PROOF that Building 7 was demolished with explosives!!!

reply to post by GenRadek


I mean really? You're a "rational thinker?"

This is the designer of the twin towers speaking in January of 2001:

www.youtube.com...

Please, stop, it's just, sad. After all this time, you are still clutching your ragged little blankey.

Yours,

THE AQUARIAN 1

reply to post by K J Gunderson

There was 100+ floors worth of contents. Much of these were carbonaceous; paper, plastic, and wood. Fuel.
Unless there is a continual heat source, metal will cool down. Molten metal weeks after the fact requires a heat source and is not indicative of thermite.

reply to post by THE AQUARIAN 1


That has already been explained ad nauseum. Frank was NOT a builder or designer of the WTC. He would have been 14 at the time of the WTC construction. He was never involved in building! Also he did warn about the building collapsing on 9/11.

(double post deleted.)

Dont know why that happened!

[edit on 2/17/2010 by GenRadek]

reply to post by GenRadek


Been looking over your fire chief's report here, got it right here in my hand...

I'm surprised you wouldn't have just posted the NIST report, since, you know, that entailed 200 technical experts including 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia. But I suppose we should take one fire chief's word for it. But, barring this small bit of info, here's what the fire chief had to say:

"If you reduce the structure’s mass you can build cheaper and builder higher. Unfortunately unprotected steel warps, melts, sags and collapses when heated to normal fire temperatures about 1100 to 1200 degrees F."

This is just, absolutely not true. According to NIST, and the known science of the physically world, steel melts at 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Bare steel, that is non-fireproofed steel, weakens at 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Mr. Fire Chief has failed his investigation within the first paragraph. I have absolutely no use for the Fire Chief.

However, I'll take NIST as a source, if you'd like. If you'll be so kind, please post NIST's explanation of World Trade Center 7.

In 1968 the New York City Building Code defined five Classes within Contstruction Group 1 (fire resistive).

Class 1A: 4 hour protected

Class 1B: 3 hour protected

Class 1C: 2 hour protected

Class 1D: 1 hour protected

Class 1E: unprotected

The Twin Towers were classified as 1A in the design blueprints. Ultimately they were classified as Class 1B.

A sprinkler system was installed in 1973 for office buildings 100 feet or higher.

In 1997 all tenant floors in the two towers were retrofitted with sprinklers, except four floors in tower 1.

In 1999 all tenant floors were sprinklered.

In 2000, a property condition assessment report stated that the WTC towers were classified as "Class 1B-noncombustible, fire-protected, retrofitted with sprinklers in accordance with New York City Local Law 5/1973.

Thermal protection of the floors from floor 38 up, in both towers, was carried out using BLAZE-SHIELD Type DC/F, a product that contained mineral wool (glassy fibers) in place of the crystalline asbestos fibers. On the basis of tests, it was reported that the thermal properties of BLAZE-SHIELD Type DC/F were equal to or "slightly better" than those of BLAZE-SHIELD Type D, which contained asbestos. The thermal coating was then encapsulated with a sprayed material that provided a hard coating.

There was some discrepancy after the 1975 fire that occurred in the 9th to 19th floors in WTC 1 about whether the trusses were fire protected, as the 1975 fire did not cause any structural damage but it did cause some buckling of some top chord members of the main, at the time UNPROTECTED trusses, buckling of bridging trusses, and distortion of deck support angles.

In 2003, the New York Port Authority reported to NIST that the top chords of the main trusses and the bridging trusses were fire protected on 9/11.

Now, the 1975 fire burned for over 3 hours. None of the trusses needed to be replaced. The fire was so intense that the windows in the 11th floor east side broke open and fire poured out. This indicates a temperature of over 700 degrees Celsius. Which is over 1292 degrees Fahrenheit.

The windows were not broken by heat on 9/11, only by the aircraft impact, indicating sustained temperatures of below 700 degrees celsius. However, NIST reports that the maximum upper layer air temperatures reached "about 1,000 degrees Celsius," (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit). This is at the maximum.

The twin towers burned for under an hour and just minutes over an hour. Structural failure argument is literally impossible.

You may verify this here:

wtc.nist.gov...
wtc.nist.gov...

More to come.

Yours,

THE AQUARIAN

You know what, I'll just do you're work for you. NIST's explanation of World Trade Center 7:

"Why is the NIST investigation of the collapse of WTC 7 (the 47-story office building that collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001, hours after the towers) taking so long to complete? Is a controlled demolition hypothesis being considered to explain the collapse?

When NIST initiated the WTC investigation, it made a decision not to hire new staff to support the investigation. After the June 2004 progress report on the WTC investigation was issued, the NIST investigation team stopped working on WTC 7 and was assigned full-time through the fall of 2005 to complete the investigation of the WTC towers. With the release and dissemination of the report on the WTC towers in October 2005, the investigation of the WTC 7 collapse resumed. Considerable progress has been made since that time, including the review of nearly 80 boxes of new documents related to WTC 7, the development of detailed technical approaches for modeling and analyzing various collapse hypotheses, and the selection of a contractor to assist NIST staff in carrying out the analyses. It is anticipated that a draft report will be released for public comment by July 2008 and that the final report will be released shortly thereafter.

The current NIST working collapse hypothesis for WTC 7 is described in the June 2004 Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (Volume 1, page 17, as well as Appendix L), as follows:

An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris-induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large-span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;

Vertical progression of the initial local failure occurred up to the east penthouse, and as the large floor bays became unable to redistribute the loads, it brought down the interior structure below the east penthouse; and

Triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of floors 5 and 7 that were much thicker and more heavily reinforced than the rest of the floors) resulted in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.

This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements."

Basically, "we have no scientific explanation for the collapse of building seven."

reply to post by THE AQUARIAN 1


And yet that very same NIST report mentions that the fires and damage from impact are what brought down the WTCs, so who is kidding who here?

ah I see, you take a man's words literally, when he is making a simple comment on steel. He is correct about how steel loses its strength at much lower temps. Steel begins to lose its strength at 300C. The fires in the WTC were much much much higher. Who ever said steel actually melted? Steel doesnt have to melt to fail. i suggest you take the word of a seasoned fire chief than your incredulity.

WTC7 also has a report done on it. Be sure to read it through too.

(double post)
(Again? Arg!)

[edit on 2/17/2010 by GenRadek]

Also from NIST regarding World Trade Center 7:

"Why did WTC 7 collapse, while no other known building in history has collapsed due to fires alone?

The collapse of WTC 7 is the first known instance of a tall building brought down primarily by uncontrolled fires. The fires in WTC 7 were similar to those that have occurred in several tall buildings where the automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present. These other buildings, including Philadelphia's One Meridian Plaza, a 38-story skyscraper that burned for 18 hours in 1991, did not collapse due to differences in the design of the structural system.

Factors contributing to WTC 7’s collapse included: the thermal expansion of building elements such as floor beams and girders, which occurred at temperatures hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in current practice for fire-resistance ratings; significant magnification of thermal expansion effects due to the long-span floors in the building; connections between structural elements that were designed to resist the vertical forces of gravity, not the thermally induced horizontal or lateral loads; and an overall structural system not designed to prevent fire-induced progressive collapse."

Uhh, "not designed to prevent fire-induced progressive collapse." Let's check that out...

Here we have a steel reinforced building, virtually identical to WTC 1 and 2 in that respect. We have SPFR (sprayed fire resistive material, also referred to as FIREPROOF) on all the WTC 7 beams and columns, which NIST models as "perfect" installation, and fires on the 7-9, 11-13 floors that "burned out of control."

Did the sprinkler systems fail?

Umm, gosh, NO THEY DIDN'T.

But wait a minute, that doesn't make any #ing sense???

If there was SPFR of "perfect installation" on a steel reinforced building (which as we now know weakens at 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit), and fires on six floors of a 47 story building, how in the name of God did it fall at free fall speed!!???!!

One would think the fires in WTC 7 was very hot, causing structural damage and subsequent weakening, which then causes the trusses to fall, and then pancake etc.

But, according to NIST, what do we see:

"How hot did WTC 7’s steel columns and floor beams get?

Due to the effectiveness of the spray-applied fire-resistive material (SFRM) or fireproofing, the highest steel column temperatures in WTC 7 only reached an estimated 300 degrees C (570 degrees F), and only on the east side of the building did the steel floor beams exceed 600 degrees C (1,100 degrees F). However, fire-induced buckling of floor beams and damage to connections—that caused buckling of a critical column initiating collapse—occurred at temperatures below approximately 400 degrees C where thermal expansion dominates. Above 600 degrees C (1,100 degrees F), there is significant loss of steel strength and stiffness. In the WTC 7 collapse, the loss of steel strength or stiffness was not as important as the thermal expansion of steel structures caused by heat."

Now NIST is saying that above 600 degrees (1,100 degrees F) there is structural weakening? But before they said....hmm, I'm real confused now. Is NIST crazy??

No, they're not, the report consisted of the top experts in the field.

So then, huh???

Anyone with a brain and some neurons connecting that brain to electricity can see, clear as day, that WTC 7 did not fall from fire. NIST admits that no building has ever fallen like this, EVER, just to reiterate:

"These other buildings, including Philadelphia's One Meridian Plaza, a 38-story skyscraper that burned for 18 hours in 1991, did not collapse due to differences in the design of the structural system."

According to NIST this building fell because...

It was hit by a plane?

Oh that's right, it wasn't hit by a plane.

Yours,

THE AQUARIAN 1

reply to post by GenRadek


Dude, did you even read my post?

reply to post by pteridine


100+ floors worth of contents? Are you saying that the ENTIRE WTC 1 and 2 buildings were on FIRE????

reply to post by GenRadek


Okay.......

The head structural engineer was...dun dun dun, Leslie Robertson, who was 34 at the time.

I would go to the 9:20 section of this video and watch the last 32 seconds. Enjoy:

www.youtube.com...

You can check his quotes before and after 9/11 here:

www.jonesreport.com...

You will also find quotes like this from personages connected to the design of 9/11:

“[Building designer] John Skilling recounts his people having carried out an analysis which found the twin towers could withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed.” But, he says, “The building structure would still be there.”

Here is Leslie Robertson from 2002:

“In 2002, Leslie Robertson wrote: “To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance.”

Uhhh....

You do the math on this.

Yours,

THE AQUARIAN 1

reply to post by THE AQUARIAN 1


I like how you miss certain aspects of what you reposted:

above 600C there is significant loss of steel strength and stiffness

I dont recall them stating that 1000C is when the steel begins to lose its strength. I saw you make that post, but not from NIST direct.
Here, you might want to read a little more on steel and fire:
www.azobuild.com...
And that is just a basic article. More can be found that will confirm what I and the fire fighter chief said. Steel BEGINS to lose strength at around 300C. It just goes up and up. At 1000C is when it will probably begin to have major failures. Windsor Tower showed that quite nicely when its steel failed within 2 hours of being englufed in flames.

I also have NIST's report:
wtc.nist.gov...
On page 47 of the pdf document, they mention just how steel behaves at 600C. i'd really pay close attention to what they say before I'd start to type such incredulous statements, if I were you.

NIST is overall sound in its study and response. its just you are trying to find fault where there isnt any.

Originally posted by THE AQUARIAN 1
reply to post by GenRadek

 

Okay.......

The head structural engineer was...dun dun dun, Leslie Robertson, who was 34 at the time.

I would go to the 9:20 section of this video and watch the last 32 seconds. Enjoy:

www.youtube.com...

You can check his quotes before and after 9/11 here:

www.jonesreport.com...

You will also find quotes like this from personages connected to the design of 9/11:

“[Building designer] John Skilling recounts his people having carried out an analysis which found the twin towers could withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed.” But, he says, “The building structure would still be there.”

Here is Leslie Robertson from 2002:

“In 2002, Leslie Robertson wrote: “To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance.”

Uhhh....

You do the math on this.

Yours,

THE AQUARIAN 1

Ah so someone overestimated the capabilities of a newly built structure? Say it aint so! Reminds me of a certain shipbuilding company and certain ship.
Wouldnt be the first time engineers over-exaggerated the capabilities of a structure, and here you are trying to make it sound like it is.

reply to post by GenRadek


I didn't miss that quote, I'm the one who posted it. This is from your own website "azobuild":

"However, in practice this is a very conservative assumption; low loads, the insulating effects of concrete slabs, the restraining effects of connections etc. mean that real failure temperatures can be as high as 750ºC or even higher for partially exposed members."

Which considering the fireproofing, which NIST claims was completely removed by the plane impact, much of the Steel was indeed "partially exposed."

This doesn't take into account the length of time the fire needs to burn. Troll the internet for the Windsor building.

reply to post by GenRadek


Obviously quotes from human beings are subjective, but they do reveal some things. They did design the buildings to withstand multiple aircraft impact complete with kerosene fires.

This is my point. You attempt to disregard it for reasons that are beyond my comprehension.

Yours,

THE AQUARIAN 1

reply to post by GenRadek


And umm, for the record, I never tried to make the quotes sound like they were the first of their kind.

reply to post by GenRadek


The Windsor Tower didn't collapse at free fall speed.

reply to post by GenRadek


Steel begins to weaken at 300 C which is 572 degrees Fahrenheit. You're Fire Chief claims that steel weakens at 1,100 to 1,200 degrees Fahrenheit, suggesting structural failure, i.e. collapse, occurs at those degrees, which it does not.

reply to post by THE AQUARIAN 1


That may be how they tried to design it. Apparently, it didn't collapse immediately, so they succeeded in a way.
FYI, it didn't collapse at "freefall" speed.