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

a reply to: Xtrozero

It might to be a clue as to whether someone is using a phone or a real computer.

originally posted by: Phage

It might to be a clue as to whether someone is using a phone or a real computer.

True...

a reply to: firerescue

Thanks for that! Makes total sense now

sadly good luck finding this kind of quality factual information on any of the 1,000,000+ 9/11 conspiracy videos

Pretty smart on part of the aircraft engineers really, since it seems VHF would have optimal LOS at the kinds of altitudes and proximities the aircraft would normally operate at

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: Salander


melt the lower floors

Are you saying you have proof the lower floors were melted. Can you show us this proof?

I don't remember anyone saying the lower floors were melted.



Are you building a straw man ?

Then you must have been sound asleep in the early days of the events.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Sure pal, whatever you say.

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: waypastvne

No, 19 years ago the government and media asked me to believe that small fires on the upper floors were what caused a universal collapse at free fall speeds.

Thankfully Kevin Ryan pointed out the obvious. Steel is a poor conductor of heat and the official story was nonsense.

Do you still believe that bull# story?

So Kevin Ryan is your straw man ? Let's light him up and see how much heat he conducts.

A typical response from a man with no argument.

a reply to: Salander

The quote that sums up your intellectual argument

Other words. Empty.

a reply to: neutronflux

Where do I claim anything of the sort?

Simply stating fire does not cause complete and total collapse of steel structures.

Let alone completely demolish a building in less than 20 seconds.

a reply to: Grenade

Let alone completely demolish a building in less than 20 seconds.

It took less than 20 seconds of burning? Weird.
Seemed that it took longer than that. Of course, I was only watching on TV.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: neutronflux

Where do I claim anything of the sort?

Simply stating fire does not cause complete and total collapse of steel structures.

Let alone completely demolish a building in less than 20 seconds.

That reply was to this?

This is where you cite evidence of pyrotechnic charges actively setting off and actively cutting steel columns.

Then you might want to explain the most accurate measurements of the facade acceleration shows for a brief time the facade accelerated faster than free fall?

————————
You sure you replied to the right post?

a reply to: Grenade

You

Simply stating fire does not cause complete and total collapse of steel structures.

Then why are millions spent on fire insulation of steel? Why is fire insulation inspected and repaired as necessary?

Let alone completely demolish a building in less than 20 seconds.

Well. Maybe the twin towers shouldn’t have been a legacy of 1939 building codes. Maybe the Port Authority shouldn’t have been allowed to pick and chose which codes they would follow from a 1968 draft. For the 1968 draft of building codes, how muck knowledge did it draw from other 110 story buildings in existence?

Maybe the twin towers shouldn’t have been built cheap and light as possible by minimizing concrete usage beyond common practice. And should have used concrete columns mid span of its longer than normal floor spans?

a reply to: Phage

You really think building 7 looks like a natural collapse?

Fair enough guys, if 20 years of debate and countless architects and engineers aren’t going to convince you then what chance do I have?

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this one.

It’s an old and tired subject that I just don’t have the passion for anymore.

a reply to: Grenade

This is where you cite evidence of pyrotechnic charges actively setting off and actively cutting steel columns.

20 years of Architects and Engineers using falsehoods and lies?

What is AE’s strongest piece of evidence WTC 7 was brought down by planted pyrotechnics?

a reply to: Jchristopher5

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: Jchristopher5

You realise you've posted that on the internet where everyone can see it right?

a reply to: carsforkids

Ok. Who said the WTC building were brought down by melted steel? Pretty much just the truth movement to create their own reality.

WTC 7 was actually hit by flaming debris from the twin towers. Which resulted in structural failures and fires that resulted in its demise.

Other buildings destroyed include St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, Marriott World Trade Center (Marriott Hotel 3 WTC), South Plaza (4 WTC), and U.S. Customs (6 WTC). The World Financial Center buildings, 90 West Street, and 130 Cedar Street suffered fires. The Deutsche Bank Building, the Verizon Building, and World Financial Center 3 had impact damage from the towers' collapse,[54] as did 90 West Street.[55] One Liberty Plaza survived structurally intact but sustained surface damage including shattered windows. 30 West Broadway was damaged by the collapse of 7 WTC. The Deutsche Bank Building, which was covered in a large black "shroud" after September 11 to cover the building's damage, was deconstructed because of water, mold, and other severe damage caused by the neighboring towers' collapse.[56][57] Many works of art were destroyed in the collapse.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

So you meme is even wrong. It should read how did 2 commercial passenger jets destroy at least 6 buildings and result in damage beyond economic repair for several others.

As far as the steel frame buildings. That’s the problem. They were built cheap and light as possible. Had deficient fire insulation, and had areas of fire insulation knocked off. And did not contain concrete columns that had prevented collapse in other buildings.

Why 9/11 Truthers Are Obsessed With the Plasco High-Rise Fire in Tehran

gizmodo.com...

When major skyscraper blazes have occurred, 9/11 truthers have cited the charred but standing structural skeletons as proof of their narrative. Fires scorched Beijing’s 34-story Television Cultural Center in 2009 as well as Dubai’s 67-story Torch in 2012 and 63-story Address in 2015, but none of these buildings collapsed. Conspiracy theorists loudly declared these incidents to be proof that fire alone cannot take down a skyscraper. However, the critical characteristic that AE911Truth ignores is that both towers in Dubai were concrete buildings, and Beijing’s TVCC Building was a composite structure. The aforementioned Grenfell Tower was also a concrete structure.

Pawel Woelke, PhD, P.E., an engineer and expert in structural failure, notes, “Concrete is a material that doesn’t really soften nearly as easily due to high temperature, mostly because it’s porous. It’s a much more porous material, the void/volume fraction is massive compared to steel.” Concrete is somewhere between 20 and 40 times less thermally conductive than steel, and concrete structural systems also tend to be more massive than steel structures, meaning that much more energy is needed to heat them to the same degree. Concrete and steel are both materials used in the superstructures of skyscrapers, but they behave very differently under prolonged exposure to fire. This knowledge seems to be lost on AE911Truth, which has trumpeted every concrete high-rise blaze as definitive proof that fire simply cannot cause a steel building to collapse.

Unless I missed one bullet point of your intellectual corrupt and bankrupt meme, the rest are off topic for this thread.

Funny how you keep changing the subject from Hulsey’s report is crap based off fraudulent modeling.

a reply to: mrthumpy

You cut and paste very well, now do you have anything of note to bring to this discussion ……???

a reply to: neutronflux

I do nothing of the sort.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: neutronflux

I do nothing of the sort.

Trying to distract, and change the subject from the fact the Hulsey report is crap?

Shrugs.

a reply to: neutronflux

Quote where I ever made such a claim I had such pictures.

And you somehow tie WTC5 localized floor connection failure to WTC7, with no actual evidence whatsoever from the building in question?

Just the pure void of material evidence from WTC7 steel suggests, to a heathy skeptical mind, there's f_uckery a foot.