WTC7 - The fires failed Girder 44-79

[LoneRanger]

That's the problem. The government never published an "Official Theory", so how is anyone able to define it? There's the common narrative and the conviction of Moussaui in a court of law, and occassional government issuances to one effect or the other. Much of the scientific analysis some Truthers have issues with were done independantly of the government. Much of what the government has put out has been questioned as far as handling of intelligence indicators. As far as facts that anyone else did the deed beyond Al Qaeda, there exists no substantial evidence.

How can I disagree with no theory?

Except for WTC1 and WTC2, the remainder were pulled because they were highly damaged or, in the case or WTC7, pulled for other reasons. Either that or a relatively tiny fire in the corner of WTC 7 caused the central supports to fail in exactly the same way as a building falls when it's central beams have been cut by explosives.

Even government reports don't know the reason WTC 7 failed or they know and are not saying. That's what the cover-up is. The destruction of WTC 7 is the cover-up. The glibness of the reason for the failure of WTC 7 is the cover-up.

 

[LoneRanger]

The official report took about seven years to complete. A quote from Wikipedia follows:

In November 2008, NIST released its final report on the causes of the collapse of 7 World Trade Center.[9] This followed NIST's August 21, 2008 draft report which included a period for public comments.[36] In its investigation, NIST utilized ANSYS to model events leading up to collapse initiation and LS-DYNA models to simulate the global response to the initiating events.[45] NIST determined that diesel fuel did not play an important role, nor did the structural damage from the collapse of the Twin Towers, nor did the transfer elements (trusses, girders, and cantilever overhangs). But the lack of water to fight the fire was an important factor. The fires burned out of control during the afternoon, causing floor beams near column 79 to expand and push a key girder off its seat, triggering the floors to fail around column 79 on Floors 8 to 14. With a loss of lateral support across nine floors, column 79 buckled – pulling the east penthouse and nearby columns down with it. With the buckling of these critical columns, the collapse then progressed east-to-west across the core, ultimately overloading the perimeter support, which buckled between Floors 7 and 17, causing the remaining portion of the building above to fall downward as a single unit. The fires, fueled by office contents, along with the lack of water, were the key reasons for the collapse.[9]

This report is at least as plausible as the belief that someone pulled the building with explosives.

However, buildings are supposed to be engineered to be five times as strong as needed to simply hold their own weight from collapsing. That's why this report seems a push.

Push or pull, what was it?

 

[The Platypus]

The official report took about seven years to complete. A quote from Wikipedia follows:



This report is at least as plausible as the belief that someone took the building down with explosives.

I would say no,The NIST report, spanning 10,000 pages, which consulted large numbers of experts in related fields, which is backed by the evidence, is not the same as your belief in some CT fairy tale peddled by CT crackpot websites and youtube videos.

 

[LSSBB]

The official report took about seven years to complete. A quote from Wikipedia follows:



This report is at least as plausible as the belief that someone pulled the building with explosives.

However, buildings are supposed to be engineered to be five times as strong as needed to simply hold their own weight from collapsing. That's why this report seems a push.

Push or pull, what was it?

Don't look at the strength of the whole building, look at the strength of the individual components. That's where you find the vulnerability to material expansion under heat. After that, gravity does it's job inside and out.

 

[LoneRanger]

Don't look at the strength of the whole building, look at the strength of the individual components. That's where you find the vulnerability to material expansion under heat. After that, gravity does it's job inside and out.

causing floor beams near column 79 to expand and push a key girder off its seat, triggering the floors to fail around column 79 on Floors 8 to 14. With a loss of lateral support across nine floors, column 79 buckled – pulling the east penthouse and nearby columns down with it.

and push a key girder off its seat,

Maybe the key girder was pushed off its' seat by explosive charges. The point is the collapse mechanism described could have also been attributable to an explosive charge.

This could be proved or disproved by the forensics at the point where this key girder got "pushed off its' seat". These key load bearing girders are huge and connected by a large numbers of huge bolts and supports, so pushing it off its' seat is no easy task.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Maybe the key girder was pushed off its' seat by explosive charges.

Or maybe by space pixies. Or by Wile E. Coyote getting careless with an Acme magnet.

 

[LSSBB]

and push a key girder off its seat,

Maybe the key girder was pushed off its' seat by explosive charges. The point is the collapse mechanism described could have also been attributable to an explosive charge.

This could be proved or disproved by the forensics at the point where this key girder got "pushed off its' seat". These key load bearing girders are huge and connected by a large numbers of huge bolts and supports, so pushing it off its' seat is no easy task.

Well, since there is no evidence of explosive charges (including, I might add, noise of an explosion correlated with the beginning of the collapse), looks like there is no credible alternative to the fire that was both witnessed and there is video evidence for.

Also, no evidence of any plotters scheming to blow up this empty building. No testimony, no emails, no notes, no money trail. Zilch, nil, nada.

 

[The Platypus]

and push a key girder off its seat,

Maybe the key girder was pushed off its' seat by explosive charges. The point is the collapse mechanism described could have also been attributable to an explosive charge.

This could be proved or disproved by the forensics at the point where this key girder got "pushed off its' seat". These key load bearing girders are huge and connected by a large numbers of huge bolts and supports, so pushing it off its' seat is no easy task.

Maybe and could have, are just wild speculation. If you want to understand the details of how the key girders failed, try talking to real experts and professionals instead of listening to kooks on conspiracy theory websites and youtube videos. For example, actually read and learn to understand the actual NIST report, instead of relying on kook sites that feed you little spin doctored tidbits of it.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Maybe the key girder was pushed off its' seat by explosive charges. The point is the collapse mechanism described could have also been attributable to an explosive charge.

Sure, but that would be based on no known evidence whatsoever. We do know that there was fire in the building and that fire causes steel to expand. We have absolutely no evidence that there were any explosives planted at or around the location in question. You might as well suggest evil lawn gnomes chewed away the support at that location.

 

[beachnut]

The point is the collapse mechanism described could have also been attributable to an explosive charge. ...

The old silent explosives fantasy. Cool, 11 years and failure to understand, the only product

Did you take structural engineering? I never would let you be fireman, you think a major office fire is small - why do you make up nonsense?

Will you become a structural engineer? Is the physics too hard? Math? What was your major?

 

[twinstead]

How can I disagree with no theory?

Except for WTC1 and WTC2, the remainder were pulled because they were highly damaged or, in the case or WTC7, pulled for other reasons. Either that or a relatively tiny fire in the corner of WTC 7 caused the central supports to fail in exactly the same way as a building falls when it's central beams have been cut by explosives.

This is where you start loosing me. You do realize that "a relatively tiny fire in the corder of WTC7" is wrong, right? You also didn't mention the damage that was caused by a little building called a Twin Tower.

Even government reports don't know the reason WTC 7 failed or they know and are not saying. That's what the cover-up is. The destruction of WTC 7 is the cover-up. The glibness of the reason for the failure of WTC 7 is the cover-up.

I don't even know what this means.

 

[twinstead]

and push a key girder off its seat,

Maybe the key girder was pushed off its' seat by explosive charges. The point is the collapse mechanism described could have also been attributable to an explosive charge.

This could be proved or disproved by the forensics at the point where this key girder got "pushed off its' seat". These key load bearing girders are huge and connected by a large numbers of huge bolts and supports, so pushing it off its' seat is no easy task.

Now is the time you provide some evidence that it WAS explosive charges then, because from what I can see it doesn't exist.

 

[LoneRanger]

Sure, but that would be based on no known evidence whatsoever. We do know that there was fire in the building and that fire causes steel to expand. We have absolutely no evidence that there were any explosives planted at or around the location in question. You might as well suggest evil lawn gnomes chewed away the support at that location.

I've seen video of towers where entire floors were engulfed in flames. They didn't fall.

I've seen video of many buildings brought down by explosives. They fell in exactly the same way that WTC 7 did.

I shouldn't get any disagreement that government and government officials lie.

So I remain skeptical.

 

[332nd]

I've seen video of towers where entire floors were engulfed in flames. They didn't fall.

How were the constructed & with what materials?

I've seen video of many buildings brought down by explosives. They fell in exactly the same way that WTC 7 did.

But they also had very loud explosions just before collapse.

I shouldn't get any disagreement that government and government officials lie.

So do people who are trying to sell you something &/or want attention.

So I remain skeptical.

Due to ignorance but ok.

 

[The Platypus]

I've seen video of towers where entire floors were engulfed in flames. They didn't fall.

I've seen video of many buildings brought down by explosives. They fell in exactly the same way that WTC 7 did.

I shouldn't get any disagreement that government and government officials lie.

So I remain skeptical.

So you have watched some youtube videos that the CT sites spoon fed to you, so what. That doesn't make you an expert. Youtube is not equal to a valid education and/or a career in anything.

Of course government officials lie, so do people on the internet, so do conspiracy theorists, so do you, in fact who doesn't lie? If i'm to hold government officials to be nothing but liars because they have lied in the past, then why not everyone else too? Why not you? How do I know you aren't lying constantly?

You aren't skeptical, you are totally sold on what some conspiracy theorist has told you.

Do you have anything other than the same old wild speculations with the same old tired regurgitations, as just about every other conspiracy theorist that tries this sales pitch? How about some evidence?

 

[LoneRanger]

How were the constructed & with what materials?

Why don't you tell me?

But they also had very loud explosions just before collapse.

These were as noisy as any. Tell me they weren't.

So do people who are trying to sell you something &/or want attention.

My argument is not that government lies more than sales people, but possibly as much.

Due to ignorance but ok.

So? I am merely an inquisitive skeptic. If I knew all the answers, I wouldn't be asking questions. Yes, I know when I am ignorant, but at least I know that I know not. I don't pretend to know.

 

[Redwood]

Except for WTC1 and WTC2, the remainder were pulled because they were highly damaged or, in the case or WTC7, pulled for other reasons. Either that or a relatively tiny fire in the corner of WTC 7 caused the central supports to fail in exactly the same way as a building falls when it's central beams have been cut by explosives.

Go to 6:45 of this video and tell me about the small fires in the NW corner of WTC 7. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRKCSmnR3ow

Column 79 wasn't a central column; it was the most NW of the core columns. Right where that big fire was. When it went, the west mechanical penthouse fell through the roof as the first part of the final destruction of WTC 7.

Column 79 reminds me of the "lonesome end" that some college football teams once featured. The funky design of WTC 7 was in order to accommodate it being built on top of a Con-Ed substation.

 

[LoneRanger]

Go to 6:45 of this video and tell me about the small fires in the NW corner of WTC 7.

Column 79 wasn't a central column; it was the most NW of the core columns. Right where that big fire was. When it went, the west mechanical penthouse fell through the roof as the first part of the final destruction of WTC 7.

Column 79 reminds me of the "lonesome end" that some college football teams once featured. The funky design of WTC 7 was in order to accommodate it being built on top of a Con-Ed substation.

Thanks for that link. The fire appears worse than in any of the video I saw previously. I never saw that corner of the fire that close up.

If you want to see a fire that appears much, much worse, search for China High Rise fire, BBC news. (I can't provide a link). High rise fires don't usually bring down a building. In the case of WTC 1 and WTC 2, the plane cut half the supporting beams and the fire softened the remainder. It's predictable that WTC 1 and WTC 2 fell.

Again, I wouldn't be posting if I knew all the facts. Perhaps fires alone have brought down other high rise buildings that I don't know about.

 

[beachnut]

I've seen video of towers where entire floors were engulfed in flames. They didn't fall.

One Meridian Plaza, destroyed by fire. You missed one.
Windsor building in Spain, destroyed by fire.
Both fires fought, buildings totaled by fire.
How did you miss the fact fires destroys the strength of steel, office fires.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/woodsteelfire.jpg
fire destroys steel
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/onemeridiansag.jpg
One Meridian Plaza, fire fought, building totaled.
Guess what, WTC 1, 2, 7, fire NOT fought, buildings totaled by fire. Gone. Your logic if flawed, you think destroy is falling down, so you ignore fires which destroyed buildings - ignoring evidence, knowledge so you can spread lies, and be just like your fantasy, the evil government you fight by making up lies, spreading false information.

I've seen video of many buildings brought down by explosives. They fell in exactly the same way that WTC 7 did.

You just discovered G. Gravity. Welcome to physics 101. What is the primary energy in CD? On 911. You can't guess it?
E=mgh : where g is gravity. When did you graduate from college? Did you take physics? So far you have offered no evidence for your claims, which amount to baseless opinions.

Gravity collapses don't look like CD, CD looks like gravity collapses. Your logic is flawed, and you think you are a skeptic.

I shouldn't get any disagreement that government and government officials lie.

I was a government official, I never lied; albeit only a LtCol, your claim is wrong. You are spreading lies, why?

So I remain skeptical.

You mistake lack of knowledge as skepticism.

 

[Robrob]

I've seen video of towers where entire floors were engulfed in flames. They didn't fall.

So? Are you suggesting you've seen videos of every building ever on fire, or that they were all built the same way as the WTC, or that they were all struck at 500 mph by airliners?

Or were you suggesting something else?

Your point?

I've seen video of many buildings brought down by explosives. They fell in exactly the same way that WTC 7 did.

Yes, when they lose structural integrity - for any reason - large buildings (large object) tend to fall in a certain, predictable manner.

Your point?

I shouldn't get any disagreement that government and government officials lie.

Your point?