Fire caused global collapse in wtc7?

reply to post by jprophet420


Structural failure due to catastrophic damage and fire? Sorry, but thats not "unproven" nor is it unlikely.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

So, then, what would your theory be on how the bad guys managed to wire a 47 story building...with no one noticing.

That's one for the perps, can't help you with that.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by jprophet420

 

Structural failure due to catastrophic damage and fire? Sorry, but thats not "unproven" nor is it unlikely.

Really? Illustrate to me that its likely by showing me how more than 50% of steel high rises that have had catastrophic fires have collapsed. Also, show me the investigation that makes it beyond initiation. Because that is where we stand now, like it or not.

Originally posted by thedman
Thats the North face of the building - side away from where debris
impact from WTC 1 ripped away most of the building

You have to wonder about the desperation of some official government story believers when they use these false descriptors...

The NIST report stated that WTC 7 stood fine after the damage. The damage was not described as ripping 'away most of the building'.

thedman, your false spin is certainly noted and also contradictory to the NIST report.

[edit on 5-8-2009 by Architect David Banner]

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by Tussilago

 

Thats the North face of the building - side away from where debris
impact from WTC 1 ripped away most of the building

Maybe should watch this

www.911myths.com...

Can see smoke pouring from most floors on south face.

SHILL pointing....oop's, I mean STILL pointing to the SAME shots with DIFFERENT angles of the SAME fires...there is video of the SAME six burnt out windows on the 5/7th floor, when the fires WENT OUT....why don't YOU include THOSE

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by Tussilago

 

North face of WTC 7 was black granite

South face was red granite

meaning????

the facade is a NON-SUPPORTING structure...it is a cosmetic application, so, WHAT'S YOUR point?

oh, and remember, YOU are quoting a HYPOTHESIS, that has NO FACTS to back it up

Originally posted by Architect David Banner

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by Tussilago

 

North face of WTC 7 was black granite

South face was red granite

meaning????

the facade is a NON-SUPPORTING structure...it is a cosmetic application, so, WHAT'S YOUR point?

If you actually read the post he was responding to you'd be aware he was trying to assist in determining whether video footage was of the north or side side of the building.

It was pretty clear.

Originally posted by thedmanDebris from WTC 1 dropped onto it and smashed hole in center of building
almost like a donut

Interesting.

Verison (140 West) - large masonary building can be seen to left in some shots. [...etc]

Great, then we are agreed regarding the direction looking east along Vesey Street and I will not take note of other members of the board maybe implying you might have been trying to delude me about what side of the building we were actually looking at.

As for WTC 7 collapsed and WTC 6 didn't - becuse of differences in
construction

Yeah, heard it. Special trusses and all that. I just don't buy it. If WTC 7 had collapsed somehow, maybe partially so more likely, it would have fallen over in the direction of its weakest point, not totally plummeted to dust into its own footprint.

NIST determined that diesel fuel did not play an important role, nor did the structural damage from the collapse of the twin towers. But the lack of water to fight the fire was an important factor. The fires burned out of control during the afternoon, including on floor 13, where a critical interior column buckled. With the buckling of that column, adjacent columns also failed along with the floor structure above. This triggered a vertical progression of floor failures to the roof. The collapse then progressed east-to-west across the structure, and ultimately the entire structure collapsed. The fires, fueled by office contents, along with the lack of water, were the key reasons for the collapse.[45]

Okay, so basically, NIST brings us back to a fires only scenario and regards the structural damage as insignificant. How unlucky for them, since it is absolutely clear those measly fires would never have been enough to bring down the building.
This is simply WTC 1 and 2 steel structural failure and pancake theory all over again, only now you don't even have the plane impacts to crutch it up.

Here's what a real 6 hour fire in a 34 story high rise looks like and guess what, the fire and heat produced were not enough to cause 'significant weakening of the steel, causing structural failure in the steel columns':
www.youtube.com...

Before:
en.wikipedia.org...:TVCC_Site_2007.jpg

After:
en.wikipedia.org...:Fire_damaged_TVCC_building2.jpg


Why the hell not? This only goes to show that the gentle fires in WTC 1, 2 and 7 'weakening the steel' scenarios by comparison is nothing but a bunch of claptrap excuses for a reality you can't touch.

[edit on 5-8-2009 by Tussilago]

Originally posted by Mark_Amy

Originally posted by Tussilago

To the right are the "intact" remains of WTC 6, which for some reason did not collapse into its footprint looking just like a controlled demolition, even though it got battered by half the north tower pounding upon it from above.

Strange, isn't it.

I think that's the reason they decided to pull WTC 7. Other buildings in the area had already suffered partial collapses and even though WTC 7 had been hit by debris and was on fire, it was still standing and it would have posed too great a risk to the firemen and 1st responders etc in the coming days.

Like Larry Silverstein said, there had already been too much death and destruction that day, so I think they decided to pull the building purely for safety reasons.

Of course later he was instructed to change his story because an admission of controlled demolition in WTC 7 would have led to too many questions being raised about the collapse of the twin towers and to all the buildings being pre-wired for demolition.

Guess Silverstein's biggest problem that afternoon was a building full of detonators and no plane to have hit it. The safety of a couple of firemen and rescue workers was probably the last thing on his mind as Larry and his fellow perpetrators, in slight desperation and growing anxiety, decided to lie by telling the truth - sometimes a quite efficient conman tactic.
"That building is coming down, we really ought to take it down for safety reasons. Yeah, stand back everyone as we pull it. That building's gonna blow!"
It was improvised damage control, it was a stop gap measure, but it worked in the smoke and confusion among exhausted firefighters who had seen two high rises coming down that day for no reason at all. They didn't have time to think about the complex process of setting up explosives or how long it actually takes. And if they did ask curious questions the next day they could easily be dealt with or bulldozed one way or the other.
Still, the story had a very limited lifetime. After a couple of days in front of another audience it was, as you point out, imperative that the very notion of demolition not surface in people's consciousness but stay buried forever, hence the later very lame excuses for what Silverstein really meant by "pull it!" on TV.

[edit on 5-8-2009 by Tussilago]

reply to post by jprophet420


Now thats the problem. Either truthers fixate on fire OR the fixate on the damage. They forget that it was both that caused the buildings to fall. Then they rely on the educated guess of the NIST report for the arrows they try to sling at the reality of the situation.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by jprophet420

 

Now thats the problem. Either truthers fixate on fire OR the fixate on the damage. They forget that it was both that caused the buildings to fall. Then they rely on the educated guess of the NIST report for the arrows they try to sling at the reality of the situation.

I'm simply saying follow your own standard. If you believe the NIST report stand by it. If you don't come out and say so. I don't forget things that are TDB, sorry.

reply to post by jprophet420


I have always said it was a combination of damage and the fires that doomed all three buildings that day.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


It was the damage to WTC 7 firefighting systems which ultimately doomed
the building. When the towers collapsed cut the water mains to the area
disabling the sprinkler system in WTC7.

The building was equipped with a sprinkler system, but had many single-point vulnerabilities for failure: the sprinkler system required manual initiation of the electrical fire pumps, rather than being a fully automatic system; the floor-level controls had a single connection to the sprinkler water riser; and the sprinkler system required some power for the fire pump to deliver water. Also, water pressure was low, with little or no water to feed sprinklers.[

The standpipe system which delivered water to each floor was also inoperable

After the North Tower collapsed, some firefighters entered 7 World Trade Center to search the building. They attempted to extinguish small pockets of fire, but low water pressure hindered their efforts.

When debris from WTC1 struck
WTC 7 it damaged the elevators and stairways on south side of building
limiting access to the upper floors

-- from inside the building at the 8th or 9th Floor elevator lobby, where two elevator cars were ejected from their shafts and landed in the hallway north of the elevator shaft, the visible portion of the south wall was gone with more light visible from the west side possibly indicating damage extending to the west.

The damage to WTC7 internal firefighting system prevented the sprinkler
system from either extinguishing the fires or containing them until FDNY
could arrive and fight them. The damage allowed the fires to grow and
spread unchecked until fatally damaged the structure

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by jprophet420

 

I have always said it was a combination of damage and the fires that doomed all three buildings that day.

So then you would have us believe that Larry Silverstien is a liar when interviewed on PBS saying " The best thing to do is pull it, so I told the fire fighters to pull it".

Thats what the WTC complex owner said on film... That HE ordered the fire fighter to pull building 7.

Sooooo... Are you saying Larry Silverstien did not order Build 7 pulled?

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
I have always said it was a combination of damage and the fires that doomed all three buildings that day.

So you disagree with the NIST report about WTC 7 - yes or no?

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

Now thats the problem. Either truthers fixate on fire OR the fixate on the damage. They forget that it was both that caused the buildings to fall. Then they rely on the educated guess of the NIST report for the arrows they try to sling at the reality of the situation.

Swampy when it comes to the planes etc, you`re a master, but here let`s look at one simple fact regarding the south tower, heat/damage. A fireman had made it all the way up to 78th storey, all there was were 2 isolated pockets of fire, and they needed 2 lines to knock it down, there was no damage below caused by this jet, nor barn storming fires...fact.

Remember no resistance whatsoever = damaged steels at every floors = must have been or no near free fall collapse rate, then remember that fireman`s self administered death sentence, the second tower hit, collateral damage negligible as to the impact was to the side of the building, the 1st tower to fall.


`Palmer called for a pair of engine companies to fight the fires. The fact that veteran firefighters showed no sign of fear or panic, and had a coherent plan for fighting the fire, contradicts the official explanation of the collapses that the fires were so hot and extensive that they weakened the steel structure`.

What heat? what damage?.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


Well, perhaps if a paper was written and made public I could review the math myself and make that determination in an unbiased light. Its too bad that hasn't happened yet, and It almost seems like conspiracy that it hasn't.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by jprophet420

 

Now thats the problem. Either truthers fixate on fire OR the fixate on the damage. They forget that it was both that caused the buildings to fall. Then they rely on the educated guess of the NIST report for the arrows they try to sling at the reality of the situation.

Ummm..."EDUCATED"...that would imply that they looked at ALL avenues for the natural total global collapse for ALL three buildings...they did NOT do that...They didn't test for explosives or accelerants, because of the decision of ONE person....because....he didn't want to "WASTE the tax payers ...money"?[NIST FAQ sheet]

Isn't it STANDARD procedure, that ANY crime involving fire, MUST include testing for explosive and accelerant residue....but, SOMEHOW, NIST thinks it's ABOVE testing....WHY?

**NFPA 921: "Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations" is the national fire code published by The National Fire Protection Association.
This is standard for fire and explosion investigations.

It clearly states that if there is a crime scene that involves fire, tests must be conducted to determine whether residues from any pyrotechnic or incendiary material can be found.**

Why is it that NONE of the findings in the testing they did do, SUPPORT their HYPOTHESIS?
NO steel tested showed ANY signs of extreme CONSISTENT temp needed for the symmetrical, INSTANT collapse.

There was NOTHING to look at from 7 to even come up with a hypothesis...there is NO inferno PROVEN by the MANY video's and pics....In FACT...NIST had to DRAW ILLUSTRATIONS to PUSH their HYPOTHESIS of an inferno

Where is the inferno needed in 7 to get the result WE ALL SEE...the INSTANT release,(as soon as the kink is formed), of EVERY vertical support at the SAME time to get the EVEN decent at a rate equivalent to the acceleration of gravity.