Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Are you guys aware that a Third Tower fell, on 911?

Tags:
  • Go
Last response: in News & Leisure
Share

What do you think about 911 and the contradictions surrounding the official story?

Total: 8 votes

  • Get me out of here! Have had enough of "Conspiracy Theories".
  • 50 %
  • I am a busy professional, and yet to look into the contradictions.
  • 0 %
  • I don't buy into it! Something seriously seriously wrong with the Official Story. (a.k.a. Official Conspiracy Theory)
  • 38 %
  • I wasn't aware of WTC 7. I would like to know more and then decide for myself!
  • 13 %
July 8, 2013 9:48:27 AM

Am not here to wage a war, nor would like this thread go in that direction in any way.
Stating and interested only in facts and what some of you intellects here would think, or have to say about it!

1. A Brief Introduction - The Mysterious Building 7
2. Building What?
3. Close to 2000 Architects & Engineers are calling for a new investigation

Some of you here are Engineers but in a different field, so definitely cant be taken for a ride!

More about : guys aware tower fell 911

July 8, 2013 10:59:30 AM

shaqblogs2011 said:

Some of you here are Engineers but in a different field, so definitely cant be taken for a ride!


What's that supposed to mean?
July 8, 2013 11:00:10 AM

BTW, OldManGamer is the honorary Cospiracy Theorist of THG! This forum ain't big enought for the two of ya!
July 8, 2013 11:08:13 AM

dogman_1234 said:
shaqblogs2011 said:

Some of you here are Engineers but in a different field, so definitely cant be taken for a ride!


What's that supposed to mean?


Well, toms hardware is full of tech guys. Some / Many of them do not solve some of the craziest tech issues because they read a book! Many are engineers by background. Which means they also have, at least, a basic understanding of science. Which is all you need to start asking a few questions regarding the official story. Which is a start!
July 8, 2013 11:15:02 AM

I understand.

My question to you is why are you so upset about a building catching fire? If the gov't had done it, there would be whistleblowers all over the place...too many for CNN, Fox, and the like to ignore it. Plus international news would have called the US out on thier bluff of a 'false-flag' operation.

To answer your question as to whether if WTC 7 was a conrolled explosion. No. It was not.

Pyrotechnics would have created a shockwave in the atmosphere, what we science guys call sound. That sound would have been unique in the building alongside the type of explsion. Also, if there were explosives in the building, why didn't any average joe question why a pyrotechnics team was inside the building?

Too many open variables to beg the question.
July 8, 2013 11:17:10 AM

Also, your questions seem kind of one sided. I don't like calling cospiracy theorists...only to be funny with them, lke in the case of OMG. We're pals.
July 8, 2013 11:30:29 AM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
Follow the money.


Agree, this is one of the important things to look at!

But there are too many people unaware of the solid science based evidence, eyewitness reports, video evidence, destruction of physical evidence, the official investigations which was a coverup by any means (if one had looked into what they did in the investigations).
To those unware of the contradictions, for them to approach this extremely vast, complex and sensitive subject about 911, is not easy. They have been convinced or rather unaware that facts have been mostly censored by the media.

So one needs to approach this subject a little more cautiously when discussing with the general public. Hence, It is a little difficult for many to accept where that trial leads to and the implications.
An easier start for those who are not aware of the contradictions, would be to begin to look into the barely known Building 7, which has been hidden from public, massive coverup & censorship by media.

Building 7 raises simple & easy to answer questions, from where it is easier to see that the official story is really the conspiracy theory. It simply boils down to, are people willing to see the science based facts and evidence which is out there to see. They will get convinced once they have a look, the evidence is really that overwhelming.

To know more of the contradictions surrounding the official story, visit www.ae911truth.org.
It is one of the most reliable and thoroughly investigated side of the story.
July 8, 2013 11:55:44 AM

Any concern about the substation below WTC7 and that it was designed to only support a building of 25 stories when the substation was built in the late 70s? Stack on a 49 story building that lacked water pressure to stop the fire along with the 2 and 3 hour fire retardant systems.. Yeah, I could see how that one fell. Older building, lacking water to put out the flames, collapses.. what, 8-9 hours after the fires started? Fire department wasn't able to get in there due to the obvious.. they let it burn and eventually it came down do to the weaker structure. Looking at the other WTC buildings, they were all built on more appropriate grounds.

Now I will say that a friend of mine who was an air marshall at that time, with a very long list of military experience and other law enforcement credentials, fully believes to 'know' it to be an inside job. Apparently the 40 somethings floor was completely empty and there was drilling and loud noises the day before. He suspects a crew was brought in, weaked the structure through some construction efforts and were likely killed on scene and left to be found later in the rubble the next day. He does have a long list of credible friends who also believe the same type of scenario. In fact, there are records of major construction happening in that area... which again, weaken the structure to cause a collapse. It is what it is. Fact is, 2 planes were crashed into those buildings. So concerned about WTC 7, what about the Pentagon? Last I remember looking, no one knew anyone on that plane? Conspiracies abound!
July 8, 2013 12:17:48 PM

dogman_1234 said:

My question to you is why are you so upset about a building catching fire?

Good Question! Many people have these questions. (Moot point. I am not upset about that building having caught fire.)

Here is a simple Fact:
Building 7, was only the 3rd steel framed building to have ever collapsed completely, straight down, in a symmetric fashion, and all this at free fall speed / acceleration (This means the building came down as fast as a computer falling from the top of a building!). The Official story was that it happened - due to office fires.
The 1st and 2nd steel framed buildings that collapsed completely due to fires, were the Twin Towers (Fire was again the official reason why they collapsed).

So, this is what we have at hand. Amazingly, The three worst structural failures in history of our planet, all happened on the same day at the same place! Never *before and after 911*, have steel framed buildings collapsed due to fire. There isn't even a single known partial collapse of a steel framed building due to fire, even though there have been much hotter and much longer fires in many buildings around the world. Yet on that particular day, 3 buildings just came down, like a pack of cards waiting to fall.

Unfortunately for those painting this story, Steel framed buildings simply do not collapse due to office fires. Office fires do not generate enough heat to melt or even weaken those massive fire proofed steel beams and columns. One of the strengths of steel, is that it can withstand normal office fires. This is one of the reasons why they build massive buildings using it. Fire is a common scenario in any building. But they do not cause a total system failure and just go down in the blink of an eye!

As for your points about world media not reporting it and too many open variables, true. Point taken. But, if you look into what such statements are made, they are usually based on trust or faith or statements that begin with 'I don't believe'.
What we are saying is to let your intellectual capacity to ask questions take precedence and go at them one by one slowly, maybe starting from Building 7. Let your trust and faith on media and others take a back seat. Let your ability to ask questions and analyze in an objective manner take the first precedence.
There are many questions on this complex topic (similar to what you asked). Many of which cannot be answered yet, only a proper investigation could do that. But there are many facts which contradict very strongly the official story. So do have a look at them for a start.
July 8, 2013 12:39:44 PM

Two extremely important points that should also be considered.

1. There was a 911 Commission report and a NIST investigation which followed in the coming years. Last of which came out around 2008. Stunningly, all eyewitness reports were ignored and not even mentioned in either of them. There are over 150 New York fire officials, cops plus media personnel who saw and heard explosions. All of this was simply ignored. They didnt even mention one single line of them in the report.

2. NIST, while investigation into failure of the 3 buildings. They started off with fire caused the buildings to collapse, and went to great depths and trouble to prove that fire did (fraudulently), and finally ended with fire caused the collapse. Investigations such as these, usually investigate into different hypotheses. NIST considered only one hypothesis - fire. They did not even look into the possible use of explosions. (In spite of point #1 and video evidence which shows the building collapse look similar to controlled demolitions. Plus, no building has ever collapsed partially or completely due to fire and all steel framed buildings that have come down has come down due to explosions. These are simple overwhelming statistics and facts!).

In my humble experience, in spite of such overwhelming statistics and facts to begin with, people still have a hard time because they begin with 'I dont believe' (the implications are shocking). Rather than beginning with it, in an objective manner!
July 8, 2013 12:53:14 PM

Your argument is based on annomilies within the story.

Fact is, The WTC in New York was not only a political stronghold, but a business one as well. Yes, there were papers form major corporations, but what if it were schematics of Intel CPU? Would it still matter. Yes, because in your mind, you think they had possesed a new tech that would have a negative implication and so should be destroyed.

What you present as fact is meley fairytale perpetuated by Jones and the like. You have no credible information, and no, the US government is no more credible than them. The 9/11 commission was a complete blunder under an Adminstration that had no clue how to run a country or investigate an assault on domestic terrirtory. Even today, amny are cluelss on how to secure our nation.

You seem to be fixated on the issue rather than trying to prevent another 'false-flag; operaton. You are concerned that a government of tyrrants is hiding fact from you. To be honest, if you are too stupid and lazy to force this government, based on your own 'professional' opinion, to reveal the 'truth', then you deserve to be lied to. I am done here.
July 8, 2013 12:55:56 PM

Also, why aren't other WTC, like In Portland Oregon, taken down? Why just NYC?
July 8, 2013 1:01:43 PM

dogman_1234 said:
Your argument is based on annomilies within the story.

Correct me if i am wrong. If there are anomalies with the story, then there is something seriously missing in the story or something wrong with it!

Quote:
To be honest, if you are too stupid and lazy to force this government, based on your own 'professional' opinion, to reveal the 'truth', then you deserve to be lied to. I am done here.

Sadly, and unfortunately for you, it is not my government! My government is in a different country.
July 8, 2013 1:03:22 PM

Another thing, those eyewitness accounts would have made international news. The people of ths world woudl not ignore one thing from their experience. I doubt there were personel that heard a massive explosion. Also try flying three large pressurized tin cans at any building and watch it stand for a few minutes.

Also simple physics states that all matter falls at the same terminal velocity...regarless of its mass. Your claim that it was an explosion becasue debri fell twoards earth at the same velocity is fallacious.
July 8, 2013 1:06:08 PM

shaqblogs2011 said:
dogman_1234 said:
Your argument is based on annomilies within the story.

Correct me if i am wrong. If there are anomalies with the story, then there is something seriously missing in the story or something wrong with it!

Quote:
To be honest, if you are too stupid and lazy to force this government, based on your own 'professional' opinion, to reveal the 'truth', then you deserve to be lied to. I am done here.

Sadly, and unfortunately for you, it is not my government! My government is in a different country.

Yes there is something wrong with it. It is becasue we had a nation that was attaked and an ineffective government who could not do jack shit. Let me put it this way. If they are so sophisticated, then we should have not had a finacial meltdown, we woudl have a balanced budget, we would have peace in the Middle East. We have a shitty government. The extent of the attack would be too much for the US bureaucrats. Now, a highly organized terrorist organization that has the brains behind the wheel...yes, more possible.

BTW, what counrty are you from?
July 8, 2013 1:28:02 PM

Pls Have a look at the evidence before you make statements such as there were no explosions.
Here is a start! It dosent take much of your time for you to watch.

dogman_1234 said:
Another thing, those eyewitness accounts would have made international news.

It was reported!

Quote:
I doubt there were personel that heard a massive explosion.

Dosent matter. It was heard! And you can hear it too...if you like to. A small clip

Quote:
Also try flying three large pressurized tin cans at any building and watch it stand for a few minutes.

Facts please!
There were two planes which bought down three buildings! Not three planes. This is why Building 7 is so important. It was NOT hit by an airplane. The official story begins to fall apart starting here!

Quote:
Also simple physics states that all matter falls at the same terminal velocity...regarless of its mass.

Matter falls like that when there is nothing supporting it. When there is something supporting it, well it dosent fall like there is nothing under.
July 8, 2013 1:45:09 PM

Quote:
If they are so sophisticated, then we should have not had a finacial meltdown...

lol
Sorry! But, You most certainly live in the US if you believe that your government could not prevent that from happening! You almost make it sound like, their goal was to "prevent" that from happening.

Quote:
we woudl have a balanced budget,

Let me take a wild "guess", you have absolutely no clue whatsoever how a modern fiat based currency system actually works! The point of this kind of a financial system is to run budget deficit, and this year after year after year after year.

Lets not hijack this thread. If anybody is interested, do create another thread and I would be happy to discuss on that.
July 9, 2013 6:21:09 AM

What country are you from, just curious to know your motivations?
July 9, 2013 9:36:30 AM

I think he needs to stay away form RT and Jones for a while. OMG is not a senile as this guy.

Sorry of the Ad Hominid, but had to point that out.
July 9, 2013 9:44:38 AM

well my motivations,
To find out how many people are aware this (or even interested).
What people think like.
If they are willing to stand up and be counted or just continue to live on with their life, since it "dosen't affect them". Ignorance is killing our planet both the planet and people (finance & hence poverty)
July 9, 2013 9:46:35 AM

What nation are you from or represent?
July 9, 2013 9:47:16 AM

Ignorance prevails because nutjobs open their mouth and normal people wish not to look at the issues...not becasuse of tyrrancial governments.
July 9, 2013 10:06:39 AM

dogman_1234 said:
I think he needs to stay away form RT and Jones for a while. OMG is not a senile as this guy..

All we have seen so far are statements without any ability whatsoever to ask simple questions!

You have not been able to contradict any of the important points above, yet you have restored to an immature cheap shot. That dosen't speak of my abilities for sure!

Will wait, until you could possible have a moderately intellectual conversation to ask a few simple questions.
July 9, 2013 10:17:05 AM

dogman_1234 said:
Ignorance prevails because nutjobs open their mouth and normal people wish not to look at the issues...not becasuse of tyrrancial governments.

On the contrary, Ignorance prevails when people put their faith and trust into a media which is 95% owned by 5 Major corporations who decide what news you are allowed to see, the very same corporations who have major conflicts of interest (business interests) when your country goes to war.

Surprise, surprise...Am sure you are ignorant of this fact too!
July 9, 2013 10:31:48 AM

What nation are you from? Just curious to know the differing view point.
July 9, 2013 10:42:55 AM

shaqblogs2011 said:
dogman_1234 said:
Ignorance prevails because nutjobs open their mouth and normal people wish not to look at the issues...not becasuse of tyrrancial governments.

On the contrary, Ignorance prevails when people put their faith and trust into a media which is 95% owned by 5 Major corporations who decide what news you are allowed to see, the very same corporations who have major conflicts of interest (business interests) when your country goes to war.

Surprise, surprise...Am sure you are ignorant of this fact too!

Yes, I knew that many of our news outlets are owned by a few corporations. Did you also know they spent more on campaign contributions of both dems and republs than on hiring new employees or taxes? Did you know that it is legal to buy out a vote?

Did you know I don't give two shits about your nihilistic views at all and I think you are very ignorant of our nation. I think you should come over and see there a many Americans who are aware of the crap that is occuring, and it is no the ones who are the likes of you. Many are moderate open minded people who genuinly care for their nation.

BTW, what country are you from.

Rey, coudl you do a IP address scan on this guy to see where he is from?
July 9, 2013 10:49:36 AM

Here from one of the most respected British Journalist, although it dosen't describe the problem of the american media, maybe it will give you a clue.
30:45 to 32:00 (Audio is out of sync)
July 9, 2013 11:09:06 AM

dogman_1234 said:

Yes, I knew that many of our news outlets are owned by a few corporations. Did you also know they spent more on campaign contributions of both dems and republs than on hiring new employees or taxes?

Glad we are having a better conversation!

So, you are aware your news is Corporate controlled, meaning censored.
You are aware that all your politicians are being bought off (Mostly by Wall Street).
You made a statement earlier,
Quote:
The 9/11 commission was a complete blunder under an Adminstration that had no clue how to run a country or investigate an assault on domestic terrirtory.

But, you are having a difficult time adding one up with another to understand that there are some bigger strategies at play! If they were that useless, how do you think they got up there ahead of a lot more capable politicians? Accident? or Strategy?
Capturing an entire political system and media together, wow! You better be capable!! Dont for even a moment think that it was incompetence. They have some of the most highly paid strategists working out there. So don't go by what Bush had to say on TV!

Quote:
Did you know that it is legal to buy out a vote?

Are you aware Wall Street paid for this to become legal?
In the early part of 19th century, rich people could have multiple votes. Which is now illegal for you to see today. Today, Rich people can instead buy politicians which will be illegal maybe in the next century, which will be easy for your grand-kids to see. In the meantime, the financial con will continue!

Quote:
BTW, what country are you from.

I am curious. Why do you need to know which country I am from to have an intellectual conversation?

In case you are wondering If i am from Middle East or North Korea or China or Russia...I am not!
July 9, 2013 11:14:17 AM

Then, where are you from?
July 9, 2013 11:16:00 AM

It is not a conspiracy to think that our government is corrupt. All world governments are. It is the condition of human nature to be inherently corrupt. That is why we have regulations.

I don't agree with your standing on 9/11, the US is not your government and I hope it never comes to that. Let me deal with my people. You deal with yours

Capice'?
July 9, 2013 11:27:55 AM

dogman_1234 said:
It is not a conspiracy to think that our government is corrupt. All world governments are. It is the condition of human nature to be inherently corrupt. That is why we have regulations.

Agreed!

Quote:
I don't agree with your standing on 9/11

You have not looked at some of the facts I have shared to begin with. Take some time to look into it and your stand on this will change. Mine did! I used to be on the same boat you were until I had a friend who literally had me tied to a chair and made me watch a few reliable videos!

Quote:
the US is not your government and I hope it never comes to that. Let me deal with my people. You deal with yours

Sadly, the entire world has a dire need to deal with your government! Including most of euro region. One really needs to feel sad looking at the state of some of the one powerful, European countries, who are being made to bow down to Uncle Sam!
July 9, 2013 11:46:57 AM

So, because the entire world has a dire need to deal with the US gov't, 9-11 was an inside job eh?
July 9, 2013 11:58:59 AM

riser said:
So, because the entire world has a dire need to deal with the US gov't, 9-11 was an inside job eh?

lol...was that your conclusion or mine?

July 9, 2013 1:29:04 PM

shaqblogs2011 said:
riser said:
So, because the entire world has a dire need to deal with the US gov't, 9-11 was an inside job eh?

lol...was that your conclusion or mine?



You start off talking crazy about the building and you've moved onto the US gov't controlling other regions, blah blah blah... and you avoid stating your country of origin because you want to hide your agenda.
July 10, 2013 2:29:02 AM

riser said:

You start off talking crazy about the building and you've moved onto the US gov't controlling other regions, blah blah blah... and you avoid stating your country of origin because you want to hide your agenda.

Arent most of your current foreign policies directly related to....911, which is affecting quite a few countries and killing 100's of thousands of innocent people?

If official story of 911 was a lie, a coverup, then the entire foreign policy falls apart. As it turns out, 911 was a massive coverup by media.
For those willing to have a look, It is so darn easy to see that it was an inside job! It is out in plain sight for those who are willing to take a look at it with an open mind.

Building 7, was hands down a classic case of controlled demolition. That is why it is so imporatant.

And, I have zero conflicts of interest here. So what you are getting from me is an outside view of what is happening in Middle East and your country!
July 10, 2013 6:30:35 AM

WTC 7 was a poorly designed building on a poor platform. The building structure itself was uncommon. The design didn't account uncontrolled fires burning; it suspected the sprinkler system would run.

Given the massive amount of damage to the building after the collapse of the towers, why wait until.. what 5:30 in the afternoon to demolish it? Why not do it about the same time as the others? I mean, 8 hours of uncontrolled burning would have pretty much destroyed anything in that building anyhow so there really wasn't a need to collapse it.

I don't know that our foreign policy has caused 100's of thousands of deaths. I suspect the people in those regions are responsible for those deaths regardless of the US's position.

The twin towers collasping I understand. A huge jet, full of jet fuels crashes into the buildings going 300+mph. Structural damage along with jet fuel burning, having them collapse is understandable. Having all that force fall down and rip a giant gap.. was it 25 stories long? down the side of WTC7 along with uncontrolled fires burning? Very plausible.

I worked in a building that had a similiar design from the same period of time. It didn't collapse, but due to the amount of weight on some floors, the outer portions of floors were starting to bend. Introduce a fire burn to that structural steel with excessive weight on it, it would have collapsed as well.

You're taking today's standards on a building from 1960s, the heyday of America when the decline started. Steel and fire codes have changed drastically. Again, the platform the building was sitting on was designed to support the weight of a 25 story building, not a 49 story or whatever it was. If you look at it, there are plenty of faults with the building design but when lacking space, corners and codes are cut. Also, if you look at the pictures of the towers falling, you see WTC7 took the brunt of the force because of how it was positioned while other buildings were more protected by their angles to the towers. The shock of the towers falling, the damage to the building from the weight of everything falling on it.. you're telling me some girders didn't snap or weakened which allowed the fire to push it to failure? C'mon. That's a far more plausible that a controlled explosion in the building.

Let's take a look at construction in the US from the 1960s. How many steel bridges have failed here in the last 10 years? 4-5 or so now at least? The 1950s-1960s and into the 70s, steel has come a long way with standards since then. Perfectly plausible that fire took down the damaged structure.
July 10, 2013 7:32:51 AM

Wonderful theory!
At best it is a wild theory. Theories must be backed by evidence, facts and be proved by scientific experiments.

Quote:
the platform the building was sitting on was designed to support the weight of a 25 story building, not a 49 story or whatever it was.

Buildings are designed to take loads 3-5 times the static + dynamic load! Meaning 3-5 times the actual weight + weight (load rather) of other objects that come and go!
If we go by your statement, A building cannot stand even for a second, let alone years. If it could not take the full 49 story weight of the building, It would have fallen before it was even finished being built!

July 10, 2013 7:54:48 AM

Well, given how much you researched WTC 7 and all, you should have realized the building is really 47 stories high. The damage done to the structure was 10 stories, not 25 stories. So, the substation was designed to allow for a building of 25 stories to be built on it. Instead, a 47 story building was built. Given you mathmatics, it was destined to fall with the combination of structure damage and the fires. At 1100 degree, steels loses 50% of its integrity. They said some of the fires burned up to 1800+ degrees from the mixture of the diesel tanks and office furniture, wood working in the building, etc. The average wood fire burns at over 1000 degrees. After 7 hours of burning (I originally said 9, again you missed that), it is reasonable to expect that some of the fire retardant foam was removed during the structural damage, 7 hours of burning say between 800-1000 degrees, that's very reasonable to expect that some areas of the steel weakened, warped, or sagged, causing extra force on other areas resulting in the collapse.
In watching the video, you see that only one side of WTC 7 actually collapses. The collapsing side brings down the other end. Looking at the structural diagram presented online of the floor plan, you can easily see how one side could bring down the other. In fact, I once played a game called Crush the Castle that used these physics to destroy castles. When I was in engineering, I had a bridge game that the object was to design and build a bridge that could support a train moving across it without collapsing. Using that game and the physics engine in it, you could see structural weak points. If a weak point failed, you would see where the new weak spots would be generated prior to the collapse of the bridge. Same concept. When half the building collapses, the other half, already comprised, wasn't enough to hold it up, therefore it collapsed in two parts.

Maybe you need to open your mind and look at both sides again. Clearly you are only looking at the conspiracy side of it and not the physics side of it. Look at the damage to the building after the towers fall. Look at the floor plan. Look the duration, the fire building, and the collapse. You can see the fires burning. Where exactly would the explosives have been for 7 hours that they wouldn't have been compromised by the fire and prior to the damage to the building from the towers falling?? They didn't know where the damage was going to be, or to what extent. Then the fires burning on multiple floors for 7 hours.. Eh, c'mon. Video evidence of it burning for 7 hours.. can't argue that one.
July 10, 2013 8:40:43 AM

I like how shaq says he has an outside view yet all his "facts" come from conspiracy theorists' sites. I watched one of the videos where it said they were going to bring it down and then it cuts off, interesting that it cuts of there because if you watch the whole video they are talking about pulling down one of the other WTC buildings with cranes and cables.

You should try researching it from a non biased perspective and stop believing everything you read on conspiracy sites. If you read some of the comments from the firefighters they even said the building was creaking and leaning before it collapsed.

Also, in one of your videos the presenter uses a video from some jackass in a window a few miles away from the site saying it had to be an explosion as evidence. You somehow equate this with evidence, its quite ridiculous.

Lastly, given your comments about the U.S. you obviously have a preconceived bias towards all things American. This most certainly means that although you may be looking at it from an outside perspective it is limited in scope by your bias towards anything American.
July 10, 2013 9:52:07 AM

OMG - There were only 2 structural supports of which one was in the fire. On the higher levels the supports branched out more, but ultimately all the supports relied on the 2 supports at the lower levels. The steel didn't melt - melting point is around 2700-2800 degree. 50% degrade in steel strength at 1100 degrees. Typical wood fires burn at 1500-1800 degrees. Given that, the single support had to heat up to hundreds of degrees, probably even less than 1000 for the collapse to occur. Remember, the 10 story gash in the building that had horizontal support, not vertical support, so even more weight was being put onto the support structure. My assumption would be that some steel support beams were already bending under the extra weight. That extra weight being transferred back to the main structure supports instead of being balanced out. Now you haev an extra load which the support beam was able to handle. Introduce the fire, burning uncontrolled for 7 hours, it probably was able to heat up to 700-800 degrees, enough to cause the steel to warp or bend, resulting in the one side collapsing. Based on the support design, when one support failed, all the weight would be transferred to the other support which couldn't handle it and it would be ultimately pulled down from the falling side. The video evidence supports that one side collapsed, the other side was pulled down by it. The fire expert even stated that he didn't find melted steel, but he did find sagging steel at the concrete joints. First the steel expands, once done expanding, it starts to sag and caused the concrete joint to crack. The support beams were bent and sagging which leads to the result that the beams were heated up to a certain temperature, resulting in the steel failure. At 1100 degrees, 50% degrade in strength according to structural engineers on steel. I wonder what 500, 700, and 900 degrees would be?
July 10, 2013 10:03:04 AM

Quote:
I watched one of the videos where it said they were going to bring it down and then it cuts off, interesting that it cuts of there because if you watch the whole video they are talking about pulling down one of the other WTC buildings with cranes and cables.

Kindly share the video

According to you, they are basically discussing of pulling one of the other buildings down, where people are still trapped or sadly dead!
So, well...the priority is to pull down and clean up the site before rescue can even be attempted. Keep going!

johnsonma said:
I like how shaq says he has an outside view yet all his "facts" come from conspiracy theorists' sites.
....
You should try researching it from a non biased perspective and stop believing everything you read on conspiracy sites.

I don't make my statements and views based simply on belief and trust and what i read. I make it based on science and facts.

Quote:
If you read some of the comments from the firefighters they even said the building was creaking and leaning before it collapsed.

Pls share them

also, consider watching this.
from 31:20
And this, the First 20 mins.

Are you aware close to 150 firefighters and new york policemen plus new reports from that day, reported of explosions? The investigations that followed completely ignored all of this. Eyewitness reports should be first of the few things to be investigated in any crime, and it usually is. Except for 911 where it was ignored.
Am curious what you have to say about this.
July 10, 2013 10:16:17 AM

riser said:
OMG - There were only 2 structural supports of which one was in the fire. On the higher levels the supports
...
in strength according to structural engineers on steel. I wonder what 500, 700, and 900 degrees would be?

Interesting theory yet again.

This is how steel behaves in fire.

Actual building with actual loads, and a fire with no water for hours!
A real Experiment! This is how science is done. Theories are backed by valid experiments.
Any valid experiments to back your theory?

Also, From NIST itself, max temperatures of fire did not reach what you have claimed. So not sure from where are you pulling those magic numbers from.
(It is a known fact that steel looses its strength with high temperatures. But the steel in those WTC buildings were fireproofed steel and with a certain bond strength)

July 10, 2013 10:38:58 AM

I pulled the structural information from the NIST report and from PopularMechanics. I pulled the fire information from various sources on the web. For the steel temps, I pulled them from various sources but went with modern day numbers. For modern steel I actually glanced over a report for the conclusion on modern structural steel. From 22 degrees to 540 degrees, structural steels remains nearly identical. After exceeding 540 degrees, structural steel degrades quickly, down to 50% at 1100 degrees.

I'm basing my argument on physics, physical properties, video evidence, and time factors mainly. All of which are factual, correct? We know how physics work, right? We know what physical properties were holding the building up and the structural design, right? We have video evidence of the fire, the structural damage, the duration, and a good indication that no one entered the building, right? Then we have the time frame from the start of the fire to the collapse of the building.

I can't watch your video, but I'm going to suspect that the structure design was different and probably wasn't compromised by debris crashing through it, nor 45 year old steel, right? They're likely using new steel. Maybe I'll get bored enough to watch the video later. But I highly doubt that the weight, fire, and duration was the same. Was diesel fuel also put into the mix for a short time?

If you had bothered reading the NIST report, you would have noted that it was common practice to have 2 to 3 hours of burn material attached to the steel. The fire burned for 7 hours without any water to suppress the fire. The building is damaged, integrity is compromised, along with a fire burning on multiple floors inside, and it stood for 7 hours.

Please explain to me your 'theory' on how explosives were placed in the buidling, how they were able to withstand the extensive damage from the falling towers, and were later set off at 5:xxpm in the afternoon? That is such a far stretch to believe that all the wiring made it through the fire and the destruction of 10 floor. I mean, really? I have a bridge to sell you and cheap.
July 10, 2013 11:00:06 AM

Putting the NIST report out there. They even note that the place wasn't fire resistant to current standards. They report that things happened hundreds of degrees less than what was considered fire resistant. I speculate that 500-900 is reasonable.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082...

Here are some facts for you:

No jurisdiction demands longer than 4 hour of fire resistance.
The common room fire is generally at 2000 degrees at the 4th hour mark.
The common room fire has peaked at 2300 degrees at the 8th hour mark.
Post-Flashover temperatures range from 1600-1800 degrees.


Ninja edit: At this point I started reviewing the NIST report after pulling the above information from FireDoctor.com.
And here you go:
How hot did WTC 7's steel columns and floor beams get?

Due to the effectiveness of the spray-applied fire-resistive material (SFRM) or fireproofing, the highest steel column temperatures in WTC 7 only reached an estimated 300 degrees C (570 degrees F), and only on the east side of the building did the steel floor beams exceed 600 degrees C (1,100 degrees F). However, fire-induced buckling of floor beams and damage to connections-that caused buckling of a critical column initiating collapse-occurred at temperatures below approximately 400 degrees C where thermal expansion dominates. Above 600 degrees C (1,100 degrees F), there is significant loss of steel strength and stiffness. In the WTC 7 collapse, the loss of steel strength or stiffness was not as important as the thermal expansion of steel structures caused by heat.

I found that in the NIST report after providing my information from 3rd parties. The thermal expansion (sagging) resulted in the collapse. The design structure did not compensate for a partial collapse, therefore the entire structure comes down together. If you read the NIST report even more, you'll notice that the building collapsed 40% slower than if in a free fall (such as an explosion took out the building down). So the building was never in a free fall, it was an internal collapse, which by video evidence you can see preceded by the collapse of the penthouses, one after the other, on the roof, prior to the collapse of the building.

You sir have been de-bunked.
July 10, 2013 11:00:50 AM

you still dont seem to get the point.

Steel definitely gets weak in fires.
The point is, steel when it becomes weak, will not just fall like a pack of cards.
It slowly, progressively bends, sags, you will hear loud creaking sounds & give enough time for occupants to leave.
Most importantly, fire being a chaotic process will cause uneven damage, or non symmetrical damage. Non symmetric damage will cannot cause a perfectly symmetric collapse, and that too at free fall speed through the path of greatest resistance.

NIST report very explicitly mentions it was failure of one column which caused an entire building to fall. That column was on one side of the building. If that column failed, than the building should have tilted towards that side because that part of building was what failed.
July 10, 2013 11:23:35 AM

Quote:
You sir have been de-bunked.

Here is what you basically did, You used the NIST theory (which is the suspect) to prove that the NIST theory is not a suspect. :) 

To put in in perspective. Imagine i write a thesis, that says Time travelling is possible. I then use this thesis to prove that the same thesis is correct. Does it seem reasonable to you?

If you went through the trouble to read the NIST report you most certainly are capable to understand this.
Here is how NIST did its investigations. See from 41:00
The way NIST went ahead trying to prove their hypothesis was a complete joke.
July 10, 2013 12:21:22 PM

Can't watch youtube videos right now.
July 10, 2013 12:25:24 PM

Dude. http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gi...

Everyone is watching from the same video from one direction. If you watch the other video, you can see that the exterior is the last to fall; the interior has already been collapsing.

Oh, and another thing on it. 3 hours PRIOR to the collapse, authorities pulled back resources to fight fires in other areas since the water pressure was low. They wanted people away from it because they predicted it was going to collapse based on the ground floor assessment. If you believe that it was an inside job, you also have to believe that the FDNY was involved at some level because their chief made the call it would collapse.
July 10, 2013 12:30:53 PM

shaqblogs2011 said:
Quote:
You sir have been de-bunked.

Here is what you basically did, You used the NIST theory (which is the suspect) to prove that the NIST theory is not a suspect. :) 

To put in in perspective. Imagine i write a thesis, that says Time travelling is possible. I then use this thesis to prove that the same thesis is correct. Does it seem reasonable to you?

If you went through the trouble to read the NIST report you most certainly are capable to understand this.
Here is how NIST did its investigations. See from 41:00
The way NIST went ahead trying to prove their hypothesis was a complete joke.


No. What I did was looked over the evidence, provided my own information on what likely happened, and THEN I went to the NIST report to find that I was pretty close to what they reported. I worked a few years around a lot of structural engineers and I did learn a thing or two about buildings.

The structure of the building was at fault and was not capable of withstanding the two factor compromise. By the link I posted, you can see that support columns were damaged. The floor plan based on the structure would exert even more weight on other supoprt columns. Then you'll notice that the structure is hodgepodged together to utilize new supports and existing supports from the sub station below it. The link I posted provides a very good explanation of how the collapse happened from their own modeling the building's structure! You can throw your conspiracy theory around all you what, physics prove this to be very plausible, far more than your little theory of bombs being planted.
July 10, 2013 12:33:49 PM

shaqblogs2011 said:
you still dont seem to get the point.

Steel definitely gets weak in fires.
The point is, steel when it becomes weak, will not just fall like a pack of cards.
It slowly, progressively bends, sags, you will hear loud creaking sounds & give enough time for occupants to leave.
Most importantly, fire being a chaotic process will cause uneven damage, or non symmetrical damage. Non symmetric damage will cannot cause a perfectly symmetric collapse, and that too at free fall speed through the path of greatest resistance.

NIST report very explicitly mentions it was failure of one column which caused an entire building to fall. That column was on one side of the building. If that column failed, than the building should have tilted towards that side because that part of building was what failed.


You clearly can't think for yourself outside of your soundbyte videos.

Review the link I posted. Look at the structure. You get a view of the top level and lower levels. You get to see how the top would start to collapse first, putting extra weight on the floors below it. Then, if you actually look over the floor plan, you would notice they're not a stick built structure, meaning a box. They're extending out from the center, which would make for a really easy straight down collapse. If the building was frame in steel, I would think it would have leaned and fallend if a support had been compromised. The supports are in the middle of the building. Go play Jenga, learn some physics. :) 
      • 1 / 2
      • 2
      • Newest
!