WTC 7 could not collapsed from fire, but WTC 5 had partial collapse from fire?

The context of my argument.

Crucially, a team of engineers at the University of Alaska concluded this week, after two years of forensic research, that fire could not have caused the collapse of WTC7.

www.dailymail.co.uk...

So, the WTC 7 collapse could not have been from fire?

One, how do you prove a negative?

Two, would not the fire related damage of WTC 5 prove fire related collapse of WTC 7 was very possible. Especially if WTC 7 had longer floor spans, and taking in account the uncommon floor connection angles of WTC 7.

WTC 5 damage

4 WTC 4, 5, and 6

www.fema.gov...

from the 5th floor and above. Some steel beams supporting the roof were deformed due to the heat, as illustrated in Figure 4-14, and some local buckling occurred as well. Roof tar entered the floor through the drains. There is no indication that this roof tar played a major role in the fires. One area below the roof at the 8th floor collapsed onto the 7th floor and then both onto the 6th, and so on, down to the 4th floor.
The structural damage due to the
fires closely resembled that commonly
observed in test assemblies exposed to
the ASTM E119 Standard Fire Test.
After testing, the deformed shapes of
beams, girders, and columns are similar
to the structural damage that occurred
in these buildings.

Damage from debris of WTC 1 and WTC 2

The debris from the towers caused damage to the outside wall steel framing of WTC 5, but this damage did not cause any additional collapse of the floors. In fact, the steel pipe façade supports (mullions) provided structural redundancy to the floor framing and redistributed some portion of the cantilevered floors to other levels.

www.fema.gov...

WTC 5 - Local Collapse Mechanisms

4.3.2 WTC 5 - Local Collapse Mechanisms
Two areas in WTC 5 experienced local collapse under an intact portion of the roof. Although there was debris impact near this area, the symmetrical nature of the collapse strongly suggests that the failures were due to the uncontrolled fires. This is supported by the observation that the columns in this area remained straight and freestanding (see Figure 4-18). This local collapse appeared to have begun at the field connection where beams were connected to shop-fabricated beam stubs and column assemblies as illustrated in Figures 4-19, 4-20, and 4-21.
The structural collapse appeared to be due to a combination of excessive shear loads on bolted connections and unanticipated tensile forces resulting from catenary sagging of the beams. The existence of high shear loads, likely due to collapsing floor loads from above, was evident in many of the column-tree.

Snip

beam stub cantilevers that formed diagonal tension field mechanisms in the cantilever webs and plastic moments at the column, as seen in Figure 4-18.
It is apparent that fire weakened the steel, contributing to the large shear-induced deformations observed in several of the cantilever beams. The shear failures observed at connection ends in several of the beam web samples shown in Figure 4-18 are indicative of the tensile forces that developed. The end bearing resistance of the beam web was found to be less than the double shear strength of the high-strength bolts, based on the analysis presented in Appendix B.
Steel framing connection samples were recovered from floors 6, 7, and 8 of WTC 5 with the aid of the New York Department of Design and Construction (DDC) and are described in Figure 4-22.

www.fema.gov...

a reply to: neutronflux

WTC 7 experienced a fully symmetrical collapse.

The uniformity and well proportioned nature of this collapse makes no sense if we are to assume that a fire caused it.

How could the 'fire' have destabilized every part of the structure at once?

5,000 threads on the topic that I can remember.
Never anything new.
Just rehashes of previous threads....

a reply to: muzzleflash

Agreed.
Ain't no number of shrills gonna convince us otherwise.

originally posted by: muzzleflash
a reply to: neutronflux

WTC 7 experienced a fully symmetrical collapse.

The uniformity and well proportioned nature of this collapse makes no sense if we are to assume that a fire caused it.

How could the 'fire' have destabilized every part of the structure at once?

Really?

World Trade Center 7: The Lies Come Crashing Down

skeptoid.com...

In fact, Building 7's debris field was neither tidy nor well-contained within the footprint. The videos of the collapse are all from far away and show only the top portion of the building before it disappears behind the skyline. Lower down, the collapse become much more chaotic. Two nearby buildings were nearly destroyed by it. The Verizon Building suffered $1.4 billion in damage from the collapse of Building 7, but was able to be repaired. Manhattan Community College's Fiterman Hall building, however, was not so lucky, and suffered such major damage that it could not be saved. What remains of it is still being deconstructed piece by piece.

originally posted by: Nothin
a reply to: muzzleflash

Agreed.
Ain't no number of shrills gonna convince us otherwise.

You get that from people criticizing the charlatans of the truth movement who push falsehoods and nothing but innuendo to exploit 9/11?

I wondered when this would start.

The truth is coming out soon and many will try to get ahead of the truth curve with the aim of sowing confusion.

Well, it aint gonna work.

As has already been pointed out, lots of thread and we have studied these collapses for a very long time.

The truth will set you free.

P

a reply to: neutronflux



That looks pretty symmetrical to me.
Both sides came down at essentially the same moment.

a reply to: muzzleflash

The interior collapse was first. From one side of the building to the other side. Then the facade collapsed when it could no longer support itself. You cannot see the back side of the building, or the lower floors.

The collapse being from gravity, which pulls items straight down, should look like what then?

a reply to: muzzleflash

By the why, the opening post was “WTC 7 could not collapsed from fire, but WTC 5 had partial collapse from fire?”

Based on the fire related failures of WTC 5, how could anyone rule out fire related failure of WTC 7?

originally posted by: muzzleflash
a reply to: neutronflux

That looks pretty symmetrical to me.
Both sides came down at essentially the same moment.

But that's just like, YOUR perspective, dude.... We can't help it if you don't want to see the truth...... /s

I have a question that needs answered if anyone knows. Why have we only seen 1 or 2 video's of the collapse of WTC 7. It's well known that the BBC goofed when they broadcast the report of the collapse with it still in the background.

We have the biggest attack in the world, in the largest TV market in the world with hundreds or thousands of independent cameramen/photographers & plain citizens with video camera's in this city. They knew the building had been burning all day and they made the decision to "pull it" ("get the fire fighters out") so they knew it was going down.

Are you telling me NO ONE recorded it on video other than this single news crew 4+ blocks away?

We are talking about the same profession that follows around celebrities to catch a 1/4 second of a crotch shot they could sell for $1000-5000. Are you telling me none of them were interested in cashing in on this event?

Can anyone explain why there aren't more and better video's of this?

If I was in this business (photography, film) I would have been there to try and film and would probably have driven from DC or Boston and still get there in time. That puts A LOT of people in the driving area who could have gotten there in time be they other news crews or independent journalists/video guys. 60 million + people in this region!!??

a reply to: neutronflux


From a firefighters perspective,
"Don't trust the TRUSS"
www.firefighterclosecalls.com...

"Sound the floor beneath you" take that pole and hit the surface underneath you, you'll know it's ready to give way and collapse.
MODERN TRUSS are made from weak aluminum/aluminium. Heat over time will cause it to cave in. I've seen this happen in person. Concrete Decking isn't very thick to and will bend in high temps.( just a thin steel sheath with cement overlay)
Structures I've seen collapse in fragments. 1 and 2 did what I expected, even from the pancake effect and puffs blowing out windows during the fall.

That said..
WTC 7 has been a shear enigma to me since then.

The owner came on a nationally televised documentary stating he was ask about build 7. He stated with demolition expertise right then... "Pull it".

Never seen such a Perfect Free Fall with the the center going slightly first. falling in on itself.

That must have been one hell of a fire raging on inside a building that had little smoke billowing.

Call me crazy.

originally posted by: Bigburgh
a reply to: neutronflux


From a firefighters perspective,
"Don't trust the TRUSS"
www.firefighterclosecalls.com...

"Sound the floor beneath you" take that pole and hit the surface underneath you, you'll know it's ready to give way and collapse.
MODERN TRUSS are made from weak aluminum/aluminium. Heat over time will cause it to cave in. I've seen this happen in person. Concrete Decking isn't very thick to and will bend in high temps.( just a thin steel sheath with cement overlay)
Structures I've seen collapse in fragments. 1 and 2 did what I expected, even from the pancake effect and puffs blowing out windows during the fall.

That said..
WTC 7 has been a shear enigma to me since then.

The owner came on a nationally televised documentary stating he was ask about build 7. He stated with demolition expertise right then... "Pull it".

Never seen such a Perfect Free Fall with the the center going slightly first. falling in on itself.

That must have been one hell of a fire raging on inside a building that had little smoke billowing.

Call me crazy.

The trusses were steel. They were steel, covered by corrugated sheet steel, covered by concrete. Also, 4" concrete ain't nothing, especially since it was reinforced IIRC. Also I seem to recall 12" or 16" trusses - one could have been for WTC 1/2 & the other for WTC 7, or they all had the same. I just don't remember what was reported.

originally posted by: DigginFoTroof

originally posted by: Bigburgh
a reply to: neutronflux


From a firefighters perspective,
"Don't trust the TRUSS"
www.firefighterclosecalls.com...

"Sound the floor beneath you" take that pole and hit the surface underneath you, you'll know it's ready to give way and collapse.
MODERN TRUSS are made from weak aluminum/aluminium. Heat over time will cause it to cave in. I've seen this happen in person. Concrete Decking isn't very thick to and will bend in high temps.( just a thin steel sheath with cement overlay)
Structures I've seen collapse in fragments. 1 and 2 did what I expected, even from the pancake effect and puffs blowing out windows during the fall.

That said..
WTC 7 has been a shear enigma to me since then.

The owner came on a nationally televised documentary stating he was ask about build 7. He stated with demolition expertise right then... "Pull it".

Never seen such a Perfect Free Fall with the the center going slightly first. falling in on itself.

That must have been one hell of a fire raging on inside a building that had little smoke billowing.

Call me crazy.

The trusses were steel. They were steel, covered by corrugated sheet steel, covered by concrete. Also, 4" concrete ain't nothing, especially since it was reinforced IIRC. Also I seem to recall 12" or 16" trusses - one could have been for WTC 1/2 & the other for WTC 7, or they all had the same. I just don't remember what was reported.

I think you see what I'm trying to convey.
Here...
It's no thicker than your pinky finger. Now put weight on that like cement X's 4 to 5 inches. It's actually incredibly strong. Every building in the country or apartment complex being over 2 floors has this. But it has a time limit in extremely high temperatures.

Again I've seen a collapse, just Never in unison like 7.

a reply to: Bigburgh

The “pull it” statement is a false argument. Especially when it’s referring to pulling firefighters from a burning building.

www.911myths.com...

WTC 7 Pulled

Larry Silverstein said that WTC7 was "pulled", intentionally demolished.

I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.
www.serendipity.li...

As in pull rescue operations.

Like

Final group was pulled from Thai cave just before water pump malfunction
www.cbsnews.com...

Or even better...

Pull" = Withdraw firefighters from danger?

Contents
Main 9/11 Links Page
Yes.

It certainly was used that way on 9/11. Again and again, “pull” is how firefighters and EMTs describe the afternoon withdrawal from the area in and around WTC 7. In the accounts I’ve read, excluding Larry Silverstein’s, “pull” is used 30 times to refer to the withdrawal of WTC firefighting and rescue operations. 27 of those references are about WTC 7. Add Silverstein’s statement and we’ve got 32 references to “pull” meaning “withdraw.” My survey was not exhaustive.

Here’s a summary of the first-person accounts I’ve read. All but a few are from first responders:

41 – People who specifically mention the severity of the WTC 7 fires
29 – People who specifically mention extensive damage to WTC 7
104 – People who mention the FDNY order to withdraw from WTC 7 area
36 – Number of times “Pull” is used to mean “withdraw rescuers”
39 – Other witnesses who say the collapse of WTC 7 was expected
Download an Excel spreadsheet breakdown of these accounts

Doubters, please read the following accounts in full.

I issued the orders to pull back the firefighters and define the collapse zone. It was a critical decision; we could not lose any more firefighters. It took a lot of time to pull everyone out, given the emotionalism of the day, communications difficulties, and the collapse terrain." FDNY Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro, "Report from the Chief of Department," Fire Engineering, 9/2002)

I do remember us being pulled off the pile. ...We were down by the pile to search or looking around. 7 World Trade Center was roaring. I remember being pulled off the pile like just before. It wasn't just before. It was probably an hour before 7 came down. –Firefighter Kevin Howe

Hayden: By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to col-lapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse. 



Firehouse Magazine: Was there heavy fire in there right away?

Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety. 



sites.google.com...

For terms of demolition. The term “pulled” is referring to getting a wall to fall a certain way, and usually by cable. “Pulled it “ is not really a term used with explosives.

The”pulled it” statement has nothing to do with the actual video, audio, seismic, physical evidence. It’s just truth movement innuendo.

a reply to: Bigburgh

You

Never seen such a Perfect Free Fall with the the center going slightly first. falling in on itself.

In reality.

WTC 7 started with an internal collapse as indicated by the way the penthouse disappeared below the roof line. The internal collapse was from one side of the building, then worked its way to the other side.

A visible kink devolved in the building during the progressive collapse.

When the facade fell, it fell in three documented phases. The facade fell at free fall speed during the 2nd phase for 18 floors. then the facade slowed at the start of the third stage.

As a whole, WTC 7 fell slower than free fall.

a reply to: neutronflux

I very much doubt the laws of physics were suspended on 9/11:

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Bigburgh

You

Never seen such a Perfect Free Fall with the the center going slightly first. falling in on itself.

In reality.

WTC 7 started with an internal collapse as indicated by the way the penthouse disappeared below the roof line. The internal collapse was from one side of the building, then worked its way to the other side.

A visible kink devolved in the building during the progressive collapse.

When the facade fell, it fell in three documented phases. The facade fell at free fall speed during the 2nd phase for 18 floors. then the facade slowed at the start of the third stage.

As a whole, WTC 7 fell slower than free fall.

The problem with your argument is it is a fantasy. The video evidence does not support your assertions:

WT7 Free Fall Speed

a reply to: neutronflux

That's great the owner said pull it. Abandon hope.

No professional Fire Department isn't going to surround drown and ground. Protect life and property. The property was a threat to nearby property. Surround And drown yes, but building 7 was the most perfect let it fall structure I and many have ever seen. To perfect.

Edit: never saw a high pressure hose system on 7 while it came down by which are un-manned. We know to suppress soot, airborne particles.