Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Martian
wllravel,
I read your rebuttal to PM's assertions in the other thread.
It seems your issue with their take on it (which I think we can label as the official explanation) is that the collapse of WTC 7 doesn't look progressive. The problem with that is that assuming that the building is designed the way they say it is a progressive collapse wouldn't be the gradual process you seem to expect. It would appear spontaneous, since the one side coming down would place a high level of strain on the other two columns (due to the crossmembers on the fifth and seventh floors) and pull them down as it went. The whole thing would appear spontaneous. What makes it progressive isn't the duration or appearance of the actual collapse, but the pattern of stresses on the load bearing members.
|
I'm looking for more footage of the WTC 7 collapse, but it is scarce. As I have stated before, no steel reinforced buildings besides the WTC have ever collapsed because of fire. WTC 7 was not hit by a plane. Why did it fall at all, let alone all columns giving way at once?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Martian
Obviously, I don't have access to the blueprints for WTC 7 but the design suggested, while unconventional, isn't unfeasible. With four main columns supporting the building, the cross members on the fifth and seventh floors would serve the purpose of equalizing the load, so that no one column is carrying an inordinate amount of the building's weight. By placing the cross members low in the buildings structure, the equalization takes place near the bottom of the main columns, where the load is highest. In the event of a collapse, it would be nearly impossible for only half or even a quarter of the building to come down without taking the rest with it; if one of those columns went, it'd pull the rest of the building down with it.
|
The blueprints weere classified after 9/11. Even with the unorthodox design structure, making it seemingly more likely to collapse, why did it fall from a few small fires?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Martian
The building did collapse into it's footprint. This is what any superstructure will do without some outside force. It's a safety measure, to keep undue damage and harm occuring to the surrounding people and property due to one collapse.
|
Well the WTC towers were each hit from one side, ripping through the outer supports. Why didn't they fall into the side that they were struck? Why did the top floor collapse first? I know heat rises, but it can't be hotter above than it is in the middle (the source of the heat), and the middle had much more stress (namely the top 1/3 of the building) to deal with.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Martian
I have yet to be convinced that there was anything untoward being perpetrated by the US government on that day. I am a natural skeptic, but it goes both ways. If you're going to cry foul, especially if you're going to suggest something that seems contrary to common sense, you'll need irrefutable evidence before I'll buy it. Suggesting that the United States government would intentionally allow or even perpetrate an attack on it's own people is, to me, contrary to common sense.
|
It's not a matter of attacking the American people per se. In fact I'm not convinced that the intent was entirely murderous. Earlier someone p[ut fourth the theory that the building was wired to go down to minimize the footprint in case of an attack not unlike 9/11. That seems, while terribly dangerous, to be reasonable froma certian perspective. Of course if you follow the PNAC, you'd probably think otherwise.