Fire caused global collapse in wtc7?

NO steel structure ANYWHERE, has ever had caused itself to have TOTAL GLOBAL COLLAPSE from fire....EVER...the TOY factory in China..did NOT have total global collapse

WTC...56 min after impact...self induced, symmetrical total global collapse pulverizing material, EVENLY distributing debris, some weighing as much as 200 tons , ejected at speeds of 70 mph, HORIZONTALLY into a 1400ft, debris field..OUTSIDE it's footprint

the NIST 7 report is a HYPOTHESIS...just like the reports on the towers are.....

HYPOTHESIS'S that go AGAINST supporting facts

Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600ºC Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250ºC:.Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250ºC.
NIST-1-3 p.xli,101,132


average temp of the steel they examined....450F

YouTube Link

reply to post by jprophet420

---

NIST report is a lie. There were bombs placed in all the WTC, they were demolish by demolitions. I do not need someone on a conspiracy site to tell me the WTC *just* fell down. Anyone watching the News on the morning of 911 “knows” they were witnessing “explosions” and there are many credible eyewitness accounts that went on record. The government in NY hid these records from the public until the New York Times filed a freedom of information act lawsuit and they won their lawsuit in 2005. The city of NY had to release all of these accounts that went on record. If it wasn’t true then, why did the city of NY go to great lengths to suppress the information in the first place? Maybe, because they are covering up the truth.



911review.com...




whatreallyhappened.com...


911review.org...



www.organicconsumers.org...


911review.com...

I find it amazing how the debunkers in here, always repeat the government story over and over like a broken record. There is not one shred of creditable sciences that supports the OS. Furthermore, if you want to cling to the NIST and 911 commission fairytale that has already been proven a lie then, you refuse to research the truth probably because of fear of finding out that a small group in our government and military did 911, (false flag operation.) This is nothing new; false flag operations have been going on since the dawn of time. Anyone who believe our government is “not corrupt” to the core over power and greed is in deep DENIL and is ignorant. No office firers brought those WTC down and it certainly didn’t bring those towers down at free fall speed, and science proves this.

why are people still debating this?
have you not seen the proof already? (from 2002)

YouTube Link

reply to post by impressme

---

They could have declared the building condemned and blasted it weeks later your saying it was a false flag come on you see the building was damaged it was on fire. At this point the foundation was shattered the building's south face was heavily damaged by debris, including damage to the southwest corner from the 8th to 18th floors, a large vertical gash on the center-bottom extending at least ten floors.

Funny thing is people keep saying fire caused this there were other factors were you aware that there was structural damage that caused the fires and the firefighters had no water pressure above the 10th floor. Do to a flaw in building design the sprinklers and water main had a manual electric pump which had no emergency power. Guess what no water there fore the fire burned uncontrolled.Even at say 450 degrees put steal in that for a couple of hours it will weaken steal,I cracked a steal shovel that way. Now as far as the report the reports are pure speculation based off engineers and sight observations.

Truth is the reports have to be wrong because no one has studied or recreated exactly what happened nor will they be able to without recreating the damage on a building which i find very unlikely.Whats that leave us with educated guesses personally i think the nist reports way underestimated temperatures for one because they treated the building as if it was empty which it wasn't. Next any large fire can have hot spots which can be several hundred degrees different. To say the temperature never went above any temperature is contradictory to how fires burn.

You didnt splain anything.
The only thing you convinced me of is that you want to believe in this controlled demolition conspiracy without any logical reason for it to have been necessary.

reply to post by dragonridr

---

They could have, but they didn’t did they.



Yes I am.



No, I don’t see WTC 7 was damaged and neither did anyone else. Yes it was on fire however, according to Barry Jennings as he was coming down from inside of WTC7 floor number eight exploded right out from under him, Barry claims he look out side a broken window and saw both WTC 1& 2 still standing. I believe that was a bomb that went off. There was no reason for WTC7 to be on firer at this time.


www.youtube.com...




This is disinformation at its best! You should stay away from those web sites.



Science has already disproved your conspiracy theory. In fact, if you want to convince anyone that 450 degrees heat melts steel, I like to see it.



Did any of the eyewitness talk about seeing a large gash, no. No one on ATS has ever been able to prove that this alleged gash was even created on WTC 7 from the WTC 2 falling on it. Furthmore, you are still clinging to fuzzy, hazy photos of shadows saying (look, I see something that is not there, I know it is a gash because the government tells me what I must see with my own eyes and I am “not aloud” to think for my self.) Yet even if you want to go by NIST fairytale report, they certainly did not claim the gash had anything to do with the demise of WTC 7 now, did they.

Demolition brought down all the WTC. We don’t need someone to tell us what an explosion looks like!



911review.com...

Debunkers always ignore evidences and scoffs at eyewitness accounts that doesn’t support their unproven beliefs, and debunkers will not discuss eyewitness account that discredit the OS.



[edit on 28-6-2009 by impressme]

[edit on 28-6-2009 by impressme]

reply to post by dragonridr

---

it is to laugh. you just will not get it will you. all three buildings were
demoed w/ people still inside w/ our gov.s full involvment of a false flag black op. as horrifying
as i guess that is for you. it's the truth i have known from day 1, and you will some day have to come to terms w/. mark my words.



[edit on 28-6-2009 by randyvs]

...spot fire....that consumes and moves on, just like 100 years of fire prevention in office buildings have shown...where is the inferno?
7 hours in which SOME ONE could have photographed or videotaped SOMETHING more than the SAME shot, (different angles), of fire coming out of 5 or 6 windows of the 6th floor, which later shots show it went out
How is this effecting ALL the vertical support so ALL the steel is conditioned with the SAME environment, to get the EVEN decent of the entire structure...are YOU going to tell me that COLD steel, offers NO MORE resistance that steel in an inferno for hours?...

why is the "foundation shattered"?...if YOU sit on a chair with one leg missing...what happens?......and why didn't the building fall in that direction?



I bake potato's in my oven at 450 for a longer time than the tower stood for...and I can do it again today...sorry 'bout your shovel

Now as far as the report the reports are pure speculation based off engineers(who ignore the BASICS of physics in lieu of an agenda) and sight observations....(and the fact that the story was already in place)



...the steel temps were ONE of the ONLY facts in the NIST report..

Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600ºC Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250ºC:.Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250ºC.
NIST-1-3 p.xli,101,132

no evidence the type of joining methods, materials, or welding procedures used was improper NIST 1-3 p.99

recovered bolts were stronger than typical. NIST 1-2 p.133

no core column examined showed temp. above 250C
NIST 1-3 p.95,101,132


just like UL testing of the floor assemblies, with a 450F hotter temp that was RECORDED in the steel, loaded with TWICE the weight that were known to be on the floors, for a LONGER duration that the towers stood for...NO FLOOR COLLAPSE FROM THE FIRES PRESENT THAT DAY.

Same spot fire?

Try this video from Steve Spak - shows WTC 7 (and WTC 6) from
various angles throughout the day

Red stone facing is South side of WTC 7 which took impact

Black stone facing is North side

Notice smoke pouring out of almost every floor on South side of WTC 7

www.911myths.com...

Funny thing is no matter how bad the fires were everything you cite can be said about another building that burned worse and didn't collapse. Some of them didn't have any water to put the fire out either.



911research.wtc7.net...

Same spot fire?

Try this video from Steve Spak - shows WTC 7 (and WTC 6) from
various angles throughout the day

Red stone facing is South side of WTC 7 which took impact

Black stone facing is North side

Notice smoke pouring out of almost every floor on South side of WTC 7

I think googling "Kevin Ryan 911 interviews" and checking some out is a real solid means of digesting 911-truther information.

The guy is technically intelligent. He has your stereotypical engineering temperament. Just a cautious, intelligent person who knows more than a thing or two about UL-qualified steel.

I saw one interview and in my opinion, he just totally blew up the orthodox position.

Just annihilated it.


o2

[edit on 1-7-2009 by o2bwise]

So far one person has come forth and said they believe it could have collapsed from fire. For this I star you good sir.

Any other takers? Its hard to come out and say it, isn't it?

Not so hard at all.

It's entirely possible that ANY building could fall from fire effects.

There's a reason why these effects are studied in the SE trade, and are attempted to be accounted for. There's also a reason that steel structures over I think 4 stories to have at least some sort of fire protection, or several modes of fire protection.

Nothing in a free market society is undertaken for a mere whim. There's always a reason for it. Apparently, SE's and fire science engineers are convunced that buildings can indeed fail without these countermeasures.

The only thing that can be gleaned from the fact that a majority of buildings DON'T fail is because these SE's do a pretty good job.

So give them their props for that.

[edit on 6-7-2009 by Joey Canoli]

reply to post by o2bwise

---

You do realize he was in the water testing area right?

At the very least this is unprecedented in SE. So yeah, I give them their props, and all kinds of SE's say this deserves a better investigation.

So if there was nothing else involved with 911 besides building 7 catching on fire and collapsing, it would be 1 unprecedented event in SE history. It would deserve a closer look under JUST those circumstances. Under the circumstances of 911 I feel that if you cant at least admit there were many anomalies and inconsistencies then you aren't being serious whatsoever. I also believe that if you just blindly follow either side you are not being serious either.

So if there are structural engineers for and against the OS (and of course there are), I can see how someone could come to a conclusion on either side of the fence. However, any person that comes to a conclusion based on anything but unbiased evaluation , IMHO, will certainly come to the conclusion that at the very least the investigation is inconclusive. The investigation is self admittedly inconclusive for the record.

well you see that just it... they say these things and then the people eat it up like it was 5 star gospel... and well, show me one fire that caused steel to fail... normal conditions.... and what they dont want you to know is.... WTC7 fell into its basement.... it was a total demolition... impossible ...
words mis lead, evidence mounts that wtc7 was a demo job... no other explanation can be obtained... that does not include the use of explosives.

[edit on 8-7-2009 by BornPatriot]

This is what I find confusing about those on your side of the fence.

You acknowledge that fire effects are studied, and mitigated against by SE's and fire engineers.

Then 7's collapse is studied by these SE's and FE's, and give their best reason why it fell, using every tool available to them. The vast majority of these professionals accept what is said.

And yet, because a few SE's and/or FE's have some complaint about it - even though they admittedly don't have access to the tools used - this is cause to believe another investigation is needed.

So here's the rub: you accept that they're good at their job, and yet also question the quality of their work at the same time. Well, the opposite could certainly be said of those that call for a new investigation then. That is, if the guys that had access to all the info/tools didn't do a good job, then how did the questioners come to their conclusion when they have even less info?

It's a double edged sword - if you question one group, whether it be because you believe them to be incompetent or that they're politically motivated, then the exact same can be said of those doing any questioning.

The only way that I can see out of this quandry is to rely on a consensus among SE's and FE's. And the vast majority see no problem.

This alone is enough to prove you have not actually read the NIST report in depth or understood their conclusions.

This claim you will find repeated on many conspiracy websites throughout the internet, but it is completely ignorant of what NIST was testing, or what actually occured in the floor tests.

How can you expect to argue against the 'official story', when you have not even read the 'official story' well enough to understand it?