WTC 7 (Building 7)

Mick said:

Here's some:
http://www.wbdg.org/ccb/DOD/UFC/ufc_4_023_03.pdf
http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/861/861pubs/collapse/NISTIR_7396.pdf
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dob/downloads/pdf/wtcbctf.pdf

And the fire resistance and fire-proofing essentially is structural - as no building can withstand sustained fire if it has no fire-proofing.

The fact that WTC7 collapsed after eight hours is not exactly a huge problem requiring major upgrades to code. It was an exceptional situation, and everyone safely evacuated many hours earlier. If it did not collapse, it would have to be demolished. It's better for the surrounding buildings and the environment if it does not collapse, but from a safety point of view it's not a huge issue.

Click to expand...

Fire proofing is not a structural design change. In the history of mankind there has never been any other complete progressive collapse of a steel structure due to fire.



This is an example of a progressive collapse due to a severe blast. Notice, the rest of the building is still standing.

Tazmanian said:

In the history of mankind there has never been any other complete progressive collapse of a steel structure due to fire.
.

Click to expand...

So? Does that mean it can't happen?

SR1419 said:

So? Does that mean it can't happen?

Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murphy's_law <-- start here if you think it can't happen.

SR1419 said:

So? Does that mean it can't happen?

Click to expand...

If something has never E-V-E-R happened in the history of mankind, and then it happens 3 times in one day, I don't know, I personally would be looking for a reason. Planes have crashed into buildings before, this wasn't the first time.

Tazmanian said:

If something has never E-V-E-R happened in the history of mankind, and then it happens 3 times in one day, I don't know, I personally would be looking for a reason. Planes have crashed into buildings before, this wasn't the first time.

Click to expand...

You didn't answer the question.

Indeed, everybody was looking for a reason- hence the NIST reports

Can you rule out the possibility that it could happen- with better reasoning than simply because it never had happened before?

SR1419 said:

You didn't answer the question.

Indeed, everybody was looking for a reason- hence the NIST reports

Can you rule out the possibility that it could happen- with better reasoning than simply because it never had happened before?

Click to expand...

Not only did it collapse but Silverstein was asking permission to demolition it beforehand and the BBC was reporting it had collapsed beforehand and 6 years later they prevaricate with absurdities like 'If we said that it would have been a genuine mistake but we have lost the tapes so we don't know'.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html

1. We're not part of a conspiracy. Nobody told us what to say or do on September 11th. We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down. We didn't receive press releases or scripts in advance of events happening.

2. In the chaos and confusion of the day, I'm quite sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or inaccurate - but at the time were based on the best information we had. We did what we always did - sourced our reports, used qualifying words like "apparently" or "it's reported" or "we're hearing" and constantly tried to check and double check the information we were receiving.
3. Our reporter Jane Standley was in New York on the day of the attacks, and like everyone who was there, has the events seared on her mind. I've spoken to her today and unsurprisingly, she doesn't remember minute-by-minute what she said or did - like everybody else that day she was trying to make sense of what she was seeing; what she was being told; and what was being told to her by colleagues in London who were monitoring feeds and wires services.

4. We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I'd love to get hold of it. We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don't help clear up the issue one way or another.
5. If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error - no more than that. As one of the comments on You Tube says today "so the guy in the studio didn't quite know what was going on? Woah, that totally proves conspiracy... "

SR1419 said:

You didn't answer the question.

Indeed, everybody was looking for a reason- hence the NIST reports

Can you rule out the possibility that it could happen- with better reasoning than simply because it never had happened before?

Click to expand...

Of course it could happen, because it did, but fire didn't do it.

Tazmanian said:

Of course it could happen, because it did, but fire didn't do it.

Click to expand...

How do you know this?

Thermodynamics

Tazmanian said:

Of course it could happen, because it did, but fire didn't do it.

Click to expand...

SR1419 said:

How do you know this?

Click to expand...

Tazmanian said:

Thermodynamics

Click to expand...

lol
epic

Jazzy said:

I don't mind looking. It seems pretty perfect to me. The final part of collapse, the fold, emanates from where the initial damage occurred.



How did NIST reach its conclusions? NIST complemented in-house expertise with private sector technical experts; accumulated copious documents, photographs, and videos of the disaster; conducted first-person interviews of building occupants and emergency responders; analyzed the evacuation and emergency response operations in and around WTC 7; performed computer simulations of the behavior of WTC 7 on September 11, 2001; and combined the knowledge gained into a probable collapse sequence.

Figure 5–157 shows a closer view of the western edge of the north face of WTC 7 taken from a video clip recorded from the same location as that shown in Figure 5–152. This clip was recorded several minutes later than Figure 5–152, as is evident by the change in the shadow on the white building in the foreground. The clip was shot within a couple of minutes of the WTC 7 collapse at 5:20:52 p.m., consistent with the recollection of the videographer. At this time, flames are barely visible on the 13th floor at roughly the same location as in Figure 5–152. Heavy, dark smoke is visible rising along the east side of the building. There is also considerable smoke passing across the north face. The source of this smoke is not immediately obvious.
During the clip from which Figure 5–157 was taken, the camera zoomed in on the same area shown in Figure 5–152. Heavy smoke was visible rising from near the northwest corner. Suddenly, several pulses of jet flames several stories high were pushed out of a window near 13-54B on the 13th floor. These pulses continued for about 6 s. Figure 5–158 shows a frame captured during one of these pulses.
The amount of smoke on the north face increased dramatically at the same time as the pulses. This is the only time that this unusual behavior was observed for WTC 7. Similar behaviors observed during the fires in the WTC towers (NCSTAR-1-5A) were attributed to internal pressure pulses generated by events such as local collapses within the buildings. Since the exact time for this particular event is unknown, it is not possible to associate it with a known event within WTC 7.
Figure 5–159 shows a view of the north face of WTC 7 just seconds before it began to collapse. It is a frame from a video clip shot from the northwest at 5:20:17 p.m. ± 15 s. Comparison with Figure 5–139 indicates that the fires visible in the image were located on the 11th floor between Columns 50 and 52, showing that the fire on this floor was continuing to spread to the west just prior to the collapse of the building.

The above is a fragment detailing the start of the real collapse, and not the "truther" version.

It records the initial floor cascade, prior to column 79 going unstable.

The report is lucid and rigorous. You should read it sometime.

Click to expand...

Very pretty gif... but it doesn't fit the data.

http://911research.wtc7.net/letters/nist/W...ents_JCole.html

"Paragraph/Sentence: Section 3.4.5 Second to last paragraph. “Figure 3-9 shows an example of the extent of structural damage from the fires, in this case for the 13th floor. At both 3.5 h and 4.0 h, connections, floor beams, and girders were damaged or had failed at steel temperatures that were approximately 400º C or less, primarily due to the effects of thermal expansion. After 4 h of heating, there was substantially more damage and failures in the WTC 7 structural system than at 3.5 h of heating.” And in the next paragraph: “However, it appeared likely the critical damage state occurred between 3.5 h and 4 h.”

(Cole) comment: Exact input details of the NIST model were not provided for review. However, based on the above, it appears the modeling effort to reach failure mode of the connections required was at least a time of 3.5 hours at a temperature of approximately 400º C., or to put it another way, any time less then 3.5 hours or 4 hours would not cause a failure.

Reason for Comment: Based on Figure 3.6, Page 30 (NCSTAR 1A) temperatures near the floor system of Column 79 did not sustain temperatures of 400º C for a time in excess of 3.5 hours. Rather, this indicated a time of perhaps 2 hours.

In addition, according to Page 330 Section 8.4.1 (NCSTAR 1-9 Vol. 1): “Prediction and growth of building contents fires (Chapter 9) indicated that such fires did not persist at any one location for more then about 20 min to 30 min., which is consistent with observations of fires in the windows (Chapter 5).”

Finally, Floors 12 and 13 (the SEC floors) were determined to be the hottest, yet: “Fire was first observed on the 12th floor, on the south side of the east face, at about 2:10 p.m.” (Page 381 NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 2), and didn’t even begin to heat up the areas near Column 79 until around 3:00 p.m.
NCSTAR 1-9 Page 243 for the 8th floor: “As late as 3:22 p.m., there was no indication of fire in this area but about 17 min later a substantial fire spreading to the east was visible between windows 8-47C and 8-53C.”
NCSTAR 1-9 Pages 244 and 245 state: 11th floor: “A fire was first observed at 2:08 p.m. on the east face.”, and for the 12th floor, a similar time.

For the 13th floor: “The first visual evidence for burning on the 13th floor was seen on the east face around 2:30 p.m.”; less then 3 hours before the collapse.

And even more importantly, the floor temperatures predicted (Figure 3-8 Page 31 NCSTA 1A) indicate temperatures colder then 200º C as late as 4:00 p.m. in the area of Column 79, and not until about 5:00 p.m. (20 minutes before collapse) does only a small portion of the floor area theoretically approach temperatures of 400 C. But the building collapsed at about 5:21 p.m. in the afternoon, about a half hour later, far less time than the critical 3.5 hour time used in the model.

If the entire analysis of the initial failure event is dependent on temperatures approaching 400º C that must exist over 3.5 hour period, and/or the fires did not last that long in the critical Column 79 area, then the entire foundation of the simulation appears flawed. And if the input of the model is flawed, the output results and conclusions are also flawed.

But it is not a scientific conclusion, simply conjecture. From a debunking point of view a far better explanation would be molten lead from the massive batteries stored on that floor

Click to expand...

Jazzy said:

Incorrect. There is a difference between them. The fire surrounded the pile of aircraft fragments immediately above where the pour took place. That room had a bright vermilion appearance like a furnace interior.The room beneath was not so hot.

Click to expand...

Floor 81 is where the melt came from. It is also the floor which housed masses of batteries for the Uninterruptable Power Supply. Floor 81 had recently undergone massive structural reinforcement to withstand the weight of the batteries, (containing tons of lead)

The batteries would have had to have had their electrolyte boiled dry before their metal melted.

Click to expand...

Are you suggesting the heat was sufficient to melt steel beams but not 'boil dry' the electrolyte in the batteries?

Tazmanian said:

Thermodynamics

Click to expand...

perhaps you could expound on this in a substantive way rather than a perfunctory and meaningless comment.

That way you and "someguy" can have real reason for your self-congratulatory lulz.

SR1419 said:

perhaps you could expound on this in a substantive way rather than a perfunctory and meaningless comment.

That way you and "someguy" can have real reason for your self-congratulatory lulz.

Click to expand...

There is no possible explanation for a fire to bring down a skyscraper and make it fall like building 7 did. There's not even an imaginary explanation that would make it happen.

1. First, for a building to go straight down, ALL of the support structures would have to fail at the same time. A fire spreads, so no matter where the support structures are, it would take time for fire to spread, so some sections would fail, but not the entire building at the same time. Even if you could get the entire first few floors to catch on fire at the same time, that still wouldn't make the top floors collapse. Here is an example of a failed demolition, where the bottom of a building is knocked out from under it.
http://911blogger.com/archive/files/video/SouthDakota_FailedDemolition_20051204.mov

In this example already discussed, you can see how the fire spreads and eats away at the building by chunks.



2. A fire would have to get very hot to destroy a building. All the smoke you see coming from building 7, it may look like a lot of smoke, but if you know anything about fire, you can tell it's a cool smoke like the kind of smoke that comes from a chimney. It's not near the temperature it would have to be in a blazing fire. Definitely not enough to destroy a building. Here is what a building on fire looks like.



This building burned all the way up and down the entire building (no evidence of that happening in building 7) and this is what the same building looked like after the fire.



Why? Because these structures are designed to withstand fire. See where it bucked? It's designed to buckle. If you look at the animated simulation of building 7, even there, the building is twisting. Do you see any twisting in the video as it falls? No twisting of any kind.

3. Destruction by fire has a pattern. It starts somewhere and then creeps, creating large sections of deformed material. There is no rapid collapse, certainly not all at once, all straight down. Show the video of building 7 collapse to a fireman and ask him if you don't believe me. In any fire, there is an asymmetrical collapse starting with the most burned section first.

4. The fire would have to be hot enough to soften steel. There is nothing in that building that could melt steel. NOTHING. Even if it burned for a long time, the steel would not reach temperatures high enough to make it melt in a regular fire.

5. Look at the other buildings around it that were destroyed by fire, after they burned, they still had to be demolished with controlled demolition, because steel buildings don't burn down to the ground. This is building 6 after a raging fire.

I don't know what else to tell you except that skyscrapers do not fall straight down after they catch on fire. There has to be something else going on.

I don't claim to know what happened, I just know that what I'm looking at does not match the explanation offered. I don't go around looking for conspiracies, I would LOVE for someone to come up with something that makes sense.

Tazmanian said:

There is no possible explanation for a fire to bring down a skyscraper and make it fall like building 7 did. There's not even an imaginary explanation that would make it happen.
...

Click to expand...

That's a bold, absolutist statement that implies god-like knowledge.
Nice presentation though.
Looking forward to the rebuttal.

Pete Tar said:

That's a bold, absolutist statement that implies god-like knowledge.
Nice presentation though.
Looking forward to the rebuttal.

Click to expand...

Structural engineers and scientists put those building together with precision and skill. In the history of mankind none of them have ever collapsed from fire alone.

NONE. EVER. Even on 9-11 none of those buildings collapsed from fire alone. There's no evidence that they did and there are no scientists who claim they did. The only people who claim that are politicians. I understand.

Tazmanian said:

4. The fire would have to be hot enough to soften steel. There is nothing in that building that could melt steel. NOTHING. Even if it burned for a long time, the steel would not reach temperatures high enough to make it melt in a regular fire.

.

Click to expand...

Wood burns at a maximum of 900 degrees, however it can be used to fire porcelain that does not vitrify until 2500 degrees. There is no reason that parts of the building could not have worked much like a kiln does.

When has a modern jet, with most of a load of fuel impacted a building at a high speed?

In vertiage, some supports are weakened and the building collapses. It seems that the fire does what is done there with rams.

Tazmanian said:

If something has never E-V-E-R happened in the history of mankind, and then it happens 3 times in one day, I don't know, I personally would be looking for a reason. Planes have crashed into buildings before, this wasn't the first time.

Click to expand...

Taz, when in history, in less than a 1/2 hour, have 2 fully fueled Boeing 767s crashed into 2 of the largest buildings in the world, separated by a mere 90 feet? So, to flippantly remark that planes have crashed into buildings before, insinuating that 9/11 wasn't all that unique, simply blows my mind. Unprecedented events break the mold of our expectations. Listen, I of course realize that the planes didn't strike WTC7, but in the buildings you've shown, were any of them constantly being pummeled by falling debris from a towering inferno standing as tall?

Listen, I get the whole "NIST should have done their forenzic homework" line of thinking. I really do and it frustrates me that they chose not to study the actual crime scene. And I can certainly understand why people are skeptical. You've made some excellent points that are worthy of scrutiny. I, like you and others, would have much preferred that every conceivable angle had been attacked. But we have to deal with what is, not what we wish it to be.

Showing pictures of severely damaged buildings is interesting but I don't believe they are as material to this discussion as you think. The scenario of the twin towers and the close proximity of other skyscrapers is clearly unprecedented. So I don't know how adequate comparisons can be made.

We can conjecture all day long about what should or should not have been done, but that doesn't really solve anything. To my limited understanding (admittedly, I'm a financial planner not a scientist), given the information utilized, I believe a reasonable report was prepared and objective scientific conclusions were drawn. If it is within the realm of possibly that two 767s could have wreaked that much havoc, then why not believe the report? Was the NIST study as thorough as it could have been? No, not in my view, but from that is it intellectually honest to conclude that it was errant simply because other buildings not similar in structure or circumstance didn't collapse in the same manner? Now, if in the report, it was concluded that the fires could not have caused the collapses, then we'd have a far different ballgame. But that didn't happen.

So how can we continue to argue that just because we don't like the fact that things were not studied to the degree we think they should have, that something other than out-of-control fires destroyed WTC7? Believing anything else other than what has been scientifically proven, seems to be proof that we've tapped into the realm of the subjective and that we have become products of our presuppositions.

Showing lots of burned buildings that didn't collapse seems far less scientific than studying the actual scenario of a building that did collapse.

As I've read the many posts of those who bristle at the NIST report, I have come to the conclusion that they are truly attempting to be as objective as possible. Nobody intentionally believes lies. And though you and others are probably a whole lot more scientifically astute than I am, it appears to me (and I certainly could be wrong) that those who take the controlled detonation route, are not being as logical as they might think.

It seems that we've developed a culture such that to believe anything other than the official story, is truly an example of free thinking. Sometimes we can become slaves to our anti-establishment paradigm. Heck, I don't trust my government, but does that logically follow that everything evil (Aurora, Sandy Hook, 9/11 and the Boston bombing) are perpetrated by nefariously intentioned overlords? This Alex Jones mentality seems like a virus that is a greater threat than the one-worlders who are supposedly trying to enslave us.

At one time in the not too distant past, I turned every anomaly into government culpability. I threw every unanswered question into the "the government must have done it" box. And then one day I realized how biased and gullible I had become. I thought I was so much more enlightened than the "sheeple" I quietly mocked. Fighting to remain objective is one of the most difficult tasks in life. Every day I have to spar with my presuppositions. And my hope is that they only win when they are correct.

This thread seems like a cat chasing it's tail. People are rather polarized. And therefore I believe the only way those who assent to the controlled demolition route will be satisfied, is after a full-scale simulation. And that's not quite like any old plane crashing into a building. As a disclaimer, my intent is merely to offer another point of view. I'm not calling anyone's integrity or honesty into question. Cheers.

Cairenn said:

Wood burns at a maximum of 900 degrees, however it can be used to fire porcelain that does not vitrify until 2500 degrees. There is no reason that parts of the building could not have worked much like a kiln does.

When has a modern jet, with most of a load of fuel impacted a building at a high speed?

In vertiage, some supports are weakened and the building collapses. It seems that the fire does what is done there with rams.

Click to expand...

This discussion is about Building 7, so no jet fuel, sorry. Don't get me started on the other buildings. According to the NIST report, the jet fuel burned off within minutes, so it's not even an issue. Now if it was rocket fuel, that would be different.

People can believe whatever they want, I'm waiting for a scientific explanation of what happened. Something happened, but not the way it's being presented in the NIST report.

Peace.

I never mentioned jet fuel. You mentioned that buildings had stood up to impacts from airplanes, I was pointing out that all airplanes are NOT the same.

WTC 7 was DAMAGED by falling debris. There were fires that burned out of control for hours on multiple floors. The building started its collapse where it was damaged.

I have yet to see one logical explanation of how controlled explosive charges could have been set and then 'arranged' to bring the building down in just the right place. I have heard stories that they could have all been planted in a 24 hr period. But NO ONE has shown where ANY expert thinks that could have even been possible.

What has been shown over and over is how the fire and impacts could have caused the collapse.

I choose facts over speculation.

CWC said:

Taz, when in history, in less than a 1/2 hour, have 2 fully fueled Boeing 767s crashed into 2 of the largest buildings in the world, separated by a mere 90 feet? So, to flippantly remark that planes have crashed into buildings before, insinuating that 9/11 wasn't all that unique, simply blows my mind. Unprecedented events break the mold of our expectations.

Click to expand...

If it happened in 10 hours instead of 1/2 hour would it make a difference? If the distance was 200 feet instead of 90, would that make a difference?

The Empire State Building was hit by a similar plane and it's still standing. In fact, the design of the Twin Towers was based on that crash and designed to withstand it. Unprecedented events designed to shock and awe did nothing to compromise the science behind the structural integrity of the buildings. Structural engineers and the entire scientific community stand behind that design and no structural changes have been made to the building codes since then.

CWC said:

If it is within the realm of possibly that two 767s could have wreaked that much havoc, then why not believe the report?

Click to expand...

Only politicians claim this to be within the realm of possibility.

Tazmanian said:

There is no possible explanation for a fire to bring down a skyscraper and make it fall like building 7 did. There's not even an imaginary explanation that would make it happen.

1. First, for a building to go straight down, ALL of the support structures would have to fail at the same time. A fire spreads, so no matter where the support structures are, it would take time for fire to spread, so some sections would fail, but not the entire building at the same time. Even if you could get the entire first few floors to catch on fire at the same time, that still wouldn't make the top floors collapse. Here is an example of a failed demolition, where the bottom of a building is knocked out from under it.
http://911blogger.com/archive/files/video/SouthDakota_FailedDemolition_20051204.mov

In this example already discussed, you can see how the fire spreads and eats away at the building by chunks.



2. A fire would have to get very hot to destroy a building. All the smoke you see coming from building 7, it may look like a lot of smoke, but if you know anything about fire, you can tell it's a cool smoke like the kind of smoke that comes from a chimney. It's not near the temperature it would have to be in a blazing fire. Definitely not enough to destroy a building. Here is what a building on fire looks like.



This building burned all the way up and down the entire building (no evidence of that happening in building 7) and this is what the same building looked like after the fire.



Why? Because these structures are designed to withstand fire. See where it bucked? It's designed to buckle. If you look at the animated simulation of building 7, even there, the building is twisting. Do you see any twisting in the video as it falls? No twisting of any kind.

3. Destruction by fire has a pattern. It starts somewhere and then creeps, creating large sections of deformed material. There is no rapid collapse, certainly not all at once, all straight down. Show the video of building 7 collapse to a fireman and ask him if you don't believe me. In any fire, there is an asymmetrical collapse starting with the most burned section first.

4. The fire would have to be hot enough to soften steel. There is nothing in that building that could melt steel. NOTHING. Even if it burned for a long time, the steel would not reach temperatures high enough to make it melt in a regular fire.

5. Look at the other buildings around it that were destroyed by fire, after they burned, they still had to be demolished with controlled demolition, because steel buildings don't burn down to the ground. This is building 6 after a raging fire.

I don't know what else to tell you except that skyscrapers do not fall straight down after they catch on fire. There has to be something else going on.

Click to expand...

Exactly Taz... Excellent post
And here is building 6 alight...'Fully involved' but still being fought by fireman. There is still water to fight this fire even though it looks a hopeless case... But 7 when it had really small fires had to be left to escalate, because there was no water to fight it.

Tazmanian said:

Fire proofing is not a structural design change. In the history of mankind there has never been any other complete progressive collapse of a steel structure due to fire.

Click to expand...

Will you kindly stop making meaningless assertions which can be shown (interminably) to be WRONG.

The Madrid fire shows the complete collapse of a steel structure.

This is an example of a progressive collapse due to a severe blast. Notice, the rest of the building is still standing.

Click to expand...

Which is irrelevant.

Look at this structure. It is NOT a long-span beam structure. We are talking about LONG spans FOUR times wider than the height. Take out ALL the internal columns in your picture and THEN you have a LONG SPAN building like WTC1, 2 & 7. How do you think THAT would have resisted the blast?

We are considering FIRE which spills upward against the floor undersides, attempting to reach the corners, but chimneyed up the centre of the structure. The fire weakens specifically the underside of the floor it is beneath, causing it to expand and bow. Fire is not present in your scenario.

We are considering CREEP, which allows column steel to deform and transfer loadings elsewhere - a progressive situation. Fire is not present in your scenario so nor is creep.

And we are considering BUCKLING INSTABILITY, where columns technically strong enough are in fact unstable. There is a little of it present at the base left but it is supported by essentially undamaged steel.

Immediately before the WTC tower collapses, several floors were fire-affected and floor sections had already detached on several floors. Fire had been damaging the floor connections sitting in the hottest part of the fire on the underside of each floor. If you study the slow motion close-ups you can see the tower structure buckle. That would be a simultaneous event with the detaching floor behind it.

If you cannot hold these things in your mind at once, or they are new to you, then I suggest you respect the judgment of people who can, and you learn, not just to read, but understand the NIST Report.

SR1419 said:

Sorry Oxy- try again....none of the pictures in that post are after the collapse. You can clearly see WTC7 standing in every photo. So much for being "dishonest".

Click to expand...

Well I disagree... The photo's are very much about collapsed buildings, debris and disaster... They portray an aftermath, the fact that 7 is in the distance smoking black smoke without visible flame is incidental to the depiction (NB Black smoke may indicate oxygen starvation although obviously it can also depend on whatever is being burned)... so yes I say it is a deliberate and dishonest attempt to portray 7's fires as far worse than they actually were.

I think the idea of comparing photos from WTC7 to other structure fires is misdirection. Photos are only snapshots in time that do not tell the whole story. What did the inside look like? what did the other side of the building look like?

Click to expand...

Again I disagree... It is logical to draw on as similar knowledge/examples as possible... even NIST did it. No one is saying they are identical... clearly they are not but the similarities are well known and again NIST draws the same conclusions in recommending that thousands of similar buildings should be assessed and retrofitted... a recommendation which apparently has been ignored... Why?... Do engineers not take the recommendations seriously?

What really matters is were the fires hot enough to weaken the steel inside.

You can't answer that from your photo mining and misdirection.

Click to expand...

Again I disagree, The fires in other buildings were far hotter, far more extensive and far longer duration... The buildings were steel framed... they did not collapse anywhere near the extent the WTC's did.... most hardly at all. Even other WTC's did not collapse due to fires even though they were structurally damaged by falling debris and endured far more ferocious fires than 7 and for longer...' i.e. wtc 6, below.


This pic below is dishonest IMO, The main focus is on the right and the devastation... 7 is hardly noticeable unless it is sought out and the smoke is of unclear origin. Additionally... look at the damage on the edge of the far left building from impacts... no fires there!

Seems it all comes down to the following:

1) One group believes the Official Story is adequate to explain the entire fire and collapse scenario of WTC 7
2) The other group does not think the scenario is adequate
3) The Official Story has limited (forensic) evidence to prove their position but holds the trump card (the building fell) and unless you can find evidence which contradicts our position you must accept what we have given you as the explanation . .
4) The Official Story authority controls what evidence was collected, how it was analyzed, how it was reported and has intentionally withheld evidence for security issues . . .
5) My Conclusion. . . .unless other evidence is discovered and released, simulations, reenactments etc are performed and contradict the Official Story . . . this debate will never be resolved . . . much like the JFK assassination . . .

This discussion is about Building 7, so no jet fuel, sorry.

Click to expand...

Neither Cairenn nor I ever said anything about WTC7 being affected by jet fuel. You brought up the planes which I agree are not singularly relevant to WTC7.

Planes have crashed into buildings before, this wasn't the first time.

Click to expand...

But to imply that WTC7 was unaffected by the planes striking the twin towers makes no sense to me.

According to the NIST report, the jet fuel burned off within minutes, so it's not even an issue.

Click to expand...

To argue that the jet fuel had no impact simply because it burned off quickly seems to be like saying that an untreated stabbing was too brief to have caused serious internal repercussions. The jet fuel, much like the stabbing, caused a series of chain reactions.

The following is found HERE:

"The impacts also spread jet fuel into the buildings. Not all the fuel was used in the fire ball. In fact, eye witnesses say jet fuel was creating curtains of fire as it poured down from the impact zone. But the jet fuel only started the fires. Itwas never the NIST's contention that the jet fuel brought down the buildings as conspiracy theorists suggest.

Conspiracy theorists use this as a straw man. They say the jet fuel couldn't have bowed the columns and sagged trusses. Just as lighter fluid doesn't cook your meat in a barbeque, the jet fuel didn't sag the trusses or bow the columns. You also can't leave this important factor out either. Conspiracy theorists say the columns couldn't have bowed and the trusses couldn't have sagged because the jet fuel wasn't hot enough and was used up within about 15 minutes of impact. That's like saying your meat didn't cook in your barbeque because the lighter fluid burns too quickly. All the jet fuel did was act as lighter fluid and intensify the fire for about 15 minutes."

Click to expand...

The Empire State Building was hit by a similar plane and it's still standing.

Click to expand...

This is comparing apples to oranges and is irrelevant as is stated clearly in the following piece found HERE:

The maximum weight of a B-25 ranged from 27,100 lb to a limit of 41,800 lb, for instance (see www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/URG/b25mitchell.html). A 767-200 ranges from 179,080 lbs (empty) to 395,000 lb (maximum takeoff load) (www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/jetliner/b767), and FEMA said the 9/11 planes had “an estimated gross weight of 274000 pounds” ( http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch1.pdf ).

The maximum speed of a B-25 ranged from 275 mph to 315 mph, depending on which version it was, and as the B-25 pilot was trying to avoid the building it's unlikely he'd have reached that (cruising speed was 230 mph). On 9/11, "American Airlines Flight 11 crashes at a speed of roughly 470 mph" and "United Airlines Flight 175 crashes at a speed of about 590 mph" (http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/inside911/timeline.html), a considerable difference when you factor in the extra mass as well.

The B-25 had a "normal total fuel load of 974 US gallons" (http://www.b25.net); a proportion of this would have been used already in the plane’s flight. By comparison, "it has been estimated that both UA Flight 175 and AA Flight 11 were carrying about 10,000 gallons of fuel when they impacted" (www.serendipity.li/wot/wtc_demolition_init.htm).

The end result of this was considerably less impact damage, as this photo shows.



Less structural damage meant no real issues in terms of supporting the load of the building above (which was constructed entirely differently from the WTC anyway). The considerably reduced fuel load meant fire was less of an issue, and the blaze that did arise was brought under control without much difficulty: The 4-alarm fire brought every available piece of fire-fighting apparatus to the scene. As the building was evacuated, firemen spent about an hour extinguishing the flames.
http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=179

At first glance it might look like the B-25 crash has some relevance to 9/11, then, but the facts say otherwise. The two events bear very little comparison, and it should be no surprise that they also had such very different outcomes.

Click to expand...

Are you seriously arguing that the Empire State Building photos show more than a fraction of the damage as the twin towers?

Only politicians claim this to be within the realm of possibility.

Click to expand...

Only those infested with presuppositions contrary to scientific conclusions would claim this to be outside the realm of possibility.

So if you think that the impact of the B-25 was the same as that of the 767, then we have no common ground for discussion.

But I digress. You brought up the planes.

In backup of CWC:

CWC said:

To argue that the jet fuel had no impact simply because it burned off quickly seems to be like saying that an untreated stabbing was too brief to have caused serious internal repercussions. The jet fuel, much like the stabbing, caused a series of chain reactions.

Click to expand...

The first of which was a volume-restrained thermobaric detonation four times the size of this:

[video=youtube_share;zf7m7hN5Szc]http://youtu.be/zf7m7hN5Szc[/video]

slap-bang into the towers' vertical shafting, which it overcame all the way down to their basements, and of course to the roof, clearing the path for fresh air to feed the flames.

The detonation also cleared the fire-resistant foam from the steel surfaces.

These were vital prerequisites that overcame the sprinkler/insulation/fire compartmentalization system that provided a joint defense to a normal office fire.

Also, twelve tons of fuel traveling at 550 mph has a significant kinetic energy. If it been blancmange it would still have helped greatly the plane to penetrate the tower.


WRT comparing the collisions of the B-26 and the Boeing 767:

This is comparing apples to oranges

Click to expand...

More like comparing a grape with a grapefruit.

The WTC towers were designed the impact of a fuel-empty Boeing 707 at approach speed (200 mph) and not a fuel-laden Boeing 767 half as heavy again traveling 2.5 times faster.

The latter had THIRTEEN TIMES the kinetic energy of the planned collision and probably more like twenty to thirty times the energy of the 160-knot B-26 on final approach.

Hit WIKI and work it out for yourself. (KE = 0.5*M*V^2)

The WTC towers were designed the impact of a fuel-empty Boeing 707 at approach speed (200 mph) and not a fuel-laden Boeing 767 half as heavy again traveling 2.5 times faster.

Click to expand...

Weight
Boeing 767: 274,000 pounds
B25: 35,000 pounds
7 times heavier

Fuel load
Boeing 767: 10,000 gallons
B25: 900 gallons
11 times more fuel

Speed at impact:
Boeing 767: 470 & 570 mph
B25: 230 mph (and that's generous given the proximity of the airport)
2 times faster (at least)

More like comparing a grape with a grapefruit.

Click to expand...

Indeed.

Cairenn said:

When has a modern jet, with most of a load of fuel impacted a building at a high speed?

Click to expand...

Who brought this up? Not me.

CWC said:

Only those infested with presuppositions contrary to scientific conclusions would claim this to be outside the realm of possibility.

Click to expand...

Fire and demolition are not the only theories out there. Feel free to research if you're interested.

Tazmanian said:

Fire and demolition are not the only theories out there. Feel free to research if you're interested.

Click to expand...

Are there any that you think are plausible? Mini-nukes? Directed Energy?

Laundry list of causes . . .

POLL: What technology brought down WTC Buildings (1,2 & 7)?

WTC Demolition - Thermate and Thermobaric Weapons cutting main supports? 51.3% (98)

Directed energy weapon &/or SCALAR ELECTROMAGNETIC WEAPONS? 17.3% (33)

Nuclear explosions on foundation and thermate used on superstructure? 15.2% (29)

NIST's & 911 Commission's fire metal fatigue pancake theory? 9.4% (18)

Micro or mini nuclear explosions throughout including foundation? 4.2% (8)

Massive nuclear underground detonations that dissolved the towers? 2.6% (5)

Blank (View Results)(34)

Non-Blank Votes: 191

Tazmanian said:

Fire and demolition are not the only theories out there. Feel free to research if you're interested.

Click to expand...

Why are truthers so coy? What are you getting at?

Is it. . . . dustification from a directed energy weapon? If not, please do not simply say "no". What is your destructive weapon of choice on 9/11?

JRBids said:

Why are truthers so coy? What are you getting at?

Is it. . . . dustification from a directed energy weapon? If not, please do not simply say "no". What is your destructive weapon of choice on 9/11?

Click to expand...

IMO . . . because it was technology beyond what is generally known . . . if it was used . . . so it is difficult to know what to suggest . . .

JRBids said:

Why are truthers so coy? What are you getting at?

Is it. . . . dustification from a directed energy weapon? If not, please do not simply say "no". What is your destructive weapon of choice on 9/11?

Click to expand...

Nothing coy about it.

The NIST report came out and said, "I can tell you it didn't happen from explosives."

Speaking on behalf of structural engineers, I can say, "It didn't happen from fire."

Perhaps it will take the next generation to unravel this mystery, I don't think it will happen on this forum.

Tazmanian said:

Speaking on behalf of structural engineers, I can say, "It didn't happen from fire."

Click to expand...

Why are you speaking on behalf of structural engineers? Are you one?

Tazmanian said:

Fire and demolition are not the only theories out there. Feel free to research if you're interested.

Click to expand...

I made it clear that I believed the conspiracy theories as a starting point. I don't wish to continue down that rabbit trail. Feel free to read the NIST report if you're interested in truth.

Mick said:

Why are you speaking on behalf of structural engineers? Are you one?

Click to expand...

I have the credentials to comment. Since I'm new here I don't know the area of expertise of other members. Is there anyone here with a basic knowledge of thermodynamics?