|
Anno
Experimenter



Registered: 06/17/99
Posts: 24,166
Loc: my room
Last seen: 20 days, 15 hours
|
Re: World Trade Center 7 collapse [Re: Una]
#5380211 - 03/09/06 03:30 AM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Interesting.
Hello Una btw.
Here is an article from popularmechanics.com http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=5&c=y
WTC 7 Collapse CLAIM: Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one."
FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.
NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.
According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."
There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.
Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."
WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.
|
Una
controlleddemolition

Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 970
|
Re: World Trade Center 7 collapse [Re: Anno]
#5380222 - 03/09/06 03:55 AM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Hi Anno,
consider this about that article:
Quote:
[35] This article in Popular Mechanics is, to be blunt, spectacularly bad. Besides the problems pointed out here and in note 11, above, and note 39, below, the article makes this amazing claim: ?In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999.? In reality, as genuine 9/11 researchers know, the FAA reported in a news release on Aug. 9, 2002, that it had scrambled fighters 67 times between September 2000 and June 2001, and the Calgary Herald (Oct. 13, 2001) reported that NORAD scrambled fighters 129 times in 2000. By extrapolation, we can infer that NORAD had scrambled fighters over 1000 times in the decade prior to 9/11. The claim by Popular Mechanics could be true only if in all of these cases, except for the Payne Stewart incident, the fighters were called back to base before they actually intercepted the aircraft in question. This is a most unlikely possibility, especially in light of the fact that Major Mike Snyder, a NORAD spokesperson, reportedly told the Boston Globe a few days after 9/11 that ?[NORAD?S] fighters routinely intercept aircraft? (Johnson, 2001).
As to why Popular Mechanics would have published such a bad article, one clue is perhaps provided by the fact that the article?s ?senior researcher? was 25-year old Benjamin Chertoff, cousin of Michael Chertoff, the new head of the Department of Homeland Security (see Bollyn, 2005a). Another relevant fact is that this article was published shortly after a coup at this Hearst-owned magazine, in which the editor-in-chief was replaced (see Bollyn, 2005b). Young Chertoff?s debunking article has itself been effectively debunked by many genuine 9/11 researchers, such as Jim Hoffman, ?Popular Mechanics' Assault on 9/11 Truth,? Global Outlook 10 (Spring-Summer 2005), 21-42 (which was based on Hoffman, ?Popular Mechanics? Deceptive Smear Against 9/11 Truth,? 911Review.com, February 15, 2005 http://911review.com/pm/markup/index.html, and Peter Meyer, ?Reply to Popular Mechanics re 9/11,? http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/reply_to_popular_mechanics.htm. To be sure, these articles by Hoffman and Meyer, while agreeing on many points, take different approaches in response to some of the issues raised. But both articles demonstrate that Popular Mechanics owes its readers an apology for publishing such a massively flawed article on such an important subject.
from: The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True David Ray Griffin
http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html
-------------------- www.911blogger.com
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero


Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 20 days
|
Re: World Trade Center 7 collapse [Re: debianlinux]
#5380227 - 03/09/06 04:04 AM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
To avoid being heaped with the pseudo-experts I want to emphasize that I'm no expert whatsoever and that my comments on this matter are as speculative as anyone elses
Exactly! This type of statement earns respect rather than contempt. In my eyes, this is what seperates a good skeptic from the tin hat brigade. Regardless of which side one is on in the debate, being able to keep an open mind and knowing ones own technical limitations versus taking an absolute stand based upon a laymans understanding of the subject as taught by Hollywood.
Quote:
Please, excuse my drunken posting.
No apologies needed for stating an opinion, even a drunken one. To me, it is the debate itself that is important, not who is right or wrong. In this case, we will never know for certain who is correct.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
Una
controlleddemolition

Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 970
|
Re: World Trade Center 7 collapse [Re: ChuangTzu]
#5380581 - 03/09/06 09:28 AM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ChuangTzu said: And the one quote of a guy saying "pull the building", I would have to hear the actual tape to better judge this for myself but it's possible he could have said "pull out of the building" or something similar, or maybe he did say pull but meant pull out of.
here you go, it was posted above though.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/pullIt3.wmv
-------------------- www.911blogger.com
|
UrineVanderslope
Stranger

Registered: 03/12/06
Posts: 29
|
Re: World Trade Center 7 collapse [Re: Una]
#5392663 - 03/12/06 05:24 PM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
--------------------
|
Una
controlleddemolition

Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 970
|
|
Quote:
Read these links.
There's nothing in your links with regards to the collapse of building 7 (see thread title).
-------------------- www.911blogger.com
|
|