9/11 question about the support beams.

Gary Cook

Active Member
How did the office fires weaken the support beams on both buildings in a manner that they both fell and so fast? Plus how was building 7 damaged so bad that they had to 'pull' it?

I was told I could ask this question on the forum by admin on the FB page.

Did not think we was allowed to start threads that are question though?

I would not of guessed this question was allowed as a thread.

Ps: I would like verifiable evidence. Not regurgitated reports.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Have you read the NIST reports? They contains an explanation of how the fires affected the buildings. Maybe you could pick which bits you disagree with, and explain why?

https://www.metabunk.org/files/NIST-NCSTAR1-909017_unlocked.pdf
https://www.metabunk.org/files/NCSTAR_1-9_WTC7_unlocked.pdf

Threads should generally follow the posting guidelines. Perhaps you could read them, and then consider if there's any way your questions could be re-phrased to fit them?
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/posting-guidelines.2064/

And if not, why not? What is YOUR claim of evidence?

Building 7 was not "pulled", but there's not need to discuss that here. You can look that up, and join the appropriate threads if you like.
 
Last edited:

Josh Heuer

Active Member
I would suggest, if you're genuinely interested in finding out answers to these questions and similar ones regarding 9/11, you head to the 9/11 section of the boards and read some of the topics, especially ones that say 'Debunked: (claim) ' in the title. They're a good start to finding useful information and often contain links to reputable/credible sources that will be of benefit.
 

Gary Cook

Active Member
Thanks for the reply. Not that I agree with them completely. Has anybody seen a good breakdown of the main points in the NIST reports?

I am dyslexic so it's a hard read for me.

Thanks in advance.
 

Alhazred The Sane

Senior Member.
Thanks for the reply. Not that I agree with them completely. Has anybody seen a good breakdown of the main points in the NIST reports?

I am dyslexic so it's a hard read for me.

Thanks in advance.

It seems you're looking for someone to do the hard work for you, Gary. The NIST reports are available for you to examine at your leisure. They're in .pdf format so you can print them out, and highlight the bits you find interesting. For most particular points, you'll likely find a thread on here or on one of the other sites devoted specifically to debunking the various 911 theories, but with all of these you will still have to read. I'm not knocking dyslexia, but I've not encountered it as an excuse for not being able to read something that someone was really interested in.
 

Gary Cook

Active Member
It seems you're looking for someone to do the hard work for you, Gary. The NIST reports are available for you to examine at your leisure. They're in .pdf format so you can print them out, and highlight the bits you find interesting. For most particular points, you'll likely find a thread on here or on one of the other sites devoted specifically to debunking the various 911 theories, but with all of these you will still have to read. I'm not knocking dyslexia, but I've not encountered it as an excuse for not being able to read something that someone was really interested in.


You are just being rude. You are not an expert on learning difficulties obviously.
 

Alhazred The Sane

Senior Member.
You are just being rude. You are not an expert on learning difficulties obviously.

Not being rude at all. You're right though, I'm not an expert on learning disabilities. Although I'm getting to be one; my eldest nephew and my son are both dyslexic, and my sister has recently qualified as teacher for children with disabilities. You could say I'm familiar with the subject.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
If you don't know the official story, how do you know that it's wrong?

Gary you really need to ask more focussed questions, otherwise it will seem like you are just stirring.
 

Gary Cook

Active Member
People learn differently with all due respect. I learn better from having debates with people.

I dont think I am stirring. I dont want to be a trouble maker. I appreciate the forum. I dont feel as bad about the weird clouds in the sky now for example.

Although, I think some claims do not make any sense. It is hard for most people to absorb a lot of information when the first part of the information doesn't seem right.

For example the mainstream, as such, claim that building 7 fell almost instantly in practically its own footprint because of office fires, if I remember correctly. Instantly, I say, as in it took a while to begin to collapse but soon as it did it was near free-fall speed etc. There was like 40,000 tons of structural steel supporting it in there.

My questions are all about building 7. How did all that melt so fast?

How did the fire even reach the lower parts of structural steel?

Was it even hot enough being that they were basically just office fires?

In The NIST reports it doesnt say there was any recorded cause of the fires so surely they could of still been intentional?

Am I crazy for thinking that is at least slightly suspicious?

I am shocked at the NIST reports. Maybe its being a Brit but I thought it was supposed to of been a Police investigation. It just sounds to me like they already made up their minds and embellished the events to make it look convincing. Thats just opinion though of course and I do appreciate them being provided for me. Mick seems like a decent guy.

In the reports the supporting evidence is quite convincing in places. For example I didnt know there was so much fuel or the buildings were tubular steel and so forth but I still cant get my head around some of the claims I have mentioned above. That is on top of all the suspicious circumstances surrounding the event and the war afterwards etc but I wont make extra claims as I would have to spend week putting the evidence for the claims together.
 
Last edited:

Mumbles

Active Member
Although, I think some claims do not make any sense. It is hard for most people to absorb a lot of information when the first part of the information doesn't seem right.

For example the mainstream, as such, claim that building 7 fell almost instantly in practically its own footprint because of office fires, if I remember correctly. Instantly, I say, as in it took a while to begin to collapse but soon as it did it was near free-fall speed etc. There was like 40,000 tons of structural steel supporting it in there.

Fair enough, but there are a couple of not-quite facts you're referring to here. 7 WTC damaged nearby buildings such as Fiterman Hall as it fell, so the "practically its own footprint" assertion can be put aside, as it can for the Twin Towers. It just isn't true.
As for the speed, part of the collapse was at free-fall accelaration, but the entire collapse was not. Most video of the collapse does not show the entire sequence, which may explain why this myth arose. This video however does show almost all of the collapse as it happened:

[youtube]
My questions are all about building 7. How did all that melt so fast?

How did the fire even reach the lower parts of structural steel?

Was it even hot enough being that they were basically just office fires?

In The NIST reports it doesnt say there was any recorded cause of the fires so surely they could of still been intentional?

Melting isn't required, and it is another persistent myth that is seen a lot in discussing 9/11. Structural steel does not need to reach melting point to be weakened to the point it will buckle and risk failing. Office fires can easily achieve this, as examples like the Cardington Fire Tests demonstrate. The tests aren't fully comparable to the WTC, but the effect of fire on steel is obvious. Fires were started in 7 WTC across a number of floors by burning debris from 1 WTC which hit 7 during 1's collapse, tearing a multi-storey gash in 7 in the process (and further demolishing the "footprint" argument in the process).

Hopefully this answers some of your questions.
 

eline65

New Member
I know a comparison of paperclips to steel isn't a very good one, but I think it's a great illustration of how metals like steel and iron get weaker with friction and heat.
Like Mumbles said, the beams didn't need to melt to get week.
The paperclip experiment can illustrate this. Remember back in school, you'd trick your friends with a hot paperclip after bending, and re-bending the crap out of it? I also remember a point of which it got easier to bend the clip and it was getting hot at that time. As the friction made the paperclip hotter, the clip got weaker. Didn't need jet fuel to make it burn your buddies arm.

Now imagine the friction placed upon a steel beam caused by the stress from weight of the floors above, add a fire, and it gets much weaker. Just weak enough to warp, resulting in said fall.
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=151160
http://education.jlab.org/qa/meltingpoint_01.html
http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm
 

Gary Cook

Active Member
Fair enough, but there are a couple of not-quite facts you're referring to here. 7 WTC damaged nearby buildings such as Fiterman Hall as it fell, so the "practically its own footprint" assertion can be put aside, as it can for the Twin Towers. It just isn't true.
As for the speed, part of the collapse was at free-fall accelaration, but the entire collapse was not. Most video of the collapse does not show the entire sequence, which may explain why this myth arose. This video however does show almost all of the collapse as it happened:

[youtube]


Melting isn't required, and it is another persistent myth that is seen a lot in discussing 9/11. Structural steel does not need to reach melting point to be weakened to the point it will buckle and risk failing. Office fires can easily achieve this, as examples like the Cardington Fire Tests demonstrate. The tests aren't fully comparable to the WTC, but the effect of fire on steel is obvious. Fires were started in 7 WTC across a number of floors by burning debris from 1 WTC which hit 7 during 1's collapse, tearing a multi-storey gash in 7 in the process (and further demolishing the "footprint" argument in the process).

Hopefully this answers some of your questions.


It still doesn't make sense that it feel as quick as it did when it did., that just doesnt happen. Especially 3 times in one day. Find other videos like that from other fires?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
It still doesn't make sense that it feel as quick as it did when it did., that just doesnt happen. Especially 3 times in one day. Find other videos like that from other fires?

You need more specific objection here. What's physically impossible about what happened?
 

Gary Cook

Active Member
You need more specific objection here. What's physically impossible about what happened?

Sorry I appreciate the correction rather than a deletion. That's what upset me before.

I was fighting fire with fire so to speak.

I should of just asked if there are other videos that this has happened on other days and not made an opinionated statement.

I am open to the idea that the event was more natural so to speak than the classic "conspiracy theories" suggest but at the same time I have no faith in government at all.
 

Mumbles

Active Member
It still doesn't make sense that it feel as quick as it did when it did.,

Why not?

that just doesnt happen.

Why not?
Especially 3 times in one day.

Given the circumstances, why not?

Find other videos like that from other fires?

Is this a "pics or it didn't happen" argument?

Apologies if my replies sound facetious but you seem to be arguing from incredulity here rather than backing up your points with evidence. There are a number of factors unique to both the WTC and the events around it's destruction, and that means one must be wary of making comparisons to other events. What happened on 9/11 was unprecedented, but that doesn't mean it is impossible.
 

Gary Cook

Active Member
Why not?



Why not?


Given the circumstances, why not?



Is this a "pics or it didn't happen" argument?

Apologies if my replies sound facetious but you seem to be arguing from incredulity here rather than backing up your points with evidence. There are a number of factors unique to both the WTC and the events around it's destruction, and that means one must be wary of making comparisons to other events. What happened on 9/11 was unprecedented, but that doesn't mean it is impossible.


I trust my own eyes more than I trust the government.

Just because some people understand science more than me doesnt always mean there evidence is really evidence and not some corruption of facts. Some people are so smart they can convince one of pretty much anything whether it is true or not.

The so called evidence and facts in the NIST reports do not seem right to me but I do not have the resources to test them or prove my own theories so I guess in such a scientific debate I cant really make a point as I cant back it up.

Although, even the NIST reports admit they cant prove what happened to start the fires in building 7 and people can demonstrate what they think happened using their version of science but doesnt mean it did.

I have a learned things from this forum though. Like not to believe everything on the internets. People like me believe things because we dont like and do not think a rational healthy human being would.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
J A question about refraction Flat Earth 5
Stefan Leahu Question regarding distant lighthouses Flat Earth 31
TWCobra Very good question asked by Madison Star Moon Contrails and Chemtrails 27
TemplarJLS I have a question General Discussion 38
TWCobra A good (unintended) question from a chemtrail believer Contrails and Chemtrails 14
Qualiall Cockpit Flight Recorder question Flight MH370 12
derrick06 Random Question about Contrails/Aerodynamics Contrails and Chemtrails 4
Mick West MEP Robert Sturdy Tables Parliamentary Question on "Chemtrails" Contrails and Chemtrails 6
Lone Bison Contrail Question for Skeptics - What's the Effect of Contrails on Climate? Contrails and Chemtrails 233
Alchemist Outstanding Suspicious Backpack / Craft PMC question Boston Marathon Bombings 5
Mick West Brooks Agnew's Cloud Chamber HAARP Experiment on Joe Rogan's Question Everything HAARP 31
JRBids Question for the pilots here Contrails and Chemtrails 37
C Congressmanswife's question on chemtrails. Contrails and Chemtrails 10
Mick West Climate Scientist Alan Robock gets asked every chemtrail question in 11 minutes Contrails and Chemtrails 15
MikeC Live in a world free of Chemtrails - support Orgonite City Contrails and Chemtrails 2
Mick West HTTPS / SSL / IPv6 / SPDY support Site Feedback & News 9
Oxymoron Is The Rambles Section Really A Way of Hiding Threads Which Support CT's? Site Feedback & News 20
MikeC Video that does actually support hypothesis with evidence Contrails and Chemtrails 1
Mick West Added Latex Support Site Feedback & News 5
Mick West Added Gravatar Support Site Feedback & News 1
Mick West Purple UFOs/Beams in Arizona [Insects] UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 0
Mick West Debunked: Thermite Slag on WTC beams [Oxy Cutting Slag] 9/11 2
Mick West Why People are 'Suddenly' Seeing Strange Beams of Light Around the World - The Reddit Effect General Discussion 23
Steve Funk Beams of Light Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 6

Related Articles

Top