WTC-7 Mysteries FINALLY Solved.

a reply to: Korg Trinity

And once again your more than obvious attempt at baiting me has failed...

I wanted you to prove to us all that no explosions are heard nor seen in the video as WTC 7 collapsed, which proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that no demolition explosions brought down WTC 7 in that video.

I'm not going to point out something that is clearly not present within those videos.

Of course not, because you know there are no demolition explosions evident in the video as WTC 7 collapses.

In addition do you honestly think that the perpetrators did not try and disguise the facts or hide the evidence...

First of all, you have failed to provide a shred of proof of demolition explosives and secondly, no evidence of any kind was ever found in the rubble of the WTC buildings that indicated the use of demolition explosives. You can't plant explosives in a steel frame building and expect it to collapse without extensive gutting and structural pre-weakening. This is what it takes to drop a steel frame building.

What it Takes to Demolish a Steel Frame Building

The Bigger They Come, the Harder They Fall

The basic idea of explosive demolition is quite simple: If you remove the support structure of a building at a certain point, the section of the building above that point will fall down on the part of the building below that point. If this upper section is heavy enough, it will collide with the lower part with sufficient force to cause significant damage. The explosives are just the trigger for the demolition. It's gravity that brings the building down.

Demolishing steel columns is a bit more difficult, as the dense material is much stronger. For buildings with a steel support structure, blasters typically use the specialized explosive material cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine, called RDX for short. RDX-based explosive compounds expand at a very high rate of speed, up to 27,000 feet per second (8,230 meters per second). Instead of disintegrating the entire column, the concentrated, high-velocity pressure slices right through the steel, splitting it in half. Additionally, blasters may ignite dynamite on one side of the column to push it over in a particular direction.

To ignite both RDX and dynamite, you must apply a severe shock. In building demolition, blasters accomplish this with a blasting cap, a small amount of explosive material (called the primer charge) connected to some sort of fuse. The traditional fuse design is a long cord with explosive material inside. When you ignite one end of the cord, the explosive material inside it burns at a steady pace, and the flame travels down the cord to the detonator on the other end. When it reaches this point, it sets off the primary charge.

science.howstuffworks.com...

Before explosives are placed, a steel frame building must be gutted and structurally pre-weakened.

Let's continue.

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?

THE FIRE

The additional problem was distortion of the steel in the fire. The temperature of the fire was not uniform everywhere, and the temperature on the outside of the box columns was clearly

The temperature along the 18 m long joists was certainly not uniform. Given the thermal expansion of steel, a 150°C temperature difference from one location to another will produce yield-level residual stresses. This produced distortions in the slender structural steel, which resulted in buckling failures. Thus, the failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire.

THE COLLAPSE

Nearly every large building has a redundant design that allows for loss of one primary structural member, such as a column. However, when multiple members fail, the shifting loads eventually overstress the adjacent members and the collapse occurs like a row of dominoes falling down.

The perimeter tube design of the WTC was highly redundant. It survived the loss of several exterior columns due to aircraft impact, but the ensuing fire led to other steel failures. Many structural engineers believe that the weak points—the limiting factors on design allowables—were the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure (see Figure 5).

WTC Floor Joints

With a 700 Pa floor design allowable, each floor should have been able to support approximately 1,300 t beyond its own weight. The total weight of each tower was about 500,000 t.

www.tms.org...

The experts show where fire, not explosives, was responsible for the destruction of the WTC buildings.

a reply to: Korg Trinity

Let's have a closer look at these other buildings you claim as proof of other events like wt7

Let's do it.

Kader Building Collapse

* The Kader buildings,...collapsed relatively early in the fire because their structural steel supports lacked the fireproofing that would have allowed them to maintain their strength when exposed to high temperatures.

McCormick Center Roof Collapse

* he McCormick Center in Chicago and the Sight and Sound Theater in Pennsylvania are examples of steel structures collapsing. The theater was fire protected using drywall and spray on material. A high rise in Philly didn't collapse after a long fire but firefighters evacuated the building when a pancake structural collapse was considered likely. Other steel-framed buildings partially collapsed due fires one after only 20 minutes.

The steel framed McCormick Center was at the time the World's largest exhibition center. It like the WTC used long steel trusses to create a large open space without columns. Those trusses were unprotected but of course much of the WTC lost it's fire protection due to the impacts.

"As an example of the damaging effect of fire on steel, in 1967, the original heavy steel-constructed McCormick Place exhibition hall in Chicago collapsed only 30 minutes after the start of a small electrical fire."

debunking911.com...


"The unprotected steel roof trusses failed early on in the fire"

The McCormick Place fire "is significant because it illustrates the fact that steel-frame buildings can collapse as a result of exposure to fire.

Temperatures of 1000° F can cause buckling and temperatures of 1500° F can cause steel to lose strength and collapse. When the heat and hot gases reached the stage ceiling they extended horizontally into the auditorium, causing the roof to fail all the way to the lobby fire wall. The fire also extended horizontally from the stage to the elevated hallway, causing the structural steel to fail and buckle in the prop assembly and prop maintenance buildings

Once the heat of the fire caused the structural steel to fail in the storage area (aided by the damage to the sprayed-on fire protection during renovation), interior firefighting became too hazardous to continue.

debunking911.com...

If you still believe that fire cannot weaken steel structures, we can go here.

Overpass Near San Francisco Collapses After Fire

OAKLAND, Calif., April 29 — A fiery pre-dawn tanker truck accident caused the collapse of a heavily trafficked freeway overpass near downtown today, sending hundreds of feet of concrete crashing onto a highway below and hobbling a vital Bay Area interchange.

Mr. Kempton said the heat from the fireball had likely melted the steel girders and bolts that support the concrete roadway. “If you have that kind of heat, you’re going to have this kind of reaction,” he said. “We’re not surprised this happened.”

Photo of the Collapse

www.nytimes.com...

edit on 17-8-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)

Oh sure there are truthers who fake video. There are also people who fake videos with flashes to let the truthers think they are real. And if you believe in a CT and a CD then there are also people out that could hide sounds or fake stuff with Harley guys or other people. The Ashleigh Banfield video that Chandler uses is available from NBC and the internet archive. The pre collapse sound is hearable but a good analysis is not yet available on internet.

Futhermore wtc7 really fell with g and femr2 even measured a little over g with advanced pixel measurements. Even NIST mentions freefall.

Futhermore Verinage has been debunked already.

Is there no shred of evidence? I would say the physics is right before your eyes. Symmetrical, freefall and complete.
Proof of explosives? A collapse like wtc7 is of such a level that the question should be: Is it natural or was there human involvement? As Danny Jowenko (controlled demolition expert with 27 years of experience) said "This is work of men"

Wow the Delft building. I was there this year and they should know better and still 90% of the people I've seen there thought wtc7 was a CD. Do you know what the difference is with wtc7? First check out the pictures of the aftermath... A local collapse. There are even no testimonies of explosions.

a reply to: drommelsboef

I was there this year and they should know better and still 90% of the people I've seen there thought wtc7 was a CD.

Over 90% of the people there do not have the qualifications to know what happened.

a reply to: drommelsboef

Your post confuses me. You seem to be saying that you believe it was a controlled demolition, then in the last paragraph saying you don't.

a reply to: drommelsboef

Oh sure there are truthers who fake video. There are also people who fake videos with flashes to let the truthers think they are real.

Recently, a truther tried to use a hoaxed video of WTC 7 in order to support his claim for explosives.

And if you believe in a CT and a CD then there are also people out that could hide sounds or fake stuff with Harley guys or other people. The Ashleigh Banfield video that Chandler uses is available from NBC and the internet archive. The pre collapse sound is hearable but a good analysis is not yet available on internet.

demolition explosions make a lot of noise.

Futhermore wtc7 really fell with g and femr2 even measured a little over g with advanced pixel measurements. Even NIST mentions freefall.

Let's take a look because truther's tend to overlook certain things, such as the 17 seconds it took WTC 7 to fully collapse.

Futhermore Verinage has been debunked already.

The Verinage method proves that explosives are not required to demolish a building. In fact, you can even pull down steel frame buildings with a cable. Go to time line 1:45 in the following video to see how it is done.

Is there no shred of evidence?

That's right!

...I would say the physics is right before your eyes. Symmetrical, freefall and complete.

There are no explosions as WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 collapsed and the proof is in the videos. In fact, I challenge you to provide one single video that depicts demolition explosions during the collapse of any of the WTC buildings and I will even help you out with WTC 7.

Proof of explosives? A collapse like wtc7 is of such a level that the question should be: Is it natural or was there human involvement? As Danny Jowenko (controlled demolition expert with 27 years of experience) said "This is work of men"

Let's take a look at Danny Jowenko.

Jowenko Says The Towers Were Not Demolitions

No conspiracy theorist likes to quote Jowenko when it comes to the towers. He clearly sees that those building’s collapses started from the impact area. Nothing leads him to conclude that those buildings fell from controlled demolition using explosives,

Now, let's take a look at what other demolition experts have said.

Did experts on the scene think WTC 7 was a controlled demolition?

Whom should we ask to find out if WTC 7’s collapse resembled an explosive demolition? How about asking the explosive demolition experts who were on the scene on 9/11? Brent Blanchard of Protec:

"Several demolition teams had reached Ground Zero by 3:00 pm on 9/11, and these individuals witnessed the collapse of WTC 7 from within a few hundred feet of the event.

We have spoken with several who possess extensive experience in explosive demolition, and all reported seeing or hearing nothing to indicate an explosive detonation precipitating the collapse.

As one eyewitness told us, "We were all standing around helpless...we knew full well it was going to collapse. Everyone there knew. You gotta remember there was a lot of confusion and we didn't know if another plane was coming...but I never heard explosions like demo charges.

sites.google.com...


Indications of the Imminent Collapse of the World Trade Center Buildings Disprove Explosives Theory

Scientists investigating the Sept. 11, 2001 collapse of the twin towers said, "the World Trade Center towers showed telltale signs they were about to collapse several minutes before each crumbled to the ground." There would not be telltale signs if it was explosives (Controlled Demolition) that caused the buildings to collapse.

www.skyscrapersafety.org...


Fire, Not Extra Explosives, Doomed Buildings, Expert Says

A New Mexico explosives expert says he now believes there were no explosives in the World Trade Center towers, contrary to comments he made the day of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack.

"Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail," said Van Romero, a vice president at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology. The day of the attack, Romero told the Journal the towers' collapse, as seen in news videotapes, looked as though it had been triggered by carefully placed explosives.

Subsequent conversations with structural engineers and more detailed looks at the tape have led Romero to a different conclusion. Romero supports other experts, who have said the intense heat of the jet fuel fires weakened the skyscrapers' steel structural beams to the point that they gave way under the weight of the floors above. That set off a chain reaction, as upper floors pancaked onto lower ones.

911research.wtc7.net...


Civil & Structural Engineers on WTC Collapse

"The aircraft moved through the building as if it were a hot and fast lava flow," Sozen says. "Consequently, much of the fireproofing insulation was ripped off the structure. Even if all of the columns and girders had survived the impact - an unlikely event - the structure would fail as the result of a buckling of the columns. The heat from an ordinary office fire would suffice to soften and weaken the unprotected steel. Evaluation of the effects of the fire on the core column structure, with the insulation removed by the impact, showed that collapse would follow whatever the number of columns cut at the time of the impact."

There are 120,000 members of ASME(American Society of Mechanical Engineers) who do not question the NIST report. There are also 370,000 members of IEEE(Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) who do not question the NIST report. There are also 40,000 members of AIChE(American Institute of Chemical Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 35,000 members of AIAA (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics) who do not question the NIST report.

911-engineers.blogspot.com...


[size4]Towers Weakened by Planes; Brought Down by Fire

Analysis by a team of 25 of the nation's leading structural and fire protection engineers suggests that the World Trade Center Towers could have remained standing indefinitely if fire had not overwhelmed the weakened structures, according to a report presented today at a hearing of the House Science Committee.

911-engineers.blogspot.com...

Please point out to us all, the time lines where explosions can be heard as WTC 7 collapses.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: Korg Trinity

And once again your more than obvious attempt at baiting me has failed...

I wanted you to prove to us all that no explosions are heard nor seen in the video as WTC 7 collapsed, which proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that no demolition explosions brought down WTC 7 in that video.

Saying that no explosions can be heard in the videos you posted doesn't prove that at all. The fact that you think this means you lack critical thinking skills.

Care to explain these explosions??



Watch the following video and tell me where the explosions can be heard.



Why can you hear no explosions?!? Perhaps because the video has been edited and dubbed.... the only way to verify the validity of audio is to analyse the Raw audio along with understanding the frequency response of the equipment it was recorded on.

First of all, you have failed to provide a shred of proof of demolition explosives and secondly, no evidence of any kind was ever found in the rubble of the WTC buildings that indicated the use of demolition explosives.

Firstly, as I have said to you on countless occasions, simply saying because we don't know all the answers it is not the same as saying the OS is true.

Let's look at the physics of what the OS says about WT7 Collapse....

Again.. The fact that you think this means you lack critical thinking skills.

The experts show where fire, not explosives, was responsible for the destruction of the WTC buildings.

The experts say the opposite actually... The only official people saying what you are saying are those being backed by the Government.

I can't list all those that have stood up and said the OS is incorrect.. there isn't enough space here... you can however obtain a list of the professionals standing up and saying the opposite of what you pose.

1700 Architects and Engineers state 9/11 OS is BS...

and

List of Aviation Experts

and

List of Scientist

Oh and me.... but I am not going to reveal my identity, for obvious reasons.

Literally thousands of professionals of which I am one, with a combined professional life experience of around 44,000 years... all saying the OS on 9/11 could not be true.

Thus far the only people upholding the OS are people being paid to protect the truth, those that either can't be bothered to dig and those too scared of the outcome and those that are so blinded by the nationalistic they couldn't contemplate anything other than what they are told (sheeple).

Of course I think many OS believers are a little of all the above. Certainly non of them have the courage to see 9/11 as it truly is... a mystery... not a Sealed Deal by the OS.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: Korg Trinity

Are you serious?

You're citing a partial collapse as evidence that steel frame buildings can collapse?

The above video is exactly what you would expect to see in a fire... a non uniform partial collapse that conforms with the laws of physics.

Notice the building does NOT come down in it's entirety, the building does not UNIFORMLY collapse into it's won footprint, the building is MOST defiantly still standing after the partial collapse.

This if anything only highlights the differences...

This is the video of that natural building fire..



and this of WT7



And then these other controlled demolitions...



Hmmmm???

a reply to: Korg Trinity

Care to explain these explosions??

You fell for more faked video.
Note the video is reversed.

@pfishy, sorry for the confusion, I was referring to both wtc7 and the TU Delft building.
--------
Yes as Korg explained a natural collapse of this steel/concrete reinforced building. No one on earth will have any doubts about it even not if a part of the facade of the TU Delft building collapsed on 9/11

Jowenko indeed said the twin towers were no demolitions and that makes the interviews even more interesting. Nobody ever asked him what he thought about the twin towers after he heard about wtc7, but he died. But even if wtc7 was a CD and the twin towers not there is still a conspiracy

wtc7 | TT
no CD | no CD ==> offical theory
no CD | CD ==> CT
CD | no CD ==> CT
CD | CD ==> CT

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: Korg Trinity

Care to explain these explosions??

You fell for more faked video.
Note the video is reversed.

No.. I didn't.. and you got the wrong end of the stick... I was attempting to make the point that videos could be edited, but you jumped right in there and wrecked that line of inquiry.

My point was simple.. you are not going to be able to trust on either side about audio or visual effects of any kind...

It is however the simple fact that this...



is undeniable...

Straight down.... fires clearly viably not bad enough to cause any kind of collapse, let along total and uniform.

a reply to: Korg Trinity

I have to admit, initially I agreed with samkent on this one. But then I reread your post, and I do see where you were making that point.

a reply to: Korg Trinity

Do you possibly have or know of a link to a layout of the floorplan and which areas were on fire, by floor?

originally posted by: Korg Trinity

is undeniable...

Straight down.... fires clearly viably not bad enough to cause any kind of collapse, let along total and uniform.

Well, this building fell straight down without explosives.

21-Story Building Collapsed

WTC 6 falls straight down without explosives.



These buildings are falling straight down without explosives.



Explain how those buildings collapsed without explosives

a reply to: Korg Trinity

re you serious?

You're citing a partial collapse as evidence that steel frame buildings can collapse?

Could it that only the section of the building that collapsed was the only section that was on fire? Of course.

The above video is exactly what you would expect to see in a fire... a non uniform partial collapse that conforms with the laws of physics.

Once again, you failed to understand that only the section of the steel frame building that was on fire had collapsed due to fire. In other words, proof that fire weakened a steel structure to the point of failure..

I notice that you have ignored the fact that the three steel frame Kader buildings also collapsed due to fire.

a reply to: Korg Trinity

Saying that no explosions can be heard in the videos you posted doesn't prove that at all. The fact that you think this means you lack critical thinking skills.

Care to explain these explosions??

I will be very glad to do just that because that is the same hoaxed video I posted recently to prove that CTs have been posting hoaxed videos and photos thinking they supported their claims and look what you have just done!! You proved my case for me. Thanks for your support and now, you know one of the reasons why the Truth Movement is a joke.

I have to say, you folks have really opened my eyes. I always thought that the whole thing was filmed by Stanley Kubrick as a ploy to show our superiority over Russia.

SkyEagle,

wtc7 fell NOT BECAUSE OF WEAKENED STEEL.
wtc7 fell officially due to thermal expansion leading in one way or another to the failure of column 79.

The fire theory is bogus. It is not needed for the symmetrical total freefall collapse. A single cutter charge on column 79 would do the job.

The official report even suggest a hypothetical blast scenario to take that column out. Nonsense of course because nobody would rely on a single column. And nobody would know that beforehand. A single blast is even sillier than the thermal expansion theory.

Forget about your towering inferno, forget the raging fires, forgot the people who predicted the collapse because a thermal expansion theory is in contradiction with it. A single expansion couldn't be predicted and certainly not be seen from the outside.

Your videos were nice. Those are natural collapses.

a reply to: drommelsboef

wtc7 fell NOT BECAUSE OF WEAKENED STEEL.
wtc7 fell officially due to thermal expansion leading in one way or another to the failure of column 79.

The fire theory is bogus. It is not needed for the symmetrical total freefall collapse. A single cutter charge on column 79 would do the job.

Fire was instrumental in the collapse of WTC 7. In addition, a huge hole was scooped out on the south facade of WTC 7 which resulted in the leaning of WTC 7 toward the south in the final two seconds of its collapse. Now, about steel and fire.

"Some common types of steel lose 10% of their strength at 450 C (840 F), and 40% at 550 C (1022 F). At temperatures above 800 C ( 1475 F), it has lost 90% of its strength. Other types of steel are made to stand higher temperatures before losing 10% of their strength, but they are much more expensive (and are weaker at room temperature)."

The raging fires weakened structural steel to the point of collapse, which is why WTC 7 began to buckle. In other words, no explosives of any kind were responsible for the collapse of any of the WTC buildings.

The official report even suggest a hypothetical blast scenario to take that column out. Nonsense of course because nobody would rely on a single column. And nobody would know that beforehand. A single blast is even sillier than the thermal expansion theory.

A steel beam exposed to high temperature is going to expand no matter what. Case in point, at 1,100°F to 1,300°F., steel loses a lot of strength, and buckling will increase. Firefighters noted that WTC 7 was weakening due to fire and could even hear structural noises inside WTC 7. They knew that WTC 7 was coming down based on what they were hearing and seeing.

Steel Beam Exposed to Fire

a reply to: drommelsboef

Ok, but what about the building developing a notable lean from 90 degrees? Couldn't thermal expansion have caused that?