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

originally posted by: waypastvne


This is a truss seat. It has a structual capacity of 94.000 pounds. If that is exceeded.....it fails.

The big take away is the second tower fell about 35 minutes before the first tower because it had 26 floors compared to 14 floors of weight above and so needed less time to reach that critical point of failure from 23,000 pounds of gas burning and impact failures. This is not something that could be planned out in anyway, or positioned explosives just right for the towers to collapse at the variable points the planes hit. One floor drop of 26 floors was close to 3 billion foot pounds of energy, more than enough to pancake the next followed by all the rest. Even the first tower at about 1.6 billion foot pounds of energy was more than enough too.

So whether explosives were used at the right spot and took out just the one floor or that the impact damage and burning gas took out one or more floors the results would have been the same in the pounds of force would pancake the buildings easily even on the first floor drop.

The only impossible part here is it would have been impossible to determined when and where the planes would hit to preposition the charges. It is not like the collapses started well under or over the impact points, the initial collapses were right at the totally undetermined impact points.

If people want to say it was our own Goverment doing this then so be it...it doesn't change how it all happened, or that there was a need for explosives, it just changes who was behind the curtains to orchestrate it all.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: kloejen

You

I repeat, "simultaneous failure of every column in the building", please neutronflux explain that?

which was their conclusion, and you have avoided so far?

I addressed it in my first post and other posts...

No u did not, YOU posted some dribble, that is not even concerning the question how all core columms somehow disapperead simultaneously in WTC7.

And you black and white text screen aint gonna prove nothing.

originally posted by: Box of Rain

originally posted by: UnearthlyEarthling
...Thermite. The colour of the liquid indicates its burning at over 1000 degrees celcius. A higher temperature than what just fire can achieve.

How did ancient civilizations melt iron, bronze, and copper at temperatures of 1300 degrees Celcius with just fire?

The answer is they used bellows to blow air into the fire. The oxygen in the blown air would enhance the fire, making it burn hotter.

I can image the higher winds the are present as you go higher up a building could produce a bellows effect on the inside of a burning building (especially via air rushing into broken windows and other openings), stoking the fires in the building with oxygen to make them hot enough to melt metal -- like an ancient metal smelter.

Except that steel is a very poor conductor of heat.

To claim that small fires on the upper floors could transmit heat through the structure sufficient to melt the lower floors is the sign of a very poorly informed mind, or perhaps just plain old deception.

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 ?

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?

originally posted by: Salander

To claim that small fires on the upper floors could transmit heat through the structure sufficient to melt the lower floors is the sign of a very poorly informed mind, or perhaps just plain old deception.

It just needed to do critical damage to just one floor and 23,000 pounds of jet fuel is not a small fire... lol It doesn't need to melt steel just weakens it all to the point of just one structural point to buckle, then all that weight is places on the second structurally weaken point that buckles too, so on and so forth. Extremely quick after the first one goes.

originally posted by: kloejen

No u did not, YOU posted some dribble, that is not even concerning the question how all core columms somehow disapperead simultaneously in WTC7.

WTC7's columns failed over a 6.5 second time period. Not simultaneously.

Get your facts straight.

a reply to: waypastvne

They are located here.

I know where the trusses go in commercial buildings and how they
sit on top of the outside bearing walls. And that a truss is used most
commonly in the roof structure of a building while a joist is used
between floors. But they all sit on top of the outside bearing wall
or beam and the connections most likely keep each joist on center
according to lay out. Then decking then concrete.

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.

Deputy Fire Chief Hayden:

By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

www.firehouse.com...

www.steelconstruction.info...

All materials weaken with increasing temperature and steel is no exception. Strength loss for steel is generally accepted to begin at about 300°C and increases rapidly after 400°C. By 550°C steel retains approximately 60% of its room temperature yield strength, and 45% of its stiffness. At high temperatures, steel is also subjected to significant thermal elongation, which may lead to adverse impacts, especially if it is restrained. It follows therefore that one would expect that structural steelwork which has been subjected to high temperatures would exhibit signs of this in the form of distortion and buckling.

The tensile strength reduction for grade 4.6 bolts is similar to that for grade S275 steel. For grade 8.8 bolts, which are heat treated in manufacture, the residual strength reduction is more marked if the material temperature has exceeded 450°C. The residual strength of these bolts falls to 80% and 60% after reaching temperatures of 600°C and 800°C respectively.

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: waypastvne



how they sit on top of the outside bearing walls.

The trusses are not sitting on top of the bearing walls. They are sitting on a truss seat that is welded to the side of the columns. The welds failed when they were overloaded. A cascade failure ensued.

www.nist.gov...

How did the collapse of WTC 7 differ from the collapses of WTC 1 and WTC 2?

WTC 7 was unlike the WTC towers in many respects. WTC 7 was a more typical tall building in the design of its structural system. It was not struck by an aircraft. The collapse of WTC 7 was caused by a single initiating event-the failure of a northeast building column brought on by fire-induced damage to the adjacent flooring system and connections-which stands in contrast to the WTC 1 and WTC 2 failures, which were brought on by multiple factors, including structural damage caused by the aircraft impact, extensive dislodgement of the sprayed fire-resistive materials or fireproofing in the impacted region, and a weakening of the steel structures created by the fires.
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.

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.

a reply to: waypastvne

The trusses are not sitting on top of the bearing walls. They are sitting on a truss seat that is welded to the side of the columns. The welds failed when they were overloaded. A cascade failure ensued.

Well that connection you have pictured absolutely doesn't look
like any truss or joist connection I've ever seen. In fact it looks
more the kind of interior connection used for lighting soffits.

Bet ya a dollar to a donut the joists in the other pic are sit'n on
the outside wall. You think all those joists get up there one by one?
Nope the crane pics em up 5=6 banded together and sets em down
on top of the walls. Then the connectors just slide em into place.

If it's a different design it sure don't make sense.

originally posted by: carsforkids


Bet ya a dollar to a donut the joists in the other pic are sit'n on
the outside wall.

You lose. That truss seat is how the loads from the floors were transferred into the columns.


This is a fact.




You can read about it here:
app.aws.org...

a reply to: waypastvne

Your pic with the arrows. I never seen no bent joist or truss
any where before. The joist is at the bottom of the pic.

That's why I said it looks more like it's for a soffit.


I wouldn't rate the connection in that pic for 24lbs. lol

originally posted by: carsforkids

The joist is at the bottom of the pic.

That is the visco elastic dampener.

The link is right here. Click it. Read it. Look at the pictures. Learn something today.

Are you afraid ?

app.aws.org...

Gross and McAllister (Ref. 3) dis- cussed the probable collapse sequence, based upon experimental work and finite element analyses, for the WTC towers that specified the main structural events lead- ing to collapse initiation; the reader is re- ferred to that document for details leading to the collapse. Immediately after collapse initiation, the potential energy of the structure (physical mass of the tower) above the impact floors (94th to 99th in WTC 1 and 77th to 85th in WTC 2) was re- leased, developing substantial kinetic en- ergy. The impact of this rapidly accelerat- ing mass on the floors directly below led to overloading and subsequent failure of these floors. The additional mass of the failed floors joined that of the tower mass from above the impact area, adding to the kinetic energy impinging on the subse- quent floors. The failure of successive floors was apparent in images and videos of the towers’ collapse by the compressed air expelled outward as each floor failed and fell down onto the next. This mecha- nism appears to have continued until dust and debris obscured the view of the col- lapsing towers.

originally posted by: kloejen

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: kloejen

You

I repeat, "simultaneous failure of every column in the building", please neutronflux explain that?

which was their conclusion, and you have avoided so far?

I addressed it in my first post and other posts...

No u did not, YOU posted some dribble, that is not even concerning the question how all core columms somehow disapperead simultaneously in WTC7.

And you black and white text screen aint gonna prove nothing.

So you don’t have an actual rebuttal to the documented shortcomings and fraudulent modeling of the Hulsey report. Got it.

And you didn’t address the below?

a reply to: kloejen

This is where you show evidence that over six hundred charges was doing the below..


All burning over 3000 degrees Fahrenheit. And that is not including kicker charges to misalign columns.

a reply to: waypastvne

I did click it and yes it was so scary.

Your pic isn't there is it?

The connection in that pic your using is a joke. 94,000 lbs
not by my standards.