Vos théories sur le 11 septembre ?

As the North Tower collapsed, debris hit 7 WTC "with the force of a volcanic eruption."[19] Much of the bottom 10 stories of the building's south face were destroyed, with damage visible as high as the 18th floor. A massive fire burned into the afternoon on the 11th and 12th floors of 7 World Trade Center, with flames visible on the east side of the building.[20][21] Around 2 o'clock in the afternoon, firefighters noticed a bulge in the southwest corner of 7 World Trade Center, between the 10 and 13th floors, which was a sign that the building was unstable and might collapse.[22] During the afternoon, FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro made the decision to halt rescue operations, surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris near 7 World Trade Center and evacuate the area, out of concerns for the safety of personnel.[23] At 5:20 p.m. EDT on September 11, 2001, 7 World Trade Center collapsed. The building had been evacuated and there were no casualties associated with the collapse.



In May 2002, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) issued a report on the collapse, based on a preliminary investigation conducted jointly with the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers, under leadership of Dr. W. Gene Corley, P.E.[7] FEMA made preliminary findings that the collapse was primarily caused by fires on multiple stories (which were started by debris from the other two towers), and not by the actual impact damage from the collapse of 1 WTC and 2 WTC. The report noted that, before this collapse, there had been little, if any, record of the fire-induced collapse of a large fire-protected steel building, such as 7 WTC.



The report did not reach final conclusions about the cause of the collapse, but listed several issues requiring further investigation. FEMA made these findings:



Loss of structural integrity was likely a result of weakening caused by fires on the 5th to 7th floors. The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyzes are needed to resolve this issue. [Ch. 5, p. 31.]



In response to FEMA's concerns, the Commerce Department’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) made a three-year, US$24-million investigation into the structural failure and collapse of several WTC structures, including 7 World Trade Center. The study drew not only on in-house technical expertise but also the knowledge of several outside private institutions, including the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE), the Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE), the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH), and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY).[24]



NIST has released video and still-photo analysis of Building 7 before its collapse that appears to indicate a greater degree of structural damage from falling debris than originally assumed by FEMA. Specifically, the NIST's interim report on 7 WTC displays photographs of the southwest façade of the building that show it to have significant damage. The NIST interim report on 7 WTC details a 10-story gash that existed on the south façade, extending a third of the way across the face of the building and approximately a quarter of the way into the interior, but does not provide any photographs of the damage to the south façade.[3] A unique aspect of the design of 7 WTC was that each outer structural column was responsible for supporting 2,000 square feet (186 square meters) of floor space, suggesting that the simultaneous removal of a number of columns would severely compromise the structure's integrity. Consistent with this theory, news footage shows visible cracking and bowing of the building's east wall immediately before the collapse, which began at the penthouse floors.[3]



NIST anticipates the release of a draft report of 7 WTC by the end of 2007.[25][26] NIST released a progress report in June 2004, outlining its working hypothesis, which was that a local failure in a critical column, caused by damage from either fire or falling debris from the collapses of the two towers, progressed first vertically and then horizontally to result in "a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure".[27][28] In a New York magazine interview in March 2006, Dr S. Shyam Sunder, NIST's lead WTC disaster investigator, said, of 7 World Trade Center, "We are studying the horizontal movement east to west, internal to the structure, on the fifth to seventh floors”;
he added "But truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7".[29]



Despite FEMA's preliminary finding that fire caused the collapse, some conspiracy theorists believe the building seven collapse was the result of a controlled demolition.[30][31] When asked about controlled demolition theories, Dr. Sunder said, "We consulted 80 public-sector experts and 125 private-sector experts. It is a Who’s Who of experts. People look for other solutions. As scientists, we can’t worry about that. Facts are facts."[32] In answer to the question of whether "a controlled[-]demolition hypothesis is being considered to explain the collapse", NIST said that, "[w]hile NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, it would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements."[26

14. Why is the NIST investigation of the collapse of WTC 7 (the 47-story office building that collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001, hours after the towers) taking so long to complete? Is a controlled demolition hypothesis being considered to explain the collapse?



When NIST initiated the WTC investigation, it made a decision not to hire new staff to support the investigation. After the June 2004 progress report on the WTC investigation was issued, the NIST investigation team stopped working on WTC 7 and was assigned full-time through the fall of 2005 to complete the investigation of the WTC towers. With the release and dissemination of the report on the WTC towers in October 2005, the investigation of the WTC 7 collapse resumed. Considerable progress has been made since that time, including the review of nearly 80 boxes of new documents related to WTC 7, the development of detailed technical approaches for modeling and analyzing various collapse hypotheses, and the selection of a contractor to assist NIST staff in carrying out the analyses. It is anticipated that a draft report will be released by early 2007.



The current NIST working collapse hypothesis for WTC 7 is described in the June 2004 Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (Volume 1, page 17, as well as Appendix L), as follows:



*



An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris-induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large-span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;




*



Vertical progression of the initial local failure occurred up to the east penthouse, and as the large floor bays became unable to redistribute the loads, it brought down the interior structure below the east penthouse;
and



*



Triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of floors 5 and 7 that were much thicker and more heavily reinforced than the rest of the floors) resulted in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.



This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements.

2. THE MYTH OF 'IMPLOSION'



Over the past several decades, the word 'implosion' has been used to describe almost every type of explosive demolition project. Whether due to convenience, or to the absence of any word that accurately describes this type of activity, 'building implosion' has been the title given to thousands of projects involving explosives.



DID YOU KNOW that only a small percentage of explosive demolition jobs are true 'building implosions'?



Webster’s Dictionary defines implosion as "a violent collapse inward". In the demolition industry, a blaster is usually trying to pull a structure away from adjacent exposures and towards an area large enough to contain the debris. Therefore, the only time a building is truly 'imploded' is when exposures (other structures or areas of concern) completely surround it. When this situation exists, the blaster has no choice;
he must make the building collapse in on itself. This is by far the trickiest type of explosive demolition project, and there are only a handful of blasting companies in the world that possess enough experience—and insurance—to perform these true building implosions.

Adunakhor a écrit:Je suis d'accord, c'était vraiment mal foutu ^^

C'est une erreur grave, notamment au niveau de la prétention de ces gens qui organisent ça ( NSA ou autres hein ) ...

Perso, je t'avoue qu'ils m'ont déçu et c'est à partir de ça que je me dis qu'ils n'arriveront jamais à leur fin ( qui serait d'après le milieu conspiro , une sorte de village planétaire etc ... ) .

Donc au final, conspiration ... ouep mais par des minables ?

Et là, on se doit d'être mort de rire :mrgreen:



Au passage, un mec m'a dis qu'"Ils" préparaient un nouvel attentat pour septembre ( un peu avant le 11 ) et peut être en France ...

Beaucoup de suposition hein ?

Wait and see ..





PS : merci pour tes articles :mrgreen:

Adunakhor a écrit:Il y a un site ( Ere Nouvelle ) qui avait pronostiqué le 25 avril derneir un tsunami qui ravagerait les EU ( parce qu'il avait été contacté par leur ange gardien ou un truc dans le genre .. ) .



Il ya des tas de gens qui s'amusent à jouer les prophètes dans ces milieux et en fait, il contribut à obscurcir les vrais faits ...

Comme on lit les trucs New Age au lieu d'Evola ou Guénon par ex .

Un inscrit a écrit:Personne n'a t-il pris en compte le fait que des explosifs auraient pu être placés intentionellement lors de la construction des tours, afin de permettre en cas d'extrème urgence (comme c'est le cas pour les attentats) de faire s'affaiser les batiments sur eux même, et éviter ainsi que ces batiments ne sombrent sur les côtés en créant des dégats encore plus catastrophiques ? Je crois que ce procédé existe bel et bien, puisqu'il permet ainsi de minimiser les dégats par effet "domino".