My reasons for thinking WTC7 was probably a controlled demolition!

Originally posted by Nathan-D
This statement implies a comprehensive knowledge and understanding of the inner-workings of WTC7 while it was 'collapsing' which no-one possesses. Not even NIST. It's true that the penthouse collapses before WTC7 but does that prove that the inside of WTC7 was collapsing too? I mean, there is no discernible movement of the roof-line. If WTC7 was collapsing from inside why didn't the facade move for 7 seconds? Again, it seems rather far-fetched to me. However, even if WTC7 did collapse from the inside first as you are proposing it did, it still requires a total destruction of the building's inner-supports, and I don't think fire can do that, especially not to a steel-framed building. The videos posted of buildings collapsing in this thread have not been steel-framed and (presumably) neither did they collapse at free-fall acceleration and so I think it would be unwise as putting them forward as legitimate comparisons. Notice also, that according to NIST's models, during the free-fall phase, some 2/3's of the inner-columns were still intact. How is that possible in the real-world? However much you may want to believe otherwise, NIST's conclusions are baseless and irrational.

Fun fact. If you watch the video and actually pay attention, after the penthouse collapses (and honestly, where will it go anyway, anywhere but down) you will notice the windows shattering, which is indicative of debris collapsing inwardly. The shattering of windows passes below the visible eyeline of the building (and you're only seeing the upper half of the 47 story building at that), and then the roof-line sinks downward just before the exterior walls collapse with it.

It is very straightforward to deduce that the building was collapsing internally for those 7 seconds before global collapse. NIST ran simulations, and the one that looked closest to the actual collapse was one that factored in the exterior damage to the structure by WTC 1's debris, and had a few seconds of internal collapse caused by a failed column before the rest of the supports failed.

Originally posted by thedman
gravity

Why the hell do we need controlled demolition companies?

Just light a friggin' match, and watch gravity take over!

reply to post by Varemia


WTC 7 was built on a site originally designed for a much smaller (25 story) building

To accomodate it required some tricky engineering to fit the much larger (47 building) onto the supports
of the original site plan

To get the building to fit required long cantilever trusses to span the distance - more like a bridge than a
skyscraper

These trusses were under tremendous stress

Here is animation of how WTC 7 was constructed

www.youtube.com...

Proudbird, the 'habitual 9/11 debunker'

You can always be counted on!

Go to youtube and enter WTC UFO. What you will see is a video of people in a helicopter seeing a guided missile attached to the side of the wtc. As the helicopter approaches the missile is is activated and jetisons the building. It then comes back around and hits its intended target. This is obviously a missile due to jet propulsion system. If you play/pause the jettison off building you see air propulsion. After missile hits helicopter you can see contrail from rocket propulsion system. Check it out yourselves.

reply to post by Nathan-D



a) Why was WTC 7 a target for controlled demolition ?

b) How was that controlled demolition to be disguised ? WTC 1 & 2 had planes flown into them but not 7. It was by chance that 7 was hit by falling debris and fires were started; so what was the plan ?

Originally posted by Alfie1
a) Why was WTC 7 a target for controlled demolition ?

b) How was that controlled demolition to be disguised ?

a. To destroy evidence, not only of the command center for 911 on the 23rd floor but all those 3-letter agencies occupying the building that had God only knows how much information that would be oh-so Wikileaks-worthy. In case you didn't know, the CIA does a lot of crap that they shouldn't.

www.911hardfacts.com...

b. It doesn't look like they disguised the controlled demolitions at all. It's in-your-face if your eyes are open.

reply to post by Varemia

If you watch the video and actually pay attention, after the penthouse collapses (and honestly, where will it go anyway, anywhere but down) you will notice the windows shattering, which is indicative of debris collapsing inwardly. The shattering of windows passes below the visible eyeline of the building (and you're only seeing the upper half of the 47 story building at that), and then the roof-line sinks downward just before the exterior walls collapse with it.

So, your argument here is because the windows shattered it wasn't a controlled demolition? I'm pretty sure that 'windows shattering' is 'indicative' of a controlled demolition too.

and then the roof-line sinks downward just before the exterior walls collapse with it”

The inconsistencies that you are seeing are in your own mind. The roof-line sinking is indicative of a controlled demolition too. It's called a 'kink' and it's observable in pretty much all controlled demolitions. It seems to be evidence for a controlled demolition to me, instead of against.

“It is very straightforward to deduce that the building was collapsing internally for those 7 seconds before global collapse”.

Why is it straightforward to deduce that? Again, you seem to be ignoring the fact that the roof-line doesn't move at all during the period that WTC7 is meant to be collapsing internally. If the inside of the building was collapsing for 7 seconds before the roof-line is seen to move, you would expect some sort of movement of the roof-line before then, wouldn't you?

“NIST ran simulations, and the one that looked closest to the actual collapse was one that factored in the exterior damage to the structure by WTC 1's debris, and had a few seconds of internal collapse caused by a failed column before the rest of the supports failed.

Computer-models can be made to do anything. It all depends what information has been fed into them (i.e. GIGO). Of course, I am not criticizing NIST for constructing a computer-model. But constructing such a model is only part of the process surely. You also need to check your model's predictions against observed reality in order to determine whether, and how well or how poorly its own behavior reflects that of the phenomenon that it is modeling. And in the case of the NIST's models this vital observational reality-checking does not appear to have been done. If it had been done, the models would have simulated WTC7's collapse faithfully. But clearly they do not. The 'collapse' in the models looks nothing like the collapse in the videos.

where if one fails, the overall weight distributed to the rest is overwhelming.

How easy it is for post-normalists to explain away the instantaneous destruction of a building by something as vague and hollow as 'stress'.

its crazy

I'm crazy for thinking that a building which collapses exactly in the manner of a controlled demolition was a controlled demolition? Righto. You all need deprogramming and intensive psychotherapy in my view, but of course none of you are going to get that and instead you will probably just get more intensive psychotic programming from central NIST-HQ wherever that is.

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Originally posted by Alfie1
a) Why was WTC 7 a target for controlled demolition ?

b) How was that controlled demolition to be disguised ?

a. To destroy evidence, not only of the command center for 911 on the 23rd floor but all those 3-letter agencies occupying the building that had God only knows how much information that would be oh-so Wikileaks-worthy. In case you didn't know, the CIA does a lot of crap that they shouldn't.

www.911hardfacts.com...

b. It doesn't look like they disguised the controlled demolitions at all. It's in-your-face if your eyes are open.

edit on 5-5-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-5-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)

a) I thought someone would mention destruction of evidence but isn't blowing up a building the stupidest way of trying to effect that ? Papers strewn over Manhattan and first responders tramping over the site picking up god knows what. What's wrong with shredders and incinerators ?

b) So you agree that any plan didn't incorporate any disguise of the alleged cd so why believe there was one in the first place ? Given the supposed attention to disguise for WTC 1 & 2 .

reply to post by Nathan-D


Here's a video to help you see what I see. I made the video a while ago, and the only error is one of the images I edited to point out what's there with an arrow accidentally backtracked the video about half a second, making the edge of the roofline reappear.

www.youtube.com...

Yeah, we keep getting this "unique design" crap in order to be given excuses for something happening that couldn't happen. Then it needs to be made to appear far more complicated than it really is on the basis of the "unique design". So it really amounts to talking people into believing that they are stupid so they will accept total nonsense.

Buildings must hold themselves up. So every level must be strong enough to support the combined weights of all levels above.

What happened to WTC7 wasn't some top portion coming down and supposedly crushing an intact portion below. From what we can see in the video the supports had to fail "for some reason" and the entire visible portion just went straight down. So regardless of the uniqueness of the design. THE SUPPORTS WENT AWAY.

It is just a question of what did it. But the building was 300 feet wide so what could do it simultaneously all of the way across?

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Buildings must hold themselves up. So every level must be strong enough to support the combined weights of all levels above.

psik

I hesitate to get involved in these construction issues because I am not a structural engineer.

However, your above statement seems to me to be completely false from a laymans common sense angle. Why would the ground floor be strong enough to support every floor above it ? Doesn't the first floor on have any inherent strength in it at all ?

Originally posted by holywar666

This may be random, but do they not flash a building demolition in this intro of the '90's show NYPD Blue?

There is only one side in this debate that thinks it's somehow relevant to post youtubes of 90's cop shows.

Now why is that?

Originally posted by Alfie1
a) I thought someone would mention destruction of evidence but isn't blowing up a building the stupidest way of trying to effect that ? Papers strewn over Manhattan and first responders tramping over the site picking up god knows what. What's wrong with shredders and incinerators ?

b) So you agree that any plan didn't incorporate any disguise of the alleged cd so why believe there was one in the first place ? Given the supposed attention to disguise for WTC 1 & 2 .

Most data is not stored on paper these days. It's stored electronically. There was however far more to destroy. As I said the 23rd floor appears to have been the command center so they probably had their directed-energy weapons system in there, or the command center for mini-nukes. Something made the whole place radioactive and melted 1400 vehices up to a half mile away. If you can somehow explain (rationally and in a scientifically feasible manner) how jet fuel did that then I'll consider that there were no controlled demolitions in New York on 911. I won't hold my breath though.

I never suggested that they tried to disguise the CD's for 1 & 2... I believe there was one in the first place because it looks to me like a controlled demolition, but an extraordinary one because buildings of this colossal size had never been CD'd before, and they had to make sure they didn't wipe out the entire financial district. Fed Reserve is only two blocks away... cant touch Mama now can we?

Originally posted by Alfie1
I hesitate to get involved in these construction issues because I am not a structural engineer.

However, your above statement seems to me to be completely false from a laymans common sense angle. Why would the ground floor be strong enough to support every floor above it ? Doesn't the first floor on have any inherent strength in it at all ?

It's more or less correct... just imagine a stack of child's toy blocks, the kind with the letters on the side. The one on top supports nothing but itself. the one below supports itself plus the weight of the first one pressing down. The third one supports its own weight, plus the first two.

This is a fairly accurate description of the way most building structures work (leaving a lot out), although using the 'levels' terminology is really obfuscatory in this case.

The problem is, this doesn't imply any of the things that he thinks it does.

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
... the 23rd floor appears to have been the command center so they probably had their directed-energy weapons system in there, or the command center for mini-nukes. Something made the whole place radioactive and melted 1400 vehices up to a half mile away. If you can somehow explain (rationally and in a scientifically feasible manner) how jet fuel did that then I'll consider that there were no controlled demolitions in New York on 911.

Melted 1400 vehichles up to a mile away? meanwhile leaving most people and buildings intact... OK. But that is not a characteristic of mini-nukes or directed energy weapons either, so why would you think that?

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Buildings must hold themselves up. So every level must be strong enough to support the combined weights of all levels above.

psik

I hesitate to get involved in these construction issues because I am not a structural engineer.

However, your above statement seems to me to be completely false from a laymans common sense angle. Why would the ground floor be strong enough to support every floor above it ? Doesn't the first floor on have any inherent strength in it at all ?

I didn't say FLOOR. I said LEVEL.

When you are walking around on the ground FLOOR of a 50 story building something must be supporting the weight of everything above your head. What is doing it is on the same LEVEL with you. It is somewhere inside the walls. The steel columns must be strong enough to support that weight.

Laymen must be talked into believing they don't have common sense with semantic bullsh# games.

psik

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

Originally posted by Alfie1
I hesitate to get involved in these construction issues because I am not a structural engineer.

However, your above statement seems to me to be completely false from a laymans common sense angle. Why would the ground floor be strong enough to support every floor above it ? Doesn't the first floor on have any inherent strength in it at all ?

It's more or less correct... just imagine a stack of child's toy blocks, the kind with the letters on the side. The one on top supports nothing but itself. the one below supports itself plus the weight of the first one pressing down. The third one supports its own weight, plus the first two.

This is a fairly accurate description of the way most building structures work (leaving a lot out), although using the 'levels' terminology is really obfuscatory in this case.

The problem is, this doesn't imply any of the things that he thinks it does.

I have to say LEVEL because if I say Floor then people start accusing me of saying that the horizontal portion that people walk on is what holds up the mass above.

Yeah, structural engineering that is really thousands of years old has to be made to look so hard.

psik

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
Melted 1400 vehichles up to a mile away? meanwhile leaving most people and buildings intact... OK. But that is not a characteristic of mini-nukes or directed energy weapons either, so why would you think that?

I said a HALF mile.... and you have to look at the patterns of those melted vehicles. Whichever of them was in the line of sight to the WTC were melted, but those blocked by other vehicles, or portions of the cars that were blocked, still had shiny paint jobs. Emergency vehicles and police cars with lots of electronic equipment inside exploded from the inside out and melting everything INSIDE the vehicles while leaving the OUTSIDE nice and shiny. One police car had the engine block catch on fire before anything else. I'm not a weapons expert but I am an electronic engineer, and I can tell you that some kind of electromagnetic spike ignited this equipment.

Besides that, I don't know what does this, but I do know what DOESN'T - and that would be jet fuel. Therefore, anything else that is postulated is irrelevant. 911 was an inside job.