WTC 3 Parts of Structure still Standing. No Complete Collapse Despite Severe Damage

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by ANOK

 

Refresh my memory ANOK. How exactly was the WTC7 building designed? What damage did it inccur during the collapses? What damage did the fires do to the interior? what happened when the interior experienced internal failures from fire, which caused the structure to be collapsing for 18 seconds, before the hollow shell came down last? Hmm maybe that is how the exterior walls landed like that?

But then again, this is about WTC3 and not WTC7, so that is OT. Turbo here is a little confused about what constitutes as "still standing". Let's help him out first ok?

Regardless of the design, or how long the fires burned, it can not make it fall into its own footprint. How many times are you going to ask this? My answer is not going to change.

What 18 seconds? There is always a delay between the interior and the exterior collapse, this is how they get the outer walls to fall inwards, but it was no '18 seconds'. The chances that the interior could collapse in perfect sequence to allow all the outer walls to fall on top of the debris pile is ridiculously low...

Sometimes, though, a building is surrounded by structures that must be preserved. In this case, the blasters proceed with a true implosion, demolishing the building so that it collapses straight down into its own footprint (the total area at the base of the building). This feat requires such skill that only a handful of demolition companies in the world will attempt it.

science.howstuffworks.com...

Turbo is not confused YOU are, there is a HUGE difference between the post collapse of WTC 7 and WTC 3,4,5,6. The topic of the post IS about WTC 7, and why no other building collapsed the same way that had MORE damage.
If you can't see the difference between 7 and 3 then you shouldn't even be here trying to argue that we're wrong because you obviously have no idea what you're looking at.

There is NO building in ALL of history that collapsed from fire that ended up like WTC 7, even during the same event with numerous buildings involved in the same incident. Like all the other debunkers you seem to be visually challenged when it comes to photographic evidence, unless of course it comes from an OS supporter, or the NIST report.

reply to post by ANOK


As far as I know, only most of the building landed in the footprint. A good deal of it landed toward the South, muddled somewhat in the debris of WTC 1.

Also, seriously? "design doesn't matter," "fire doesn't matter"? What does matter? Something that depends on faith to really endorse? Honestly, 'looking' like it might be done by explosives doesn't make it explosives. You have to think about the other factors. AKA, the damage, the fire, and the time, the sequence of the collapse? I guess 1+1+1=C in a world where 3 kinda looks like a c when you cover half and turn your head upside-down.

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
reply to post by backinblack

 

The reason why WTC 3 did not fall is because it was not a target on 911. It was not hit by a plane and it wasnt built wtc tough. You truthers are grasping at straws.

Wtc 3 was pulled (by cables) down.

Sorry for the sarcasm. I had to answer like an ats debunker and I will tell you, I used no intelligence to respond. Debunkers got it easy.

edit on 26-1-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)

Oh ok, well usuing that logic neither was WTC7 a target, yet it collapsed from a little bit of debris, no where near what the Marriott withstood, and the fires were hardly raging or hot enough to contribute to it's collapse.

You are correct, you used zero intelligence to respond!

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by PersonalChoice
reply to post by turbofan

 

Not to mention, that even after another 110 story building collapses on top of it(wtc1). Wtc3 was still standing, being reduced to a four story building, but still not completely collapsing. A great picture of it, after having two 110 story buildings collapse on it, here:en.wikipedia.org... (second pic from the top)The building had 18 floors literally flattened by the second collapse, yet still withstood full collapse. Saving 14 peoples lives, who believe it or not, were actually in that building while it was crushed down to a 4 story building.

I guess though, when you think about it, that day, the large buildings crumbled like cards while small buildings like wtc3 and wtc4 were able to stand strong.

You contradicted yourself, truther.

How can over 80% of a building be crushed, killing 40 people; still be called "standing strong?"

WTC 4 was damaged beyone reapir and was torn down... how exactly were they standing strong?

edit on 26-1-2011 by Six Sigma because: (no reason given)

80% was not crushed, you can see what is left in the OP's picture. Use logic to determine how much is left, and if what is left is standing strong, then come back and try again...

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by VonDoomen

 

No really, the collapses happened very differently. It is only similar in that they did collapse.

As for why suffering less damage led to its collapse, as you've probably read, the official account is that the fires where they were led to the collapse, not the damage. The damage just allowed the near-symmetrical final collapse.

Let's do a role-call of the damage to the trade center. First off, there was a 10 story gouge off the corner of the building. Then, there was a 20 floor section of damaged building from the floor up in the center of the south side, according to an eyewitness account by firefighters. It was unfortunately obscured by the smoke of the fire, so no pictures exist of this damage. (but remember, no pictures or even direct eyewitness accounts of demolitions exist, so the fact that we have actual visual account of this damage is more credible than the sound of an explosion.) I recall there also being a smaller amount of damage near the roof of the building, but it was likely a lightweight projectile from the WTC 1's collapse.

Now, compare this to the design of say WTC 4. It was fortified after the '93 bombing and had a very different structural design since it was only 9 stories high. As a result, it was able to have much sturdier design mechanics. As such, it makes sense that it could take so much damage and remain standing. WTC 7 was a different scenario, a set of unfortunate circumstances that became more severe over the course of the day and eventually led to a complete global failure of the building. First the interior began collapsing, and then after the base blew out, the damage allowed a low-resistance fall that looks "similar" to a demolition, but is actually quite different in almost all regards.

I think you're missing the point, we are talking about WTC3 Marriott Hotel, not the WTC4?!

Originally posted by 4hero

80% was not crushed, you can see what is left in the OP's picture. Use logic to determine how much is left, and if what is left is standing strong, then come back and try again...

Seems like it is your mission to resurrect old threads.

WTC- 3 was the Marriott Hotel.

Question- 1: How many floors was it on September 10th 2001?
Question- 2: How many floors remained on September 12th 2001?

Answers:

1. 22
2. Only the south part of three stories of the building were still standing, all of which were gutted.

Do the math.

WTC- 4

Does this building look like it is "standing strong"?

reply to post by ANOK

There is NO building in ALL of history that collapsed from fire that ended up like WTC 7, even during the same event with numerous buildings involved in the same incident.

Uhhh didn't 1 & 2 end up looking like 7 in the end??