WTC Building 7 Anomalies

[adoucette]

I have done a lot of research on this topic. I read an analysis, or saw an interview of someone who did research on this NIST report and submitted questions on the methodology, as well as the political and corporate interests that were behind the drafting of the report. There were no investigations or attempts to gather evidence looking into whether or not explosives may have been used to collapse the building. The question was never even considered as a possibility.

Then your research stinks.

In the NIST report they specifially mention modeling blasts to see if a blast event was possible (meaning consistent with the video evidence).

It was not.

Indeed, they pointed out that the SMALLEST blast capable of failing a single critical column would produce a sound of 130-140 DB at a half mile and no such blasts were reported or recorded in any of the audio tracks of any of the videos.

Arthur

 

[adoucette]

Yes. Simple office fires would suffice much easier. . .

Indeed.
Simple office fires release an incredible amount of heat.
Which is why office towers have sprinkler systems.
Except they didn't work in WTC 7 that day because all the floors up to 21 were fed from the mains that broke when WTC 1 came down.

WTC collapsed because if a fire burns long enough (as it did in WTC 7) it exceeds the protective abilities of the insulation and causes metal to EXPAND.

What they found out was that there was significant magnification of these thermal expansion effects because of the long spans that many of the beams covered and that beam/girder connections that were designed to handle gravity loads weren't able to handle the lateral forces applied by the thermal expansion.

Of course if you had done any actual research you would know these simple facts.

Hogwash. There are plenty of eyewitness accounts of such.

Not supersonic shock waves of the intensity needed to fail a critical column.
ZIP were recorded before WTC 7 failed and that whole thing was recorded.

Arthur

 

[spidergoat]

...If you mean to tell me they made this building to fail(instantly) completely if any main beam failed, then I guess our conversation ends there...

Most buildings are like that. Look at the Oklahoma City bombing. The bomb just took out some important columns on the front of the building and the whole face of it collapsed.

 

[adoucette]

Sorry...that's what drinking will do. I apologize to NF for my rash accusations.

Why apologize?

What you said about NF was spot on.

Clearly he believes that we should accept that the property owner would sanction this because he is Jewish.

Arthur

 

[adoucette]

First, at no time in history, before or since, has any modern steel frame structure ever collapsed because of office fires.

BS, the steel framed top of the Madrid towers collapsed.

What you leave out in your little "before or since" is that all other steel frame office fires were surpressed by sprinklers and hoses and eventually put out.

No other tall steel building (except the top of Madrid) has ever been allowed to burn for 7 hours with absolutely no sprinlers and no external attempt to fight the fires.

Arthur

 

[Trippy]

BS, the steel framed top of the Madrid towers collapsed.

What you leave out in your little "before or since" is that all other steel frame office fires were surpressed by sprinklers and hoses and eventually put out.

No other tall steel building (except the top of Madrid) has ever been allowed to burn for 7 hours with absolutely no sprinlers and no external attempt to fight the fires.

Arthur

And those that weren't did, indeed, collapse, but truthers ignore those examples with statementes like "But it didn't collapse completely", or "But the report says the steel was faulty" and so on and so forth.

There's one example i've seen of a steel framed structure collapsing in less than an hour as a result of an electrical fire.

 

[hardalee]

The fire departments were a little busy with more important things than saving WTC 7.

 

[hardalee]

In order to implode a building without weakening its structural elements first, in basically a pancake type failure, it would be necessary to do the following:

1. Set the explosives on most if not all structural elements of an upper floor, maybe 5 or 6 stories below top so the weight of the collapsing floors would break the connections of the floors below.
2. Fire all explosives at the same time so as not to produce leaning. This requires wiring of the explosives to go though hallways, etc. and to be timed precisely. Electrical detonation would be necessary or many explosive lines used.
3. Explosives would have to be very large as the structural elements could not be exposed and you would have to shoot through finishes.

4. Explosives would have to be placed properly not just to cut through the flanges of the members, but to cut through the webs also.

This would produce a very unique blast signature, blowing out an upper floor before the rest of the building collapsed. This did not occur on WTC 7.

My question to conspiracy theorists is, how could this have been done?

I’m willing to work with you on this. Any ideas? I’ll help with the design, but I cannot think of any way to do it without it being noticed.

 

[spidergoat]

And of course, blowing up building 7 even though no plane would hit it wouldn't attract any suspicion at all. Good plan.

 

[hardalee]

And of course, blowing up building 7 even though no plane would hit it wouldn't attract any suspicion at all. Good plan.

Good point.

 

[quadraphonics]

I got a set of eyeballs I calls em, like I sees em.

True enough - but it seems that you also have an unwarranted level of confidence in your ability to discern mechanisms of structural failure from using your eyeballs on clips of video.

I dunno - the premise that it should be obvious to any layman how that building failed, just from watching a video, seems to me to be obviously wrong on its face.

If it's so clear, then where is the plausible alternative explanation?

 

[quadraphonics]

And of course, blowing up building 7 even though no plane would hit it wouldn't attract any suspicion at all. Good plan.

Nor serve any discernable purpose.

 

[nietzschefan]

Most buildings are like that. Look at the Oklahoma City bombing. The bomb just took out some important columns on the front of the building and the whole face of it collapsed.

Thanks for making my point. A) explosion B) half the building still standing.

 

[spidergoat]

I forget the terminology, but it's a well known principle in architecture, there are usually a few key elements which, if they fail, the whole thing will go down.

 

[nietzschefan]

Nor serve any discernable purpose.

$861 million reasons.

 

[S.A.M.]

I haven't kept up with all the WTC 7 theories, but have any other buildings the same distance from the the two towers shown any effects which could lead to them collapsing the same way? Or is there a time limit for the kind of collateral damages that leads to the building sinking to the floor like that?

 

[nietzschefan]

Sorry - some were torn down later...

Many of the surrounding buildings were also either damaged or destroyed as the towers fell. 5 WTC suffered a large fire and a partial collapse of its steel structure. Other buildings destroyed include St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, Marriott World Trade Center (Marriott Hotel 3 WTC), South Plaza (4 WTC), and U.S. Customs (6 WTC). The World Financial Center buildings, 90 West Street, and 130 Cedar Street suffered fires. The Deutsche Bank Building, the Verizon Building, and World Financial Center 3 suffered impact damage from the towers' collapse, as did 90 West Street. One Liberty Plaza survived structurally intact but sustained surface damage including shattered windows. 30 West Broadway was damaged by the collapse of 7 WTC. The Deutsche Bank Building, which was covered in a large black "shroud" after September 11 to cover the building's damage, was deconstructed because of water, mold, and other severe damage caused by the neighboring towers' collapse.[78][79]

 

[S.A.M.]

So what caused the damage to WTC 7? Fire?

 

[nietzschefan]

Some impact damage (minor to speak of when talking about collapse) and yes Fire. Interesting WTC 5 suffered partial collapse from fire...

 

[spidergoat]

Thanks for making my point. A) explosion B) half the building still standing.

I see, so any explosion should always do the same damage to any building involved? Do you have any appreciation for the unpredictable nature of catastrophic damage?