Topic: University Study Finds Fire Did Not Cause Building 7's Collapse on 9/11 - page 23. (Read 2858 times)

What did the Chinese find? A place to sow division and disinformation propaganda, by teaming up two subversive agents with a doddering old fool of a professor.

sorry but badecker has no clue about building regulations or building materials costs. or things like basic physics, weighted loads and other basics of life.

i know in badeckers world he thinks flowers and tree's can only grow if its natural wind blowing seeds randomly.
he doesnt realise that some people actually have skills to know what distance and what type of thing they can plant in a certain area so that it can gain most height with least disruption nearby to maximise utility of space
badecker doesnt think architects have skills and thinks farmers are just guys with harvesters.  badecker has absolutely no clue

Of course most European and US people wouldn't believe a couple of Chinese researchers. They're not of a high enough IQ to recognize what the Chinese found.

Beats believing a "study" by two Chinese disinformation agents who duped one old doddering professor.

I think it would be relatively simple to design a building to fall inwards. First semester engineering statics, maybe the next semester dynamics. Maybe...

Like we're supposed to believe that the architects and constructions workers were so good that they could make a building that you could do just about anything to, and it would still crash, just at the right time, almost at free fall, into its own footprint.

Those jokers missed their true calling. They could have made $trillions in the stock market.

Not only that, but bldg 7 had been essentially "hollowed out" to create a huge atrium in the inside. It didn't have its original structural integrity.

The building was situated above a Consolidated Edison power substation, which imposed unique structural design constraints...

On September 11, 2001, the structure was damaged by debris when the nearby North Tower of the World Trade Center collapsed. The debris also ignited fires, which continued to burn throughout the afternoon on lower floors of the building. The building's internal fire suppression system lacked water pressure to fight the fires, and the building collapsed completely at 5:21:10 pm, according to FEMA,[5]:23 while the 2008 NIST study placed the final collapse time at 5:20:52 pm.[6]:19, 21, 50–51 The collapse began when a critical internal column buckled and triggered structural failure throughout, which was first visible from the exterior with the crumbling of a rooftop penthouse structure at 5:20:33 pm.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center

if there were explosive charges
you would see the explosive charges taking out all the columns of every floor

what badecker is not realising is building are designed to collapse on themselves anyway when their colums fail

.. badecker thinks the columns failed due to explosives.. but there were no 'bang bang bang bang' explosives. there was just crumbing

2 things can weaken columns. explosives. and damage
the building was damaged due to debris from the planes in the buildings next to it

the study badecker got spoonfed wants to make people think that buildings fall like a lumbered tree, sideways.
but badecker is wrong.. they are not designed that way
 for many common sense reasons.. such as the building being in a well populated area so designed to cause least impact to other buildings should something happen

badacker cannot show any sign of explosives (the bang bang bang) and only crumbling of already damaged columns.. so is resorting to suggest that buildings meant to lean over naturally.. but only fall down straight if demolished,

just shows how small minded he is about most things as usual. mainly small minded about common sense

"A study". Looks like it's actually "a study" by one guy, who is a doddering old 80+ year old who has not published in 20 years..... and two "students" .... Chinese .... ?

A Chinese disinformation scheme?

Thanks, TECSHARE.

I don't know what franky1 will say, but he might say that this proves that construction is powerful stuff to have made buildings that can do this by non-demolition collapse.

I am on the other end. My crazy-conspiracy-theorist theory is that the charges were built into the buildings at the time of their construction, so that they could easily be demolished whenever any proper authority wanted. And that's the nice part of my theory. The rest of my theory is that the remaining buildings still have the explosives in them, just waiting for a time when they need to be demolished.

Has anybody gone out there and taken samples from the remaining World Trade Center buildings to ascertain this? I mean, many people died because of Twin Tower collapses, both during, and from exposure to dust during cleanup. I'd be scared to work in any of those buildings until I found out for a fact that they were clean from explosives.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUKLOlIhang

But mostly, we all will stay ignorant of what in the world you are going on about.

It's not ignorance about the facts of 9/11. It's ignorance of how your mind works.

Somehow people don't generally think like you do. If you can't explain how you think, so that somebody can figure out what you mean by what you say, of course people will remain ignorant. But it's ignorant of what you mean... not ignorance about what happened on 9/11.

And, also, I don't know if I really want to learn how you think. I have enough work to do simply programming in common programming languages.

well ofcourse you will stay ignorant about the first 10 seconds and before the collapse..
and ofcourse you will only salivate at the 11+second final collapse..
stay in your dream world. as many others can see where you first fail to grasp the real situation. then fear admitting how wrong you are, and instead just continue your ignorant path of only thinking the 11+second footage occured

Hey! Thank you, franky1. Any less from you and lots of us would have been disappointed. Keep up the resoundingly good work.

you utter ignorant dumb moron

your stuck in la la land of only what happened after 11th second. not the cause of the structural weakness.

when a buildings structural weakness is compromised then a building does collapse on itself.. thats what they are built to do.
your still trying to ignore the structural weakness to pretend the only way to collapse was human placed explosive charges.

you really are deluded

We're in agreement, then. Buildings aren't built to fall at nearly the speed of free fall, except when there are explosives ignited in proper order throughout. It's called demolition.

anyone can make a computer model and then say 'we think its explosives'
but architects, not conspiracy geeks who make up their own narrative. . actual architects who actually know how buildings are made know how skyscrapers and tall buildings fall

here is an example for you.
you can make a 3d virtual girlfriend. but it will never make you an expert on women.
so try to learn about the building. learn about women. and dont think you have learned all that needs to be learned from a computer model

i know that if the code for the computer model was 'la la la' youd instantly think its detailed factual science just because you been told 'the code is detailed, even when other people tell you that there should be something behind the 'lalala' but you will continually avoid to research what should be behind things
(you have been proven this is the case)

also knowing you, you will ofcourse find lame excuses to avoid learning common sense life skills.
with your lame narrative of 'ill do the opposite of whats been told'
thats just your style. and its getting boring. your not helping yourself or anyone else with your lack of ability to research

...
screw it. i wont wait around for you to do some research and realise the flaw in your opinion.. ill just ask u to watch this 23second video a few times

https://youtu.be/zRpCwKRnL1M
now pause it between 0sec and 3 seconds.

the smoke to the left. that left/back side is where the twin towers were and where damage would have hit WTC7
i then want you to. without pushing play yet.. ask yourself to watch the 3d model that only shows 'near perfect collapse'
right.. thats what the model shows. which can onlyhappen if it was a perfect collapse..with no previous structural damage
but just fire.. right? thats your opinion

but now watch from 4sec to 10seconds,..

oh wait. is that.. hmm. yes it is. structural collapse of the side where the twin towers was.. meaning WTC7 must have got hit by something.

hmm but i know you badecker, still thinking the building was 100% structurally sound and just fell all in one go perfectly..
hmm


i wonder.. was the side on the left that was billowing out smoke just smoke or could there have been structural damage...
oh wait there was actually a gaping hole on that side even before the video.. and then it finally gave out and then seconds later the rest of the building fell to...
using physics and very well known building regulation standards of construction

so it wasnt ever about 'just fire damage' as you seem to think

so dont just skip to 11seconds and scream  what happened after 11seconds is all that happened. actually understand what happened before the 11th second.

the 3d model you salivate over only represents something after the 11th second detail as if the first 10 seconds didnt happen.
yep the 3d model excludes the first 10 seconds part. thus tainting the results by ignoring the first 10 seconds and the fact that there was a gaping hole in the side of the building before even 0 seconds  taint results further
if you think it was just an office fire. and no physical structural damage before the 11 second. then you really are stuck believing in la la land

They aren't built to fall at nearly the speed of free fall, except when there are explosives ignited in proper order throughout. It's called demolition. Do some research.

ok well try to do a bit of research

try some research on the topics of
building regulations
construction
architecture
physics

i bet you think that bridges can break in earthquakes or a small gust of wind because no understanding of physics has been done when making them.

if you truly think that if a building collapses for any reason apart from controlled demolition that it should lean over and fall like a tree being cut down. then the only person you should be laughing at is yourself

they are build to fall down on themselves. not fall over and hit other buildings..
you might learn something if you try

Just remembering that you were the one who said your theory, is getting me to start laughing all over again. So, thanks. We need a good laugh now and again.

Anybody who thinks about it for a moment, knows that the building collapses were demolition. Now the universities are starting to prove it.

or we can go by your theory. that buildings are just random.. prop a stick up here.. put a brick there and hope it holds..
no
architects and building companies study this stuff at university t know about weight/balance. know about which building materials to use. they know about distance between pillars/columns and how thick the columns need to be to hold X weight
they know about what happens during earthquakes and high winds and their effects on a buildings sway.

yep sky scrapers and bridges are constructed to a certain standard and with safety in mind. its not just pick a plot of land and lay a brick and hope.

seriously. try to learn a few basics about the real world