It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Buildings are designed to withstand forces and loads way beyond what was exerted on building 7 that day.
Aircraft impact Design for Twin Towers
www.metabunk.org...
WTC 5 - Local Collapse Mechanisms
Two areas in WTC 5 experienced local collapse under an intact portion of the roof. Although there was debris impact near this area, the symmetrical nature of the collapse strongly suggests that the failures were due to the uncontrolled fires. This is supported by the observation that the columns in this area remained straight and freestanding (see Figure 4-18). This local collapse appeared to have begun at the field connection where beams were connected to shop-fabricated beam stubs and column assemblies as illustrated in Figures 4-19, 4-20, and 4-21.
www.fema.gov...
Buildings are designed to withstand forces and loads way beyond what was exerted on building 7 that day.
External impacts would have no effect on load bearing structures.
originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: neutronflux
No, but according to the NIST report which you seem to hold as gospel the impacts had no structural impact on building 7.
It fell like a deck of cards in the wind. Not like a steel framed building with fires that had weakened some columns.
Con Ed and Insurers Sue Port Authority Over 7 World Trade
www.nytimes.com...
Aegis Insurance Services, Inc. v. 7 World Trade Center Co., No. 11-4403 (2d Cir. 2013)
law.justia.com...
Justia Opinion Summary
7WTC stood on the northern edge of the World Trade Center site and as the North Tower collapsed on September 11, 2001, it damaged 7WTC. After burning for seven hours, 7WTC collapsed, destroying the electrical substation owned by Con Ed directly beneath the building. Con Ed, along with its insurers, filed suit against defendants, who designed, built, operated, and maintained 7WTC, alleging in relevant part that defendants' negligence caused the building to collapse. The court concluded that Con Ed failed to present evidence sufficient to raise a genuine issue of fact as to whether defendants' negligence was the cause-in-fact of Con Ed's injury. The court had little trouble concluding that the confluence of events that day demonstrated that 7WTC would have collapsed regardless of any negligence ascribed by plaintiffs' experts to the design and construction of 7WTC more than a decade earlier. It was simply incompatible with common sense and experience to hold that defendants were required to design and construct a building that would survive the events of September 11, 2001. Accordingly, the court affirmed the dismissal of the claims against defendants on this alternative ground.
I would think that depends on if such impacts removed vertical columns and caused load redistribution. Or took out floor connections providing latter support for vertical columns.
originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux
I would think that depends on if such impacts removed vertical columns and caused load redistribution. Or took out floor connections providing latter support for vertical columns.
All CORE WTC 7 columns remained intact despite the debris impact from WTC 1. Thus NIST had to apply "fire-induced progressive collapse" conclusion.
originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux
I would think that depends on if such impacts removed vertical columns and caused load redistribution. Or took out floor connections providing latter support for vertical columns.
All CORE WTC 7 columns remained intact despite the debris impact from WTC 1. Thus NIST had to apply "fire-induced progressive collapse" conclusion.
So another misguided argument by you?
What now?
originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux
What now?
Free fall by "fire-induced progressive collapse".
originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux
The building acted like a spring. This is cause for freefall?
That leaves the stage of the facade collapse speed by best measures indicates acceleration was falser than gravity which supports the interior of WTC 7 collapsed first, placing strain like a spring on the faced. Not the Hulsey farce explain.
originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux
That leaves the stage of the facade collapse speed by best measures indicates acceleration was falser than gravity which supports the interior of WTC 7 collapsed first, placing strain like a spring on the faced. Not the Hulsey farce explain.
Just for clarification, what do you mean by "falser than gravity"?