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

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: democracydemo

I asked you a question.

There are reports of WTC 7 distorting as the afternoon progressed. Is that false.

There are reports WTC 7 was becoming weaker and failing before collapse. Is that false.

If fire related failures are impossible. Then what was causing WTC 7 to become more structural distorted and weaker as the afternoon went on?

So simple to debunk Hulsey.

Fire related failures?

Or fire related total collapses?


I think most people expected a high likelihood of the 3 affected floors of both buildings possibly failing.

But if that happpened most of the structure would have stood, and most of the "shock and awe" of the event would be lost.

originally posted by: neutronflux

Really. Why is fire insulation used to cover steel structures.

Its not fire alone. It’s fire weakening the steel under load so it becomes over loaded.

Or thermal stress. Expanding and contracting.

Then what cause this buckling in WTC 5

This is what you would expect to see in a fire related failure. A support that can buckle, but still retain retain some of its support.

If the WTC towers and building 7 had failed in the expected way, there would have been no "hammer effect", and thereby no subsequent total collapse at near free fall speed.

What caused the collapse of the steel structure above the 17 floor at the Madrid Windsor?

Your statement is a blatant lie.

To you then.

There are reports of WTC 7 distorting as the afternoon progressed. Is that false.

There are reports WTC 7 was becoming weaker and failing before collapse. Is that false.

If fire related failures are impossible. Then what was causing WTC 7 to become more structural distorted and weaker as the afternoon went on?

The Madrid Windsor collapsed exactly the way the towers should have collapsed. The top basically sheered off leaving the lower structure standing.

It's the DIFFERENCES between Madrid Windsor and 911 that get truthers interested. Not the similarities.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

You

The Madrid Windsor collapsed exactly the way the towers should have collapsed. The top basically sheered off leaving the lower structure standing.

Blatant lie. Please site A source where “ The top basically sheered off“

The Windsor Tower Fire, Madrid

materialsforinteriorsind54862016.files.wordpress.com...

The Damage
The Windsor Tower was completely gutted by the fire on 12 February 2005. A large portion of the floor slabs above the 17th Floor progressively collapsed during the fire when the unprotected steel perimeter columns on the upper levels buckled and collapsed (see Figure 1). It was believed that the massive transfer structure at the 17th Floor level resisted further collapse of the building.
The whole building was beyond repair and had to be demolished. The estimated property loss was �72m before the renovation.
Based on the footages of available media filming, Table 2 summarises the estimated time frame for the structural collapses of the Windsor Tower.

Analysis
The main factors leading to the rapid fire growth and the fire spread to almost all floors included:
the lack of effective fire fighting measures, such as automotive sprinklers
the “open plan” floors with a floor area of 1000m2
the failure of vertical compartmentation measures, in the façade system and the floor openings
It was believed that the multiple floor fire, along with the simultaneous buckling of the unprotected steel perimeter columns at several floors, triggered the collapse of the floor slabs above the 17th floor. The reduced damage below the 17th floor might provide a clue.
The fire protection on the existing steelworks below the 17th floor had been completed at the time of fire except for the 9th and 15th floors. When the fire spread below the 17th floor, those protected perimeter columns survived, except for the unprotected columns at the 9th and 15th floors which all buckled in the multiple floor fire (see Figure 2). However, they did not cause any structural collapse. Obviously, the applied loads supported by these buckled columns had been redistributed to the remaining reinforced concrete shear walls. Nevertheless, structural fire analysis should be carried out before such a conclusion can be drawn.
On the other hand, the reinforced concrete central core, columns, waffle slabs and transfer structures performed very well in such a severe fire. It is clear that the structural integrity and redundancy of the remaining parts of the building provided the overall stability of the building.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Why would the towers lacking load bearing concrete columns like the Madrid Windsor act like the Madrid Windsor?

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

And it’s documented the twin towers had deficient fire insulation before 9/11.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

You

The Madrid Windsor collapsed exactly the way the towers should have collapsed. The top basically sheered off leaving the lower structure standing.

Blatant lie. Please site A source where “ The top basically sheered off“

So, it actually did MUCH LESS than sheer off?

My mistake. Sorry.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

And it’s documented the twin towers had deficient fire insulation before 9/11.

The fire insulation isn't the problem. As I said: most people don't disagree that fire could weaken the steel enough to cause it to yield.

The problem is it yielding instantaneously instead of gradually.

(There is also the problem of the South tower where the fire was so concentrated on just one side of the building that some people from above actually managed to take the stairs on the cooler side, and get to safety. --- and Yet the whole floor somehow managed to fail simultaneously.)

en.wikipedia.org...(September_11_attacks)

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

You

So, it actually did MUCH LESS than sheer off?

My mistake. Sorry.

So, you cannot cite a source to back your lie of an argument.



How did the top sheer off if the concrete core is still there.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

How can anyone take you seriously if you post blatant falsehoods? And ignore actual cited sources.


Now. Cite a source where the Madrid Windsor had “ The top basically sheered off“?

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Again...

Why would the towers lacking load bearing concrete columns like the Madrid Windsor act like the Madrid Windsor?

a reply to: neutronflux


Logic escapes you.

There is no indication the piece in question was acted upon by pyrotechnic cutting charges.

Based on what criteria for cutting charges?

These are very localized burn marks on the steel columns with an even 90° cut on ALL the columns.

Specially indicated by the unburnt crap still hanging off the column.

And the burnt crap would indicate what? On a row of columns:

a reply to: democracydemo

Where is there any evidence this piece was worked on by explosives.



The only thing pictured is a column broken at a weld.

a reply to: democracydemo

Again. No proof of over six hundred columns undergoing the below process.



None.

a reply to: neutronflux

So now it's a broken weld.

Weld with a fresh burn mark like that. Prove me there was even a weld?

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux

So now it's a broken weld.

Weld with a fresh burn mark like that. Prove me there was even a weld?

The crap attached and hanging off the column at the area of the broken weld shows no sign of being exposed to thermite, explosives, it’s not burnt, melted, nor charred.

Wtf? You prove it was pyrotechnics.



There is what is the thinning of paint near the broken weld with the grey of the steel showing through. The weld shows signs of mechanical tearing/shearing. No Indication of being worked on by explosives/thermite. There is no slagging indicating being cut by thermite. There is no indication of a thermite charge working on the column.



What an actual thermite charge does to a painted surface. And the 1000 pound thermite charge couldn’t even cut through the roof of a 4000 pound SUV laying on the vehicle horizontally.

As far as conventional explosives. There is no washed out appearance or eroding with pitting of the metal. No indication of shrapnel/splintered steel. No indication demolition shrapnel hitting the crap hanging off the steel. No indication explosive forces acted like sandblasting on adjacent columns.

And off the pictured columns, there are thinner pieces of steel hanging off the large columns with no indication of being exposed to high heat, explosives. Pyrotechnics you claim cut through much thicker vertical columns leaving thinner metal with no indication of being exposed to pyrotechnics being adjacent to explosive / pyrotechnic charges.

a reply to: democracydemo

From you picture



Looks like thinner sheet metal.

There is no melting, charring, shrapnel holes from being in a building where in your fantasy supposedly over six hundred charges of explosives/thermite cut columns? Ending up right by the columns in your fantasy was supposedly cut by thermite/explosives?

a reply to: neutronflux

The crap attached and hanging off the column at the area of the broken weld shows no sign of being exposed to thermite, explosives, it’s not burnt, melted, nor charred. Wtf? You prove it was pyrotechnics.

What weld??? Did i not ask you to:

Prove me there was even a weld?

For the third(3) time- did these WTC7 exterior columns have a weld in that specific area?

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux

The crap attached and hanging off the column at the area of the broken weld shows no sign of being exposed to thermite, explosives, it’s not burnt, melted, nor charred. Wtf? You prove it was pyrotechnics.

What weld??? Did i not ask you to:

Prove me there was even a weld?

For the third(3) time- did these WTC7 exterior columns have a weld in that specific area?

I say they do. Prove me wrong.

a reply to: democracydemo

Now. For the argument, questions, and observations you are ignoring because you have no valid argument.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux

So now it's a broken weld.

Weld with a fresh burn mark like that. Prove me there was even a weld?

The crap attached and hanging off the column at the area of the broken weld shows no sign of being exposed to thermite, explosives, it’s not burnt, melted, nor charred.

Wtf? You prove it was pyrotechnics.



There is what is the thinning of paint near the broken weld with the grey of the steel showing through. The weld shows signs of mechanical tearing/shearing. No Indication of being worked on by explosives/thermite. There is no slagging indicating being cut by thermite. There is no indication of a thermite charge working on the column.



What an actual thermite charge does to a painted surface. And the 1000 pound thermite charge couldn’t even cut through the roof of a 4000 pound SUV laying on the vehicle horizontally.

As far as conventional explosives. There is no washed out appearance or eroding with pitting of the metal. No indication of shrapnel/splintered steel. No indication demolition shrapnel hitting the crap hanging off the steel. No indication explosive forces acted like sandblasting on adjacent columns.

And off the pictured columns, there are thinner pieces of steel hanging off the large columns with no indication of being exposed to high heat, explosives. Pyrotechnics you claim cut through much thicker vertical columns leaving thinner metal with no indication of being exposed to pyrotechnics being adjacent to explosive / pyrotechnic charges.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: democracydemo

From you picture



Looks like thinner sheet metal.

There is no melting, charring, shrapnel holes from being in a building where in your fantasy supposedly over six hundred charges of explosives/thermite cut columns? Ending up right by the columns in your fantasy was supposedly cut by thermite/explosives?

a reply to: democracydemo

And you still have no evidence the columns were worked on by planted pyrotechnics.

a reply to: democracydemo

Are you implying WTC 7 columns were shipped to site as whole 47 story tall sections?

a reply to: democracydemo

Or it could be where flange bolting was ripped out. It’s still a mechanical or shear failure with no indication it was worked on by pyrotechnics.