The History of High Rise Collapses

reply to post by itbenickp




Here is some great evidence of the deteriorating condition of WTC7 from fires and impact.

Some more:



Also what does this firefighter say about it?



What else firefighters reported on WTC7:

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden
Division 1 - 33 years

...also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.
www.firehouse.com...

Captain Chris Boyle
Engine 94 - 18 years

Boyle: ...on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.
www.firehouse.com...

Also, I would reccommend for all to get a copy of the "Essentials of Fire Fighting" book, as it go over what firefighters are trained to observe when going into fires, including how the building looks, sounds, if there is movement, dangers of certain building designs and structures, how STEEL behaves in fires, how TRUSSES behave in fire, and more great info on just how fires behave and their effects. I have my copy, and boy does it shed a lot of light on fires. Also does a great job filling in information that many many many truther sites like to ignore or leave out on steel and fires. If only truthers did some real research instead of parroting gabage pushed by others who also dont have a clue.

reply to post by GenRadek


How is it building 7 fell down yet every other skyscraper within the vicinity were left standing? There were other buildings closer to the WTC 1 and 2 why didn't they fall just like WTC 7?

Your premise is the rubble and fire weakened the structure of the WTC7 but can you explain the rest please?

I have looked at the fires from WTC7 and it seems as though it was an isolated fire on the first 3 bottom floors. Why didn't the sprinklers contain and extinguish the fire?

I am not asking because I am a truther but this is what should have been investigated so that it doesn't happen again in the future.

*more edit*

I also watched the way the building was demolished and if the structure was weakened from the south side shouldn't the building lean and fall forwards? The north side would have been still intact so therefore the building should have buckled to the south.

reply to post by Equinox99


It should go without saying that the buildings around WTC 7 weren't anywhere near the same design with similar damage and fire. Some buildings were severely damaged, yes, but they didn't collapse because they didn't have the fatal flaw that WTC 7 had in its construction (which has been explained in the past due to the fact that WTC 7 was built on a pre-existing structure, meaning that the main support columns were shifted to a less than optimal location). Many buildings actually had to be demolished manually after 9/11 because of the danger they presented in their damaged state.

Just looking at the damage to the buildings around WTC 7 should be proof that WTC 7 was definitely able to sustain just as much, if not more damage due to its height (steel chunks from the North Tower crashing through much more building).

It's just as obvious to me that WTC 7 wasn't a demolition as it is to the members of the Truth Movement who believe it was a demolition. A strange anomaly in human thought patterns, how people can be very sure of two completely opposing viewpoints. I just personally feel that the view I have come to accept after all the time I've spent on 9/11 topics is the best use of complete logic and usage of every piece of evidence. "It kind of looks similar if you squint your eyes and chant 'the government is powerful and evil'," just isn't enough to make me believe something. (over-exaggeration by the way. It is basically what I glean from many arguments by truthers. Also, it is not targeted at you, Equinox99. It is just a statement to help explain my view.)

reply to post by Equinox99

How is it building 7 fell down yet every other skyscraper within the vicinity were left standing? There were other buildings closer to the WTC 1 and 2 why didn't they fall just like WTC 7?

Your premise is the rubble and fire weakened the structure of the WTC7 but can you explain the rest please?

I have looked at the fires from WTC7 and it seems as though it was an isolated fire on the first 3 bottom floors. Why didn't the sprinklers contain and extinguish the fire?

I am not asking because I am a truther but this is what should have been investigated so that it doesn't happen again in the future.

Combination of factors

WTC 7 unusual construction - it was built over a Con Ed substation and was larger than originally planned for
This required some tricky engineering using long span cantilever truss to support the structure

Fires - you said saw only one fire. Here is video showing smoke from fires on multiple floors on South face
Also can see heavy fires breaking out on North face of building. Some 13 floors of WTC 7 were on fire

www.911myths.com...

Asked why sprinklers did contain fire - simple was no water. Collapse of WTC towers destroyed the water
mains which feed the sprinklers. Once water in roof top tank was exhausted was no more water to fight the fires.

About other buildings in complex which didn't collapse

130 Liberty St (aka Deutsche Bank) was heavily damaged by collapse of South Tower (WTC 2) , but didn't catch fire Building was so heavily damaged is being demolished floor by floor

The collapse of 2 World Trade Center during the September 11 attacks tore a 24-story gash into the facade of the Deutsche Bank Building and destroyed the entire interior of the structure. Steel and concrete were sticking out of the building for months afterward. This was eventually cleaned up but it was decided that the 41 story ruin was to be taken down. After the 9/11 attacks, netting was placed around the remains of the building. The bank maintained that the building could not be restored to habitable condition, while its insurers sought to treat the incident as recoverable damage rather than a total loss. Work on the building was deferred for over two years during which the condition of the building deteriorated.

Other buildings of older heavy masonry construction - 90 West St, 140 West (Verizon) suffered damage, but
were able to resist it do to the heavy weight concrete shell construction

Here is analysis of damage to buildings that suffered damage

mceer.buffalo.edu...

reply to post by thedman


So wouldn't there be some sort of negligence played on the part of the engineers who built the building?

How many other buildings were torn down in the process? Can you provide evidence please?

Thanks.

BTW. I am not a truther, just curious as to how this all happened.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by loveguy

 

Not formulas types of loading, so a typical reply when you know your out of your depth blame god (he doesn't deserve capitals he is a figment of the imagination)

No comment on the collapse picture says a lot

Are you referring to this picture?
www.ihc-bwn.net...

As I was saying...Given the mechanics of the laws of physics, coupled with the possibility that an airplane has been known to collide with buildings (Empire State), doesn't it make sense to devise a formula that will keep the building from collapsing down upon its self, in the event of another aircraft collision? Oh, but the formula was to calibrate the strength of the structure to only withstand a certain level, not knowing air-craft were getting bigger every year?!

In any case, your photo clearly depicts that the outer walls were sheared-off...However, the massive core column I expect was not breached (Vaporized pentagon aircraft) would in fact continue to support the floor structure as a whole. Reason being is that the floors were poured onto galvanized steel sheeting strengthened by the channeling running through it to be a base to pour the concrete onto. In my estimation, the thinnest a concrete floor can be is four inches. How else can they reinforce the floor without putting in re-bar? Did they not tie re-bar into the floors?

How do suspension bridges work?

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by laiguana

 

It had a bad design of the layout of the steelwork to keep the entrance foyer as open as possible also it had structural damage it wasn't just a fire!

Have a look at the pictures here. HAS some nice shots of the damage dont agree with what a says re demolition.

www.facebook.com...

Not just fire then!!!

edit on 27-10-2010 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

Thanks for the facebook link. In that page is a bunch of pictures. The 18th and 19th pictures (counting from the top of page) show an aerial view of WTC7's pile. This is the print above and below picture #19.
"Here is a overhead photo of World Trade Center 7 taken a few days after 9/11/01:"

What is one of a controlled-demolition man's primary concern when demo-ing a building?

"Notice how the four outer walls of WTC7 have neatly fallen/folded into and on top of the rest of the pile of ruins without significantly damaging any of the adjacent building."

That is from your link. Thanks.

Originally posted by Equinox99
reply to post by thedman

 

So wouldn't there be some sort of negligence played on the part of the engineers who built the building?

They won't build one the same way again, that's for sure.

I remember a discussion with, I think, Impressme, where he asked with his usual rhetorical flourish why, if 7 was so anomalous, laws had not been passed off the back of its collapse. So I looked it up, and lo and behold a series of regulations were put into the building code directly because of what happened to it.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by Equinox99
reply to post by thedman

 

So wouldn't there be some sort of negligence played on the part of the engineers who built the building?

They won't build one the same way again, that's for sure.

I remember a discussion with, I think, Impressme, where he asked with his usual rhetorical flourish why, if 7 was so anomalous, laws had not been passed off the back of its collapse. So I looked it up, and lo and behold a series of regulations were put into the building code directly because of what happened to it.

vincentdunn.com... ?

I'm in need of your assistance please. Please provide a link?

reply to post by Equinox99


Did tou read the damage analysis report....?

Provided much of the information

30 West Broadway (aka Fiterman Hall) north of WTC 7 was badly damaged by collapse of WTC 7 which
smashed the side facing #7 - it is being demolished.

130 Liberty (aka Deutsche Bank) is being torn down due to damage from South Tower collapse ripping open
side facing it.

WTC 4.5.6 suffered major damage from debris from towers and subsequent fires. All were demolished

WTC 3 (Marriott Hotel) - what little remained was demolished. Was crushed flat by collapse of the towers

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


One thing is not to use sheetrock to line stairways/elevators New WTC 7 uses high strength concrete 2 feet
thick to protect these structure. Provide access/egress to the area. Also contain risers (plumbing ) for
water to standpipes/sprinklers . All these were destroyed by the aircraft impacts.

Freedom Tower (new WTC 1) will use similar upgrade - high strength concrete 2 1/2 ft thick in elevatos shafts
and stairways.

reply to post by loveguy

"Notice how the four outer walls of WTC7 have neatly fallen/folded into and on top of the rest of the pile of ruins without significantly damaging any of the adjacent building."

WTC 7 damaged 30 West Broadway so badly it is being demolished. The debris from WTC 7 crossed a
4 lane highway, Barclay St, to smash it.



30 West Broadway



Also Verizon building (140 West)



Note pieces of WTC 7 sticking out of it

I guess this dont count as damage......

Originally posted by Lord Jules

1. 1. Accusing the other side of being a government agent (unsurprisingly, with no proof)
-Not every truther does this, however you just accused all truthers of doing this, without proof I might add. And if you support the official story, you must have some type of vested interest in it (you served time overseas, can't quite face the truth of it, you don't want to believe your government is that corrupt, you directly work for the government but not necessarily an 'agent' you could work for the department of education and just refuse to believe the government is evil, etc).

I support the official story because it is the most reasonable explanation; until Truthers come up with some extraordinary evidence backing up their extraordinary claims, it will remain that way.

2. Accusing the other side of supporting the official story
Okay, so what story are you supporting? The no-plane theory? The Israel theory? the US theory? Or the Loose change theory?

One does not need to support a story to see through the nonsense of nanothermite, controlled demolition, no planes, etc.

3. Has no idea what happened that day (i.e. Thinking the Towers Fell At Free Fall Speed or that the towers collapsed into their own footprints)

It's funny how often I hear this as if truthers are such liars for suggesting they fell at free fall speed. I've yet to see any proof they hadn't fallen at free fall speed, but even if it wasn't 9.8 m/s2 (which is not exactly this number everywhere on the earth since the sea level can affect this), even if it wasn't free fall speed, it is so close to free fall speed that the constant attack of this notion is silly as anyone with eyes can see it came down relative to the speed of gravity, to imply that saying the buildings collapsed at free fall speed is a lie is itself a lie because by all calculations the towers fell at or near free fall.

The debris fell faster than the buildings; not to mention when you count building 7's penthouse, it did not fall at free fall speed.

4. Making idiotic comparisons (i.e. A plane far more smaller than a boeing hitting a building larger than the twin towers [not to mention with a different design] or comparing office fires not caused by planes/debris to 9/11)

This is just the loose change/9/11 mysteries theory, those videos are like five years old, and yet they are still influencing people, why is that? Must be because everyone is so idiotic (sarcasm)

Seeing how I just explained why said comparisons are idiotic in post you quoted, yes they are.

5. Coming up with Unrealistic Theories while at the same time opposing the far more reasonable one (i.e. People wiring up occupied buildings with tons of explosives to be hit by plane, that will then collapse onto another building to be demolished)

I'm not even sure what you are implying here, do you think the buildings were rigged?

The theory of controlled demolition is just a conspiracy theory, backed by nothing more than speculation, and the desire to believe. No sequences of explosives, no sequences of bangs, the funnel of debris coming from the top of the towers as it collapsed, the towers collapsing at the impact points, and as mentioned in the post you quoted, the impossibility of a team of people setting up 3 large occupied buildings with explosives. Unless Truthers can find a video of a controlled demolition where:
1. Bangs and flashes occur at a random intervals instead of a sequence (even occurring during the collapse itself)
2. A funnel of debris is coming down from the towers at is being "demolished"
As opposed to the series of controlled demolition videos where there are a sequences of flashes and bangs (showing how good at researching they are), or a government document in which they rigged an occupied building with explosives with no one to the wiser, it's bunk at best.

6. Grasping at straws (i.e. Beleiving that explosions at separate times [even during the collapse], or a few flashes makes it a controlled demolition)

shakes head

I hope you're shaking your head at the truthers who believe that nonsense.

7. Quote Mining (i.e. Silversteins 'Pull It' Quote)

Silverstein: We had such a loss of life...etc, etc, we decided to pull it
Silverstein on Silverstein: what I meant was pull the fire fighters.

Right, when was the last time you referred to fire fighters as "it"

Seems like you are the one mining for some type of explanation.

www.youtube.com...

Nope, still the truthers.

edit on 28-10-2010 by technical difficulties because: (no reason given)

reply to post by Equinox99




It did. However, you must remember that this building is not like a solid concrete box falling over in one solid piece. The WTC7 fell leaning towards the south, and ended up having the north side drapped across the debris. this was due to both impact and fire damage, as well as the large open area over the ConEd substation. It didnt drop straight down. What we see during the main collapse is the shell, as the interior has already collapsed, as it was collapsing for nearly 18 seconds.

Originally posted by loveguy


Are you referring to this picture?
www.ihc-bwn.net...

As I was saying...Given the mechanics of the laws of physics, coupled with the possibility that an airplane has been known to collide with buildings (Empire State), doesn't it make sense to devise a formula that will keep the building from collapsing down upon its self, in the event of another aircraft collision? Oh, but the formula was to calibrate the strength of the structure to only withstand a certain level, not knowing air-craft were getting bigger every year?!

In any case, your photo clearly depicts that the outer walls were sheared-off...However, the massive core column I expect was not breached (Vaporized pentagon aircraft) would in fact continue to support the floor structure as a whole. Reason being is that the floors were poured onto galvanized steel sheeting strengthened by the channeling running through it to be a base to pour the concrete onto. In my estimation, the thinnest a concrete floor can be is four inches. How else can they reinforce the floor without putting in re-bar? Did they not tie re-bar into the floors?

How do suspension bridges work?

Re the picture it shows the upper floors leaning towards the elevation that took the impact and if you look at a video in close up you see that section drop intact for 2-3 seconds.

www.livevideo.com...

OK somemore construction info

Floor area of a floor in WTC 1 & WTC 2 were 1 acre or 4046m2 if concrete in floor slab was 4" that 102mm (some floors were 5" or 125mm) so 4046x0.102 mtr (102mm) gives you = 412m3 of concrete per floor.

Using the density given for the floors in WTC its about 750 tons (minimum may have been more)of concrete in each floor.
Then you have the steel trusses and the hollowrib sheeting the concrete was poured on to.
The trusses were bolted to the outer walls and obviously to the walls at the core.
Using the South Tower which was hit lower down the mass above the impact point between the floor slabs, wall sections,would be 110 -78 = 32 floors 24,000 tons of concrete and about 8000 tons of steel so 32,000 tons not including anything else on the floors office equipment etc.

Typical connection detail

home.comcast.net...

Have a look here re collapse gives info on loading and problems the fires would have caused to the steel.

www.tms.org...

Dont know why you mentioned suspension bridge

The WTC were supposed to be designed to withstand aircraft impact BUT would you have designed it when its was built against a suicide mission and a plane full of fuel. Most pilots when in a crash situation TRY TO AVOID bulit up areas and dont try to hit at a BUILDING at as high a speed as possible.

Originally posted by loveguy

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by laiguana

 

It had a bad design of the layout of the steelwork to keep the entrance foyer as open as possible also it had structural damage it wasn't just a fire!

Have a look at the pictures here. HAS some nice shots of the damage dont agree with what a says re demolition.

www.facebook.com...

Not just fire then!!!

edit on 27-10-2010 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

Thanks for the facebook link. In that page is a bunch of pictures. The 18th and 19th pictures (counting from the top of page) show an aerial view of WTC7's pile. This is the print above and below picture #19.
"Here is a overhead photo of World Trade Center 7 taken a few days after 9/11/01:"

What is one of a controlled-demolition man's primary concern when demo-ing a building?

"Notice how the four outer walls of WTC7 have neatly fallen/folded into and on top of the rest of the pile of ruins without significantly damaging any of the adjacent building."

That is from your link. Thanks.

I dont agree with his dem theory lets look at some of the tricks he uses.

sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net...

That picture of a reinforced concrete building which iirc was a car park so not steel not hit by a plane AND no fire guess what destroyed it AN EARTHQUAKE!

SAME PICTURE USED HERE TYPICAL BS NOT APPLES WITH APPLES

truth11.com...

Originally posted by wmd_2008


The WTC were supposed to be designed to withstand aircraft impact BUT would you have designed it when its was built against a suicide mission and a plane full of fuel. Most pilots when in a crash situation TRY TO AVOID bulit up areas and dont try to hit at a BUILDING at as high a speed as possible.

edit on 28-10-2010 by wmd_2008 because: format

can i refresh you with this infomation.

John Skilling,interview to the Seattle Times,Saturday,Feburary 27/1993

Skilling, based in Seattle, is among the world's top structural engineers. He is responsible for much of Seattle's downtown skyline and for several of the world's tallest structures, including the Trade Center. Concerned because of a case where an airplane hit the Empire State Building, Skilling's people did an analysis that showed the towers would 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," he said. "The building structure would still be there." Skilling - a recognized expert in tall buildings - doesn't think a single 200-pound car bomb would topple or do major structural damage to a Trade Center tower. The supporting columns are closely spaced and even if several were disabled, the others would carry the load. "However," he added, "I'm not saying that properly applied explosives - shaped explosives - of that magnitude could not do a tremendous amount of damage

also clear from the video evidence that most of the fuel burned out side the building.

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by Equinox99

 

It did. However, you must remember that this building is not like a solid concrete box falling over in one solid piece. The WTC7 fell leaning towards the south, and ended up having the north side drapped across the debris. this was due to both impact and fire damage, as well as the large open area over the ConEd substation. It didnt drop straight down. What we see during the main collapse is the shell, as the interior has already collapsed, as it was collapsing for nearly 18 seconds.

oh come on,thats clear to see it's a great demo job,i dont know who your trying to convince here,because its a great vid of world class demoliton experts at work,also the other vid you posted of the WT7 fires,i never see any fires,i only see loads of smoke,and a lot of that was dark grey and black,which means the fire was starved of oxygen.


and i've also notice most of you trusters/OS belivers all seem to get your infomation from the same 2 sites,"debunking911" and "911myths" its like these 2 sites are your bibles...

reply to post by snapperski


I never understand this view. The argument is that "the building fell perfectly into its footprint, only possible in a demolition." It gets proven that the building didn't collapse into its footprint, and the argument on your side changes to "the building fell in that way because the demolishers were experts."

Am I the only one missing something here? It sounds to me like the view is that "if it looks the way I think then I'm right. If it doesn't look the way I think, then I'm still right."

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by loveguy

 

"Notice how the four outer walls of WTC7 have neatly fallen/folded into and on top of the rest of the pile of ruins without significantly damaging any of the adjacent building."

WTC 7 damaged 30 West Broadway so badly it is being demolished. The debris from WTC 7 crossed a
4 lane highway, Barclay St, to smash it.



30 West Broadway



Also Verizon building (140 West)



Note pieces of WTC 7 sticking out of it

I guess this dont count as damage......

once again you are misleading people,exaggerating things again,now lets take a look at this 4 lane highway,now its not quite the big 4 lane highway you make it out to be,and are we not surpised that it crossed over into barclay street,notice how close the buildings are to the road and how big WT7 was,infact i'm shocked there wasn't more damaged to surrounding buildings....as i've said before,world class demolition team to have dropped WT7 so cleanly in such a confined space.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/af3ce353f5e0.png[/atsimg]