Simulation shows why World Trade Center towers fell: it's the heat

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


I can't solve that one for you. I was just asking for evidence for claims. But if none is to be had, that's that.

reply to post by bsbray11


Common sense plays a factor here. Falling debris is known to be around the building on both sides and even caused extensive damage to surrounding buildings. Why should we believe it was spared?

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


I agree: why should it have been any different than the other cases of buildings at that distance being hit with heavy debris? The Banker's Trust building is a great example.

reply to post by bsbray11


Um, different designs for one, different locations for another? And how can you agree when you were just a few moments ago asking for proof to substantiate claims of damage?

[edit on 2-10-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


I never disagreed that it was damaged, only that the damage didn't play a significant role in collapse, which is the exact same thing NIST concluded. And the other buildings that were hit, didn't completely collapse to the ground, including the smaller WTC buildings that were completely smashed by falling debris. Different design, blah blah blah, yeah, I asked for proof that anything you were posting had relevance to WTC7's collapse but I still haven't seen it, and that's still what I'm waiting on. All the buildings were different. That's not what I asked.

reply to post by bsbray11


You are familiar with the fact that different designs will by their very nature have different dynamics right?

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


No sheet. Are you going to ask me questions to death or are you going to provide proof that the debris damage was a significant factor in the collapse?

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by bsbray11

 

How exactly am I supposed to produce complete pictures of the south facade when none exist from that particular time given the dynamics of the situation?

How in the hell are you supposed to form a hypothesis when no evidence exists from that particular time given the dynamics of the situation?

reply to post by billybob

no more than the verizon building right next door, and much less than banker's trust building, or 130 cedar st./90 west st.
but, anyway, you are contradicting the NIST report which says the building debris had nothing to do with the collapse. it was normal office fires, according to them.

you're still touting last years debunker memo.

the banker's trust building should be a pile of rubble, if this diagram is supposed to show anything about debris critically damaging buildings.

Did you get the memo? Different buildings with different construction
and materials will react in different manner.

90 West - built in 1907

130 Cedar (next to 90 West) - built in 1931

140 West (Verizon) - built in 1927

Were all built with heavy exterior masonry shells which prevented debris
from entering the building and causing severe structural damage and
starting fires

Different construction types

Bankers Trust (aka Deutsche Bank aka 130 Liberty St) was built in 1974

What saved it was that no fires were ignited in the building from the debris

Fireproofing was only 1/2 inch on structural steel and in the area impacted
by debris the fireproofing was scraped off leaving bare steel

Otherwise would probably reacted similar to WTC 7 and collapse from fire
damage

The Bankers Trust building at 130 Liberty Street, also referred to as the Deutsche Bank building, withstood the impact of one or more pieces of column-tree debris raining down from the collapsing south tower (WTC 2). Although the debris sliced through the exterior facade, fracturing spandrel beam connections and exterior columns for a height of approximately 15 stories, the building sustained only localized damage in the immediate path of the debris from WTC 2 (hereafter referred to as the impact debris) (Figures 6-1 and 6-2). There were no fires in this building. The ability of this building to sustain significant structural damage yet arrest the progression of collapse is worthy of thorough study. Unlike WTC 1, 2, and 7, which collapsed completely, the Bankers Trust building provided an opportunity to analyze a structure that suffered a moderate level of damage, to explain the structural behavior, and to verify the analytical methods used. The following sections describe the building structure, the extent of damage, and the computational methods that were used to analyze the structure.

Different modality of damage

Bankers Trust like WTC 7 sufffered similar damage to building face

Unlike WTC 7 there were no fires which saved it from total collapse

Originally posted by thedman
Bankers Trust like WTC 7 sufffered similar damage to building face

Unlike WTC 7 there were no fires which saved it from total collapse

Not entirely true.

On August 18th, 2007 during deconstruction work, the already damaged Bankers Trust building suffered a fire covering at least 3 floors. That 250 fire fighters suffered 2 casualties and took 7 hours to extinguish the flames shows the severity of the fire involved. There was no distortion, no sagging, no hint of coming close to even a partial collapse. Interestingly, the Bankers Trust building was not owned by Larry Silverstein and did not house secret service offices either…

reply to post by Q24-7

Not entirely true.

On August 18th, 2007 during deconstruction work, the already damaged Bankers Trust building suffered a fire covering at least 3 floors. That 250 fire fighters suffered 2 casualties and took 7 hours to extinguish the flames shows the severity of the fire involved. There was no distortion, no sagging, no hint of coming close to even a partial collapse. Interestingly, the Bankers Trust building was not owned by Larry Silverstein and did not house secret service offices either…

Talking about events of Sept 11 - NOT 6 years later

By that time the building was already being dismantled

Another is that unlike Sept 11 the FDNY was able to fight the fire. Had
adequate water supply and sufficent manpower was available to fight
the fire.

Like most Truthers comparing apples to oranges

Stick with the point....

edman, you are ignoring the fact that wtc7 was in freefall for 2.3 seconds, and near freefall for the entire descent, and the fact that the destruction wave can be seen going down the side of the building FASTER than freefall in the second of the twin tower's demolition.

keep talking around the main points, ...it's what we expect of you.



[edit on 3-10-2009 by billybob]

Originally posted by thedman
Like most Truthers comparing apples to oranges

No, that's just what people like you always say. Has anyone done a technical structural comparison of WTC7 to Banker's Trust? No. We don't even HAVE the structural docs for WTC7 to look at. You just dismiss things entirely out of hand purely with your bias. There IS no other example for what happened to WTC7. If you think any other building has ever fallen like that in similar circumstances, you've had your head buried in the sand for 8 years.