9/11 What really happened to WT7?

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

Previous topic - Next topic

seafoid

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.
Katie Price
"f**k it, just score"- Donaghy   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbxG2WwVRjU

omaghjoe

Correct J70 this steel melting thing is pure BS.

Another thing I also forgot to mention is the Yield strength of steel, which is considered the real world failure point of steel. YS peaks at around 200°C and begins to fall sharply after this. Steel heated to 500°C will have a yield strength of roughly half that at room temperature. Which is another contributing factor it would have made the steel easier to buckle

The biggest question I would have is why did it take WTC7 so long to collapse. It took 9 hours? The peak of the fire would likely have been hours before. Tho perhaps when you think about since the fire was not as hot or as sudden as in the other two towers the steel would have expanded more slowly, not lost as much of its strength and the beam could have wedged itself in place with busted connections. However when it began to cool and contract again it would have become "unwedged" and subsequently with no connection to the other columns it would have fallen.

ha ha derry

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 ?

Milltown Row2

Quote from: ha ha derry on September 29, 2016, 09:50:37 PM
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. 😉

Listen these things get passed with a wink and and brown envelope a lot of times !! As for passports they found loads of items staplers from floor that plane flew into ffs!!
None of us are getting out of here alive, so please stop treating yourself like an after thought. Ea

Milltown Row2

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 ?

Was it made of wood now? No wonder it collapsed
None of us are getting out of here alive, so please stop treating yourself like an after thought. Ea

omaghjoe

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

omaghjoe

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

muppet

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?



MWWSI 2017

seafoid

#68
I would say a lot of US infrastructure may not have been built to the highest standards.  Same as a lot of stuff in Dublin. Some cultures are not really attention to detail  .
Trump used illegal Poliah labour in the late 70s for his Trump tower. A scêimear.
"f**k it, just score"- Donaghy   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbxG2WwVRjU

omaghjoe

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.

ha ha derry

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. 😂😂

seafoid

I wish people had the same level of curiosity about the financial system
"f**k it, just score"- Donaghy   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbxG2WwVRjU

Tony Baloney

Quote from: seafoid on September 30, 2016, 08:06:29 AM
I wish people had the same level of curiosity about the financial system
You've got it covered.

johnneycool

Quote from: stew on September 29, 2016, 03:02:48 PM
Quote from: J70 on September 29, 2016, 02:50:26 PM
Quote from: Hardy on September 29, 2016, 01:49:39 PM
Just use this.

;D

Saudi funded radical Muslim Jihadists flew planes into the towers and they collapsed as a result, there, sorted!

Yet the guns were turned on Afghanistan and not Riyadh?
Wonder why?

seafoid

#74
The PNAC was set up long before 911 and had plans to reshaope the Middle East for the benefit of Israel and American arms companies. Very Zionist. The stupidest f**king man on the planet, Doug Feith, was also a Zionist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

I also think war spending is the only form of deficit spending that was acceptable to Republicans at the time. Iraq cost 3 trillion which supported the US economy in a serious way when growth was otherwise low. The only downside obviously is dead soldiers and veteran suicides but the sociopaths who run the US do not care.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVUHalR8P0I


Iraq was sold as a piece of cake by an Israeli who you may be familiar with
"If you take out Saddam's regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region... The task and the great opportunity and challenge is not merely to effect the ouster of the regime, but also to transform the region."

What an arsehole
http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4529120/netanyahus-expert-testimony-iraq-2002

Another fellow traveller
www.youtube.com/embed/Z2MWNwfGNno
"f**k it, just score"- Donaghy   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbxG2WwVRjU