Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Question about 9/11


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
197 replies to this topic

#46    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,514 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • "Or is it just remains of vibrations from echoes long ago"

Posted 04 July 2013 - 02:03 AM

View PostQ24, on 03 July 2013 - 11:39 AM, said:

Ain’t it great when people play the “It’s your claim ... you demonstrate it” game, and get it wrong.  There are actually claims on both sides that need to be proven.  Please rewind a moment...

It was skydummy’s initial claim that, “The FDNY noted the damage of WTC7 and knew the danger that eventually WTC7 might collapse”.  In other words, it is an official story adherent claim that the confidence of collapse existed due to FDNY observation of the building condition, i.e. a claim that the damage and fire were so terrible that it was almost inevitable WTC7 would collapse.  You took up that initial claim and so I asked, “Why don’t we test it?  You quote a firefighter who thought WTC7 would come down, and I’ll show the chain of communication that led to their expectation originated [not of their independent judgement, but] with the anonymous advisor(s)”.  That you decline this reasonable request and my offer tells me you know the claim cannot be upheld.

It is my opposing claim that, “every single firefighter was influenced to believe WTC7 would collapse by the anonymous advisor(s)”. I have already shown this to you previously through the quotes and links here.

Yes, let us rewind, and try reading for comprehension this time.  Nowhere did I even mention sky nor his claim; I responded to your claim, ya know, the one I quoted from you and that you admit in your third paragraph is an actual claim.  I have no idea what kind of bizarre thinking leads you to believe that I 'took up' sky's initial claim by disagreeing with your claim, that makes no rational sense whatsoever.  Is this another of your 'prime examples of facts and logical thought' that you were so modestly noting a few posts ago?  We really need to go all the way back to the basics and make sure you understand about the nature of claims and corresponding burdens and all that?

Really, you showed that every single firefighter was influenced to a significant extent in that link?  I think you're reading something different than I am.  I'm assuming that there actually is something to your claim and that you can show that this is 'influence' is overriding all of the FDNY's independent judgment, and that you either aren't erroneously trying to make it an 'either/or' situation and that you aren't just stating that since they may have heard the announcement over the radio that that necessarily must have 'influenced' them, whether or not it was of any significance.

Quote

You can only speculate through quotes that do not exist that any of the firefighters determined the forthcoming collapse of their independent judgement – as I said in my last post, an entirely impossible deduction through the known damage and fire observations.

:w00t:

My god man, did you actually just use the word 'speculate'?!  If you would only have insinuated that I needed to use innuendo also we'd have a perfect slice of utter hypocrisy.

Quote

Your analogy isn’t great because it would imply that the twin tower and WTC7 situations were equivalent – they were not.  So let’s crash a plane into only your building and continue the situation as you set out.  No I would not be adamant that my building would definitely collapse imminently.  Knowing the precedent for such building fires, I’d be more inclined to follow the line of firefighters who disparaged the fallback order (quoted further above).

Not only is your analogy also not great but it is difficult not to note, despite all your attention to the subject of 'influence', that nowhere in your post do you even mention a minor little influence, namely that the most spectacular attack and collapses in modern history has just occurred in their presence resulting in the deaths of their friends and coworkers.  That's the inconsequential 'noise' that you are trying to get your 'anonymous advisor influence' signal out of.  Where do you even acknowledge or account for that anywhere?  Jesus Christ, 'precedent'... what about the precedent that they are standing in that just happened?!  This must be some of that real 'skepticism' you're applying to yourself instead of that pseudo-skepticism that you say I indulge in so frequently.

Okay, so I'll try and play, I'm sure you're very familiar with this quote from Richard Baniciski:

Quote

They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just  see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on.

Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about.

Where is the adamant imminent definity?  They didn't apparently say to get away from 7 because it is coming down, they were worried about 7 coming down which implies uncertainty.  No indication of an advisor influence there, matter of fact he states a reason supporting the worry, the corner of the building is gone and there are tremendous fires; he doesn't say, "I don't know what they were talking about no one had any reason to think it would collapse so I don't know why they ordered us away".  I normally think this kind of pedantic word game stuff is pretty pointless, but since you're such a stickler for literal meanings and are actually trying to construct some kind of argument out of it.

"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into"
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" - C. Hitchens
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" - Richard Feynman

#47    W Tell

W Tell

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 588 posts
  • Joined:18 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 08 July 2013 - 04:03 AM

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 04 July 2013 - 02:03 AM, said:





Where is the adamant imminent definity?  They didn't apparently say to get away from 7 because it is coming down, they were worried about 7 coming down which implies uncertainty.  

Man... on this, I need some help. Doesn't the worried response automaticly  carry over too the firefighters. What are they supposed to think? Or do? Who made that call? From where?

Call or no call,  are we back to the firefighters called off of the job and a building falling?

Or are we talking semantics?


#48    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 08 July 2013 - 11:37 AM

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 04 July 2013 - 02:03 AM, said:

Yes, let us rewind, and try reading for comprehension this time.  Nowhere did I even mention sky nor his claim; I responded to your claim, ya know, the one I quoted from you and that you admit in your third paragraph is an actual claim.  I have no idea what kind of bizarre thinking leads you to believe that I 'took up' sky's initial claim by disagreeing with your claim, that makes no rational sense whatsoever.  Is this another of your 'prime examples of facts and logical thought' that you were so modestly noting a few posts ago?  We really need to go all the way back to the basics and make sure you understand about the nature of claims and corresponding burdens and all that?

If you check back to pg. 2, it is seen that your question resulted from my response to skyeagle.  Following that, it appears you have taken up the same argument which skyeagle presented, i.e. firefighter observation and independent judgement led to their confidence that WTC7 would collapse.  Is that your position or not?


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 04 July 2013 - 02:03 AM, said:

Really, you showed that every single firefighter was influenced to a significant extent in that link?  I think you're reading something different than I am.  I'm assuming that there actually is something to your claim and that you can show that this is 'influence' is overriding all of the FDNY's independent judgment, and that you either aren't erroneously trying to make it an 'either/or' situation and that you aren't just stating that since they may have heard the announcement over the radio that that necessarily must have 'influenced' them, whether or not it was of any significance.

Yes, the link shows that every single firefighter was influenced to expect the WTC7 collapse by external anonymous advisor(s).  In particular, please read the Shyam Sunder quote in the link carefully and answer the question – whose judgement was it that WTC7 would come down?  In addition, please note how that judgement was subsequently passed through all FDNY radio channels.

There was never opportunity for, nor is there any evidence of, FDNY independent judgement that WTC7 would collapse.  That is what I have challenged you to produce (in support of skyeagle’s argument which it appears you have taken up).


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 04 July 2013 - 02:03 AM, said:

Okay, so I'll try and play, I'm sure you're very familiar with this quote from Richard Baniciski:

Quote

They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just  see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on.

Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about.

This is simple to discount as the independent judgement of Richard Baniciski: -

They told us”
they were worried”
they pulled us out”
they were really worried”

Baniciski is referring to the concern and fallback order which came from “they”; his commanding officer(s), which in turn came about due to the anonymous advisor(s) judgement.  Nowhere does Baniciski state his own opinion, e.g. “I was worried”.

As we discussed previously, what is needed to show FDNY independent judgement is a firefighter looking at the WTC7 condition and connecting his observation to why the building should collapse suddenly and completely, in his opinion, ideally through some engineering rationale.  The only responders who came close to this were the anonymous advisor(s), whose warning preceded FDNY concern.

There should certainly not be such prior high confidence of collapse demonstrated anywhere on scene.  That is... unless a select few responders (anonymous advisor(s), for instance) were privy to the knowledge that a more predictable method of collapse were to occur.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 04 July 2013 - 02:03 AM, said:

Where is the adamant imminent definity?  They didn't apparently say to get away from 7 because it is coming down, they were worried about 7 coming down which implies uncertainty.  No indication of an advisor influence there, matter of fact he states a reason supporting the worry, the corner of the building is gone and there are tremendous fires; he doesn't say, "I don't know what they were talking about no one had any reason to think it would collapse so I don't know why they ordered us away".  I normally think this kind of pedantic word game stuff is pretty pointless, but since you're such a stickler for literal meanings and are actually trying to construct some kind of argument out of it.

You say, “No indication of an advisor influence” in the Baniciski quote?  Who do you think “they” were, calling all the shots?  I’m sure the fact that, “the whole bottom corner of the building was gone” would serve to compound the warning of “they”, but that is not an independent judgement of collapse from Baniciski, nor does he present it as such.

There is no, “imminent”, “adamant”, “definitely” in the Baniciski quote.  The increased confidence (from both responders and the media) appears to come as the collapse time drew closer - however could that be?  But Baniciski is describing a time 2+ hours prior to the collapse, i.e. before the fallback order was effected.  As I already said in my last response to you (please note the underlined word): -

“there was some high confidence expectation of collapse on scene”

Still, all confidence, high or low, can be traced back to influence of the anonymous advisor(s).

Can you believe, for all the responder testimony on record, that no one, nor the official investigation, has been able to get hold of the anonymous advisor(s) who accurately predicted all of the WTC collapses?  How did their knowledge exceed that of the FDNY?  One would have thought their observation and judgement to be highly relevant to understanding the collapses and demolition employed... err... future building fire safety.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#49    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,514 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • "Or is it just remains of vibrations from echoes long ago"

Posted 10 July 2013 - 11:02 PM

View PostQ24, on 08 July 2013 - 11:37 AM, said:

This is simple to discount as the independent judgement of Richard Baniciski: -

They told us”
they were worried”
they pulled us out”
they were really worried”

Baniciski is referring to the concern and fallback order which came from “they”; his commanding officer(s), which in turn came about due to the anonymous advisor(s) judgement.  Nowhere does Baniciski state his own opinion, e.g. “I was worried”.

Then I've certainly misunderstood what you were actually claiming, I thought you could back up“every single firefighter was influenced to believe WTC7 would collapse by the anonymous advisor(s)” with evidence and stuff, and that it just didn't mean that you can imagine how every single firefighter could have been influenced.  So were they 'worried' or 'adamant and 'definite'?  Or do maybe people don't use words literally all the time, like the word 'literally', an assumption upon which your really weak and narrow argument here relies?

Quote

As we discussed previously, what is needed to show FDNY independent judgement is a firefighter looking at the WTC7 condition and connecting his observation to why the building should collapse suddenly and completely, in his opinion, ideally through some engineering rationale.  The only responders who came close to this were the anonymous advisor(s), whose warning preceded FDNY concern.

Show me how Butch Brandies was influenced by the anonymous advisor.  Not 'imagine', 'show'.  I've looked for a more extensive interview with him and can't find it so maybe it does exist, but here's what I'm talking about:

Quote

Firehouse: Did that chief give an assignment to go to building 7?
Boyle: He gave out an assignment. I didn’t know exactly what it was, but he told the chief that we were heading down to the site.
… We went one block north over to Greenwich and then headed south. There was an engine company there, right at the corner. It was right underneath building 7 and it was still burning at the time. They had a hose in operation, but you could tell there was no pressure. It was barely making it across the street. Building 6 was fully involved and it was hitting the sidewalk across the street. I told the guys to wait up.
A little north of Vesey I said, we’ll go down, let’s see what’s going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.
But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I'm standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we'll go in, we’ll see.
So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody's going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.

I presume this is all occurring before the message got out concerning the definite collapse that's going to occur since they were instructed to attempt to fight the fire.  Please show how Butch Brandies was influenced by the anonymous advisor.

Quote

There should certainly not be such prior high confidence of collapse demonstrated anywhere on scene.  

Sure there should, your web of 'high confidence' has been cast over a group including hundreds(?) of firefighters and the hundreds of media people.  You don't seem to be taking into account that people can have confidence in things for invalid reasons, or based on estimates, or as is more obviously likely in this case, concern.

Quote

You say, “No indication of an advisor influence” in the Baniciski quote?  Who do you think “they” were, calling all the shots?  

I thought that was what you were going to do, show me who 'they' were and how the connection was made.  Again, my mistake, I thought you could back up your claim without pretending that I 'took up' sky's claim, a notion that you have essentially just made up.

Quote

The increased confidence (from both responders and the media) appears to come as the collapse time drew closer - however could that be?  

You're joking, right?  Because the condition of WTC7 was deteriorating, the fires were widespread and unchallenged, read the firefighters quotes for reasons why.

Quote

Can you believe, for all the responder testimony on record, that no one, nor the official investigation, has been able to get hold of the anonymous advisor(s) who accurately predicted all of the WTC collapses?  

Has anyone tried?  Was that a goal of the investigation?  I hope you're not expecting them to based on the argument and evidence you are presenting here.

Quote

How did their knowledge exceed that of the FDNY?  One would have thought their observation and judgement to be highly relevant to understanding the collapses and demolition employed... err... future building fire safety.

Who said it wasn't 'highly relevant'?  You haven't shown this is 'knowledge', it was a prediction, just because a prediction turned out to be somewhat correct doesn't make it 'knowledge'.  Do you think a firefighter's engineering expertise always exceeds that of an actual engineer's expertise in every situation?  Since the FDNY's observation and judgment is highly relevant, do you have some quotes from the FDNY stating how they believe it was demolished?  After all, the 'pull it' statement that you try to milk for all it's worth was made to a fire chief, no?

Speaking of, why is that supposed demolition discussion happening with a fire chief?  They don't demolish buildings, and I can provide many quotes from firefighters saying how they were 'pulled out' of their positions.  You were stating also how the idea that the FDNY may be involved in some way is just a strawman against your CT, so again why is Silverstein talking about it with a fire chief if that truly is the case?

"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into"
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" - C. Hitchens
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" - Richard Feynman

#50    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 11 July 2013 - 11:58 AM

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 10 July 2013 - 11:02 PM, said:

Then I've certainly misunderstood what you were actually claiming, I thought you could back up“every single firefighter was influenced to believe WTC7 would collapse by the anonymous advisor(s)” with evidence and stuff, and that it just didn't mean that you can imagine how every single firefighter could have been influenced.

I agree that you are misunderstanding.  You seem to think that the advisor warning and dissemination of that information to firefighters is imagination??  Do you not realise it is fact that the advisor spoke to Hayden, who spoke to Nigro, who spoke to Fellini, who spoke to Visconti, who radioed the fallback order and collapse warning to every firefighter??


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 10 July 2013 - 11:02 PM, said:

So were they 'worried' or 'adamant and 'definite'?  Or do maybe people don't use words literally all the time, like the word 'literally', an assumption upon which your really weak and narrow argument here relies?

Why do you think we can categorize hundreds of firefighters under one heading?  We are dealing with humans here, in contact with different people, at different times, at different locations.  Under those different backdrops, the information received (which might be different itself in cases), led some firefighters to be worried about a collapse, it led some firefighters to be disdainful of a collapse, it led some firefighters to be “adamant” and “definite” of the collapse.

It is the circumstances and information received by that latter group which is of interest.  I’m not interested in responders worried about a collapse, that’s fine.  I’m interested in responders who demonstrated a high confidence of collapse, to the degree of “imminent”, “adamant”, “definitely”, “you have about five hours”, “Keep your eye on that building, it’ll be coming down soon, “There’s a building, about to blow up”, etc.

I do not accept your speculation/rationalization in this case:  “maybe people don't use words literally”.  The reason is, there was a literal demolition option discussed both by the building owner and on scene, there was a literal fallback, there was a literal safety perimeter for collapse of the whole building, there was a literal pre-emptive media report that WTC7 had already fallen.  This indicates quite literal foreknowledge of the coming collapse.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 10 July 2013 - 11:02 PM, said:

I presume this is all occurring before the message got out concerning the definite collapse that's going to occur since they were instructed to attempt to fight the fire.  Please show how Butch Brandies was influenced by the anonymous advisor.

I’d place it early in the afternoon.  Butch Brandies came running from the South side of WTC7 stating, “nobody's going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there”.  This is whereHayden, Visconti and the advisor were all located.  We also know the first report of “creaking” came from an internal building inspection carried out with assistance of an advisor around 1:00 p.m.

Now do you think firefighter Brandies approached WTC7, heard creaking and... ran away... “nobody’s going into 7”?  Or do you think he came across the other firefighters and advisor(s) located South of WTC7 who updated him?  If Brandies received advice/update from those on scene, which appears certain, then he was influenced.  Did Brandies hear the creaking, or was he passing on information?  Did Brandies deduce a collapse?  Was it Brandies decision not to enter WTC7?  Almost certainly not.  Therefore he indirectly passed on the advisor(s) advice.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 10 July 2013 - 11:02 PM, said:

You're joking, right?  Because the condition of WTC7 was deteriorating, the fires were widespread and unchallenged, read the firefighters quotes for reasons why.

That’s the thing – the condition of WTC7 was not deteriorating.  It was not a gradual process; the collapse initiated due to a freak event which occurred suddenly, only seconds prior.  Had the fire been fought anytime before 3:00 p.m. the collapse could not have occurred at all (according to the official theory).  Before that moment it shared more similarities than differences with any other high-rise office fire in history.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 10 July 2013 - 11:02 PM, said:

Has anyone tried?  Was that a goal of the investigation?  I hope you're not expecting them to based on the argument and evidence you are presenting here.

I would expect the official investigation to track down the advisor(s) since the goal was to determine how and why the buildings collapsed, and the aforementioned must have had relevant observation or reason to accurately predict the event which may have been invaluable to understanding the collapses.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 10 July 2013 - 11:02 PM, said:

After all, the 'pull it' statement that you try to milk for all it's worth was made to a fire chief, no?

Not necessarily, no.  Silverstein received a call from the fire department commander but the subsequent “pull it” comment may been directed at various individuals.  We have been over it before.  Please see fifth quote box, point 5): -

http://www.unexplain...80#entry4436041

The Silverstein quote can be read thus: -

"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire [because they had withdrawn from the area and given up the building], and I said [to the commander or a third party present], 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do [to "potentially save lives"] is pull it [the building].' And they [the fire department or a third party present] made that decision to pull [the building] and then [as a result of that decision] we watched the building collapse."

Edited by Q24, 11 July 2013 - 12:15 PM.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#51    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 11 July 2013 - 12:06 PM

Check this, note the timings...

“Then we found out, I guess around 3:00 o'clock, that they thought 7 was going to collapse.”
~FDNY Lieutenant, William Ryan
http://graphics8.nyt...HIC/9110117.PDF

“Several demolition teams had reached Ground Zero by 3:00pm on 9/11, and these
individuals witnessed the collapse of WTC 7 from within a few hundred feet of the event.”

~Brent Blanchard
http://www.implosion... of 9-8-06 .pdf


:whistle:

Edit: -

Oh, and these last guys out don't look like firefighters to me: -



“It’s blowin’ boy”… “Keep your eye on that building, it’ll be coming down soon.”
“The building is about to blow up, move it back.”
“Here we are walking back. There’s a building, about to blow up.”

Edited by Q24, 11 July 2013 - 12:20 PM.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#52    SolarPlexus

SolarPlexus

    Warrior of Light

  • Member
  • 3,432 posts
  • Joined:28 Sep 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Serbia

  • .....This moment contains all moments.....

    ...You dont have a Soul. You are a Soul. You have a body.....

Posted 11 July 2013 - 02:33 PM

Sky, burning jet fuel cannot melt steal beams... You do realize this would be the first time in history a steel frame building collapsed due to fires, right?

"In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual."
Galileo Galilei
Posted Image
"Who never walks save where he sees men's tracks makes no discoveries."J.G. Holland

#53    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 11 July 2013 - 03:42 PM

View PostSolarPlexus, on 11 July 2013 - 02:33 PM, said:

Sky, burning jet fuel cannot melt steal beams... You do realize this would be the first time in history a steel frame building collapsed due to fires, right?

Hi Solar, good to see you.  Your argument could do with tightening-up to avoid giving official cover-up apologists anything to cling to.

1.    This thread is regarding WTC7 so jet fuel doesn’t come into it.

2.    No one claims the building structure melted, but that it was weakened by the fire.

3.    The official theory regarding WTC7 is that fire collapsed numerous floors which caused the initial buckling of a single column which then led to rapid progression of column failures across the internal structure before finally the external shell came down (this whole sequence of failures occurred within approximately 20 seconds).

4.    Steel-framed buildings most certainly have suffered complete or partial collapse from fires before - those of third-world design and/or with inadequate fire-proofing.

5.    It would be accurate to say WTC7 would be the first time in history that a modern, steel-framed, high-rise has collapsed due to fire.


I wanted to mention this before someone pulls out a misleading example of a Thai warehouse collapse or some such.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#54    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,956 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 11 July 2013 - 05:34 PM

View PostSolarPlexus, on 11 July 2013 - 02:33 PM, said:

Sky, burning jet fuel cannot melt steal beams... You do realize this would be the first time in history a steel frame building collapsed due to fires, right?

Apparently, someone else mentioned that three steel frame buildings collapsed due to fire, however, in Spain, the steel structure of the Windsor building collapsed due to fire, but the concrete core remained standing. The temperature of the fires did not need to high enough to melt steel, however, they were high enough to weaken the steel structures.

Quote

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation

THE FIRE

The fire is the most misunderstood part of the WTC collapse. Even today, the media report (and many scientists believe) that the steel melted. It is argued that the jet fuel burns very hot, especially with so much fuel present. This is not true.


Part of the problem is that people (including engineers) often confuse temperature and heat. While they are related, they are not the same. Thermodynamically, the heat contained in a material is related to the temperature through the heat capacity and the density (or mass). Temperature is defined as an intensive property, meaning that it does not vary with the quantity of material, while the heat is an extensive property, which does vary with the amount of material. One way to distinguish the two is to note that if a second log is added to the fireplace, the temperature does not double; it stays roughly the same, but the size of the fire or the length of time the fire burns, or a combination of the two, doubles. Thus, the fact that there were 90,000 L of jet fuel on a few floors of the WTC does not mean that this was an unusually hot fire. The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel.


http://www.tms.org/p...Eagar-0112.html

Posted Image


THE COLLAPSE


Nearly every large building has a redundant design that allows for loss of one primary structural member, such as a column. However, when multiple members fail, the shifting loads eventually overstress the adjacent members and the collapse occurs like a row of dominoes falling down.

The perimeter tube design of the WTC was highly redundant. It survived the loss of several exterior columns due to aircraft impact, but the ensuing fire led to other steel failures. Many structural engineers believe that the weak points—the limiting factors on design allowables—were the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure (see Figure 5). With a 700 Pa floor design allowable, each floor should have been able to support approximately 1,300 t beyond its own weight. The total weight of each tower was about 500,000 t.

As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.


It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.


----------------------------------------------------------------


WTC Pre-Collapse Bowing Debunks 9/11 "Controlled Demolition" Theory


Key findings include:

  • Floor sagging and exposure to high temperatures caused the perimeter columns to bow inward and buckle—a process that spread across the faces of the buildings.
  • Even though the jet fuel on the planes burned off in the first few minutes after impact, there was enough office furniture to sustain intense fires for at least an hour.
  • The original builders of the twin towers and those who later renovated the structures did not have a clear technical standard for deciding on how much insulation to use around the structural beams, many of which gave way in the intense heat.
Police, Firemen and Civilians Saw Warning Signs of Collapse of the Twin Towers on September 11th 2001


Check out this video.



Quote

World Trade Center 5 Failure Analysis

World Trade Center 5 (WTC 5) was a 9-story office and retail building at the World Trade Center complex in New York City, NY. On September 11, 2001, flaming debris from the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers penetrated the roof of WTC 5, causing a fire that burned unchecked until the fuel from building contents was consumed (FEMA, 2002, p. 4-4). While impact damage over a portion of the building and an intense fire throughout are not surprising given the assault this building received, engineers inspecting the building after the event were not expecting to see an interior collapse, due entirely to the influence of the fire. The floors collapsed between the 8th and the 4th levels in the eastern section of the building, where there was no initial impact damage (Figure 1).




Posted Image
Figure 1: Internal Collapse Area in WTC 5 (FEMA, 2002, p. 4-18).


The major fire-induced collapse that occurred in WTC 5 involved the portion of the building that had Gerber framing (girder stubs welded to columns, and simply supported central girder spans with shear connections to the ends of the stubs (Figure 2)), but not other areas of the building where girders spanned the full distance between columns. This fact, and observations at the site suggesting that the failure was early in the fire, raised the possibility that this structure had a vulnerability that led to premature failure, perhaps during the heating phase of the fire.

World Trade Center 5 Failure Analysis

Fire Event Reconstruction

The analysis of the circumstances leading to this failure required an understanding of the fire environment in the building. The 2005 National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) report (NIST, 2005) on WTC 1 and 2, provided a reference for the parameters describing the fire that occurred within WTC 5. Using this information, the Consolidated Fire and Smoke Transport Model (CFAST) software, developed by NIST, provided the fire temperature history models for structural analyses.

Finite Element Model Development

The analytical approach to evaluate the shear connection assembly for the failed girders included temperature-dependent material properties, fed into a geometrically non-linear, structural analysis model. The specific heat, conductivity, instantaneous coefficient of thermal expansion, and stress-strain curves for ASTM A36 steel, as derived from the literature, were converted into the input needed for ABAQUS, the structural finite element model (FEM) software capable of performing the required analyses.
The connections in WTC 5 failed by tear out of the web portion of the girder stubs. Chapter J3 of the AISC Specification for Structural Steel Buildings (AISC, S001) (LRFD) for single bolt tear out strength was a basis for evaluation of this behavior; plastic shear strain served as the failure criterion.
The FEM analyzed the stress behavior of the four structural bays of interest on the 8th floor (hypothesized as the initial region of failure). This model served as the foundation for the final model: a sequentially-coupled, thermal stress analysis of the four structural bays of interest, employing symmetry boundary conditions to capture the behavior of several structural bays.

   Finite Element Modeling Results

Modeling the effects of insulation on the framing and heat sinks to non-fire regions, the analyses show that the temperature at the shear connection to the center span could have been as much as 400 Celsius (752 degrees Fahrenheit) hotter than in the girder stub at the column face after two hours of fire exposure (Figure 3).






Posted Image
Figure 3: Steel Temperature Distribution (2 Hours of Fire Exposure) (Steel Insulation Not Shown).


The results of the thermal-stress model (a combination of the thermal and structural models) show that the steel girder assembly expanded as it heated, tending to close the gap between the simple span segment and the girder stub. This expansion caused relatively harmless compressive stress concentrations around the bolts, as the bolts were forced into the webs.
At the same time, as the temperature of the steel assembly increased, its rigidity decreased and the floor girder began to deflect significantly. This deflection caused the end of the center segment of the girder to rotate, and the lower flange of the center segment to contact and deform the girder stub web. This caused a fulcrum point that changed the response of the connection as temperatures continued to rise.

After 2 hours, the loss of rigidity in the steel "outpaced" its thermal expansion. As the girder end continued to rotate in response to mid-span deflection, the direction of action of the top bolt of the shear connection reversed, with the bolt beginning to pull toward the end of the web in the direction tending to cause tear out (Figure 4).


Posted Image
Figure 4: Stress Distribution (2 Hours of Fire Exposure).

The calculations predicted that the plastic shear strain in the girder web quickly - over the course of only minutes after the fulcrum formed - reached values that were triple and quadruple the failure limit. At this point the top bolt would tear out, followed almost instantaneously by the failure of the remaining two bolts, unzipping the connection.

The failure predicted by the finite element model can be seen in a connection specimen that was preserved from WTC 5. The angles at which the bolts pried against the bolt holes are similar in the model and the specimen (Figure 5, showing the model at initiation of prying, and the damaged web after the failure). Moreover, photographs of the interior collapse area show that the failed girder stubs are deformed at the fulcrum points.





Posted Image
Figure 5: Equivalent Strain after 2 Hours of Fire Exposure (FEM) Compared to a Recovered Sample (FEMA, 2002, p. 4-19).


The sequentially-coupled, thermal-stress model estimated that the catastrophic structural collapse within WTC 5 occurred approximately 2 hours after the initiation of the fire. This is during the heating phase of the fire, when firefighters normally would be in the building.

Conclusions

It is not the precise time of failure which is paramount, but the fact that the structure failed uncharacteristically during the fire’s heating phase, rather than during the cooling phase when most fire-induced collapses occur. This building was sensitive to early failure because the Gerber beam design, with simple connections located away from columns, isolated the shear connections from their heat sinks to the rest of the "cooler" structure via the columns.

The collapse involved four floors, and might have progressed all of the way down to the ground level, if it had not been for the moment-type connections utilized for the 4th floor.
The fire that destroyed WTC 5 was a severe complete burn-out fire. As such, it is not unreasonable that the structure would experience substantial damage. However, the failure of the building to achieve the preferred performance, with the framing system surviving at least into the cooling phase of the fire, follows from the absence of analyses and design for fire exposure.

The present approach to fire protection engineering in much of the United States is primarily prescriptive, often employing propriety products to insulate structural elements and active fire suppression systems to control fire growth. Such approaches would not lead to an appreciation for vulnerabilities such as apparently existed in some of the detailing in WTC 5. Analytical, performance-based approaches, more akin to common design for wind, seismic, and other environmental loads, are more likely to reveal critical aspects of building performance in fires, and provide engineers with the understanding they need to create designs that are robust, raise safety for occupants and firefighters, and are cost efficient.

In the case of WTC 5, relatively simple detailing changes would have enhanced the structure’s fire resistance. Slotted holes in the girder webs, or increased spacing between the end of the girder stubs and the beginning of the simply supported center spans, would have allowed more girder rotation without developing the prying action that tore out the girder webs. Keeping the shear connection near the face of the column would have reduced the temperature of this critical connection, thereby maintaining higher temperature-induced tear-out strengths during the fire.

In the more general case, we must acknowledge that many buildings in current use have unappreciated vulnerabilities. While analyzing and retrofitting for these vulnerabilities in existing buildings could be undertaken if justified for certain framing systems (e.g., perhaps for the Gerber system, if risk analyses and system testing verified heightened risk for the building system generally), finding the critical shortcomings in the present building stock would be a prohibitive exercise. However, modest expenditures of engineering effort during the design phase for new buildings can reveal fire performance weaknesses that can be avoided, often at minimal cost to construction.▪

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WTC 5 - Local Collapse Mechanisms

Two areas in WTC 5 experienced local collapse under an intact portion of the roof. Although there was debris impact near this area, the symmetrical nature of the collapse strongly suggests that the failures were due to the uncontrolled fires.

This is supported by the observation that the columns in this area remained straight and freestanding (see Figure 4-18). This local collapse appeared to have begun at the field connection where beams were connected to shop-fabricated beam stubs and column assemblies...


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Figure 4-16 Looking through the door into the undamaged stair tower in WTC 5.

It is apparent that fire weakened the steel, contributing to the large shear-induced deformations observed in several of the cantilever beams. The shear failures observed at connection ends in several of the beam web samples shown in Figure 4-18 are indicative of the tensile forces that developed. The end bearing resistance of the beam web was found to be less than the double shear strength of the high-strength bolts, based on the analysis presented in Appendix B.

Figure 4-17 Buckled beam flange and column on the 8th floor of WTC 5 that was weakened by fire.

Tensile catenary action of floor framing members and their connections has been neither a design requirement nor a design consideration for most buildings. Further study of such mechanisms for member failures in fires should be conducted to determine whether current design parameters are adequate for performance under fire loads.

Posted Image

Figure 4-17 Buckled beam flange and column on the 8th floor of WTC 5 that was weakened by fire.


4.4 Observations and Findings

All three buildings suffered extensive fire and impact damage and significant partial collapse. The condition of the stairways in WTC 5 indicates that, for the duration of this fire, the fire doors and the fire protective covering on the walls performed well.

http://911research.w...wtc/WTC_ch4.htm


As you can see, fire caused the collapse of the WTC buildings.



Edited by skyeagle409, 11 July 2013 - 05:54 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#55    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,956 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 11 July 2013 - 05:46 PM

View PostQ24, on 11 July 2013 - 12:06 PM, said:

Check this, note the timings...

“Then we found out, I guess around 3:00 o'clock, that they thought 7 was going to collapse.”
~FDNY Lieutenant, William Ryan
http://graphics8.nyt...HIC/9110117.PDF

“Several demolition teams had reached Ground Zero by 3:00pm on 9/11, and these
individuals witnessed the collapse of WTC 7 from within a few hundred feet of the event.”

~Brent Blanchard
http://www.implosion... of 9-8-06 .pdf


:whistle:

I would like to add to your post.

Quote

Why the World Trade Center Buildings Collapsed: A Fire Chief ’s Assessment

Bearing walls and Open floor design

When the jet liners crashed into the towers based upon knowledge of the tower construction and high-rise firefighting experience the following happened: First the plane broke through the tubular steel-bearing wall. This started the building failure. Next the exploding, disintegrating, 185-ton jet plane slid across an open office floor area and severed many of the steel interior columns in the center core area. Plane parts also crashed through the plasterboard-enclosed stairways, cutting off the exits from the upper floors.

The jet collapsed the ceilings and scraped most of the spray-on fire retarding asbestos from the steel trusses. The steel truss floor supports probably started to fail quickly from the flames and the center steel supporting columns severed by plane parts heated by the flames began to buckle, sag, warp and fail. Then the top part of the tower crashed down on the lower portion of the structure. This pancake collapse triggered the entire cascading collapse of the 110-story structure.

http://vincentdunn.com/wtc.html


Did experts on the scene think WTC 7 was a controlled demolition?

Whom should we ask to find out if WTC 7’s collapse resembled an explosive demolition? How about asking the explosive demolition experts who were on the scene on 9/11? Brent Blanchard of Protec:

"Several demolition teams had reached Ground Zero by 3:00 pm on 9/11, and these individuals witnessed the collapse of WTC 7 from within a few hundred feet of the event. We have spoken with several who possess extensive experience in explosive demolition, and all reported seeing or hearing nothing to indicate an explosive detonation precipitating the collapse.

As one eyewitness told us, "We were all standing around helpless...we knew full well it was going to collapse. Everyone there knew. You gotta remember there was a lot of confusion and we didn't know if another plane was coming...but I never heard explosions like demo charges.


He says; ",,,I never heard explosions like demo charges." Let's see if he is right.



Using that video of the collapse of WTC7 as a reference, he is correct when he said; ",,,I never heard explosions like demo charges."

Quote


We knew with the damage to the building and how hot the fire was, that building was gonna go, so we just waited, and a little later it went."

http://www.implosion... of 9-8-06 .pdf

Controlled Demolition Inc

D.H. Griffin Companies

Mazzocchi Wrecking

Gateway Demolition

Yannuzzi Demolition & Disposal



Edited by skyeagle409, 11 July 2013 - 06:02 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#56    W Tell

W Tell

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 588 posts
  • Joined:18 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 12 July 2013 - 04:21 AM

View PostQ24, on 11 July 2013 - 03:42 PM, said:

Hi Solar, good to see you.  Your argument could do with tightening-up to avoid giving official cover-up apologists anything to cling to.


1.    This thread is regarding WTC7 so jet fuel doesn’t come into it.

2.    No one claims the building structure melted, but that it was weakened by the fire.

3.    The official theory regarding WTC7 is that fire collapsed numerous floors which caused the initial buckling of a single column which then led to rapid progression of column failures across the internal structure before finally the external shell came down (this whole sequence of failures occurred within approximately 20 seconds).

4.    Steel-framed buildings most certainly have suffered complete or partial collapse from fires before - those of third-world design and/or with inadequate fire-proofing.

5.    It would be accurate to say WTC7 would be the first time in history that a modern, steel-framed, high-rise has collapsed due to fire.


I wanted to mention this before someone pulls out a misleading example of a Thai warehouse collapse or some such.

You underestimated the thing called Skyeagle. :-*  He's got an article or a video ready regardless. Your pre-emptive strike was lost on the boy.


#57    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,965 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2012

Posted 12 July 2013 - 04:32 AM

View PostSolarPlexus, on 11 July 2013 - 02:33 PM, said:

Sky, burning jet fuel cannot melt steal beams... You do realize this would be the first time in history a steel frame building collapsed due to fires, right?

Who said steel beams melted?

No, you surround yourself with a whole different kettle of crazy. - Sir Wearer of Hats

#58    W Tell

W Tell

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 588 posts
  • Joined:18 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 12 July 2013 - 04:57 AM

View PostRaptorBites, on 12 July 2013 - 04:32 AM, said:

Who said steel beams melted?



Good question, and I'm so glad you're not being petty by asking this.


#59    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 15 July 2013 - 11:34 AM

I just wanted to summarise the order of WTC7 events on 9/11: -
  • Larry Silverstein seeks demolition authority from his insurers.
  • The demolition option becomes known on scene.
  • Demolition teams actually arrive on location that afternoon.
  • Responder and media confidence of global collapse increases.
  • The building power supply is promptly shutdown.
  • A fallback, global collapse safety perimeter is established.
  • The building subsequently falls like this: -

Posted Image



Quotes/links to all above available upon request.

Given the above facts, it becomes ever stranger that anyone should attribute the collapse to an extraordinary, never before happened, freak occurrence.  That they set out to do so, I have come to realise, is almost entirely upon the basis that an authority, without evidence or objective investigation, told them so.  In lieu of that, circumstances of the demolition as set out are self-apparent.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#60    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,956 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 15 July 2013 - 05:21 PM

View PostQ24, on 15 July 2013 - 11:34 AM, said:

I just wanted to summarise the order of WTC7 events on 9/11: -
  • Larry Silverstein seeks demolition authority from his insurers.
  • The demolition option becomes known on scene.
  • Demolition teams actually arrive on location that afternoon.
  • Responder and media confidence of global collapse increases.
  • The building power supply is promptly shutdown.
  • A fallback, global collapse safety perimeter is established.
  • The building subsequently falls like this: -

Posted Image




None of that is evidence by any means. In regards to statements that no aircraft struck WTC7, you tend to ignore the fact that WTC7 suffered serious impact damage.

Quote

*  Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it.

*  "Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area... be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. There was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolants and so on. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed." - Chief Cruthers

*   Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Nothing there about explosives, but much information indicating that fires had weakened the structure of WTC7.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users