WTC 7 (Building 7)

[Mick West]

"no audible evidence for a blast event" is a fig leaf Mick. A scientific investigation doesn't need a fig leaf.

No, but it does need good reason to go chasing theories.

What are you even suggesting here? That the WTC7 was wired with explosives before the planes hit the towers? And they KNEW that the collapse of WTC1 would ignite fires in WTC7?

 

[hiper]

No, but it does need good reason to go chasing theories.

What are you even suggesting here? That the WTC7 was wired with explosives before the planes hit the towers? And they KNEW that the collapse of WTC1 would ignite fires in WTC7?

When a steel high rise totally collapses a scientific investigation wouldn't chase any avenue in the way NIST chased "collapse by fire".
It would calmly walk every possible avenue so to speak.

Yes WTC 7 was wired at least at the bottom floors possibly more.

If a steel high rise would collapse due to fire it would not collapse like WTC 7.

The way it collapsed is incompatible with fire being the only cause.

 

[Jazzy]

When a steel high rise totally collapses a scientific investigation wouldn't chase any avenue in the way NIST chased "collapse by fire".

Look, it was already known that the building was struck, and fires were seen in the damaged part of the building. They couldn't fight the fire, which ranged for seven hours before collapse took place. They are the facts.

It would calmly walk every possible avenue so to speak

And like normal people, conclude it was brought down by the fires started with colliding fragments of WTC1.

Yes WTC 7 was wired at least at the bottom floors possibly more.

Why d'you say that?

If a steel high rise would collapse due to fire it would not collapse like WTC 7

So now you're a mechanical engineer.

The way it collapsed is incompatible with fire being the only cause.

So now you're a mechanical engineer.

You had better back up these assertions with something better than "Bush & Co. are just a bunch of meanies". Otherwise they're not worth the pixels.

 

[Jazzy]

Jazzy, what if someone gave you $20,000,000, could you make a hotspot (scaled down of course) that would simulate 911?

One could run present simulations to get a feel for that. One could, but that wouldn't be me. That a sort of money could buy it. It's a huge processing task, but not one I have undertaken.

I have never found a comprehensive scientific explanation for the hot spots

You never will. Your name is George B.

 

[George B]

Look no matter how you want to slice the bread the investigation was incomplete and a major piece of evidence would not even be allowed in court. . . you want to defend NIST based on internal scientific consistencies . . . fine . . . you hold on to your position and the rest of us. . . probably the majority of the people in the US and the World will feel differently . . . and if the US Government wishes to regain some of its prestige in the World it will reopen the investigation and allow third parties to do what should have been done years ago. . . as far as I am concerned the debate is over unless reenactments are allowed or new information is found. . .

Reenactments and/or testing needed . . . and release of information requires

1) Aircraft at collision speeds hitting mock towers and pentagons. . .
2) Recreation of Hotspots
3) Rlease of data used to make the simulations and new simulations accomplished by a trusted third party. . . .
4) Release of all information the 911 Commissioners complained about not getting . . .
5) Testing of what steel is available and WTC dust by certified experts with adequate budget. .

 

[George B]

One could run present simulations to get a feel for that. One could, but that wouldn't be me. That a sort of money could buy it. It's a huge processing task, but not one I have undertaken.


You never will. Your name is George B.

OK . . . Jazzy . . . Hypothetically . . . How would you accomplish such a task. . . what would you need and how would you go about it??

 

[hiper]

Look, it was already known that the building was struck, and fires were seen in the damaged part of the building. They couldn't fight the fire, which ranged for seven hours before collapse took place. They are the facts.

When a plane crashes for some unknown reason they rebuild the plane piece by piece to find the cause.
When a steel high rise collapses they also investigate piece by piece to find the cause.

NIST did not do this. Which obviously raises questions regarding NIST's independence.

And like normal people, conclude it was brought down by the fires started with colliding fragments of WTC1.

Yeah like normal people... don't hear...don't see...don't speak.

Why d'you say that?

WTC 7 was obviously brought down by means other than fire.

So now you're a mechanical engineer.

Every person who sees a WTC 7 collapse video knows they are watching a controlled demolition.

You had better back up these assertions with something better than "Bush & Co. are just a bunch of meanies". Otherwise they're not worth the pixels.

I don't have to do anything.
NIST's collapse by fire explanation and NIST refusing to investigate key evidence backs the assertion "WTC 7 smells to high heaven" just nicely on it's own.

 

[joelb79]

Look no matter how you want to slice the bread the investigation was incomplete and a major piece of evidence would not even be allowed in court. .

George are you a Lawyer and or a Judge? Why are you suggesting this over and over again as if your legal opinion matters? Where is the case law to back up your claims here?

OK . . . Jazzy . . . Hypothetically . . . How would you accomplish such a task. . . what would you need and how would you go about it??

Why does have to do this for you? He just said "one could, but not me." Therefore you are asking him to answer questions upon how to model WTC when he himself said he would not do the modeling? You ask him to hypothetically do this, but is this question a bait question like your "95% sure of" for me? Its irrelevant to this conversation in my opinion to argue how Jazzy would proceed with a complex $20M mission to remodel WTC7 to your satisfaction. As much as it is irrelevant to ask me my opinion on things, when my opinion isn't going to change anything give you the ability to attack the person for their "opinion".

I thought metabunk was about discussing facts and not opinions?

Reenactments and/or testing needed . . . and release of information requires

1) Aircraft at collision speeds hitting mock towers and pentagons. . .
2) Recreation of Hotspots
3) Rlease of data used to make the simulations and new simulations accomplished by a trusted third party. . . .
4) Release of all information the 911 Commissioners complained about not getting . . .
5) Testing of what steel is available and WTC dust by certified experts with adequate budget. .

You want real tests of these things? Meaning we have to rebuild WTC1 and 2, and have planes strike them again? You want fires started again in a rebuilt WTC7 so you can verify the hot spots?

 

[Oxymoron]

If that was found it would imply what though do you think? I don't see how it would change the fact that the building was brought down by uncontrolled fires caused by burning debris, which damaged and set fire to the structure; ultimately leading to steel weakening and internal structural failure causing a catastrophic and destructive failure of the whole building.

I don't mean to be rude Joel but no matter how often you repeat the 'uncontrolled fires', 'weakened steel', 'collapse' mantra, it does not make it fact unless you validate it with facts and no one has done that... even the commission recognise it is a highly flawed report which needs to be further investigated.

 

[joelb79]

I don't mean to be rude Joel but no matter how often you repeat the 'uncontrolled fires', 'weakened steel', 'collapse' mantra, it does not make it fact unless you validate it with facts and no one has done that... even the commission recognise it is a highly flawed report which needs to be further investigated.

Can you provide more proof than an out of context video clip of Kean where he specifically said that the NIST report was flawed? I believe that the clip you presented was where Kean was speaking about how the 9/11 Commission and not the NIST. You also have to realize when you cut out the context before and after a certain soundbite, it sounds very deceptive to me when I view it.

Who is being rude? Touche; not matter how many times you repeat your points they make no difference either. The NIST report is solid science that nobody has cast any doubt into with their questions here... not to be rude.

Also, do you doubt that steel is well understood and well studied enough by years of metallurgy? What groundbreaking research would result from studying something already well known? Those are what we call well validated facts in the first place. Newtons Law is also well established. Do you think the NIST or some other organization needs to re-verify the laws of physics in response to WTC7?

 

[George B]

Look no matter how you want to slice the bread the investigation was incomplete and a major piece of evidence would not even be allowed in court. .

George are you a Lawyer and or a Judge? Why are you suggesting this over and over again as if your legal opinion matters? Where is the case law to back up your claims here?

The opinion of the courts, seems NIST could not enter their findings as evidence in court !!!!!. . . http://www.thefederation.org/documents/7.Trial Use of Computer-Generated-Cellucci.pdf

Simulations, on the other hand, are subject to the same scrutiny as more traditional scientific tests. Generally, a proponent of simulation evidence must establish that it is "based upon sufficient facts or data," that the facts and data upon which it is based "are of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field," that it is "the product of reliable principles and methods," and that the supporting expert witness "applied principles and methods reliably" when creating or using the simulation. See, Fed. R. Civ. P. 702, 703; Pierce v. State,718 So. 2d 806, 809 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997). As the validity of the conclusions drawn by asimulation depends on proper application of scientific principles, a foundation must be laidestablishing that proper methodology was applied to analyze appropriate data. See, Cauley, 32P.3d at 606-07; Tollardo, 134 N.M. at 435, 77 P.3d at 1028. Thus, a proponent of a simulation must show that "(1) the computer is functioning properly; (2) the input and underlying equations are sufficiently complete and accurate (and disclosed to the opposing party, so that they may challenge them); and (3) the program is generally accepted by the appropriate community ofscientists." Commercial Union Ins. Co., 412 Mass. at 549, 591 N.E.2d at 168 (citingCommonwealth v. Fatalo, 346 Mass. 266, 269 (1963)). It also is recommended that some showing be made that the computer model or reconstruction is not easily replicated by other evidence. Fatalo, 346 Mass. at 269 [citations omitted].

Content from External Source

 

[hiper]

The NIST report is solid science that nobody has cast any doubt into with their questions here... not to be rude.

If NIST's WTC 7 report is solid science... I am a lewd kangaroo.

Conducting a solid scientific investigation implies investigating the dust. NIST failed to do this.

Conducting a solid scientific investigation implies investigating the steel. NIST failed to do this.

Conducting a solid scientific investigation implies making public the parameters used to come up with the 3D model. NIST failed to do this.

NIST fails in 3 key areas. NIST therefore delivers a pseudo scientific investigation.

 

[joelb79]

The opinion of the courts, seems NIST could not enter their findings as evidence in court !!!!!. . . http://www.thefederation.org/documents/7.Trial Use of Computer-Generated-Cellucci.pdf

Simulations, on the other hand, are subject to the same scrutiny as more traditional scientific tests. Generally, a proponent of simulation evidence must establish that it is "based upon sufficient facts or data," that the facts and data upon which it is based "are of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field," that it is "the product of reliable principles and methods," and that the supporting expert witness "applied principles and methods reliably" when creating or using the simulation. See, Fed. R. Civ. P. 702, 703; Pierce v. State,718 So. 2d 806, 809 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997). As the validity of the conclusions drawn by asimulation depends on proper application of scientific principles, a foundation must be laidestablishing that proper methodology was applied to analyze appropriate data. See, Cauley, 32P.3d at 606-07; Tollardo, 134 N.M. at 435, 77 P.3d at 1028. Thus, a proponent of a simulation must show that "(1) the computer is functioning properly; (2) the input and underlying equations are sufficiently complete and accurate (and disclosed to the opposing party, so that they may challenge them); and (3) the program is generally accepted by the appropriate community ofscientists." Commercial Union Ins. Co., 412 Mass. at 549, 591 N.E.2d at 168 (citingCommonwealth v. Fatalo, 346 Mass. 266, 269 (1963)). It also is recommended that some showing be made that the computer model or reconstruction is not easily replicated by other evidence. Fatalo, 346 Mass. at 269 [citations omitted].

Content from External Source

So when/if it was entered into court as evidence then it would need to meet that criteria. But wasn't the report released for public consumption? Then why does it need to meet the requirements of a court of law? Isn't this a red herring we are arguing?

NIST undertook the investigation of the WTC 7 collapse to:

• determine why and how WTC 7 collapsed;
• determine what procedures and practices were used in the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of WTC 7; and
• identify, as specifically as possible, areas in current building and fire codes, standards, and practices that warrant revision.

Content from External Source

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm

If NIST's WTC 7 report is solid science... I am a lewd kangaroo.

Conducting a solid scientific investigation implies investigating the dust. NIST failed to do this.

Conducting a solid scientific investigation implies investigating the steel. NIST failed to do this.

Conducting a solid scientific investigation implies making public the parameters used to come up with the 3D model. NIST failed to do this.

NIST fails in 3 key areas. NIST therefore delivers a pseudo scientific investigation.

Smacks forhead.

NIST undertook the investigation of the WTC 7 collapse to:

• determine why and how WTC 7 collapsed;
• determine what procedures and practices were used in the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of WTC 7; and
• identify, as specifically as possible, areas in current building and fire codes, standards, and practices that warrant revision.

13. Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?
Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.
In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses. According to calculations by the investigation team, the smallest blast capable of failing the building's critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile, if unobstructed by surrounding buildings. This sound level is consistent with a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine, and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert.
For the building to have been prepared for intentional demolition, walls and/or column enclosures and fireproofing would have to be removed and replaced without being detected. Preparing a column includes steps such as cutting sections with torches, which produces noxious and odorous fumes. Intentional demolition usually requires applying explosive charges to most, if not all, interior columns, not just one or a limited set of columns in a building.

14. Is it possible that thermite or thermate contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?
NIST has looked at the application and use of thermite and has determined that it was highly unlikely that it could have been used to sever columns in WTC 7 on Sept. 11, 2001.
Thermite is a combination of aluminum powder and a metal oxide that releases a tremendous amount of heat when ignited. It is typically used to weld railroad rails together by melting a small quantity of steel and pouring the melted steel into a form between the two rails. Thermate also contains sulfur and sometimes barium nitrate, both of which increase the compound’s thermal effect, create flame in burning, and significantly reduce the ignition temperature.
To apply thermite to a large steel column, approximately 0.13 lb. of thermite would be needed to heat and melt each pound of steel. For a steel column that weighs approximately 1,000 lbs. per foot, at least 100 lbs. of thermite would need to be placed around the column, ignited, and remain in contact with the vertical steel surface as the thermite reaction took place. This is for one column; presumably, more than one column would have been prepared with thermite, if this approach were to be used.
It is unlikely that 100 lbs. of thermite, or more, could have been carried into WTC 7 and placed around columns without being detected, either prior to Sept. 11, 2001, or during that day.
Given the fires that were observed that day, and the demonstrated structural response to the fires, NIST does not believe that thermite or thermate was used to fail any columns in WTC 7.
Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC buildings, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard used for interior partitions.
15. What about claims that the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found metallic residues that are evidence of thermite in dust and air samples, respectively, taken from the WTC area after Sept. 11, 2001?
There has not been any conclusive evidence presented to indicate that highly reactive pyrotechnic material was present in the debris of WTC 7. The studies that have been conducted to document trace metals, organic compounds, and other materials in the dust and air from the vicinity of the WTC disaster have all suggested common sources for these items. For example, in a published report from the USGS on an analysis of WTC dust, the authors state that "... the trace metal compositions of the dust and girder coatings likely reflect contributions of material from a wide variety of sources. Possibilities include metals that might be found as pigments in paints (such as titanium, molybdenum, lead, and iron), or metals that occur as traces in, or as major components of, wallboard, concrete, aggregate, copper piping, electrical wiring, and computer equipment.” 2​
In a second example, researchers at the EPA measured the concentrations of 60 organic compounds in air samples from Ground Zero using an organic gas and particle sampler. The presence of one of these compounds, 1,3-diphenylpropane, has been suggested as evidence of thermite. However, the authors of the EPA paper state in the opening paragraph that although “… this species has not previously been reported from ambient sampling … it has been associated with polystyrene and other plastics, which are in abundance at the WTC site.” 3​

Content from External Source

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm

The NIST was tasked to make recommendations for fire code and building standards; not make a legal argument in the court for a criminal proceeding. Of which they did a pristine job. It was entirely scientific in its recommendations. I think they covered just about every angle as well.

 

[George B]

Why does have to do this for you? He just said "one could, but not me." Therefore you are asking him to answer questions upon how to model WTC when he himself said he would not do the modeling? You ask him to hypothetically do this, but is this question a bait question like your "95% sure of" for me? Its irrelevant to this conversation in my opinion to argue how Jazzy would proceed with a complex $20M mission to remodel WTC7 to your satisfaction. As much as it is irrelevant to ask me my opinion on things, when my opinion isn't going to change anything give you the ability to attack the person for their "opinion".

I thought metabunk was about discussing facts and not opinions?



You want real tests of these things? Meaning we have to rebuild WTC1 and 2, and have planes strike them again? You want fires started again in a rebuilt WTC7 so you can verify the hot spots?

1) Jazzy does not have to do anything . . . let him answer the question . . . if he is so sure the hotspots have a normal explanation (which I do not) then he can describe how he would re-create them . . . 2) The re-enactments can be accomplished without striking buildings . . . using light beams or lasers . . . aircraft simulators can also be used . . . as simulations of the hotspots but this time the data would be shared and verified . . .

 

[George B]

So when/if it was entered into court as evidence then it would need to meet that criteria. But wasn't the report released for public consumption? Then why does it need to meet the requirements of a court of law? Isn't this a red herring we are arguing?

So the public is suppose to accept evidence that does not meet the minimum requirements for admission to a court of law . . . 911 was the single most important event (crime) in modern history and you want people to accept evidence as far as we know could be a fabrication . . . I don't think so . . .

 

[joelb79]

So the public is suppose to accept evidence that does not meet the minimum requirements for admission to a court of law . . . 911 was the single most important event (crime) in modern history and you want people to accept evidence as far as we know could be a fabrication . . . I don't think so . . .

It works for me (a member of the public). If you want the whole thing to meet the requirements of admission to court, please keep aware that 9/11 CT's will need to (and likely do not meet) this requirement as well.

1) Jazzy does not have to do anything . . . let him answer the question

I'm not stopping him with my reply, I'm just more likely available time wise than him

 

[George B]

It works for me (a member of the public). If you want the whole thing to meet the requirements of admission to court, please keep aware that 9/11 CT's will need to (and likely do not meet) this requirement as well.



I'm not stopping him with my reply, I'm just more likely available time wise than him

I think the CT'ers would have to meet those requirements for anyone within the government or outside the government to take them seriously . . . in fact, I am sure YOU would demand they did . . . it is not like the 911 Commission Report was not instrumental in the justification for the Afghan War or the creation of Homeland Security or spending Billions of dollars, etc. . . .

 

[Oxymoron]

Look, it was already known that the building was struck, and fires were seen in the damaged part of the building. They couldn't fight the fire, which ranged for seven hours before collapse took place. They are the facts.

They are not facts at all Jazzy... I suggest you double check because you are wrong here as you are wrong in many other 'facts'.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22085&st=0&p=10805416&#entry10805416

First off, NIST admitted that any fires on the south face of WTC7 were based on a "presumption"...

QUOTE
“... the ignition and early course of the fires (in WTC 7) were unknown because they were presumed to have occurred in the damaged and heavily smoke- shrouded southern portion of the building.”

page 376 of NCSTAR 1-9


....and there are no visible fires or definitive signs of fire damage on the south face, even with the censored and purposely confusing imagery that we have begrudgingly been presented with. The southwest corner is damaged, yes, but the facades to the immediate west and south show no fire spreading from this area. Is there smoke emanating fron the damaged southwestern corner? Yes, mainly white smoke. White smoke that can be seen emanating from various debris piles around Ground Zero.

If it's claimed that there may have been internal fires in that area, it's based on assumption. What is ridiculous is the insinuation that fires could physically be self contained within the lower floors of the south face for hours without spreading to the other facades.

NIST, despite obviously contradicting itself, tries to give the impression that
"10 floors" simultaneously combusted from the north tower collapsed. Especially aimed at those new to the information or willing to accept their word for it without researching the issue.

Breakdown of the fires floor by floor

A section of floors 28 and 29 at the southwest corner was alight until "12:47pm"

The next visible fire was at floor 12 on the east face at @2pm. A full hour and
a quarter after the last visible fire was extinguished.

"2:08pm" east face:




https://www.metabunk.org/metamirror_cache/img843.imageshack.us_img843_5978_imagegvxx.jpg

At "2:28pm", floor 11 partially ignited, but both appeared to have the same burn rate - @20-30mins per 4 to 5 windows:



https://www.metabunk.org/metamirror_cache/img26.imageshack.us_img26_9873_imagetbi.jpg

"Between 2:15pm to 2:45pm", dark smoke seen running along the west face was attributed to a fire on one of the floors on that side of the building:



https://www.metabunk.org/metamirror_cache/img441.imageshack.us_img441_5759_imagefhx.jpg

What's hard to believe is that the authors of various images and videos shot on the west face of WTC7 throughout the day, failed to record this alleged fire.

The fact that no flames or source were filmed, that the image is cropped coupled with the nature in which previous images were cropped by NIST/Pitts prior to FOIA release which showed how the perception of the images were manipulated to obscure the true source of smoke on the south face, I'm dubious of this image.
Don't forget the previous images posted from around or after the same timeframe, in which the lower floors at the western corner were filmed and show no fire/scorch damage.

The next visible fires were two sparsely separated events on floors 7 and 12 on the north face at 3pm:



https://www.metabunk.org/metamirror_cache/img801.imageshack.us_img801_4023_imageaoj.jpg

Note also in the above image that ConEd is neither producing smoke or fire.

Content from External Source

NIST's groundless assertions are ridiculous. If it were true, the designers and engineers who built it should be prosecuted for professional incompetence.

Compare the measly little fires above, that burned sporadically for a few hours in 7, to the blazing inferno below: You don't need to be an engineer to see the farce... thats why only 16% of Americans and far less of the world population refuse to acknowledge the emperors new clothes.



And



NO COLLAPSE

 

[joelb79]

I think the CT'ers would have to meet those requirements for anyone within the government or outside the government to take them seriously . . . in fact, I am sure YOU would demand they did . . . it is not like the 911 Commission Report was not instrumental in the justification for the Afghan War or the creation of Homeland Security or spending Billions of dollars, etc. . . .

While I might not fully agree with the public policy of this government; (and I do disagree with the 9/11 commission report on the true cause for the attacks), I didn't think that WTC7 had anything to do with public policy or any of the things you mention. Testing steel has nothing to do with the public policy that our government has pushed since the attacks.

 

[joelb79]

And



NO COLLAPSE

These buildings are of different design. They were located in different areas, and not subject to the seismic stress of having two buildings collapse right next to them. They had different weights and carried different loads. They had different contents on the floors. They cannot compare.

 

[Oxymoron]

These buildings are of different design. They were located in different areas, and not subject to the seismic stress of having two buildings collapse right next to them. They had different weights and carried different loads. They had different contents on the floors. They cannot compare.

What can compare?

Does this look like it should collapse?

 

[joelb79]

What can compare?

Does this look like it should collapse?

That's the best question I've seen from you yet; just turn it around and examine how much truth there is in what you just asked. Nothing really. What can compare? My point exactly.

That photo was taken 2-3 hours before the collapse as you indicated above. Find a photo of the same area taken just before the collapse and then we'll talk.

How about this from Wikipedia:

The original 7 World Trade Center was a 47-story building, designed by Emery Roth & Sons, with a red granite facade. The building was 610 feet (190 m) tall, with atrapezoidal footprint that was 330 ft (100 m) long and 140 ft (43 m) wide.[4]​[5]​Tishman Realty & Construction managed construction of the building, which began in 1983.[4]​In March 1987, the building opened, becoming the seventh structure of the World Trade Center.The building was constructed above a Con Edison substation that had been on the site since 1967.[6]​ The substation had a caisson foundation designed to carry the weight of a future building of 25 stories containing 600,000 sq ft (56,000 m2​).[7]​ The final design for 7 World Trade Center was for a much larger building than originally planned when the substation was built.[8]​ The structural design of 7 World Trade Center therefore included a system of gravity column transfer trusses and girders, located between floors 5 and 7, to transfer loads to the smaller foundation.[9]​ Existing caissons installed in 1967 were used, along with new ones, to accommodate the building. The 5th floor functioned as a structural diaphragm, providing lateral stability and distribution of loads between the new and old caissons. Above the 7th floor, the building's structure was a typical tube-frame design, with columns in the core and on the perimeter, and lateral loads resisted by perimeter moment frames.[7]
​


After the North Tower collapsed, some firefighters entered 7 World Trade Center to search the building. They attempted to extinguish small pockets of fire, but low water pressure hindered their efforts.[33]​ Over the course of the day fires burned out of control on several floors of 7 World Trade Center, the flames visible on the east side of the building.[34]​[35]​ During the afternoon, fire was also seen on floors 6–10, 13–14, 19–22, and 29–30.[30]​ In particular, the fires on floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 continued to burn out of control during the afternoon.[36]​ At approximately 2:00 pm, firefighters noticed a bulge in the southwest corner of 7 World Trade Center between the 10th and 13th floors, a sign that the building was unstable and might collapse.[37]​During the afternoon, firefighters also heard creaking sounds coming from the building.[38]​ Around 3:30 pm FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro decided to halt rescue operations, surface removal, and searches along the surface of the debris near 7 World Trade Center and evacuate the area due to concerns for the safety of personnel.[39]​ At 5:20:33 pm EDT the building started to collapse, with the crumble of the east mechanical penthouse, and at 5:21:10 pm EDT it collapsed completely.[2]​[40]​ There were no casualties associated with the collapse.

Content from External Source

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_Worl..._7_World_Trade_Center_.281983.E2.80.932001.29

 

[George B]

While I might not fully agree with the public policy of this government; (and I do disagree with the 9/11 commission report on the true cause for the attacks), I didn't think that WTC7 had anything to do with public policy or any of the things you mention. Testing steel has nothing to do with the public policy that our government has pushed since the attacks.

Guess we will agree to disagree . . . the lack of credible evidence at WTC including WTC 7 has in my opinion allowed the administration to convince the public to proceed with its objectives . . . I think that is the connection and that connection needs to be (once and for all) removed . . . the mistrust caused world wide is not worth continuing the cover-up of what really happened that fateful day . . .

 

[MikeC]

I find it amusing that people like George cmoplain about the "lack of credible evidence" regarding "the official story" - and yet many of them are willing to punt up "absolute truth" conclusions based on a lot less evidence than "the official story" uses.

Credibility is an opinion - George and others like him insist there is a lack of credible evidence for "the official story" - and of course they must do so - if they didn't then they could not beieve their particular pet "alternative" theory - it is a required and necessary condition that "the official story" is not credible..

I don't have that problem.

 

[joelb79]

I find it amusing that people like George cmoplain about the "lack of credible evidence" regarding "the official story" - and yet many of them are willing to punt up "absolute truth" conclusions based on a lot less evidence than "the official story" uses.

Credibility is an opinion - George and otehrs liek him insists there is a lack of credible evidence for "the official story" - and of course they must do so - if they didnt' then they could not beieve their particular pet "alternative" theory - it is a required and necessary condition that "the official story" is not credible..

I don't have that problem.

Me either. Entertaining ideas like that anymore are a farce to me.

 

[George B]

I find it amusing that people like George cmoplain about the "lack of credible evidence" regarding "the official story" - and yet many of them are willing to punt up "absolute truth" conclusions based on a lot less evidence than "the official story" uses.

Credibility is an opinion - George and others like him insist there is a lack of credible evidence for "the official story" - and of course they must do so - if they didn't then they could not beieve their particular pet "alternative" theory - it is a required and necessary condition that "the official story" is not credible..

I don't have that problem.

I'm really glad for you . . . I would like to think the Government was not capable of withholding significant evidence which allows them to proceed with their objectives . . . which some/many of us would find unjustified . . . how dare we ask for the same standard of investigation and evidence YOU and the Government would demand for us to prove them wrong . . .

 

[Oxymoron]

That photo was taken 2-3 hours before the collapse as you indicated above. Find a photo of the same area taken just before the collapse and then we'll talk.

Well that could be a bit difficult as all the videos and pics don't really show any significant fires just before the collapse, it pretty much seems to have burnt itself out by then. Unless as a debunker, you can show there was and I have got it all wrong?

In fact, an AE911Truth simulation of the Floor 12 fire based on visual evidence and quoting the original 2004 NIST report pointed out that the fires were out by 4:45pm.

"http://www2.ae911truth.org/downloads/WTC_fire_sim_comparison_080912c.pdf?format=pdf"



According to NIST, the fire on floor 12 caused the girder between columns 79 and 44 under floor 13 to fail at 5:20 PM. Theoretically, this was the beginning of the initiating event that led to the implosion of WTC 7.

On page 383 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 Vol. 1 (2008), the fire simulations graphic of floor 12 shows the fire burning around column 79 at 4:00 and 5:00 PM. The NIST simulation is not consistent with the photo- graphs of the fire. The photographs show, and the NIST Appendix L report (2004) states “Around 4:45 PM, a photograph showed fires Floors 7, 8, 9, and 11 near the middle of the north face; Floor 12 was burned out by this time.”

In fact, it had burned out in the east end before 4:00 PM.

Therefore, the fire on floor 12 could not have caused floor 13 to collapse (at 5:20 PM) and the implosion of WTC 7 could not have occurred as NIST has proposed.

Content from External Source

 

[George B]

Me either. Entertaining ideas like that anymore are a farce to me.

As much as the 911 Commission Report's government testimony is a Farce for the Chairman of the 911 Commission it seems . . .

 

[SR1419]

https://www.metabunk.org/metamirror_cache/img843.imageshack.us_img843_5978_imagegvxx.jpg


Measly and sporadic little fires??

Thats not how people who were actually there described them.

...even the photographer of the above photos- Steve Spak Said:

"The building was fully involved in fire." – Photographer Steve Spak

"I had a clear view down Washington Street of Building Seven, which was on the north edge of the site. All forty-seven stories were on fire. It was wild. The MPs said the building was going to collapse. I said, "Nah, I don't know." And then all of a sudden I watched the building shake like an earthquake hit it, and the building came down." –Ground Zero Superintendant Charlie Vitchers (Glenn Stout, Charles Vitchers, and Robert Gray. Nine Months at Ground Zero. Scribner, 2006 15-16) Note: Vitchers may have only seen the building from the north side. There may not have been visible fires on most floors there. His quote is included to show how impressive the scene was.

First responder accounts
Unless otherwise noted, accounts are from the FDNY oral history transcripts.

1. We walked over by number Seven World Trade Center as it was burning and saw this 40-plus story building with fire on nearly all floors. –FDNY Lieutenant Robert Larocco

2. ...Just when you thought it was over, you're walking by this building and you're hearing this building creak and fully involved in flames. It's like, is it coming down next? Sure enough, about a half an hour later it came down. –FDNY Lieutenant James McGlynn

3. I walked out and I got to Vesey and West, where I reported to Frank [Cruthers]. He said, we’re moving the command post over this way, that building’s coming down. At this point, the fire was going virtually on every floor, heavy fire and smoke that really wasn’t bothering us when we were searching because it was being pushed southeast and we were a little bit west of that. I remember standing just where West and Vesey start to rise toward the entrance we were using in the World Financial Center. There were a couple of guys standing with me and a couple of guys right at the intersection, and we were trying to back them up – and here goes 7. It started to come down and now people were starting to run. –FDNY Deputy Chief Nick Visconti http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/visconti.html

4. All morning I was watching 7 World Trade burn, which we couldn't do anything about because it was so much chaos looking for missing members. –Firefighter Marcel Klaes

5. When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories.
–FDNY Assistant Chief Harry Myers (Smith, Dennis, 2002. Report From Ground Zero: The Heroic Story of the Rescuers at the World Trade Center. New York: Penguin Putnam. p. 160)

6. The concern there again, it was later in the afternoon, 2, 2:30, like I said. The fear then was Seven. Seven was free burning. Search had been made of 7 already from what they said so they had us back up to that point where we were waiting for 7 to come down to operate from the north back down. –Captain Robert Sohmer http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110472.PDF

7. Then we had to move because the Duane Reade, they said, wasn't safe because building 7 was really roaring. –FDNY Chief Medical Officer Kerry Kelly.

8. At this point Seven World Trade was going heavy, and they weren't letting anybody get too close. Everybody was expecting that to come down. –Firefighter Vincent Massa

9. Chief Cruthers told me that they had formed another command post up on Chambers Street. At this point there were a couple of floors burning on Seven World Trade Center. Chief McNally wanted to try and put that fire out, and he was trying to coordinate with the command post up on Chambers Street. This is after searching for a while. He had me running back and forth trying to get companies to go into Seven World Trade Center. His radio didn't seem to be working right either because he had me relaying information back and forth and Chief Cruthers had me --

Q. So everything was face-to-face? Nothing was by radio?

A. Yeah, and it was really in disarray. It really was in complete disarray. We never really got an operation going at Seven World Trade Center. –FDNY Captain Michael Donovan

10. Building #7 was still actively burning and at that time we were advised by a NYFD Chief that building #7 was burning out of control and imminent collapse was probable. –PAPD P.O. Edward McQuade http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/pa-police-reports02.pdf page 48.

11. At Vesey St. and West St., I could see that 7 WTC was ablaze and damaged, along with other buildings. –M. DeFilippis, PAPD P.O. http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/pa-police-reports03.pdf page 49

[Note: the fires in 7 were probably not mainly due to damage from the south tower, but from the north.]
12. So yeah then we just stayed on Vesey until building Seven came down. There was nothing we could do. The flames were coming out of every window of that building from the explosion of the south tower. So then building Seven came down. When that started coming down you heard that pancaking sound again everyone jumped up and starts.

Q: Why was building Seven on fire? Was that flaming debris from tower two, from tower two that fell onto that building and lit it on fire?

A: Correct. Because it really got going, that building Seven, saw it late in the day and like the first Seven floors were on fire. It looked like heavy fire on seven floors. It was fully engulfed, that whole building. There were pieces of tower two [sic: he probably means tower one] in building Seven and the corners of the building missing and what-not. But just looking up at it from ground level however many stories -- it was 40 some odd -- you could see the flames going straight through from one side of the building to the other, that’s an entire block. –Firefighter Tiernach Cassidy

13. "We were down about a block from the base of the World Trade Center towers about an hour ago. And there was a great deal of concern at that time, the firemen said building number 7 was going to collapse, building number five was in danger of collapsing. And there's so little they can do to try to fight the fires in these buildings, because the fires are so massive. And so much of the buildings continues to fall into the street. When you're down there, Dan, you hear smaller secondary explosions going off every 15 or 20 minutes, and so it's an extremely dangerous place to be."
–CBS-TV News Reporter Vince DeMentri http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.secondary.explosions.wmv

14. Well, they said that's (7) fully involved at this time. This was a fully involved building. I said, all right, they're not coming for us for a while. Now you're trapped in this rubble, and you're trying to get a grasp of an idea of what's going on there. I heard on the handy talky that we are now fighting a 40-story building fully involved.

Now you're trapped in the rubble and the guys who are there are fighting the worst high-rise fire in the history of New York or history of the world, probably, I don't know, 40, story building fully involved, I guess that was probably the worst.

I was, needless to say, scared to death that something else was going to fall on us, that this building was going to come down and we were all going to die, after surviving the worst of it. [Note: I deleted the link this account, and searching the net for the text doesn’t turn up anything. This sounds like an account from north tower stairwell B survivor. Anyone who knows for sure, let me know.]

15. And 7 World Trade was burning up at the time. We could see it. ... the fire at 7 World Trade was working its way from the front of the building northbound to the back of the building. There was no way there could be water put on it, because there was no water in the area. –Firefighter Eugene Kelty Jr.

16. The time was approximately 11a.m. Both of the WTC towers were collapsed and the streets were covered with debris. Building #7 was still standing but burning. ...We spoke to with a FDNY Chief who has his men holed up in the US Post Office building. He informed us that the fires in building 7 were uncontrollable and that its collapse was imminent. There were no fires inside the loading dock (of 7) at this time but we could hear explosions deep inside. –PAPD P.O. William Connors http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/pa-police-reports04.pdf page 69

17. "There's number Seven World Trade. That's the OEM bunker." We had a snicker about that. We looked over, and it's engulfed in flames and starting to collapse.

We're kind of caught in traffic and people and things, and everything's going on. We hear over the fire portable, "Everybody evacuate the site. It's going to collapse." Mark Steffens starts yelling, "Get out of here! Get out of here! Get out of here! We've got to go! We've got to go! It's going to collapse." I turned around, and I piped up real loud and said, "Stay in the frigging car. Roll the windows up. It's pancake collapsing. We'll be fine. The debris will quit and the cloud will come through. Just stay in the car." We pulled the car over, turned around and just watched it pancake. We had a dust cloud but nothing like it was before. –Paramedic Louis Cook

(Building 7 fire makes rescuer of NT stairwell victim’s route impassable, just before collapse):
I remember it was bad and I'm going to get to a point where we came back that way on the way up. We couldn't even go that way, that's how bad the fire was, but by the time I was coming back it was rolling, more than a couple of floors, just fully involved, rolling.

...So now it's us 4 and we are walking towards it and I remember it would have at one point been an easier path to go towards our right, but being building 7 -- that must have been building 7 I'm guessing with that fire, we decided to stay away from that because things were just crackling, falling and whatnot. So as I’m going back, that fire that was on my right is now on my left. I’m backtracking and that fire is really going and on the hike towards there, we put down our masks, which at this point started to realize maybe it would have been good thing if we had this mask on the way back, but then again between the fire and about halfway when I was on the way back, I got a radio call from the guys that we left and it was Johnny Colon the chauffeur of 43, who was effecting a different rescue. He was carrying somebody out.

He had called me and said “Hey Jerry don’t try and get back out the way you went in which was big heads up move because he said that building was rolling on top of the building that we were passing. That building was on fire and likely to collapse more too.

Between Picciotto asking me are you sure we can get out this way because it really didn’t look good with that fire and my guy telling me that you better not because of the area we crawled in was unattainable now too. ...we started going back the other way.

Q: Would that be towards West Street?

A: That would have been back towards what I know is the Winter Garden....[west]
–Firefighter Gerard Suden

18. I remember Chief Hayden saying to me, "We have a six-story building over there, a seven-story building, fully involved." At that time he said, "7 has got fire on several floors." He said, "We've got a ten-story over there, another ten-story over there, a six-story over there, a 13-story over there." He just looked at me and said, "Fuck 'em all. Let 'em burn." He said, "Just tell the guys to keep looking for guys. Just keep looking for the brothers. We've got people trapped. We've got to get them out." –Lieutenant William Ryan

19. I walked around the building to get back to the command post and that's when they were waiting for 7 World Trade Center to come down. ...They had three floors of fire on three separate floors, probably 10, 11 and 15 it looked like, just burning merrily. It was pretty amazing, you know, it's the afternoon in lower Manhattan, a major high-rise is burning, and they said 'we know.' –FDNY Chief Thomas McCarthy

20. We were champing at the bit," says WCBS-TV reporter Vince DeMentri of his decision to sneak behind police barricades and report from 7 World Trade Center a half-hour before it collapsed. "I knew the story was in there." But after he and his cameraman slipped past officers, they lost all sense of direction. "From outside this zone, you could figure out where everything was," he says. "But inside, it was all destruction and blown-out buildings, and we had no clue. I walked into one building, but I had no idea where I was. The windows were all blown out. Computers, desks, furniture, and people's possessions were strewn all over." He found a picture of a little girl lying in the rubble. Then he realized that No. 7, aflame, was about fifteen to twenty feet ahead of him. "I looked up Barclay Street," he says. "There was nobody out. No bodies, no injured. Nobody. There were mounds of burning debris. It was like opening a broiler." http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/sept11/features/5183/index.html

21. They are worried that number 7 is burning and they are talking about not ceasing operations.
–Deputy Commissioner Frank Gribbon

22. There were hundreds of firefighters waiting to -- they were waiting for 7 World Trade Center to come down as it was on fire. It was too dangerous to go in and fight the fire. –Assistant Commissioner James Drury

23. We assisted some FDNY personnel who were beginning to attempt to fight the fire at 7 WTC. We assisted in dragging hose they needed to bring water into the building. –Kenneth Kohlmann PAPD P.O. http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/pa-police-reports04.pdf page 26

24. My first thoughts when I came down a little further into the site, south of Chambers Street, was, "Where am I?" I didn't recognize it. Obviously, the towers were gone. The only thing that remained standing was a section of the Vista Hotel. Building 7 was on fire. That was ready to come down. –Charlie Vitchers, Ground Zero Superintendent http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/profiles/profiles_vitchers_t.html

25. The whole south side of Seven World Trade had been hit by the collapse of the second Tower, and there was fire on every floor." – Fire Captain Brenda Berkman (Susan Hagen and Mary Carouba, Women at Ground Zero, 2002, p. 213)

26. At that point, Seven World Trade had 12 stories of fire in it. They were afraid it was going to collapse on us, so they pulled everybody out. We couldn't do anything. – Firefighter Maureen McArdle-Schulman (Susan Hagen and Mary Carouba, Women at Ground Zero, 2002, p. 17)

27. The 7 World Trade Center was roaring. All we could think is we were an Engine Company, we have got to get them some water. We need some water you know. With that, we positioned the rig, I don't know, 3 quarters of a block away maybe. A fire boat was going to relay water to us. I don't know if I have things in the right order, whatever, if we were getting water out of a hydrant first. Jesus Christ --
Q. Captain said you were getting water. You were draining a vacuum?
A. It was draining away from us. Right. We had to be augmented. I think that's when the fire boat came. I think the fire boats supplied us. Of course you don't see that. You just see the (inaudible) way and you know, we are hooking up and we wound up supplying the Tower Ladder there. I just remember feeling like helpless, like everybody there was doomed and there is -- I just felt like there was absolutely nothing we could do. I want to just go back a little bit.–Firefighter Kevin Howe

28. "When I got out and onto a clear pile, I see that 7 World Trade Center and the customs house have serious fire. Almost every window has fire. It is an amazing site. –Captain Jay Jonas, Ladder 6. (Dennis Smith. Report From Ground Zero. New York: Viking Penguin, 2002. P. 103)

29. Firefighter TJ Mundy: "The other building, #7, was fully involved, and he was worried about the next collapse." (Dennis Smith. Report From Ground Zero. New York: Viking Penguin, 2002.)

30. 7 World Trade was burning from the ground to the ceiling fully involved. It was unbelievable. –Firefighter Steve Modica http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/modica.html

31. So I attempted to get in through the Barkley Street ramp which is on Barkley (sic) and West Broadway, but I was being held back by the fire department, because 7 World Trade, which is above the ramp, was now fully engulfed.
–PAPD K-9 Sergeant David Lim http://www.911report.com/media/davidlim.pdf

32. We could hear fires crackling. We didn’t know it at the time, but No. 7 World Trade Center and No. 5 World Trade Center were immediately adjacent to us and they were roaring, they were on fire. Those were the sounds that we were hearing. ...At the same time, No. 5 World Trade Center, No. 6 World Trade Center and No. 7 World Trade Center were roaring. They were on fire. And they were right next to us. So we have all that smoke that we’re dealing with.
–FDNY Capt. Jay Jonas http://archive.recordonline.com/adayinseptember/jonas.htm

Content from External Source

 

[Oxymoron]

https://www.metabunk.org/metamirror_cache/img843.imageshack.us_img843_5978_imagegvxx.jpg


Measly and sporadic little fires??

Thats not how people who were actually there described them.

...even the photographer of the above photos- Steve Spak Said:

"The building was fully involved in fire." – Photographer Steve Spak

"I had a clear view down Washington Street of Building Seven, which was on the north edge of the site. All forty-seven stories were on fire. It was wild. The MPs said the building was going to collapse. I said, "Nah, I don't know." And then all of a sudden I watched the building shake like an earthquake hit it, and the building came down." –Ground Zero Superintendant Charlie Vitchers (Glenn Stout, Charles Vitchers, and Robert Gray. Nine Months at Ground Zero. Scribner, 2006 15-16) Note: Vitchers may have only seen the building from the north side. There may not have been visible fires on most floors there. His quote is included to show how impressive the scene was.

First responder accounts
Unless otherwise noted, accounts are from the FDNY oral history transcripts.

1. We walked over by number Seven World Trade Center as it was burning and saw this 40-plus story building with fire on nearly all floors. –FDNY Lieutenant Robert Larocco

2. ...Just when you thought it was over, you're walking by this building and you're hearing this building creak and fully involved in flames. It's like, is it coming down next? Sure enough, about a half an hour later it came down. –FDNY Lieutenant James McGlynn

3. I walked out and I got to Vesey and West, where I reported to Frank [Cruthers]. He said, we’re moving the command post over this way, that building’s coming down. At this point, the fire was going virtually on every floor, heavy fire and smoke that really wasn’t bothering us when we were searching because it was being pushed southeast and we were a little bit west of that. I remember standing just where West and Vesey start to rise toward the entrance we were using in the World Financial Center. There were a couple of guys standing with me and a couple of guys right at the intersection, and we were trying to back them up – and here goes 7. It started to come down and now people were starting to run. –FDNY Deputy Chief Nick Visconti http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/visconti.html

Content from External Source

Good repost SR... I was wondering when someone would come up with that. It sounds from those descriptions like an inferno. I do not know how to reconcile that with the visual evidence.... How do you reconcile the two?

Content from External Source

 

[SR1419]

just a measly little fire- nothing to see here:

​


here is another video showing significant WTC7 fire:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d45_1320106542

 

[Mick West]

The NIST analysis of the visual evidence for fires in WTC7 covers everything in great detail (75 pages):

Section 5.6, pages 188 (pdf 232) to 262 (pdf 306)
https://www.metabunk.org/files/NCSTAR_1-9_WTC7_unlocked.pdf

 

[SR1419]

Good repost SR... I was wondering when someone would come up with that. It sounds from those descriptions like an inferno. I do not know how to reconcile that with the visual evidence.... How do you reconcile the two?

I think words like "little" and "measly" are grossly inaccurate and serve only to confirm your own bias- when the reality is much different

 

[Oxymoron]

just a measly little fire- nothing to see here:

​


here is another video showing significant WTC7 fire:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d45_1320106542

They are measly little fires when compared to the infernos that have been documented and where the buildings have not collapsed like the wtc's.

Flick through the pics in this link... that's what you call an inferno. Now if that had totally collapsed, do you seriously think people would be saying, 'Oh that was a demolition'... No because you can see the severity of the fires... that is what you expect to see when someone describes a building as 'totally involved and about to collapse.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/4262509.stm



And here it is after the fire



Yes, that's what you call a partial collapse... some big chunks falling but the main building still standing.

And not only that... there either was... or they put (not sure which) a bloody great crane on top of it!!

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/spain_fire_9-11.html

The fact that an extremely severe fire did not cause the Spanish
steel and concrete tower to collapse raises serious questions about
the events of 9/11 and how they have been explained. Why did the
Windsor Building remain standing when similar towers in New York City
collapsed completely after being affected by much less intense fires
burning for considerably shorter periods of time?

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) sponsored engineers to
conduct the World Trade Center Building Performance Study (BPS) to
examine how the buildings of the WTC responded to the airplane
crashes and fires that allegedly caused the collapses of the twin
towers and WTC 7, a 47-story office building on the next block.

"Prior to September 11, 2001, there was little, if any, record of
fire-induced collapse of large fire-protected steel buildings," the
BPS says in the chapter about the mysterious collapse of WTC 7, the
third tower to collapse on 9/11. WTC 7 was not hit by aircraft or
large pieces of debris and had only sporadic fires. At about 5:25
p.m., WTC 7, owned by Larry Silverstein, collapsed in what appeared
to be a controlled demolition.

It would be more accurate to say that no steel framed high-rise, like
WTC 7, has ever collapsed due to fire. The fact that the Windsor
Building is still standing is proof that fire alone does not cause
properly constructed steel and concrete towers to collapse.

Dr. W. Gene Corley, Senior Vice President of Construction Technology
Laboratories (CTL) of Skokie, Ill., was team leader of the engineers
who wrote the BPS.

CTL is a subsidiary of the Portland Cement Association and "provides
structural and architectural engineering, testing, and materials
technology services throughout the U.S. and internationally."
According to its website, "CTL’s expertise extends beyond cement and
concrete, encompassing virtually all structural systems and
construction materials."

Content from External Source

This site has some amazing pictures and accounts.

http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html

 

[Oxymoron]

I think words like "little" and "measly" are grossly inaccurate and serve only to confirm your own bias- when the reality is much different

Now you have reverted to type... posting pics after the collapse and a spurt of flame out of the window. Conflate as you will but it does not alter the facts... the fires were not dramatic in wtc 7... the collapse was but you really shouldn't be trying to conflate the two. The issue is, how did we go from minor local fires to a demolished building. You are going the other way... 'Oh look at this collapsed building and you are saying it is measly'... no SR that is not scientific and it is dishonest.

 

[George B]

Have we ever had a NYCFD person comment on Metabunk about these issues . . . ? It would be nice to hear what they have to say other than the official reports . . .

 

[Oxymoron]

The NIST analysis of the visual evidence for fires in WTC7 covers everything in great detail (75 pages):

Section 5.6, pages 188 (pdf 232) to 262 (pdf 306)
https://www.metabunk.org/files/NCSTAR_1-9_WTC7_unlocked.pdf

And which pictures show the building engulfed in flames or even any significant fires? I can't find any. They have done exactly what SR did... the 'really bad' pictures are the ones showing the damage after the collapse

 

[SR1419]

They are measly little fires when compared to the infernos that have been documented and where the buildings have not collapsed like the wtc's.

Clearly they are not. You can call them that all you want but that doesn't change the fact that the fires were significant and prolonged.

No offense Oxy but I will take the opinion of firefighters who were on site regarding the relative severity of the fire over your opinion that you based on a few photos


but does the fact that another building didn't collapse due to fire mean that WTC7 couldn't collapse due to fire?

Indeed, in the Madrid fire - entire floors DID collapse- steel weakened in the fire and caused floors to collapse...that only highlights that it IS possible.

That the entire building didn't collapse has more to do with the design of the building than the size of the fire.

 

[SR1419]

Have we ever had a NYCFD person comment on Metabunk about these issues . . . ? It would be nice to hear what they have to say other than the official reports . . .

Yes, you have 32 separate comments from NYFD personnel not 5 posts back.

 

[SR1419]

And which pictures show the building engulfed in flames or even any significant fires? I can't find any. They have done exactly what SR did... the 'really bad' pictures are the ones showing the damage after the collapse

How can you look at this picture and say it is not a significant fire? Mind boggling.