9/11 What really happened to WT7?

Started by Fuzzman, September 28, 2016, 04:32:04 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

muppet

Quote from: Hereiam on September 29, 2016, 04:24:44 PM
Exactly balladmaker. Don't forget most of New York is built on shit ground (getting very technical) and the vibration alone would be enough to cause a collapse.

South Manhattan was a swamp originally.

Also under the WTC (below the waterline) there were a couple of subway lines and a station. Two giant towers collapsing into that would have created massive stress for everything nearby by. As for the fires, 2 767s with fuel for flights from the East coast to the West coast could he been the sources of the fires.
MWWSI 2017

Milltown Row2

Quote from: dec on September 29, 2016, 04:49:07 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on September 29, 2016, 04:02:31 PM
Quote from: Fuzzman on September 29, 2016, 03:57:43 PM
3 pages and still nobody has given me a good reason to why building 7 fell.
Forget about the bigger picture and whether it's just people making up shit.

Do people think the building fell because it burned all day long and then couldn't support itself any more?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mamvq7LWqRU

If it had not have fallen would they have had to demolish it anyway to rebuild it?
How did the fires start?

There is no good reason why it fell, other than it was wired with explosives.

When did they wire it with explosives?

The day before apparently  :o well that's what one of the posters here said!! Couldn't make it up!
None of us are getting out of here alive, so please stop treating yourself like an after thought. Ea

sid waddell

Quote from: muppet on September 29, 2016, 03:36:47 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on September 29, 2016, 03:00:24 PM
Everybody knows this building was brought down by an organised conspiracy - a crack squad of former Dublin footballers are the prime suspects.

Unlikely they would go as far as Newbridge, never mind New York.  :D
Sure they didn't have to go as far as Newlands Cross, never mind New York.

The conspirators on the ground over there (variously code named "Mossy-ad" or "Al-Quinneda") were given the signal to go ahead and implode the building through a series of coded Irish newspaper articles by the crack WTC organising squad of former Dublin footballers in the days beforehand.

WTC may be commonly thought to stand for "World Trade Center", but it really stands for Whelan, Tomas and Clarke.

omaghjoe

OK I had a  read of a few websites on the report and I will try to put my understanding of it into the simplest of terms

When steel is heated it expands, this expansion meant that the columns holding the floors up move primarily along their length.

This movement in turn caused two things..
Firstly is meant that the columns began to buckle (bend) as they where had become too long between their connection points
Next the movement of the steel meant the bolt connections wanted to move away from to their connections points to the floors and other columns, this caused the bolts that where making the connections to fail. The connections to the floors failed first leaving the column free to put all the load from the expansion on its end connections. The end connections holding the columns up failed also causing a floor to collapse.

When one floor fell it left vertical columns unsupported which in turn also failed and this also caused other floors to fall, this combined with the dynamic loading of the falling floors onto the already weakened steel columns and connections caused the dramatically rapid collapse.

The investigators found the buckled columns and the sheared connections supporting this theory

My understanding is open to corrections, and clarification

Main Street

The only valid conspiracy arising from this attack happened post 9/11 attack. Although  accepted as fact by the US Gov that Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack,  they still conspired to deceive the public on the matter, eventually aiding justification of the invasion, rape and pillage of Iraq and subsequent loss of life of 100s of  thousands.

omaghjoe

Quote from: muppet on September 29, 2016, 04:50:22 PM
Quote from: Hereiam on September 29, 2016, 04:24:44 PM
Exactly balladmaker. Don't forget most of New York is built on shit ground (getting very technical) and the vibration alone would be enough to cause a collapse.

South Manhattan was a swamp originally.

Also under the WTC (below the waterline) there were a couple of subway lines and a station. Two giant towers collapsing into that would have created massive stress for everything nearby by. As for the fires, 2 767s with fuel for flights from the East coast to the West coast could he been the sources of the fires.

This is nothing to do with why it collapsed, dreaming up stuff that might be logical but ultimately only adds fuels to the "alternative theories"

J70

#51
Quote from: omaghjoe on September 29, 2016, 05:42:23 PM
OK I had a  read of a few websites on the report and I will try to put my understanding of it into the simplest of terms

When steel is heated it expands, this expansion meant that the columns holding the floors up move primarily along their length.

This movement in turn caused two things..
Firstly is meant that the columns began to buckle (bend) as they where had become too long between their connection points
Next the movement of the steel meant the bolt connections wanted to move away from to their connections points to the floors and other columns, this caused the bolts that where making the connections to fail. The connections to the floors failed first leaving the column free to put all the load from the expansion on its end connections. The end connections holding the columns up failed also causing a floor to collapse.

When one floor fell it left vertical columns unsupported which in turn also failed and this also caused other floors to fall, this combined with the dynamic loading of the falling floors onto the already weakened steel columns and connections caused the dramatically rapid collapse.

The investigators found the buckled columns and the sheared connections supporting this theory

My understanding is open to corrections, and clarification

Some of these boys think the steel has to melt to cause a collapse, whereas in reality it only has to heat, expand and weaken enough for it to buckle.

ha ha derry

1. The chance of the building falling straight down without damaging other building because of disproportionate collapse is practically nil.
2. The time it took for full collapse was the same time as if there was no structure underneath providing resistance.
Go figure 😉

Milltown Row2

Quote from: ha ha derry on September 29, 2016, 08:10:56 PM
1. The chance of the building falling straight down without damaging other building because of disproportionate collapse is practically nil.
2. The time it took for full collapse was the same time as if there was no structure underneath providing resistance.
Go figure 😉

So you're a structural engineer with demolition expertise too?
None of us are getting out of here alive, so please stop treating yourself like an after thought. Ea

J70

#54
Quote from: ha ha derry on September 29, 2016, 08:10:56 PM
1. The chance of the building falling straight down without damaging other building because of disproportionate collapse is practically nil.
2. The time it took for full collapse was the same time as if there was no structure underneath providing resistance.
Go figure 😉

Sources?

What is "practically nil"? Is that "impossible"? "Unlikely"? "Unusual"?

So "no structure underneath"-speed collapse is accomplished how? How fast should it have collapsed?

ha ha derry

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on September 29, 2016, 08:43:56 PM
Quote from: ha ha derry on September 29, 2016, 08:10:56 PM
1. The chance of the building falling straight down without damaging other building because of disproportionate collapse is practically nil.
2. The time it took for full collapse was the same time as if there was no structure underneath providing resistance.
Go figure 😉

So you're a structural engineer with demolition expertise too?

No demolition experience.... Except for full back lines 😉😉

ha ha derry

Quote from: J70 on September 29, 2016, 09:05:19 PM
Quote from: ha ha derry on September 29, 2016, 08:10:56 PM
1. The chance of the building falling straight down without damaging other building because of disproportionate collapse is practically nil.
2. The time it took for full collapse was the same time as if there was no structure underneath providing resistance.
Go figure 😉

Sources?

What is "practically nil"? Is that "impossible"? "Unlikely"? "Unusual"?

So "no structure underneath"-speed collapse is accomplished how? How fast should it have collapsed?

Very highly unlikely  and Gravity is a constant.

Milltown Row2

Quote from: ha ha derry on September 29, 2016, 09:09:17 PM
Quote from: J70 on September 29, 2016, 09:05:19 PM
Quote from: ha ha derry on September 29, 2016, 08:10:56 PM
1. The chance of the building falling straight down without damaging other building because of disproportionate collapse is practically nil.
2. The time it took for full collapse was the same time as if there was no structure underneath providing resistance.
Go figure 😉

Sources?

What is "practically nil"? Is that "impossible"? "Unlikely"? "Unusual"?

So "no structure underneath"-speed collapse is accomplished how? How fast should it have collapsed?

Very highly unlikely  and Gravity is a constant.

Worked and taught engineering (metal work ) and there are many grades of steel and fire proof materials attached to the twin towers was proved to have been poor and in lots of places non existent !!

The building came down as already stated the floors just crashed down on top of each other and that was that I'd imagine under the towers the foundations sent tremors to other building causing them to collapse also, went up it the year it was first attempted to be blown up, when a bomb went off in the underground car park ... 93? I think plenty security at the building ever since, we were searched on way in, so difficult to bring in enough bombs plant them and get away with it I'd say
None of us are getting out of here alive, so please stop treating yourself like an after thought. Ea

ha ha derry

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on September 29, 2016, 09:19:28 PM
Quote from: ha ha derry on September 29, 2016, 09:09:17 PM
Quote from: J70 on September 29, 2016, 09:05:19 PM
Quote from: ha ha derry on September 29, 2016, 08:10:56 PM
1. The chance of the building falling straight down without damaging other building because of disproportionate collapse is practically nil.
2. The time it took for full collapse was the same time as if there was no structure underneath providing resistance.
Go figure 😉

Sources?

What is "practically nil"? Is that "impossible"? "Unlikely"? "Unusual"?

So "no structure underneath"-speed collapse is accomplished how? How fast should it have collapsed?

Very highly unlikely  and Gravity is a constant.

Worked and taught engineering (metal work ) and there are many grades of steel and fire proof materials attached to the twin towers was proved to have been poor and in lots of places non existent !!

The building came down as already stated the floors just crashed down on top of each other and that was that I'd imagine under the towers the foundations sent tremors to other building causing them to collapse also, went up it the year it was first attempted to be blown up, when a bomb went off in the underground car park ... 93? I think plenty security at the building ever since, we were searched on way in, so difficult to bring in enough bombs plant them and get away with it I'd say

Not so, for insurance purposes the building structure and fire resistance is inspected on a regular basis, carried out by specialists.
Also the building would be designed to minimise the effect of partial collapse ie. Every 4th or 5th floor reinforced to resist / arrest collapsing floors from above.
Pilots passport found in the rubble within hours of collapse, how lucky was that. 😉

omaghjoe

Quote from: ha ha derry on September 29, 2016, 08:10:56 PM
1. The chance of the building falling straight down without damaging other building because of disproportionate collapse is practically nil.
2. The time it took for full collapse was the same time as if there was no structure underneath providing resistance.
Go figure 😉



Not true, this isnt like a large chimney that is relatively top heavy with a rigid struture that will fall to one side. It an interconnected series of beams that rely on each other for support and consists mostly of air which the building falls into. Its structure resembles a matchstick tower.... see what happens one of those when one connection fails... thats right it all collapses straight down and pretty quickly too, tho not quite as fast as you reckon. I checked this out before with the two main towers, they collapsed fast but they didnt collapse at a free falling rate, the floors gave some resistance but the dynamic loading and weakened structure overcame any resistance very quickly and got faster the further it went down as the dynamic load exponentially increased as the speed of collapse increased.