You compared buildings (WTC 3/4/5/6) to the skyscrapers WTC 1/2/7. It should be obvious that a shorter building such as 3/4/5/6 isn't going to act like a skyscraper that has much more to support. Even if 3/4/5/6 was damaged on the ground floor they would have NO WHERE NEAR the same weight to support as 1/2/ or 7 had above the structural damage. I hope you can agree to that. The comparison you made does not support your argument that WTC 7 shouldn't have collapsed.
Point of comparison was structural and fire damage. 3,4,5,6 had more structural damage and had greater fires burning for a longer period of time than building 7 yet they still remained standing?
You counter saying that building 1,2 + 7, in relation to vertical loads, had much more to support than the other wtc buildings.
But building 1, 2, + 7 were not built from straw, they were built from STEEL. I hope you can agree to that? so of course they had a greater load to support but being a steel construction they were well able to do so.
SO WHAT if building 7 was damaged on the ground floor!
I can see all the MINOR damage caused to the building in
post 188 from falling debris. And if you expect me to believe that a skyscraper will collapse into itself after less that 15% of its core and outer columns fail – then we are going to be here for quite a while.
Of course even when
some columns fail the vertical load – is
redistributed accordingly. are you arguing that building 7 was NOT designed to city code?
Lets take these buildings one at a time and see if we can agree that there was a bit more going on than "a small office fire" - OK?
WTC 1 + 2 were hit by a plane
Are you saying that the twin towers were NOT designed for the impact of a jet?
So what, less than 15% of inner and outer columns were estimated to be damaged. such minimal damage cannot cause a global collapse
Had multiple fires break out which were claimed by firefighters to be anything but "normal office fires".
A fire located in an office and feed by office material is commonly reffered to as an “ordinary office fire”. If it was NOT an office fire what would you rather we call it?
I'm sure you have read the firefighter quotes relating to building 7. Do you disagree with them? If so - Why should your opinion about the fires in building 7 be more relevant than the firefighters who witnessed it firsthand?
I have and I agree with the firefighters but I too saw the building when it collapsed and in every video that I have seen
I do NOT see a raging inferno. All i see is a “normal office fire”.
Besides my opinion that the fires were “normal office fires” is not based on the firefighters but on those responsible for investigating the collapse – NIST.
28 feb Hardfire interview 10:25
we understand that building 7 was impacted by large pieces of debris from the north tower that created a 10 story gash in the south side. You make the point that the fires alone could have brought about the collapse of building 7. so in other words you think that the debris itself was perhaps not the main problem here. Well thats my opinion from studying it (Arthur Scheuerman, author of fire in the skyscraper) and err i mean they have to do further tests on this, they have to do computer analysis and eh, they have to even maybe do some long span floor testing some actual 60 ft long span floors umm but...
(my personal friend Mark Roberts) but there is going to be an official report that their working on now em..and have been working on for a few years, so NIST had an interim report in june of 2004 but they have learned a lot since then and em they dont even have eh a...in a couple of months they will have their final hypothesis so when were talking about what did happen to the building when according to them we’re not quite sure yet what their final version is going to be but there saying that there not really including the damage to the building as a main cause of collapse there just considering the fire and there just considering, which is fairly new information, that it was not feed by the diesel fuel or pressured oil lines that were in the building. which was something that everyone had talked about quite a bit that could have been a cause of why the fires were so severe but there saying the fires were basically normal office fires um and going under that assumption the building still could have, and did collapse.
Above all, you were the one arguing precedence of a steel framed skyscraper collapsing. Shall I not also question precedence of a burning building that was supposedly brought down with controlled demo?
No you shouldn’t because it is ridiuclous. Steel buildings have on numerous occassions been demolished from controlled demolition. Becuase there was an ongoing office fire when the demolition took place is neither here nor there. So in terms of precedence your "CD with an office fire" takes SECOND FIDDLE.
I can see from your statement of "a normal office fire" that you are trying to minimize the situation.
Not at all, an office fire
can evolve into an inferno. Besides only in contrast to your hyperbol do my efforts appear minimizing.
Do you really think that the only damage to the buildings was done by fire ALONE. How can you HONESTLY compare 1/2/7 to other skyscrapers that didn't have structural damage + fires.
Because all three buildings WOULD NOT HAVE COLLAPSED IF THERE WERE NO FIRE. It is the
fire that NIST claim demolished the buildings. So i can honestly compare the wtc with all other skyscrapers that fell from fire – but guess what there are
no other examples in HISTORY because fire CANNOT DEMOLISH A STEEL BUILDING.
This is why debunkers repeat the phrase "Fire AND structural damage" because those buildings experienced effects that no other skyscraper has been through. The truth movement and people such as yourself aren't telling the WHOLE story. You are deliberately focusing on the fire alone to support your argument. I question if you truly want to understand or have other motivations that compel you to disregard the structural damage.
Oh i get it, we truthers make a reductionist argument whereas the debunkers take a more wholistic approach which includes ALL information. So that must be why NIST says “we are unable to provide a
full explanation of the total collapse” and even to this day denies the existence of molten pools of iron beneath 1 2 + 7
Look, the loss of 13% of inner and outer columns on one side of a building will not cause a global collapse. Random office fires on several floors will not cause a global collapse. The loss of 13% AND random fires will not cause global collapse and if it could dont you think it would be a hell of a lot cheaper and easier for demolition companies to simply cut 13% of coulmns on one side of building, spark a few office fires as opposed to planting explosives?
But lets wait and see what NIST have to say when they publish their report nearly 7 years after the event.
peace
