[Revisited] WTC7 fell because why? by Rev. Zen - Page 7 - TribalWar Forums
Click Here to find great hosting deals from Branzone.com


Go Back   TribalWar Forums > TribalWar Community > General Discussion
Reload this Page [Revisited] WTC7 fell because why?
Page 7 of 7
Thread Tools
Odio
VeteranXV
Old
121 - 07-27-2008, 16:18
Reply With Quote
Never mind, I suck.
 
Odio is offline
 
Sponsored Links
Lord Elessar
or something³
Contributor
Old
122 - 07-27-2008, 16:27
Reply With Quote
I broke the dam
 
Lord Elessar is offline
 
Rev. Zen
VeteranXV
Old
123 - 07-27-2008, 16:30
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by fartiusstinkius View Post
Are you seriously comparing this to the building? You know the only similarities between the situations are that there is a "structure" and that they fall. Other than that there is no way you can compare. A building has thousands (if not millions) of separate connected parts. Each one can act "chaotically" according to how you picture it, but the aggregate action of the collapse might end up seeming very controlled. As WTC7 collapsed "controlled" as you say, it the insides were probably warping in incredibly complex ways and only the collapse only seems "controlled" because the only requirement you personally have for calling something "controlled" is that it falls straight down. These situations are not comparable. You don't know how the structure was failing on the inside. We can produce predictive models, but we can never know.

But it doesn't matter. Look at my previous post again. Do you still not understand what a leap of logic you're making? How can you legitimately make the claim that it is impossible for a building to collapse straight down without a controlled demolition?
I told you a few posts back that I am looking at this from a laymen's perspective. I agree that I do not know how these complex structures are designed. That is why I am asking the questions.

I do not believe I actually claimed that it was impossible for a building to fall straight down unless by controlled demolition. If so, then I concede that I was wrong (I do not really want to go back and look for something I do not believe I said anyway).

I DO believe that it is more likely than not that a building that is fully in tact on one end and obliterated on the other will NOT fall symmetrically to the ground.

As a matter of fact I do not know why you think that is such a leap of logic. Maybe if you were an expert in structural engineering and I was asking this question on TribalStructuralEngineers Wars.com, then I could fathom the fact that you seem to be pissed off by me asking simple questions that many ordinary people would find logical.
 
Rev. Zen is offline
 
Last edited by Rev. Zen; 07-27-2008 at 16:32..
TseTse
VeteranX
Old
124 - 07-27-2008, 16:46
Reply With Quote
I find it most likely that some wacky structural damage took place which caused it to collapse the way it did... in an extremely rare example.

However, i also find it VERY plausible that several of these buildings in the financial district were wired for backup emergency demolition in case of extremely dire situations... and i think WTC #7 was in such a disastrous, unrecoverable condition that they pulled all the guys out and just pulled it down.

And i think there's enough evidence to indicate that's plausible...

Although as i said, i think it's more likely that this was just a weird collapse. I believe the same pertains to the main towers collapsing, in that i strongly believe it's plausible they were wired for a "safety" demolition in extreme situations and brought down when it was obvious each would collapse in a few moments.

(and plenty of fire fighters, cops and others who were there consider this true)
 
TseTse is offline
 
fartiusstinkius
VeteranXV
Old
125 - 07-27-2008, 16:52
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rev. Zen View Post
I told you a few posts back that I am looking at this from a laymen's perspective. I agree that I do not know how these complex structures are designed. That is why I am asking the questions.

I do not believe I actually claimed that it was impossible for a building to fall straight down unless by controlled demolition. If so, then I concede that I was wrong (I do not really want to go back and look for something I do not believe I said anyway).
As long as you don't believe that now, I don't really care if you ever did.

Quote:
I DO believe that it is more likely than not that a building that is fully in tact on one end and obliterated on the other will NOT fall symmetrically to the ground.
You must ask yourself what this actually means. "More likely than not"? Are you saying that if we were to build similar buildings and slam airliners into them, and look at the effect on a smaller third building, that we would find after many of these experiments that on average the third building doesn't fall straight down? I mean you must realize that that's basically saying nothing. "More likely than not" means nothing unless you run repeated experiments. And even if we had the experimental data afterwards, you just because something happens 99 times out of a 100, doesn't mean that that 1 out of 100 actually won't happen. We've had one single experimental test run (the attacks) and we can't really go diving into statistical evidence because of it...

Quote:
As a matter of fact I do not know why you think that is such a leap of logic. Maybe if you were an expert in structural engineering and I was asking this question on TribalStructuralEngineers Wars.com, then I could fathom the fact that you seem to be pissed off by me asking simple questions that many ordinary people would find logical.
Why it's a leap of logic? You're comparing like 50 (if you've actually looked at 50 videos) of different buildings collapsing under different circumstances. When scientists make a theoretical claim, they make sure it's much more exact. So if you had 100 different WTCs (or at least very similar buildings) that collapsed next to other buildings like WTC7 and then looked at the results compared to 100 different controlled collapses of WTC7-like buildings, you might have something to work with. But at this point, you really have no legitimate claim that WTC7 came down "too cleanly" not to be controlled, because you actually have no other experiments to compare it to.

There's nothing wrong with asking questions, but you haven't mentioned any in this thread that point to evidence of controlled demolition. All yours just point to our lack of understanding and information about how the buildings fell. To find a controlled demolition you probably have some direct evidence of the occurence--not just fall back on "well I don't understand why it could have happened this way, so it didn't".

Anyway I think I've put enough time into this thread. Good luck on your quest, I guess.
 
fartiusstinkius is offline
 
CarpeIppon
Veteran++
Old
126 - 07-27-2008, 18:17
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rev. Zen View Post
I DO believe that it is more likely than not that a building that is fully in tact on one end and obliterated on the other will NOT fall symmetrically to the ground.

As a matter of fact I do not know why you think that is such a leap of logic. Maybe if you were an expert in structural engineering and I was asking this question on TribalStructuralEngineers Wars.com, then I could fathom the fact that you seem to be pissed off by me asking simple questions that many ordinary people would find logical.
Thats just proper design and basic physics. Didn't you ever build toothpick structures in college and then put weights on them to see how much weight your design could take? A modern skyscraper is very similar to that. (a much better analogy than a block of cheese. wtf was that about?)

Anyways, a steel lattice structure is very strong, but only in certain directions. Put too much force from an angle its not designed for, and it collapses very easily. Its like standing on a tin can, and then putting a tiny bit of pressure on the sides. Its partly physics, and partly safe building construction. As soon as it starts to tumble one way (i.e. not straight down) the weight completely overloads the supports, and they give way so quickly it cant build up sideways momentum. If an old building needs to come down, you wouldn't want it to do a domino effect and take down half the city if you screw up the demolition.
 
CarpeIppon is offline
 
JoMo
VeteranXV
Immigrant
Old
127 - 07-27-2008, 19:29
Reply With Quote
A unique aspect of the design of 7 World Trade Center was that each outer structural column was responsible for supporting 2,000 sq ft of floor space, suggesting that the simultaneous removal of a number of columns severely compromised the structure's integrity.

The report also highlights a 10-story gash in the center of the south façade, toward the bottom, extending approximately a quarter of the way into the interior.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%...se%20Final.pdf


I've also read that the WTC structures were built "on the cheap" but I can't confirm that, however if they were, then that would explain certain safety measures and the type of construction that was left out to keep costs down.
 
JoMo is offline
 
Page 7 of 7
Reply


Go Back   TribalWar Forums > TribalWar Community > General Discussion
Reload this Page [Revisited] WTC7 fell because why?

Social Website Bullshit

Tags
conspiracy , tinfoil , truthers


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


AGENT: claudebot / Y
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:37.