PROOF that Building 7 was demolished with explosives!!!

reply to post by pteridine


The NIST report, which you so often post as fact, makes that statement, i.e. WTC 7 is the first steel structure to collapse from fire.

Don't you believe NIST??

And if there are other buildings, please name them and post them here.

Thanks,

THE AQUARIAN 1

reply to post by pteridine


These aren't global collapses. This is just silly.

Originally posted by THE AQUARIAN 1
reply to post by pteridine

 

The NIST report, which you so often post as fact, makes that statement, i.e. WTC 7 is the first steel structure to collapse from fire.

Don't you believe NIST??

And if there are other buildings, please name them and post them here.

Thanks,

THE AQUARIAN 1

Where does NIST say that WTC 7 is the first steel structure to collapse from fire?

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.

NIST.gov

I find that interesting though because I could have sworn they said the north and south tower collapsed because of the fires and had nothing to do with the impacts. This stuff here is why people don't believe NIST and search for answers elsewhere.

[edit on 21-2-2010 by Kratos1220]

reply to post by pteridine


I think I've posted this like four or five times at this point. Proof positive that you guys don't actually read these posts and are here to pontificate.

"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."

Yours,

THE AQUARIAN 1

Originally posted by THE AQUARIAN 1
reply to post by pteridine

 

I think I've posted this like four or five times at this point. Proof positive that you guys don't actually read these posts and are here to pontificate.

"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."

Do you see the difference between "...no other known building in history..." and "tall building" [whatever the definition of "tall" means, in this case]? Note also the phrase "These other buildings ... did not collapse due to differences in the design of the structural system." WTC7's structural design was much different from any other building and that should be taken into consideration before making any blanket statements.
Consider that the events of 9/11 are unique in history and that any attempts at drawing parallels and citing examples will be difficult.

reply to post by pteridine


Then why are you attempting to draw parallels and cite examples?

And isn't this a blanket statement:

"WTC7's structural design was much different from any other building."

NIST is trying to understand why the building fell. The only explanation is fire. To NIST, controlled demolition is not even an option to pursue. So they will prove to the best of their scientific know how that the building fell from fire. And honestly, I don't blame them really. How could it even be possible that controlled demolition occurred? The implications of it are beyond scientific reasoning. They involve much more than mathematic algorithms. A scientist can prove that an Elephant can hang off a cliff with its tail tied to a daisy. Proving that WTC 7 collapsed from fire, at free fall speed, is not as far fetched as that, but it's pretty close.

Now we can look at NIST and do a point by point discussion of their explanations for the collapse. For example:

"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."

That's the difference? Between every other building and WTC 7?? Sounds a bit watery to me.

Just to be clear. In order for WTC 7 to fall straight down, at free fall speed, all of the load-bearing columns had to be broken at the same time, which is physically impossible without controlled demolition. Free fall speed necessitates the removal of structure near ground level that would have impeded its descent, which is also impossible.

We can also look to the FEMA report:

"The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue."

Their hypotheses is that the diesel fuel heated the trusses to the point where they lost most of their strength, precipitating total collapse. This is quite a stretch considering that this event would be expected to cause the sagging of a floor instead of total collapse, especially one that was so tidy. This is also surprising for a steel-framed skyscraper designed to survive fires, hurricanes, and earthquakes.

Unfortunately we will never know exactly what happened, as the steel and debris were rapidly recycled, which is illegal on a crime scene.

In terms of controlled demolition experts what of Danny Jowenko??
www.youtube.com...
And the explosions:
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

Can someone find the exact design features of World Trade Center 7 so that we can accurately compare and contrast it with not only the other two WTC buildings that collapsed but other steel frame buildings.

Also, as many of you know, World Trade Center 7 housed SEC files relating to numerous Wall Street investigations. All the files for 3,000 to 4,000 SEC cases were destroyed. Files relating Citigroup to the WorldCom scandal were lost. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission estimates 10,000 cases will be affected. Secret Service had its largest field office, with more than 200 employees, in WTC 7 and lost investigative files.

Yours,

THE AQUARIAN 1

Also go to page 29 of this pdf:

www.wtc7.net...

Some interesting observations there about the South WTC tower collapse.

Also, those of you asking for "motives" can obviously look at these:

Control of World's Biggest Oil Reserves

Afghanistan Opium Fields

Oil and Gas Pipeline

Implementation of PNAC/Successful Takeover of Middle East and Subsequent Rothschild Controlled Central Bank set-up for the Seven pre-9/11 UN defined "Rogue Nations," some of which included: Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and North Korea.

Protection of Israel

World Government

For Larry Silverstein:
$4 billion dollar profit on a $124 million dollar investment. That's pretty nice.

There are other motives, but I don't think you guys are ready for them.

Yours,

THE AQUARIAN 1

Originally posted by THE AQUARIAN 1

1.) Just to be clear. In order for WTC 7 to fall straight down, at free fall speed, all of the load-bearing columns had to be broken at the same time, which is physically impossible without controlled demolition. Free fall speed necessitates the removal of structure near ground level that would have impeded its descent, which is also impossible.

2.)Can someone find the exact design features of World Trade Center 7 so that we can accurately compare and contrast it with not only the other two WTC buildings that collapsed but other steel frame buildings.

1.) WTC 7 did not fall at "freefall speed" so your follow on statements, true or false, do not apply. No evidence for demolition was ever found.

2.) The NIST report discusses the structure, in detail. Perhaps you should read the report.

reply to post by pteridine


I have read the report.

I'm still waiting for your proper examples of other similar buildings Voltaire.

[edit on 21-2-2010 by THE AQUARIAN 1]

reply to post by pteridine


Also, why don't you post the WTC 7 design information, sense you've read it and understand the different design features.

Please do that.

reply to post by THE AQUARIAN 1


There are no "similar" buildings. That is the point you seem to be missing.

reply to post by THE AQUARIAN 1


Look at chapter two of Vol 1 of the NIST report NIST NCSTAR 1-9. Figures 2-1 and on will show the structure to you and the text will describe it.

reply to post by pteridine


Show me a steel reinforced building that collapsed from fire. That's the only task you have at hand. Similar buildings do exist.

reply to post by THE AQUARIAN 1


And I don't mean buildings that burned and some stuff fell off of them. A global collapse that occurred because of fire.

reply to post by THE AQUARIAN 1


Why didn't WTC 3,4,5, and 6 collapse?

I honestly don't know how a building that is completely fireproofed with steel reinforcements and an intact sprinkler system could collapse like that. It's not possible. Especially with fires on only seven floors, relegated to the southside, and not reaching temperature levels hot enough or for a long enough amount of time to do any significant structural damage to the building. The other fires in the building died out. NIST backs this here:

"For the heaviest columns in WTC 7, when insulated for a 3h fire rating, simulations show that it would take an exposure of about 7 hours at post-flashover upper layer gas temperatures to raise the steel temperature to 600 C, the point at which the steel strength has been reduced by half."

This would cause sagging, not complete global collapse of all floors simultaneously.

We continue:

"As will be seen in Chapter 9, this is far longer than the time over which post-flashover gas temperatures were sustained in the computed WTC 7 fires."

They admit that the building did not burn long enough, by far, to weaken these columns to a 50% level.

"For comparison, this steel temperature would be reached in under 1/2 h if the insulation were not applied."

Insulation was applied, on all floors and columns.

Then we get to the Probable collapse scenario and we have this, which I'm pretty sure I've posted before but no one has come forward to address it, which seems to be the case with this forum:

"According to the generally accepted test standard, ASTM E-119, one of the criteria for establishing the fire resistance rating for a steel column or floor beam is derived from the time at which, during a standard fire exposure, the average column temperature exceeds 538 C (1000 F) or the average beam temperature exceeds 593 C (1100 F). These are temperatures at which there is significant loss of steel strength and stiffness. Due to the effectiveness of SFRM, the highest column temperatures in WTC 7 only reached an estimated 300 C (570 F), and only on the east side of the building did the floor beams reach or exceed about 600 C (1100 F). The heat from the uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the lowers east side of WTC 7, primarily at or below 400 C (750 F), damaging the floor framing on multiple floors."

So, in other words, the fires were not hot enough nor sustained long enough to significantly damage, let alone weaken, the steel. Their hypotheses then turns to "thermal expansion," as the fires burning hot thesis is not logical.

"Fire-induced thermal expansion of the floor system surrounding Column 79 led to the collapse of floor 13, which triggered a cascade of floor failures.."

So, the floors expanded, apparently in a strong enough fashion and with enough torque and length to push columns 79 and 44 to the west on the 13th floor. "This movement was enough for the girder to walk off its support at Column 79."

This isn't just light pushing. Column 79 literally BENDS under the pressure. Now, here's where the hypotheses gets unruly:

"Due to the buckling of Column 79 between Floors 5 and 14, the upper section of Column 79 began to descend."

Column 79 runs through the entire building. I can believe, sort of, that the column bent a little bit, but it doesn't make any sense for the whole column to fall through the ground? These support columns run through the entire building. How does it just descend? Anyway, we go on.

"The downward movement of Column 79 led to the observed kink in the east penthouse, and its subsequent descent. The cascading failures of the lower floors surrounding Column 79 led to increased unsupported length in, falling debris impact on, and loads being re-distributed to adjacent columns; and Column 80 and then Column 81 buckled as well."

So, column 79 is the culprit for building seven. How did it descend when it runs through the whole building?

Yours,

THE AQUARIAN 1

reply to post by THE AQUARIAN 1


Steel framed buildings that collapsed as a result of uncontrolled fire.

McCormick Center fire and building collapse -- (Chicago, Illinois - January, 1967.

Sight and Sound Theater fire and building collapse - (Lancaster County, Pennsylvania - January 1997)

reply to post by pteridine


Yeah, you already posted those. They aren't high rises for one and they didn't have a global collapse.

The Sight and Sound building is not comparable. It's a theater shaped like a rectangle and is at least 100 feet wide with varying ceiling heights, from what I can gather 74 feet high at its highest; also not a global collapse.

The sprayed on fire proofing had been knocked off the underside of the stage floor bar joists and support steel. Fire proofing was hanging on the wire mesh used to hold the coating to the overhead. Investigation revealed the construction company's removal of the stage floor covering down to the corrugated decking involved striking the floor hard enough to knock off the sprayed-on protection, exposing the structural steel and bar-joists in the storage area. The building was also in-construction and fire doors were not yet installed, allowing fires to pass through these openings freely. The fire started in the auditorium at 9:00 AM and was put out at 1:02 PM. Once the roof collapsed, the fire was easily put out.

This is completely non-comparable.

This building did not have a sprinkler system and the fireproofing had been taken off. You may read about it here:
www.interfire.org...

The McCormick Place building is not any more comparable. The building is 50 feet high and six football fields long, and it didn't have a global collapse. The fire burned for 8 hours, from 2 AM to 10AM and was finally put out. The building did not collapse, the roof did.

Also, there were several serious fire safety violations. The exhibition area had zero sprinklers or fire walls and fireproof material did not protect the steel roof supports. Electrical wiring systems did not follow safety standards. None of the guards knew where the unlocked emergency exits were, causing the tragic death of one of the security guards. This building was not built for nor was it prepared for a fire. A glaring contrast to WTC 1 and 2, which were being built when this building burned, and WTC 7.
www.ideals.illinois.edu...

www.time.com...

And so I don't have to reinvent the wheel every time you duplicate other people's arguments here's a nice site:

911research.wtc7.net...

I suppose it all comes down to HOW you present things, not WHAT you present. Take a look at HOW this site presents the information. They leave out almost the entire physical description of the buildings, just like you did:

www.911mysteriesguide.com...

I do appreciate you bringing this to my attention. Hopefully you will not try to use this as an argument as you continue your search for truth.

Yours,

THE AQUARIAN 1