Should we just focus on Building 7?

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: Zcustosmorum

You cherry picked your sentences from your link.
The one you did copy and paste . .

The critical temperature is often considered the temperature at which its yield stress has been reduced to 60% of the room temperature yield stress

The key point is how much strength is lost when fire heats up the steel.

Add that to the number of exterior columns severed in the impact and you get the result we all saw.

No, the key point is that if you severed ALL the columns, and heated up the ENTIRE BUILDING DOUBLE as hot as it was, it still would not have been destroyed in such a fashion.

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: Zcustosmorum

You cherry picked your sentences from your link.
The one you did copy and paste . .

The critical temperature is often considered the temperature at which its yield stress has been reduced to 60% of the room temperature yield stress

The key point is how much strength is lost when fire heats up the steel.

Add that to the number of exterior columns severed in the impact and you get the result we all saw.

No, the key point is that if you severed ALL the columns, and heated up the ENTIRE BUILDING DOUBLE as hot as it was, it still would not have been destroyed in such a fashion.

Really? Says who, exactly? And why do they say that? And where is the research to prove that assertion? because respectable engineers AND THE PEOPLE WHO BUILT THE STRUCTURE clearly and publicly disagree with your baseless opinion.

originally posted by: ParasuvO
Steel does not lose its integrity to cause initiation to a nuclear like explosion that by the way extinguished the fires only to restart somehow UNDER the pile of debris nothing on top only UNDER, due to everyday regular fires or from Jet Fuel which by the way was burnt off anyways long before any so-called collapse.

WTF a nuclear like explosion?? Please continue, I have a particular 'interest' in that field so I'd love to hear you elaborate.

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: AgentSmith
a reply to: oxidadoblanco

You might not like to be told, but the fact is steel doesn't need to melt to lose enough integrity to cause the initiation of collapse. Just because you don't like the answer, doesn't mean you get to ask for another one.
Do you understand what stored potential energy and kinetic energy are? How do you think these forces acted on the building?
Do you understand the concept that they are not one or two solid masses and are made of individual components?
Do you understand that if say, the top 30 floors fall by one meter the force on the sections below is many times higher than the weight when stationary?
Like I pointed out in the other thread, this isn't Jenga but that's exactly how some people seem to look at the problem.

Steel does not lose its integrity to cause initiation to a nuclear like explosion that by the way extinguished the fires only to restart somehow UNDER the pile of debris nothing on top only UNDER, due to everyday regular fires or from Jet Fuel which by the way was burnt off anyways long before any so-called collapse.

According to these people steel should then be at the point of collapse every single fire, and yet no one is worried at all, STILL.

Stored potential energy ?? This is akin to saying if I punch you in the face your facial bones may break some hours later, just a ticking time bomb waiting to SNAP. Like a BATTERY the energy never leaves an impact.

No kinetic energy could impact on the building because there WAS NONE, lol imagine trying to put these things into practice on any scale, good luck showing that kinetic energy starts itself.

What solid mass are you talking about ?? First you say it is NOT a solid mass and then claim it is, and yet all we can see is a CLOUD of dust and ejected vaporizing steel beams that by the way somehow aged 50 years as they fell.

You do realize that any engineer that was given the blueprints would not be able to smash these buildings down at ALL using planes, hell even a nuclear bomb dropped right near it would not have this massive of destruction.

And we are supposed to believe this turned to dust, we can see NOTHING churned the rest of this IMMOVABLE building into small chunks.

Just where is all this heavy top weight coming from that destroys the rest ?? We do not see any in the vids, just a cloud and look at the pile, no hammer smashing it down.

NO MATTER how it is looked at from unbiased eyes, this is truly impossible , save for being smashed from the INSIDE.

So many fallacies to accept this "collapse" it makes organized religion look bad.

Sigh...
"Steel does not lose its integrity to cause initiation to a nuclear like explosion that by the way extinguished the fires only to restart somehow UNDER the pile of debris nothing on top only UNDER, due to everyday regular fires or from Jet Fuel which by the way was burnt off anyways long before any so-called collapse."
--First of all, stop with the nuke talk, please. There is no evidence at all, and it WOULD NOT be hard to find, of nuclear weapons at ground zero. Further, you ever camped out? Every let the fire die while you slept and then turned it over 8 hours later to (GASP!) discover that there was fire under the cool dead surface? Yeah...science.

"According to these people steel should then be at the point of collapse every single fire, and yet no one is worried at all, STILL."
--No, no, and no. Anytime you have an uncontrolled fire in a 80+ foot highrise which has been initiated by jet fuel and furthered by God only knows what else in the building, there would be an analogy. Short of that, it fails. So no, not every fire burns long enough or hot enough to substantially weaken steel. BUT IT DOES HAPPEN where fires in steel structures rage for hours unabated. A simple YouTube (You truthers love YT, right?) would show you this plainly if you cared to look.

"You do realize that any engineer that was given the blueprints would not be able to smash these buildings down at ALL using planes, hell even a nuclear bomb dropped right near it would not have this massive of destruction."
--Baloney. Any engineer capable of building a structure like this could show you quickly and easily EXACTLY where to hit for maximum effect and to drop the building. As to the nuclear device...well that's odd, because you sure seem to believe that a nuclear weapon was involved. So which is it? Were the Towers immune to nukes or did nukes bring them down? Make up your mind, please.

"Just where is all this heavy top weight coming from that destroys the rest ?? We do not see any in the vids, just a cloud and look at the pile, no hammer smashing it down."
--See, this is where I have to start thinking that you are just straight up trolling. Because this statement is so far removed from reality as to be indefensible at any level. Really?! Where is all the weight coming from?! Seriously?!

You truthers love to try and make statements of opinion into statements of fact, lol...

a reply to: jaffo

No they dont!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I have spoken with plenty of PE's and they all say the same thing....

YOU are an idiot if you think something as simple as a plane strike can take out a building..
DO YOU even know of the YEARS of calculations that had to go on to even get the WTC building approved?


They (we) do not build structures with the intent of them falling down...Oh wait!!!!!!!!!!! We actually design them to withstand ZOMBIE attacks and goofy winds and bull# earthquakes and dumbass terrorists with a vinegar and soda powder bomb..

Give us some freaking kudos will ya?

We are the reason all the high rise buildings are standing at the moment...Did you even see the high rise buildings in Japan shake and shimmy while under a 8.2 earthquake?
We thought that was cool.....

But you hit a constructed building that is capable of 7.0 earthquake with a plane...and suddenly the entire building becomes totally unstable....For some reason, I cannot see the reason in that....So if a plane kinda clipped the 101 floor. would it have still compromised the structural integrity of the entire building?...There in causing a total collapse?

lol

a reply to: oxidadoblanco

Well gosh, a guy on the internet said "no they don't." I guess that clearly trumps science, lol...

a reply to: oxidadoblanco

And yes, if you fly a jetliner into a steel building at pretty much any corner and hit it dead on...that building is going to come down. It;s just that simple. Because...physics.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Jchristopher5

3. It's fall was reported in the BBC before it happened, and you can clearly see the building in the background.

Part of the conspiracy? (2)

Here is what BBC has to say about that themselves.

Well, if that was meant to defend the BBC it was a bit of a fail. It's a damage control piece at best and serves to highlight the incompetence of the Beeb, they try and fob us off by saying other agencies were reporting similar. The comments are the best read in the link you supplied

originally posted by: jaffo
a reply to: oxidadoblanco

And yes, if you fly a jetliner into a steel building at pretty much any corner and hit it dead on...that building is going to come down. It;s just that simple. Because...physics.

except no jet liner hit building 7, flight 93 was shot down on its way to hit building 7, there was a corner damaged from the collapse of the towers which, had that been the reason for the collapse, would have seen the building fall at that side. Instead it collapsed into its own footprint in a controlled demolition stylee...

building 7 is but one troubling piece of the whole. worth continued analysis and investigation to be sure. alongside the rest. sadly, i'm sure that a degree of '9/11 fatigue' has lessened the general appetite for continued investigations. even among some 'conspiracists', let alone the disinterested and distracted public at large.

it seems, absent of new and incontrovertible evidence(s) coming to light, the 9/11 OS/'truther' debate will remain an example of an immovable object meeting an unstoppable force. i'm not holding my breath, while hoping that such evidence has yet to surface.

but i think it will.

a reply to: jaffo

I agree...

Simple physics brought those buildings down,,

If i make a 3 story building out of concrete and steel and jam a 64 chevy into it...

IT WILL FAIL.........

And.....It will "explode" debris out the sides............

Something is wrong with the video....Why is there "explosion" with a complete fail of a building?

It should have been a total ..................I do not know.................

All you experts might want to renegotiate your belief...Just a thought....

lol

a reply to: djz3ro

That would only be the case if you could prove that the conspiracy is real, which it isn't. Going from all the other information about the day, BBC is likely telling the truth.

PS: Commentors don't know anything. They aren't a valid source for anything in any case.

originally posted by: RoScoLaz4
building 7 is but one troubling piece of the whole. worth continued analysis and investigation to be sure. alongside the rest. sadly, i'm sure that a degree of '9/11 fatigue' has lessened the general appetite for continued investigations. even among some 'conspiracists', let alone the disinterested and distracted public at large.

it seems, absent of new and incontrovertible evidence(s) coming to light, the 9/11 OS/'truther' debate will remain an example of an immovable object meeting an unstoppable force. i'm not holding my breath, while hoping that such evidence has yet to surface.

but i think it will.

Yeah, i am hopeful the truth will emerge. It already has, in many ways, but it is suppressed by the MSM.

Its possible that the Saudi connection (the missing 28 pages) will be released, although the CIA might do a "JFK style thing" on any President brave enough to release the information. Even the "transparent one", "Mr. Hope and Change" refuses to budge, which says a lot. If it does get released, then it could start an avalanche of questions, hopefully leading to a new, fully funded, impartial investigation.

The other hope is that Putin really does have some proof. It's conceivable, with the preponderance of satellite technology available, even in 2001.

Meanwhile,it is our job to keep educating people. If we do that, and another piece falls, it might be the right time.

a reply to: Jchristopher5

Forgive me for getting into this thread a little late but I have been working the last few days and this is the first 9/11 thread I have seen in a while on ATS that I think is really worth debating so I want give some of my views on this matter. I know that lots of other people may have already raised these points but I think it is first best to address the original post in this thread point by point.

As a new "Truther" I have been shocked to the amazing details behind the 9/11 conspiracy.

OP, your entire first post gets a thread from my for this point alone, 9/11 happened over a decade ago but its impact is still resonating in the politics of today and seeking out a understanding of what happened on that infamous day in history and why it happened is important in understanding our world today. For that reason alone I always applaud anyone who invests time in developing a understanding of the events of that day.

I personally have been researching 9/11 for years and you are right to point your research at the curious coincidences and the yet to be explained questions that still remain to this day. My advice to you as a “new truther” would be to keep an open mind and avoid reading much of the alternative history as it is littered with inaccuracies and exaggerations. Unfortunately your thread on WTC-7 is a testament to this pitfall with investing too much time in researching the conspiracies as most of your 5 main points can be easily explained with a little proper research.

1. Building 7 fell at free fall velocity for 2.25 seconds, and crumbled into it's footprint in a way identical to a modern demolition. This 2.25 second freefall was acknowledged in the NIST report.

Yup it too the building about 15 seconds to collapse (depending on who you talk to that figure changes) and yes for a little over 2 seconds it fell at an acceleration equal to free fall and yes NIST are quite open about this.

So what?

Really so what if for just over 2 seconds it fell at free fall, all that proves is that most of the resistance during one small part of the collapse sequence had negligible resistance, a conspiracy theorist will tell you this was because explosives were used but there is zero evidence to support the idea that explosives were used. What is more probable is that the resistance was removed because during the start of the collapse sequence whole floor sections were collapsing and the building was losing lateral support, particularly in the lower floors and then with the visible collapse started you had tons of building pushing down on the lower portion of the building that had lost all lateral support, the rest just crumbled.

Also the building did not fall into its own foot print



And finally I am sorry but it looked nothing like a modern controlled demolition, a modern controlled demolition looks much different because of what happens in the months before hand, lots and lots of preparation work. There is zero physical evidence to support the idea of controlled demolition.

2. The building's demise was left out of the tainted "Official 9/11 report" (aka "The official conspiracy theory"), likely because of the fact its fall is not explainable.

That is quite simply because the collapse of the buildings was not in the remit of the report it was a report into why the attacks happened and how the happened as opposed to what structural failures led to the demise of the buildings. Even in your first point you point to NIST who did do a investigation into the collapse of WTC-7. This whole second point is mute.

It's fall was reported in the BBC before it happened, and you can clearly see the building in the background.

The BBC were not the only ones, before the collapse of WTC-7 there was a American station reporting that WTC-7 was close to collapse. If you really read the NIST report its quite apparent that the FDNY knew that there as a pretty good chance the building could collapse.

Which leads us to one of your other points.

5. The leaseholder, Larry Silverstein confirmed the obvious, that the building was demolished in a 2002 PBS interview.

All I have to say on this is quite simply, watch the PBS Documentary, its quite obvious that Larry was talking about pulling out the FDNY and by “pull it” he mean the team of guys the FDNY had at WTC-7.

4. The NIST report refused to provide a model of its collapse, saying it "might jeopardize public safety"

This OP, I think is a good point, for the record it was the input data for the model they refused to release but how it could jeopardize public safety I have no idea. What I would say is that it on its own does not prove anything nefarious. Just because they did not release the data does not therefore mean we can jump to the conclusion that it must have been a controlled demolition.

No reasonable person can argue with the fact that Building 7 was demolished.

Yup, they can when they have a better understanding of the facts.

Good luck in your continued research,

You may find this thread I authored on WTC-7 some time ago of interest.

Revisiting WTC-7

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: Jchristopher5
I don't know if the BBC is in on the conspiracy or not, again I only mentioned the simple fact that it was reported before it collapsed.

So you listed it in the OP but didn't think about it?....

But, the MSM has been guided by the likes of the CIA and M16 for decades. Do I really have to prove this point to you? I shouldn't. Study about Operation Mockingbird. Study the Gary Webb case. Read "Katherine the Great".

So are you saying you think they (the BBC) were or were not implicitly involved in a 9/11 conspiracy?

Or, continue to deny all the facts, if it makes you feel better.

I'm asking questions about your OP, and it seems to me that if you really did have something here you'd welcome questions....

All media was warned to walk off on the 9/11 investigation when the Anthrax letter was mailed to NBC's Tom Brokaw (along with the similar threat to the US DNC leadership to lay off when Senators Leahy and Daschle got letters from the same ultra weaponized batch), and they did. The threat still exists, since pounds of the stuff was manufactured over the 3 years or so before the 9/11 Attacks, and is ready to be deployed against the American public if anyone in an official capacity from either government or mainstream media launch any real investigation or even allow public discussion concerning the obvious problems with the Official Conspiracy Theory.

All it takes is a real and overwhelming threat against millions of people (like pounds of that weaponized Anthrax) and this kind of cover-up is going to be embraced by any normal decent person who's presented with the entire situation as it persists to this day. Those people who are in charge aren't monsters. The global corporate elite are monsters and they've made and stolen trillions from our US Treasury since the 9/11 Attacks. The Anthrax Attacks were staged to follow the 9/11 Attacks as a direct threat of a follow-on attack that would make the 9/11 Attacks look like a traffic accident by comparison, and the terms were likely presented via Blackwater "messengers" (likely why Blackwater - or whatever they've changed their name to this time - has continued to be the USA's official security detail in spite of the "problems" they've had keeping their staff in line).

The questions you ask are circa 2004. They've all been answered by serious investigators. That said, all serious researchers already know why there will never be a real 9/11 investigation.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

This is idiotic, but like I said in my last post, it doesn't matter what kind of inane crap you people present as "common sense". The fix is in and it wouldn't matter if 100% of the US public believed the Official Conspiracy Theory. Nothing will ever come of this effort to reopen this mass murder case. You guys won. Get over it and move on. Let the kids play their parlor game here - for what it's worth anymore.

originally posted by: NorEaster
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

This is idiotic, but like I said in my last post, it doesn't matter what kind of inane crap you people present as "common sense". The fix is in and it wouldn't matter if 100% of the US public believed the Official Conspiracy Theory. Nothing will ever come of this effort to reopen this mass murder case. You guys won. Get over it and move on. Let the kids play their parlor game here - for what it's worth anymore.

I appreciate your post, but it's not over. They are winning, but the truth will win.

Please don't give up.

a reply to: NorEaster

You guys won.

It is not about who "won", it is about establishing what actually happened and it just so happens that the conspiracy theorist version of events does not fit with what history and science has to say.

originally posted by: NorEaster
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

This is idiotic, but like I said in my last post, it doesn't matter what kind of inane crap you people present as "common sense". The fix is in and it wouldn't matter if 100% of the US public believed the Official Conspiracy Theory. Nothing will ever come of this effort to reopen this mass murder case. You guys won. Get over it and move on. Let the kids play their parlor game here - for what it's worth anymore.

It ain't over 'till the fat lady sings.

soulwaxer

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

My biggest gripe with the "controlled demolition" story is why did no one notice all the bombs being setup in the days leading up to 9/11? It is pretty obvious when you walk into a building that is wired for a controlled demolition that it is going to be blown up. The bombs used on all the main support columns are easy to pick out and many times in the middle of the building for anyone walking by to see. You could NEVER set all those bombs up before hand without anyone noticing. The whole damn building's employees would have to be in on the secret.