Some simple Tower 7 questions

[chipmunk stew]

Discworld? I always seem to get crappy replys on this forum.

I can't imagine why...

I mean, your posts are so totally not crappy:

That WTC 7 came down using controlled demolition is so totally obvoius, from looking at the videoclips.

You don't have to be an expert of any kind to realize that. You only need your every day common sense.

End of discussion.

WTC7 and the Lies of the 9/11 "Truth Movement"
Please tell me you've read it.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Building 7 underwent a controlled demolition. Most of the people cannot see this not because of facts but because of something with their personality. Which is what i am here for, trying to understand how certain individuals can twist reality.

Listen to this analogy....
The day when the OJ Simpson trial was to conclude, i.e. the verdict was to be read, i took a city bus to work which consisted exclusively of Afro-Americans. During the bus ride i read about the pending verdict and i started a conversation with the people around me, and when i asked their opinion about his innocence or guilt......there was a unanimous assertation that he was innocent. When I arived to work, and asked my co-workers how many afro-americans were on the jury, and they told me 11. I knew there and then that OJ Simpson was going to walk. The Jury was no longer looking for evidence, it had become an emotional race issue. Facts were secondary.
I could take two control groups - one American, the other south american.....show them the videos of the building 7 collapse and then show them other controlled demolition and asked their opinion.....i am pretty sure that a greater number of south americans will agree that there is a good possibility of a controlled demolition.......where the american counterpart will find an emotional stumbling block and think that the planes somehow brought building 7 down.
Most of the americans that are refuting the obvious, that building 7 was brought down with a controlled demolition are actually working against your freedom.

Your opinions are not evidence. Try again.

 

[DavidJames]

Building 7 underwent a controlled demolition. Most of the people cannot see this not because of facts but because of something with their personality. Which is what i am here for, trying to understand how certain individuals can twist reality.
Listen to this analogy....
The day when the OJ Simpson trial was to conclude, i.e. the verdict was to be read, i took a city bus to work which consisted exclusively of Afro-Americans. During the bus ride i read about the pending verdict and i started a conversation with the people around me, and when i asked their opinion about his innocence or guilt......there was a unanimous assertation that he was innocent. When I arived to work, and asked my co-workers how many afro-americans were on the jury, and they told me 11. I knew there and then that OJ Simpson was going to walk. The Jury was no longer looking for evidence, it had become an emotional race issue. Facts were secondary.
I could take two control groups - one American, the other south american.....show them the videos of the building 7 collapse and then show them other controlled demolition and asked their opinion.....i am pretty sure that a greater number of south americans will agree that there is a good possibility of a controlled demolition.......where the american counterpart will find an emotional stumbling block and think that the planes somehow brought building 7 down.
Most of the americans that are refuting the obvious, that building 7 was brought down with a controlled demolition are actually working against your freedom.

I think it's funny (actually pathetic) that your facts proving a CD are based on what it looks like. Let me guess. You don't have the education to analyze actual data. You don't have practical experience in engineering. But because it looks like a CD it is.

 

[W6102LA]

Building 7 underwent a controlled demolition. Most of the people cannot see this not because of facts but because of something with their personality. Which is what i am here for, trying to understand how certain individuals can twist reality.
Listen to this analogy....
The day when the OJ Simpson trial was to conclude, i.e. the verdict was to be read, i took a city bus to work which consisted exclusively of Afro-Americans. During the bus ride i read about the pending verdict and i started a conversation with the people around me, and when i asked their opinion about his innocence or guilt......there was a unanimous assertation that he was innocent. When I arived to work, and asked my co-workers how many afro-americans were on the jury, and they told me 11. I knew there and then that OJ Simpson was going to walk. The Jury was no longer looking for evidence, it had become an emotional race issue. Facts were secondary.
I could take two control groups - one American, the other south american.....show them the videos of the building 7 collapse and then show them other controlled demolition and asked their opinion.....i am pretty sure that a greater number of south americans will agree that there is a good possibility of a controlled demolition.......where the american counterpart will find an emotional stumbling block and think that the planes somehow brought building 7 down.
Most of the americans that are refuting the obvious, that building 7 was brought down with a controlled demolition are actually working against your freedom.

Put a video of the WTC7 collapse beside a video of a real controlled demolition and see what people think

 

[twinstead]

Yes, se7ensnakes, care to explain why the VAST majority of people who know what they are talking about, who study things like building collapses and demolition and structural design, from around the world, have no problem in general with the official theory?

Tell you what, if the vast majority of experts in ANYTHING from around the world disagreed with me, and I had no education or training in any relevant field I would start questioning my theory, not continue to argue it blindly.

I'm afraid it is you who has the 'personality problem'.

 

[Bell]

se7ensnails =

 

[maccy]

se7ensnails =

Also, has already been called

 

[chipmunk stew]

submersible, pagan, & se7ensnakes:

Please familiarize yourselves with the following before discussing this further--

NIST's April '05 interim report on WTC7:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC Part IIC - WTC 7 Collapse Final.pdf

NIST's October '06 status summary on the WTC7 investigation:
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Approach_Summary12Oct06.pdf

Mark Roberts' extensive collection of witness testimony about the state of WTC7 prior to collapse and the decision by the FDNY to pull back and create a collapse zone:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/local_links.php?action=jump&id=86&catid=18

 

[beachnut]

I'm sure most if not all of these questions are redundant, but I haven't found where they were asked or answered before so here goes...

What contents would you typically find in an office building that would provide a heat source hot enough to burn through the spray on fireproofing then weaken the structural integrity of the main support beams in tower 7?

Thanks ,
Sub

20,000 gallons of fuel used to run generators for one of the largest complex of buildings in NYC!

Fire proofing on steel 2 to 4 hours protection. Fact that steel is not as good as large structural wood to remain standing in fire. Get some facts about steel. The Madrid Building in Spain fell all over the place, like exploding and the steel only portions fell in a few hours.

Learn before joining the real dumb experts of 9/11 non truth!

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

That WTC 7 came down using controlled demolition is so totally obvoius, from looking at the videoclips.

It's not even obvious. It looks nothing like any controlled demonition anyone has ever seen.

You don't have to be an expert of any kind to realize that. You only need your every day common sense.

Actually, being an expert would help a lot. And was it Einstein who said, "Common sense is a collection of prejudices arrived at before the age of eighteen"?

End of discussion.

No it isn't.

 

[JanH]

None of this had been necessary if the NWO had just known about the existence of shredders.

 

[Hutch]

7-herpotologist, I might agree with you that people seeing a tape of an actual CD and the WTC7 might think they look the same....

BUT ONLY if you leave the sound off!!

You see, with any real CD, you hear the explosions, usually in a series, well before the collapse takes place. I defy you to find a WTC7 (or even WTC1 or 2) video/tape that has the distinctive sounds of a CD. They aren't there.

You see, CD is not designed to destroy every last girder or connect; it destroys the critical junctions and stress points in a particular order to allow for failure of the remaining structural elements and gravity to do the rest of the work.

In the case of WTC7, damage caused by large chunks of the collapsing WTC's and the resultant unfought fires performed the same tasks as CD does; it just wasn't as elegant or planned as CD is.

Common sense is a nice thing; but while it remains common, it ain't always sensible...or right.

 

[Gravy]

I'm sure most if not all of these questions are redundant, but I haven't found where they were asked or answered before so here goes...

What contents would you typically find in an office building that would provide a heat source hot enough to burn through the spray on fireproofing then weaken the structural integrity of the main support beams in tower 7?

Please see pages 72-77 of my WTC 7 paper, linked in my signature. There you go.

 

[pvt1863]

I could take two control groups - one American, the other south american.....show them the videos of the building 7 collapse and then show them other controlled demolition and asked their opinion.....i am pretty sure that a greater number of south americans will agree that there is a good possibility of a controlled demolition.......where the american counterpart will find an emotional stumbling block and think that the planes somehow brought building 7 down.
Most of the americans that are refuting the obvious, that building 7 was brought down with a controlled demolition are actually working against your freedom.

Classic CT. "I'm going to make up a hypothetical story then use it as evidence."

Look, I can make stuff up too:
I am pretty sure that if you showed the evidence from 9/11 to a great number of building experts (engineers, architects, demolition experts, etc.), a vast majority of them would say it was not a controlled demo.

Oh wait, I screwed up. That really happened.

 

[beachnut]

Building 7 underwent a controlled demolition.

Only to idiots in the truth movement. Most people need facts. But you use faith based CT cult movement I beleive it cause I am dumb stuff.

Your OJ stuff is great but you are the jury, and you have the problem with facts.

 

[~enigma~]

11

 

[~enigma~]

What contents would you typically find in an office building that would provide a heat source hot enough to burn through the spray on fireproofing then weaken the structural integrity of the main support beams in tower 7?

Why exactly would a heat source need to be hotter than an ordinary fire? Heat and temperature are two types of thermal energy although they are often confused (always confused by CTers who ignore science). Heat transfer is found by the equation q = mDTSp
q=heat transfer, m=mass, DT=change in temperature,Sp=specific heat.

Besides the kink or fault show in this image:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fema/fig-5-23a.jpg
the structure appears to fall almost perfectly horizontal.

The collapse was in no way symmetrical as can be clearly seen from the debris pile.

If there was something in the building that would have reached and maintained a temperature above approx. 2000 degrees for an extended period of time, wouldn't that fuel source have to be located at nearly all of the main support beams for the building to fall "flush" like that?

To answer the first part of your question see my first answer above. The second part of your question is based on a false assumption and we all know what assumptions lead to

If there was a fuel source located and burning at the base of most of the main support beams, is it scientifically possible that the steel in all of the beams could have reached a "failure temperature" simultaneously?

You make a false assumption then you ask questions based on it?

According to the image above, what phenomenon could explain the sudden burst of THICK dust and debris from the ground floors of the structure... other than an explosion?

According to the image you posted above, the ground floors were hidden from view.

Since the "official" reports state that the collapse of the building was due to the intense fire's in the building, why can't you see any signs of fire in any of the video's that show the building in the seconds prior to it's collapse?

Fire and damage are what the report claimed...be honest. If you were to view pictures from other perspectives you would see many fires not to mention the damage on the south side. The video you are using is showing the undamaged north side when the towers were on the south side of wtc7.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fema/wtc-7-small.gif
By just looking at that short video clip, would you say that nearly ALL of the main support beams in the structure had to "fail" at the same exact time?

By just looking at the clip...yes. But then I would study the construction of wtc and would find that the main load bearing support was directly underneath what is commonly referred to as the "kink" and that that is what apparenty initiated the collapse. After studying (something CTers will not do) I would change my first impression and say that most of the main supports didn't fail simultaneously.

How can people watch the video's of the structure as it falls and not describe an orchestrated or controlled demolition?

With or without sound?

I don't know what happened, and I'm not trying to place the blame or point a finger in any direction. But with the specs on the steel used to build the tower, combined with the video and still photographs of the building prior to and as it collapsed, and considering the contents of the building... isn't it scientifically impossible to blame the destruction of this building on the heat from an unfueled FIRE?

See my first answer for your "heat" concern. Where did you find the specifications of the structural steel used in wtxc7? If you are using Kevin Ryan's bs you really should think again as he has been proven a liar time and again. Besides he has withdrawn himself from the bs group (one redeeming quality for the liar). once again, where do you find the official report claiming wtc7 collapsed only because of fire? You saying that the damage was a lie?

 

[Quad4_72]

Building 7 underwent a controlled demolition. Most of the people cannot see this not because of facts but because of something with their personality. Which is what i am here for, trying to understand how certain individuals can twist reality.
Listen to this analogy....
The day when the OJ Simpson trial was to conclude, i.e. the verdict was to be read, i took a city bus to work which consisted exclusively of Afro-Americans. During the bus ride i read about the pending verdict and i started a conversation with the people around me, and when i asked their opinion about his innocence or guilt......there was a unanimous assertation that he was innocent. When I arived to work, and asked my co-workers how many afro-americans were on the jury, and they told me 11. I knew there and then that OJ Simpson was going to walk. The Jury was no longer looking for evidence, it had become an emotional race issue. Facts were secondary.
I could take two control groups - one American, the other south american.....show them the videos of the building 7 collapse and then show them other controlled demolition and asked their opinion.....i am pretty sure that a greater number of south americans will agree that there is a good possibility of a controlled demolition.......where the american counterpart will find an emotional stumbling block and think that the planes somehow brought building 7 down.
Most of the americans that are refuting the obvious, that building 7 was brought down with a controlled demolition are actually working against your freedom.

That is pretty much the worst explanation/analogy for the collapse of the towers that I have ever heard. No science, no evidence, no nothin. Just, "building 7 was brought down with a controlled demolition". Did you just simply ignore every single post in this thread? Please provide some evidence and facts for your reasoning behind your theory of WTC7 being a CD.

 

[uk_dave]

Yes, what hutch said.

 

[Submersible]

I want to respond to a bunch of different replies and most of them are scatterd out, so this will probably be a little sketchy

What contents would you typically find in an office building that would provide a heat source hot enough to burn through the spray on fireproofing then weaken the structural integrity of the main support beams in tower 7?

Other than the diesel and office contents reply, nobody else responded to this one. And even if a pool of diesel and a mountain plastics were wrapped around the main support beams they still wouldn't have created enough heat for the beams to suddenly fail the way they did. Since the entire building falls at an equal and level rate, wouldn't the majority of the main support beams have to had fail at the same exact time?
If one or two beams became heated enough to fail then it could have possibly created a domino effect, but from ALL of the video's available for viewing... it certainly doesn't appear that way.

You are missing one important piece of the puzzle. It was not ONLY fire that brought the building down. The building also suffered damage from two of the world's tallest buildings falling in close proximity. That cannot be ignored, and must be taken into consideration when analyzing the failure mechanism(s) of WTC7

According to this picture:

none of this damage would have played a role in destroying the structural steel foundation of the building.

I cant speak for a typical office. But Tower 7 contained some 30,000 gallons of diesel fuel

Supposedly, 20,000 gallons where recovered intact from the two 12,000-gallon tanks, so only 4,000 gallons could contributed to the heat , if by some chance the tanks were completely full.

The only people claiming controlled demo are idiots analyzing crappy footage from YouTube.
It's already been explained, ad nauseum, how planted explosives would NOT HAVE SURVIVED the fire that raged on numerous floors of building number 7 for a good part of the afternoon.

Drop it!

I've done a little more than look at YOUTUBE and I don't appreciate being called an idiot.
I haven't seen where anybody describes or claims that fire appeared on the ground or basement floors, and since that's where the they would have been placed considering the descent of the structure.. the WOULD have survived since there was no fires reported on those floors.

I believe most of the fireproofing was rated for only two to three hours: the building burned for considerably longer.

There were relatively small fires throughout the building during the 7 hours prior to it's collapse, but none of the images I've seen show more than one or two floors burning on any side of the building at the same time.
The building didn't burn, according to the images and reports a very small portion of the buildings contents burned.

What's your basis for choosing 2000 degrees as the minimum temperature where this could happen?

I think we can all agree that the structural integrity of the steel beams failed "suddenly". Non heat treated steel loses about half of it's strength at about 600C. Let's say that there were 12 magicians at the base of each beam with a oxycetylene torch, that still wouldn't have caused the building to collapse the way it did. According to ALL of the video's available, the entire foundation of the structure basically "vanished" simultaneously.

Only the CTers say every beam needed to fail simultaneously: it's a straw man, nothing more.

I didn't say every beam, I said the majority of the beams. 2/3rds AT LEAST for it to fall like that.

What would you expect to see as a result of the collapse of the penthouses and structures within the building, for instance?

Thick clouds of dust and debris flying out the side windows of the building. It's not as if the contents of the roof had enough time to travel to the ground. And if you say that the structural contents underneath the penthouse were falling and caused the cloud , then the structure would have folded inward as it collapsed, IF by some miracle all of the surrounding support beams failed at the same exact time.

The official reports haven't been completed yet. However, we might speculate what caused the enormous amounts of black smoke seen pouring from WTC7 during the day

I guess I should have said FLAMES instead of "signs of fire" in my question. Have you seen or can you produce any video footage that show any FLAMES in the seconds prior to and as the building collapsed?

The video you are showing is taken from the back and from a distance you cannot tell what way the building fell on the damaged side

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3664073116607499063&q=tower+7+collapse&hl=en
Better ?

This is NIST's most recently published thinking on how the collapse progressed:
I'm sure they will go into more detail as they release the interim and then the final report.

AFAIK, the entire NIST can kiss a sick cat in the ass.

Anything that would burn for more than the 3 hours that the best fire-retardant is rated for. In a normal office building, paper, furniture, in WTC7 add a large diesel storage (for the UPS system).

None of those contents combined generate enough heat to melt steel.

Yes, apart from the fact that it didn't fall horizontally (that kink is several storeys deep), it almost fell horizontally.

I said "the structure appears to fall almost perfectly horizontal.

A steel beam softens much before (50% loss of strenght at appr. 900 deg C), and only enough supports need to fail to overload the rest. Then the failure avalanches.

When an avalanche occures the snow flows down the side of the mountain, all of the snow doesn't drop off the face of the mountain at the same time.

A building like that is 80-90% air. Once the building collapses, that air has to go out. Since lots of dust is created in the collapse, it is blown out with the air. An explosion does not create a dust cloud, it creates a shockwave.

80-90% air? Not quite.

No signs of fire? What would YOU call a 500ft wide column of black smoke? A sign of fire, perhaps?

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fema/wtc-7-small.gif

GREY smoke indicates a low heat smoldering fire, a fire hot enough to melt steel would generally produce very little smoke.. like a torch. Black smoke indicates a fire that has an abundance of fuel that isn't burning hot enough to vaporize the exhausted fumes.

From an unfueled fire? Certainly! Such things don't even exist, afaik. But there was plenty of fuel in WTC7

Back to my first question, what contents of an office building could have provided enough fuel to maintain the heat required to melt steel?

So if we take the example from the 9 storey building and roughly alter it to suit a 50 storey building. We have an utterly ridiculous scenario.

Not if they used thermite.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1837033714967622806&q=tower+7&hl=en

ALL went undetected during detonation* and beforehand?

I remember hearing something about mandatory evacuations of WTC 1&2 in the weeks leading up to 9/11, where workers employed by GWB's brother spent quite a bit of time working inside the buildings. Supposedly the towers were never completely evacuated before for any kind of "maintenance" work.
Who knows what could have taken place beforehand in tower 7 ?

They problem with YOUR story is that you can't now say that the fire attributed because you've denied it existed. You've ruled out the possibility of structural failure so you can't now claim that damage attributed to the collapse.

I didn't deny that fire existed in the building. My question wasn't properly worded and I should have asked about the absence of FLAMES in the building instead of "signs of fire". I also didn't rule out the possibility of structural failure, but you nor anybody else can explain what contents would have existed in this structure that would have generated the heat necessary to MELT steel.

So tell me in the name of christ how could such an operation go un-noticed!

Probably the same way 80% of this nations dairy supply has been contaminated with a freak amino acid.

How did the explosives resist the fire for so long?

They were located in the basement and there was no fire on the lower floors.

The FDNY stopped searching for survivors in the area around WTC7 several hours before the building collapsed. Why would they do this if they didn't believe the building was going to collapse at some point?

What would cause them to believe that this building would collapse at ANY point. Obviously there wasn't enough fire present ANYWHERE in the building to cause it to fall like tower 1&2, and an airplane full of jet fuel didn't hit this building either.
Considering the amount of time it took the FDNY to put out the fire in an apartment building that was struck by a small airplane a month or so ago, why didn't they attempt to extinguish ANY of the fires in tower 7?
I haven't found any reports that explain where they attempted to extinguish any of the fires that were scattered throughout the structure. Also, considering that a properly constructed steel structured building has NEVER collapsed due to fire, why would the FDNY even consider that this building was going to fall ?
I agree there was a bunch of smoke rolling up and out of one side of the structure, but all of the images of flames indicate very small fires compared to the size of this building. It's about like saying the FDNY would pull out of a house fire because the linen closet was burning, and they believed the roof was going to collapse.

Add to this that FDNY did not fight the fire - had no water pressure from collapse of towers which cut mains which with lack of equipment (FF on
scene when initially told to go into WTC7 had to scrounge for air packs,
hose and tools from destroyed/damaged apparatus). Fire chiefs considered
structural damage to building (read accounts from FF and chiefs on scene
in FIREHOUSE magazine WWW.FIREHOUSE.COM in their 9/11 archives) and
realized lacked resources to adequately fight the fire without risking more
death/injury to personnel - 343 were already dead and many more injured.

That's what a fireman does every day of his life, risk it ! I don't know if it's ever been reported but I would guess that less than 5% of FDNY's apparatus was destroyed when tower 1&2 collapsed. Also the did have water pressure on the scene provided by their fire boats. If it would have been a priority to extinguish the fire in tower 7, like they have responded to every other fire in history.. they would have assigned enough resources to put out the relatively small fires. It's not as if half of the dept was parked outside of tower 1&2 when the buildings fell, but more than likely every unit on the island was within' 3 or 4 blocks of the scene with plenty of resources.

WTC 7 was abandoned early afternoon after building was searched and nobody remained. Collapse can 5:20pm some 7 hours after being damaged by debris shower from collapsing towers.

I guess it's just ironic that tower 3 4 & 5 sustained 10x as much damage as tower 7 and neither one of them burned or collapsed.

Please see pages 72-77 of my WTC 7 paper, linked in my signature. There you go.

What are you talking about?
The image on page 72 is a drawing, the image on page 73 shows an opening in the top of the building with no fire present, the image on page 74 shows an opening towards the center of the building with no fire present, the image on page 75 shows the damage to the SW corner with no fire present, and I don't see any fire in the other images in either tower 7 or 6.
So how does this explain how the majority of the lower structural supports were heated above 600C at the same time?

Also your report states that 1.6 billion pounds of debris was meticuously sorted through by the FBI and NYPD, but all of it was recycled/destroyed in less than six month from the time the buildings collapsed. And yet you incorrectly state that it took 8 months to remove the debris from the scene.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.ph...ce_from_Ground_Zero_at_the_World_Trade_Center

The Destruction of Evidence from Ground Zero at the World Trade Center following the events of September 11, 2001, occurred, even though the criminal code requires that crime scene evidence be kept for forensic analysis. FEMA had steel recovered from the building rubble destroyed or shipped overseas before a serious investigation could take place.

However, the Associated Press reported in a February 26, 2004, update that not only did the FBI ban the removal of crime scene evidence "after 13 agents stole WTC rubble," but also stated that "'All relevant evidence connected with the WTC crime scene was properly retrieved, catalogued and maintained.'"

If the evidence was handled properly, would a pile bones still be on the scene 5 years later?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,,1929043,00.html

I know your the forum "expert" on this subject Gravy, but have you read and debunked all of this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories

What page in your report explains this ?

"Conspiracy theorists have often cited the alleged “flash” just as the plane hit the tower as “proof” that there was a missile launched from the underside of the plane. 911 IPS claims that the flash could not be a reflection, as it was caught on camera from four different angles, and it is their theory that an object cannot reflect light to more than one direction. In addition, they said that “sparks” or “static discharge” “have been ruled out by every airline pilot we have spoken with”.

OUCH !