UA Anchorage releases the final report on WTC-7: Fires DID NOT cause the collapse

a reply to: waypastvne



If all the connections look like that I'm surprised
it wasn't falling down as they were building it.
Why are you even using that pic?

originally posted by: carsforkids


I did click it and yes it was so scary.

It scared you so bad that you can't admit you were wrong.

originally posted by: pteridine
Years back, I proved Jones' thermite claim wrong using his own data from his paper. At that time, I posted a strength vs temperature plot for structural steel. As it turns out, it doesn't take much to weaken steel; 800 - 1000 C will usually reduce strength by 80% which is well beyond design safety factors. This study was paid for by the A&E group and reviewed by the same group and, as such, must be discounted.

The steel was encapsulated in fire retardant material to give it 2 to 3 hours before it is weaken. What they were not counting on was 23,000 gallons of fuel... If steel is so indestructible below 1300f why would they ever even use fire retardant material in the first place?

a reply to: waypastvne

It scared you so bad that you can't admit you were wrong.

Dude I'm married okay that doesn't mean # to me any more.
And I'm not wrong about the pics you were using.

Quote the part of that article that says those joists aren't
over spanning from wall to wall? Please

a reply to: Jchristopher5

Incredible

Never did make much sense to me: 2 aircraft 3 physically separate towers

When WTC 1 was hit WTC 2 did not spontaneously erupt in flames.
When WTC 1 collapsed WTC 2 did not simultaneously collapse (although it did from A/C strike)

so how did the physically separate and distinct WTC 7 (owned by Larry Silverstein who had recently taken out some sort of terror-related insurance on the property) come down?

How come no other surrounding buildings were ignited/collapsed by magic?

2 planes 3 towers

And how come the only skyscrapers to *ever* collapse from structural fires were all In NYC and all on 9/11/01

Never made sense

Who did this to us really?

Just please don't say Shrub did it. That man is too stupid to put on a poncho let alone pull off this kind of inside job without leaks

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: waypastvne

If all the connections look like that I'm surprised
it wasn't falling down as they were building it.
Why are you even using that pic?

So you don't even know how the the towers were constructed and expect us to value your opinion.

Quote the part of that article that says those joists aren't over spanning from wall to wall? Please

A photo is even better.

It never will end.

I have said it time and time again..


Design Specification.

Each part, piece, bolt, nut, joist, beam, cable, etc.

Every single piece of construction material used has a thing called design specification. If the parts or pieces are subjected to forces outside of their design specifications they can and often will fail.

The ignorance of people will never cease to amaze me. People who do not have a clue of anything construction related, and some who say they do, think they know everything about how buildings should act when a massive amount of energy and force that went way beyond the design specification, is just plain absurd.

"IT COULDN'T HAVE DONE THAT THIS DUDE SAID IT RIGHT HERE ON THE INTERNET", THERE IS NO WAY THAT THOSE BUILDINNGS SHOULDNT HAVE FELL AFTER THESE MASSIVE FUEL LADEN JETS HIT THEM, IT SAYS SO RIGHT HERE ON THE INTERNET"...

Now excuse me while I wash the construction and welding grit from my exhausted self. Because unlike many of you I actually did go to college for welding and I actually do work and weld in the construction field.

Unbelievable

a reply to: JBurns

2 planes 3 towers

Hokey!

a reply to: waypastvne

I still have many pictures of the trusses and dampers. I spent many hours upon hours looking up the design specifications of the bolts and dampers connecting the trusses.

People just dont get it. I actually kind of put it all to the side because you can post until your fingers fall off.

Here is one of the dampers I have.

Here is another detailed pic of the truss connection.

originally posted by: carsforkids

Quote the part of that article that says those joists aren't
over spanning from wall to wall? Please

Here is the quote here.

The composite floor system was connected to the exterior wall and core columns by truss seats, which supported the floor dead and live loads, and by strap connections, which provided horizontal shear transfer between the floor slab and exterior wall as well as out-of-plane brac- ing for the exterior columns not directly connected to the floor trusses.

Let me know if you need me to explain it to you.

a reply to: waypastvne

What a pain in the ass design. Do me a favor just use that pic of
the detail from now on. Never even heard of a crap design like that.

I'll give you that one even tho it doesn't make any hot damn sense at all.
I hung iron for ten years in so cal and I never seen it done like that before.

I don't even know if I believe it.

How did the fires cause WTC 7 to collapse?

The heat from the uncontrolled fires caused steel floor beams and girders to thermally expand, leading to a chain of events that caused a key structural column to fail. The failure of this structural column then initiated a fire-induced progressive collapse of the entire building.
According to the report's probable collapse sequence, heat from the uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the lower floors of the east side of WTC 7, damaging the floor framing on multiple floors.
Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical column, Column 79, that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building (see Diagram 1). The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the 5th floor. Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of Column 79. This collapse of floors left Column 79 insufficiently supported in the east-west direction over nine stories.
The unsupported Column 79 then buckled and triggered an upward progression of floor system failures that reached the building's east penthouse. What followed in rapid succession was a series of structural failures. Failure first occurred all the way to the roof line-involving all three interior columns on the easternmost side of the building (79, 80, 81). Then, progressing from east to west across WTC 7, all of the columns failed in the core of the building (58 through 78). Finally, the entire façade collapsed.

www.nist.gov...

originally posted by: liejunkie01

People just dont get it. I actually kind of put it all to the side because you can post until your fingers fall off.

I like to come back and tease them with facts every once in a wile. It is fun to watch them dance around avoiding reality.

You can explain it to them in minute detail, expose their lack of knowledge, Back them into a corner where the only option is to say, you were right. But instead of saying, you were right the floor loads were transferred through the truss seats to the columns, you get:

2 planes 3 towers.

I find it very entertaining.

a reply to: waypastvne

And yet 2 planes cannot take down 3 physically separate towers. Non-locality doesn't apply to aircraft

Explain that one, go for it I'll wait right here

Or explain how the only 3 skyscrapers to ever collapse, anywhere, from structural fires did so in NYC on 9/11/01

Sure, WTC 1 and 2 were hit by A/C. If you want to go with that, great. But WTC 7 wasn't. So those theories go out the window.

Explain how no other buildings were similarly affected

a reply to: waypastvne



What was the impetus for the destruction of WTC7 vs. any number of other buildings nearby?

An aircraft didn't strike it.
And since fires don't cause structural collapse (unless you're in NYC and the date is 9/11/01)
What happened?

What a pain in the ass design. Do me a favor just use that pic of
the detail from now on. Never even heard of a crap design like that.

I'll give you that one even tho it doesn't make any hot damn sense at all.
I hung iron for ten years in so cal and I never seen it done like that before.

a reply to: carsforkids
That's why they will never use that design again.

They wanted a cheap design and they got it.

originally posted by: carsforkids


I'll give you that one even tho it doesn't make any hot damn sense at all.

Thanks for admitting that. You surprised me. I didn't think you would.

Now you can see that the towers had a design flaw in the truss seats and a floor by floor cascade failure is not only possible but probable.

If you look at the exterior columns in the debris pile you can see clear evidence that this was the failure point that led to complete collapse.

a reply to: Identified

Lets switch gears, why should we take the mere opinion of a random person on the Internet with questionable credentials vs. a doctoral level study conducted by a reputable academic institution?

ine.uaf.edu...

If we're going with appeal to authority, Dr. XYZ, PHD probably has you beat

So how about you drop the snark attitude and answer the very simple questions posed here vs. the number of logical fallacies sprinkled with a bit of technical jargon and NIST diagrams (which the reputable study refutes)

a reply to: JBurns
If I may,
The impetus? I dont know that but I do know :

It was destroyed because it housed the command and control emergency war room for NYC with all intelligence services having offices there. It was an intelligence hub with who knows what in its now vaporized records.