- #71
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 8,142
- 1,756
Done.
Subject closed.
Subject closed.
Perhaps I'm biased but they don't even seem to be able to respond to our arguements unless they are twisting our words or creating strawmen. I'm baffled that they could even believe half of this. I'd be more than willing to continue this if only in the hopes that we might be able to get them to be more incredulous of their sources or this wacky version of physics they are learning.Ivan Seeking said:I would like to pause to see if any of our skeptics see any valid points. I think it was Brewnog who indicated that he has an interest in this but is frustrated with the present discussion. If we do find any agreement, then perhaps we could proceed on those issues.
Do you see any credible issues here or not? All skeptics, please chime in.
outsider said:After watching some of the vids, i'd hate to say that they almost resemble the same type of stuff the rightwing crazys got... i'd even consider these guys false leftys with the way that they go about arguing... but they are probably just very passionate.
outsider said:but to support what they are saying, don't engineers implode buildings using explosives placed in strategic places to ensure that buildings fall straight down to prevent damaging other buildings?
Otherwise, we could just hire anyone to destroy old buildings, NO?
Great info and observations! I wonder if the thread master is returning to defend his stance? Did anyone happen to watch the video about the Pentagon and Flight 77? I was never satisfied with this part of the post 911 investigations.Pengwuino said:Demolition crews basically get the blueprints and determine exactly where they should set off explosives (I believe they use a type of thermite drilled into the steel when they have to topple steel buildings) so that buildings fall in the way they want them to fall. You can make a building fall in most any direction... except when it comes to tremendously tall skyscrapers. There is nothing you can do to make a building fall anywhere but straight down when your dealing with skyscrapers basically because your dealing with such incredible amounts of mass.
I remember a show a while ago where they were showing various demolitions. One happened to be a very large sky-scrapper. They said that basically the only way to do it was set off shape-charges at like... 3 floors of charges with 5 floors inbetween all the way up. The charges would basically weaken the structure and the building would collapse upon itself with the force of gravity. The OBVIOUS difference in the controlled demolition in the show and the supposed demolition in the WTC is that the bottom floors started to fall at the same time as the top floors. As we can see in the WTC, a large section basically fell and pushed everything down as it made contact.
outsider said:Great info and observations! I wonder if the thread master is returning to defend his stance? Did anyone happen to watch the video about the Pentagon and Flight 77? I was never satisfied with this part of the post 911 investigations.
outsider said:Great info and observations! I wonder if the thread master is returning to defend his stance? Did anyone happen to watch the video about the Pentagon and Flight 77? I was never satisfied with this part of the post 911 investigations.
outsider said:can someone other than the rude boi explain what happened with building 7? There wasn't any reasons for it to collapse was there?
outsider said:no.. i did not read anything previously about a direct hit... fire isn't enough to take a building down... are there not sprinklers?... it's late... I'm :zzz:
5.6.2 Probable Collapse Sequence
The collapse of WTC 7 appears to have initiated on the east side of the building on the interior, as indicated by the disappearance of the east penthouse into the building. This was followed by the disappearance of the west penthouse, and the development of a fault or “kink” on the east half of WTC 7 (see Figures 5-23 and 5-24). The collapse then began at the lower floor levels, and the building completely collapsed to the ground. From this sequence, it appears that the collapse initiated at the lower levels on the
inside and progressed up, as seen by the extension of the fault from the lower levels to the top.
During the course of the day, fires may have exposed various structural elements to high temperatures for a sufficient period of time to reduce their strength to the point of causing collapse. The structural elements most likely to have initiated the observed collapse are the transfer trusses between floors 5 to 7, located on lower floors under the east mechanical penthouse close to the fault/kink location. If the collapse initiated at these transfer trusses, this would explain why the building imploded, producing a limited debris field as the exterior walls were pulled downward. The collapse may have then spread to the west. The building at this point may have had extensive interior structural failures that then led to the collapse of the overall building.
Esperanto, could you post a link to what you just said. I have no idea where it might be at this point.
And to those people who want to point to the fuel tanks in building 7
Quote:
“The fuel absolutely could be a factor," said Silvian Marcus, executive vice president for the Cantor Seinuk Group and a structural engineer involved in the original design of the building, which was completed in 1987. But he added, “The tanks may have accelerated the collapse, but did not cause the collapse.”
http://www.ilaam.net/Sept11/LiesAndVideotape.html
The building seven was burning for seven hours before it collapse at 5:30 p.m. People were evacuated an hour or two before. That's how mild the fires were.
Let's just forget about all that evidence and compare what Larry Silverstein and FEMA say.
Quote:
n a September 2002 PBS documentary called 'America Rebuilds,' Silverstein states, in reference to World Trade Center Building 7, "I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."
http://www.prisonplanet.com/pullit.mp3
http://www.prisonplanet.com/011904wtc7.html
Quote:
“The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time.”
http://www.prisonplanet.com/011904wtc7.html
How can you defend that?
But whatever, let's just focus on building 7 when Larry Silverstein said he blew it up and FEMA said "... I don't know"
Answer now!
He said they PULLED it. Demolition term for demolishing.
Ok Ivan. Larry said he blew up 7. Fema said they don't know what happened. Good luck!
Your information is not accurate. No one said they blew it up, if they had, there wouldn't be any question, would there?Esperanto said:Then tell me, Evo can stick with the idea that fire caused wtc 7 to collapse when Larry says he blew it up and I am guilty of ignoring the evidence?
TheStatutoryApe said:Perhaps I'm biased but they don't even seem to be able to respond to our arguements unless they are twisting our words or creating strawmen. I'm baffled that they could even believe half of this. I'd be more than willing to continue this if only in the hopes that we might be able to get them to be more incredulous of their sources or this wacky version of physics they are learning.
Evo said:Your information is not accurate. No one said they blew it up, if they had, there wouldn't be any question, would there?
If you have nothing factual to present, I suggest you stop wasting our time here.
Yes, they pulled the firefighting operation. Have you not read any of the official reports?Burnsys said:Larry Silverstein, the controller of the destroyed WTC complex, stated plainly in a PBS documentary that he and the FDNY decided jointly to demolish the Solomon Bros. building, or WTC 7, late in the afternoon of Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2001.
In the documentary "America Rebuilds", aired September 2002, Silverstein makes the following statement;
"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/PULLIT.mp3
Evo said:Yes, they pulled the firefighting operation. Have you not read any of the official reports?
Working Collapse Hypothesis for WTC 7
If it remains viable upon further analysis, the working collapse hypothesis for WTC 7 suggests that it was a classic progressive collapse, including:
An Initiating Event
An initial local failure at the lower floors (below Floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event), which supported a large span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 ft2
A Vertical Progression at the East Side of the Building
Vertical progression of the initial local failure up to the east penthouse, as large floor bays were unable to redistribute the loads, bringing down the interior structure below the east penthouse
A Subsequent Horizontal Progression from the East to the West Side
Horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of Floors 5 and 7, that were much thicker than the rest of the floors), triggered by damage due to the vertical failure
Disproportionate Global Collapse
Events resulted in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure
NIST has seen no evidence that the collapse of WTC 7 was caused by bombs, missiles, or controlled demolition.
Yes, the facts are all there.Sub-Zer0 said:That is extremely far fetched. So you believe that? You believe fire brought down Seven?
Evo said:Yes, the facts are all there.
Find a building that matches the damage specified in the report on WTC 7. Thinking that the building was demolished with explosives isn't even a possibility since no traces of explosives were found. I prefer fact over wild, baseless fabrications that make no sense.Sub-Zer0 said:Facts can be concocted, and evidence can be manufactured. Show me any other building that anything like this has ever happened in before. This is completely ridiculous,
"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."
Evo said:Find a building that matches the damage specified in the report on WTC 7. Thinking that the building was demolished with explosives isn't even a possibility since no traces of explosives were found. I prefer fact over wild, baseless fabrications that make no sense.
Do you really expect someone to believe that Silverstein and the NY fire department deliberately imploded the building? (without explosives, no less)
I personally question that some people can accept that a fire burning from the top of a building can cause the entire building to collapse in a matter of seconds. Just as the lunatics being closed minded, I find that there is an equal wall of resistance. When mythbusting, one cannot take government reports and documents as "word". Just as the bible is not a full and precise interpretation of history.Evo said:Find a building that matches the damage specified in the report on WTC 7. Thinking that the building was demolished with explosives isn't even a possibility since no traces of explosives were found. I prefer fact over wild, baseless fabrications that make no sense.
Do you really expect someone to believe that Silverstein and the NY fire department deliberately imploded the building? (without explosives, no less)
For example, did you know vaccines have a mercury perservative in them which has irrefutable been linked to autism?
How about Depleted Uranium, the true culprit of Gulf War Syndrome, cause seven to ten the birth deffects, and tripple the cancer rates in Iraq? Did you know about that?
Is this a point?
LOL, NO! I'm saying the entire central Colum would have to be destroyed to achieve this
Steel weakening at 2000 degrees and offered several scholarly links to supporate this claim, and all you've said is, "I AM WRONG"
Where's your link for that buddy?
And btw Jet fuel only burns for 30 secconds to two minutes
Facts can be concocted, and evidence can be manufactured.
design flaw in the building able to PULVERIZE CONCERETE?