9/11 - What has officially been debunked?

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by mrmulder

I was thinking of the 32 story steel-framed builing in Madrid.

[edit on 20-4-2006 by mrmulder]

Which was a concrete framed structure.

Okay but it still didn't collapse due to fire. I'm not sure why you're mentioning concrete. I thought WTC7 was steel-framed. Do you have any proof that a steel-framed skyscraper has collapsed or can collapse due to fire before 9/11?

Originally posted by mrmulder
That's WTC7? I thought it was taller than that.

Dunno which building you're looking at, but WTC7's top can't be seen in that pic. Scroll through the images at the below URL and you'll get an idea:

911research.wtc7.net...

i.e.,




Don't forget, Howard:

I'm also waiting for some proof that WTC7 fell naturally; that is to say, I'm waiting for solid evidence that there was sufficient and proper damage to cause a "progressive collapse."

WITH a hole 20 stories tall............
Thats like saying you would fall straight down if someone knocked your leg out from under you.You would lean to the side and fall unbalanced as WTC 7 should have if this hole 20 stories tall had anything to do with the collapse....which I doubt very much.
Funny that this 'hole 20 stories tall' just came to light.Does anyone think it would have been talked about before? I mean, I would believe it fell from that rather than believe fire made it fall, come on man.
Why wasnt it mentioned during any other discussions about WTC 7 ? Why did Mr. Silverstien never mention it in the documentary?
WHY would they attempt, as per Mr. Silverstien, to get control of fire in a building with 'hole 20 stories tall' !!
Firefighter or not, you wont see me going inside a building with a 'hole 20 stories tall' when the thing is only 47 stories tall to begin with!

[edit on 20-4-2006 by SMR]

Originally posted by SMR
Thats like saying you would fall straight down if someone knocked your leg out from under you.You would lean to the side and fall unbalanced as WTC 7 should have if this hole 20 stories tall had anything to do with the collapse.

Nope; not on 9/11. Didn't work that way.

See, on 9/11, when you knock out a column, the others just fall straight down. Not to the side or anything like you're suggesting. Just straight down upon themselves, from a missing column on one side of the building.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by mrmulder
That's WTC7? I thought it was taller than that.

Dunno which building you're looking at, but WTC7's top can't be seen in that pic.

Which is I'm questioning Howard's picture and video. I don't see WTC7 in that picture either.

You can see WTC7; it's the building with flames coming out of the side there through a few windows on the right side. You just can't see the top or any real dimensions besides the length of one of the shorter faces, looks like. And that's pretty pitiful evidence of any severe damage.

I'm still waiting for Howard's presentation on the damage that caused the building to fall straight down.

Originally posted by bsbray11
You can see WTC7. You just can't see the top or any real dimensions besides the length of one of the shorter faces, looks like. And that's pretty pitiful evidence of any severe damage.

Oh I see what you're saying now. The smoke is blocking the upper half of WTC7 from view. No wonder I didn't recognize it.

Something none of you have mentioned thus far, is the the Twin towers were not framed with steel on the exterior, but the interior was. The Twin Towers were a completely revolutionary design in skyscrapers at the time they were built. Completely unique. I dont know if WTC 7 follows the same method of construction, maybe you should look into finding a plan or something.

i sorta post on the wrong tread , but regarding wtc7. IF a steel frame building known as Guliani bunker and home of several US agency in NY back in the days, fall in approx. 4,2 second in his own footprint due to ridiculous small fire ignite for no reason, well i question your reasoning.

If one part of the building is damage to can u agree the building will not fall straight down like mention in a previous post.

Go look on Google video theres tons of vids on 9-11 conspiracy but i prefer the word fact rather than conspiracy , you cant lie to physics law of gravity and a building just dont fall at free fall speed thats just IMPOSSIBLE

i know its shocking to see those facts but theres too many things very weird and like Charlie Sheen said if they lied bout WTC7 they lied about the whole thing period.



[edit on 20-4-2006 by eagle eye]

Originally posted by eagle eye
but regarding wtc7. IF a steel frame building known as Guliani bunker and home of several US agency in NY back in the days, fall in approx. 4,2 second in his own footprint due to ridiculous small fire ignite for no reason, well i question your reasoning.

How did you come up with the 4.2 seconds? Did you start counting from the point when the roofline of the penthouse first started to move, or did you start your stopwatch at some point after that? If so, Why?

When did you stop your stop watch? When the building disappeared from view? Or when the collapse was completely over?

Originally posted by ludaChris
I dont know if WTC 7 follows the same method of construction, maybe you should look into finding a plan or something.

WTC 7 was a little more typical than the towers, but it had several unique structural design features of its own.

The building was built over a pre-existing Comed substation. Rather than move the substation, they designed a series of transfer trusses between the 5th and 7th floors of the building to redistribute the loads.



Remember what Chief Hayden related:

Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors.

This suggests that there was a serious structural buckle near this point.

HowardRoark wrote:
How did you come up with the 4.2 seconds? Did you start counting from the point when the roofline of the penthouse first started to move, or did you start your stopwatch at some point after that? If so, Why?

It's timed from the footage in the 9-11eyewitness video and has been timed by other websites and researchers as well, with heights calculated from the other buildings in the frame. 4.x seconds is the general figure arrived at by all.

A few interior columns failing beforehand causing portions of the penthouse to collapse prior to global collapse does not in any way, shape or form explain how the entire structure suddenly and simultaneously collapsed at a rate equal to free fall acceleration, most notably in light of the fact that the exterior columns and composite structure of the building did not show any signs of failure or compression immediately before collapsing. If you can show that they did, and if you can explain how the intact assembly connections failed simultaneously, in perfect symmetry, and provided zero resistance to the collapse, then you might just have a case, and you might also revolutionize the demolitions industry. Until then, you'll just have to keep seeing if skeptics of the official story have written any religious books before and posting your findings in that regard.











[edit on 2006-4-20 by wecomeinpeace]

And while you're at it, you can also explain to us why there were massive thermal hotspots recorded and molten steel found under WTC7 as well. Also of note is that the hottest spots were directly under the East penthouse which collapsed so daintily prior to global collapse, almost as if the supporting columns were simply melted from underneath it. Who knows, eh?




[edit on 2006-4-20 by wecomeinpeace]

I have one point to make. The Windsor tower had outer steel columns right? How long did those steel columns burn before collapsing? I know it was much longer than 7 hours. Also, the steel in the Windsor tower DIDN'T have ANY fireproofing as per the article above.

So, those steel columns stood without fireproofing for more than 7 hours, but the steel in WTC7 which WAS fireproofed couldn't stand for more than 7 hours? Plus, the steel columns on the Windsor tower only partially collapsed.

You might say that the concrete was what stopped the collapse but as we saw on 9/11, a building that is collapsing crushes concrete to ash size. So, why didn't the concrete in the windsor building turn into a pyroclastic flow like it did in the WTC?

That video shows the building AFTER the center of the building had already collapsed The penthouse is not visible at the start of that video, is it? Starting to time the collapse from the beginning of that video point is disingenuous at best, and outright deception from those who should know better.

Here is the extra part that has been left out.



Once the center of the building started to drop, it pulled the columns supporting the rest of the building out of alignment. It only takes a few degrees out of plumb for a column to lose its ability to support its loads.

I like this guy’s ability to admit his mistake on the issue.


[edit on 20-4-2006 by HowardRoark]

Howard, where's the evidence I've been asking for? Remember? Evidence that there was sufficient and proper damage to cause a completely vertical collapse of the structure?

You do have some evidence for what you're saying, right? Not just pointing out meaningless bits of trivia?

Originally posted by Griff
I have one point to make. The Windsor tower had outer steel columns right? How long did those steel columns burn before collapsing? I know it was much longer than 7 hours.

According to this it was about 4 hours between the time that the upper part of the building was totally involved in fire and the collapse of the upper floors.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
That video shows the building AFTER the center of the building had already collapsed The penthouse is not visible at the start of the video, is it?

What are you talking about? Did I state that the gif I posted is the footage used to time the collapse? I also stated quite clearly that the collapse of the columns under the East penthouse does not have any bearing on the freefall collapse of the remaining structure, both interior and exterior columns. Can you refute that? Take a break, go back and read my post again, and then try again.

Starting to time the collapse from the beginning of that video point is disingenuous at best, and outright deception from those who should know better.

Get your facts straight and read properly before you start making rude and empty accusations. Thanks.

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
I also stated quite clearly that the collapse of the columns under the East penthouse does not have any bearing on the freefall collapse of the remaining structure, both interior and exterior columns. Can you refute that?

Sure, after you provide some calculations or an engineering assessment to support your claim.

WCIP,

Howard likes to time the collapse from when the Penthouse fell, so he doesn't have to address the free-fall speed of the whole building.

Btw, I think NIST is saying that the support under the Penthouse failed, and then later the others failed from that lack of support and somehow managed to fall straight down upon themselves while doing so. That means there still would've been plenty of resistance available, and yet the building still fell at free-fall speed.

Originally posted by Griff
I have one point to make. The Windsor tower had outer steel columns right? How long did those steel columns burn before collapsing? I know it was much longer than 7 hours. Also, the steel in the Windsor tower DIDN'T have ANY fireproofing as per the article above.

The outer columns were also about as thick as a pipe. Much smaller than that of the WTC, and yet look how long it held up to a much more severe fire.