WTC 5 Damage vs WTC 7 Collapse

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
From: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/cr...-wtc7-report-uncovered.2332/page-6#post-68728

@Representative Press said:
I take it we are supposed to believe there is special significance to WTC 7? It isn't the only building which had a structural failure due to fire: "The major fire-induced collapse that occurred in WTC 5 involved the portion of the building that had Gerber framing (girder stubs welded to columns, and simply supported central girder spans with shear connections to the ends of the stubs (Figure 2)), but not other areas of the building where girders spanned the full distance between columns. This fact, and observations at the site suggesting that the failure was early in the fire, raised the possibility that this structure had a vulnerability that led to premature failure, perhaps during the heating phase of the fire." http://www.structuremag.org/article.aspx?articleID=525

In what way was WTC7's collapse symetrical? Chris Mohr explains in this video that it wasn't : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnoto0GyEkM

Could you please point out where the "The major fire-induced collapse that occurred in WTC 5 ", actually was as I can only see what appears to be collision induced collapse from WTC's 1 & 2 ejecta which huge chunks of, can clearly be seen at the collapse points?



Perhaps these collapsed sections had absolutely nothing to do with the raging fire and had 5 not been hit by debris would have been burned out but with minor or no collapse.

Even so, it is a testament to the robustness of 5 that a good 85 to 90%, (personal estimate) remained standing despite a protracted blazing inferno and multiple massive strikes.

And yet 7 is supposed to have collapsed completely from relatively small fires and minimal ejecta damage.



Result in total collapse

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jazzy

Closed Account
Well-done for the non-mention of the word "footprint". Well, you couldn't.

However the non-mention of the fact that WTC7 was five times higher than WTC5 removes my praise.

One can hardly compare the two. When WTC7 failed at the thirteenth floor, column 79 was carrying its proportion of the weight of thirty-three stories above it.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
That's been dealt with pretty comprehensively... and yes, i think it clearly was in it's own footprint as much as the laws of physics allow that to happen.
Only if by "within its own footprint" you mean "hitting the buildings across the street". That sort of "in it's own footprint" (C&P!).

I rather hoped you would come up with something useful, like pointing out the bits that were 'fire induced collapse'? But still, guess that is beyond you.
Yes, beyond me. I was only comparing the different loads they experienced, namely the thirty-three floors' worth of difference. A small point, I know, only important to engineers.

Strange! You didn't say that when RP was astroturfing a thread and he compared them. Wonder why?
I could have missed that. He probably was saying what I would have said, for he likes a bit of logic.
 

ColtCabana

Senior Member
I'm still wondering why and how these FDNY workers were incorrect (according to conspiracy theorists) about the magnitude of WTC7 fires. As much as they would like to think, we don't have pictures of every fire. Just because fires aren't raging outside the windows, doesn't mean they weren't raging inside the building. Again, that is information that the FDNY would know and information we would not. Rightfully so. But take a look at these quotes.

Link to FDNY testimony courtesy of The New York Times.

"with fires on almost every floor" - FDNY Lieutenant Robert Larocco
"fully involved in flames" - FDNY Lieutenant James McGlynn
"fire was going virtually on every floor" - FDNY Deputy Chief Nick Visconti
"When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories." - FDNY Assistant Chief Harry Myers
"Seven was free burning." - FDNY Captain Robert Sohmer

There are plenty more, but I will spare you.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
I quoted you from the thread that is about wtc7 jazzy, not this one.
Where you stated: "the fires in WTC5 were more intense than those in WTC7" in an effort to imply - whatever - ignoring the difference between NINE floors and FORTY-SEVEN floors.

I believe this thread has sprung from that one.
 
Last edited:

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Only if by "within its own footprint" you mean "hitting the buildings across the street". That sort of "in it's own footprint" (C&P!).

Be (deliberately?) obtuse if you wish but if anyone with any engineering experience and understanding of physics, examines the facts in the thread
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-wtc-towers-fell-in-their-own-footprints.1226/ and reads what I said "it clearly was in it's own footprint as much as the laws of physics allow that to happen", they can see that all I have said is the truth.

But perhaps you know better? Perhaps you have pictorial evidence of the collapse of a 50 storey building which defies the laws of physics and remains entirely within it's own footprint. If so please feel free to post it on the appropriate thread. :rolleyes:

Yes, beyond me. I was only comparing the different loads they experienced, namely the thirty-three floors' worth of difference. A small point, I know, only important to engineers.
So even you cannot attempt to show the 'fire induced collapsed sections'? Come on Jazzy, you are a lot more creative than that. It doesn't have to be logical. Any old nonsense will do. :( Come on, you can just accuse anyone who disagrees of being ignorant, like you normally do.

As an alleged engineer, (not related to anything to do with high rise building construction and collapse scenarios I might add), I would have thought you would have been better aware of the significance of the height in relation to likely collapse.

Buildings above ten floors have never completely collapsed due to fire, so it appears your attempt to compare apples and custard results in the high rise buildings being the proverbial apples, whilst the 1 to 10 storey buildings are the proverbial custard buildings. Hence the apples 1, 2 and 7 collapse as if they were demolished, (7 with hardly any visible fire) and yet the custard building, (5) which was an inferno remains standing. Interesting?

http://911debunkers.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/other-collapses-in-perspective_04.html

Here is 7 after the penthouse has gone and just a few seconds from being a small pile on the floor. Can anyone put their hand on their heart and lie straight faced that this "is a building that is fully involved in fire and collapsing chaotically"



Jazzy said:
One can hardly compare the two. When WTC7 failed at the thirteenth floor, column 79 was carrying its proportion of the weight of thirty-three stories above it

Oxy said:
Strange! You didn't say that when RP was astroturfing a thread and he compared them. Wonder why?

Jazzy replies:
I could have missed that. He probably was saying what I would have said, for he likes a bit of logic.

Yes it is on par with your historical logic processes. A 'debunker' logic? Change it to suit your position as required?

So on one thread it is perfectly valid, (according to you), to compare 5 and 7 to 'prove' :rolleyes: that 7 could have collapsed by fire as per the NIST flawed story;(by calling partial collapse of 5 by impact, "fire induced collapse"), but it is incomparable to use it to show, (much more rationally), that it is extremely unlikely that 7 could have collapsed like a demolition due to 'mostly non visible' fires and the alleged/theorised beam walking off a column support plate.

Well I must take my hat off to you for persistence, (far better than RP who appears to have legged it), but whilst it may be true that 'if you tell a lie often enough people will believe it', it doesn't work on everyone and in this case, most of the World see it for what it is... an out and out fabrication, which they cannot even release the data for because then everyone would see the Emperor has no clothes.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
"...because then everyone would see the Emperor has no clothes."
I think pretty much everyone is naked in this scenario Oxy.
No-one possesses the Special Robe of Omnipotent Insight.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
John85 How could the interior collapse in WTC7 Move West Without More Visible Exterior Damage 9/11 63
Mick West Some New-ish WTC7 Photos (and video?) Corner Damage 9/11 6
william wiley Does Damage to MH17 indicate or exclude a Particular Buk Launch Location? Flight MH17 662
HappyMonday Epoch Times' - 'Nervous-System Damage From the Sky' article Contrails and Chemtrails 4
Mick West Creating A Physical Model of the Initiation of the collapse of the World Trade Center Twin Towers 9/11 60
T Claim: Jim Hoffman's "9/11 progressive collapse challenge" can't be met 9/11 348
Mick West Toddbrook Dam Collapse, Whaley Bridge, UK Current Events 14
Mick West Explained: Flashes of Light During the World Trade Center Collapse 9/11 5
Mick West A wider perspective on the WTC7 collapse 9/11 2
C Goldman Sachs' plume of smoke during WTC2's collapse [Probably diesel generators starting] 9/11 31
Mick West Collapse of 12 Story Building in Miami Beach Current Events 3
Miss VocalCord São Paulo High Rise Fire and Collapse - Wilton Paes de Almeida Building Current Events 87
Tony Szamboti Sound Analysis of Plasco Collapse 9/11 45
Mick West WTC7 Smoke Movement Before and After Penthouse Collapse 9/11 7
Mick West Kai Kostack's WTC7 Collapse Simulation using BCB and Blender 9/11 10
Mick West Spillway Failure and Possible Collapse of Guajataca Dam, Puerto Rico Oroville Dam 5
benthamitemetric Atlanta I-85 Freeway Fire and Collapse - World Trade Center Comparisons 9/11 9
Mick West A virtual model illustrating some aspects of the collapse of the WTC Towers Tools for Investigating and Debunking 132
Mick West Debunked: FEMA Predicting ''Imminent Oroville Dam Collapse" Oroville Dam 0
Mick West AE911 Truth Forced to Claim Plasco Collapse is an Inside Job 9/11 336
Whitebeard Tehran Plasco Highrise Fire And Collapse - 9/11 WTC7, WTC1&2 Comparisons 9/11 84
Mick West How Buckling Led to "Free Fall" acceleration for part of WTC7's Collapse. 9/11 127
aka How does this Domino Tower Collapse relate to 9/11 Collapses 9/11 75
Mick West Towards A Replicable Physical Model Illustrating Aspects of the Collapse of The WTC Towers on 9/11 9/11 442
MikeG Debunked: The Baltic Dry Index as an indicator of economic collapse General Discussion 4
T How Does This Failed Demolition Relate to the Collapse of the WTC Towers? 9/11 14
trevor The pre-collapse inward bowing of WTC2 9/11 252
lemonlover Debunked: NIST's collapse theory contradicts Newton's Third Law of Motion 9/11 183
Guardian Society Collapse Imminent General Discussion 23
FuzzyUK "Geoengineering And The Collapse Of Earth 2014", a Dane Wigington presentation Contrails and Chemtrails 16
Jason Aluminum-Water Explosions Theory of Collapse, Christian Simensen 9/11 17
Mick West Photos of Street After Impact, Before Collapse, Possible Passport 9/11 15
Hitstirrer Kuttler's paper: Estimates for time to collapse of WTC1 9/11 262
Mick West What would a new WTC7 Collapse Investigation look like? 9/11 127
Alchemist Collapse of the Twin Towers 9/11 21
Josh Heuer The Uniqueness of the WTC7 Collapse 9/11 528
Oxymoron Discussion: 9/11 WTC: AE911's "Pyroclastic Flow" collapse dust clouds 9/11 16
Cairenn Colony collapse disorder and bee's diet Science and Pseudoscience 0
Grieves BBC's Jane Standley Premature reporting of the collapse of WTC 7 (Building 7) 9/11 13
Mick West Debunked: 9/11 WTC: AE911's "Pyroclastic Flow" collapse dust clouds 9/11 10
cheeple Global Economic Collapse coming and the Gold/silver rule Conspiracy Theories 32
lee h oswald 9/11: Is this photo consistent with a progressive collapse? 9/11 962
Related Articles










































Related Articles

Top