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

[jaydeehess]

I believe that the buildings were different colours too.

Better to stay silent and be thought a fool rather than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt , bill.

You seem to assume that the dimensions of the structure have no bearing on how it would collapse. You probably also believe that the internal structural style of construction would also be irrellevent.

 

[jaydeehess]

Having red shoes does not make me a slut. A political slut either.

For the rest I find that your contentions hold far less water than mine do by a long shot. Few people, even here on the jref will be peruaded by stuff like ''...the fires were on were below the line of sight from most of the videos of the collapse...''

It was a reference to "Saturday Night LIve" from a couple of decades ago. But yes, given that your whole point of contention with the history of events of 911 is driven by a political stance, you are a political slut.

I contend that the wind that day was from the north. Do you dispute that?

I contend that there were few unbroken windows on the south side. Do you contend that?

I contend that the combination of a relatively small amount of openings on the windward side and a very large opening on the leeward side would result in the greatest amount of smoke generated within the building to exit the south side openings. DO YOU CONTEND THAT?
WHY or why not?

 

[BigAl]

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

No problem when you are already bringing in as many as 400 tractor-trailor loads of Thermite as Bill's claim of molten steel would require.

 

[Toke]

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.

I my world fireproofing consist of drywall, rockwool, and/or some stuff sprayed on by the shipyard. It acts as insulation and will delay the heating of the steel behind it.
So yes, after some? time the heat gets through.
Some metalurgist here wrote of fireproof steel, it just means steel that will retain its strenght at a slightly higher temperature that regular steel, and thereby give more time to evacuate or fight the fire.

 

[Carlos]

The WTC7 "small fires".

 

[triforcharity]

I my world fireproofing consist of drywall, rockwool, and/or some stuff sprayed on by the shipyard. It acts as insulation and will delay the heating of the steel behind it.
So yes, after some? time the heat gets through.
Some metalurgist here wrote of fireproof steel, it just means steel that will retain its strenght at a slightly higher temperature that regular steel, and thereby give more time to evacuate or fight the fire.

That is correct. If the firefighters can extinguish the fire quick enough, the steel's strength will not be compromised. But, in essence, it is designed to delay that effect so they can extinguish and evacuate. Sure, it helps to preserve the building in a short fire, but in the case of WTC 7, it wouldn't have mattered either way, we couldn't fight the fire anyway.

 

[TheBigKahuna]

Can I put you on my list of jref people who agree that WTC7 looked like a controlled demolition then ?

No, I said it looked like a fire initiated gravitational driven collapse, and asked why it should look different from an explosives initiated gravitational drive collapse (and the answer is, it will look similar). For it to look like a controlled demolition, there's at least one other thing you need first, a few hundred pounds of explosives going off, generally in the vicinity of the first and second floors and maybe some more around the 20th to get good breakage of the structure, but I'm not a demolition expert, and for this specific structure there might be better floors to plant them on. It's not a feature of controlled demolition to have the explosives going off at random in the building, but that would be consistent with air pressure blowing out windows.

 

[TheBigKahuna]

Welcome!
Give the man(?) a cigar! A CD is in-fact a gravity driven collapse, so yes it would look similar. Some day (I'm not holding my breath) the "truthers" will get a clue.

Thank you for the welcome, and, yes, it's man.

 

[TheBigKahuna]

'' 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.

Guess your not aware of some of the unique design features in WTC 7. It was built over the con ed substation which meant a lot of shifting of vertical loads to run into the structure of the substation. Start eliminating support from one end of a horizontal steel beam in that situation results in the sum of the forces on that beam no longer equaling zero (case of static equilibrium is sum of forces = 0 = ma so for m > 0 result is a = 0) then the mass times the acceleration is no longer zero and, as mass is always greater than zero, the acceleration must be greater than zero which means that beam is going to move. The laws of physics accept no other result. When that beam moves, the structural integrity of the building is compromised. If memory serves, there was also a large atrium in WTC 7 which would mean even more shifting of loads with horizontal beams. Maybe someone on this forum can confirm that.

 

[lapman]

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.

The collapse was neither simultaneous(remember the east penthouse?) nor symmetrical(off center kink were the east penthouse was). Yet you know this and post the lie anyway.

 

[RedIbis]

Guess your not aware of some of the unique design features in WTC 7. It was built over the con ed substation which meant a lot of shifting of vertical loads to run into the structure of the substation. Start eliminating support from one end of a horizontal steel beam in that situation results in the sum of the forces on that beam no longer equaling zero (case of static equilibrium is sum of forces = 0 = ma so for m > 0 result is a = 0) then the mass times the acceleration is no longer zero and, as mass is always greater than zero, the acceleration must be greater than zero which means that beam is going to move. The laws of physics accept no other result. When that beam moves, the structural integrity of the building is compromised. If memory serves, there was also a large atrium in WTC 7 which would mean even more shifting of loads with horizontal beams. Maybe someone on this forum can confirm that.

This is a common misconception that even NIST admits did not play a role in the collapse.

The NIST investigation team also determined that other elements of the building’s construction—namely trusses, girders and cantilever overhangs that were used to transfer loads from the building superstructure to the columns of the electric substation (over which WTC 7 was constructed) and foundation below—did not play a significant role in the collapse.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc082108.html

 

[JohnG]

Bill, I get that you feel an almost moral imperative to dispute each and every aspect of the so called "Official Story". I'm sure that if you felt you could get away with it, you'd dispute the date and location of the attacks, too. If they say "left" you have to say "right". If they say "black" you must say "white". Since your opponents are all incompetents and/or liars, it logically follows that 99% of everything they say is wrong...right?

Here's the thing, though; in your quieter moments when you have turned off your computer, taking a well deserved break from raging against the machine, do you ever try to piece together the logistics of the overarching plan your theories inevitably suggest? The unlikely, unprecedented and unwieldy "Auric Goldfinger meets Rube Goldberg" scheme involving decades worth of planning, thousands of conspirators, not to mention a flawlessness of execution and flat out luck that borders on the supernatural?

Do any internal BS (no pun intended) sensors start screaming when you try to picture the hundreds of Black Ops agents dashing around like over-caffeinated stagehands, planting devices here, removing incriminating evidence there and hoping against hope that no one notices them?

Sure it's an evil plan, no argument there. It's positively diabolical (as imaginary plans go), but is it a smart plan? A robust plan? Even if you can clear the hurdle of getting so many people to agree to such a dastardly scheme against their fellow countrymen, can you see all the main players signing off on such an absurdly complicated plan with so many possible points of failure?

In other words, do you ever catch yourself thinking "Wow, why didn't they just let jets fly into buildings like the LIHOPers claim?".

To be clear, I'm not a LIHOPer. Just wondering why, if you want to "stick it to the man", you don't subscribe to the theory that would be more likely to garner support?

 

[triforcharity]

Yeah, it didn't play a role in the collapse, correct. Because even if it HAD been built on COMPLETELY solid ground, it STILL would have collapsed. Der.

 

[Toke]

JohnG,
You wear the title of pedantic bore well.
BS got this exciting story and you try to pull him down with simple logistics.
How mean can one be.

 

[Pantaz]

"Auric Goldfinger meets Rube Goldberg"

I will definitely be borrowing that!

 

[bill smith]

When i look at the collapse of the east Penthouse of WTC7 I am struck by how much like a controlled demolition it also is.
They that say column 79 held it up, but if you remove column 79 you will get a collapse of that portion of the Penthouse that it was directly supporting. You will not have the entire structure falling evenly and simultaneously into the main building.

Even if other adjacent support elements to column 79 had progressively failed we would have seen this reflected in the progressive crumpling of the roofline of the Penthouse instead of a sharp roof outline long it's full length as it smoothly fell into the main building.

 

[Carlos]

When i look at the collapse of the east Penthouse of WTC7 I am struck by how much like a controlled demolition it also is.

Oh really?
What about the explosion sounds? the squibs? the multiple floors being detonated?

 

[Pardalis]

9 pages and he's still arguing that "it looks like a CD"...

Come on people stop feeding the troll.

 

[peteweaver]

When i look at the collapse of the east Penthouse of WTC7 I am struck by how much like a controlled demolition it also is.
They that say column 79 held it up, but if you remove column 79 you will get a collapse of that portion of the Penthouse that it was directly supporting. You will not have the entire structure falling evenly and simultaneously into the main building.

Even if other adjacent support elements to column 79 had progressively failed we would have seen this reflected in the progressive crumpling of the roofline of the Penthouse instead of a sharp roof outline long it's full length as it smoothly fell into the main building.

Looking like something, does not mean the same as something. For instance, if you saw a bloke who looked like Michael Jackson in the supermarket, it would not be evidence of Michael Jackson having returned from the dead.

Similarly, something looking a bit like a controlled demolition, does not make it a controlled demolition.

 

[lapman]

When i look at the collapse of the east Penthouse of WTC7 I am struck by how much like a controlled demolition it also is.

Really? Then you should have no problem providing video of controlled demolitions done before or since 9/11 that had the roof structures collapsing into the building faster than the wall were collapsing.

They that say column 79 held it up, but if you remove column 79 you will get a collapse of that portion of the Penthouse that it was directly supporting. You will not have the entire structure falling evenly and simultaneously into the main building.

Thank you for proving that you haven't a clue about what you're talking about. It did not fall evenly into the building. It, like the rest of the building 8 seconds after it, collapsed from the center.

Even if other adjacent support elements to column 79 had progressively failed we would have seen this reflected in the progressive crumpling of the roofline of the Penthouse instead of a sharp roof outline long it's full length as it smoothly fell into the main building.

Except for the fact that the center collapsed in. You even see the sides pivot in on the TNN video. When the rest of the roof structures collapse into the building, it progresses from east to west. Definitely blows you're whole theory out of the water. But thank you for playing. We'll send an available NWO agent to give you your consolation prize. Hope you like camping.