9/11 What really happened to WT7?

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

Previous topic - Next topic

Franko

Omaghjoe has it just about bang on.  The fuel in the aircraft while not the de-facto cause of the collapse would have contributed as it would have caused the fire to burn hotter and for longer, thereby undermining the steel structure more.  The weight of a poured concrete floor collapsing onto the floor below should not have brought the building down on it's own but when the structural integrity of 5+ floors are compromised by both damage and fire, a collapse is not just possible, it's likely.  Once one floor goes, at this stage, the collapse becomes self sustaining.

omaghjoe

Quote from: ha ha derry on September 30, 2016, 07:20:22 AM
Quote from: omaghjoe on September 29, 2016, 11:33:07 PM
Quote from: ha ha derry on September 29, 2016, 10:39:48 PM
Quote from: omaghjoe on September 29, 2016, 10:07:10 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 😉



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.

So you're saying all the beams and columns all failed uniformly 😂 Why do you think lumberjacks deliberately weaken one side of a tree trunk to influence the direction of collapse ?

No I dont think they failed uniformly. As  I mentioned before the steel beam and columns are interconnected, removing one puts extra pressure on another one and if you have a few more in close proximity with their connections and physical structure compromised then pretty soon its vertical dominoes for the whole structure.

The tree analogy would be similar to the chimney scenario I mentioned before.. sorry its irrelevant for a structure like this, think deck of cards or matchbox tower.

Try and picture my explanation in your head happening and it should become more obivious. Im not trying to have a go at you I want you to understand and would be happy to answer any questions on my explanation

I know you're not having a go. But if a demolition company were to attempt to collapse the building straight down it would be done via sequenced , uniform removal of the structure. Matchbox tower and deck of cards don't have fixed connection points and shear studs in the floor construction. By the way only the top 14 stories on tower one had been affected by fire.
I just think there are more questions than answers.
And don't get me started on the Pentagon. 😂😂

I know they dont have connections points thats why they fall so easy similarly the connection points in WT7 where busted to by the expanding steel as I mentioned earlier. And they arent carrying floors so they cant be connected to them. I was using the principal of their stucture as a reference, they are loaded in a similar fashion to skyscraper.

You should question everything and seek out answers for all theories as it helps you to decide

Now...Where was the bang for the demo explosion?

seafoid

Quote from: Franko on September 30, 2016, 12:37:35 PM
Omaghjoe has it just about bang on.  The fuel in the aircraft while not the de-facto cause of the collapse would have contributed as it would have caused the fire to burn hotter and for longer, thereby undermining the steel structure more.  The weight of a poured concrete floor collapsing onto the floor below should not have brought the building down on it's own but when the structural integrity of 5+ floors are compromised by both damage and fire, a collapse is not just possible, it's likely.  Once one floor goes, at this stage, the collapse becomes self sustaining.

Back in the 70s nobody imagined planes flying into buildings
911 changed the paradigm
"f**k it, just score"- Donaghy   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbxG2WwVRjU

muppet

Quote from: omaghjoe on September 30, 2016, 03:52:05 AM
Quote from: muppet on September 30, 2016, 01:08:48 AM
Quote from: omaghjoe on September 29, 2016, 10:48:26 PM
Quote from: ha ha derry on September 29, 2016, 09:50:37 PM

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.

The water supply was cut off so sprinklers didnt work in WTC7 so it burned for hours. Fire proofing was knocked out of place by plane crash and explosion in the towers

The floors collapsing wasnt the problem it was their entire steel structure which provided their support collapsing causing the problem

Quote from: omaghjoe on September 29, 2016, 05:53:50 PM
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"

In a way I admire your logical dexterity. And in another way I don't.

Speculating about the influence of two fuel-laden aircraft, crashing into two giant towers, which subsequently collapsed, is 'dreaming up stuff', but........ the failure of the sprinkler system, to cope with some (obviously unrelated) fire, the first fire in history to bring down a sky-scraper, is not.

Did Wiki explain the lack of water pressure in the sprinkler system? Any idea at all what could have caused that?

Not entirely sure what your taking the hump about Muppet or what point your trying to make exactly?

The primary source of the structural failure of all the towers came from within ie the fire, not below.

Now if want you could argue that the fire was caused by the collapse of the other towers fair enough or the loss of water for the sprinklers fine. But dodgy foundations had nothing to do with it.

I didnt read anything on Wikipedia about it, just J70s link and a few other websites.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files/7434230.stm

From the link above: '...whereas in WTC 7 the fires burned without being fought, and the key sprinklers on the lower floors did not have any water because the mains had been cut by the collapse of the Twin Towers...'

Also: '...Tower 7 was built over a subway and an electricity substation. There were only a few places where foundations could be put down and long beams were needed to take the weight of the building on the east side. The building had to be reinforced on the fifth to seventh floors, and also between the 22nd and 24th floors....'

https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2008/08/nist-wtc-7-investigation-finds-building-fires-caused-collapse

'...The heat from these uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the lower floors of the east side of WTC 7, damaging the floor framing on multiple floors. Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical interior column that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building. The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the fifth floor. Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of the critical column. This collapse of floors left the critical column unsupported over nine stories....'

It looks like it was the fire that caused the failures. The fires don't appear to have been caused directly by the aircraft fuel, but were probably caused by debris (possibly some of it burning) falling from the Twin Towers, mainly during their collapse. The Twin Towers collapse crucially also took out water and electric mains supply. This allowed the fires to burn unchecked. The WTC7 collapse was no doubt aided by the design, which had to take into account the subway underneath.
MWWSI 2017

dec

Quote from: seafoid on September 30, 2016, 09:12:40 PM
Quote from: Franko on September 30, 2016, 12:37:35 PM
Omaghjoe has it just about bang on.  The fuel in the aircraft while not the de-facto cause of the collapse would have contributed as it would have caused the fire to burn hotter and for longer, thereby undermining the steel structure more.  The weight of a poured concrete floor collapsing onto the floor below should not have brought the building down on it's own but when the structural integrity of 5+ floors are compromised by both damage and fire, a collapse is not just possible, it's likely.  Once one floor goes, at this stage, the collapse becomes self sustaining.

Back in the 70s nobody imagined planes flying into buildings
911 changed the paradigm

1945

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CodLDGhTe0k


Íseal agus crua isteach a

The names, dates and those involved behind the September 11Th false flag attacks are presented here. Well worth a watch it breaks down everything in detail. How it was planned and executed.

https://youtu.be/kyLyGXQUIo0

dec

Quote from: Íseal agus crua isteach a on October 14, 2016, 05:11:55 PM
The names, dates and those involved behind the September 11Th false flag attacks are presented here. Well worth a watch it breaks down everything in detail. How it was planned and executed.

https://youtu.be/kyLyGXQUIo0

I assume he blames the Jews.

LeoMc

Quote from: dec on October 14, 2016, 05:27:05 PM
Quote from: Íseal agus crua isteach a on October 14, 2016, 05:11:55 PM
The names, dates and those involved behind the September 11Th false flag attacks are presented here. Well worth a watch it breaks down everything in detail. How it was planned and executed.

https://youtu.be/kyLyGXQUIo0

I assume he blames the Jews.
Why would a known holocaust denier do that?

RealSpiritof98

easier fooled than persuade a person that he is fooled

I feel for normal Americans because they have so much pride in their country, a wonderful country that deserves to be run by its people.

Please watch the video and tell me there is no connection with Israel. The evidence is there but sure the BBC and CNN tell us different. Murdochs cronies where caught red handed with the taping the phones scandal and how many did time or was convicted??????????????

Íseal agus crua isteach a

Exactly that. Wesley Clark told the truth on Democracy now with Amy Goodman. Seven Countries!!

https://youtu.be/9RC1Mepk_Sw

Milltown Row2

None of us are getting out of here alive, so please stop treating yourself like an after thought. Ea

sid waddell

Gemma O'Doherty and her supporters know THE TRUTH!

Syferus

#88
Why the fûck is there a 9/11 truther thread on this board.