Steel shipped to China...

[DGM]

Truthers shifted their focus to WTC 7 only after their claims regarding the Twin Towers failed to achieve any traction.

As far as in the building world, this was their down fall. The towers were more or less a "one off". Building 7 was a generic copy that is used all over. The unique features that where needed to span the sub-station were of little effect.

Building 7 was looked at much more by building professionals despite the claim by AE 9/11 that it was "ignored and not known".

The big joke is "truthers" keep quoting the NIST reports although they have no idea what they say. I can't blame most of them, they have AE 9/11 (their pros)telling them how to be stupid.

 

[JayUtah]

Building 7 was looked at much more by building professionals despite the claim by AE 9/11 that it was "ignored and not known".

Yes, that makes sense. The one-off properties of WTC 1 and 2 are very apparent. It was a highly structurally efficient building. The Sears Tower used a similar style in each of its nine vertical bays. But other than that, the system isn't widely used.

Yes, WTC 7 is a more ordinary framing plan, and I can suspect many engineers would naturally say, "WTC 7 provides a useful example of my kind of structural designs being pushed to failure." Does that mean the engineering world is surprised that WTC 7 collapse? No -- but studying its collapse is more applicable to building in general.

 

[LSSBB]

Yes, that makes sense. The one-off properties of WTC 1 and 2 are very apparent. It was a highly structurally efficient building. The Sears Tower used a similar style in each of its nine vertical bays. But other than that, the system isn't widely used.

Yes, WTC 7 is a more ordinary framing plan, and I can suspect many engineers would naturally say, "WTC 7 provides a useful example of my kind of structural designs being pushed to failure." Does that mean the engineering world is surprised that WTC 7 collapse? No -- but studying its collapse is more applicable to building in general.

In any case, moment framing designs underwent a lot of scrutiny after the Northridge earthquake. The resulting changes occurred after the construction of WTC7 so in a sense it's design was already obsolete, from a disaster mitigation viewpoint.

 

[DGM]

In any case, moment framing designs underwent a lot of scrutiny after the Northridge earthquake. The resulting changes occurred after the construction of WTC7 so in a sense it's design was already obsolete, from a disaster mitigation viewpoint.

One would think an architect from California would know about the vulnerabilities in the design type.

I must say, the paper you quoted didn't mention "free-fall speed".

 

[beachnut]

Ok, so the pics show some bent steel and sagging floors. How is this relevant to 911? Did NIST's physical tests have similar results. If not, what were the results?

Why can't you answer these questions you ask? One of them makes no sense, what do you mean? Why are questions used by 911 truth, when you guys need evidence? Where is your evidence for your fantasy version of 911 - is it hidden in the questions?

Sagging floors due to office fires - oops, fire does destroy the strength of steel, and you can't figure out how that relates to 911. No wonder you can't comprehend reality, and need to spread false information - you don't understand physics, fire and engineering.

No one was able to inspect WTC because it was destoryed?
LOL, oh noes, an engineer looking at WTC steel.
What was your point?
The WTC was destoryed by aircraft and fires - what is your fantasy?

 

[TheRealnz]

They didn't tell me how the buildings collapse, I figured that out for myself. I had a real good idea who was behind this on 9/11, I didn't need to be told. I can see how things are in the world and I don't need to invent a boogie-man. Fact of the matter is, Americans are really good a pissing people off, I should know, I am one.

You figured out that buildings designed to withstand plane collisions collapse straight down? Okay. Well if you didn't, they made sure to add plants all throughout the event. I can provide you video.

You had an idea? Why? How is it these men can plot mayhem across the world at the heart of US power, but can't do the same in their own backyard? It makes no sense. Then again, if you didn't have an idea, reporters were finding "Islamic Terrorist" passports on the ground the day of the event. Again, I can find you video.

We agree on US FP angering people, the difference is we disagree on angering people enough to cause a military confrontation. These men are battle hardened. These types of attacks are movie ridiculous. Overly complex and politically damaging. When you are the most powerful military on the planet with an entitled population, you in fact do have to invent boogie men. Why? Because you can't just run around snatching people's ish unless you pretend there is a good reason for it.

Do you believe everything you read in the papers on the day of the event? I like to wait for the facts to come in.

This is a false construct come on man.

I don't believe I should believe anything I read or see via media completely. Especially from groups who have a vested interest in protecting power, i.e., corporate media. I just gather info and piece together the "most likely" scenario. I do however expect follow up stories to cover previous lines of reasoning if they updates deviate wildly. I do not expect follow up stories to simply overwrite previous narratives, i.e., an entirely new narrative.

 

[TheRealnz]

At which point you sue for malpractice. However, newspapers just issue corrections.

That wasn't a correction. They didn't mention ANYTHING from the previous story. They just wrote something totally different. It was in fact like they never said it.

 

[MileHighMadness]

Guys...guys...guys, don't feel the troll. He doesn't even believe his own B.S.

 

[JayUtah]

You figured out that buildings designed to withstand plane collisions...

Are you for real? That nonsense was dispelled while the calendar still read 2001.

...collapse straight down?

"Down" is sorta how gravity works. Amazing how the relevant engineering community with a single, nearly unanimous voice fails to see how a collapse could have occurred in any other way.

 

[000063]

You figured out that buildings designed to withstand plane collisions collapse straight down? ...

Yep, the Towers were totally designed to withstand a full-speed impact from a type of plane that didn't exist until after they were completed, which was significantly larger than the plane they were said to be able to take an impact from, and totally didn't collapse in a way that hit surrounding buildings with debris and set them on fire.

Like, y'know, WTC 7.

Time to first lie...

 

[beachnut]

Is the plot too complex for 911 truth followers?
1. take planes
2. crash planes

oops, too complex for 911 truth followers, it requires math, 2 steps.

 

[waypastvne]

if you didn't have an idea, reporters were finding "Islamic Terrorist" passports on the ground the day of the event. Again, I can find you video.

No reporters found any passports on the ground that day.

 

[DGM]

You had an idea? Why? How is it these men can plot mayhem across the world at the heart of US power, but can't do the same in their own backyard? It makes no sense.

It does if you don't ignore the fact there have been terrorist attacks all over the world. Maybe you were not paying attention, Ill see if I can find some information on YouTube.

 

[pgimeno]

Yep, the Towers were totally designed to withstand a full-speed impact [...snip]

Ahem, not "designed", merely "found out".

 

[beachnut]

...
I'm discussing the free-fall of WTC7, not the other two towers. The other two were essentially in free-fall according to the NIST but let's not digress. Where did you get the info regarding WTC7's collapse times? I thought that NIST admitted that the building was in free-fall for at least part of its descent.

The building was not in free-fall, a point tracked on the top of the building was in free-fall, probably accelerated by the interior collapse which preceded the exterior by 6 to 8 seconds. You don't study 911, you make up opinions which are BS. How does a 16 second collapse equal free-fall?
Funny stuff on the WTC towers, as you can clearly see debris falling well past the collapse front of the building; thus no free-fall in the towers. You are debunked by time.

What is the next lie. Where is your evidence for CD, and silent explosives? Why did engineers study steel you said was destroyed?

Who did 911 in your fantasy; got any names?

 

[DGM]

You had an idea? Why? How is it these men can plot mayhem across the world at the heart of US power, but can't do the same in their own backyard? It makes no sense. Then again, if you didn't have an idea, reporters were finding "Islamic Terrorist" passports on the ground the day of the event. Again, I can find you video.
We agree on US FP angering people, the difference is we disagree on angering people enough to cause a military confrontation.

They already attacked our military and US sovereign property. How much do you need?

August 7, 1998

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_United_States_embassy_bombings

October 12, 2000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing

How is it that "truthers" seem to have never heard of Osama Bin laden or al-Qaeda before 9/11?

Did you read the thread started by PaloAlto I linked to earlier?

 

[TheRealnz]

Why can't you answer these questions you ask? One of them makes no sense, what do you mean? Why are questions used by 911 truth, when you guys need evidence? Where is your evidence for your fantasy version of 911 - is it hidden in the questions?

Sagging floors due to office fires - oops, fire does destroy the strength of steel, and you can't figure out how that relates to 911. No wonder you can't comprehend reality, and need to spread false information - you don't understand physics, fire and engineering.
[qimg]http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/NotMelted.jpg[/qimg]

No one was able to inspect WTC because it was destoryed?
LOL, oh noes, an engineer looking at WTC steel.
What was your point?
The WTC was destoryed by aircraft and fires - what is your fantasy?

Begging the question. You may be seem aghast, but you don't get to project your shock and dismay on the professional community.



Brought down by a combination of extraordinary physical damage and unfought fires raging for several hours. This is far beyond what any such building is meant to endure. The building was evacuated and no further loss of life occurred when the building was lost. You beg the question that this is of utmost interested to engineers -- it is not.



There's a whole separate thread, active now, regarding the collapse of WTC 7 and its probable causes and characteristics. There's yet a third thread on how the vertical speed of the collapse has been variously analyzed.

Go read those threads and then try to understand the data.

Yes, the collapse should have been part of the criminal investigation. Why? Because, as I said in the other thread, the buildings had been subject to terrorist bombs previously and explosions of unknown origin had been reported in this incident. How could it be concluded, without adequate investigation, that explosive devices hadn't been part of this terrorist attack? You seem to think that that criminal investigation should've ended the moment a passport or two were found.

Why isn't this incident even in the top ten as far as engineering investigations go?

You say that WTC7 was "brought down by a combination of extraordinary physical damage and unfought fires raging for several hours". Is this NIST's conclusion or yours. Are you seriously saying that the first known instance of a tall building coming down as it did is of no interest to engineers?

Keep trying to convince yourself that retaining just 4 pieces of steel from that building is logical.

And no I haven't checked the thread as of yet.

 

[beachnut]

Yes, the collapse should have been part of the criminal investigation. Why? Because, as I said in the other thread, the buildings had been subject to terrorist bombs previously and explosions of unknown origin had been reported in this incident. How could it be concluded, without adequate investigation, that explosive devices hadn't been part of this terrorist attack? You seem to think that that criminal investigation should've ended the moment a passport or two were found.

Why isn't this incident even in the top ten as far as engineering investigations go?

You say that WTC7 was "brought down by a combination of extraordinary physical damage and unfought fires raging for several hours". Is this NIST's conclusion or yours. Are you seriously saying that the first known instance of a tall building coming down as it did is of no interest to engineers?

Keep trying to convince yourself that retaining just 4 pieces of steel from that building is logical.

And no I haven't checked the thread as of yet.

NIST does not do criminal investigations.

FBI did the investigation of crime, and they found it all was done by 19 terrorists, no bombs, no extra nuts.

You do woo, you have some fantasy you can't explain, or support with facts, or evidence.

you lost this one, you have no idea NIST does not do crime

Better luck with Bigfoot, or your OKC fantasy.

Engineers don't need pieces of steel to study why a structure failed. They have the plans, they have the science. You have woo, next time try evidence.


No bombs, there was no boom. Where do you get the silent explosives for your fantasy of CD and the big inside job you can't explain?

WTC 7 is not the first high-rise to be totaled by fire. One Meridian Plaza, fires fought, building totaled. Windsor building in Spain, fires fought, building totaled by fire. oops, you thinking a collapse is different from being totaled. WTC 7, fires not fought, building totaled by fire. oops, you think a collapse means something - how do your silent explosives work? Where do you get them?

 

[DGM]

Yes, the collapse should have been part of the criminal investigation. Why? Because, as I said in the other thread, the buildings had been subject to terrorist bombs previously and explosions of unknown origin had been reported in this incident. How could it be concluded, without adequate investigation, that explosive devices hadn't been part of this terrorist attack?

Because it was found that the damage and fire were sufficient to cause what was seen. Remember the physical collapse was investigated, you just don't understand it. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

You seem to think that that criminal investigation should've ended the moment a passport or two were found.

Not even close. Remember the "biggest investigation in history"? The fact you don't understand history is not a reason to dismiss it.

 

[beachnut]

...
You say that WTC7 was "brought down by a combination of extraordinary physical damage and unfought fires raging for several hours". Is this NIST's conclusion or yours. Are you seriously saying that the first known instance of a tall building coming down as it did is of no interest to engineers? ...

That is why engineers figured it out. Engineers know it was not explosives, not thermite.

lay people know it was not explosives, not thermite -

NIST does not do crime - you are confused who investigates what.