NIST says that the damage to WTC7 was negligible and had no bearing on the collapse at all, Fire alone caused it to collapse. Don't you read and believe what the NIST tells you? You must believe it if it is your evidence. You can't refuse parts of it and say they were wrong about structural damage to WTC 7 and at the same time say they are correct. I have already proven that EVERY SINGLE skyscraper that ever caught on fire DID NOT COLLAPSE. Only 1 skyscraper in the history of mankind has ever officially collapsed from fire alone. Only one. All other skyscrapers have endured more damage, longer fires and stood up and in fact are being used to this day. All of them!! So you telling me that an unchecked fire burning for 7 hours statistically has a likely chance of collapsing is PURE IGNORANCE OF THE FACTS. The facts are and the statistics will bear this out that the most likely scenario from a unchecked fire is a burned out building, but a standing burned out building.Take a look at that NIST link I provided earlier. It talks about certain highrise collapses and the various construction types used in the various buildings. It may give you some more answers to your questions. Building 7 was hit with pieces of falling tower but parts of it burnt out of control for upwards of 7 hours. If you subjected virtually any steel frame structure to similar conditions, I would be willing to bet it will collapse more often than not. Not every time necessarily, but more often than not (I've got the statistics on my side! lol!).
The great thermite debate.
- Thread starter hazyintentions
- Start date
there were plenty of charcoal, large piles of papes and books, and plenty of bellows, wind blowing at 1000 feet, and lots of other shit that could have burned and melted the steel. this argument is stupid
Building 7 collapsed due to floor fires on 2 different floors. The fires were reported to have been fed by office supplies and other flammable materials and in turn led to the "collapse of the building." It was clearly a controlled demolition and it had the crimp in the middle.
Don't forget the towers fell at a rate almost equivalent to natural gravity!
doc111
Well-Known Member
Did you actually read the entire report? Because you seem to be taking some things out of context. First off, the NIST report stated that the collapse was "primarily" caused by the fire. They called it a "fire induced progressive collapse". That is the textbook type of collapse that the NIST is saying WTC 7 exhibited. I saw some of the damage on building 7 and it didn't look minor to me but if NIST is saying they don't think it played a major role in the collapse then OK. Did you notice that building 7 had "fires ignite simultaneously on at least 10 floors" due to the collapsing tower 1 and the falling, burning debris that took a huge gash out of the South face of the building? Historically, when fires have occurred in highrises, they have always been from a single origin, not 10+ simultaneously. Why is this important? Here is an exerpt from the NIST article:
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm
Here is the link. It addresses thermite, the freefall question.......basically any questions you're asking. I'm here to tell you bro, I saw those fires and I saw some of the damage on that building. We could see the signs that the collapse was occurring. It doesn't typically just happen, Boom! Collapses can take several minutes or even hours to fully take place. Read this article. It may not change your mind, because it seems your mind is already made up. Most of the firemen I talke to are satisfied this was not a conspiracy. We lost 343 brothers that day and if you know any firemen at all you'd know that you'd have several thousand men out for blood if they thought for a second this was perpetrated by anybody other than terrorists as this appears to be.
doc111
Well-Known Member
False! Bldg 7 fell at a rate 40% slower than "natural gravity". And there were fires on at least 10 floors, almost half of those burned completely out of control due to insufficient supply pressure to the sprinkler system. See, it's people spewing false info that they "read on the internet" or "heard from a friend" that cause people to actually believe this stuff!
Here is another exerpt taken from the Q & A page on the NIST site:
Question:
Answer:
.......and the link to the site:
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm
The best part? of those 10 fires, only 2 of them were on floors where the damage was at, the other fires were on seemingly random floors that make one suspect they were intentionally set. BTW there is no text book on the fire induced collapse of skyscrapers, it has only happened once.
Only for the first 1.2 seconds, the next 4 seconds it fell at free fall speed. I already addressed this with a previous post.
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
look at left picture still standing?
look at right picture fallen over?
the concrete core might have stood up to the fire
but what about the steel floors that collapsed away from it you have told us again and again that fire wont cause steel to fail
you have just put up a picture of a building with major failure to the steel sections
how did that steel fail?
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
*IF* any steel was *molten* it would have happened after the collapse when the heat from the fires was insulated by all the debris yet supplied by air by the acres of box section steel and underground tunnels
it would have been a perfect situation for "natural" furnaces to occur
dukeanthony
New Member
Pretty much any combustible given enough oxygen will get hot enough to melt steel
doc111
Well-Known Member
Yes, because the internal structure had already collapsed!
Again, you seem to have a lot of experience with building collapses? How many have you witnessed again? How much studying of different types of fire induced progressive collapses have you done again? Any building collapse of this type is going to fall at "free fall" speed at SOME point. It's called gravity and even buildings are subject to this law.
Did you read that entire NIST Q & A link yet?
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm
doc111
Well-Known Member
Those fires burned for nearly 7 hours and spread to other floors. Just because something has only happened once means it isn't possible now? How long have skyscrapers been around. A hundred years? How many buildings are considered "skyscrapers"? It's about numbers. There are relatively few skyscrapers and they are, under NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES, protected really well from fire. This was anything but a normal circumstance. Never before in the short history of skyscrapers has one had multiple fires start on multiple floors. Is nuclear war not possible since there's only ever been 1?
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm
Are you trying to point out how an undamaged floor 10 stories above a floor on fire catches fire itself, but none of the floors between them do? Seems odd, its like having a fire in your neighbors apartment, and your apartment doesn't take any damage, but the apartment on the other side of you catches fire and burns down also. Seems weird doesn't it? Also the word that NIST uses is "likely" which means they are just guessing (educated guessing) at how it happened. In fact the WHOLE entire NIST report is nothing more than a giant GUESS.
You are quite correct about a partial collapse of the Windsor tower, all the parts that were not reinforced with STEEL failed. It is not a steel framed building, the frame was made of concrete reinforced with rebar. The core which was reinforced with steel never failed, even after burning for 18 hours at 800c+ , which is just as hot as the WTC fires burned at for 80 minutes and failed. So basically the building which was not as well built as the towers seemingly resisted a fire that was just as hot, but did it for 12 times as long, and still didn't fail.
doc111
Well-Known Member
Some of the floors "likely" had partially functioning sprinklers. They spent years studying what available data there was before making their report which is based on SOME speculation based on MOUNTAINS of video and other evidence. You just don't want to believe any of it do you?
It seems the "truth" isn't as important as crazy ass '24' style conspiracy plots.
I believe every part except that fire alone caused it. I spent time learning how explosives work, how to set them, how to make them thanks to Uncle Sam. I got some good training. Why? Things needed blowing up. Did I work with nano thermite? no, i am no expert on that but i do know from experience with demolitions that unless you take away all of a structure's infrastructure at the exact same moment the collapse will ALWAYS tip to the side that was damaged first. Metal twists and bends and when it does it is exerting a massive reactive force, steel has one of the greatest tensile strengths of anything man knows of. Steel just doesn't "get out of the way" for 4 seconds unless you can cause the underlying support structure to be removed or displaced at the precise same time.Some of the floors "likely" had partially functioning sprinklers. They spent years studying what available data there was before making their report which is based on SOME speculation based on MOUNTAINS of video and other evidence. You just don't want to believe any of it do you?
If you don't mind telling me, since you seem to think you know, but exactly what "Conspiracy Theory" have I enthused? Perhaps I have only called into question the supposed facts, but that is no theory of a conspiracy, it seems disingenuous of you to disparage me in such a way since you have no direct evidence to support such a conclusion.It seems the "truth" isn't as important as crazy ass '24' style conspiracy plots.
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
NO....
Around midnight, on Saturday, February 12, 2005, a fire was detected on the 21st floor. The fire spread quickly throughout the entire building, leading to the collapse of the outermost, steel parts of the upper floors; firefighters needed almost 24 hours to extinguish it. While seven firefighters were injured, nobody was killed in the fire, which was arguably the worst in Madrid's history.
you can't spin this on in your favour you've literary just debunked yourself by showing a collapse of steel due to fire
lets see if your man enough to admit it?
doc111
Well-Known Member
That collapse training of yours tell you this? lol! Sometimes buildings collapse without even being exposed to fire or earthquakes.
http://ngccommunity.nationalgeographic.com/ngcblogs/explorer/2005/09/collapse.html
Did I say anything about you?
Enjoy this little vid:
[video=youtube;_7rj5UQvlWw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7rj5UQvlWw[/video]
You mean the small spandrels that are 1/4 the size of the ones in the WTC towers? The ones with no steel framing like WTC? The small steel sections that took 18 hours of intense fire to PARTIALLY collapse over the course of 3 hours? That didn't happen in one moment like WTC did. The Windsor Building fire demonstrates that a huge building-consuming fire, after burning for many hours, can produce the collapse of parts of the building with weak steel supports lacking fire protection. It also shows that the collapse events that do occur are gradual and partial.
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
the collapse on that tower was pretty quick close'ish nearly free fall and it also started at the top
the wtc started where the planes hit it they had 20 or 30 stories above them to act as a hammer blow when the steel failed
the wtc building was also a trussed floor building thats very weak in a fire and as we saw in the plane crash its pretty absurd to claim there was adequate fireproofing where needed in wtc