Split Thread WTC7 is a problem for the 9/11 official story

[bill smith]

You might want to read up on WTC5.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5_World_Trade_Center

'' The FEMA/ASCE Building Performance Study Team team found that some connections between the structural steel beams failed in the fire. This was most apparent in the collapse of World Trade Center Building 5, where the fireproofing did not protect the connections, causing the structure to fail ''

hat was an interesting paragraph. Funny that all the fireproofing was completely intact in WTC7 and yet from vastly smaller and asymmetric fires it suffered a total simultneous and symmetrical global collapse leaving not one stone standing on another.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Just curious bill smith, if there was hardly any fire inside building 7 where do you think the high volume of smoke came from?

And, are exterior fires to be taken as a measure of the full extent of the fires?

If you're answer to the last question is "yes" please feel free to source...

 

[TokenMac]

'' The FEMA/ASCE Building Performance Study Team team found that some connections between the structural steel beams failed in the fire. This was most apparent in the collapse of World Trade Center Building 5, where the fireproofing did not protect the connections, causing the structure to fail ''

hat was an interesting paragraph. Funny that all the fireproofing was completely intact in WTC7 and yet from vastly smaller and asymmetric fires it suffered a total simultneous and symmetrical global collapse leaving not one stone standing on another.

I find it funny that WTC7 was 38 stories taller, with a footprint about half the size to WTC5.

 

[A W Smith]

Just curious bill smith, if there was hardly any fire inside building 7 where do you think the high volume of smoke came from?

http://img466.imageshack.us/img466/8326/wtc7smoke4oo.jpg

A Jackass would say

smoke pots

 

[bill smith]

Just curious bill smith, if there was hardly any fire inside building 7 where do you think the high volume of smoke came from?

[qimg]http://img466.imageshack.us/img466/8326/wtc7smoke4oo.jpg[/qimg]



And, are exterior fires to be taken as a measure of the full extent of the fires?

If you're answer to the last question is "yes" please feel free to source...

Yee-haw (Texas Jackass).
http://www.tpub.com/content/armychemicaloperations/cm7112b/ smoke pots

If the exterior fires are not to be taken as a measure of the full extent of the fire- now far into the building would you care to venture and how will you justify it ?

 

[bill smith]

I find it funny that WTC7 was 38 stories taller, with a footprint about half the size to WTC5.

I believe that the buildings were different colours too.

 

[A W Smith]

I called it

Yee-haw Im a Jackass).
http://www.tpub.com/content/armychemicaloperations/cm7112b/ smoke pots

Insufficient. read the specifications of the smoke pots you linked to.

 

[bill smith]

Insufficient. read the specifications of the smoke pots you linked to.

Oh, I think we have enough to get the general picture.

 

[TruthersLie]

You might want to read up on WTC5.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5_World_Trade_Center

Hey tokenmac

You also left out the pretty pictures showing internal collapses in wtc5 due to ....
FIRE

Two areas in WTC 5 experienced local collapse under an intact portion of the roof. Although there was debris impact near this area, the symmetrical nature of the collapse strongly suggests that the failures were due to the uncontrolled fires. This is supported by the observation that the columns in this area remained straight and freestanding (see Figure 4-18). This local collapse appeared to have begun at the field connection where beams were connected to shop-fabricated beam stubs and column assemblies as illustrated in Figures 4-19, 4-20, and 4-21.

The structural collapse appeared to be due to a combination of excessive shear loads on bolted connections and unanticipated tensile forces resulting from catenary sagging of the beams. The existence of high shear loads, likely due to collapsing floor loads from above, was evident in many of the column-tree beam stub cantilevers that formed diagonal tension field mechanisms in the cantilever webs and plastic moments at the column, as seen in Figure 4-18.

and we can't forget

and the accompying text

Figure 4-17 Buckled beam flange and column on the 8th floor of WTC 5 that was weakened by fire

You are soooooo right bill... there were NO collapses there... and steel is very resistant to fire.

(snicker)

 

[Dave Rogers]

Bill or anyone else is allowed to come up with the same kind of conjecture as NIST.

And ther eyou have it, folks; the central delusion of the truth movement. Uninformed speculation by anonymous Internet posters has some measure of equality with a thorough investigation by hundreds of trained engineers taking several years of careful study. Stellafane summed this up perfectly in a Language Award-winning post a while back.

Doink-doink-doink, wasn't it?

Dave

 

[Orphia Nay]

Hey tokenmac

You also left out the pretty pictures showing internal collapses in wtc5 due to ....
FIRE

[qimg]http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/fig-4-19.jpg[/qimg]


[qimg]http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/fig-4-14.jpg[/qimg]

and we can't forget
[qimg]http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/fig-4-17.jpg[/qimg]
and the accompying text


[qimg]http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/fig-4-18.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/fig-4-19.jpg[/qimg]

You are soooooo right bill... there were NO collapses there... and steel is very resistant to fire.

(snicker)

Excellent post, quoted for truth.

 

[bill smith]

Hey tokenmac

You also left out the pretty pictures showing internal collapses in wtc5 due to ....
FIRE

[qimg]http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/fig-4-19.jpg[/qimg]


[qimg]http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/fig-4-14.jpg[/qimg]

and we can't forget
[qimg]http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/fig-4-17.jpg[/qimg]
and the accompying text


[qimg]http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/fig-4-18.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/fig-4-19.jpg[/qimg]

You are soooooo right bill... there were NO collapses there... and steel is very resistant to fire.

(snicker)

Do you think it was worse than this inside WTC7 seeing that it had a symmetrical and total global collapse and that this building (WTC5) did not ? Or was WTC7 a poor design, despite what NIST said on that subject ?

 

[TokenMac]

Almost every thing Bill has posted in this thread is a good reminder of why I keep this in my sig.

The Inflationary Model of Conspiracy Theories Part II

It is like every week Bill has a new theory that he will inflate in the same way as the example above.In fact he is inflating one right now.

When I gave him some info on WTC5 he focused on how only part of the building collapsed, ignoring that the collapse was caused by fire, that WTC7 was built in very different ways, and that there was huge fires in both WTC 5&7.

'' The FEMA/ASCE Building Performance Study Team team found that some connections between the structural steel beams failed in the fire. This was most apparent in the collapse of World Trade Center Building 5, where the fireproofing did not protect the connections, causing the structure to fail ''

hat was an interesting paragraph. Funny that all the fireproofing was completely intact in WTC7 and yet from vastly smaller and asymmetric fires it suffered a total simultneous and symmetrical global collapse leaving not one stone standing on another.

Then Grizzly questioned Bill about the smoke in WTC7, so Bill inflates the theory, and now with no proof or evidence WTC7 is filled with smoke pots.

Yee-haw (Texas Jackass).
http://www.tpub.com/content/armychemicaloperations/cm7112b/ smoke pots

If the exterior fires are not to be taken as a measure of the full extent of the fire- now far into the building would you care to venture and how will you justify it ?

But there could be some hope for Bill yet.

I find it funny that WTC7 was 38 stories taller, with a footprint about half the size to WTC5.

I believe that the buildings were different colours too.

Yes Bill they were different colours, now what else was different about them.

Hint:

Just about EVERYTHING

 

[bill smith]

Almost every thing Bill has posted in this thread is a good reminder of why I keep this in my sig.

The Inflationary Model of Conspiracy Theories Part II

It is like every week Bill has a new theory that he will inflate in the same way as the example above.In fact he is inflating one right now.

When I gave him some info on WTC5 he focused on how only part of the building collapsed, ignoring that the collapse was caused by fire, that WTC7 was built in very different ways, and that there was huge fires in both WTC 5&7.

Then Grizzly questioned Bill about the smoke in WTC7, so Bill inflates the theory, and now with no proof or evidence WTC7 is filled with smoke pots.
But there could be some hope for Bill yet.

Yes Bill they were different colours, now what else was different about them.

Hint:

Just about EVERYTHING

Both buldings were built to suit their particular configuration. So both buildings were fit for purpose. Yet WTC7 was massively over-engineered having been described in words very much like 'WTC7 was one of the strongest steel structures ever built'.

WTC5 did not get such an accolade to my knowledge and yet it stayed standing after fierce fires- much much fiercer and more wide ranging than anything WTC7 had exprienced- had ravaged the building.

Why then did WTC5 with the incomplete fireproofing and the far far lighter structural elements remain standing while the well-fireproofed heavy-duty WTC7 suffered a symmetrical and total global collapse with all four widely seperated corners of the uilding falling at the same time to end up in a neat pile and with no element remaining standing on another ?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Yee-haw (Texas Jackass).
http://www.tpub.com/content/armychemicaloperations/cm7112b/ smoke pots

If the exterior fires are not to be taken as a measure of the full extent of the fire- now far into the building would you care to venture and how will you justify it ?

Funny how the remains of hundreds of smoke pots never turned up in the examination of the WTC wreckage, isn't it?

I guess these are magic smoke pots which turn to fairy dust and daisy petals when expended, huh Bill?

 

[triforcharity]

Do you think that the design of WTC7 was a poor one in that WTC5 did not collapse from vastly more serious fires as you can see in the video ? (Even though NIST says that the design of WTC7 was fine )

IIRC, WTC 5 was a concrete building, and 7 waas steel. Plus, 5 was MUCH smaller, and didn't have the tremendous amount of loads on the lower levels. This makes the building more vunerable to collapse. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. The smaller building was more stable.


ETA: I was wrong, WTC 5 was in fact a steel framed building. My bad....

 

[triforcharity]

'' The FEMA/ASCE Building Performance Study Team team found that some connections between the structural steel beams failed in the fire. This was most apparent in the collapse of World Trade Center Building 5, where the fireproofing did not protect the connections, causing the structure to fail ''

hat was an interesting paragraph. Funny that all the fireproofing was completely intact in WTC7 and yet from vastly smaller and asymmetric fires it suffered a total simultneous and symmetrical global collapse leaving not one stone standing on another.

You also have to take into considerstion the fact that WTC 7 was 47 storeys, and WTC 5 was 9 storeys. This alone makes the smaller one more globally stable.

It wouldn't have mattered if the fireproofing was there or not. That only delays the damage. Possibly up to 2 hours. Not much more after that though.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Oh, I think we have enough to get the general picture.

http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/1070/facepalm1kz0.jpg

ETA: I was wrong, WTC 5 was in fact a steel framed building. My bad....

Remainder was correct. It was also more of a traditional framing system which essentially meant that the internal failure wasn't able to cascade through the remainder of the building like it did in WTC 7. Though, again...

AE911truth and it's followers don't understand the concept of a building case study and will blatantly refuse to learn it.

 

[Slayhamlet]

IIRC, WTC 5 was a concrete building, and 7 waas steel. Plus, 5 was MUCH smaller, and didn't have the tremendous amount of loads on the lower levels. This makes the building more vunerable to collapse. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. The smaller building was more stable.


ETA: I was wrong, WTC 5 was in fact a steel framed building. My bad....

The more apposite difference is that WTC 5 was a wide area low-rise structure (9 stories at its highest), the structural integrity of which was not reliant on entirely interconnected load bearing members. In other words, when part of the structure fails, not all of the rest fails with it. This should be immediately obvious when comparing the two buildings' profiles. WTC 7 47 stories tall, i.e. a skyscraper.

 

[Justin39640]

Oh, I think we have enough to get the general picture.

yes according to your link they would have needed about 50000 smoke pots to sustain that much smoke for 7 hours

you should really think things all the way through before you post nonsense

Funny how the remains of hundreds of smoke pots never turned up in the examination of the WTC wreckage, isn't it?

I guess these are magic smoke pots which turn to fairy dust and daisy petals when expended, huh Bill?

according to his link it takes 72 smoke pots to obscure a single target 200 meters away for 12 to 90 minutes
i think they would have needed a few hundred on each level to sustain that smoke for that long