UA Anchorage releases the final report on WTC-7: Fires DID NOT cause the collapse

a reply to: Grenade

You

Buildings are designed to withstand forces and loads way beyond what was exerted on building 7 that day.

Care to cite sources.

For the WTC twin towers, the criticism is how cheap they were built using less concrete/lack of concrete columns beyond common practice. Joined with the towers were designed under 1938/1939 building codes. And the port authority was able to select what codes would be used from a 1968/1969 draft.

How many 1000 foot tall all steel buildings were built in 1938? Before 1968? To base actual working knowledge on.

Then you have the documented fire insulation deficiencies of the WTC.

So... WTC built with old fire codes with no working knowledge of 1000 foot tall all steel buildings. Buildings built as cheap as possible with no concrete cores that has saved other buildings during fires. With deficient fire insulation. With jet impacts knocking of fire insulation. And maybe the debris falling into WTC 7 damaging Insulation?

You might find this thread interesting...

Aircraft impact Design for Twin Towers

www.metabunk.org...

a reply to: neutronflux

The fact I never once mentioned the twin towers renders your last post pointless.

a reply to: Grenade

Provided more detail and background than you.

Let’s see, as a whole.

WTC all steel buildings. Check.

WTC building deficient fire insulation with events that knocked off fire protection on 9/11. Check. Why is fire insulation required for steel frame buildings?

WTC buildings built cheap as possible by minimizing concrete use, no concrete columns, no concrete cites. Items known to have saved other buildings during fires. Do you have contradictory information?

We haven’t even gotten to WTC 7 with uncommon, odd floor connection angles that may have not been adequately tested.

Do you know the top of WTC 5 had fire related steel failures and the collapse of floors related to fire?

WTC 5 - Local Collapse Mechanisms
Two areas in WTC 5 experienced local collapse under an intact portion of the roof. Although there was debris impact near this area, the symmetrical nature of the collapse strongly suggests that the failures were due to the uncontrolled fires. This is supported by the observation that the columns in this area remained straight and freestanding (see Figure 4-18). This local collapse appeared to have begun at the field connection where beams were connected to shop-fabricated beam stubs and column assemblies as illustrated in Figures 4-19, 4-20, and 4-21.

www.fema.gov...

Now. How were fire related failures impossible at the WTC? In WTC 7 hit by debris like WTC 5?

For WTC 7. If there was enough floor connection failures as witnessed in WTC 5 along say column 79 of WTC 7 resulting in lose of latter support, the column would buckle and start an Internal collapse......

a reply to: Grenade

Didn’t I ask you something?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Grenade

You

Buildings are designed to withstand forces and loads way beyond what was exerted on building 7 that day.

Care to cite sources

a reply to: neutronflux

External impacts would have no effect on load bearing structures.

I can only assume the buildings would have been designed to withstand office fires.

If not I’m never entering a steel framed structure ever again.

a reply to: neutronflux

“Factors contributing to WTC 7's collapse included: the thermal expansion of building elements such as floor beams and girders, which occurred at temperatures hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in current practice for fire-resistance ratings; significant magnification of thermal expansion effects due to the long-span floors in the building; connections between structural elements that were designed to resist the vertical forces of gravity, not the thermally induced horizontal or lateral loads; and an overall structural system not designed to prevent fire-induced progressive collapse.”

The building wasn’t designed to prevent fire induced progressive collapse.

Hence my questioning of its design and building contractors.

a reply to: Grenade

You

External impacts would have no effect on load bearing structures.

I would think that depends on if such impacts removed vertical columns and caused load redistribution. Or took out floor connections providing latter support for vertical columns.


Are those false statements?

a reply to: neutronflux

No, but according to the NIST report which you seem to hold as gospel the impacts had no structural impact on building 7.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: neutronflux

No, but according to the NIST report which you seem to hold as gospel the impacts had no structural impact on building 7.

I understand that.

But you said, “ External impacts would have no effect on load bearing structures.“

You didn’t say anything in the post I quoted concerning WTC 7. Is that false.

So. In the context of your blanket statement I asked:

I would think that depends on if such impacts removed vertical columns and caused load redistribution. Or took out floor connections providing latter support for vertical columns.


Are those false statements?


Now. Quote where I ever said NIST was gospel. So false argument by you.

In there is zero evidence of cut columns by pyrotechnics at the WTC to initiate collapse, fire related collapse is more probable.

Sorry. Unless you what to provide actual physical evidence the columns were cut from video, photographic, audio, seismic evidence?

a reply to: neutronflux

I thought it was obvious we were discussing building 7 due to the topic title. I’ll be more specific in future.

I don’t think I’ve ever said I think the columns were cut. You’re arguing with yourself.

To me the fires causing the collapse should have at the very least started legal proceedings against the building contractors and a full investigation into the design flaws which could have lead to such a scenario. I wouldn’t want to be living in a building that could completely collapse due to a few fires fuelled predominantly by office equipment.

a reply to: Grenade

You

It fell like a deck of cards in the wind. Not like a steel framed building with fires that had weakened some columns.

Shrugs...

Legal proceedings like this..,

Con Ed and Insurers Sue Port Authority Over 7 World Trade

www.nytimes.com...

Aegis Insurance Services, Inc. v. 7 World Trade Center Co., No. 11-4403 (2d Cir. 2013)

law.justia.com...

Justia Opinion Summary
7WTC stood on the northern edge of the World Trade Center site and as the North Tower collapsed on September 11, 2001, it damaged 7WTC. After burning for seven hours, 7WTC collapsed, destroying the electrical substation owned by Con Ed directly beneath the building. Con Ed, along with its insurers, filed suit against defendants, who designed, built, operated, and maintained 7WTC, alleging in relevant part that defendants' negligence caused the building to collapse. The court concluded that Con Ed failed to present evidence sufficient to raise a genuine issue of fact as to whether defendants' negligence was the cause-in-fact of Con Ed's injury. The court had little trouble concluding that the confluence of events that day demonstrated that 7WTC would have collapsed regardless of any negligence ascribed by plaintiffs' experts to the design and construction of 7WTC more than a decade earlier. It was simply incompatible with common sense and experience to hold that defendants were required to design and construct a building that would survive the events of September 11, 2001. Accordingly, the court affirmed the dismissal of the claims against defendants on this alternative ground.

a reply to: Grenade

I recently became aware of the statements of Rachel McIntosh regarding WTC 7 when she worked for a company that was doing modifications to the building during the administration of Giuliani.

If this link works, her account is extremely interesting.


drive.google.com...

a reply to: neutronflux

I would think that depends on if such impacts removed vertical columns and caused load redistribution. Or took out floor connections providing latter support for vertical columns.

All CORE WTC 7 columns remained intact despite the debris impact from WTC 1. Thus NIST had to apply "fire-induced progressive collapse" conclusion.

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux

I would think that depends on if such impacts removed vertical columns and caused load redistribution. Or took out floor connections providing latter support for vertical columns.

All CORE WTC 7 columns remained intact despite the debris impact from WTC 1. Thus NIST had to apply "fire-induced progressive collapse" conclusion.

That makes sense since there is zero evidence the WTC was brought down by planted pyrotechnics.

What now?

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux

I would think that depends on if such impacts removed vertical columns and caused load redistribution. Or took out floor connections providing latter support for vertical columns.

All CORE WTC 7 columns remained intact despite the debris impact from WTC 1. Thus NIST had to apply "fire-induced progressive collapse" conclusion.

So now NIST’s word on core columns is “gospel”. Or did NIST fail conservatively because there is no way to determine the extent of the damage from the twin towers debris. So another misguided argument by you?

a reply to: neutronflux

So another misguided argument by you?

I would mind you not to insinuate me(or other ATS members) with these kind of remarks.

a reply to: neutronflux

What now?

Free fall by "fire-induced progressive collapse".

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux

What now?

Free fall by "fire-induced progressive collapse".

Again. The whole argument...

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux

The building acted like a spring. This is cause for freefall?

Whole argument...

The facade initial downward movement was slower than the acceleration of gravity, so there is zero evidence over six hundred charges simultaneously and instantly removed the facade’s resistance.

The final stage of the facade downward movement was slower than the acceleration of free fall.

That leaves the stage of the facade collapse speed by best measures indicates acceleration was falser than gravity which supports the interior of WTC 7 collapsed first, placing strain like a spring on the faced. Not the Hulsey farce explain.

Sad conspiracists try to lie what the actual argument is. Cannot beat the logic, so lie and misrepresent the stated facts and arguments.

————-

Which is actually a moot point to an extent.

“Free fall” can be as simple as the exterior columns misalign and / or buckling from being overloaded by static and dynamic loads which caused them to offer negligible resistance.

So free fall is not really a smoking gun of controlled demolition. The smoking gun part is a lie pushed by the truth movement.

Proof of pyrotechnics cutting columns is proof of columns being cut by pyrotechnics.

“Free fall” can be from bucking columns offering negligible resistance from loads transferring to them from other parts of the building collapse. Or dynamic loading of sections of the building falling which were still attached to the facade. Like a 200 pound person can lift 200 pounds. But you place a person on a tall bridge. Something like 30 feet off the ground. To that person, tie a 15 foot rope around their waist with A 200 pound weight tied to the other end of the rope. If you throw the 200 pound weight off the bridge. The weight and rope will cause rapid acceleration of the person they are tied to once all the slack is gone out of the rope.

Now you have more context. Again...

The facade initially downward movement was slower than the acceleration of gravity, so there is zero evidence over six hundred charges simultaneously and instantly removed the facade’s resistance.

The final stage of the facade downward movement was slower than the acceleration of free fall.

That leaves the stage of the facade collapse speed by best measures indicates acceleration was falser than gravity which supports the interior of WTC 7 collapsed first, placing strain like a spring on the faced. Not the Hulsey farce explain.

Sad conspiracists try to lie what the actual argument is. Cannot best the logic, lie and misrepresent the stated facts and arguments.

a reply to: neutronflux

That leaves the stage of the facade collapse speed by best measures indicates acceleration was falser than gravity which supports the interior of WTC 7 collapsed first, placing strain like a spring on the faced. Not the Hulsey farce explain.

Just for clarification, what do you mean by "falser than gravity"?

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux

That leaves the stage of the facade collapse speed by best measures indicates acceleration was falser than gravity which supports the interior of WTC 7 collapsed first, placing strain like a spring on the faced. Not the Hulsey farce explain.

Just for clarification, what do you mean by "falser than gravity"?

By best measurements accelerate faster than acceleration by gravity.

Moot point. The conspiracy movement cannot even come up with a feasible explanation how a supposedly highly sophisticated ignition system over multiple floors maintained its integrity to accurate with split second timing through wide spread fires and building damage fro the twin towers.

The idea of Controlled Demolition was dead on arrival.

That. And zero of of pyrotechnics physically cutting steel columns.