The revised WTC7 official story

Author: Smack
By virtue of the ridiculous nature of the myriad government sponsored studies, the 9/11 commission and various magazine and newspaper articles on the subject, the hasty clean up of the crime scenes, the destruction of physical evidence, and the absurd level of secrecy surrounding remaining evidence; one can only conclude that the Government is hiding something.

No doubt it hasn't been properly investigated, and there are aspects to 911 which the government don't want the public to know, but that doesn't in itself prove that they did it, only that in some (probably quite serious) respects they failed to do their job properly. Also if the building contained CIA, wall street investigations etc. They wouldnt want their documents/hard disks etc just lying around for Joe Bloogs to pick up, giving good cause for the hasty clear up and monitoiring of all the trucks.

etshrtslr - is there any evidence of motlen steel in the base of WTC7?
Because even if the conspiracy theory is a fact, WTC7 had to be a different kind of demolition. There is no hot spot on the LIDAR scan at the time, suggesting if it was demolished, it was a more conventional job.

Also, has anyone seen this thermal scan encompassing WTC7?

Link

As I’ve said, the Official story does not conform to the observable evidence.

It's as if they are asking us to believe the earth is flat, or that the Sun revolves around the Earth - I’m sorry, but I’m not buying it.

The shady nature of the present Government (namely BUSH &CO.), and the events following 9/11, have done as much as the physical evidence of that day, to convince me that it was a psy-op; pre-planned and executed by the criminals now in power.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

My response in Bold

As this site states steel buildings do not collapse from fire.(There were more than fires, how long do we have to do this dance) These buildings had as bad or worse structural damage then building 7 and the fires burned longer then the 3 WTC buildings combined. Why do i have to say it again...PLANES HIT TWO OF THE BUILDINGS..DEBRIS SHOWERED THE OTHER...there was EXISTING structural damage at the START of the fire. The site is a fire department site, so i would like to see proof that they are wrong or lying when they say no steel buildings have collapsed from fire.

NIST and FEMA stated the plane impacts did not cause the collapse of the towers so the only thing left is fire. NOT true... NIST says the collapse was due to three things.

(a) structural damage due to impact, and (b) the damage to insulation caused by the impact. NIST say: “In the absence of structural and insulation damage, a conventional fire substantially similar to or less intense than the fires encountered on September 11, 2001, likely would not have led to the collapse of a WTC tower.”

NIST NCSTAR 1, p. 176

www.pleasanthillsfire.org...

Fires Have Never Caused Skyscrapers to Collapse
Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel framed high-rise building to collapse. Following are examples of high-rise fires that were far more severe than those in WTC 1 and 2, and Building 7. In these precedents, the fires consumed multiple floors, produced extensive window breakage, exhibited large areas of emergent flames, and went on for several hours. The fires in the WTC towers did none of these things.

The One Meridian Plaza Fire
One Meridian Plaza is a 38-floor skyscraper in Philadelphia that suffered a severe fire on February 23, 1991. The fire starting on the 22nd floor, and raged for 18 hours, gutting eight floors and causing an estimated $100 million in direct property loss It was later described by Philadelphia officials as "the most significant fire in this century".

The fire caused window breakage, cracking of granite, and failures of spandrel panel connections. Despite the severity and duration of the fire, as evidenced by the damage the building sustained, no part of the building collapsed.

The First Interstate Bank Fire
The First Interstate Bank Building is a 62-story skyscraper in Los Angeles that suffered the worst high-rise fire in the city's history. From the late evening of May 4, 1988 through the early morning of the next day, 64 fire companies battled the blaze, which lasted for 3 1/2 hours. 64 FIRE COMPANIES FIGHTING THE FIRES, HOW MUCH WATER WAS USED TO FIGHT THE FIRES AT THE WTC? The fire caused extensive window breakage, which complicated firefighting efforts. Large flames jutted out of the building during the blaze. Firefighting efforts resulted in massive water damage to floors below the fire, and the fire gutted offices from the 12th to the 16th floor, and caused extensive smoke damage to floors above. The fire caused an estimated $200 million in direct property loss.

A report by Iklim Ltd. describes the structural damage from the fire:

In spite of a total burnout of four and a half floors, there was no damage to the main structural members and only minor damage to one secondary beam and a small number of floor pans. Did you read this? minor damage to one secondary beam and NO damage to the main structural members



The 1 New York Plaza Fire
1 New York Plaza is a 50-story office tower less than a mile from the World Trade Center site. It suffered a severe fire and explosion on August 5, 1970. The fire started around 6 PM, and burned for more than 6 hours.

Caracas Tower Fire
The tallest skyscraper in Caracas, Venezuela experienced a severe fire on October 17, 2004. The blaze began on the 34th floor and spread to over 26 floors, and burned for more than 17 hours. Heat from the fires prevented firefighters from reaching the upper floors, and smoke injured 40 firefighters.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1 These buildings had as bad or worse structural damage then building 7 and the fires burned longer then the 3 WTC buildings combined.

Where does it say that they had worse structural damage?

Originally posted by CameronFox
In spite of a total burnout of four and a half floors, there was no damage to the main structural members and only minor damage to one secondary beam and a small number of floor pans. Did you read this? minor damage to one secondary beam and NO damage to the main structural members

Where does it say that they had worse structural damage?

1. Yes so if that kind of fire caused little structural damage how did the isolated fires that did not burn that long in the towers cause so much damge to the steel to cause them to collapse ?

2. Read the discriptions then look at the photos.


[edit on 4-3-2007 by ULTIMA1]

NIST investigation into WTC7

Pages 13 - 23 lay out the details of damage (with photos).

After WTC 2 collapsed:

Some south face glass broken at lower floors
Dust covered lobby areas at floors 1 and 3
Power on in building, phones working
No fires observed

After WTC 1 collapsed:
Heavy debris on Vesey Street and WTC 7 Promenade
No heavy debris observed in lobby area, white dust coating
SW Corner Damage – floors 8 to 18
South face damage between two exterior columns - roof level
down 5 to 10 floors, extent not known

South Face Damage –
• middle 1/4 -1/3 width south face, 10th floor to ground
• large debris hole near center around 14th floor
• 1/4 width south face, above 5th floor, atrium glass intact
• 8th / 9th floor from inside, visible south wall gone with more
damage to west, 2 elevator cars dislodged into elevator lobby

Observed Fire Locations (11:30-2:30 pm)
General
No diesel smells reported from the exterior, stairwells, or lobby
No signs of fire or smoke below floor 6 from stairwell and lobby areas
Fire reported at west wall of floor 7 around 12:15 pm
In east stairwell, smoke was observed near floors 19-20; signs of a fire
observed on floor 23
Looking from southwest corner to the south face
Fire in SW corner near floors 10 or 11
Fire on floors 6, 7, 8, 21, 30
Multiple fires observed on floors numbered 20’s and 30’s
Heavy black smoke coming out of south face gash; no fire observed
Looking from southeast corner to the south face
Fire on floor 12;1 area above covered with smoke
Fire on floors 11-121 moved to east face and progressed to the north
1 fires reported on floor 14, but photographs showed east face fires on floor 12

I cant see any photo evidence of damage to the south face. The only substantial damage I see is on the southwest corner, which only specifically had " Fire in SW corner near floors 10 or 11". As this was the only place with enough obvious structural damage to affect the fire insulation of the building, I'm surprised that fires on two floors ther managed to weaken the structure sufficiently to bring it down the way it did.

SO how do NIST explain it? Heres the 'domino theory'

Horizontal Progression
A vertical failure would pile debris on the east side of the building,
damaging or severing transfer girders and trusses between floors 5
and 7.
This secondary damage has been postulated to cause a horizontal
progression of failure in the core columns at or near floors 5 and 7.

Global Collapse
The global collapse occurred with few external signs and is postulated
to have occurred with the failure of core columns

So one column gave way, causing erm...all the others to give way too! Like a tower of cards? Who built this thing so weakly?


Also, notice how they say the collapse occured "with few external signs". Not what the latest reports would have us believe. Seemed like everyone and his dog had news of the "few external signs" that day.

[edit on 4-3-2007 by Giordano Bruno]