Fully-Involved Fire Does NOT Cause WTC Complex Building to Collapse

Originally posted by talisman
The taller the building, the much much more it is over designed for events such as uncontrolled fire and even damage.

Also, the main thing that people aren't getting (official believers) is that fire stays the same while steel columns and bracing etc. get larger as the building is bigger. Which means more of a heat sink.

Right,

So are you trying to get us to believe that the building was designed to withstand being hit by one of the Towers, burn for hours and still survive?

I don't suppose you have anything to back this up?


Or maybe someone has some positive evidence for explosives?

If there are people out there who believe that asking for evidence is some sort of tactic, well its no wonder these bomb theories are believed by so many people.



There is no evidence for bombs and there is no reasonable explanation as to why bombs would even be used, and yet so many cling to this pseudoscience.

[edit on 7-3-2007 by LeftBehind]

And once again we completely ignore the words of the FDNY that day in regards to WTC 7........

Numerous members of the FDNY have given interviews about the damage and fires they witnessed in WTC 7 that day. They have spoken about how everybody was staying away from it because they were sure it was going to collapse from the damage/fires.

On the other hand, WTC 5 wasnt in danger of collapse (according to those same firemen) so why WOULDNT they aim their hoses at it?

I think if a fireman said it was raining, you would believe him.

One person said WTC7 was fully involved. That man made an idiotic statement. Hero or not, he had his head up his ass, or was confused as to what he was talking about. Maybe he thought Building 5 was Building 7. Building 5 actually was fully involved.

Update: The US Government’s Usage of Atomic Bombs - Domestic - WTC
By Ed Ward, MD

www.thepriceofliberty.org...

LeftBehind

The Empire State Building was hit by a B-25 bomber and caught a huge fire, damage and fires didn't bring down the Empire State Building, earlier on we were shown a FULLY INVOLVED FIRE that didn't bring down another building.

You make it sound like the Towers fell right ontop of Building 7. Obviously the building was still standing after any impact.

So you have to look elsewhere for an explanation. Since The fire couldn't be hot enough, and since the building fell in a freefall.

Explain what moved out the mass below in order for the mass above to come down so quickly??

Explain how ALL THE SUPPORTS GAVE WAY ALL at the same time?

This is a ridiculous discussion, there is no debate here.

IT is self-evident the event explains itself.

The Main Structure falls in 6.5 seconds,(not talking about penthouse or windows, or a picture on the wall) the MAIN STRUCTURE FALLS IN 6.5 seconds down toward its footprint!!

Again your ignoring the redundancy of the building, YOU HAVE to factor that into the equation.

It was designed for a horrible event, that is why there was a BUNKER THERE.

I would offer a logical educated bet that we are not even told to what extent the redundancy went due to the fact there were some clients in there like the CIA.

We do know that the buidling was a *BUILDING WITHIN A BUILDING*, it was a super-structure.

IF ORDINARY buidlings that day survived a lot worse from the towers then I think it is reasonable to conclude so should have 7.

When you put it together the whole Building 7 is the nail in the coffin. Sorry but no-one is offering a meaningful excuse as to why that building did what it did.

I find to many people are just letting the Freefall just pass by like a breeze on a fine day.

The Freefall speed is a very important thing to consider, explosives answer the question to where the mass below went in order for the mass above to fall at the rate it did.

When you add, that someone said on tape 'Keep your eye on that building its about to blow'.

How in the world would anyone know that?

If it is a random fire, you can't possibly KNOW the minute its about to blow up, due to the fact its random! It might burn for hours more.

You connect the dots and the collapse is a very simple thing.





[edit on 8-3-2007 by talisman]

Originally posted by LeftBehind
So are you trying to get us to believe that the building was designed to withstand being hit by one of the Towers, burn for hours and still survive?

Yes. Look at the new videos being posted here. The exterior walls were cross braced to the umpteenth degree.

I don't suppose you have anything to back this up?

I don't suppose YOU have anything to back up your theory either. Even NIST is having trouble figuring it out without the use of other forces.

Or maybe someone has some positive evidence for explosives?

AGAIN? How many times are you going to say this. If anyone is a shill, it's you LeftBehind. Where in Maryland do you work again? It's not at the George Bush Center for Intellegence is it?

If there are people out there who believe that asking for evidence is some sort of tactic, well its no wonder these bomb theories are believed by so many people.

Ummm.....how about giving evidence to back YOUR theory? Give us the calculations, models etc. Even NIST couldn't get the trusses to fail with fires that were HOTTER and LONGER than what happened in NY.

There is no evidence for bombs and there is no reasonable explanation as to why bombs would even be used, and yet so many cling to this pseudoscience.

Want to talk about pseudoscience? How about performing tests that verify the trusses wouldn't collapse but then turn around and conclude that this is what happened? Why don't you put the official story under the microscope as much as you do conspiracy theories? Unless you're not paid for that.


[edit on 3/8/2007 by Griff]

LeftBehind,

Why don't you refute this?

This doesn't make a difference. Ultimate shear, stress, strength in design would be relative to the floors and such. Meaning that beams, columns, composite flooring etc. would be designed for the ultimate allowable shear, stress, strength ect. It doesn't change with the weight, size of the steel etc. What governs design is the allowable shear, stress, bending, buckling ect.

To further illustrate, say the design allowable strength is 50. A smaller building with less weight would have smaller steel members because the weight would produce smaller stresses. Now, say a larger building has an allowable strength of 50. The more weight will produce more stress, so you need to have bigger members to deal with that stress. But the bottom line is that the allowable strengths, stresses, bending moment etc. would be the same for both buildings (from some code like the BOCA). So, therefore, having the same allowable and ultimate strength would produce the same situation relatively.

Instead of asking for the strawman of evidence of explosives. Let's talk science and physics for once instead of men made of straw. Or don't you get paid to think?

Or maybe someone has some positive evidence for explosives?

Here is some evidence of explosives!

Prof. Steven Jones, who conducted his PhD research at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center and post-doctoral research at Cornell University and the Los Alamos Meson Physics Facility, has analyised materials from WTC and has detected the existence of thermate, used for "cutting" the steel support columns, as evident in the photo below.

portland.indymedia.org...

Then you have the issue of molten steel found under the rubble of WTC 1,2 &7 when a NIST engineer said the fires in WTC 1,2 & 7 were not hot enough
to melt steel.

If the fires were not hot enoght to melt steel according to a NIST engineer then what caused the molten steel that was found?

Could it have been an explosive like thermate that caused the molten steel?

video.google.com...

Originally posted by etshrtslr
Here is some evidence of explosives!

I'm not so sure that is evidence of thermate. It looks more like an acetalene (sp?) torch cut it. You can see the grooves.

Although, then you have to ask, what about the worker to the left of that column. It appears that he is about the same level as the debris around that column. If he were to stand, that would put his head a couple feet below the top of the cut. Why would someone cut it so high?

What is interesting about that photo are the columns in the background. The one to the very left, you can see where the concrete has spalled off. Now, the question becomes, how does concrete reinforced steel loose structural integrity due to fire? In less than 2 hours no less.

And even more important is that NIST makes us believe that the columns were steel alone. Why?

for what its worth, ive shown close ups of that pic to a friend of mine who is an industrial welder who does large steel buildings. i didnt tell him where it was from or what anyone thought may have cut it and simply asked him "look at this pic, how was it cut?" and he told me oxyacetalyne torch, then went on to detail about the grooves, the slag and even the angle the guy held his torch at.

but dont take my word (my friends word through me?) go find yourself a welding contractor and ask him the same thing.

simple

BSB great thread and great questions as always. even if i disagree with you on many things i respect your opinions and admire the work you put into your threads.

Kudos

Dude... That was cut with a torch. Trust me. I've cut steel with one about a million times. When you cut thick plate steel, it looks JUST like that.

Not to mention... Don't think if that WAS evidence of explosives or thermite, that somebody might have noticed it--as obvious as it appears to be in that picture?

They didn't, though, because it's only evidence of a cutting torch.

Here is a picture of a cutter charge being placed on a steel beam for demolition.

Notice the angle its being placed at.

Originally posted by etshrtslr



Here is a picture of a cutter charge being placed on a steel beam for demolition.

Notice the angle its being placed at.

Dude... Oy.

The angle doesn't prove anything. The reason they put the charge at an angle like that (AND cut the steel beams at an angle with the cutting torch) is so that it will slide off. If they did it horizontally, the steel beam would just sit back down in place.

Besides which, look at the above picture that's supposedly "proof" of explosives.

An explosive charge doesn't leave metal slag pooling all over it like that. It breaks the steel with force. There's heat, but it's too quick to melt steel like that.

[edit on 12-3-2007 by whiterabbit]

Originally posted by whiterabbit
An explosive charge doesn't leave metal slag pooling all over it like that. It breaks the steel with force. There's heat, but it's too quick to melt steel like that.

[edit on 12-3-2007 by whiterabbit]

Unless its a thermite beam cutter.

Has anyone ever compared what a torch-cut column looks like versus what a thermite-cut column looks like?

Just curious. If they look the same then you're all reaching erroneous conclusions and have no idea.

If no explosives were used in the demolition of WTC 1,2 &7 then what caused the molten steel weeks after 9-11?



Then you have a NIST engineer saying the fires from WTC 1,2 &7 were not hot enough to melt steel!

video.google.com...

I have asked this question before and I will ask it again.

If you have proof of molten steel recovered from WTC 1,2 &7 weeks after 9-11 and a NIST engineer saying the fires in 1,2 & 7 were not hot enough to melt steel then you have visual evidence of cutter charges being used in a demolition being placed in a angle to what the steel beam being shown from the WTC site shows.

Then I think it is logical to ask the question what caused the molten steel beneath WTC 1,2&7 weeks after the buildings collapsed?

www.whatreallyhappened.com...

www.whatreallyhappened.com...

What's more damning than NIST saying the fires didn't melt the steel (hypothetically some process after the actual collapses may have done this, though what that actual process was, no one will say!), is the fact that he says he has not seen the thermal imagery or ANY evidence of molten steel at Ground Zero -- EVER!

Separating the fires and the after-collapse molten steel is one thing, but denying the immense heat totally is quite another. This guy (the NIST engineer in question) apparently knows less of what happened at the WTC than most of us here.

This guy (the NIST engineer in question) apparently knows less of what happened at the WTC than most of us here.

I think thats why the NIST report does not address or answer any relevant or pertinent questions as to what caused the collapse of WTC 7 and more importantly why there was molten steel under the rubble of the WTC towers weeks after the collapse.

Originally posted by etshrtslr
If no explosives were used in the demolition of WTC 1,2 &7 then what caused the molten steel weeks after 9-11?

Explosives wouldn't cause that even if they HAD been used! Explosives discharge their force violently and quickly. If the tower had come down from explosives, there wouldn't be a smouldering steel and other metal underneath the rubble.

Do you understand? Molten steel at ground zero actually DISPROVES explosives.