19 replies to this topic

[mortify]

Before I say anything, let me state that I am not prone to conspiracy theories. I am more inclined to find them nothing more than hogwash, and this goes the same for the 9-11 "truth" movement. That being said, some interesting questions were raised when I saw this BBC video. It's a news broadcast on WTC #7's collapse, the only problem is that it's shown some 20-30 minutes prior to the actual collapse (You can actually see the building still standing in the background.) Here is the clip:





It struck me as interesting that there was foreknowledge of the collapse. And then I saw this video, demonstrating that for at least 2.5 seconds, the building fell at free fall:





Collapsing at free fall means there is virtually no resistance slowing the building as it crashes down. But this is physically impossible outside of a controlled demolition. It was at this point, I experienced what people call a paradigm shift.

What do you guys think?

[faithcecelia]

There was recently a BBC documentary that looked into the very issue of freefall in relation to this. I only had it on in the background, but do know that the sceptics being shown came away believing that it could and did happen without the building being prepped.

I honestly don't think the obsession with conspiracy theories helps anyone. Some bad people committed a terrible crime that led to a lot of pain and heartache for many, many people, of many religions and nationalities. It was bad enough as it was, without trying to suggest that it was planned by those in authority.

As for confused news reports, that happens with each and every catastrophy as the news broadcasters basically get into a huge game of Chinese whispers with ideas and possibilities being reported as facts, even though they blatantly contradict the facts the next company is reporting!

[Winchester]

http://vincentdunn.com/wtc.html

This does not specifically address WTC 7, but the Chief in command of the crews working in its shadow spoke about it. There was a massive amount of damage to the building, not to mention the fires inside. Chief John Norman had crews move out of the collapse zone. (Fire Officer's Handbook of Tactics, 3rd edition, I believe).

The idea behind a controlled demolition is the weakening of structural members until they fail. There's nothing magical about that. All one needs to see catastrophic collapse is that type of condition--which is simply planned in controlled demolition. It can occur 'accidentally'.


You might look up pictures of the Gallery Furniture warehouse fire in Houston to see what an ordinary fire will do to steel supports. Between massive amounts of damage, lightweight construction and heavy fire conditions, it is not at all surprising that those buildings came down.

[mortify]

Doesn't it look like a demolition though?

[Winchester]

It looks like a building collapse.

[Papist]

I don't know b/c I am not a engineer, it is my belief that the collapse was caused by the two 747s crashing into the buildings.

[mortify]

I think you guys are lumping the WTC 7 collapse with that of the Twin Towers. The former fell distinctly, and under different circumstances. Take a good look how that third, and almost forgotten, building fell. Is it really just the result of office fires?

[ardillacid]

It looks like a building collapse.

you always were so perceptive

[Winchester]

I think you guys are lumping the WTC 7 collapse with that of the Twin Towers. The former fell distinctly, and under different circumstances. Take a good look how that third, and almost forgotten, building fell. Is it really just the result of office fires?

It's also the result of massive damage to the supporting structure from debris, but apart from that. fires from ordinary modern furnishings are plenty hot to make steel incapable of supporting their load.

[USAirwaysIHS]

I don't know b/c I am not a engineer, it is my belief that the collapse was caused by the two 747s crashing into the buildings.

Nitpicking, but for the record, both aircraft that were flown into the towers were 767s (AAL11 and UAL175).

[Lil Red]

Doesn't it look like a demolition though?

and just how would all the prep work that goes into a demolition be hid from that many people...not to mention all the people it would have taken to do the prep work? did they wear their invisible suits?

[mortify]

and just how would all the prep work that goes into a demolition be hid from that many people...not to mention all the people it would have taken to do the prep work? did they wear their invisible suits?

If the prep work is down at night you don't need an invisible suit.

I know this is an uncomfortable topic, but we have to look at the data. You have a building falling at the acceleration of free fall for at least 2.5 seconds. I'm sorry, but this just doesn't happen under ordinary circumstances. This raises some very big questions, and requires a large scale investigation considering the possibility of a controlled demolition.

The bottom photos are of the Windsor Tower fire. It shows the effects of a fire lasting 20 hours on a steel reinforced concrete building:

Before:


After:

Edited by mortify, 14 October 2011 - 12:17 AM.

[Winchester]

None of the WTC buildings to suffer collapse were reinforced concrete structures. The twins towers were lightweight construction and 7 was medium weight. The steel supports were protected not by concrete, but by spray on insulation or drop ceilings. Neither protection is comparable to concrete.

Windsor Tower appears to have some concrete supports, but those floor supports are clearly open web truss. The collapsed portion I can't evaluate. Part of it looks like curtain wall at the top, so I'm guessing the collapsed portion was also curtain wall, so most of that twisted metal showing on the outside is probably not structural support.

The picture during the fire was taken at what point in the fire? I suppose you're attempting to compare the involvement of the upper portion of a building that was not dealt heavy structural damage by aircraft or debris from aircraft and other buildings collapsing for the purpose of proving that the WTC 7 collapse was unusual. I also note you've not responded to or cited John Norman, who was one of the fire officer's working in the shadow of WTC 7, nor have you countered Chief Dunn's account.


I went ahead and looked up the Windsor Tower fire:

The refurbishment was carried out floor-by-floor from the lower floors upwards. By the time the fire broke out, the fire protection for all steelwork below the 17^th floor had been completed except a proportion of the 9^th and 15^th floors. However, not all the gaps between the cladding and the floor slabs had been sealed with fireproof material (Dave 2005). Also fire stopping to voids and fire doors to vertical shafts were not fully installed.

http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/CaseStudy/HistoricFires/BuildingFires/default.htm

Most people analyzing the collapse are amateurs or engineers who have little to no experience with building behavior under fire conditions.

[Lil Red]

If the prep work is down at night you don't need an invisible suit.

I know this is an uncomfortable topic, but we have to look at the data. You have a building falling at the acceleration of free fall for at least 2.5 seconds. I'm sorry, but this just doesn't happen under ordinary circumstances. This raises some very big questions, and requires a large scale investigation considering the possibility of a controlled demol]

Umm, right, because no one is walking around at night in New York City. Seriously, even if they did this at night, that would be alot of. equipment that would be noticed. Alot of wiring, alot of material. Yes, let's look at the data of feasibility, that someone would be able to do this w/ no one noticing.

[Winchester]

I'm declaring victory.

[Adrestia]

I'm declaring victory.

This was assumed. (The declaration, that is.)

[Papist]

Umm, right, because no one is walking around at night in New York City. Seriously, even if they did this at night, that would be alot of. equipment that would be noticed. Alot of wiring, alot of material. Yes, let's look at the data of feasibility, that someone would be able to do this w/ no one noticing.

And there would surely be some video footage of it, even from someone's phone b/c it would be most suspicious.

[USAirwaysIHS]

And there would surely be some video footage of it, even from someone's phone b/c it would be most suspicious.

Not to support the (asinine) truther movement, but the cameraphone was not introduced to the commercial market in North America until 2002 (http://www.puremobil...ameraphones.asp) so there's that theory debunked.

[Winchester]

I had ten camera phones, back then.

[Aloysius]

not sure what happened to WTC 7, but I'm pretty sure this is what happened to the 2 tours:


"I believe the truth always lies halfway between the most extreme claims"