Split Thread 7WTC - controlled demolition or fire and damage induced collapse?

triforcharity said:
"From what I have read, and if I understand it correctly, he [Dr. Greening] is saying that the collapse initiation could have been caused by something other than Column 79.
He believes that the collapse started elsewhere in the building, and progressed differently."
Click to expand...
Obviously, if the total, high speed collapse of WTC7 wasn't precipitated by the unsubstantiated fire-induced failure of column 79, the core failure must have been generated by some other cause.

By NIST's own reckoning, their best argument for a fire-induced collapse was the one they presented (after 7 years of study), for column 79.

So yes, it is fair to believe Dr. Greening believes something other than the NIST's column 79 failure theory caused the sudden total collapse of WTC7.

Maybe you can suggest a plausible theory that is compatible with the NIST's 7 years of research?

MM
 
Miragememories said:
Obviously, if the total, high speed collapse of WTC7 wasn't precipitated by the unsubstantiated fire-induced failure of column 79, the core failure must have been generated by some other cause.
Click to expand...

I don't think WTC7 had a "core" in the sense WTC1/2 did. It certainly didn't at the lower floors. Here's a diagram.

By NIST's own reckoning, their best argument for a fire-induced collapse was the one they presented (after 7 years of study), for column 79.

So yes, it is fair to believe Dr. Greening believes something other than the NIST's column 79 failure theory caused the sudden total collapse of WTC7.

Maybe you can suggest a plausible theory that is compatible with the NIST's 7 years of research?

MM
Click to expand...

Fire and the lack of water for firefighting leading to the failure of some beams or columns.
 
Last edited:
Miragememories said:
Do tell.


Maybe you'd like to explain the missing heat, that Dr. Greening claims was required to make the NIST final solution work beachnut?

MM
Click to expand...

Nowhere does Greening say that WTC7 collapsed due to anything but the consequences of the fire. He just doesn't believe the fire had the same effect that NIST does.
 
BigAl said:
I don't think WTC7 had a "core" in the sense WTC1/2 did. It certainly didn't at the lower floors. Here's a diagram.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wtc7_transfer_trusses.png
Click to expand...
NCSTAR 1A pg xxxvii [pdf pg 39] "The transfer elements such as trusses, girders, and cantilever overhangs that were used to support the office building over the Con Edison substation did not play a significant role in the collapse of WTC 7."

Fire and the lack of water for firefighting leading to the failure of some beams or columns.
Click to expand...
If the failure of a single column can make a building implode and land mostly in its own footprint, then why do demo companies rig ALL the columns to accomplish this outcome?

twomenandamatchnew1.jpg
 
Christopher7 said:
NCSTAR 1A pg xxxvii [pdf pg 39] "The transfer elements such as trusses, girders, and cantilever overhangs that were used to support the office building over the Con Edison substation did not play a significant role in the collapse of WTC 7."

If the failure of a single column can make a building implode and land mostly in its own footprint, then why do demo companies rig ALL the columns to accomplish this outcome?

[qimg]http://a.imageshack.us/img716/8371/twomenandamatchnew1.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Because the single point of failure is limited to a handful of buildings that share WTC7's cantilever beam design.

One of the building code changes coming out of the NIST is to make sure that no new buildings share WTC7's design.
 
BigAl said:
Because the single point of failure is limited to a handful of buildings that share WTC7's cantilever beam design.

One of the building code changes coming out of the NIST is to make sure that no new buildings share WTC7's design.
Click to expand...
Hello?
What part of

"The transfer elements such as trusses, girders, and cantilever overhangs that were used to support the office building over the Con Edison substation did not play a significant role in the collapse of WTC 7."

don't you understand? Your reading comprehension is zero. :D
 
Miragememories said:
Obviously, if the total, high speed collapse of WTC7 wasn't precipitated by the unsubstantiated fire-induced failure of column 79, the core failure must have been generated by some other cause.

By NIST's own reckoning, their best argument for a fire-induced collapse was the one they presented (after 7 years of study), for column 79.

So yes, it is fair to believe Dr. Greening believes something other than the NIST's column 79 failure theory caused the sudden total collapse of WTC7.

Maybe you can suggest a plausible theory that is compatible with the NIST's 7 years of research?

MM
Click to expand...

Maybe it was Column 78? Maybe it was both?

No, I disagree with you about Dr. Greening. You do realize that he think your ilk are morons, right?

And no, I do not have another plausable theory. The one NIST presented seems the most plausable.

Do you have an alternitive theory?
 
Christopher7 said:
NCSTAR 1A pg xxxvii [pdf pg 39] "The transfer elements such as trusses, girders, and cantilever overhangs that were used to support the office building over the Con Edison substation did not play a significant role in the collapse of WTC 7."

If the failure of a single column can make a building implode and land mostly in its own footprint, then why do demo companies rig ALL the columns to accomplish this outcome?

[qimg]http://a.imageshack.us/img716/8371/twomenandamatchnew1.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

So that this
911_HighQualityPhotos7782.jpg
and this
911_HighQualityPhotos7784.jpg
doesn't happen. Der.
 
Christopher7 said:
Hello?
What part of

"The transfer elements such as trusses, girders, and cantilever overhangs that were used to support the office building over the Con Edison substation did not play a significant role in the collapse of WTC 7."

don't you understand? Your reading comprehension is zero. :D
Click to expand...

I found the word that you aparently do not understand.
 
Miragememories said:
Maybe you might also wish to define incoherent babble? That's my take on the quote above.


That is one of the most irrational responses I've ever seen in this forum. That's quite an accomplishment.

Apparently in your world, only others must suffer the burden of proof?

Dr. Greening sets out his case very succinctly.

His paper goes into great detail explaining how it was impossible for the NIST WTC7 Theory's required heat energy levels to have occurred.

And you wonder why myself and others can't be bothered to provide you with a technical argument?

Too funny.

MM
Click to expand...

And I disagree with Dr. Greening AND NIST. I think they underestimated the fuel loads and burn times.

Does Dr. Greening believe that bombs were used? No? Yeah, didn't think so......
 
Christopher7 said:
Hello?
What part of

"The transfer elements such as trusses, girders, and cantilever overhangs that were used to support the office building over the Con Edison substation did not play a significant role in the collapse of WTC 7."

don't you understand? Your reading comprehension is zero. :D
Click to expand...
Personally I think the design preformed very well.
 
Miragememories said:
So yes, it is fair to believe Dr. Greening believes something other than the NIST's column 79 failure theory caused the sudden total collapse of WTC7.


MM
Click to expand...

OMG!! We'd better abandon the work of teams of qualified engineers because ONE GUY with a I have a Ph. D. in chemistry and 20 years experience as a research scientist at a nuclear power plant disagrees.

Holy arguments from authority, Batman!!

Please explain to us (you can't and you won't) how Dr. Greening's expertise in chemistry makes him THE world authorityTM on building fires, demolition explosives and structural engineering?

And explain why his opinion magically trumps everything else in the known universe? LOL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom