911 Truth, Buildings Collapsing.

"There has been much speculation on the "performance" of the Twin Towers after the impacts, and the reasons for the collapse are under active debate by structural engineers, architects, and the relevant U.S. government agencies. The design of the WTC included many basic innovations distinguishing it from all previous skyscrapers and from many built since. Although the kinetic energy of the jetliner impacts and the resulting fires were unprecedented in the history of building disasters, some engineers strongly believe skyscrapers of more traditional design (such as New York City's Empire State Building and Malaysia's Petronas Towers) would have fared much better under the circumstances, perhaps standing indefinitely. If they are correct, supertall buildings that share the WTC's major design elements (for example, Chicago's Sears Tower and John Hancock Center) could be considered particularly vulnerable".

Remember the Trade Towers were built to sway in the wind to reduce air friction like a tree that bends with the storm.


One such report from the Department Of Commerce, around since 1913, National Insitution of Standards and Technology.
The report concludes that the fireproofing on the Twin Towers' steel infrastructures was blown off by the initial impact of the planes and that if this had not occurred the WTC would likely have remained standing. In addition, the report asserts that the Towers' stairwells were not adequately reinforced to provide emergency escape for people above the impact zones.

 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...27897709690102
this is a different video, quite good, actually a must see. It gives clear answers to koolaid drinkers like Andy and Midas.

 

There has been much speculation on the "performance" of the Twin Towers after the impacts, and the reasons for the collapse are under active debate by structural engineers, architects, and the relevant U.S. government agencies. The design of the WTC included many basic innovations distinguishing it from all previous skyscrapers and from many built since. Although the kinetic energy of the jetliner impacts and the resulting fires were unprecedented in the history of building disasters, some engineers strongly believe skyscrapers of more traditional design (such as New York City's Empire State Building and Malaysia's Petronas Towers) would have fared much better under the circumstances, perhaps standing indefinitely. If they are correct, supertall buildings that share the WTC's major design elements (for example, Chicago's Sears Tower and John Hancock Center) could be considered particularly vulnerable".

Remember the Trade Towers were built to sway in the wind to reduce air friction like a tree that bends with the storm.


One such report from the Department Of Commerce, around since 1913, National Insitution of Standards and Technology.
The report concludes that the fireproofing on the Twin Towers' steel infrastructures was blown off by the initial impact of the planes and that if this had not occurred the WTC would likely have remained standing. In addition, the report asserts that the Towers' stairwells were not adequately reinforced to provide emergency escape for people above the impact zones.
__________________
We reap what we sow.

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

 

If the fire proofing being blown off allowed the fire WHY DID BUILDING 7 ( the farthest building from the twin towers) fall. Remember much closer buildings like the huge Hilton hotel were completely unharmed.

 

No answer . thats what I thought.

 

Everything I've seen on the History and Discovery channels has said that the towers did VERY well for themselves. Aircraft of that size weren't even dreamed of when the buildings were constructed, and for them to stand as long as they did, well, it was amazing. The biggest problem was the amount of fuel that the planes carried into the towers. It may seem like a simple thing now, but they had no way of planning for something like that. As for the stairwells, no defense there, that was just poor design.

 

Hey Danr! Do you get the feeling these days as if your talking to yourself?:vanish:

 

You know OldDan he posts absolute lies and then wonders why no one debates him.
If one debates a liar one is giving a liar a voice.
For the record thru the Marriott World Trade Center Hotel which used to be the Vista was a 22 story steel framed building and it was completely destoryed and the Millenium Hilton Hotel was damaged to the extent that it was closed for repairs for close to two years. There were was much damage to the entire area when the towers crashed down. I used to live on Gold Street around the corner and down a block from Trinity Church where the ten dollar bill guy is buried among others and was a few blocks from the trade towers and it is a shame that what was once one of the modern wonders of the world was taken out by people who want to live in the far distant past.
Now I will continue to ignore anyone who just lies but I thought I give you that bit of information or any one else reading to expose the liar for the lies that he preaches.
Anyone can just google the hotels I mentioned if they want to see for themselves. I remember that the Marriott hotel, formerly the Vista, had a wonderful bar built to look like a sail ship from the 1800's and overlooked New York Harbor. In contrast, The Millennium hotel had a Minimalist yet very stylish decor from the lobby to the bar to the rooms but I do not know how they rebuilt it as.

 

I mean building 7 the one that did not get hit by an airplane. The furthst one from the twin towers.

 

This guy is a complete liar. Still no explanation for building 7.

 

I think its because so many people have set you to ignore because of your acid pen that spends most of its time criticizing instead of offering illuminating insights.

 

Finally we have some success! We have him talking to and about himself.:whistle:

 

DOOOOODDDD!!! Haven't you like watched loose change? ALEX JONES!!!!!!!!!! That guy is like a superhero! Doooood LOOOOSE CHANGE it'll like totally blow your mind man. ALEX JONES!!! BUSH IS A FACIST 666!!!

 

Now that you have that out of the way any idea on how building 7 fell?

 

yup, first it started falling, then it fell down. Mystery solved baby!!!!

 

Since you keep harping it over and over here is a SCIENTIFIC explanation From Popular Mechanics danr. Now I know as soon as you read it you'll respond with that conspiracy theory crap, but until you can show me HARD, not soft, proof, which means dragging out the demolitions team that blew it up (you can't because they aren't alive, they are dead terrorists that slammed into the buildings in their hijacked jets that horrifying day) you'll have to live with this or just continue to bluster.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=5&c=y

WTC 7 Collapse
CLAIM: Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one."

FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.

 

Bam! Smack! Biff! powee! ZAP!
Yeah!

 

Why then did Silverstien (the owner/lease holder of the WTC) admit it was pulled?

 

Very odd that Popular Mechanics says all of this when Silverstien admits the building was pulled. It sort of drains credibility away from that hokey Popular Mechanics report.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6455428412411043437&q=building 7

 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6455428412411043437&q=building 7

Ah, dude, look at the vid.

That Popular Mechanics article just lost ALL credibility. (that article is a well known and widely refuted piece of poor quality research).