WTC Building 7 Anomalies
- Thread starter MacGyver1968
- Start date
/bbsimg.ngfiles.com/1/22816000/ngbbs4dd884db69924.jpg
BACK ON TOPIC --->
Minus all the (magnificent) conspiracies posted on this thread about WTC 7.
The question that should have been answered earlier --- Why would someone want to fake/manipulate a fake (insurance?) claim on a <~30 million dollar building (non supported evidence, no idea what the building is actually worth).
2,985 people dead for a (relatively) small insurance claim? Or what, they needed new carpet? Explain the reasoning behind this extreme conspiracy so you can make some sense to everyone beside the apparently indisputable facts that you presented to us.
Thanks,
Tyler
There's nothing mysterious about the collapse of WTC 7. Massively damaged by debris from the towers, followed by out of control fires. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kSq663m0G8
I do consulting work for Controlled Demolitions when the implode building in South Florida. Mainly interfacing between the various Building Departments and CDI. Since the exact methods of imploding buildings is considered propriety information by the company, it is not given out to the Building Department where it would, in Florida by law, become Public Record.
I go over the CDI plan and then explain to the Building Department in broad terms, what will occur and how the buildings will fall and what the affects on nearby structures may be, if any. Generally ground vibrations and air pressure with occasionally flying debris, mainly from gravel on top of roofs that may break windows.
I was also a rescuer for 10 days at the World Trade Center as a structural specialist, leading the structural engineer team for one of the Urban Search and Rescue teams.
That back ground is for the reader to consider in the following:
There was no implosion of the structures. The air plane strikes were sufficient in an of themselves to take the two towers down, though I admit, I was suppressed when I first heard they fell as I thought they would stand.
The “timing” of the floors falling was due to progressive failure of the ends of the steel joists as the overload from the floors above hit them.
The original cause of the collapse was overloading of the fire protection systems due to a fuel load far greater than anticipated when the building was designed. Planes were smaller back then, and a strike by an airliner was anticipated in the design of the structure.
The other buildings that collapsed were due to flaming debris that fell on their roofs and overwhelmed their fire protection systems. I observed other buildings in the area with these debris and airplane parts on their roofs that did not collapse.
I cannot explain why WTC 7 is said to be reported as having collapsed before it did. I would question the timeline as I am sure it collapsed normally as described above based on my time evaluating the collapse and going over the site with the various rescue responders.
I go over the CDI plan and then explain to the Building Department in broad terms, what will occur and how the buildings will fall and what the affects on nearby structures may be, if any. Generally ground vibrations and air pressure with occasionally flying debris, mainly from gravel on top of roofs that may break windows.
I was also a rescuer for 10 days at the World Trade Center as a structural specialist, leading the structural engineer team for one of the Urban Search and Rescue teams.
That back ground is for the reader to consider in the following:
There was no implosion of the structures. The air plane strikes were sufficient in an of themselves to take the two towers down, though I admit, I was suppressed when I first heard they fell as I thought they would stand.
The “timing” of the floors falling was due to progressive failure of the ends of the steel joists as the overload from the floors above hit them.
The original cause of the collapse was overloading of the fire protection systems due to a fuel load far greater than anticipated when the building was designed. Planes were smaller back then, and a strike by an airliner was anticipated in the design of the structure.
The other buildings that collapsed were due to flaming debris that fell on their roofs and overwhelmed their fire protection systems. I observed other buildings in the area with these debris and airplane parts on their roofs that did not collapse.
I cannot explain why WTC 7 is said to be reported as having collapsed before it did. I would question the timeline as I am sure it collapsed normally as described above based on my time evaluating the collapse and going over the site with the various rescue responders.
Try and pay attention, the topic is just building 7.
Sorry, my bad. It was late when I posted this.
Actually no.
Both towers took the hit from the planes and stood for a long time thus allowing people to evacuate.
Almost all the people who died were from the actual impacts or were trapped above the fire floors (mainly in WTC 1 where no egress past the impact floors was possible) or were people who were in or around the towers (mainly first responders) trying to help with the evacuations who were killed when the towers fell.
Yes, the floors were only supported by the Truss Seats and the truss seats could at most hold 6 floors in a dynamic collapse scenario.
Not exactly.
The two main causes were that the steel insulation was sprayed on over primed steel (should have been put on bare steel) and much of it was lost when the planes hit and secondly the trusses were not considered structural and so didn't require nearly as robust insulation, but in the WTC design they were in fact responsible for the structural strength of the Exterior columns as they braced them. When the trusses sagged in the fire they pulled in the exterior columns leading to the collapse of the upper floors. The dynamic weight of the top floors impacting on the intact floors below the fire was far in excess of the capacity of the truss seats.
Yes, but they were thinking about a plane in landing configuration lost in the fog, not a fully fueled 767 going ~500 mph. Still the computations they did were only on handling the impact, not on the effect of the fires, and the towers indeed did handle the impact. It was the unsurpressed fires which ultimately brought the damaged towers down.
Nothing more then miscommunication. They had pulled the firefighters back sometime before it went down since they were anticipating that it would (the failure was in stages and as the internals failed the people around there knew it was going to come down).
BBC was not IN ON IT.
Arthur
Last edited:
No it is not very obviously demo'd.
By the way, if you are actually interested in not remaining ignorant about the causes of the collapse then NIST produced an excellent report going into the cause and progression of the failure.
Arthur
I've read the pile of shit.
Go fuck yerself Arthur you are pointless to talk to on any subject.
i am no expert on CDs.
i have personally never witnessed any.
i have however viewed quite a few videos of CDs involving different types of stuctures.
the statement made by abe silverstien is a reality, he said it.
do not insult everyones intelligence by saying he was referring to removing the firefighters.
building 7 was a part of our national security structure, a building that held offices and probably a good deal of sensitive information.
i have no answer for the 7 hour delay (if it happened).
if you can't evacuate in 7 hours then something is wrong.
not hard to do, probably done when sensitive material was first stored there.
It's well documented that there were firefighters in the area, but they weren't in the area for dealing with building 7.
So?
Do you think the building should have toppled over?
If so, what do you think would have provided the massive lateral force to make that happen?
Do not insult everyone's intelligence by saying he was referring to demolishing the building via explosives.
No it wasn't.
It was an office building that had some Secret Service offices, CIA offices and NYC emergency management offices, but it clearly wasn't vital to our national security, and more to the point, even if it was, that still doesn't provide a logical reason to blow the building up. To claim that WTC 7 was the objective that day is even more silly.
NIST explains the 7 hour delay, it took that long for the fires burning inside to cause the global collapse.
Try reading the report.
They evacuated in much less time.
Oh BS.
Nobody puts CD explosives into a building when it is built and occupied and also expect that all these explosives wouldn't have been noticed all these years.
Arthur
Last edited:
What would you expect for a non-controlled demolition - such as the building collapsing due to damage from falling debris and fire?
Would you expect it to topple over sideways? Or what?
If a building fell over side-ways it would just suggest that there was an even greater flaw in the structural design than initially considered. Buildings to my knowledge first attempt to apply equal and opposite force in relationship to gravity. Namely it deals with standing upright, any cross-bracing or rubber stabilisers are then to deal with other forces that might be applied by winds, earth tremors or aircraft taking a nose dive.
Incidentally the initial WTC "retrofit" of the design to deal with aircraft was for the building being "clipped" by an aircraft, not a purposeful crash.
As for WTC7, as it's already been stated, there was a fire in the building that wasn't dealt with because firefighters were busy elsewhere, on top of that do you know the sorts of tremors created by a collapsing building? You could likely suggest that WTC 1 & 2 likely undermined WTC 7's structural integrity on collapse since it would of likely registered as a lvl 5+ quake in the localised vicinity.
Buildings the size of WTC 7 can't fall over sideways.
They have to fall just like they did that day, only with precisely placed and timed CD could you make it slightly fall to one side.
There was no 'retrofit' they issue came up after the design was complete and the existing design was looked at and the designer said it would handle an impact, but the effects of the fires would be devastating.
Not really, it wasn't fought initially because there was no water pressure because the mains in the area were cut by the collapse of the towers. Much later sea water was pumped in from tugs in the Hudson, but couldn't reach the fires high up in WTC 7.
Arthur
In the design of a controlled implosion structural elements are first weakened on the levels to be shot (that have explosives in them). This weakening is done by removing lateral resistance so the building can be toppled in the direction desired. Without weakening the lateral resisting elements, much of the building will not fall as happened in Miami a few years ago. This was not a building imploded by Controlled Demolition but by another firm.
Weakening consists of manually cutting steel in shearwalls and columns and removing the centers of shearwalls, leaving only the amount of structure (with a proper safety factor) for the building to stand under gravity loads and small wind loads.
Generally, the first level is shot and then each third level shot. Large beams and column transfer beams require additional work.
The explosives are set in a series of delays, for instance, the first level is shot, starting from the first columns that in the direction that the building is to fall, then the columns behind it are shot in a series that causes the building to lean toward the fall area.
In addition columns in levels to be shot are tied with cables from the bottom of the first column shot to the top of other columns to the rear to assist in pulling the building in the desired direction.
As the building starts to fall and lean, additional levels are shot, normally in the same sequence described above to further direct the fall as well as minimize the seismic vibrations as multiple levels hit the ground.
If done well, the final pile lays out like a pack of cards and is of a height that can be easily handled by heavy equipment.
What is important to note is that the building is not blown down by explosives but the building tears itself down by gravity forces. Minimal explosives are used. You just “cut its legs off”.
The failures of the various towers of 9/11 were not anything like a purposefully designed demolition.
It would have taken a massive amount of explosives failing proper weakening of the structures first which could not have occurred. In the case of these steel framed buildings, many shape charges would have been required, one on almost every column on at least one level so the building would pancake with out much leaning. The shape charges would have been very large since the web of the steel shapes would not have been weakened as normally done.
Shape charges make a lot of noise. The sound is supersonic. No such sounds were heard in the 9/11 collapses.
All conspiracy theories about 9/11 belong in pseudoscience or the cesspool.
As always, I mean that in the nicest possible way.
Hardalee
Weakening consists of manually cutting steel in shearwalls and columns and removing the centers of shearwalls, leaving only the amount of structure (with a proper safety factor) for the building to stand under gravity loads and small wind loads.
Generally, the first level is shot and then each third level shot. Large beams and column transfer beams require additional work.
The explosives are set in a series of delays, for instance, the first level is shot, starting from the first columns that in the direction that the building is to fall, then the columns behind it are shot in a series that causes the building to lean toward the fall area.
In addition columns in levels to be shot are tied with cables from the bottom of the first column shot to the top of other columns to the rear to assist in pulling the building in the desired direction.
As the building starts to fall and lean, additional levels are shot, normally in the same sequence described above to further direct the fall as well as minimize the seismic vibrations as multiple levels hit the ground.
If done well, the final pile lays out like a pack of cards and is of a height that can be easily handled by heavy equipment.
What is important to note is that the building is not blown down by explosives but the building tears itself down by gravity forces. Minimal explosives are used. You just “cut its legs off”.
The failures of the various towers of 9/11 were not anything like a purposefully designed demolition.
It would have taken a massive amount of explosives failing proper weakening of the structures first which could not have occurred. In the case of these steel framed buildings, many shape charges would have been required, one on almost every column on at least one level so the building would pancake with out much leaning. The shape charges would have been very large since the web of the steel shapes would not have been weakened as normally done.
Shape charges make a lot of noise. The sound is supersonic. No such sounds were heard in the 9/11 collapses.
All conspiracy theories about 9/11 belong in pseudoscience or the cesspool.
As always, I mean that in the nicest possible way.
Hardalee