Safe Mode: On
Single Point of Failure - How the Loss of One Column May Have Led to the Collapse of WTC 7

More food for thought for the 9/11 truthers.

http://www.structuremag.org/article.aspx?articleID=284

Single Point of Failure:
How the Loss of One Column May Have Led to the Collapse of WTC 7
Ramon Gilsanz, P.E., S.E., Willa Ng

The collapses of World Trade Center 1 (WTC 1) and World Trade Center 2 (WTC 2) on September 11, 2001 were attributed to the impact of two airplanes and the ensuing fires. The subsequent collapse of World Trade Center 7 (WTC 7), which was not directly struck by airplanes, is more of an enigma. Additionally, the nature of its collapse, which occurred nearly seven hours after WTC 1 and WTC 2 failed, has led to rampant speculation.
http://www.structuremag.org/images/1107-f2-1.jpg

The following analysis shows that, although there were several phases leading to the global collapse of WTC 7, the building likely would have remained standing if not for the failure of on

-

Added: Jun-9-2012 Occurred On: Jun-9-2012
By: j_ramone
In:
Conspiracy
Tags: wtc 7, collapse, pull, 9/11
Location: United States (load item map)
Views: 4160 | Comments: 35 | Votes: 0 | Favorites: 0 | Shared: 0 | Updates: 0 | Times used in channels: 1
You need to be registered in order to add comments! Register HERE
Sort by: Newest first | Oldest first | Highest score first
Liveleak opposes racial slurs - if you do spot comments that fall into this category, please report them for us to review.
  • "pull it"

    Posted Jun-9-2012 By 

    (2) | Report

  • troofers are funny!

    Posted Jun-9-2012 By 

    (0) | Report

  • That's an incredibly weak argument, since nothing even close ever happened before. But the pro-government nitwits who want to believe the government's ridiculous lies, will simply go "well that settles it. The government was right all along! No conspiracy, tin foil hat wearing trooofers!"

    Posted Jun-9-2012 By 

    (0) | Report

  • You know what? I don't have a hard time believing that weakened structures can collapse. I don't have a hard time believing that damaged columns in WTC lead to its collapse.

    It's the way all of them collapse (pancaking) that really perplexes me. I'm sorry, but buildings don't collapse like that naturally. Sure, it's possible. Having one of these 3 collapse like that is a believable coincidence. Having all 3 of them collapse like that is something else altogether. In any case, there's nothing we More..

    Posted Jun-9-2012 By 

    (0) | Report

  • You waste your time.
    The last thing Truther's want to hear is the truth.

    Posted Jun-9-2012 By 

    (0) | Report

  • I'm pretty sure that Rosie O'Donnell had it right when she said: "I do believe it's the first time in history that fire has melted steel"

    I'm gonna go with her on this....

    Posted Jun-9-2012 By 

    (0) | Report

  • This is about as accurate as the 9/11 Commision Report. Pure BULLSHIT!

    Posted Jun-9-2012 By 

    (0) | Report

  • LOFL, The minions are back to try to prove to you that building 7 fell on it's own. BIG FUCKING JOKE!. Pres. George Washington is at my house right now playing cards with me.

    Posted Jun-9-2012 By 

    (0) | Report

  • all the videos show a controlled demolition u fucking moron

    Posted Jun-9-2012 By 

    (0) | Report

  • Its magic physics Sunday!

    Posted Jun-10-2012 By 

    (0) | Report

  • Democrazy of peace........and freedom

    Posted Jun-10-2012 By 

    (0) | Report

  • rofl,theories,dreams,wishes lol,there's some good stuff to start a war with rofl.wow,with hypothesis like this it's a wonder anything over 10' tall can stand up when anyone passes gas in the vicinity,the 'official' story is a sham,sorry,but there is no way,every 'theory' posted by 'debunkers' i have heard so far is as full of holes as the 'official' story,impact,fire etc etc could not cause the collapse of these buildings,noone would spend the time and money on building demolition that they do i More..

    Posted Jun-10-2012 By 

    (0) | Report

  • You guys are in overdrive here recently for some reason. Must be a shitty job.

    Removal method: 1xHigh school physics textbook. Read about conservation of energy. Apply this to WTC7 NIST admitted freefall and all your debunking needs are satisfied.

    Posted Jun-9-2012 By 

    (-1) | Report

    • @N4CR NIST admitted free-fall because there was no possible way to lie their way out of that. Everything after that is mostly a complete lie. The buildings still had thousands of tons of perfectly intact steel structure UNDER the damage area and the buildings fell straight down at free-fall speed ANYWAY? How does physics explain that? Shoot a 50 cannon ball up into the air then measure the free-fall speed. Now put an empty, 3 or 4 story building in the way and measure how long it took to fal More..

      Posted Jun-9-2012 By 

      (5) | Report

    • @N4CR LOL!!! Do you have a physics book? Do you know what average means in an acceleration profile?

      NIST admits an AVERAGE of 2.5 seconds of free fall ACCELERATION on a SINGLE point on the NORTH WALL of WTC 7. NEVER do they mention the whole building is freefalling but only a single point on the OUTER facade. Funny enough that the place they measured is where the east penthouse collapsed and left a void for the roofline of the outer structure.

      Lastly, if freefall is your only proof that WTC 7 More..

      Posted Jun-9-2012 By 

      (2) | Report

    • Comment of user 'MrPadaso' has been deleted by author (after account deletion)!
    • @Fine_Just_Fine
      >_< I was trying to make the same point and not side with them. All good. You get where I was going with it lol.

      Posted Jun-10-2012 By 

      (1) | Report

    • @barogers619

      Considering facade point they measured is attached to the rest of the building, conservation of energy still applies. Freefall is impossible without additional energy input to remove supports.

      Posted Jun-10-2012 By 

      (0) | Report

  • DOn't you relize that HIGH SCHOOL KIDS explained the collapse was an inside job ? They wrote the book ,
    "Loose Change" that has gone on to cult religious status
    like ALGore and his global warming pridictions that Wall street would be under water by the year 2010..
    oh
    yes he did predict that.

    Posted Jun-9-2012 By 

    (-1) | Report

    • @Airedale I predict Al Gore made enough money off his bullshit agenda that he won't ever need to write another work of fiction or do a paid speech ever again if he doesn't want to. So since he made his "fuck you" money hopefully Gore will simply fuck OFF. With his stupid nonsense.

      Posted Jun-9-2012 By 

      (2) | Report

  • Comment of user 'MrPadaso' has been deleted by author (after account deletion)!
    • @MrPadaso
      Are you aware of the Citigroup (formerly Citicorp) building engineering crisis? You'd be surprised how often mistakes and changes lead to structurally unsound buildings. Here's a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citigroup_Center#Engineering_crisis_of_1978

      Posted Jun-9-2012 By 

      (-1) | Report

    • Comment of user 'MrPadaso' has been deleted by author (after account deletion)!
    • @MrPadaso
      But still, changes and mistakes are made, and the NYC construction industry was pretty corrupt in the 80's. Still, with bldg 7 we're looking at a lot of things coming together at one time. Other than a major earthquake, if WTC 1 had not damaged the building and caused the fires, it would still be standing today.

      Posted Jun-9-2012 By 

      (-2) | Report

    • Comment of user 'MrPadaso' has been deleted by author (after account deletion)!
  • Only available in pdf now: http://www.structuremag.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov071.pdf

    Posted Jan-7-2015 By 

    (0) | Report