WTC Building 7 Anomalies

hardalee said:
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.
Click to expand...

Indeed.
Another thing to keep in mind is what it would have taken, in manpower, explosives and detcord to do a CD on a building the size of the WTC.

The tallest building done with CD was 1/3 as tall as the WTC, and yet the columns in that building were larger than could be cut with shaped charges.

A description of what it took is informative:

Double column rows installed in the structure between vertical construction phases, internal brick shear walls, x-bracing, 70 elevators and 10 stairwells created an extremely stiff frame. Columns weighing over 500 lb/ft, having up to 7.25 inch thick laminated steel flanges and 6 inch thick webs, defied commercially available shaped charge technology. CDI analyzed each column, determined the actual load it carried and then used cutting torches to scarf-off steel plates in order to use smaller shaped charges to cut the remaining steel. CDI wanted to keep the charges as small as possible to reduce air over pressure that could break windows in adjacent properties.

CDI’s 12 person loading crew took twenty four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. Over 36,000 ft of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay elements were installed in CDI’s implosion initiation system, some to create the 36 primary implosion sequence and another 216 micro-delays to keep down the detonation overpressure from the 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition.
Click to expand...

http://www.controlled-demolition.com/jl-hudson-department-store

hardalee said:
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.
Click to expand...

Again, Indeed.

Here is the Video of the Hudson going down.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JP1HJoG-1Pg

And here is a video of a tower more like the WTC in design (only 30 stories and at 390 ft, not as tall as the Hudson)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8U4erFzhC-U

All conspiracy theories about 9/11 belong in pseudoscience or the cesspool.

As always, I mean that in the nicest possible way.

Hardalee
Click to expand...

You're much more tolerant than I am.
I don't think anyone who actually looks into it could believe that CD was involved and so I tend to think that they are purposefully spreading disinformation.

Arthur
 
Last edited:
The animated gif on the last page does not show the entire collapse...which began with east mechanical penthouse:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrnmbUDeHus#t=10s

Which corresponds with the collapse of column #79:

attachment.php


For those who were not aware...WTC7 had a unique construction because it was build over a Con-ed power station. It was these long-span columns that were the first to fail.
 
Last edited:
James R said:
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?
Click to expand...

I would expect it to partially collapse..at the most, in fact not collapse at all, since that's what usually happens. These are the only 3 buildings to collapse from fire.

THis building burned for almost 24 hours:

200px-TorreWindsor1.JPG


This Building burned longer than either WTC1 or 2 and is fully repaired.

2007-8-14-fire-three.jpg


Love Mac's vid - Shows the two main outside columns getting taken out so the building falls inward on itself.
 
The building in the first pic is the Windsor Tower. The part of the building that was an all steel contruction collapsed...just like WTC 7....the part that was concrete and steel survived.

I'm not sure of the second building...what is that NF?
 
AlexG said:
Have you ever watch a building being prepped for a controlled demolition? All the support columns are laid bare and the explosive attached and wired. Nobody noticed this going on? It was done by Ninja demolitions experts? They had the ability to cloud men's minds, not to mention the security cameras?
Click to expand...

I don't get the planes flying into the buildings ? Was that a decoy then ? I believed the structural reports from the engineers my self . There was building flaws that caused the collapse. It was not built to take the weight of it self once momentum started . Gave it that demo job look because of it . You got to consider buildings are mainly space . They are the shell around space
 
Me-Ki-Gal said:
I don't get the planes flying into the buildings ? Was that a decoy then ? I believed the structural reports from the engineers my self . There was building flaws that caused the collapse. It was not built to take the weight of it self once momentum started . Gave it that demo job look because of it . You got to consider buildings are mainly space . They are the shell around space
Click to expand...

Me, we're talking about WTC building 7. No plane flew into 7.
 
Me-Ki-Gal said:
I don't get the planes flying into the buildings ? Was that a decoy then ? I believed the structural reports from the engineers my self . There was building flaws that caused the collapse. It was not built to take the weight of it self once momentum started . Gave it that demo job look because of it . You got to consider buildings are mainly space . They are the shell around space
Click to expand...

Me, there are some 9/11 truthers that believe NO PLANES hit the towers, they are divided into 3 groups. The planes were holograms, the planes were "video fakery" and were only on the videos...and the "space beamers" that believe an directed energy weapon "dustified" (their term) the towers.

While this thread is about WTC7...if you want to start a new thread about the twin towers, I'd be happy to explain it to you there.
 
nietzschefan said:
I would expect it to partially collapse..at the most, in fact not collapse at all, since that's what usually happens. These are the only 3 buildings to collapse from fire.
Click to expand...

Except each building design is totally unique.

How can you say because Design A, B or C didn't fail in a fire that design D shouldn't fail?

Arthur
 
hardalee said:
For anyone who is would like to know more about real demolitions of buildings, I suggest the following link:

http://www.youtube.com/user/TheLoizeauxGroupLLC?feature=mhum#p/u/0/-TARNVwF7Yg
Click to expand...

That is all a work of art my friend . I have taken a few building down . Not with explosives but enough to know what structural members it takes to be taken out for the collapse to happen. Fun really . Demo is fun . I pulled one down with my truck one time too . Poor neighbor kids had all there toys jammed in the building too. It was there hide out . They came home from school screaming " My toys My toys You bastard whads you do with my toys. I was not that popular with the kids in the trailer park that month . I can still hear them Screaming " My toys you Bastard " No wonder the world hates us that make mountains flat and rivers change there course . You engineers are in my boat so don't think you are innocent. It is your fault just as much as mine
 
I don't care if it's possible that it could fail by fire even, the fire raged on one side of the building mostly and they want me to believe it could take the whole building down at close to terminal velocity. Pack of lies.
 
nietzschefan said:
I would expect it to partially collapse..at the most, in fact not collapse at all, since that's what usually happens.
Click to expand...

What about the extensive structural damage due to building 7 being hit by debris from the collapse of towers 1 and 2?
 
James R said:
What about the extensive structural damage due to building 7 being hit by debris from the collapse of towers 1 and 2?
Click to expand...

From what I understand, James....NIST concluded that the damage from the impact did not have a significant contribution to the collapse.
 
What does it mean that it's an anomaly? Should things always act as predicted? This is reality, shit happens.
 
NF, would you mind telling me what building that is in the second pic you posted...I'm not familiar with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top