WTC Building 7 on 9/11

[Neildo]

If the building was loaded with explosives why would you wait seven hours and go through the charade of pretending that there was no water and not enough equipment. Why not just blow it when the top of WTC (1 or 2) fell on it? Why would you wait until there were more cameras and people at the scene to scrutinize the fake collapse caused by the indestructible, invisible explosives?

Because it'd be a wee bit too obvious if the towers fell instantly after being hit by the planes. Besides, with 9/11, imagery is everything so they'd want as many Americans to see it as possible, to rally more support to put their war plans in action.

- N

 

[shaman_]

We are talking about WTC7. The imagery of of WTC7 collapsing in not significant.

 

[Hurricane Angel]

Two of the tallest buildings in the world collapsed. Are you really surprised that some of the rubble managed to fall on a building across the street?

Interestingly if the rubble hadn't fallen on some other buildings the conspiracy theorists would say it was a "perfect" collapse and just more evidence for a controlled demolition.

Okay rubble hit WTC 7? Your point?

That by some godlike coincidence the building implodes from top down?

And if that was the case why didn't the verizon or us post office building collapse?

And yeah you are actually being difficult regarding the madrid tower. I brought it up because it was also on fire, and the next day all that was left was it's steel structure.

 

[Hurricane Angel]

And what about the molten metal after the clean up? *note fire does not melt metal

 

[Neildo]

We are talking about WTC7. The imagery of of WTC7 collapsing in not significant.

My response is basically the same for WTC7 in regards of when to implode it. You can't blow WTC 7 immediately after two planes crash into WTC 1 & 2 as that'd look too obviously fishy. Gotta at least think up some kinda excuse like a prolonged fire to make people believe it before taking it down.

- N

 

[John99]

My response is basically the same for WTC7 in regards of when to implode it. .

- N

implode? there were no implosions.

 

[shaman_]

Okay rubble hit WTC 7? Your point?

My point is that it wasn't just some dust and telephone pieces that landed on WTC7. The top floors from a falling skyscraper collided with it, causing a lot of damage.

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_hit_by_debris_.html

That by some godlike coincidence the building implodes from top down?

Apart from the damage the building then burnt freely for seven hours. How else should a building look when it collapses after losing its stuctural integrity?

And if that was the case why didn't the verizon or us post office building collapse?

They were extensively damaged though.

And yeah you are actually being difficult regarding the madrid tower. I brought it up because it was also on fire, and the next day all that was left was it's steel structure.

A quick look at wiki gave me this.

"Around midnight, on Saturday, February 12, 2005, a fire was detected on the 21st floor. The fire spread quickly throughout the entire building, leading to the collapse of the outermost, steel parts of the upper floors;

" a huge fire on February 12, 2005, and partially collapsed;"

That building didn't have the top of a skyscraper land on it either.

 

[shaman_]

My response is basically the same for WTC7 in regards of when to implode it. You can't blow WTC 7 immediately after two planes crash into WTC 1 & 2 as that'd look too obviously fishy.

So loading up a not-so significant building with explosives when it isn't going to hit by any planes, and we don't know where the debris from WTC1+2 will fall (or if there will be some) doesn't sound fishy?

Gotta at least think up some kinda excuse like a prolonged fire to make people believe it before taking it down. - N

The building was already damaged to the point where the firefighters thought it might collapse. Why do you even need (invisible, indestructible) explosives in a building that has already been damaged and burning for seven hours?

 

[Hurricane Angel]

you know, if you actually spend some time to find pictures of wtc 7...

 

[John99]

you would probably know too if you were standing in front of the building, where all the smoke is.

 

[Hurricane Angel]

where is the massive damage? even in the wtc 7 collapse videos, there is no visible damage to anything, it's just a building falling down.

The building was already damaged to the point where the firefighters thought it might collapse. Why do you even need (invisible, indestructible) explosives in a building that has already been damaged and burning for seven hours?

what the hell are you talking about? firefighters do not stay away from steel framed buildings under suspicion that they will collapse ask anyone.

and another thing you did not know is that thermite (the bombs to melt metal) do not explode in the presence of heat.

they wanted this building to fall down, simple as that. there was no "ooh look it's on fire, let's make sure we take it down". it was more like "light those floors on fire, and then demolish it, no evidence".

and the "no evidence" you cannot say anything against because the clean up was a gong show.

 

[John99]

where is the massive damage?

oh i know where some massive damage is.

 

[Hurricane Angel]

you would probably know too if you were standing in front of the building, where all the smoke is.

oh... you mean this side?

 

[John99]

sure why not

 

[Hurricane Angel]

go troll elsewhere or find a girlfriend, seriously.

 

[John99]

hey, what is your problem? i can post refutations.

 

[shaman_]

where is the massive damage? even in the wtc 7 collapse videos, there is no visible damage to anything, it's just a building falling down.

Have you not seen this?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4c/Abcnews-wtc7damage.jpg

That gash is not a feature of the architecture.

what the hell are you talking about? firefighters do not stay away from steel framed buildings under suspicion that they will collapse ask anyone.

lol. Well they did on September 11. Perhaps you should read some of the links at the top of this page.

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/firesafetyengineering&theperformanceofst

It's pretty funny that your own example, the madrid tower, actually undid the argument you were trying to construct there. The steel building did partially collapse.

:roflmao:

Again you are conveniently forgetting the damage caused to the building.

and another thing you did not know is that thermite (the bombs to melt metal) do not explode in the presence of heat.

Actually thermite is an incendiary not a bomb. I believe it burns but does not explode. However the amount of thermite needed for this would be ridiculous. Someone would most likely notice. If a timer or remote device was used as a trigger then that would certainly be affected by heat.

 

[Hurricane Angel]

Okay thermite is not a "bomb"... semantics, i still don't see your point? There were none because somebody would have noticed it? The building was actually empty the entire morning and afternoon of 9/11 because of those random fires; obviously an attempt to keep people from entering. So in reality, nobody would have noticed them.

Also madrid tower partially collapsed... once again I don't see your point, because it had even more damage and it still remained standing.

as for your image of wtc 7; that gash is the exact same one i had shown earlier, it's only like 5 feet deep. You're saying a 5 foot deep scratch is enough to take out all 4 corners of the building?

 

[Hurricane Angel]

lol. Well they did on September 11.

you're an idiot if you think an isolated incident offers global explanation.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

And what about the molten metal after the clean up? *note fire does not melt metal

Really? then how do you melt metal, steel? take a forge, fuel it with charcoal, add a bellows, which forces air into the fire, and you can melt steel, something that happens even faster is that the steel become's malleable, which means it can be streached, formed, pulled apart, twisted, shaped, it become like soft clay, and it has no structural strength,


Flash point: 38 °C
Autoignition temperature: 210 °C
Freezing point: -47 °C (-40 °C for JET A
Open air burning temperatures: 260-315 °C (500-599 °F)
Maximum burning temperature: 980 °C (1796 °F)
Density at 15 °C (60 °F): 0.775-0.840 kg/L


www.structural.net - Articles and technical papers
Unfortunately, unprotected structural steel members lose about ½ their strength at 1000oF (538oC) and rapidly loses more strength as the temperature rises. ...
http://www.structural.net/News/Media_coverage/media_fireproofing.html


Jet a is capabale of burning with forced air draft at 1796 deg.F, steel loses half of its structural strength at 1000 deg.F, so again tell me that with the forced air drafts of the winds blowing through the holes, blown through the WTC towers by the 757, that the steel had to melt to fail? A old fashioned bellows, pushing air through a hard wood fire can create enough heat at a temperature high enough to allow a black smith to reduce the structural strength of steel to the point that he can redally streach, bend, form, and shape steel, so with Jet-A, JP-4, with a burning temperature of 1796 deg.F can and does reduce the structural strength of steel to the point thta it can be streached to the breaking point, and loose it load bearing ability long before it comes close to melting.

http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130 ...laim of DB, Volume II/PDC_vII_Sec1_052903.PDF

Nearly every window was broken on of the north face below the 23rd floor. This window breakage can be
attributed to the following:
 Localized damage in the areas impacted by column trees falling from WTC-2.
 Smaller debris blown from WTC-1 and WTC-2. In particular, small chunks of lightweight
concrete, which appeared to be from WTC-2 floor slabs, were thrown through the north windows
of the Building. These debris items ranged in size from small fragments that caused bullet-size
holes in the windows to large chunks with a maximum dimension of approximately 12 inches.
 A “horizontal ground jet” formed during the collapse of each WTC tower. This phenomenon
occurs through the re-direction of the towers’ collapsing from a vertical orientation to a
horizontal motion. The ground jet reached speeds of 170 to 200 mph on the lower floors of the
Building and 140 to 180 mph on the upper floors (wind speeds equivalent to an F3 tornado). The
velocity pressure formed by the ground jet was between 50-100 psf. Pressures of this magnitude
are capable of overturning large trucks.

1.2.4 Building Fire on September 11, 2001
Fuel oil from the ruptured 20,000-gallon tank at basement Level A ignited and burned on September 11,
2001 causing fire damage to the walls in the northwest corner of basement Levels A and B, which is
illustrated by visibly black and pink concrete in that area. Within the Building, the fire caused significant
structural damage north of column line 6 (refer to figures below). The main floor support beams between
column lines 7 and 8 were bowed more than 6” at the midpoint. The fire also destroyed electrical
conduit, HVAC systems, and plumbing systems as well as standard tenant fitout items.

From the video evidence, the Building is located at the edge of the WTC-2 collapse envelope. This is
where the vertical flow of dust and debris transitions into the horizontal ground jet. At this location,
horizontal wind flows struck the Building at speeds between 170 and 200 mph on the lower floors and
140-180 mph on the upper floors within the façade damage region.
The 170 to 200 mph horizontal ground jet that formed during the WTC-2 collapse hit the Building with
the force of an F3 tornado. A tornado of this magnitude has the power to cause severe damage,
including, tearing roofs and walls off of well-constructed houses, overturning trains, uprooting most trees
in a forest, and lifting heavy cars off of the ground and throwing them (National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, NOAA). Windows were shattered on three sides of the Building. The
pressure shock wave from this collapse and the later WTC-1 collapse forced huge quantities of WTC
Hazardous Substances through the Building’s breached shell and into virtually every exposed and
concealed space in the Building and into its installed equipment.

Seems to be plenty of air movement to fan any fire, and creat a blast furnace effect, and create enough heat to destroy any structural or load bearing strength of steel, and even enough forced air (Blast Furnace) tempratures to melt steel.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

3. How could the WTC towers have collapsed without a controlled demolition since no steel-frame, high-rise buildings have ever before or since been brought down due to fires? Temperatures due to fire don't get hot enough for buildings to collapse.

The collapse of the WTC towers was not caused either by a conventional building fire or even solely by the concurrent multi-floor fires that day. Instead, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large, jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires weakened the now susceptible structural steel. No building in the United States has ever been subjected to the massive structural damage and concurrent multi-floor fires that the towers experienced on Sept. 11, 2001.

7a. How could the steel have melted if the fires in the WTC towers weren’t hot enough to do so?
OR
7b. Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit and Underwriters Laboratories (UL) certified the steel in the WTC towers to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours, how could fires have impacted the steel enough to bring down the WTC towers?

In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).

However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers.

UL did not certify any steel as suggested. In fact, in U.S. practice, steel is not certified at all; rather structural assemblies are tested for their fire resistance rating in accordance with a standard procedure such as ASTM E 119 (see NCSTAR 1-6B). That the steel was “certified ... to 2000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours” is simply not true.