Fire caused global collapse in wtc7?

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by hgfbob

When you make claims like 'this does not support their conclusion' when you have not understood the conclusion. This is how you are using facts to try and support a statement which is not true.

LOL...HOW do LOW steel temps. BACK a HYPOTHESIS, that FIRE caused the collapse

[NIST]"provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos.”

came down "essentially in free fall"...HOW does this happen?...287 columns on each floor....HOW does that lady stand in the impact area, holding onto the steel...if the temps are high enough to compromise steel

just another 'matter-of-fact', statement that is throughout the NIST report...with NO explanation as to HOW this occurs

reply to post by thedman


Maybe someone can take a look at something for me.

When watching that video, the second fire they show, (is it the south side of the building? ) YOu see two floors really on fire.

When they first show it, you see the camera angle come in, three floors down a few windows to the right there looks to be a white square in the window. People often hang posters in office windows.

If it is, how does a paper poster stay intact? And how does fire jump severeal floors up?

If there was any heat on that floor, the poster would be going up.

Can anyone confirm or deny if it is a poster or something else?

reply to post by hgfbob


Ok so we've established that not only do you not understand NISTs tests, you also do not understand NISTs initiation theory.

There is no point in me continuing on here, you're obviously not willing to do the research yourself to understand why you are wrong and would rather simply repeat verbatim what you think are convincing arguments but are purely based on your lack of any real understanding of events that day.

Please please read the NIST report, don't rely on truther websites for all your information.

Originally posted by exponent

Of course we cannot know that it did/didn't as all the steel was removed very quickly from the site.

Indeed, but even if we had all the steel, it was not uniquely marked to indicate its originating location. Still, having more information is always good, and having the steel certainly couldn't hurt.

I am pretty sure they could of figured it out. If they can take 2,000 year old stones in Egypt and rebuild a temple, they can figure out a modern building, especially with blueprints.

Originally posted by nixie_nox
I am pretty sure they could of figured it out. If they can take 2,000 year old stones in Egypt and rebuild a temple, they can figure out a modern building, especially with blueprints.

Possibly, but steel beams are not hand cut, they are forged and many may well have been identical. Still like I said, more information is always better, so I agree that the steel should have ideally been kept for analysis.

reply to post by exponent


I imagine that there would still be tracking. There would have to be lot numbers. If a factory found that the steel was faulty, they would have to be able to track it to a building and take protective measures.

I am not sure, but if they don't do this then construction can't be very safe.

Originally posted by nixie_nox
I am not sure, but if they don't do this then construction can't be very safe.

It is concievable that this is only required for steel batch identification, or manufacturer identification. It's also possible such things have changed in more recent times.

I agree though, I too am not sure, but it is somewhat academic now as we don't have this information, and must work with what we do have.

The most important thing to realize is that the WTC 7 was a building built on top of another structure. A substation. This means that 'normal' building practices were not available and it was not a ground up but an addition to the original structure. Look at the blueprints. Transfer trusses were installed to support a 40+ story building. The actual building was larger than the foundation which is why the trusses were needed ( 5 floor to 8th floor if I remember correctly).

Originally posted by exponent
reply to post by hgfbob

 

Ok so we've established that not only do you not understand NISTs tests, you also do not understand NISTs initiation theory.

What YOU really mean to say, is "why don't YOU just keep your mouth shut and accept it"

There is no point in me continuing on here,

GOOD, because YOUR wasting OUR time

you're obviously not willing to do the research yourself to understand why you are wrong

Actually, I started out to prove they were right, and THIS is where it led me

and would rather simply repeat verbatim what you think are convincing arguments but are purely based on your lack of any real understanding of events that day.

I have almost 30 years of building experience to explain what happened that day.....NOTHING was NATURAL

Please please read the NIST report, don't rely on truther websites for all your information.

I don't need the NIST report to tell me HOW THINGS ARE....like taking 4 pages to explain the ceiling tile system, and 2 sentences to discredit explosives and accelerants, of WHY they didn't bother testing for


MAYBE...YOUR the one who should be looking for answers elsewhere....oop's .....I forgot...YOU have NO conscious thought of your own...must be nice

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by nixie_nox
I am pretty sure they could of figured it out. If they can take 2,000 year old stones in Egypt and rebuild a temple, they can figure out a modern building, especially with blueprints.

Possibly, but steel beams are not hand cut, they are forged and many may well have been identical. Still like I said, more information is always better, so I agree that the steel should have ideally been kept for analysis.

ALL columns have a nomenclature on them for identification at the factory.....

Originally posted by hgfbob
What YOU really mean to say, is "why don't YOU just keep your mouth shut and accept it"

Please don't put words in my mouth, and I won't put words into yours.

GOOD, because YOUR wasting OUR time

you're

Actually, I started out to prove they were right, and THIS is where it led me

Really, you set out to prove 'they' were right without even knowing the 'official story'? Sounds like your attempt was compromised from the start.

I have almost 30 years of building experience to explain what happened that day.....NOTHING was NATURAL

What exactly is this supposed to mean? Fires weren't natural? Crashes were not? Your posts contain so little information it's often hard to determine what you mean.

I don't need the NIST report to tell me HOW THINGS ARE....like taking 4 pages to explain the ceiling tile system, and 2 sentences to discredit explosives and accelerants, of WHY they didn't bother testing for
...
MAYBE...YOUR the one who should be looking for answers elsewhere....oop's .....I forgot...YOU have NO conscious thought of your own...must be nice

I've read all of the NIST report, every paper I have come across from the truth movement, and every single conspiracy video up until late last year.

I have looked for answers elsewhere, and I have found only ignorance in the majority of cases.

Originally posted by esdad71
The most important thing to realize is that the WTC 7 was a building built on top of another structure. A substation. This means that 'normal' building practices were not available and it was not a ground up but an addition to the original structure. Look at the blueprints. Transfer trusses were installed to support a 40+ story building. The actual building was larger than the foundation which is why the trusses were needed ( 5 floor to 8th floor if I remember correctly).

actually your talking about the cantilever steel beam system over the substation.

they still have to construct by the SAME codes and load restrictions that ANY OTHER BUILDING has to deal with

Trusses are used for the floor and roof construction.....NOT in the steel frame


The prints have not been released...just NIST drawings

Wonder what's the problem with releasing prints for a building that's NOT there?

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by hgfbob
What YOU really mean to say, is "why don't YOU just keep your mouth shut and accept it"

Please don't put words in my mouth, and I won't put words into yours.

GOOD, because YOUR wasting OUR time

you're

Actually, I started out to prove they were right, and THIS is where it led me

Really, you set out to prove 'they' were right without even knowing the 'official story'? Sounds like your attempt was compromised from the start.

I have almost 30 years of building experience to explain what happened that day.....NOTHING was NATURAL

What exactly is this supposed to mean? Fires weren't natural? Crashes were not? Your posts contain so little information it's often hard to determine what you mean.

I don't need the NIST report to tell me HOW THINGS ARE....like taking 4 pages to explain the ceiling tile system, and 2 sentences to discredit explosives and accelerants, of WHY they didn't bother testing for
...
MAYBE...YOUR the one who should be looking for answers elsewhere....oop's .....I forgot...YOU have NO conscious thought of your own...must be nice

I've read all of the NIST report, every paper I have come across from the truth movement, and every single conspiracy video up until late last year.

I have looked for answers elsewhere, and I have found only ignorance in the majority of cases.

There IS a difference, between, READING something, and UNDERSTANDING it.

YOU are taking for granted that 'because' of who they are, they are right.....that is NOT the case.

Just as 700+ Architects & Engineers are calling for a NEW investigation...NOT 700 Rosie O'Donnels, as the MEDIA likes to PUSH as the IDIOT spokes person for 9-11 truth

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by hgfbob
What YOU really mean to say, is "why don't YOU just keep your mouth shut and accept it"

Please don't put words in my mouth, and I won't put words into yours.

GOOD, because YOUR wasting OUR time

you're

LOL....and ALL you can do is to correct my grammar?

[edit on 16-7-2009 by hgfbob]

Sometimes I just don't know what to think. I'll watch something and it is so clear to me that the WTC 7 building collapsing was due to controlled demolition and then covered up, but then I watch something else and I'm not so sure anymore. Today I watched the BBC's documentary The Conspiracy Files - 9/11 The Third Tower from 2008 and at first it started out pointing blindingly obvious to an inside job, but then they wheeled in Controlled Demolition Inc who debunked the whole thing and then it just went downhill. By the end of it, it was like conspiracy solved, the building was devastated by fire and the final report from NIST will confirm that. Obviously this was aired before the final report came out.

They had the guy from NIST on it and that seemed like a complete sham. They had no wreckage to work with because it had all been shipped to China, so all they could do was computer simulations to base their final report on! How can that ever be taken seriously?

I often wonder what bunch of cowboys built the WTC buildings and did such a shoddy job of it? Why would all these top agencies like the FBI and the CIA and the DoD etc take offices in such terribly built buildings that can't withstand fire? Have the architects and builders been sued? Let's hope to God they're never allowed to build anything else! It must be so embarrassing for them to keep hearing about all these skyscrapers that have had fires that have burned for hours and hours and never collapsed, even other ones hit by planes, and then their twin towers come tumbling down after one hour!

I would have thought if anyone would be screaming for a new investigation it would be them, to try and salvage what they can of their reputation!

reply to post by Mark_Amy


Thats a pretty fresh perspective. And honestly I've had a very similar experience to yours. In my case I was also Gung-Ho that it was an inside job, Bush was in on it, etc etc. But as I examined as much evidence as I could, and watched all the 'debunkers' and their presentations, it became obvious to me that most are as biased as the 'truthers'. When it was all said and done there were a few holes in both sides of the story. Sorry but its like the since proven hoax John Titor, if theres one hole in the story its not true. WTC7 is one of the holes.

Lets say it did collapse by fire, I do admit, even as author of this thread, that it is possible. However, if it did the investigation was not taken seriously. You don't ask me to pay for your paper and **** it all up, sorry. You investigate again and do a job that would at least pass a college class.

I think WTC7 was definitely done by the government. Rosie O'Donnell, talk show host and celebrity went on tape declaring that "no way, was it not intentional"!!!!

Originally posted by hgfbob
There IS a difference, between, READING something, and UNDERSTANDING it.

Why don't you show me what I have misunderstood and that you understand completely?

YOU are taking for granted that 'because' of who they are, they are right.....that is NOT the case.

Why would I do that?

Just as 700+ Architects & Engineers are calling for a NEW investigation...NOT 700 Rosie O'Donnels, as the MEDIA likes to PUSH as the IDIOT spokes person for 9-11 truth

People pushing for a new investigation does not support any sort of explosive or thermite theory you realise? That's like saying investigating someone for murder automatically means they're already guilty of it.

Yes people want a new investigation, and Richard Gage takes special care to point out that his document only states that they want a new investigation. Those 700 people do not uniformly believe in demolition, and for those that do, some believe it was through nukes, some believe the collapses started at the bottom etc.

Please don't quote numbers like they all somehow support some of the crazier claims, because they don't.

LOL....and ALL you can do is to correct my grammar?

I kinda expect someone educated to be able to write reasonably and it is frustrating reading your text. That's not all I did, you quoted one section of my post. Tell me, what have you corrected that I have gotten wrong?

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by hgfbob
There IS a difference, between, READING something, and UNDERSTANDING it.

Why don't you show me what I have misunderstood and that you understand completely?

Since this thread is about 7, YOU have NO IDEA what free fall ACCELERATION means, or what HAS to happen , in order for free fall ACCELERATION to occur. When the kink is formed, YOU SEE where the kink is, it dips a little lower than the ends of the building, while this is happening, the 'other PH, and HVAC fall in and the INSTANT they get even with the main roof, EVERYTHING is falling at the SAME rate...WE SEE THIS

[NCSTAR 1A 3.6]"constant, downward acceleration during this time interval. This acceleration was 32f/s^2,(9.8m/s^2), equivalent to the acceleration of gravity.
This free fall drop continues for approximately 8 stories or 32 meters,(105ft.), the distance traveled between t=1.75s and t=4.0s.

If ANY part of the roof line fell SLOWER that any other part...WE WOULD SEE IT, because it CAN'T travel ANY faster than it's going at that time.

All of this was ignored in the original draft when it came out LAST AUGUST

then , at a NIST Q&A, a High School Teacher, asked WHY, since it is SO obvious and EASILY measured, that the achieved speed of free fall ACCELERATION WAS NOT in the proposed HYPOTHESIS.....
And, THIS is what Shyam Sunder the lead investigator for the NIST had to say about free fall ACCELERATION, in an interview at around three min into the vid.posted below...

"free fall acceleration can ONLY occur when there is NO STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS BELOW IT"

utube video.... watch?v=V0GHVEKrhng&feature=channel_page


then, how do you get,'EVERY' column to act the same way, at the same time, unless they are under the 'SAME' conditions, and acted on by the 'SAME' force???

[NCSTAR1A-3.2]"It is likely that much of the burning took place beyond the views of the windows"

[NCSTAR1A-3.2]
"The fires were fed by ordinary office combustibles"

HOW, does, 'SPOT' fire affect EVERY vertical support , so that within a second and a half, WE SEE the ENTIRE building traveling at the same speed, that is measured in a vacuum, when a feather falls as fast as a 1lb. ball.

YOU are taking for granted that 'because' of who they are, they are right.....that is NOT the case.
Why would I do that?

Just as 700+ Architects & Engineers are calling for a NEW investigation...NOT 700 Rosie O'Donnels, as the MEDIA likes to PUSH as the IDIOT spokes person for 9-11 truth
People pushing for a new investigation does not support any sort of explosive or thermite theory you realise? That's like saying investigating someone for murder automatically means they're already guilty of it.

This is NOT ABOUT proving that there were explosives, this is about PROVING it was NOT from fire...there are SSOOOO many BASIC laws of physics ignored,

Yes people want a new investigation, and Richard Gage takes special care to point out that his document only states that they want a new investigation. Those 700 people do not uniformly believe in demolition, and for those that do, some believe it was through nukes, some believe the collapses started at the bottom etc.

NEW OPEN INVESTIGATION

Please don't quote numbers like they all somehow support some of the crazier claims, because they don't.

LOL....and ALL you can do is to correct my grammar?

I kinda expect someone educated to be able to write reasonably and it is frustrating reading your text. That's not all I did, you quoted one section of my post. Tell me, what have you corrected that I have gotten wrong?

I don't think it's the grammar that's upsetting YOU

Originally posted by hgfbob
Since this thread is about 7, YOU have NO IDEA what free fall ACCELERATION means, or what HAS to happen , in order for free fall ACCELERATION to occur.
...
And, THIS is what Shyam Sunder the lead investigator for the NIST had to say about free fall ACCELERATION, in an interview at around three min into the vid.posted below...

"free fall acceleration can ONLY occur when there is NO STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS BELOW IT"

I have no idea why you're quoting this as if I was not already aware of the fact. Your entire argument seems to be based on a lack of understanding I will try to explain below:

then, how do you get,'EVERY' column to act the same way, at the same time, unless they are under the 'SAME' conditions, and acted on by the 'SAME' force???

HOW, does, 'SPOT' fire affect EVERY vertical support , so that within a second and a half, WE SEE the ENTIRE building traveling at the same speed, that is measured in a vacuum, when a feather falls as fast as a 1lb. ball.

Spot fire does not affect every vertical support, as you would know if you had actually read NIST's report. Fire eventually caused the connections holding up a floor to fail. This floor collapsed and damaged the connections of a couple of floors below it. This failure of connections lead to a single large column being unsupported over a significant height.

You say you have building or structural expertise, well then you will know as well as anyone that unbraced length is an important factor in determining how much load a column will support. Bracing, as its name suggests, restricts lateral motion and prevents the development of significant moments.

Now, once this column failed, the entire east penthouse collapsed. This collapse was not a simple local failure, but the progression of a local failure and the precipitating event for the global collapse. As the debris reached the lower section of the building, it caused significant damage and lead to a failure of the entire core section. It is this failure which causes the free fall acceleration. Because the majority of structural elements failed almost simultaneously, the resistance to collapse was extremely low.

Saying it was precisely 0 however is invalid, because the measurement errors inherent in video analysis mean there is a margin for force, and clearly some resistance must be felt from momentum transfer alone. This resistance would be insignificant compared to the mass of 20+ storeys of building.

This is why you see free fall speed in the collapse, and this is how it was started from fire. The connections to column #79 were asymmetric, and so when beams expanded from heating even a relatively short amount, the force applied was eccentric, and lead to an unforseen failure.

NISTs recommendations specifically include analysis for this sort of failure in the future and indeed you will find agreement from organisations like CTBUH with their conclusions.

I urge you to read the NIST report in full, do not skip over sections because they seem irrelevant. NISTs theory for WTC7 is weaker than that for WTC1 and 2 because there is less evidence to go on, and there were no 'tell tale signs' like the exterior columns bowing inwards as we saw on WTC1 and 2.

I've made a good attempt to explain this mechanism to you, and if you still respond with flippant comments which are based in a lack of understanding of the NIST report this will be my final response. I hope that you will take the time to read it, and you will understand that their theory is not just "fire, collapse, the end".