11
12

WTC 7 'pull it' (self.911truth)

Lookingfortruths が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
ベスト
トップ
新着
注目
論争中
古い順
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]grimwalker -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (19子コメント)

That's correct. The water mains were destroyed when WTC 1 and 2 collapsed, and firefighters in the building were reporting areas which were slumping, sagging and bulging, indicating severe structural damage.

The problem really rested with the kludge design because the building straddled an existing power substation, so an entire section of the building had no direct support and never had. So when the fire damaged the load-transferring trusses, it was far worse than it would have been otherwise.

"Pull it" is not and never has been a term for explosive demolition, and none of the footage of WTC7 collapsing shows any sign of blasting occurring. (Neither for that matter does WTC 1 & 2, but that's a separate debate.)

[–]Greg_Roberts_0985 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (1子コメント)

That's correct. The water mains were destroyed when WTC 1 and 2 collapsed, and firefighters in the building

What were they doing in the building if there was no water? What evidence do you have?

The problem really rested with the kludge design because the building straddled an existing power substation, so an entire section of the building had no direct support and never had. So when the fire damaged the load-transferring trusses, it was far worse than it would have been otherwise.

I am glad that you do not believe the official US government conspiracy theory, according to the official reports building damage had nothing to do with the collapse of the building.

Your personal conspiracy theory makes no scientific sense anyway, how do you explain WTC 7 going into free-fall (click for a compilation), literally gravitational acceleration (the official reports even admit this) which is impossible in a steel framed building, without the use of explosives.

This violates basic Newtonian physics, IF, you choose to believe the official report that fires caused the collapse or your personal damaged building theory, obviously it is impossible for a building to go into freefall in any other scenario, this explains why NIST refuse to release there data for independent validation, the only relevant documents that support their theory that fire brought down a steel framed building (first time in history, still to this day) are classified for public safety, they will not even release them to a licensed NYC architect in regards a FOIA request

The acceleration of gravity in New York City is 32.159 ft/s2. WTC7 had 2.25 seconds of literal freefall, this is equivalent to approximately 8 stories of fall in which the falling section of the building encountered zero resistance. The collapse was complete in 6.5 seconds. Free-fall time in a vacuum, from Building 7's roof is 5.96 seconds

For any object to fall at gravitational acceleration, there can be nothing below it that would tend to impede its progress or offer any resistance. If there is anything below it that would tend to impede its progress or offer any resistance, then not all of the potential energy of the object would be converted to motion and so would not be found falling at gravitational acceleration (where did every single structural supporting columns go, instantly, at the exact same time?)

There's no exception to that rule, those are the conditions that must exist for gravitational acceleration to occur for the entirety of the duration of the time it occurs, this is basic Newtonian physical principles.

You either agree with this very basic concept, or you need to start making a case for a new realm of science that has never been witnessed before.

[–]PhrygianMode 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

according to the official reports building damage had nothing to do with the collapse of the building.

The "official story" also states that the substation did not "play a significant role in the collapse of WTC7." This guy really disagrees with the "official story."

[–]kylebisme 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (16子コメント)

firefighters in the building were reporting areas which were slumping, sagging and bulging, indicating severe structural damage.

Can you provide any evidence of firefighters in the building anywhere near the time Silverstein claims to have made his "pull it" comment?

[–]grimwalker 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (15子コメント)

Since the "pull it" reference only entered the public record in a retrospective interview with Larry Silverstein, the question is nonsensical. (Also the notion that he would just confess to something on camera is risible.)

At one point there were firefighters in the building, yes? When it collapsed, there were no firefighters in the building. So necessarily at some point the decision was made and the order was given to GTFO.

I don't see why there's any reason on its face to question one person's recollection of the moment he and the FDNY Fire Chief made that decision, unless you're suggesting they gave the order before they gave the order, which again is just nonsensical.

[–]kylebisme 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (14子コメント)

Your attempt to argue around a simple request for evidence to back your assertions is nonsensical. Come on man, where can one find these reports of "slumping, sagging and bulging, indicating severe structural damage" from firefighters inside the building, or are you just blurting out what you imagine to be the case and defending it with hot air, much like you did with your claim of through investigation of the towers' wreckage the other day?

[–]grimwalker 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

That wasn't the question that was asked.

[–]grimwalker 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (10子コメント)

By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. 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...we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn’t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn’t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn’t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o’clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then."

http://www.firehouse.com/article/10567885/deputy-chief-peter-hayden

Any questions?

[–]kylebisme 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (7子コメント)

For starters, do you actually imagine that statement about a bulge on the outside of the building evidences your claims regarding what firefighters inside the building reported, or did you just figure you'd try to move your goalposts because you can't evidence your claim? And in a more general sense, have you never bothered to check the NIST report to see if they found any evidence of severe structural damage in the hours prior to the building coming down? Hint: they didn't.

[–]grimwalker 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (6子コメント)

Are you calling the Chief of the FDNY a liar?

As a matter of fact, yes, I do accept that visible bulges are patently obvious evidence for interior deformation.

Hint: the NIST concluded that "heating of the floor beams and girders caused a critical support column to fail, initiating a fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the building down."

have you never bothered to check the NIST report to see if they found any evidence of severe structural damage in the hours prior to the building coming down? Hint: they didn't.

Just for fun I pulled up and reread sections 3.1 and 4.1 of the NIST report and gosh they do spend a lot of time talking about severe structural damage in the hours prior to the buildings coming down.

I'm sorry, what were you lying?

[–]kylebisme 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (4子コメント)

I do accept that visible bulges are patently obvious evidence for interior deformation.

But do you also imagine reports of exterior bulging evidence your claims of what firefighters in the building reported, or are you just trying to argue around your inability to evidence that?

the NIST concluded that "heating of the floor beams and girders caused a critical support column to fail, initiating a fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the building down."

Yep, with the building being structurally sound until moments before it came down, rather than unstable hours before as you suggest. And no, I'm not lying, nor was I accusing Hadyen of lying, though I'm not ruling out the possibility either.

[–]grimwalker 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

That's just asinine tautology: the building wasn't falling until it was falling. It was standing until it wasn't anymore. They report cites column 79 being unsupported for several stories of its length. The lack of support was the result of fire damage to horizontal supports. They also concluded that if internal fire suppression sprinklers had been supplied, that the fire-related damage would have been prevented, and the impact trauma would not have been sufficient to destroy the building. So your claims about what the NIST said are just wrong on every level. You claim to have read it, so I can only conclude you're intentionally misrepresenting it. So you're a liar, because you're telling lies.

One Battalion Chief coming from the building indicated that they had searched floors 1 through 9 and found that the building was clear. 390 In the process of the search, the Battalion Chief met the building's Fire Safety Director and Deputy Fire Safety Director on the ninth floor. The Fire Safety Director reported that the building's floors had been cleared from the top down. By this time, the Chief Officer responsible for WTC 7 reassessed the building again and determined that fires were burning on the following floors: 6, 7, 8, 17, 21, and 30. 391 No accurate time is available for these actions during the WTC 7 operations; however, the sequence of event indicates that it occurred during a time period from 12:30 p.m. to approximately 2:00 p.m.
The Chief Officer then met with his command officer to discuss the building's condition and FDNY's capabilities for controlling the building fires. A Deputy Chief who had just returned from inside the building reported that he had conducted an inspection up to the 7th or 8th floor. 392 He indicated that the stairway was filling with smoke and that there was a lot of fire inside the building. The chiefs discussed the situation and the following conditions were identified: 393, 394

-- The building had sustained damage from debris falling into the building, and they were not sure about the structural stability of the building.

--The building had large fires burning on at least six floors. Any one of these six fires would have been considered a large incident during normal FDNY operations.

--There was no water immediately available for fighting the fires.

--They didn't have equipment, hose, standpipe kits, tools, and enough handie talkies for conducting operations inside the building.

At approximately, 2:30 p.m., FDNY officers decided to completely abandon WTC 7, and the final order was given to evacuate the site around the building. 395, 396 The order terminated the ongoing rescue operations at WTC 6 and on the rubble pile of WTC 1. Firefighters and other emergency responders were withdrawn from the WTC 7 area, and the building continued to burn. At approximately 5:20 p.m., some three hours after WTC 7 was abandoned the building experienced a catastrophic failure and collapsed.

390 FDNY Interview 26, winter 2004.
391 FDNY Interview 3, winter 2004.
392 FDNY interview 14, winter 2004.
393 FDNY Interview 3, winter 2004.
394 FDNY Interview 14, winter 2004.
395 FDNY Interview 3, winter 2004.
396 FDNY interview 14, winter 2004.

The Emergency Response Operations. Page 111. http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-81.pdf.

Since large fires are well known to cause deformation to steel frame structures, all of the above is ample evidence for interior deformation. I'ce supported my claims and I'm not going to dignify any further dispute from you on this account. You're ignoring the evidence I have presented and seizing upon any perceived ambiguity in a pathetic attempt to say I don't know what I'm talking about, so I'm not going to waste time convincing you of something you're irrationally motivated to disbelieve.

[–]Greg_Roberts_0985 -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (1子コメント)

It was standing until it wasn't anymore

What triggered complete collapse of a skyscraper, going into freefall no less, through the path of greatest resistance?

What evidence do you rely on? I know that you do not believe the offical reports or NIST, so what are you basing your wild claims on?

NIST's findings cannot be replicated or falsified due to the withholding of data, thus completely irrelevant, can you confirm these are just your own personal conspiracy theories...

[–]kylebisme 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

That's just asinine tautology: the building wasn't falling until it was falling. It was standing until it wasn't anymore.

Rather, NIST concluded that the building was structurally sound until support for column 79 gave out, not having undergone severe structural damage hours before like you suggest. As for asinine, your attempt to argue around that fact by quoting a description of the emergency response fits that bill. However, it does bring things back to the topic at hand, as it states "At approximately, 2:30 p.m., FDNY officers decided to completely abandon WTC 7", while Silverstein claims his "pull it" recommendation didn't occur until around 3:30-4:30.

[–]Greg_Roberts_0985 -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

the NIST concluded that "heating of the floor beams and girders caused a critical support column to fail, initiating a fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the building down

Any evidence of this, NIST's physical tests did not even confirm their own theory.

Just for fun I pulled up and reread sections 3.1 and 4.1 of the NIST report and gosh they do spend a lot of time talking about severe structural damage in the hours prior to the buildings coming down

So? They concluded that that ANY damage was irrelevant and that the building would have collapsed regardless, although they offer no proof at all to the world, not one bit of credible evidence.

[–]Greg_Roberts_0985 -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Yeah, how do you explain a steel framed building going into literal freefall?

Can you supply any evidence, at all, how this is scientifically possible?

Can you explain the fundamental physical principles?

How do you explain all the firefighters who are video evidence to make the claim, on the day and not years after, that there was massive amounts of molten metal?

[–]grimwalker 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm so sick of the "Free Fall" lies.

WTC 1 didn't fall at free fall. WTC 2 didn't either. WTC 7 didn't fall at free fall speed.

One part of WTC 7, the North facade, briefly fell at free fall speed but the report specifies at that time it had no support and it stopped falling at free fall speed once it wncountered resistance from below.

So I don't have to explain something that didn't happen.

"Massive amounts of molten metal" is an exaggeration. There are any number of metals known to be present, which melt at temperatures known to be present.

Controlled demolition doesn't generally produce molten metal, and thermite isn't used in demolition.

Again, I don't have to explain things that didn't happen.

[–]grimwalker -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Seriously, the collapse of WTC 7 is so well explained it literally was explained before it collapsed--they could see it losing structural integrity in plain view. There was fire all through the building. They had little or no water pressure to work with.

It baffles me why you people can't accept simple facts.

[–]Greg_Roberts_0985 -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Seriously, the collapse of WTC 7 is so well explained

Completely false, this is an absolute lie or you are massively misinformed.

NIST's findings cannot be replicated or falsified, they have never released any data that confirms their theory, it is being withheld under vague national security legislation.