking the rest of the penthouse as the structure beneath it collapse, followed by the outside of the building.

meglome · 15-09-2011 02:43AM

enno99 wrote: »

IBjyB8EY2m4&feature=player_embedded

where there is a will there is a way

Just for once could someone summarise what is being said so I don't have to watch another video, this is a discussion forum after all.

Oh and btw the way this is a completely different video to the one we were discussing so my original point remains.

meglome · 15-09-2011 03:03AM

theboss80 wrote: »

I dunno , maybe fire as official version states, seeing as heat rises and that was the last obstacle before escaping, although I think we might have seen a fireball escape in place of the penthouse.
I don't know why it collapsed first. If i had to hazard a guess I would say the roof of the penthouse became compromised , maybe due to heat and in turn buckled,which might explain why the walls of the penthouse fell inwards. Just so we are clear we cannot say that the floor beneath the penthouse collapsed though at initial collapse, by this I mean we see the roof collapse and walls fall inwards but from that view we cannot be certain as I do not know the height of the parapet wall.

What do you think happened?

Fires were burning all over the building but the fires weren't hot enough to melt steel or burn through concrete, massively weaken sure. So when a multi-floor sized chunk of the building falls into it the only explanation I can come up with is a catastrophic collapse below it. Course I can't take credit as NIST did figure that out first after a comprehensive investigation.

theboss80 wrote: »

Im afraid this is impossible. Facades are directly linked into the internal structure of a building. A facade could not stay standing while the internal structure was collapsing for any length of time. As floors would collapse they would bring the facade with them. Im telling you this as a person with a background in construction and a student who has returned to education and studies engineering involving structures.

Like with the 'Architects for 911 truth' guys I don't have any issue with your qualifications or knowledge. The problem here is no buildings in history with these designs have ever been hit by planes and/or left to burn. Some steel frames structures have failed just from fire and some haven't but none can be compared directly.

The structure of the WTC buildings wasn't multiple steel cubes which is what you get with most steel buildings. They had a central steel core and and outside steel shell. Not only that but in WTC7 they had steel trusses to spread the load above the large electric substation.

The fires caused massive failure below the east mechanical penthouse causing the extra load to pull down the central core. Both of which are clearly viewable from the full video. This left the outside steel with the façade attached to it to be pulled then collapse catastrophically.

It fits the observable facts and is what NIST got whey they projected the collapse. I'm willing to hear a different view but all the CT's I've heard so far don't come close.

enno99 · 15-09-2011 03:50PM

meglome wrote: »

Just for once could someone summarise what is being said so I don't have to watch another video, this is a discussion forum after all.

Oh and btw the way this is a completely different video to the one we were discussing so my original point remains.

Sorry from 1.38 - 4.20 It shows how construction workers went in at night stripped off fireproofing from steel used grinders /welders and put every back and nobody noticed a thing

The company that done it were the crowd that done the steel for WTC

meglome · 15-09-2011 04:18PM

enno99 wrote: »

Sorry from 1.38 - 4.20 It shows how construction workers went in at night stripped off fireproofing from steel used grinders /welders and put every back and nobody noticed a thing

The company that done it were the crowd that done the steel for WTC

And I have no problem believing that this work was done in this case and many others. I worked in the corporate world going back and on a number of occasions I knew of or saw that work was being done at night. They may have cleaned up after themselves but lots of people knew it was happening.

The issue here is not could this work be done but could it be done and no one would know about it. The WTC buildings were basically full, with over 20 thousand people each in WTC 1 and 2. To do a controlled demolition you'd have to expose the structural steel, pre-cut the steel and place shaped charges. You'd need to do this on a lot of columns, on multiple floors and these charges would need miles of cabling to connect them. You'd need a pretty large team to do the work and clean up afterwards, you'd need all the security on side, you'd need to make sure that no one working there at night saw anything. You'd need to make sure that no one saw anything odd being brought in or out of the building. The bottom line is no one saw anything odd, no one is saying there was any mysterious work going on in their office in the middle of the night. You have to believe the large team of people involved were okay with being complicit in the mass murder of their own people. I'm not buying (and that's not even getting into the lack of explosives sounds).

Guy:Incognito · 15-09-2011 04:35PM

meglome wrote: »

And I have no problem believing that this work was done in this case and many others. I worked in the corporate world going back and on a number of occasions I knew of or saw that work was being done at night. They may have cleaned up after themselves but lots of people knew it was happening.

The issue here is not could this work be done but could it be done and no one would know about it. The WTC buildings were basically full, with over 20 thousand people each in WTC 1 and 2. To do a controlled demolition you'd have to expose the structural steel, pre-cut the steel and place shaped charges. You'd need to do this on a lot of columns, on multiple floors and these charges would need miles of cabling to connect them. You'd need a pretty large team to do the work and clean up afterwards, you'd need all the security on side, you'd need to make sure that no one working there at night saw anything. You'd need to make sure that no one saw anything odd being brought in or out of the building. The bottom line is no one saw anything odd, no one is saying there was any mysterious work going on in their office in the middle of the night. You have to believe the large team of people involved were okay with being complicit in the mass murder of their own people. I'm not buying (and that's not even getting into the lack of explosives sounds).

and then all the bits of cabling and other evidence would have to dissappear from the wreckage.

One of the videos further back (could have been one you posted? ) showed that there was bits of the cables all around the rubble.

meglome · 15-09-2011 05:08PM

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

and then all the bits of cabling and other evidence would have to dissappear from the wreckage.

One of the videos further back (could have been one you posted? ) showed that there was bits of the cables all around the rubble.

I'm imagine there was literally tons of cable all through the rubble. What I should have said was detcord and not cable which could mean a lot of things. Very obvious difference between detcord and ordinary electrical cable, and not one scrap of detcord was found.

Guy:Incognito · 15-09-2011 05:20PM

meglome wrote: »

I'm imagine there was literally tons of cable all through the rubble. What I should have said was detcord and not cable which could mean a lot of things. Very obvious difference between detcord and ordinary electrical cable, and not one scrap of detcord was found.

Yeah sorry, thats what I was getting at too.

Pretty sure good chunks of the shape charges survive the detonations too if I'm not mistaken?

meglome · 15-09-2011 06:41PM

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Yeah sorry, thats what I was getting at too.

Pretty sure good chunks of the shape charges survive the detonations too if I'm not mistaken?

Not only that there was no evidence of any shaped charges or pre-cutting on any of the steel. Unless you count the two pictures that were taken after the clean-up was under-way which look exactly like they were done by a cutting torch on the ground. That is the sum total of the 'evidence' for a demolition.

15-09-2011 06:44PM

Well duh guys you're taking about normal shaped charges used in normal demolitions, they clearly used special thermite charges.... :pac:

Remember any problems with the explosive theory is patched with thermite and any problems with the thermite theory is patched with explosives.

enno99 · 15-09-2011 08:39PM

meglome wrote: »

And I have no problem believing that this work was done in this case and many others. I worked in the corporate world going back and on a number of occasions I knew of or saw that work was being done at night. They may have cleaned up after themselves but lots of people knew it was happening.

The issue here is not could this work be done but could it be done and no one would know about it. The WTC buildings were basically full, with over 20 thousand people each in WTC 1 and 2. To do a controlled demolition you'd have to expose the structural steel, pre-cut the steel and place shaped charges. You'd need to do this on a lot of columns, on multiple floors and these charges would need miles of cabling to connect them. You'd need a pretty large team to do the work and clean up afterwards, you'd need all the security on side, you'd need to make sure that no one working there at night saw anything. You'd need to make sure that no one saw anything odd being brought in or out of the building. The bottom line is no one saw anything odd, no one is saying there was any mysterious work going on in their office in the middle of the night. You have to believe the large team of people involved were okay with being complicit in the mass murder of their own people. I'm not buying (and that's not even getting into the lack of explosives sounds).

In one breath you say you believe it was done

And then you say it cant be done

meglome · 15-09-2011 08:56PM

enno99 wrote: »

In one breath you say you believe it was done

And then you say it cant be done

I think you need to reread what I said. I have no issue believing that lots of things could be done in an office at night. The problem is when somehow this considerable amount of work, disguising the damage, hiding the detcord and clean-up wasn't seen or heard of by one single person. Then after the collapses it left no evidence whatsoever. I love a good story but lacking even the most basic evidence that's all this is.

enno99 · 15-09-2011 09:08PM

meglome wrote: »

I think you need to reread what I said. I have no issue believing that lots of things could be done in an office at night. The problem is when somehow this considerable amount of work, disguising the damage, hiding the detcord and clean-up wasn't seen or heard of by one single person. Then after the collapses it left no evidence whatsoever. I love a good story but lacking even the most basic evidence that's all this is.

You said in this case you think it was done
this case being it had to be done in the utmost secrecy and it was accomplished and the story did not surface for almost 20 yrs

meglome · 15-09-2011 09:29PM

enno99 wrote: »

You said in this case you think it was done
this case being it had to be done in the utmost secrecy and it was accomplished and the story did not surface for almost 20 yrs

You're not listening... people did know even if the story didn't surface. And let's believe for a moment they managed to install all these explosives where did it all disappear to after the collapse?

theboss80 · 15-09-2011 09:40PM

King Mob wrote: »

That a column on a lower floor (9-14, can't remember which) under the east penthouse gave out, collapsing that section and starting a progessive collapse which spread westward taking the rest of the penthouse as the structure beneath it collapse, followed by the outside of the building.

Where did you get that info so specific? Any links to look at/read?

15-09-2011 09:41PM

theboss80 wrote: »

Where did you get that info so specific? Any links to look at/read?

The NIST report.

enno99 · 15-09-2011 10:07PM

meglome wrote: »

You're not listening... people did know even if the story didn't surface. And let's believe for a moment they managed to install all these explosives where did it all disappear to after the collapse?

The regular tenants of the building did not know and nor did the most of the people of Manhattan

enno99 · 15-09-2011 10:27PM

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Yeah sorry, thats what I was getting at too.

Pretty sure good chunks of the shape charges survive the detonations too if I'm not mistaken?

these look like explosions to you

15-09-2011 10:33PM

enno99 wrote: »

these look like explosions to you

So how come these "explosions" are only visible and audible on this one piece of footage? How come it's not on any of the other videos we've posted showing WCT7 collapse?

It's a clearly faked video.

Divorce Referendum · 15-09-2011 10:37PM

King Mob wrote: »

So how come these "explosions" are only visible and audible on this one piece of footage? How come it's not on any of the other videos we've posted showing WCT7 collapse?

It's a clearly faked video.

+1 on that count. That is a really poor fake at that!

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

Comments