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

But what does any of that have to do with WTC 7?

It wasn't struck by an aircraft. And since you claim to be an engineer or something along those lines, you obviously know structural fires don't cause collapses because they don't melt steel. Steel melts at a much higher temperature than any fire (including those started with accelerants) can produce

What would cause WTC 7 to "catch fire" in the first place? Why didn't any closer building catch fire? I've had a beer at the nice little Irish pub with all the police patches on the wall (mine are hanging there, too) right across the street which did not catch fire and collapse.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: waypastvne

And yet 2 planes cannot take down 3 physically separate towers.

Obviously it can.

a reply to: waypastvne

How?

a reply to: Xtrozero

The impacts of the airliners removed the fire retardant materials on WTC1 and 2. The office fires started by the fuel were hot enough to reduce the strength of the steel to initiate failure. Once started, the collapse could not be stopped because of the building design.
Any coverup of the collapse after the fact was likely due to substandard construction and corrupt building inspectors. Any coverup on the front end was likely the incompetence of the Bush appointees to upper level positions in the various DOJ and DOD bureaus and offices.

a reply to: pteridine

So what removed the fire retardant from WTC 7?

a reply to: JBurns

Snark attitude? I supplied nothing but links. If you can't understand science then that is a personal problem I can't help you with.

The fact you still assert that "structural fires don't cause collapses because they don't melt steel. Steel melts at a much higher temperature than any fire" shows it doesn't matter what anyone says regardless of degree because you don't understand the science.

originally posted by: JBurns

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

David Scott - Chairman of Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitats Sept/2008

I believe that the NIST report is a responsible attempt to find the cause of the failure, however there are many questions that are not answered in any detail and several of these questions are already on the discussion forum. I think that with a responsible dialog and debate that the NIST report can be much better and clearer than it is in the current form.

However, that being said, I would like to be clear that I see no credibilty whatsoever in the 911 truth movement and I believe, like the vast majority of tall building professionals, that all the failures at the WTC ( WTC 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7) were a direct or indirect result of the planes that were flown into the two towers. I have carefully looked at the evidence that the 911 truth movement presents and I cannot see any evidence of a controlled demolition. Unfortunately the 911truth movement web site does not allow any opinions contrary to their own, or I would have presented my views.

David Scott - CTBUH Chairman

originally posted by: JBurns
But what does any of that have to do with WTC 7?

It wasn't struct by an aircraft. And since you claim to be an engineer or something along those lines, you obviously know structural fires don't cause collapses because they don't melt steel. Steel melts at a much higher temperature than any fire (including those started with accelerants) can produce

What would cause WTC 7 to "catch fire" in the first place? Why didn't any closer building catch fire? I've had a beer at the nice little Irish pub with all the police patches on the wall (mine are hanging there, too) right across the street which did not catch fire and collapse.

What do you think happened to 5 and 6?

a reply to: pteridine

I know what didn't happen to WTC5/WTC6: collapse due to structural fire

Am I mistaken?

Gutted? Devastated? Severe/heavy damage? Burned out? All of those would be consistent with an uncontrolled structural fire. Collapse would not, provided you look at the complete history of skyscraper/high-rise structural fires

a reply to: JBurns

Try reading the links provided and you will have your answers.

Strength loss for steel is generally accepted to begin at about 300°C and increases rapidly after 400°C.

The fires in WTC 7 were quite different from the fires in the WTC towers. Since WTC 7 was not doused with thousands of gallons of jet fuel, large areas of any floor were not ignited simultaneously as they were in the WTC towers. Instead, separate fires in WTC 7 broke out on different floors, most notably on Floors 7 to 9 and 11 to 13. The WTC 7 fires were similar to building contents fires that have occurred in several tall buildings where the automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present.

Factors contributing to WTC 7's collapse included: the thermal expansion of building elements such as floor beams and girders, which occurred at temperatures hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in current practice for fire-resistance ratings; significant magnification of thermal expansion effects due to the long-span floors in the building; connections between structural elements that were designed to resist the vertical forces of gravity, not the thermally induced horizontal or lateral loads; and an overall structural system not designed to prevent fire-induced progressive collapse.

There were some differences between the fires in WTC 7 and those in the referenced buildings, but these differences were secondary to the fire factors that led to the collapse of WTC 7: 1) Fires in high rise buildings typically have a single point of origin on a single floor, whereas the fires in WTC 7 likely had a single point of origin on multiple (10) floors; 2); fires in other high rise buildings were due to isolated events, whereas the fires in WTC 7 followed the collapse of WTC 1; 3) water was available to fight fires in the other high rise buildings, but the water supply to fight fires in WTC 7 was impaired; and 4) while the fires in the other buildings were actively fought by fire fighters to the extent possible, in WTC 7, no efforts were made to fight the fires.
The differences in the fires were not meaningful for the following reasons. By the time that WTC 7 collapsed, the fires in WTC 7 had advanced well beyond the likely points of origin on multiple floors (i.e., south and west faces) and originating points of fire origin had no bearing on the fire conditions when the building collapsed (i.e., in the northeast quadrant). Additionally, in each of the other referenced buildings, the fires burned out several floors, even with available water and fire fighting activities (except for WTC 5). Thus, whether the fire fighters fought the WTC 7 fires or not is not a meaningful point of dissimilarity from the other cited fires.

The Gish Gallop is strong with you.

a reply to: Identified

I don't fully understand the science. I never claimed to. Which is why I have said the explanation of WTC1/WTC2 is plausible - which is generous given the myriad of discrepancies (phone calls, max speed etc). For instance, you know what would've collapsed? That Boeing aircraft traveling at the speeds it is said to have traveled at (Ask Egypt Air)

However, the collapse of WTC 7 resulting solely from a structure fire is a significant anomaly wouldn't you agree?

a reply to: JBurns

WTC 5 was 9 story building. That's a 1/5 the size of WTC7. And it did have a partial collapse of 4 of it's floors. Nearly half.

WTC6 was pretty much destroyed after the collapse of the North Tower.

originally posted by: JBurns

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

Rick Bell talks about Richard Gage.

Director of the American Institute of Architects’ New York chapter Rick Bell, who witnessed 9/11, expressed surprise at the event and said “no amount of money” would persuade him to allow the group to talk at his headquarters.

“The professional community discredits this guy,” he said. “We rent to just about anybody but if this guy came to me I’d say we don’t want your money, we don’t want you in our building.

“You have to draw the line somewhere… Not for any amount of money would we have that talk in our space. It gives it a credibility that it doesn’t deserve.”

KPF chairman Gene Kohn, who was the AIA’s spokesman in the aftermath of the attacks, called Gage’s theories “ridiculous”.

a reply to: JBurns

9/11 was one huge anomaly. No one expect two jet fuel laden 767s to crash into both the north and south towers. But it happened and known science explains the structural failure of every single building that day.

Just because you don't understand the science doesn't mean it was a conspiracy. Bad things happen.

a reply to: Identified

The links don't even come close to addressing my question/explaining the statement earlier on.

The impacts of the airliners removed the fire retardant materials on WTC1 and 2. The office fires started by the fuel were hot enough to reduce the strength of the steel to initiate failure. Once started, the collapse could not be stopped because of the building design.

Even if I accept the explanation that aircraft impacts removed fire retardant materials on towers 1 & 2, we are left with the obvious building 7 (WTC7) that was never struck by any aircraft.

No "gish gallop" required. It's a simple concept, a simple question, a simple argument and a very simple conclusion.

We are told the buildings collapsed (the only skyscrapers that ever collapsed due to fires, mind you) occurred because aircraft struck them. Many don't buy this explanation (myself included), but even if we did that all goes out the window with WTC7.

Beyond that, this latest study (people who *do* understand the science) refutes the NIST's conclusions (without using so many "could've/likely/maybe/probably/possibly"'s

a reply to: Identified

Can you use that known science to refute a single point of this latest study? Or identify a flaw in their methodology?

I realize asking such is truly a herculean task.

However, this latest group isn't the only collection of professionals who simply don't buy the explanations we've been given.

Pilots for 9/11 truth
Architects for 9/11 truth
..this latest study
and many more!

There are a handful of questions that absolutely need to be answered before the official explanation can be considered.

a reply to: JBurns

Simple. Read what you have been provided. The answers are on those links.

You can claim the NIST is refuted but the simple fact is the science provided is science. It hasn't changed. There are decades of studies regarding steel strength and temperature. Don't read the NIST then. Read a science book.

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?

a reply to: JBurns

But they didn't say why it happened.
Wasn't that the point of the study?

As I said before:
A coroner could not get away with saying he died because his heart stopped beating.
But some how this study answers questions???

Millions spent saying it fell down because it fell down?
And now the conspiracy believers are shouting "I told you so !!"

a reply to: waypastvne

Yet he doesn't cite a single example behind his reasoning

No different than saying "the official explanation says XYZ, so anybody saying ABC is crazy/kookish/paranoid/etc." Even worse, some claim that merely asking the question is wrong (remind you of any other fairly recent events?)

There are some valid questions presented by the detractors of the official story that aren't going to go away

a reply to: JBurns

However, this latest group isn't the only collection of professionals who simply don't buy the explanations we've been given.

But none of those groups have ever put forth their own explanation that covers all the facts.