The Uniqueness of the WTC7 Collapse

Josh Heuer

Active Member
HORRIFIC. Kind of like how the topic changed.
Explain to me, Mick West, how images of controlled demolitions have anything to do with wtc7 collapsing if it was caused by fire? I'm lost.
 

Leifer

Senior Member
HORRIFIC. Kind of like how the topic changed.
Explain to me, Mick West, how images of controlled demolitions have anything to do with wtc7 collapsing if it was caused by fire? I'm lost.
Controlled collapses have the main support structure blasted away.....this how all buildings typically are made to fall.
Just because WTC7 falls in a similar manner does not mean that there is a spooky story to it, it just collapsed how any building would collapse.
Certainly fire would/could be the impetus/reason of support failure.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member
Josh did you check out the link I posted? There is a lot of great information on why one should eliminate controlled demolition from the reasons the buildings fell.
 

Tazmanian

Account Closed
Lack of explosives and loud booms.....point to weakening by fire.
Can you please show an example of any other steel frame building in the history of mankind that collapsed after a fire? On any other day besides Sep 11?
 

Tazmanian

Account Closed
Josh did you check out the link I posted? There is a lot of great information on why one should eliminate controlled demolition from the reasons the buildings fell.


According to the link, the steel beams were not cut and there was no molten steel. How do you explain this?



See the molten steel where the cut was made?

More eye witness reports
http://911conspiracy.wordpress.com/2010/01/24/molten-steel-extreme-temperatures-at-wtc/

Liquid eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen and sulfur
what does your report say about that?

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Miss VocalCord

Active Member
Can you please show an example of any other steel frame building in the history of mankind that collapsed after a fire? On any other day besides Sep 11?
Yes, this building:

It is the Technical University Delft and also (partially) collapsed after a fire. It never got as hot to melt the steal, but it was hot enough to also let this build collapse:
The steel is melted? No, a good fire can be be 1200 degrees, but steel melt around 1500 degrees. For the weakening of the steel, it is not necessary to melt the microscopic changes which occur in the steel, such as the growth of the crystals steel, are sufficient to weaken the steel. In a very heavy fire, the temperature of the steel is so hot. above 720 degrees Celsius - that new steel crystals with a different crystal structure. This complicates the predictability of the behavior of steel during a fire. For sustained fire these crystals grow, with attenuation due. The higher the temperature, the more rapidly crystals will grow, and the easier it is to deform the steel.
http://translate.google.com/transla...ructie-bouwkunde-niet-gesmolten/17973&act=url
 

Josh Heuer

Active Member
Josh did you check out the link I posted? There is a lot of great information on why one should eliminate controlled demolition from the reasons the buildings fell.
I did. But that doesn't explain why mick would adhere to wtc7 building collapsing due to fire damage, and then show us pictures of buildings collapsing due to controlled demolition. These may produce similar results, but they're not the same. Apples and oranges. It's actually misleading.

Not to mention, the building you just showed, the technical college, only partially collapsed.
 

Leifer

Senior Member


According to the link, the steel beams were not cut and there was no molten steel. How do you explain this?



See the molten steel where the cut was made
Those beams were purposely cut during the demolition a day or so
after the fall.
Cutting at an angle like that allows the upper beam to "slide" off in a predictable manner, during demo.
This is old stuff.....and the pic has been explained several times.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Leifer

Senior Member
Can you please show an example of any other steel frame building in the history of mankind that collapsed after a fire? On any other day besides Sep 11?
You are asking for proof of something that has never happened before, therefore it "can't be real".
Similar claims are "no steel skyscraper has ever collapsed because of fire and being hit by a jet plane".
If there are no previous examples....it's just that there are no previous examples.........there is a first time for everything. "First times" are always to be expected.
Example....remember the first time you got laid ? Before that you were a virgin.....now that changed......you are no longer a virgin. This first time is not somehow impossible. The proof is because somehow it did change at a certain point/event.
 

Tazmanian

Account Closed
Those beams were purposely cut during the demolition a day or so
after the fall.
Cutting at an angle like that allows the upper beam to "slide" off in a predictable manner, during demo.
This is old stuff.....and the pic has been explained several times.

Since they were "supposedly" cut after the fall, there should be some evidence. Care to post a link? And since all of this has already been debunked, it shouldn't be a problem.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
WTC7 was a unique collapse. Nobody disputes that. But then it was a unique building + fire combination.

The question is what does that mean in terms of a possible conspiracy?
 

Tazmanian

Account Closed
You are asking for proof of something that has never happened before, therefore it "can't be real".
Similar claims are "no steel skyscraper has ever collapsed because of fire and being hit by a jet plane".
If there are no previous examples....it's just that there are no previous examples.........there is a first time for everything. "First times" are always to be expected.
Example....remember the first time you got laid ? Before that you were a virgin.....now that changed......you are no longer a virgin. This first time is not somehow impossible. The proof is because somehow it did change at a certain point/event.
Let's examint the possibility of something happening for the first time ever. Let's use your analogy of getting laid. Something led up to it. And even if it was a complete surprise to you, it wasn't a surprise to the other person. Another person had to be present. Then that person had to participate.

After the first time, it happened again, right?

Let's look at a steel building that completely collapsed after Sep 11.
 

Tazmanian

Account Closed
Asymmetric long spans with an exterior moment frame and seated interior angled connections.
So you're saying the people who designed the building were idiots? Perhaps. So after this extremely unique event, the building codes were changed to prevent some more idiots to build a building just like it. Right? Did they change the building codes 10 years later?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
So you're saying the people who designed the building were idiots? Perhaps. So after this extremely unique event, the building codes were changed to prevent some more idiots to build a building just like it. Right? Did they change the building codes 10 years later?

No they were not idiots, they just did not foresee this precise sequence of events. That's how building codes evolve. There's some disaster, then the code gets reformed. It happens after every major earthquake. There's an extensive discussion of the code issue here:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/wtc-were-the-buildings-up-to-code.1136/
 
Last edited:

Tazmanian

Account Closed
Please point to one building code that changed the structural design of a building. (Not fireproofing, not added stairs.) After all these years, this unique design must have been written out of the building code, right? Since it's so dangerous.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member
It is dangerous only if planes crash into them, the water mains are compromised and water is not available.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
And it's not even really that dangerous. Nobody died from the WTC7 collapse.

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

 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
And again
These are changes that have to do with evacuation. Where are the structural changes that would hold up a building?
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.
 

Tazmanian

Account Closed
And it's not even really that dangerous. Nobody died from the WTC7 collapse.

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

So based on these very serious recommendations, the industry professionals took them seriously, right? And they changed the structural codes, right? Or did they blow off this report as a bunch of baloney and go back to real science and engineering? Is that why they stand behind the original design and no changes have been made?

This is a serious question, I'm not claiming to know one way or the other.
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
Certainly fire would/could be the impetus/reason of support failure.
The way that NIST apparently simulated fires and thermal expansion to have enough imaginary expansion to create the observed collapse may indicate that's unlikely.

Note their unique simulation of failure due to thermal expansion:
Let us focus first on NIST’s statement that “the steel framing heated more quickly than the concrete slab.” How much more quickly? Even though this is presumably a scientific document, NIST provides no quantitative assessment. We need to know, however, what NIST had in mind. If its vague statement meant only that the steel heated up 0.5 percent more quickly than concrete, then the difference in the thermal expansion would be too trivial to have mentioned. But if NIST meant that steel heated up much more quickly—say 50 percent more quickly—this would imply, contrary to fact, that reinforced concrete would not be useful. But NIST’s report gives no figure. Nevertheless, NIST’s entire case for shear stud failure rests on its vague claim about differential thermal expansion, as the following statement illustrates:
Shear stud failures in WTC 7 were found to be primarily due to differential thermal expansion effects as the floor beams heated more quickly than the concrete slab.
(The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7: Why the Final Official Report about 9/11 is Unscientific and False by
David Ray Griffin)
Perhaps it's not the collapse of the WTC 7 that's unique. It looks just like many other implosions so that prima facie evidence might be a good place to begin any real investigation into it. Perhaps instead it is NIST's simulation of an investigation that is unique and not the event itself or the observations surrounding it.

Lack of explosives and loud booms.....point to weakening by fire.
There were explosions and loud booms widely reported.
 

Miss VocalCord

Active Member
Most of the building is still standing. How is this a comparison?
Because it is not the same building? A substantial portion of the building collapsed, the whole building had to be broken down after the fire. Now you are changing your request to "the whole building needs to be collapsed and it should look exactly the same as WTC7", while this is a perfect example that a steel frame building can collapse due to a "simple" fire.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Yes, this building:
It is the Technical University Delft and also (partially) collapsed after a fire. It never got as hot to melt the steal, but it was hot enough to also let this build collapse:

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=nl&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http://www.delta.tudelft.nl/artikel/staalconstructie-bouwkunde-niet-gesmolten/17973&act=url
Yes that is very interesting... seems we have a genuine partial collapse without the usual mitigating circumstances such as lightweight unprotected trusses etc.

They did an interesting report on it.

http://www.dr.dk/NR/rdonlyres/FECDDBA8-7428-460D-846F-0C3D424D3A81/2748348/Delft_brandrapport.pdf


Would have to remark that if 7 had collapsed in a similar manner, i.e. not straight down like a demolition...and there were not areas of extreme heat for months afterwards, the theory that it had been demolished would not be anywhere near as prevalent.
 

Josh Heuer

Active Member
Because it is not the same building? A substantial portion of the building collapsed, the whole building had to be broken down after the fire. Now you are changing your request to "the whole building needs to be collapsed and it should look exactly the same as WTC7", while this is a perfect example that a steel frame building can collapse due to a "simple" fire.
If, as has been said by you debunkers, that Wtc7 was a 'unique case' as it appears, then you really can't show us a video of another building not quite similar that only partially collapses and claim it's evidence of anything. You're contradicting yourself or just flat out showing us an irrelevant video. That, or the wtc7 collapse was NOT unique. Which is it? It can't be both.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member
The construction of WTC 7 was to a large part unique.

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/11-09-07/#feature

http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC STUDY 8-06 w clarif as of 9-8-06 .pdf

Read those two links and I think a lot of your questions should be answered.
 

Miss VocalCord

Active Member
If, as has been said by you debunkers, that Wtc7 was a 'unique case' as it appears, then you really can't show us a video of another building not quite similar that only partially collapses and claim it's evidence of anything. You're contradicting yourself or just flat out showing us an irrelevant video. That, or the wtc7 collapse was NOT unique. Which is it? It can't be both.
Oh yes it can, because you are twisting your own question, the fire and (partial) collapse of the Technical University in Delft shows it has happened on another day then September 11, and no the buildings aren't alike in a lot of ways, but that wasn't your original question.

You are the one changing the conditions after you have been proven wrong.
 

Josh Heuer

Active Member
I think you were directing that at someone else. Please reread the posts as well as the username of who posted what and then respond.

Thanks Cairenn, your links were helpful.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member
Josh, if I am addressing a person I will copy what I am replying to. You were one of several folks that mentioned the destruction of the buildings on 9/11 as being unique.

They were to a large extent, but much of that was due to a unique set of circumstances. The way the buildings were all built, the very unique construction of WTC 7 and fires burning uncontrolled, with no water available for them, not counting having buildings hit by fully loaded jets at high speed.
 

Josh Heuer

Active Member
Sorry, I should have specified...I was directing that at Miss VocalCord, they seemed to have me confused with someone else in the post above mine.

Anyway, those were very helpful links, I would recommend anyone check them out if they're unsure of anything as far as wtc7 is concerned.
 

jomper

Inactive Member
Certainly neither of those articles address the subject of this thread, which in itself a major reason why this event is a focus of attention for 9/11 skeptics -- and so can't really be said to contribute to the discussion of the topic at hand in any way.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member
So information that rules out a controlled demolition are not germane to this thread. Interesting.

One of those also rules out planted nukes, so that leaves ???? ?
 

jomper

Inactive Member
Oh, I'm sorry: I thought this thread was about the uniqueness of the WTC7 collapse, which I took to mean the unique way it collapsed as well as the unique fact of a steel-framed building's total collapse.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member
It was a UNIQUE situation also. Have you looked at how WTC7 was built? It


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center
 

jomper

Inactive Member
Amazing isn't it that Mayor Guiliani was so intensely stupid as to not only build New York's Emergency Operations Center next to the most obvious terrorist target in the city, but also to build it high up in a building so shakily constructed that office fires could cause it to fall straight down.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member
I thought we were discussing the uniqueness of the building and it's collapse. Not a red herring like 'why the Emergency offices' were there.

Can you offer evidence of another building that had Multiple fires in it, that were not able to be fought in any way?
 
Top