Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by randomname
And here we have another example of someone that has missed out on some important details. WTC 7 was heavily damaged when WTC 1 collapsed.
Do you understand the laws of physics?
The damage to building 7 was on one side of the building at its base.
But yet the building collapsed symmetrically into its own footprint.
The completely bogus lie of an official storyline for towers 1 and 2 list the fact that it was the weight of the tops of buildings 1 and 2 collapsing
into the space left by the plane crash that created the momentum necessary for the "pancake theory" to begin escalation.
(It's all a crock and violates about every known law of physics, but just for delusional spits and giggles, let's assume that it actually happened
Well if the collapse of the tops of the towers into space created the momentum necessary for the pancake that happened in 1 and 2, but yet no plane
hit 7, then why did 7 pancake in the same way as 1 and 2?????
Hmmmmmm... I don't know. Let's see what the NIST has to say about it.
According to the NIST, despite 1 and 2 violating the laws of physics, so did 7.
Apparently "critical column 79" collapsed from thermal expansion and caused a cascading series of progressive failures from floor 13.
What exactly caused this thermal expansion... fires.
So you are trying to tell me that ONLY fires caused the collapse of WTC7?
No, that is what the NIST is trying to tell you.
Okay. It's a bunch of technical words, so it must be true.
You guys ever heard of the Cardington fire tests in England or the Broadgate fires?
link to source
On the 23rd June 1990 a fire developed in the partly completed fourteen storey building in the Broadgate development.
The fire lasted 4.5 hours including 2 hours where the fire exceeded 1000°C. The direct fire loss was in excess of (? million) however, only a
fraction of the cost (? million) represented structural frame and floor damage.
The major damage was to the building fabric as a result of smoke. Moreover, the structural repairs after the fire took only 30 days. The structure of
the building was a steel frame with composite steel deck concrete floors and was only partially protected at this stage of construction.
During and after the fire, despite large deflections in the elements exposed to fire, the structure behaved well and there was no collapse of any
of the columns, beams or floors.
Did we step through a time warp or something on 9/11 because just about every known law of physics was violated and building 7, a steel structure with
asbestos fire retardant on the steel beams, burned out of control and collapsed but yet numerous other steel structured buildings WITHOUT fire
protection have burned out of control and NOT collapsed.
As a matter of fact, 9/11 is the only time in the history of our planet when steel structured buildings have collapsed in the manner that they did,
unless of course we count controlled demolitions, but I am NOT saying that is what happened.
I don't know what happened, but I do know the official storyline is a load of bull.
The Cardington Fire Tests
link to source
In order to obtain a direct comparison with the standard fire test, the first test was carried out on a single unprotected beam and surrounding
area of slab. The results indicated that a failure deflection would have occurred at a temperature over 1000°C, far greater than the temperature of
700°C at which it would have failed if tested in isolation.
Further tests were carried out in compartments varying in size from 50m2 to 340m2 with fire loadings provided by gas, wooden cribs and standard office
furniture. Columns were protected but beams were not. Despite atmosphere temperatures of over 1200°C and temperatures on the unprotected steel
beams of 1100°C in the worst case, no structural collapse took place.
The official storyline on building 7 is a lie.
I don't know what really happened, but I can tell you FOR SURE that what the NIST says happened DID NOT HAPPEN.
And Penn and Teller are complete dooshes.
edit on 18/7/2012 by kyviecaldges because: (no reason given)