10 story hole in WTC 7

Status
Not open for further replies.
The building was blown up in a controlled demolition and fell at free fall speed.
Click to expand...

I forgot to add my thoughts on this statement.

republicus, you are , of course, aware that in order for a building to fall at exactly the rate of an object in free fall (in atmosphere since the atmospheric drag will have little effect on such dense materials anyway) that all supports on all floors must be severed all at the same time.

Please direct me to a video that illustrates that there was an explosion of all 110 floors of the towers simultaneously at the time of collapse initiation.

Since you undoubtably believe that WTC 7 also fell at a free fall rate (and since this thread is supposed to concern WTC 7) please direct me to a video illustrating that all floors had explosions severing all column simultaneously at the time of collapse initiation.
 
Christopher7 said:
There is one case of a partial collapse but it occurred over a period of time."

Respublicus
Say, I hadn't heard about that one. Got a link?

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html#details
Click to expand...

Hmmm , the 'researchers at 911research must have missed these ones then.

(thanks to Unfit4Command)

Kader Toy Factory:
http://www.ilo.org/encyclopedia/?doc&nd=857100058&nh=0
Three buildings collapsed. The first collapsed after about an hour despite the fire starting small(unlike the towers in which the fire was started throughout several floors by thousands of gallons of acellerant) and the building was an intact structure at the outset of the fire(unlike any of the WTC buildings that collapsed on 9/11/01) The other two each took another half hour each past the time of the fire's outset in building.

McCormick Place:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCormick_Place

Toilet paper factory:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/hereford/worcs/6105942.stm
"Intense heat buckled the steel girders holding the roof."

As for the Windsor, 911research fails to acknowledge the study done that credits the concrete columns of the core for keeping this from becoming a total collapse. This meant that only some perimeter columns failed and the floors attached did not fully impact the floors below them nor did they acheive the velocity that they would have had the core columns also failed.

911research also fails to mention that on lower floors the perimeter steel columns were supplemented with concrete columns.

911resaerch also simply ignores that the Windsor was a fully intact structure at the outset of the fire unlike any of the three buildings that collapsed on 9/11/01

What the Windsor does do is illustrate that steel columns do fail under fire conditions.
 
Last edited:
ejecta

redicblicus;

You must realize that any explosive force or charge thats going to thrust many tons of debris outward is also going to move lots of atmosphere with it. This will create a very loud explosive sound. You physically cannot accomplish this without the corresponding sound. it is a physical impossibility.
 
A W Smith said:
You must realize that any explosive force or charge thats going to thrust many tons of debris outward is also going to move lots of atmosphere with it. This will create a very loud explosive sound. You physically cannot accomplish this without the corresponding sound. it is a physical impossibility.
Click to expand...

Absolutely right.

Also, don't forget shrapnel. Bombs big enough to push around 100-ton chunks of steel will also be throwing tons and tons of small chunks of steel and glass at supersonic speeds. Funny that no buildings outside the collapse area were riddled with high-velocity fragments, or that bystanders several blocks away weren't cut to ribbons.
 
jaydeehess said:
Hmmm , the 'researchers at 911research must have missed these ones then.

(thanks to Unfit4Command)

Kader Toy Factory:
http://www.ilo.org/encyclopedia/?doc&nd=857100058&nh=0
Three buildings collapsed. The first collapsed after about an hour despite the fire starting small(unlike the towers in which the fire was started throughout several floors by thousands of gallons of acellerant) and the building was an intact structure at the outset of the fire(unlike any of the WTC buildings that collapsed on 9/11/01) The other two each took another half hour each past the time of the fire's outset in building.

McCormick Place:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCormick_Place

Toilet paper factory:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/hereford/worcs/6105942.stm
"Intense heat buckled the steel girders holding the roof."
Click to expand...
You are comaring oranges and watermellons.
The factory in Thaland was 4 stories and didn't even meet the minimal local codes.
McCormic 'Exibition Hall' was wide open and the support columns were holding up the roof, not a lot of heavy floors and their live load.

You're comparing WTC 7 to this:

Toilet paper factory

42265002fireczg1.jpg



As for the Windsor, 911research fails to acknowledge the study done that credits the concrete columns of the core for keeping this from becoming a total collapse. This meant that only some perimeter columns failed and the floors attached did not fully impact the floors below them nor did they acheive the velocity that they would have had the core columns also failed.
Click to expand...
The steel columns in the Windsor biulding, 7mm - 1/4" thick C channels welded togeather to make a box.

The core coulmns in WTC 7. were rolled I beams 1" thick top and bottom, and a 1/2" thick center portion, with 1/2" cover plates or 1" web plates. see NIST Apx. L pg. 14]

The top half of the Windsor building was 'fully involved', that is, it looked like a torch, with flames on all sides.

What the Windsor does do is illustrate that steel columns do fail under fire conditions.
Click to expand...
All those buildings were much smaller and the beams were much smaller.
 
Christopher7 said:
You are comaring oranges and watermellons.
The factory in Thaland was 4 stories and didn't even meet the minimal local codes.
McCormic 'Exibition Hall' was wide open and the support columns were holding up the roof, not a lot of heavy floors and their live load.

You're comparing WTC 7 to this:

Toilet paper factory

42265002fireczg1.jpg



The steel columns in the Windsor biulding, 7mm - 1/4" thick C channels welded togeather to make a box.

The core coulmns in WTC 7. were rolled I beams 1" thick top and bottom, and a 1/2" thick center portion, with 1/2" cover plates or 1" web plates. see NIST Apx. L pg. 14]

The top half of the Windsor building was 'fully involved', that is, it looked like a torch, with flames on all sides.

All those buildings were much smaller and the beams were much smaller.
Click to expand...

Fire does not damage 1 inch steel just the little steel. WTC is special.

I see basic science does not apply to CT guys who have their minds made up.

Steel does not fail in fire if it is in the WTC. But else where steel fails.

WTC is exempt from failure as Chris said. Why do I feel like Chris is short on facts and knowledge?

Chris you need some more school time before your inability to learn is permanent.

Chris fire destroys buildings and they fall. It is a fact. You ignore facts and make up lies. Why? WTC7 burned all day, the fire protection was defeated by the fire, but the building stood well past the fire protection time it was suppose to. Therefore WTC7 was good as there was time for everyone to get out before the fire brought the building down.

I think the 20,000 gallons of fuel did not help.

I think if you continue to ignore the facts you are just another nut case pushing lies.

So to prove fire did not make the steel weaker you need to present evidence and facts or you are still pushing lies.
 
Keep spinning, CTs. The fact remains that steel DOES fail if exposed to fire. Perhaps instead of posting crap on an internet forum you can actually ASK professional firefighters and others who make a living investigating how buildings fail.

I realize that any expert who disagrees with you in your mind is either paid off or stupid, but you have to deal with the sheer numbers of experts who are either paid off or stupid; your crack YouTube investigation aside, the overwhelming majority of them disagree with you.
 
uk_dave said:
Yep, and the loads they were designed to support were much lighter.

And they failed.

You gotta keep these things in proportion, you know?
Click to expand...


You beat me to it.

Yes the columns in the WTC buildings were larger than the other structures BECAUSE the structures themselves were larger.
This means that they were under much greater loads than the steel in the other structures. The other structure had smaller columns BECAUSE they did not require larger ones.
In both cases though when steel heats it loses its strength. So sorry that there is no incidence of huge buildings such as the largest buildings in the world and or a building with a non-standard construction having been involved in a situtaion such as the tower and #7 were on 9/11/01 . I guess its just that damned good fortune that such imapcts and fires have not occured on a regular basis around the world.

The toy factory involved steel that had no fire insulation(sound familiar at all).

If comparing the Windsor building to WTC 7 is apples to watermelons then why oh why do CTs keep making the comparison?

Steel loses strength and buckles under the conditions of high heat and compressive load.
 
Belz... said:
I think at 1000C it loses 90% of its strength. That's no small portion.
Click to expand...


We see such postsings as "the building was not damaged enough by impact to cause a collapse" AND "the fires could not have caused the building to collapse" in which it is simply ignored that BOTH occured and that EACH played a role in sufficiently damaging the building to the point of collapse.

CT's bring up the Windsor and the fact that it stood for quite a while before its partial collapse even though it had a greater percentage of its floorspace on fire than the WTC buildings did. This, it has been shown is a bit of an apples and watermelons comparison given that the Windsor building had concrete core pillars as well as some concrete perimeter support(on lower levels) and that it suffered no mechanical damage prior to the fire breaking out.

Now Chris wants to note that it is an apples to watermelons comparison because the size of the steel was smaller too.

Fine, then all that we can say about the Windsor is that it illustrates that steel buckles and fails under load and heat and that concrete fares much better.

Now it is entirely true that we do not know the EXACT nature and extent of the mechanical damage to WTC 7 but we do know that there was significant damage done. Indeed we know that major damage was done to one corner of the building and that other parts of WTC 7 were in fact closer to WTC 1 than the SW corner. We have reports of significant damage done to a section of the central part of the south face. We have reports of damage heavy enough to cause two elevator cars to be ejected from their shafts. In addition to the mechanical damage there is ample evidence of major fires in the building and indeed we know that fire and/or heavy smoke was emanating from every floor or just about every floor of the building by the time of collapse.(FF quotes and photographic evidence)

Unlike other buildings that collapsed or were on fire, we also know that all three buildings suffered mechanical damage prior to collapse. Chris Sarns and others then attempt to play down, minimize or outright ignore the prior mechanical damage.
 
jaydeehess said:
You beat me to it.

Yes the columns in the WTC buildings were larger than the other structures BECAUSE the structures themselves were larger.
This means that they were under much greater loads than the steel in the other structures. The other structure had smaller columns BECAUSE they did not require larger ones.
In both cases though when steel heats it loses its strength. So sorry that there is no incidence of huge buildings such as the largest buildings in the world and or a building with a non-standard construction having been involved in a situtaion such as the tower and #7 were on 9/11/01 . I guess its just that damned good fortune that such imapcts and fires have not occured on a regular basis around the world.

The toy factory involved steel that had no fire insulation(sound familiar at all).

If comparing the Windsor building to WTC 7 is apples to watermelons then why oh why do CTs keep making the comparison?

Steel loses strength and buckles under the conditions of high heat and compressive load.
Click to expand...
It takes much longer to heat a beam that is 4 times as thick and has cover or web plates welded to it.

The 3 high rise buildings i listed burned longer and there was little or no structural damage to the supporting columns.

The Caracas Tower burned for 17 hours and was completely gutted on one side. You can see through the building. All that remained was the steel frame. It did not collapse.

Start at 1:35 in this video

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1643313543353229958&q=wtc7
 
Christopher7 said:
It takes much longer to heat a beam that is 4 times as thick and has cover or web plates welded to it.

The 3 high rise buildings i listed burned longer and there was little or no structural damage to the supporting columns.

The Caracas Tower burned for 17 hours and was completely gutted on one side. You can see through the building. All that remained was the steel frame. It did not collapse.

Start at 1:35 in this video

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1643313543353229958&q=wtc7
Click to expand...

WRONG\

One Meridian Plaza was torn down, too weak.

Madrid of course was torn down, too weak. (not one of the 3? cherry picker, right?)

Steel is weakened by fire.

You forgot to tell everyone all the buildings you talked about were fought by firemen! You forgot to tell all about there was zero fires fought at the WTC1, 2, and 7.

You missed hundreds of stuctures which fell in fires, with both steel and more.

You are now off your 10 story hole which was bigger, maybe, but then you got your RDX and stuff to blow up any debunking.

Good job on missing the structural failure due to fire.

Poor research = CTers in the 9/11 truth movement.

I guess you are not using Madrid are you as your example of steel that looks like butter.
 
jaydeehess said:
We see such postsings as "the building was not damaged enough by impact to cause a collapse" AND "the fires could not have caused the building to collapse" in which it is simply ignored that BOTH occured and that EACH played a role in sufficiently damaging the building to the point of collapse.
Click to expand...
Hypothesis [set of assumptions] not fact.

CT's bring up the Windsor and the fact that it stood for quite a while before its partial collapse even though it had a greater percentage of its floorspace on fire than the WTC buildings did. This, it has been shown is a bit of an apples and watermelons comparison given that the Windsor building had concrete core pillars as well as some concrete perimeter support(on lower levels) and that it suffered no mechanical damage prior to the fire breaking out.

Now Chris wants to note that it is an apples to watermelons comparison because the size of the steel was smaller too.
Click to expand...
A lot thinner and therefore it would fail a lot sooner. There are no instances of heavy, 1" thick steel I beams failing that i know of.

Fine, then all that we can say about the Windsor is that it illustrates that steel buckles and fails under load and heat and that concrete fares much better.

Now it is entirely true that we do not know the EXACT nature and extent of the mechanical damage to WTC 7 but we do know that there was significant damage done. Indeed we know that major damage was done to one corner of the building and that other parts of WTC 7 were in fact closer to WTC 1 than the SW corner.
Click to expand...
Not so. The buildings were parallel.

We have reports of significant damage done to a section of the central part of the south face. We have reports of damage heavy enough to cause two elevator cars to be ejected from their shafts. In addition to the mechanical damage there is ample evidence of major fires in the building and indeed we know that fire and/or heavy smoke was emanating from every floor or just about every floor of the building by the time of collapse.(FF quotes and photographic evidence)
Click to expand...
The smoke from 'just about every floor' was at the SW corner.

Unlike other buildings that collapsed or were on fire, we also know that all three buildings suffered mechanical damage prior to collapse. Chris Sarns and others then attempt to play down, minimize or outright ignore the prior mechanical damage.
Click to expand...
I have pointed out that the 10 story gouge to the middle of WTC 7 and the damage to the core columns attributed to it didn't happen.

Why do you infer that i ignore the significant damage when i keep quoting "steel ripped out from between the 3rd and 6th floors" and "large hole around the 14th floor" as well as the damage to the SW corner ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom