WTC 7 Collapse Due To Fire Only.

May I gently present to you that the argument:

"No Steel Building Has Ever Collapsed Due To Fire"

... is kind of weak. Just because something has not happened in the past does not mean it is impossible. I understand that you are really saying that not enough heat can be generated by a building fire, diesel or no diesel, to evenly weaken enough supports to cause a total and straight down collapse, but with the official line towers, you really need to get specific.

Just food for thought that this particular argument is easy to get run in circles on...

[removed quote of entire previous post]



You are of course, absolutely correct. It does not mean that it would never happen... just that it is highly unlikely.
But then on the same note, that means that there has never been a case of a steel building colapsing due to fire and the first 3 buildings in history to do so happen within hours of each other and in exactly the same place. Coincidence?




Mod Edit: Quoting – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 20-3-2007 by 12m8keall2c]

You are of course, absolutely correct. It does not mean that it would never happen... just that it is highly unlikely.

In my opinion, the odds are such, that it approaches the impossible.

Taken in context with the improbable collapse of the 3 buildings, the ensuing pre-written, draconian legislation, passed without debate (Patriot Act), and the unprecedented adoption of pre-emptive War policies - provide Prima facie evidence of who was to blame and why.

Originally posted by Smack

In my opinion, the odds are such, that it approaches the impossible.

I dont think your far off being completely correct there. Which, as I mentioned in a previous post, leaves only one possibility for the collapse of WTC7.
It must have been badly damaged by debris from the towers.
Which leads me back to my post previous to that, if you look at the pictures I posted you will see that the building being damaged and collapsing due to ruble is also highly unlikely as the two buildings standing side by side seem largly untouched at all.
So was this debris incredibly focused? Did it fall only in one direction? No, of course not.
So I ask again, how is this possible?

WTCs 5&6 had far more structure damage and did not collapse.They were smaller and still survived.I find this incredibly odd.

Originally posted by crowpruitt
WTCs 5&6 had far more structure damage and did not collapse.They were smaller and still survived.I find this incredibly odd.

Though neither building totally collapsed, they both suffered partial collapses and were later demolished.

This is of course the behavior we would expect for the type of construction...

Now, why did we not see this behavior in 1,2 or 7?

5 and 6 had tons and tons of steel rained on them from up to the height of 1KM and failed to totally collapse, yet, 7 totally collapsed with a fraction of the debris damage 5 and 6 had. It is highly suspicious that we saw a totally different behavior in the way 7 came down. Transfer trusses or not, the odds of total collapse of 7 in such a perfect fashion rapidly approach zero.

Originally posted by Pootie
May I gently present to you that the argument:

"No Steel Building Has Ever Collapsed Due To Fire"

... is kind of weak.

Actually NO, its not weak. Do you understand anything about Engineering? This little bit will explain it best:


wtc7.net...

Engineering is a science that melds theory and experience to create robust structures. Unintended structural failures are rare events that warrant the most careful scrutiny, since they test engineering theory.

That is why the NTSB carefully documents aircraft crash scenes, and preserves the aircraft remains, frequently creating partial reconstructions in hangars. If an investigation reveals a mechanical or design fault, the FAA usually mandates specific modifications of equipment or maintenance procedures system-wide, and future aircraft are designed to avoid the fault.

Basicaly, when something breaks, we learn from it, and improve it in the future. Well WTC 7 was a building designed from OTHER buildings that have had fires. WTC 7 was concidered a "modern skyscraper" because of all the precaution that went into the design. These brilliant engineers that designed WTC 7 are now confused out of their mind, because the engineering guidelines and rules and theorys they have built on for many years have been totaly stepped on and ignored, 3 times in the same day.


The guidelines and rules and theorys they have built upon and improved over the years, are now pretty much meaningless. They designed the buildings to withstand fire, no doubt about that, but a fire just took 3 buildings down on 9/11.

Its pretty mind boggling for me...

Whats even more mind boggling, is that they didn't even study WTC 7's collapse. Yet, they already designed and built a NEW WTC 7. Normally when something so major (worlds first building to fall from fire) happens, they will study it and re-engineeer it, to make sure it never happens again.. soo... why didn't they study it?


[edit on 20-3-2007 by Connected]

Originally posted by Connected
wtc7.net...

That is why the NTSB carefully documents aircraft crash scenes, and preserves the aircraft remains, frequently creating partial reconstructions in hangars. If an investigation reveals a mechanical or design fault, the FAA usually mandates specific modifications of equipment or maintenance procedures system-wide, and future aircraft are designed to avoid the fault.

[edit on 20-3-2007 by Connected]

Problem is we have no FBI or NTSB reports on any the 911 aircraft crime scenes. We have seen no attempted recontructions.

When a aircraft crash is assumed to be a crime scene the FBI becomes the main investigating agency with the NTSB providing tecnical support.

If it were truly 19 hijackers with boxcutters, why is everything classified?

What reason does the Government give for keeping all the evidence a secret?

I really want to know.

Originally posted by Smack
If it were truly 19 hijackers with boxcutters, why is everything classified?

What reason does the Government give for keeping all the evidence a secret?

I really want to know.

Well thier is a lot of Freedom of Information Acts filed to try to get more documents and reports from the government agencies involved.

Thier are a few reasons that the government can refuse these FOIAs. The 1 reason if a document, video, or photo would show something dealing with national security.

Heres an article regarding the collapse of the tower and how buildings 5 and 6 were actually totally engulfed in flames and did not collapse, while 7 had sporadic fires but ended up collapsing..
I just thought i would add this to the discussion, thanks..

Photographs taken on the afternoon of 9/11 have recently emerged on the web showing that huge amounts of smoke poured forth primarily from the buildings closest to the collapsed towers, not from the further away building 7 which mysteriously collapsed later the same afternoon.

Despite the fact that the official NIST report cannot officially explain how fire damage caused the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, debunkers of the controlled demolition theory continue to cite "raging infernos" inside the building.

The following set of images highlights the fact that the majority of smoke emanating from the complex was coming from the smaller buildings 5 and 6, which WERE engulfed by fire after suffering major structural damage from falling debris.

Source of orignal story

And I just love how the flames spread over just a couple small fires in the lower floors, bursts out into heavy smoke.

Originally posted by Connected
Actually NO, its not weak. Do you understand anything about Engineering?

Easy turbo... I am on your side. And yes, I have an BS in ME from U of M AA.

The problem with the statement is it is far too broad and sweeping. That is all I was trying to say. It opens way to many doors for circular arguments.

That is all. I have spent countless hours on here as "Slap Nuts" arguing things like this with the SAME POSTERS that spend their days now arguing with you and I am simply trying to help out. Being very specific makes the truthers run away from a thread or statement. When this happens, you have achieved something at least. The statement that "No steel frame building has ever collapsed from fire" is simply not accurate or granular enough and you will get the following responses then have to argue them for the 1000th time on this board:

1. None of your examples include "damage" from a plane hence they are not germane to the argument (re: Madrid Tower, etc.)

2. None of the examples include damage from falling debris like the supposed damage to WTC 7. 5 and 6 DID in fact partially collapse.

3. The design of 1,2 and 7 were "unique" hence inherently susceptible to this sort of destruction (Re: 7 and transfer trusses) so no other examples provided can be used for comparison...

4. None of your examples (Spain, etc.) had giant tanks of diesel in them to burn.

5. The magical "pressurized" diesel lines in WTC 7 that all of the failsafes failed on and continued to feed the "RAGINAG INFERNOS"

You get my point.

It simply generates a circular argument that cannot be "won".

That is all. I like your fire, I had it at one point too. the thing you need to remember is that you will argue the SAME points with posters like Snoopy, ESDAD, Roark, etc. that they have stayed and argued 2000 times. I am just trying to help you and others stay out of their trap of consuming you time and brain power re fighting battles that have already been fought.


[edit on 21-3-2007 by Pootie]

double post

[edit on 21-3-2007 by Pootie]

Originally posted by Kr0n0s
Heres an article regarding the collapse of the tower and how buildings 5 and 6 were actually totally engulfed in flames and did not collapse...

Again, just to be accurate, they both suffered partial collapses from debris or fire (I would side with debris) and were later "pulled" down.

Neither suffered global and total collapse from the fires or debris.

This is from another thread but goes along with this thread.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by ANOK
You don't need physics 101 to understand this. For a building to fall this way ALL the supports would have to fail at the same time, how does that happen from localised damage? It doesn't and never has.

To further illustrate this point. Here is the Murrah Federal building in Oklahoma City. The suppossed one bomb severed all columns except for one. Notice how much of the building is still standing with just one column.

Preparation operations for the implosion were more sophisticated than those required for a "normal implosion operation." When a structure is imploded, the contractor relies on the structural integrity of the building being demolished to assist in the control of the fall of the structure. In the case of the Murrah Building, the structural integrity of the building had been compromised by the terrorist blast, therefore, reconstructive operations had to be conducted to augment the structural integrity of the building in order to control its fall away from the adjacent parking garage.

Source: www.controlled-demolition.com...

Notice how they explain that it was difficult to demolish the building because they didn't know which way it would go and actually had to build support for the structure to fall straight down. That's with just one column left standing.

Here's a NOVA interview with Stacey Loizeux of CDI.

NOVA: Why do the explosive charges go off at intervals rather than all at once?

SL: Well, if I kick both your legs out from under you, you're going to fall right on your butt. If I kick one leg out from under you, you'll fall left or right. So the way we control the failure of the building is by using the delays. And, again, that varies structure to structure and depending on where we want the building to go. A lot of people, when they see a building implosion, expect it to go into its own basement, which is not always what the contractor wants. Sometimes the contractor wants to lay the building out like a tree. And, sometime, we need to bring down buildings that are actually touching other buildings.

Source: www.pbs.org...

Notice how she explains how it was impossible for WTC 7 to fall in it's own footprint. Not in so many words but you get the point.

Here's what she says about the one column.

NOVA: I understand that Controlled Demolition was hired to bring down the remains of the Oklahoma City Federal Building. Were you out there for that?

SL: That was a little too much for me, emotionally. I asked not to go on that job. My father and my uncle went out.

NOVA: How did they describe it?

SL: Well, any time you have a damaged structure it's a totally different animal. I mean it is much harder for us to bring down a structure that's already damaged, because you no longer know how the forces are working. In that building, there was literally one column left in that whole building.

One column held that whole building together but WTC 7 came down symmetrical? How? Isn't it funny how now NIST has contracted CDI to tell us if it was a demolition or not. In light of what they have said in the past about columns and having to knock out every single one at the same time to get a symmetrical collapse, I wonder what the verdict will be.

Excellent post Griff!

After OKC they decided it was better to complete the demolition and quickly clean up the evidence.

By the way... There were numerous reports of additional bombs in the building.

it sounds so familiar.

Originally posted by Pootie
4. None of your examples (Spain, etc.) had giant tanks of diesel in them to burn.

5. The magical "pressurized" diesel lines in WTC 7 that all of the failsafes failed on and continued to feed the "RAGINAG INFERNOS"

[edit on 21-3-2007 by Pootie]

Problem with your last 2 points is that all the fuel oil was recovered according to the EPA.

www.wtc7.net...

To date, the NY State Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and DEC have recovered approximately 20,000 gallons from the other two intact 11,600-gallon underground fuel oil storage tanks at WTC 7.

It is worth emphasizing that 20,000 gallons (of a maximum of 23,200 gallons) where recovered intact from the two 12,000-gallon Silverstein tanks. So, it is probable that the 20,000 gallons recovered was all of the oil in the tanks at that time. Since the oil in the Silverstein tanks survived, we can surmise that there was no fire on the ground floor.

[edit on 21-3-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Griff-

You're comparing apples to oranges.....you should know better.

The arcitechure of the building is completely different. They are supported differently, shaped differently, constructed out of different materials, different heights and square foot coverage.

So, I can't compare anything to it other than something exactly like it? OK. That's why we went to college for all them years. To study the difference between a concrete column and steel column. Guess what, there's not much difference other than strength. Guess what else, concrete has less strength than steel in compression and would fail BEFORE steel would.