[Chimensch]

Well, it's official. According to the Feds, it was fire, and not explosives, that caused building 7 to collapse, making it the first skyscrapper ever to behave that way. Here's the article from the New York Times. I don't accept it and I'm wondering what other people think.

[Bruno]

If I remember correctly, WTC7 was missing one corner which was bearing a significant load.
And as I said before about the collapse of the WTC towers themselves: the fire doesn't have to be hot enough to melt the steel in order to make the building collapse.
It just has to be hot enough that the metal starts to give away to the increased stresses of an unbalanced load. Once it starts to give, the stresses will increase and there is only 1 outcome.

[Nickelking]

yep bruno! Worked a bit with a team of engineers who did a mockup of the whole thing in CAD it pretty much happened as you describe.

Edit: here is an article that talks about it.

[Chimensch]

Originally Posted by Bruno

If I remember correctly, WTC7 was missing one corner which was bearing a significant load.
And as I said before about the collapse of the WTC towers themselves: the fire doesn't have to be hot enough to melt the steel in order to make the building collapse.
It just has to be hot enough that the metal starts to give away to the increased stresses of an unbalanced load. Once it starts to give, the stresses will increase and there is only 1 outcome.

Then how come no skyscraper has ever collapsed after fire damage except for the three that fell on 9/11?

[LX_Emergency]

Maybe because no skyscraper had ever had the added impact of an airplane hitting it? I think that a large part of the problem was the forces of the plane hitting it and adding it's weight+speed to the outcome. Afterall in order to get airborne don't those things fly over 300 km/h? and don't they weigh thousands of kilos?

That's a pretty hefty blow. It could smash away part of the carrying structure and send a shock throughout the building that causes the rest to give way.


Offcourse I'm not an engineer so I don't know for sure, neither do I know the right equations to let loose on it.

But I'm sure someone will chime in soon.

[Chimensch]

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

Maybe because no skyscraper had ever had the added impact of an airplane hitting it?

The Empire State Building was hit by a bomber in the 1940s. There was a fire but it didn't collapse. I saw the documentary "Loose Change" and several others and a WTC architect said that they had allowed for a plane hitting the towers. There was also a clip of Larry Silverstein saying that they had decided to "pull" WTC 7. When I look at the video of WTC, I see a controlled demolition. It seems to me that people who don't want to admit the obvious will cling to any straw to avoid having to deal with the consequences of acknowledging what really happened.

[Nickelking]

Originally Posted by Chimensch

The Empire State Building was hit by a bomber in the 1940s. There was a fire but it didn't collapse. I saw the documentary "Loose Change" and several others and a WTC architect said that they had allowed for a plane hitting the towers. There was also a clip of Larry Silverstein saying that they had decided to "pull" WTC 7. When I look at the video of WTC, I see a controlled demolition. It seems to me that people who don't want to admit the obvious will cling to any straw to avoid having to deal with the consequences of acknowledging what really happened.

Sorry but if that was a controlled demolition it was really the worst one ever done. Not to mention the whole fact that demolishing from x stories high (which wouldn't be done in a controlled demolition) and making the planes fly into that same level, would be quite tough... and lots of other stuff.

Don't get me wrong I'm a great proponent of skepticism; but in this case there's not much grounds for it.

[Chimensch]

Originally Posted by Nickelking

Sorry but if that was a controlled demolition it was really the worst one ever done.

That's true of the two towers hit by airplanes but the collapse of WTC 7 is a textbook example of a controlled demolition.

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by Chimensch

Then how come no skyscraper has ever collapsed after fire damage except for the three that fell on 9/11?

Remember: WTC7 was already missing one of its 4 corner structures and was under an incredible amount of internal stresses.

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by Chimensch

That's true of the two towers hit by airplanes but the collapse of WTC 7 is a textbook example of a controlled demolition.

But a controlled destruction uses the same principles: knock out the main structural support and let the building collapse unto itself.
So if the main structural support is knocked over, and the added heat weakens the rest, it would be normal to look like a controlled destruction because both work the same way in this particular case.

[tucsonburban]

it would appear everyone & their grandmother are now demolition experts. how many times do the real experts have to debunk the conspiracy theorists before they accept that the US was attached by terrorists who caused massive amounts of damage to the people of NY. the only government involvement was a criminal lack of intelligence gathering in the middle east, & then a useless oil driven war in iraq that should never have happened. C'est la vie

[riooso]

No there was a conspiracy to blow up the WTC buildings and it was perpetrated by numerous Muslim individuals that eventually carried out the plans that they conspired to commit. The WTC buildings were engineered to use a minimum of material and labor to obtain a strong structure. Steel bends and warps under compression and heat. I do not know what is not acceptable! Is it more acceptable for someone to believe that the power structure in the US did it?

Later,
Richard

[Chimensch]

Originally Posted by Bruno

Remember: WTC7 was already missing one of its 4 corner structures and was under an incredible amount of internal stresses.

Originally Posted by Bruno

But a controlled destruction uses the same principles: knock out the main structural support and let the building collapse unto itself.
So if the main structural support is knocked over, and the added heat weakens the rest, it would be normal to look like a controlled destruction because both work the same way in this particular case.

The New York Times article (link in my first post) makes no mention of the supposed missing corner but does talk about a beam giving way on the 10th floor. In any case, we're not going to convince each other by pretending to be architects and engineers, so here's a quote from a real architect and engineer from the end of the above article:

Within moments after the news conference ended, leaders of a group called Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth held their own telephone conference briefing, dismissing the investigation as flawed.
“How much longer do we have to endure the coverup of how Building 7 was destroyed?” said Richard Gage, a California architect and leader of the group.
Told of the doubts, Dr. Sunder said he could not explain why the skepticism would not die.
“I am really not a psychologist,” he said. “Our job was to come up with the best science.”

[Seraphim]

Originally Posted by Chimensch

Then how come no skyscraper has ever collapsed after fire damage except for the three that fell on 9/11?

Perhaps because two of the buildings in question were two of the tallest in the world, on fire, at the same time with flaming jetliners inside them?

Pretty unique situation, if you ask me...

Just because someone is an "engineer" doesn't bestow great wisdom and omniscience. Engineers are evryday goobers like you and me.

As a matter of fact, I'm an engineer myself!

The farthest I'm willing to believe any possible conspiracy theory is that perhaps, perhaps They knew that Al Queda was going to do something, and let them do so, as they knew that would allow them to proceed with Their plands for Iraq.

The jets, the fires, the collapses---result of brilliant terrorist madmen, not that hard to comprehend.

[Chimensch]

Originally Posted by riooso

Is it more acceptable for someone to believe that the power structure in the US did it?

A better question would be, "If the power structure in the US did it, what difference would it make?"

And the answer is, "not much".

All in all, it's much safer to accept the official explanation and no one has anything to gain from expressing a dissenting opinion (except us troublemakers).

[Chimensch]

Originally Posted by Seraphim

Pretty unique situation, if you ask me...

Too unique, in my opinion.

And no, I'm not an engineer ... I don't even play one on TV. But I am a translator. I read what one person wrote in a foreign language and repeat it in English. This makes me a very careful reader who goes to great lengths to understand exactly what is being said so that I can faithfully relay it to others. I've listened to both sides of the argument and all I can say is that the side that says the official version isn't true makes a lot more sense to me. That's my bottom line ... I don't know who did it but I'm damn sure that the official version is not true.

[Seraphim]

Chimensch



Status: Troublemaker



Your status is maintained!

[Seraphim]

What about the investigation into Pearl Harbor?

The government must have been behind that one. There's no other reasonable explanation as to why the navy would have their entire Pacific fleet docked up in a narrow harbor. As soon as the Japanese planes flew over they detonated the explosives and scuttled the fleet.

A group of engineers can show how heavy iron ships sank because they had big holes in them, thus clearly showing that there were sinister forces at play!

[ByronTodd]

Don't let this discussion get out of hand. Statements made with anything resembling insults will NOT be tolerated. If you feel you've been insulted, do NOT retaliate. Click the offending "Report Post button" - the triangle in the lower left hand corner area - and let moderation take care of the problem.

Remember that if you can't make the statement without derogatory or insulting comments, don't make it.

Thank you for your cooperation.