official FEMA WTC 7 report

I thought you guys might be interested FEMA WTC 7 report

Interesting beginning "Prior to September 11, 2001,
there was little, if any, record of fire-induced collapse of large fire-protected steel buildings. The structural design and construction features of this building, potential fuel loads, fire damage, and the observed sequence of collapse are presented to provide a better understanding of what may have happened."


[edit on 2005-10-13 by zer69] Sorry already covered, typo in my search. ;-/

[edit on 2005-10-13 by zer69]

The much more extensive report by the NIST will be issued sometime this winter.

wtc.nist.gov...

Originally posted by zer69
I thought you guys might be interested FEMA WTC 7 report

Interesting beginning "Prior to September 11, 2001,
there was little, if any, record of fire-induced collapse of large fire-protected steel buildings. The structural design and construction features of this building, potential fuel loads, fire damage, and the observed sequence of collapse are presented to provide a better understanding of what may have happened."


[edit on 2005-10-13 by zer69] Sorry already covered, typo in my search. ;-/

[edit on 2005-10-13 by zer69]

I absolutely realize there were large gas storage tanks, generators both in and under the building. Ok. But how could a couple fires in a fe woffices cause the kind of damage needed for a perfect 7 second freefall explosion?
Wouldnt the whole place exploded if it happened according to this report?
And what about Silverstein's own statements? Or what agencies were in the building? No wonder they never mention WTC7 in the official 9/11 commission.

Originally posted by 8bitagent
And what about Silverstein's own statements? Or what agencies were in the building? No wonder they never mention WTC7 in the official 9/11 commission.

I wouldn't even ask Howard that if I were you. He may struggle with explaining how an office fire could result in this:



but he'll have no problem trying to convince you that Silverstein meant "pull out" instead of "pull it," even though no one was even in the building and the whole point of Silverstein's comment was that the firefighters didn't want to try to fight the fire and they had elected to "pull it" instead.

Now, now...don't rock the 9/11 boat. You're not supposed to question "the truth" as it's provided to you, you're simply supposed to accept it. Now, be a good little sheople and stop questioning, stop thinking and start conforming.

He may struggle with explaining how an office fire could result in this:

It's simple... that's the result, when building's collapse starts from bottom (as in controlled demolition).

I absolutely realize there were large gas storage tanks, generators both in and under the building. Ok. But how could a couple fires in a fe woffices cause the kind of damage needed for a perfect 7 second freefall explosion?

I'd like to see a video where i can estimate the collapse time my self. At free fall it would take about 5,53 seconds. From collapse time you can calculate average resisting forces.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
The much more extensive report by the NIST will be issued sometime this winter.

Gee, I can't wait for that one. It's going to be a fascinating lesson in government BS to see how NIST explains away the perfect implosion of WTC7, and it's going to be a fascinating lesson in public gullibility to see if people will believe NIST telling them the sky is green in broad daylight.



" Ohhhh, so it was the fire in the diesel fuel tanks combined with damage to the south face...well, that explains it then. Change the channel, will you Margaret? "

The skeptics tend to stay away from discussions about WTC 7.

WAsn't it a 'diesel fuel tank' not 'gasoline' ? Big difference as gasoline is more explosive ... regardless neither had the ability to cause a uniform demolition.

As a matter of fact IF the south face was so 'badly damaged' and if the 'fuel tank' had ignited and these occurrences cause the building's collapse .... the building would either fall over like a tree or collapse partially.

Any structural engineer or demolition expert will tell you that a uniform collapse based on a 'fuel tank' and southside damage is a near impossible occurrance.

Originally posted by Zamboni
WAsn't it a 'diesel fuel tank' not 'gasoline' ? Big difference as gasoline is more explosive ... regardless neither had the ability to cause a uniform demolition.

Yes, it was diesel.

Any structural engineer or demolition expert will tell you that a uniform collapse based on a 'fuel tank' and southside damage is a near impossible occurrance.

I beg to differ. The number of SE's that came out and started talking about "progressive collapse" and "pancake collapse" after the FEMA report is disturbing. The phenomenon has never been observed in structural engineering history, and will never be observed again I'll venture to say. Nor did the term or even the concept exist before 9-11. But that doesn't stop these folks from recommending that construction principles be completely revised and that future buildings be constructed to prevent possible "pancake collapse".

You can bet your bottom dollar that after NIST's WTC7 report comes out, whatever bogus explanation and physics-defying new hypotheses named after breakfast or dessert items they come up with, many SE's will be parroting it with glee.

And the herd will herd itself...

Well I do agree that a pancake collapse of WTC1 & WTC2 floor structures is possible ...the design of the centralized vertical support structure is static and quite separate. These 47 vertical support columns would not have been affected by a pancake collapse, since the floor structures were designed and built outside & around the vertical column structure. In layman terms the central support columns should have remained standing at least partially similar to as if a large pole with heavy square donuts around it ... the square donuts would fall and crash upon their weight leaving the pole standing.

While the collapse of WTC1&2 defy this basic engineering/physics reality ... many eyewitnesses report hearing sub-basement explosions just before their collapse(and even a plume of smoke caught on tape at the base). I suspect that these sub-basement detonations caused the failure of the vertical support columns and thus allowed the entire structures to collapse completely into their footprints at near freefall speeds. It is most likely that during the pre 9/11 weekend when 'network cabling' was supposedly being installed that most likely the 'dancing israeli mossad agents' were installing explosives in the sub-basement support columns in ALL the WTC buildings ... which would precisely explain the uniform collapse of WTC1,2&7. And BTW I did attend unviersity for structural engineering almost 20 years ago ... so I do have some concept of what I am deducing.

Originally posted by Zamboni
Well I do agree that a pancake collapse of WTC1 & WTC2 floor structures is possible ...the design of the centralized vertical support structure is static and quite separate. These 47 vertical support columns would not have been affected by a pancake collapse,...

I agree, but I would posit that even if the core had remained standing, in accordance with the principles of least resistance and energy transference, under such a collapse mode, the collapse of the trussed floors would only be partial and could not possibly progress down to the very pavement, unless the failures of the truss seats, both around the core and the perimeter columns, were completely and entirely simultaneous on every single floor all the way down. Again, impossible.

Not to rain on anything, but I had never seen this WTC7 photo before:



ouch.

But even if demolition wasnt used in the WTC7, ya still got the testimony of William Rodriguez about explosions in the WTC sublevel prior to plane 1 hitting.

And even still, there is so much evidence of distorted facts, foreknowlege, and some sort ofcoverup...disproving the explosive claims doesn't take away from anything.

We know that Flight 77 really did hit the pentagon now, I don't think that takes away from the 9/11 Truth Movement.

Also, click here and immediately scroll to the bottom to see massive smoke coming from the building:
www.911myths.com...

[edit on 25-10-2005 by 8bitagent]

8bitagent wrote:
Not to rain on anything, but I had never seen this WTC7 photo before

I don't think you've rained on anything at all. It's a well-known fact that there were diesel fuel tanks underneath the loading dock in WTC7 that had pipes and day-tanks on various floors.

* Two tanks, maximum capacity 11,600 gallons each. Found intact after the collapse. 20,000 gallons total was recovered from these by the EPA.
* Two tanks, maximum capacity 6.000 gallons each. Found ruptured, but not exploded, after the collapse. At the time of the FEMA report, the tanks had yet to be extracted and examined.

If fire did reach any of the two 6,000 gallon tanks, or they were still pumping fuel up into the building through the generator feed pipes, this would create a huge amount of smoke. Diesel makes lots of very dark, very thick smoke when it burns. The volume and thickness of smoke is not indicative of a raging inferno, as the lack of any awe-inspiring WTC7 fire pictures and the lack of any smoke coming out of the side of the building in that picture will attest to.

The pic and video of the smoke coming out of WTC7 proves nothing, and is actually pathetic when compared to other buildings that have been absolutely gutted by fire until they are virtual skeletons and yet not even partially collapsed. But the smoke will be enough to convince the masses, and that is all FEMA/NIST need/want.

Also diesel doesn't explode unless it's a vapour and hot - that's why diesel engines have a "preheat" plug to get the cylinder warm enough to run, and that's exactly why diesel is used in tanks such as those in WTC7 and other buildings. So any claims of exploding diesel tanks is bogus, further supported by the fact that FEMA never mentioned any exploded tanks in their report. 24,000 gallons of petroleum on the other hand would be a disaster waiting to happen.

It should also be noted that the "we're oh so impartial" 9-11 Myths website altered the levels and contrast on that image to make the smoke appear thicker and darker.




Here is the original:




Be forewarned, NIST is going to do lots of arm-flapping, and probably pull a couple of new photos of damage to the southeast corner, fires, and smoke out of the bag when their WTC7 report comes out. They will also likely spin something about sulphur in the diesel fuel (only 15 parts per million, folks) causing iron sulphide formation and thus lowering the temperature at which the steel melted. But no facade damage, and no fire, whether fuelled by diesel fuel or Dilithium, is ever going to cause a steel framed building to collapse in a completely symmetrical, flawless imitation of a controlled demolition the way WTC7 did. If it could, demolition companies would be out of a job, diesel fuel wouldn't be allowed within 100 meters of any building basements, and fire-fighters would never enter burning buildings for fear that they are about to collapse.



We've seen the smoke, now wait for winter when NIST pulls out the mirrors.

[edit on 2005-10-25 by wecomeinpeace]