Delft University School of Architecture collapse from fire

there's probably quite a bit of molten steel under that fire damage too

9 I I - second line

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by jprophet420

 

Find better videos or do better research.

One little snippet from NIST about WTC 7

"The goal was to see if the loss of WTC 7’s Column 79—the structural component identified as the one whose failure on 9/11 started the progressive collapse—would still have led to a complete loss of the building if fire or damage from the falling debris of the nearby WTC 1 tower were not factors."

"if fire or DAMAGE from the falling debris of the nearby WTC 1 were not factors"

Throughout the report its mentioned that damage from WTC 1's collapse was a factor. Just as it states that absent the damage, the unchecked fires would have killed the building.

I'll reword it for 100% accuracy in regards to the NIST report. However before doing so I mentioned the NIST report and the laws of conservation of motion. You only mentioned the NIST report. What part of "a falling object takes the path of least resistance" do you disagree or agree with?

Reworded:

I know, but NIST did not find evidence of structural damage. If it had caused structural damage it would have effected the vector of the collapse. As we know from the videos the direction of the collapse was 90 degrees relative to the horizon. Had the building received structural damage to one side but not the other three, the collapse would have been somewhere between 89 and 0 degrees.

Thank you for correcting me.

reply to post by jprophet420

What part of "a falling object takes the path of least resistance" do you disagree or agree with?

I don't disagree with the statement. However, using it as a blanket statement to "prove" something about WTC 7, is stupid.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by jprophet420

 

What part of "a falling object takes the path of least resistance" do you disagree or agree with?

I don't disagree with the statement. However, using it as a blanket statement to "prove" something about WTC 7, is stupid.

No, its using physics to understand what happened.

I saw the collapse so I understand what happened. There was resistance slightly greater or equal to open air underneath the falling building.

Thus ruling out asymmetrical structural damage.

reply to post by jprophet420


And yet, the collapse was asymmetrical. The entire building didnt fall all at once. There was time between when the collapse started initially and when the first visual signs were observed.

i'm not sure what the problem is. all anyone has to do is look up some photos of hiroshima and nagasaki. or hell, any wartime photos of london or germany etc etc etc. buildings rarely completely collapse even when repeatedly bombed. up to and including nuclear bombs.

Originally posted by vipertech0596

And yet, the collapse was asymmetrical. The entire building didnt fall all at once. There was time between when the collapse started initially and when the first visual signs were observed.

No it wasn't, all three buildings fell at 90 degree angles, straight down.
WTC 7 outer walls ended up on top of the debris pile, there is only one way that can happen, the inner load bearing columns had to be removed first (penthouse kink) taking away the resistance from forcing the walls to fall outwards (the path of least resistance), allowing the wall to fall inwards. Classic controlled demolition.

See the outer walls sitting on top of the debris pile? If it was a natural collapse from fire that could not happen, the walls would have fell outwards, as the inner structure would not allow them to fall inwards, and without the correct timing of the collapse sequence it just wouldn't happen like a perfect controlled demolition.



A slight mess up and a controlled demolition will fail...

www.youtube.com...

And how do you know what was happening before anything was observed?

[edit on 6/23/2010 by ANOK]

Originally posted by ANOK

WTC 7 outer walls ended up on top of the debris pile, there is only one way that can happen,

You bet.

It fell assymetrically.


Gotta love it when truthers provide the evidence needed to debunk their statements.

reply to post by ANOK


You show a pic of the North wall drapped over the debris, not realizing that it indicates that a significant portion of the building was actively tilting to the south as it fell. Add to this that a portion of the building fell to the north and damaged the building at 30 West Broadway......in other words, the collapse of WTC 7 was anything BUT symmetrical.

A building made of steel can collapse,if low grade of steel used and building burns for many hours,comparing this to WTC like comparing apples with oranges,a terrible comparison OP

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by ANOK

 

You show a pic of the North wall drapped over the debris, not realizing that it indicates that a significant portion of the building was actively tilting to the south as it fell. Add to this that a portion of the building fell to the north and damaged the building at 30 West Broadway......in other words, the collapse of WTC 7 was anything BUT symmetrical.

In the context of a 48 story building it was symmetrical. So what if it leaned slightly to the south, have you looked at controlled demo's, most of them lean slightly when they collapse, no controlled demo of a buildings that tall will be perfect. Most of the buildings vector was 90D to the ground through the path of most resistance, majority of the building fell into it's footprint. Naturally collapsing buildings do not land in their footprint, or for that matter completely globally collapse.

Show me ONE tall high rise building that fell from it's own weight and looked like WTC 7 when it was done, go ahead and find one, I'll not be holding my breath.

I can show you what happens when a controlled demo goes wrong...
www.youtube.com...

And you're trying to tell me a natural uncontrolled collapse is going to create an almost perfect pile of debris that doesn't cause massive damage to buildings around it? C'mon get real...

www.youtube.com...

How could they have done a better job?

There are more than a few fishy things with the whole event as a chain reaction, so is it so surprising that maybe 9/11 was planned? Its funny how quickly we all jumped into war right after the event and then all of a sudden you never heard about Bin Ladin any more and it was all about Saddam Hussien and we never heard about Bin Ladin again and now its a general "War on Terror" that is allowing the government to pass outragous laws...The entire thing was bull and here we are nit picking like were all structual engineers.

Even if 9/11 wasent planned and the official story is correct, the government used it and took full advantage to do everything they wanted to do...so they might as well have done it anyway.

We were all played and are still being played no matter how you look at it.

reply to post by IvanObanion


That logic is too simple. You need official government sanctioned sources in order for trusters to take you seriously. And even then if it blows a hole in their beleifs then we must have taken it out of context.

Has NIST examined any of these so called partially collapsed war time buildings, No. Therefore as a patriotic american I will not beleive you (even if you have photographic evidence, most likely photoshoped, cause people who don't trust the government cheat and lie whereas the government never does). I will only beleive it if the established channels tell me what you say is true. Until then I shall call you names and ignore your simple logic.

LOL buildings still standing after being bombed. Get outa here, maybe fire wasn't hot enough back in those days to cause buildings to crumble to the ground like houses of cards. Technology has come a long way you know. LOL

Why is this old, debunked thread resurrected?

reply to post by thedman



according to the findings of NIST and their...'HYPOTHESIS', which MUST be based on the ORDINARY HYDROCARBON FIRES that WTC7 experienced...the ENTIRE structure should have had a free fall ACCELERATED SYMMETRICAL total global unified collapse...THROUGH itself.

why didn't that happen?

what a pathetic attempt....talk about GRASPING at straws

Originally posted by AquariusDescending
In the OP you said the building collapsed from fire, but in your article it says the building had to be demolished after the fire. Good to see we still have the same caliber of brilliant minds here defending the official story. The failures were nothing alike.

The picture speaks for itself, as others have said. To look at the damage done to that building and stretch it into a justification of what happened to the Twin Towers and WTC7 is almost as pathetic as people denying the fact that WTC7 fell straight down into its own footprint, another issue that is cleared up with a moment's glance at photos and videos.

How long before the "well it didn't just get hit with a 100 some ton plane carrying a lot of fuel!"

I don't know, but if that's the excuse for the vast differences in these two cases, the OP shouldn't have even made this thread in the first place. A total failure.



The First Interstate Bank fire is a much better comparison.

But can anyone guess why the "debunkers" are allergic to this comparison, even though the structures are much more similar (notice the core structure and exterior columns), the fire lasted 3 hrs 40 min, four floors gutted and four more partially destroyed by fire?


(Because it didn't collapse. So it's automatically "apples and oranges."

)

Thats a good point. This is what was said about the fire.

* 1988 First Interstate Bank Building fire in Los Angeles:
Burned out of control for 3-1/2 hours
Gutted 4 floors of the 64-floor tower

"The Los Angeles fire was described as producing "no damage to the main structural members."

The total collapse of Building 7 is officially blamed on fires. This would be the first case in history in which fires alone were blamed for the total destruction of a steel-framed high-rise."

One thing many debunkers tend to overlook, before the steele columns begin to weaken enough to collapse, the goo inside has to be burned really crisp and start coming down. I am guessing a good part of the reaon most buildings did not collapse due to fire ist, that the building simply runs out of combustible. You can calculate how much combustible material a building is composed of and build it accordingly, so that even if all of it is consumed by fire, the steel frame does not collapse.

What does a SIX story building need with a steel frame?

Believers need to come up with crap to rationalize their beliefs.

That one is old news anyway. People were using it as an excuse for 9/11 as soon as it happened.

Just because a building is modrn doesn't make it steel frame.

psik

Im amazed you're still bothering with this thedman, but guess the newbs havn't dealt with you before.
The building shown is standing. WTC7 was the same (no planes etc) but the whole thing collapsed. You forgot that difference!

reply to post by Cassius666


Why is "Truthers" only give you part of the story and a twisted part at that.....

Forgetting one thing - fire at FIRST INTERSTATE was FOUGHT sucessfully by 400 LA Firefighters !

BIG difference between letting a building burn all day and fighting the fire with hundreds of men

At WTC 7 there was no water, the collapse of WTC 1 & 2 had cut the mains - no water for the sprinklers to
suppress the fires, no water for the internal standpipes to get water to the fire floors

Debris from the collapse of WTC 1, which was 370 feet to the south, ignited fires on at least 10 floors in the building at its south and west faces. However, only the fires on some of the lower floors-7 through 9 and 11 through 13-burned out of control. These lower-floor fires-which spread and grew because the water supply to the automatic sprinkler system for these floors had failed-were similar to building fires experienced in other tall buildings. The primary and backup water supply to the sprinkler systems for the lower floors relied on the city's water supply, whose lines were damaged by the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2. These uncontrolled lower-floor fires eventually spread to the northeast part of WTC 7, where the building's collapse began.

No water = No Firefighting

FDNY commanders realized it be a losing proposition to try to fight the fires with no water . Why put your men
in danger for an empty building, especially when have search and rescue operations going on

Also at First Interstate - fire proofing on steel columns held the fire while it was fought

It was also shown that if fire protection to structural members is adequately designed and applied with quality control, fire damage to fire exposed members will be minimised and structural collapse can be prevented.

At WTC 7 the duration of the fires exceeded the lenght of time the fire proofing was rated

Yes because firefighters were all over wtc 1 and 2 then dead. Somehow that did not help any either.