[Closed] STW research club, I propose for the second subject building 7 9/11 event

I propose this footage as the first evidence to be discussed and explained if possible.

How can this building collapse like this when doing so defies the laws of physics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_of_least_resistance

How is it possible for a building to do this, I cannot justify this happening without a controlled demolition, however if there is a way for this to occur I would be interested in hearing about it!

Icke, is that you?

Pretty much guaranteed to be the same malevolent power that is currently using my [url= http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/compostbintrackworld-first-time-composter-help ]compost bin[/url] as a portal into our dimension..

an open mind and reasonable grasp of logic

You know this is an internet forum don't you?

Didn't you do this about a month ago?

I am still digesting your thesis on earthquakes and ill defined solar forces
ps

How can this building collapse like this when doing so defies the laws of physics

if there is a way for this to occur I would be interested in hearing about it!

thanks for sharing

Can you do cold fusion next?

Has your carer nipped out for fags again?

Is there a name for the logical fallacy that goes "I don't understand something, so it can't be true"? You know, the same mental defect that causes Creationists?

Junkyard and everyone else do you have the ability to simply stick to the subject or is it too difficult, if you did we really could investigate this and maybe even learn something.

Also if the UK and western world can get out of this way of thinking and behaving, we might be able to sort out the mess we have made of our way of life.

The only thing that is relevant to this thread is building 7 9/11, so if you can find me an example of this happening anywhere else then present it for evaluation.

if you can find me an example of this happening anywhere else then present it for evaluation.

Channel 4 have just crashed a plane into the desert to see what happens, maybe you could persuade them to fly the next one into a skyscraper?

Junkyard and everyone else do you have the ability to simply stick to the subject

or is it too difficult, if you did we really could investigate this and maybe even learn something.

Yes I am sure you are willing to change and this is why you keep coming up with these threads it because you might just change your mind and you want to impartially evaluate the evidence. The OP about it defying the laws of physics let me know that

See my point above about you calling others for your failings

Also if the UK and western world can get out of this way of thinking and behaving, we might be able to sort out the mess we have made of our way of life.

The only thing that is relevant to this thread is building 7 9/11, so if you can find me an example of this happening anywhere else then present it for evaluation.

[img] [/img]

I do wonder why some people waste so much on these threads. He's simply trolling, IMHO. Rather boringly, too.

So we are agreeing that planes were flown into the buildings.
Would it not have been easier to just pretend terrorists planted bombs,
how did the US enlist the help of the terrorists?

Is anyone interested in researching this event, with an open mind and reasonable grasp of logic?

Yes.
Some planes flew into some buildings.
It's a closed mind with a childlike sense of logic that can't understand this.

I'm going to feed him.

1) Yes it will happen.
2) You need to understand construction and physics
3) You need to take your rose tinted glasses off and stop being naive looking for something, however far fetched, to suit the answer you've already concluded

I have to say I feel quite sorry for you.

zippykona, unfortunately I am only willing at this point to stay focused on the footage provided and discuss it.

Other wise all we will end up with is a useless ego fueled bout of arguing and posturing.

The only way to research something is to fully evaluate the subject matter proposed, for now that is the footage provided and the fact that what it shows does not fit the explanation for it's occurrence.

One theory is that the collapse of the twin towers was a result of structural members being weakened by fire and non-uniform distribution of heat leading to localised forces on the remaining structural members (those not destroyed by the plane) and subsequent buckling and then near vertical collapse - not forgetting that most of the twin towers was air.

So if you accept this theory and agree that there were multiple fires between 400-700degC in building 7, it's entirely reasonable that the structure failed in a comparable way.

Just a thought...

No plane hit world trade center 7 and the damage to the structure was minimal.

So back to the footage, can anyone provide an example of this occurring anywhere else except 9/11 or explain how it can happen?

I'm open minded to all this,I just feel there's an easier way to start a war.
Shall look forward to hearing to finding out more about it.

If we're on a UK forum, shouldn't it be 11/9 and not 9/11 anyway?

Where did I talk about a plane impact?

Localised heating, bad design and buckling of structural members is why it failed.

Or perhaps how the BBC reported the details of the collapse 15 minutes before it happened?

Hallelujah mintman yes that could be seen as a probable cause, do you want to help me look into it?

If you think you can research how a large, complex building collapses under extreme conditions by starting a thread on a mountain biking forum you're a ****ing idiot.

Has anyone noticed that you never see the head of the CIA and Count Duckula in the same place at the same time ?

zippykona if we jump from one point to another we won't really understand anything, however I am willing to go into what is proposed happened later.

mintman that was a response to an earlier post not yours, I am really interested in looking into this.

Let's start with the 400 to 700 degC as a possible reason for the collapse, so what temperature does steel melt at and how extensive was the damage to building 7?

Leave my cousin Duckula out of this.

TheBrick - Member
If you think you can research how a large, complex building collapses under extreme conditions by starting a thread on a mountain biking forum you're a **** idiot.

This is a very valid post.

I am really interested in looking into this.

Then please feel free to sod off elsewhere and do so.

explain how it can happen?

From the BBC website on such stuff...

[i][b]Was WTC7 deliberately demolished by explosives?[/b]

In the afternoon of 11 September 2001, World Trade Centre Building 7, a 47 storey office block close by the Twin Towers collapsed without even being hit by the planes.

The building had been evacuated and there were no casualties and with so much else happening that day, its collapse was barely reported.

WTC 7 was home to local offices of the CIA, Department of Defense, the United States Secret Service and the city's Office of Emergency Management, among others.

Sceptics of the official account, including those at Scholars for 9/11 Truth argue that the building was deliberately destroyed in a controlled demolition, perhaps in order to conceal important information about a pre-9/11 plot by the authorities.

The collapse of WTC has been investigated by FEMA. Their interim report found that when the North Tower collapsed, debris crashed into Building 7.

This was the likely cause of fires which quickly took hold. The sprinkler system did not work effectively because the water main in Vesey Street had been knocked out when the Twin Towers came down.

With the intense fires burning unabated, the steel structure supporting the building was fatally weakened. But the FEMA investigators conceded that this hypothesis had a low probability of occurring.

In their final report, due to be published later in 2007, FEMA is expected to back its original hypothesis substantially - the collapse of WTC7 was accidental, not deliberate. [/i]

CaptainFlashheart - Member

TheBrick - Member
If you think you can research how a large, complex building collapses under extreme conditions by starting a thread on a mountain biking forum you're a **** idiot.

This is a very valid post.

No doubt you are correct, but I am prepared to have a go with the whole internet for research material and individuals who are willing to help with the research.

Then please feel free to sod off elsewhere and do so.

Totally unnecessary.

Kaesae, there is a wealth of detailed techie info. out there on this already e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center if you like your wikipedia. Would it not be better to start there rather than reinventing wheels although bizarrely that may actually be a more interesting subject

Edit: and who deleted my last 5 detailed technical points about what really happened?

Melting temperature of materials http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/melting-temperature-metals-d_860.html

carbon steel is 1425 = 1540 degC can anyone else confirm this info?

mintman join in and help out with the research? this isn't about being right or wrong, it's about learning all that we can.

The footage that I've seen of the fires in building 7 were minimal and should not have caused such a catastrophic collapse, why not everyone who is interested in researching this look for footage of the fires and post it up?

[quote=midlifecrashes ]Or perhaps how the BBC reported the details of the collapse 15 minutes before it happened?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=A83846Pb1-A
What [b]is[/b] the official explanation for that one?

...the official explanation holds that whilst steel does indeed melt at 1,500 degrees Celsius, it loses half its strength at a much lower temperature of 650 degrees Celsius.

Also from the Beeb website, if that's your bag...

That would be roughly typical, many structural steels start losing strength @about 400degC and lose half their strength at 650degC if memory serves correctly.

Without looking at the design of the building, point of collapse and materials used amongst many other variables, this wont prove conclusive.

Good grief.... Do you know anything about materials engineering??. Utterly bizarre as usual. (Kaesae I mean)

Any information will add to the overall picture, how extensive was the fire damage?

marcus7 if you have something to add then add it, let's not turn this into a conflict.

kaesae - Member
Melting temperature of materials http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/melting-temperature-metals-d_860.html

carbon steel is 1425 = 1540 degC can anyone else confirm this info?

Not sure you're looking for relevant info there, tbh. The steel does not have to be liquid to have lost strength and stiffness.
Anyway, interesting choice of subject again. Good luck.

A good starting point maybe to try and get your head around Euler's buckling formula for columns. It doesn't take much to put them out of equilibrium and collapse to occur.

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

Interested too in the explanation for the BBC early reporting. Anyone know?

OK. So it got hot, melted and collapsed. No explosives.

Why did the BBC report on WTC 7 having collapsed 15 minutes before it did so?

Loum there is a lot of evidence that melting occurred in building no 7, if this is in fact the case, why did it occur?

Steel doesn't need to melt before it loses its strength, it's an easy enough experiment to do if you're willing to accept the result.

Loony troll!

I generally say 800 - 1200 degrees plus for a fire. Depends on the fire load, fuel etc.

Floors structure was a concrete deck on a simple pin joint lattice beam onto an external frame . Probably not a full composite deck floor construction. More like part composite action.

Fire protection was sprayed vermiculite. Used widely in the 70/80s. Maybe 90mins protection. The stuff is quite easily damaged. That means all things being equal the structure will stay there for 90mins before losing STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY !

I remember a fire at a large food store in the 90s spreading across 5no 30min fire barriers (240min protection)in 20min. The building partially collasped but consider it was the weight of a light weight roof causing the collaspe and not concrete floors above as in the WTC.

Fire engineering in tall buildings is flawed. MOE (For the troll - Means of Escape) is problematic due to the height.

If you do fire engineer you point source the fire. Having numerous floors on fire is a little more than one would have allowed for.

Note also guidance is for MOE and not concerned with Building loss. Crown Fire Standard are slighty different as you and I pay for their replacement so the Standards also require a degree of propery protection.

But hey what do I know!

Why did the BBC report on WTC 7 having collapsed 15 minutes before it did so?

Ooh, ooh, Mr. Beasley! Time travel...

kaesae - Member
Melting temperature of materials http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/melting-temperature-metals-d_860.html

carbon steel is 1425 = 1540 can anyone else confirm this info?

I still don't understand what the relation to a bike website is either. Surely there must be enough conspiracy forums for this to be raised on?

The fires in building 7 don't look that bad

Please ignore the rest of this footage except for the actual fires.

These fires did not have the capacity to demolish the building they affected, however we are to believe that WTC 7 was so badly damaged by from what I have seen were small isolated fires, I have to question what is being proposed.

Is that your idea of not bad? It's probably worse because you can't see lots of flames coming out of the window, it means most of the burning is happening inside. I saw the inside of a burning flat once where there was no flames coming out of the window. It was an inferno inside

Muppet!

The one in Madrid is a concrete frame! Stupid! You can clearly see it on the clip. So go and google Madrid / fire / tower block and concrete frame.......FFS

try reading some of this....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center /p>

considering how many members of NY-FD were lost in the collapse of the twin towers, it would be somewhat incredulous to get the NY-FD on-side to fake their statements and withdrawl from WT7 due to their own observations..

Also take particular note regarding the key elements of poor foundation design / sub ground level void / structural weakness @ floor 5-7.

Regarding how severe the fire was observed in some footage in comparison to a structure twice the height of differing construction methods is of irrelevance.

Building damaged from falling materials from WT1&2 collapse.
Buildings sub optimal foundation structure potentially suffers damage due to ground propogated shockwave from collapse of WT1&2.
Building suffers further fire damage that goes largely unchecked.
NY-FD observe bulging @ concern of structural integrity.
NY-FD observe audible structural failure and move out.
Building collpses in direction identified by Isacc Newton same as his apple.

Apart from the above im with you must be a conspiracy... 🙄

He's had that link already but won't read it because it has words not pictures

Please someone lock this 🙁

which part of that days events are you hoping to find were a conspiracy / faked / act of god ???

given the day was a precursor to two completely miserable military campaings that will never achieve anything long term (sadly given the losses inflicted on our troops)

who was to gain from knocking down a chuffin huge building ?

much more intresting than trying to debate civil engineering & materials science..

Conspicary - who ?
why ?
to what gain ?

maybe it was the BBC ? they could have hidden all the paperwork that would have outed Jimmy Saville (and tarnished their reputation) so they flew it on concorde to NY hid it in WT7 and blew it up...

He's had that link already but won't read it because it has words not pictures

 

kaesae - Member

Loum there is a lot of evidence that melting occurred in building no 7

CITATION NEEDED

nwilko/PJM84, those are just words you've posted. Only poorly made YouTube videos are acceptable evidence.

Everyone knows that. USADA are uploading theirs as I type.

If we're all happy to accept that the collapses were caused by fires started as a result of the two aircraft crashing into the twin towers...[quote=druidh ]
Why did the BBC report on WTC 7 having collapsed 15 minutes before it did so?

Don't tell anyone, but I have the answer to how the BBC could tell the future. They had a real life time traveler working for them for decades. We should have known all along from his catchphrase:
[img] http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSuTAL3L6j4QPXfSdW3YlvR8FYRScwfT490uwdsvi1RHKLsHlKJi0CA7Ux- [/img]

Fox also reported it before it happened

as well 😯

maybe it was the BBC ? they could have hidden all the paperwork that would have outed Jimmy Saville (and tarnished their reputation) so they flew it on concorde to NY hid it in WT7 and blew it up...

Its all fitting into place now. I'm pretty sure a friend of a friend of a friend of a friend saw him there at the time with...............

I think might know this one, Is it because they were wrong 💡
the link says the area is completely sealed off and they had a report of a collapsed building that was wrong. If it had stayed intact they would have still been wrong as it is standing.
Is this meant to be the only thing that was reported that day that was wrong . I fail to see how this proves or even says anything about why it collapsed. Could you explain that to me?

Either that or the BBC was part of the global conspiracy and released the news of it at the wrong time despite the timescale given by the lizard kings.

Ps have you an explanation for how they knew ?
I imagine they had reports the fire crews left because it was structurally unsound and they feared collapse and they misheard it and then mis reported it as having collapsed rather than being expected to collapse?

Its all fitting into place now. I'm pretty sure a friend of a friend of a friend of a friend saw him there at the time with...............

Agree with druidh, that's the bit I'd like to see a decent explanation for.
Also, posters calling for the thread to be locked can easily ignore it and look elsewhere.

Here's the owner saying that the building was demolished?

On the TV, how do you explain that ❓

Also this is very interesting

[quote=kaesae ]Here's the owner saying that the building was demolished?
No he doesn't.

BBC's source was Reuters, Reuters' source was local news. The likely explanation is that the fire service reported they were evacuating WTC7 as it had become unsafe and was likely to collapse, and that this got chinese whispered. Doesn't require a conspiracy or ESP, just requires chaos and rolling news.

Has anyone ever given an explanation for why They wanted to demolish WTC7?

kaesae - Member

On the TV, how do you explain that

It's easily explained by people hearing what they want to hear, not what is actually said.

I think he means pull the firefighters out [ to protect life] unless of course you think they double as secret service demolition agents and they had the technical skills to blow it/pull it down ?

Fire protection was sprayed vermiculite. Used widely in the 70/80s. Maybe 90mins protection. The stuff is quite easily damaged

As for BBC reporting, they had a tip off from Doctor Who - just as far fetched a scenario as any conspiracy plot

And Larry Silverstein, did he not loose a fortune because of a lapsed or dishonoured insurance policy, some connection with NY Port Authority?
(I may be wrong there but seem to recall something)

He mean pull it as in pull the fire service out.
It's not complicated unless you suffer from delusional paranoia of some sort.

druidh - Member

kaesae » Here's the owner saying that the building was demolished?

No he doesn't.

Perhaps you are right druidh, so what does to pull a building that is damaged or unstable mean?

To someone who is in the building and property trade?

This is not having a go simply asking a question, from what I understand of the saying, it refers to the implosion and subsequent vacuum that is used to collapse a building in on it's self and not damage surrounding buildings?

However perhaps there is another meaning?

[quote=kaesae ]
Perhaps you are right druidh, so what does to pull a building that is damaged or unstable mean?
Junkyard and IanMunro have already explained what "Pull It" refers to. It means to pull out the rescue/fire effort.

Tell me about it..... contractors.

Kaesae - You watch too much Youtube - get out and ride your bike to free your mind.

See, the thing I really like about conspiracy theorists, is that they don't mind contradictions in their own pet theories- and the "controlled demolitions" are a great example of that.

So you have this theory that they were demolished by explosives- there's some eyewitness reports to support that, and some claim that the seismographs also prove it.

But at the same time, there is also the theory that they were demolished by thermite- which helps get round the lack of evidence for explosions, and is supported by claims of abnormal melting in the structures.

But even if you think these are both plausible, obviously they can't both be right, they're competing theories. But that's OK, because if one smoking gun is good, then 2 must be better, right?

It means here i am on telly being broadcast and I am part of global conspiracy to start a war so when I say something I will just give it away that we are blowing it up as part of a global plan. I was only playing before of course this is what it means

Thank god the fire fighters were in on it too and had the skills to demolish it...they thought of everything except for not telling us what they were doing ....how foolish

In military we use to say: - pull out / bug out / prepare to move / on me (not literally)/ hit the top of one's head, point and do the running fingers.

All these mean were going to move position. Not were moving home, looking for bugs, requesting sexual favours, or suffering with hair loss worries.

Kaesae - You watch too much Youtube - get out and ride your bike to free your mind.

He can't. His bearings are ****ed.

[img] [/img]

piemonster - Member
piemonster - Member
@Kaiser or whatever
All these terrible things you are fretting about, apart from STW. What are you doing about them?

Any danger of you answering this question?

When your ready Kaese

stalker 😉

Good grief.... Do you know anything about materials engineering??. Utterly bizarre as usual. (Kaesae I mean)

Surprised kaesae would bother bringing it up again when there are numerous other conspiracies to get stuck into!