BF2S Forums WTC #7 What the...?

ATG wrote:

FEOS wrote:

It's clear you don't work in a classified environment.

Don't know why the DoD or CIA (or any other govt agency) would have corporate finance information (at least not related to an existing contract, anyway).

Your argument makes no sense if you apply even a little bit of critical thought to it.

I remind you I voted for Bush twice.

shame on you.

FEOS wrote:

It's clear you don't work in a classified environment.

Don't know why the DoD or CIA (or any other govt agency) would have corporate finance information (at least not related to an existing contract, anyway).

Your argument makes no sense if you apply even a little bit of critical thought to it.

Did I say anything about the DoD or CIA having that info?

No, I did not.

I'm talking about the towers as well as building 7 and the towers mostly housed international finance companies.

Now, if you don't believe that numerous governments around the world wouldn't have wanted the information routinely held by such companies not to get into the wrong hands, just look at the havoc a small rise in oil prices (as well as other factors) is having on the world economy.

FEOS wrote:

ATG wrote:

FEOS claims papers from a vault would have been recoverable.

So, where is the billion dollars in gold?

No, I claimed papers in a SAFE would have been recoverable. SAFES are more secure than VAULTS as VAULTS are entire rooms and aren't made entirely of metal...like SAFES are.

Not to mention that not only would have been recoverable, but the information in safes whould have remained locked; therefore NOT accessable to every emergency responder to wander through.  In an enviorment where you have sensative or classified information, the safes the information are kept in remain locked unless you are actively accessing it. If it is a normal business day, and they ARE unlocked and a fire alarm goes off, it is only the work of a few seconds to secure them all and still beat it out the door.

Another hole, just big enough to drive a mack truck through.  Kind of extreme demolition, is it not? Instead of preparing this whateveryouthinkitwas for destruction, especially if they had a rough timetable, then why not move the stuff out?  That way, it is safe and intact.  If they WANTED the stuff destroyed, a themite fire out in the desert is much more reliable and less likely to be noticed.

EDIT:  And I always thought it was building 6 that had all of the federal offices.

Last edited by imortal (2008-07-20 15:55:56)

imortal wrote:

***EDIT:  I find myself going back and finding even more faults.  WTC 7 was not only damaged by fire, but its structural integrety was compromised by debris falling the WTC buildings.

True, but then, so was buildings 3, 4, 5 and 6 pounded by debri from the towers and suffered a lot of fire damage.  Yet they didnt come down until months later when they where demolished during the clean up.

Building 5 had a huge fire, the whole thing was a blaze and went on buring for five or so hours.  Am not an engineer, so I can only assume there is something at that level I am missing :\ and I appreciate my opinion holds as much validity as someone who thinks that red cars are faster than blue ones.  But as I said in an earlier post, I myself am trying to get some consistency.

If in the case of building 7 it was fire and falling debri, I don't quite get why seven came down and the others one below the towers (which I would assume took a bigger pounding as they where right under it) and had ''visually'' atleast, worse fires did not come down.

Martyn

Last edited by Bell (2008-07-20 17:13:09)

Bell wrote:

imortal wrote:

***EDIT:  I find myself going back and finding even more faults.  WTC 7 was not only damaged by fire, but its structural integrety was compromised by debris falling the WTC buildings.

True, but then, so was buildings 3, 4, 5 and 6 pounded by debri from the towers and suffered a lot of fire damage.  Yet they didnt come down until months later when they where demolished during the clean up.

Building 5 had a huge fire, the whole thing was a blaze and went on buring for five or so hours.  Am not an engineer, so I can only assume there is something at that level I am missing :\ and I appreciate my opinion holds as much validity as someone who thinks that red cars are faster than blue ones.  But as I said in an earlier post, I myself am trying to get some consistency.

If in the case of building 7 it was fire and falling debri, I don't quite get why seven came down and the others one below the towers (which I would assume took a bigger pounding as they where right under it) and had ''visually'' atleast, worse fires did not come down.

Martyn

That would be because building 7 was NOT of a standard design for a building.


The weight of the building was not directed straight down as in normal buildings.  Part of the structure had no lower floors, and the weight had to be transferred to the rest of the building.  If these cross- bearing structures were to be damaged, then that part of the building would have no support, and would collapse.  Sadly, those that undercut area was facing the WTC complex.  After all, it was there for appearance, and that was the primary side to be seen from.  Also, 7 was a MUCH taller building than 6, and so there was a lot more weight to be working with.  Thus, a change in the weight bearing characteristics are much more drasitic than they would be in a 7 or 8 floor building.



As you can see, the impact of debris came awfully close to some of those cross structures.  Once part of the building collapsed, the cumulative damage and changes in stresses to the surviving support structures compromise the remaining structure.  Each time a piece collapses, parts inside lose support and fall.  The rebarb in the concrete pull at the ramaining structure, adding lateral stresses the supports are not designed to handle.

photo source

***EDITED to fix image links

Last edited by imortal (2008-07-20 17:32:40)

I still find it funny how people in high school and college are trying to debate this with people who are experts on the topic at hand.

Last edited by Poseidon (2008-07-20 22:07:38)

Personally I think the only way they'll ever end this debate it for someone to make an exact replica for the world trade towers complex in the desert somewhere, fill it with the same stuff then remotely fly two similar jets into it. Then repeat the experiment 10 or so times in case of random chance occurances.

Anyone got a few trillion dollars lying about and an an interest in science? Maybe we could get Mythbusters to do it?

Poseidon wrote:

I still find it funny how people in high school and college are trying to debate this with people who are experts on the topic at hand.

I find it funny how you assume that everyone that isn't you is either in high school or college.

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

I still find it funny how people in high school and college are trying to debate this with people who are experts on the topic at hand.

I find it funny how you assume that everyone that isn't you is either in high school or college.

No, but I've seen Parker and DeathBecomesYu who are both experts on the topic at hand (I know this is the internet, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt because they both seem extremely educated on their respective knowledge of the topics they discuss) get pushed away by you and other WTC controlled demolition people, and I find it extremely funny.

Sort of like the kid telling the WWII vet what happened in WWII.

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

I find it funny how you assume that everyone that isn't you is either in high school or college.

No, but I've seen Parker and DeathBecomesYu who are both experts on the topic at hand (I know this is the internet, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt because they both seem extremely educated on their respective knowledge of the topics they discuss) get pushed away by you and other WTC controlled demolition people, and I find it extremely funny.

Sort of like the kid telling the WWII vet what happened in WWII.

1. Do you know anything about my knowledge and experience? No you do not, so you're in no position to judge. Just because I don't write two-screen long posts, which could easily be cobbled together from google and wikipedia, doesn't mean I know nothing of the topic at hand.

2. When did I 'push them away'? I accept that Parker and Death both appear to have a very good working knowledge of construction and demolition - I don't argue that - I, like Martyn, just have questions that are yet to be answered and suspicions about what really may have happened.

I may be wrong, and I hope to god I am, but that will not stop me asking questions.

Only a closed mind stops asking questions.

I have a question for you. How old are you? I am only guessing but I believe that you are a teen aged person.  First and foremost, I am not a google, wikipedia guy. When I post on these forums, I rarely use those because I base what I know from my experience and don't criticize someone for posting a long post. We have to because it seems that nothing gets through your head and we are trying to show you what you are asking for. I find it funny that you say that no one has answered your questions, what the hell are we doing then? I am not responding for kicks and giggles. I am offering my knowledge of how these towers fell, how absurd a demo would be and why certain buildings stood and didn't stand after these terrorist attacks.

I have 20 plus years of Architectural experience. I have drawn and designed over 2,000 plans. I started my own business 7 years after I graduated high school in 1995 and have owned a successful practice for 13 years to date. I have worked on office buildings, restaurants (Hot & Now chain in the Mid-west). My home plans have been featured in the "Parade of Homes". I work with builders in Kansas, California, Florida and mainly Michigan. I am currently working on a series of Medical buildings/ clinics, multi-family condos and several subdivisions. I am also working on a remodel for a local chain that sells tires and wheels(rims) and if this is successful, I will work on more of his other newer buildings. So, here I am, trying to pass some knowledge to you in regards to what happened and the plausibility of the collapses that occurred and several of you pretty much ignore it.

Now, I understand that you believe terrorists involved but your other theory is totally reaching. To believe that a government would let these attacks happen in the HOPE the buildings would fall (no one knew or could know) is really far fetched. If the government wanted info destroyed then just send guys into the offices after hours and delete files at their whim. Why wait for attacks that could have happened sooner or later, why hope that the buildings will fall, why take that risk. It is ridiculous.

If I am not mistaken and this is where I don't know much about, I believe that most stored info is on computers with redundancy after redundancy back ups. I do not believe that much in the way of paper is kept any where. That being said, if they were hell bent on destroying whatever they wanted, it could be done a lot simpler. Wipe out the hard drives, hire a bunch of hackers and let them have all the access and passwords. What would be more plausible, guessing a terrorists action and the pending outcome of a disaster or doing it yourself behind closed doors.

Sorry if I posted too much...I don't want to bother you with my useless knowledge or have you believe that I just google a bunch of crap. As you said anyone can google a bunch of stuff and in fact in this very thread, that is exactly what you do as well. Real world knowledge is far better than internet videos and black helicopters and that is what I have tried to bring to this thread, real world knowledge from somebody who solely works on design, planning and construction every single day of his life for over 20 years.

An open mind understands real world knowledge, a closed mind pushes it aside and stays with his internet info. I am done with this thread because it will just keep going round and round no matter what anyone says. I believe and know what I know, I tried to convey some knowledge and I have said all i care to say.

Last edited by DeathBecomesYu (2008-07-21 06:01:17)

DeathBecomesYu wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

No, but I've seen Parker and DeathBecomesYu who are both experts on the topic at hand (I know this is the internet, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt because they both seem extremely educated on their respective knowledge of the topics they discuss) get pushed away by you and other WTC controlled demolition people, and I find it extremely funny.

Sort of like the kid telling the WWII vet what happened in WWII.

1. Do you know anything about my knowledge and experience? No you do not, so you're in no position to judge. Just because I don't write two-screen long posts, which could easily be cobbled together from google and wikipedia, doesn't mean I know nothing of the topic at hand.

2. When did I 'push them away'? I accept that Parker and Death both appear to have a very good working knowledge of construction and demolition - I don't argue that - I, like Martyn, just have questions that are yet to be answered and suspicions about what really may have happened.

I may be wrong, and I hope to god I am, but that will not stop me asking questions.

Only a closed mind stops asking questions.

I have a question for you. How old are you? I am only guessing but I believe that you are a teen aged person.  First and foremost, I am not a google, wikipedia guy. When I post on these forums, I rarely use those because I base what I know from my experience and don't criticize someone for posting a long post. We have to because it seems that nothing gets through your head and we are trying to show you what you are asking for. I find it funny that you say that no one has answered your questions, what the hell are we doing then? I am not responding for kicks and giggles. I am offering my knowledge of how these towers fell, how absurd a demo would be and why certain buildings stood and didn't stand after these terrorist attacks.

See this is my point exactly. You assume I am a teenager. For your information, I'm 35 and educated to degree level.

Also, I wasn't criticising your posts, far from it, they're clearly informed and informative.

Again, I question the events of 9/11 - not just the specifics of how the various buildings came down, but the events of that day, events leading up to that day and events after that day - just as examples, why were the towers evacuated several times shortly before 9/11? why was a new security team put into place in the towers? where were the USAF jets to shoot down the hijacked airliners? why in the 9/11 documentary that follows the probie fire officer into the towers, does it look like a bomb has gone off in the lobby? why would buildings like the world trade centre towers be built in such a way that, should a plane fly into them, they would completely collapse? and so on and so on.

The truth is none of us know nor will ever know exactly what happened - and that statement applies as much to the official investigation team as it does to anyone.

A closed mind takes things at face value when they're presented by authority figures.

An open mind never stops questioning.

I would rather be labelled as a 'kook' from time to time than to have a closed mind.

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

A closed mind takes things at face value when they're presented by authority figures.

An open mind never stops questioning.

I would rather be labelled as a 'kook' from time to time than to have a closed mind.

The problem here is that you assume that those of us who aren't buying into your conspiracy theory haven't applied critical thought to both scenarios. We certainly have, and (as has been shown through pages and pages of posts) the conspiracy theories simply don't stand up to it. The problem is that those who choose to cling to their disproven conspiracy theories in the face of evidence debunking them just make accepting any of their ideas questionable at best.

You label people who don't agree with your conspiracy theories as having "closed minds" and (quite magnanimously ) imply that you have an "open mind" because you "never stop questioning".

To continue questioning something that has been proven contrary to your hypothesis is actually the exact opposite of having and open mind. An open mind means open to new and differing ideas. An open mind means giving contrary ideas a fair shake and applying objective, critical thought to them. An open mind does not mean blindly repeating the same mantra, regardless of evidence (not theory) to the contrary.

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

I may be wrong, and I hope to god I am, but that will not stop me asking questions.

Only a closed mind stops asking questions.

Anyone may ask a question.  Those with a closed mind will simply not accept the answer they are given.

I noticed early on, when you were doing your 'logic test,' that every single item ha the phase "all collapsed in on themselves as if brought down by controlled explosions."

In your opinion, what are the characteristics of a controlled demolition? For that matter, how would you consider a building NOT being brought down by a controlled demolition to act?  Are you comparing it to buildings knocked down by earthquakes, or what?

All buildings, by their very nature, are more are more space inside than material.  That is critical if we are to have a useable building.  Second, there is always a force acting upon a building; gravity.  Gravity wants to pull everything to the ground, and all that keeps the building up are it supports.  If a support fails, the weight it was meant to support has to be spread to another support, or else that area will collapse; if the nearby supports can not cover for the loss of the first support, then they too will collapse.  Main supports are very specialized in the stresses they can handle; they are really good at holding weight up, but not very good at all at being tilted or taking lateral stress.  If part of the weight for a support is gone, and the load it is supporting is off balance, it puts an unusual strain on the support that it is not designed to handle, and that support may fail, which is why tall buildings will not tip over like a person falling back.

If a lateral force is imparted on a building, like the top part of building 1, then you have several forces going on at once.  say half of the supports give way, due to fire and impact damage.  The mass those supports held up start to fall.  More and more supports fail as they are suddenly asked to support more and more loads they were not designed for.  At the same time, the supports on the far end are still holding up their side of teh building.  What you end up having is the top of the building starting to tip, or fold.  The hinge, or pivot point, are those supports that are still intact.  Those supports are not designed to put up with the stresses  being imparted on them now, so they fail.  Now the upper part of the building falls.  Without a pivot force or hinge, the upper part of the building loses its imputus for lateral movement; it still has the sideways motion that was imparted early in the fall, but no more is added and now gravity is inserting its own ideas.  However, the debris did maintain enough lateral energy to make it as far as WTC 7 by the time it hit the ground. 

The majority of the upper portion simply fell down.  Below the break, we do not know if the fire or blast reached them, but as the upper floors crashed down, the load redistributed in ways impossible to for engineers to predict or plan the supports to handle, so they start to fail.  The more than fail, the faster the rest fail.  But there is no other sideways force that is acting on the building now, just gravity.  And gravity only acts in one way; down.

A controlled demolition works with just gravity.  But controlled demolitions (also called 'imploding,' since the resulting debris from the building occupies less volume than the building originally did- no people spaces left) cheat by purposely and with foresight using explosives to cut supports and cross beams, and degrading the ability of the main supports to handle the weights they are meant to.  They then let gravity do all the work for them.

There is more I could write, but the more I type, the less anyone is likely to actually read it, and my wife is in bed impatiently waiting for me.