Mystery of Building 7 collapse, on 9/11

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

Seriously, 2 steel structures had already collapsed because of fire, both being the first times EVER on Earth.. why not a 3rd?

2 steel structures had collapsed due to severe damage and fire, why do people always forget that it was a combination of damage and fire that brought down the three buildings. One group says fire and forgets the damage, another says damage and forgets the fires......

Problem is both the NIST and FEMA reports state that the builidngs withstood the planes impacts. We have lots of videos and photos that prove the fires did not burn long enough or get hot enough to weaken the steel.

Unless you can explain why fires in the North tower in 1975 burned for 3 hours without doing any damage to the steel but on 911 fires burning less then an hour caused lots of steel to weaken.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Unless you can explain why fires in the North tower in 1975 burned for 3 hours without doing any damage to the steel but on 911 fires burning less then an hour caused lots of steel to weaken.

In all likelihood, the structural damage dealt by the plane impacts themselves was essentially the total extent of structural damage period, excluding explosives/incendiaries.

There has not been a scientific study to date that has shown that fire can cause runaway failures in steel structures in less than 2 hours. On the contrary, all studies have shown the opposite, including NIST's own tests on the WTC trusses.


You wouldn't think it would be a hard concept to grasp, but it's hard to damage steel with fire. Fire doesn't do squat to steel unless it's an extreme amount of heat output over a period of a few hours at least, and that's just to get warping and sagging from just starting to lose critical integrity. It's not like wood, people. The Windsor Tower's outer steel is a good example of this. That steel was very thin, especially compared to the columns in the towers and Building 7, yet it took nearly 24 hours of intense fire to fail.

[edit on 12-3-2007 by bsbray11]

goldragnet,

The original vid has been pulled by Google (n/c)--do you have another link?


[edit on 12-3-2007 by gottago]

I'm not completely sure that this is the original file, but if so, then here's a permanent source:

www.studyof911.com...

What the hell? Their also talking about WTC 7 being in danger of collapse? This is getting stranger and stranger as time goes on.

It really looks like the Media was "SEEDED" with this information from the beginning. Doesn't it??

I mean, the more you you seed this in peoples minds the less they would question it.

Originally posted by bsbray11
You wouldn't think it would be a hard concept to grasp, but it's hard to damage steel with fire.

I don't know where you got that idea, but it's not true at all.

People have been forging metals for thousands of years--with CHARCOAL. That includes steel.

A huge pile of debris, burning, covered in jet fuel, with high winds rushing through it--that's basically an oven or a forge. And you have a hard time believing that that caused the remaining steel to lose its integrity?

Basically, for what you're saying to be true, you'd have to deny thousands of years of metallurgy.

And to further add to White Rabbit's reasoning:

If steel was so fire resistant, then why would it need to be "fireproofed" in the first place?

A fireproofing that is in serious question of you look at WTC building inspections.

Originally posted by talisman
What the hell? Their also talking about WTC 7 being in danger of collapse? This is getting stranger and stranger as time goes on.

It really looks like the Media was "SEEDED" with this information from the beginning. Doesn't it??

I mean, the more you you seed this in peoples minds the less they would question it.

If by "seeded" you mean " getting reports from firefighters and experts on the scene all_day_long-- stating that the building is bulging, unstable, and in serious danger of failure-- then yes, the media was reporting that information.

Originally posted by whiterabbit
People have been forging metals for thousands of years--with CHARCOAL. That includes steel.

A huge pile of debris, burning, covered in jet fuel, with high winds rushing through it--that's basically an oven or a forge. And you have a hard time believing that that caused the remaining steel to lose its integrity?

Yes poeple have been forging steel for several years and the steel forges do not melt or weaken in the process.

What do you mean by covered in jet fuel. Most of the jet fuel was burned off in the intial explosion and what was left burnt off quickly, check the NIST and FEMA reports.

Originally posted by GwionX
If by "seeded" you mean " getting reports from firefighters and experts on the scene all_day_long-- stating that the building is bulging, unstable, and in serious danger of failure-- then yes, the media was reporting that information.

But don't forget about the firefighters reports that said there was "some" damage to about 10 floors, and the firefighters who reported hearing explosions.

[edit on 12-3-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Yes poeple have been forging steel for several years and the steel forges do not melt or weaken in the process.

Try putting 20 stories of building on top of one and see what happens.

The heat caused the steel to lose integrity--not turn to silly putty.

Originally posted by whiterabbit
The heat caused the steel to lose integrity--not turn to silly putty.

You're right. Heated steel buckles. It doesn't split apart at the seams and fall in nice neat piles of steel the same length.

Originally posted by Griff
[You're right. Heated steel buckles. It doesn't split apart at the seams and fall in nice neat piles of steel the same length.

Uh, no, the mass and inertia (with that mass increasing with each floor giving way) of a falling building is more than capable of shearing steel.

You ever fooled around with a grade 8 steel bolt? I built a ladder using them not too long ago. You can stand on that ladder all day long and those bolts won't snap or bend. They're strong little dudes. But you get a fat boy to run and jump on my ladder, and the bolts will snap and the bolts on every rung will snap on your way down (we actually had this happen).

If you heated them up while standing on it, they'd probably break too, although we haven't tested that one out.

Originally posted by whiterabbit
Uh, no, the mass and inertia (with that mass increasing with each floor giving way) of a falling building is more than capable of shearing steel.

If you heated them up while standing on it, they'd probably break too, although we haven't tested that one out.

But what caused enouh heat in the towers to cause them give way?

None of the firechiefs on the scene expected the towers to collapse, they were thinking the upper floors above the fires might collaspe if the fires would have burned several hours longer.

None of the chiefs present believed a total collapse of either tower was possible. Later, after the Mayor had left, one senior chief present did articulate his concern that upper floors could begin to collapse in a few hours, and so he said that firefighters thus should not ascend above floors in the sixties.

[edit on 12-3-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by whiterabbit
Try putting 20 stories of building on top of one and see what happens.

What would happen, whiterabbit? What would happen when a massively redundant structure that was built to hold those 20 floors and then some in the first place, is heated by spread-out office fires for less than 2 hours? All of the scientific tests I've seen indicate that jack squat would happen. This includes NIST's truss tests and tests conducted at Cardington in the UK for about 20 years on fire on steel structures.


What you're suggesting is wrong even by NIST, because the columns didn't heat up, the trusses supposedly did, and the trusses were not what were carrying the loads for the floors above.

What you should try to do is come up with numbers or diagrams showing the damage. No one has seen it. Plus, you're very biased against demolition theories.

You are NEVER going to have an accurate diagram of the damage done to WTC 7 by the collapse of Tower 1. All we are ever going to have are the photos showing the massive smoke and damage to the exterior and the statements of the firefighters about the 20 story hole, the bulges, the parts falling off etc.....

Biased against a theory that would take WEEKS of preparation to set up? No, not us.....I mean its completely reasonable that 3 or 4 guys wired a 47 story building for demolition in a couple hours.

I apparently missed this post earlier.

Originally posted by whiterabbit
I don't know where you got that idea, but it's not true at all.

People have been forging metals for thousands of years--with CHARCOAL. That includes steel.

Excuse me, but, what does that have to do with an office fire, exactly?

A huge pile of debris, burning, covered in jet fuel, with high winds rushing through it--that's basically an oven or a forge.

Hardly. The air pumped into a furnace is pre-heated. Also, the towers were close to open-atmosphere if there was any such wind "rushing through it". Open atmosphere fires top out at around 825 C max, that is with perfect fuel to air ratio. The air serves to cool. When it is pent-up and confined to a small area, then the heat is allowed to build up and become more intense. Just the opposite of what you claim. Look it up, or email fire experts. That's how I came by my information.


Just to clarify, 825 C fires (perfect open-atmosphere fires) would not have been present at the WTC, as the sooty smoke indicates. And be sure not to confuse the temperature of the fire with the temperature to which the steel would be heated in less than 2 hours -- HUGE difference. NIST found no evidence of heating above 300 degrees or so in ANY of its samples.

[edit on 12-3-2007 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
You are NEVER going to have an accurate diagram of the damage done to WTC 7 by the collapse of Tower 1.

Then give me the most damage absolutely possible, and explain how WTC7 collapsed as it did even given that damage. Take off the whole south face if you want, I don't give a damn.

Biased against a theory that would take WEEKS of preparation to set up? No, not us.....I mean its completely reasonable that 3 or 4 guys wired a 47 story building for demolition in a couple hours.

Thanks for the straw-man. I'll be sure to return the favor some time.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Hardly. The air pumped into a furnace is pre-heated.

Dude... People bend steel with charcoal was my point.

Yet you think a huge pile of burning debris can't do it? That it somehow can't cause steel to bend when it's got ENORMOUS pressure sitting on top of it?

That's not even logical.

Originally posted by bsbray11
What would happen, whiterabbit? What would happen when a massively redundant structure that was built to hold those 20 floors and then some in the first place, is heated by spread-out office fires for less than 2 hours? All of the scientific tests I've seen indicate that jack squat would happen.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that if a jet moving 500 mph hadn't sheared some of the load-bearing columns, including ones at the core, then nothing probably would've happened.

But that did happen. And coupled with the fire weakening the rest of the structure, it simply wasn't able to maintain integrity.

You know, seriously, I'm totally cool with people who think that our government knew 9/11 was going to happen and turned a blind eye. That's something you could never disprove.

But the controlled demolition stuff? It's nonsense. It's silly stuff straight out of a comic book. The science doesn't support it. There's no evidence of it whatsoever (despite the LOUD protests of people here). And it just flies in the face of common sense and logic.