Debunked: WTC7 vs. Chechnya's Tallest Building Fire (Grozny-City Complex)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
One of the more common pieces of evidence proposed for the "Controlled Demolition" theory of 9/11 is that World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC7) collapsed after burning for "only" seven hours, whereas other building fires have lasted longer, and those buildings did not collapse.

In every case though, either the buildings used as comparisons were very different to WTC7, or the circumstances were different. The suggestion keeps coming up though, and NIST answers it in their WTC7 FAQ, see #9 and #10:

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

The latest building to be used as a comparison is a 45 story building in Chechnya, the 'Grozny City', which supposedly burned for 29 hours, and yet did not collapse. Surely, the theorists cry, this is proof that WTC7 should not have collapsed?

Example comparison to WTC7:
http://www.activistpost.com/2013/04/chechnya-high-rise-burns-for-29-hours.html
[bunk]On April 3rd Chechnya’s tallest building, a luxury hotel, caught fire and burned for 29 hours before finally being put out. The building is completely destroyed; however, it did not collapse. This raises many questions as to how World Trade Center 7 could have collapsed on 9/11 with only small fires on a couple of floors[/bunk]



But no. Look at the above photo and you will immediately see that, unlike WTC7, what is burning is not the interior of the building, but just the facade. Like the paper burning off a Duraflame log.

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20130404/180433198.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/04/04/olympus-tower-fire-chechnya_n_3013735.html?just_reloaded=1
No only that, but the building only burned for 8 hours, not 29. Someone got their math wrong. It burned from shortly before 6PM on April 3rd to 1:30AM April 4th.
http://rt.com/news/chechnya-tallest-building-fire-280/
And that's just comparing the fires, you also need to look at the structure of the building, had the interior of the building been englufled in flame, then would it have collapsed? Probably not, because the building was of entirely different construction, short spans (a span is a floor or beam between columns), and a frame of reinforced concrete, not steel. Here's the building under construction:



(More photos: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1172223&page=3 )

Compare this with the steel frame of WTC7



All tall buildings are not the same. All fires are not the same. Just because one building burns and collapses it does not mean all buildings should collapse after burning, and vice-versa.

If you want to compare two different events, then you need to look at the differences, not just the similarities.
 
Last edited:

Alchemist

Banned
Banned
The core columns may not have been burning in Chechnya building... but they VERY MUCH were in this Mardrid building with flames shooting up into the sky yet the core columns remained as they were


 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The Madrid core was concrete. The steel portions of the top of the building collapsed.

You have to compare like with like. Other building that did not collapse were of different construction. The collapse of WTC7 was unprecedented.
 

Alchemist

Banned
Banned
You're right.. WTC 7 was 100% steel framed while Windsor was much WEAKER concrete framed.... yet you SEE how the CORE COLUMNS remained, right?





 
Last edited by a moderator:

Alchemist

Banned
Banned
Fire has NEVER in history caused STEEL CORE COLUMNS to fail simultaneously to bring the building down at almost no resistance through TONS of STEEL. Just like bullets never in history have been reported to have made turns in mid-air and reversing directions ;) Why must logic go out the window when we have to justify our conclusions to abide to official accounts?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Fire has NEVER in history caused STEEL CORE COLUMNS to fail simultaneously to bring the building down at almost no resistance through TONS of STEEL. Just like bullets never made turns in mid-air and reversed directions ;) Logic goes out the window when we have to justify our conclusions to abide to official accounts :)
You are vastly oversimplifying the issue. That's just an AE911 talking point. It's spin, not science.

And the building buckled at the bottom. The 40,000 tons of steel was what was doing the falling. The resistance was just the buckled exterior frame of the building. It's complicated. So it's easy to spin. The question here is if you are prepared to honestly examine the details?
 

Kidda

Member
NIST hase got it right in the #9 and #10 of the faq.
The problem is that people still do not understand, people who know nothing about structural engineering, mechanics and kinematics. The "experts that speak out" should surely know, but they do not explain.
I think I can add a bit more understanding for those who need it.
I was on floor 107 in the year 2000, and instead of looking outside wowing, in went to the exhibition corner as the only one. I looked, learned, absorbed and understood. I could "feel" this structure, but found no reason to use this at my office.

We, I, love to build in the good old fashioned way, the tree/branche priciple.
This gives a grid of columns that the Dutch are accustom to, they do not bounce against them.
Also, this grid gives us redundancy, the ability of a structure to reset, shift weight.
The outer walls can either carry loads ore just be curtain walls.

The designers of tubes move all inner columns of the tree/branche grid to the outside, leaving an empty box, but not that simple, I will not get into that one for now, just see it as an empty box.

Then, take an imaginairy knife and cut a piece vertically of a tree/branche strucure with a curtain wall, to find out that this can be done without loosing the entire structure.
Now, cut a piece vertically of them towers, (to make it more complicated, these were tubes in tubes) to find out that nothing will remain, there is no redundancy in the inside.
I understand that this example is a bit simple and therfore not meant for structural engineers.

What bothers me is the "experts" speaking out, comparing a tree/branch priciple with a tube principle, and being experts they must almost do this on purpose, in my opinion, otherwise they are no experts.

I have much to say about structural engineering principles, but I would suggest to absorb this first.


[edited to remove large quote]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The title suggest that it is debunked. However if you read it in detail only some differences are mentioned. The predictable good old "unique construction" arguments.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The title suggest that it is debunked. However if you read it in detail only some differences are mentioned. The predictable good old "unique construction" arguments.
No, it's debunked because, as the first reference states:
"It has completely destroyed the plastic trimming used on the building’s exterior, but the interior remained untouched."
 

Oystein

Senior Member
The title suggest that it is debunked. However if you read it in detail only some differences are mentioned. The predictable good old "unique construction" arguments.
Yes, good, and old.
Also, the predictable good old "different fire situation" argument.

Both are valid when truthers insinuate "this building burned and didn't collaspe THEREFORE WTC could not possibly have collapsed from fires" (or "...is highly unlikely to...")
 
What in the official report did convince you no secondary devices were used to bring the building down? The fires were very normal and moderate. No diesel inferno. Nothing more than normal moderate random office fires. The list of similarities with known CDs goes on and on and on. The list of similarities with known fire initiated collapses is shorter than the amount of controlled demolition experts that are convinced it was a CD.
 

Oystein

Senior Member
What in the official report did convince you no secondary devices were used to bring the building down?
The information that the null-hypothesis - fire-induced collapse as expected by the raking fire officers on the scene - is plausible. A specific scenario has been determined that is reasonably in line with all observations.

The fires were very normal and moderate. No diesel inferno. Nothing more than normal moderate random office fires.
The ranking fire officers on the scene clearly disagree with your deceptive description, which is an obvious denial of reality. Fires raging uncontrolled on 6 of 7 adjacent floors through acres of open office space are clearly, obviously FAR FAR beyond "normal" and "moderate". It was one of the largest, if not THE largest, office building fire in history.

The list of similarities with known CDs goes on and on and on.
With one very obvious difference: No CD devices going of as a serious of extremely, awesomely, insanely loud BANG BANG BANG BANG BANGs just before the onset of collapse.
NIST computed the sound effect of just one explosive device cutting one crucial column: It would have been MUCH louder than any other sound a mile away. There were several sound recording devices only half a mile away - they didn't pick up anything of the sort.
(And thermite/thermate is a fantasy, if not an outright hoax)

The list of similarities with known fire initiated collapses is shorter than the amount of controlled demolition experts that are convinced it was a CD.
Nonsense. Show me one video of a CD that doesn't have the extremely, awesomely, insanely loud BANG BANG BANG BANG BANGs absolutely and clearly dominating the sound track!
Every other fire-induced collapse however had fires. The null-hypothesis is thus "fire" - as clearly and obviously expected by the ranking fire officers on the scene.
 

Kidda

Member
What in the official report did convince you no secondary devices were used to bring the building down? The fires were very normal and moderate. No diesel inferno. Nothing more than normal moderate random office fires. The list of similarities with known CDs goes on and on and on. The list of similarities with known fire initiated collapses is shorter than the amount of controlled demolition experts that are convinced it was a CD.[/QUOTE
The fires were very normal and moderate?
Like the tourists and hotdog stand were still there?

Regarding WTC7 fires were reported on floors 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 19, 21, 22, 29 and 30, in 7 hours.
This is from real statements from real firemen, recorded on paper and audio, the over 500 statements still available on the New York Times, from a FOIA.
Also, whilst reading these statements, your scene of an ordinary day with an ordinary office fire douse not match.
Read it, get the picture of that scene on that day.
I asked Gage about this, and he knows, but hides it.
Go read.

This is just one of over 500, read it, your ordinary day and ordinary office fire:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110117.PDF
 
Last edited:

Kidda

Member
I wish to add that I was surprised that NIST even took the efford of explaining the collapse of WTC7, with the risk of getting it wrong, while it was so obvious and predicted, predicted in a timetable of 2,5hours. The building went monitored and movement was observed and recorded, this building was coming down, and no men in black are mentioned in the over 500 statements.
 
Last edited:

Kidda

Member
From a so called ordinary day with an ordinary small office fire:

Statement:
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

I find it hard to choose from all of these statements, they give me like a Dutch saying, a chunk in my throat, these guyes went through a lot.
I wish to add that no education in structural engineering is needed to understand that things did not go well fore those buildings(not just 7)
I confronted Gage with this at Brussels, and he confirmed his knowledge of this, but keeps on hiding it.
 
Last edited:
I'm not going to quote individual points properly this time, but the no Diesel theory is even an official NIST explanation. Why would someone reject that but accept the rest of it? A theory should be consistent. Doesn't it?

The testimonies about loud explosions are systematically ignored but they are there. There are probably no proper videos for the simple reason that nobody is going to record a building for hours. It was a short event. Just like the pentagon crash (in which a real plane simply crashed) you cannot expect that such an event is recorded properly. It is a matter of adding the parts. There were distinct explosions in the building. There are testimonies (even on video) about explosions and even video material about people using the words "will be brought down", "about to blow up" and a lot more. The Chandler video that Oy tried to debunk here and at the911forum and at ISF (but failed miserably) is an example of pre collapse sound. They might not be as loud as an official controlled demolition but that is easy to explain. Why do you think gangsters use dampers on their guns? If you assume bad guys are involved and are committing a crime they will by definition try to hide it unless you are a dumb criminal. Further the building was completely full and no material was removed, windows were not removed and RDX is a very loud explosive. This building turned from a strong solid structure into a loose building in a fraction of a second. I believe it was Frank Greening who calculated that all colums should fail within 0.1-0.2 seconds.
It should be a more gradual event just like the simulation shows. I think the demolition theory is a working alternative. It has of course pros and cons, but so has the fire theory.
 

Kidda

Member
I'm not going to quote individual points properly this time, but the no Diesel theory is even an official NIST explanation. Why would someone reject that but accept the rest of it? A theory should be consistent. Doesn't it?

The testimonies about loud explosions are systematically ignored but they are there. There are probably no proper videos for the simple reason that nobody is going to record a building for hours. It was a short event. Just like the pentagon crash (in which a real plane simply crashed) you cannot expect that such an event is recorded properly. It is a matter of adding the parts. There were distinct explosions in the building. There are testimonies (even on video) about explosions and even video material about people using the words "will be brought down", "about to blow up" and a lot more. The Chandler video that Oy tried to debunk here and at the911forum and at ISF (but failed miserably) is an example of pre collapse sound. They might not be as loud as an official controlled demolition but that is easy to explain. Why do you think gangsters use dampers on their guns? If you assume bad guys are involved and are committing a crime they will by definition try to hide it unless you are a dumb criminal. Further the building was completely full and no material was removed, windows were not removed and RDX is a very loud explosive. This building turned from a strong solid structure into a loose building in a fraction of a second. I believe it was Frank Greening who calculated that all colums should fail within 0.1-0.2 seconds.
It should be a more gradual event just like the simulation shows. I think the demolition theory is a working alternative. It has of course pros and cons, but so has the fire theory.
No one is hiding recorded explosions, they are all there, from 503 firemen, on the website of NYT, FOIA.
The problem with explosions is that it is just not possible to rule out the use of an explosive of some kind, and the exlposives gang cannot rule out a gas ore high voltage explosion, and there we are.
I can come up with several causes of the explosions that were really recorded, but ifs, maybies and could be's do not count.
What I did see is that none of the recorded explosions caused any of the buildings to come down.
I really don't know how to answer you, because I do not know what you know.
I suggest you get into this more refined, step by step.
Regards, Kidda
 

Kidda

Member
No one is hiding recorded explosions, they are all there, from 503 firemen, on the website of NYT, FOIA.
The problem with explosions is that it is just not possible to rule out the use of an explosive of some kind, and the exlposives gang cannot rule out a gas ore high voltage explosion, and there we are.
I can come up with several causes of the explosions that were really recorded, but ifs, maybies and could be's do not count.
What I did see is that none of the recorded explosions caused any of the buildings to come down.
I really don't know how to answer you, because I do not know what you know.
I suggest you get into this more refined, step by step.
Regards, Kidda
Drommelsboef, I give you a question I asked to Gage at Brussels, please answer.
The question:
Why should I as a European Engineer, bother with Amaricans blowing up one of their own empty buildings on a late afternoon?
Gage gave me the wrong answer
 

Kidda

Member
When I look at the topic, the comparisson of WTC7 with the topic building, and also the Dubai Torch, is debunked.
No comparisson what soever.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top