Mystery of WTC 7 - Conspiracy

[Fox in the North]

One thing I'm amazed by (please forgive my ignorance) is that how can any building be built to withstand such an attack? In my head, I can't get round how a plane fully laden (aircraft fuel included) and going at speed, crashing into a skyscraper can not cause substantial/enough damage to bring it down? Sorry if this has also been discussed. Surely it would have been impossible for the designers to simulate such an incident and hence construct a building that could counter it? Yes you can foresee it, but how can you build a skyscraper without prior knowledge or expertise as there has never (not to my mind, but then again i'm fairly young) been such an incident where a fully laden plane has crashed into a skyscraper before?

Sorry if my questions sound too complicated I wasn't sure how to word them

[Babylon]

Firstly no jumbo jets were involved .

The buildings were designed to withstand the impact of fully laden 707s , 100 year storms earthquakes and hurricanes . (I don’t know how many times I‘ve told you this now)

Designed to withstand impact being the key word.

"The Twin Towers had many novel safeguards and design elements to strengthen the buildings against a possible collision by an aircraft and prevent their collapse. Examining the structures of the buildings, one sees that the World Trade Center Towers were among the first to use a steel structure instead of masonry or concrete used amongst earlier high rises (Federal Emergency Management Agency 2002). The Twin Towers also used a new system called the tube structure for the majority of support of the building (Ashley 2001). They are made of a rigid hollow tube of closely packed steel columns with floor trusses (braces along the floor) that extend around the building to its center, further enhancing structural strength and the prevention of collapse (Federal Emergency Management Agency 2002). This tube structure enabled the Trade Center towers to withstand higher winds and higher lateral (horizontal) force loads, like those of high velocity impacts, and it also eliminated the need for interior columns (“Nerdcities: The Guardian†2002). Additional lateral support came from exterior columns along the perimeter of the two towers, set only 22†apart (“Nerdcities: The Guardian†2002). The five-inch-thick concrete floor and floor trusses supported most of the vertical weight of each story.

The most consequential designs that were not included in the Twin Towers were sufficient fire-suppression systems and fireproofing. Even though the towers were built to withstand the impact of a jetliner, they were not designed to withstand and remain standing during a fire of such great magnitude. The jet-fuel fire caused by the impact was impossible to contain in the Twin Towers. The World Trade Center had not been designed to fight hydrocarbon fires of such magnitude and high temperature – up to 1500 degrees Celsius. The fire-suppression system consisted of water sprinklers that were useless because water, at this temperature, would vaporize almost instantly. Instead, these fires had to be fought with chemical foam, which the Towers lacked (Ashley 2001).

The fireproofing system in the Towers was also insufficient. First, the Towers were lightweight because of their extensive use of steel and were devoid of masonry or concrete which made them difficult to insulate from the fire. Second, a more sophisticated fireproofing system could have been incorporated during the building process. Most of the supports and trusses could have been coated with extra fire proofing material (Ashley 2001). Third, the World Trade Center incorporated a novel, yet very flammable, elevator system (Wilkinson 2002). The engineers worried that, without masonry, the conventional elevator shafts would buckle and collapse with the intense air pressure exerted by the high speed elevators. To solve this problem the engineers used a drywall/plaster system fixed to a reinforced steel core; this made the shafts more flexible though much more flammable (Wilkinson 2002).

Another design shortcoming that made the ensuing fire even more destructive was the use of weak floor trusses which spanned abnormally long distances (Ashley 2001). In the Twin Towers the steel trusses spanned nearly sixty feet without any support and were only four inches thick (Federal Emergency Management Agency 2002). The extremely high-temperature fire heated the relatively thin floor rapidly, making the floor almost flexible because it lost most of its rigidity and consequently buckled. Since the floor buckled, the extra support needed to come from the remaining exterior perimeter columns, but many had been destroyed by the planes’ initial impact. But those columns also depended on the core steel columns for support, but these columns were being subjected to extremely harsh conditions of the fire and were failing themselves. The exterior columns began to buckle onto the floor which buckled on the floor beneath and started a gigantic domino effect of the plunging stories. So, in effect, the fire caused all structural supports to weaken and fail within the Twin Towers."

[Zingari]

So we are left with the explanation that the resultant fires brought down the buildings and not the impact .

How then did these resultant fires achieve ( 3 times) what no other fires have ever done in history .

Ordinary fires cannot demolish steel framed buildings , it never has nor ever will because the temperatures cannot get hot enough to melt steel and even to significantly weaken it would take a lot longer than 50 minutes

[Daggers]

I'm still chuckling about the saucepan on a bonfire suggestion. Inspired.

For an erudite, witty and intelligent man this certainly seems to be his nadir.

[Nick]

For an erudite, witty and intelligent man this certainly seems to be his nadir.

As in 'looking up at the stars' or the 'deepest point' of despair?

[MooseBreath]

So we are left with the explanation that the resultant fires brought down the buildings and not the impact .

How then did these resultant fires achieve ( 3 times) what no other fires have ever done in history .

Ordinary fires cannot demolish steel framed buildings , it never has nor ever will because the temperatures cannot get hot enough to melt steel and even to significantly weaken it would take a lot longer than 50 minutes

There was no melting just thermal expansion. The fires were burning for seven hours. One failure triggered the collapse. End of story.

[Daggers]

As in 'looking up at the stars' or the 'deepest point' of despair?

I'd imagine him and me have obverse perspectives of it.

[Zingari]

There was no melting just thermal expansion. The fires were burning for seven hours. One failure triggered the collapse. End of story.

Indeed wtc7 burned for several hours but there is no evidence of any raging inferno and no other steel framed structure has ever collapsed even after much greater damage and far bigger and more prolonged fires

The south tower however was stuck at 9:03 and collapsed at 9:59 .

The building did what it was designed to do and easily withstood that impact.

That gives the fires 56 minutes to significantly weaken the steel 70 odd floors below causing total symmetrical and virtual freefall collapse.

Sorry but it can't be done with fires alone , that's why highly skilled demolition teams take weeks to achieve these results using cutter charges.

Look at the picture of the south tower as it continues to collapse ( in 10 to 12 second) just 56 minutes after impact

The building materials including the massive steel girders are being thrust laterally away from the building and until i see evidence that fires alone can do this i'll continue to believe the architects and engineers 911 truth that explosives were used .

If that makes me bonkers , then so be it

Edit ;

You start by saying that the steel didn't melt but there is ample evidence of molten steel , so where did it come from ?

[Babylon]

So we are left with the explanation that the resultant fires brought down the buildings and not the impact .

How then did these resultant fires achieve ( 3 times) what no other fires have ever done in history .

Ordinary fires cannot demolish steel framed buildings , it never has nor ever will because the temperatures cannot get hot enough to melt steel and even to significantly weaken it would take a lot longer than 50 minutes

Well firstly you are trying to separate the two events, they are one and the same. So no you aren't JUST left with the fire. They both contributed in some way.

Secondly this isn't an ordinary fire is it? It's not a paper bin catching fire and slowly spreading around the building. It's a great big bloody explosions with jet fuel being spread over multiple floors and giving the fire one hell of a kick start.

[Zingari]

Well firstly you are trying to separate the two events, they are one and the same. So no you aren't JUST left with the fire. They both contributed in some way.

Secondly this isn't an ordinary fire is it? It's not a paper bin catching fire and slowly spreading around the building. It's a great big bloody explosions with jet fuel being spread over multiple floors and giving the fire one hell of a kick start.

There was indeed an explosion as the aircraft impacted , but this fireball was very short lived and much of the fuel burned on the outside of the building . But this event and subsequent fires were limited to the upper section of the building . There is no evidence of any significant fires below the 70th floor and the reason for this is the floors were hermetically sealed to do this .

So please give me some evidence of major fires below this area .

This is a fireman inside the building just prior to collapse so i'm assuming he's got a good idea of what's going on .

Please don't let the significance of this escape you . How could he possibly be inside a building and reached that level if there is a raging inferno below him ?

edit;

The fireman’s name is “Orio Palmer†, he died in the collapse just seconds after that recording .

Please check it out and tell me how he could be in this building and not be frazzled if there are the raging infernos below him that are hot enough to weaken structural steel.

[Zingari]

For an erudite, witty and intelligent man this certainly seems to be his nadir.

Don't spread rumours like that !!

Other than a few games of cards in a Famagusta bar , I never had any other dealings with Asil .

If I remember correctly he cheated me out of a good few quid that night ,

[fleckneymike]

I hate myself for getting involved with morons but watch the steel twist and buckle

http://youtu.be/oYHSshpumOc

[marty78]

http://youtu.be/e1g3OAOiOP0

http://youtu.be/_MRSr1MnFuk

WTC7, single point of failure

[Zingari]

marty 78

regarding the vids

Comments are disabled for this video.

i know why and it's typical of these so called "mythbusters"

Now ask yourself why.

i've looked at some of the claims

windsor tower madrid collapsed ?

i don't think so

[Zingari]

I hate myself for getting involved with morons but watch the steel twist and buckle

http://youtu.be/oYHSshpumOc

What's causing the lateral ejection of the pulverised concrete and steel beams ?

Fire?

Show me a fire that's done this before .

[Babylon]

What's causing the lateral ejection of the pulverised concrete and steel beams ?

Fire no, Physics yes.

There was indeed an explosion as the aircraft impacted , but this fireball was very short lived and much of the fuel burned on the outside of the building .

Again you miss the point. You compare other fires with this one and mention the short burn time here. But ignore the ignition, which was a huge crash, fireball and jet fuel inferno. Completely different to a slowly building fire. The fuel is an accelerant, and it's called an that for a reas that probably doesn't need explaining. Really, care to prove that then?

So please give me some evidence of major fires below this area .

Why do I need to give you evidence of this? Who has said that the whole tower was weakened? It's you who has brought this up in some attempt to say that the whole tower needed to be weekend in this way for it to collapse, which is incorrect.

[marty78]

marty 78

regarding the vids

Comments are disabled for this video.

i know why and it's typical of these so called "mythbusters"

Now ask yourself why.

i've looked at some of the claims

windsor tower madrid collapsed ?

i don't think so

That video doesn't make that claim.

It's all taken from http://www.debunking911.com/index.html. If you can disprove any of the website then you will discredit these "mythbusters". Why videos don't have comments I don't know, so I don't guess but he says this in his FAQ page

Q: Why don't you engage in public debate? Doesn't that mean you can't back up what you're saying?

A: What in the world do you think I'm doing on this web site? Am I not publicly debating the issue? Why should a hall filled with conspiracy theorists clapping at every utterance from one of the "scholars" change the facts on this site.

I have no intention of getting dragged into a debate on another conspiracy though because it makes my head hurt. I probably shouldn't have bothered posting, and kind of wish I hadn't, but I wanted to mention a site that, for me at least, disproves a conspiracy. I personally believe its tackling of a number of things in this thread is pretty conclusive.

Marty out, again.

[sphericalfox]

Fire no, Physics yes.

Again you miss the point. You compare other fires with this one and mention the short burn time here. But ignore the ignition, which was a huge crash, fireball and jet fuel inferno. Completely different to a slowly building fire. The fuel is an accelerant, and it's called an that for a reas that probably doesn't need explaining. Really, care to prove that then?

Why do I need to give you evidence of this? Who has said that the whole tower was weakened? It's you who has brought this up in some attempt to say that the whole tower needed to be weekend in this way for it to collapse, which is incorrect.

with Bernie?

[Zingari]

Fire no, Physics yes.

Again you miss the point. You compare other fires with this one and mention the short burn time here. But ignore the ignition, which was a huge crash, fireball and jet fuel inferno. Completely different to a slowly building fire. The fuel is an accelerant, and it's called an that for a reas that probably doesn't need explaining. Really, care to prove that then?

Why do I need to give you evidence of this? Who has said that the whole tower was weakened? It's you who has brought this up in some attempt to say that the whole tower needed to be weekend in this way for it to collapse, which is incorrect.

Physics ?

The Twin Towers destruction exhibited all of the characteristics of destruction by explosives: (and some non-standard characteristics)

1. Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration

2. Improbable symmetry of debris distribution

3. Extremely rapid onset of destruction

4. Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes

5. Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally 600 ft at 60 mph

6. Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking

7. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds

8. 1200-foot-dia. debris field: no "pancaked" floors found

9. Isolated explosive ejections 20 40 stories below demolition front

10. Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame

11. Several tons of molten metal found under all 3 high-rises

12. Evidence of thermite incendiaries found by FEMA in steel samples

13. Evidence of explosives found in dust samples

14. No precedent for steel-framed high-rise collapse due to fire

And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.

1. Slow onset with large visible deformations

2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)

3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel

4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never collapsed

WTC Building 7, a 47-story high-rise not hit by an airplane, exhibits all the characteristics of classic controlled demolition with explosives: (and some non-standard characteristics)

1. Rapid onset of collapse

2. Sounds of explosions at ground floor - a full second prior to collapse

3. Symmetrical collapse through the path of greatest resistance at free-fall acceleration

4. Imploded, collapsing completely, and landed mostly in its own footprint

5. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds

6. Several tons of molten metal reported by numerous highly-qualified witnesses

7. Chemical signature of Thermite (high tech incendiary) found in solidified molten metal, and dust samples by physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.

8. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples

9. Expert corroboration from the top European Controlled Demolition professional

10. Fore-knowledge of collapse by media, NYPD, FDNY

[Rincewind]

God did it.

[Daggers]

The Titanic didn't hit an iceberg dontchaknow. It was a plot.

[theboxman1986]

Indeed wtc7 burned for several hours but there is no evidence of any raging inferno and no other steel framed structure has ever collapsed even after much greater damage and far bigger and more prolonged fires

The south tower however was stuck at 9:03 and collapsed at 9:59 .

The building did what it was designed to do and easily withstood that impact.

That gives the fires 56 minutes to significantly weaken the steel 70 odd floors below causing total symmetrical and virtual freefall collapse.

Sorry but it can't be done with fires alone , that's why highly skilled demolition teams take weeks to achieve these results using cutter charges.

Look at the picture of the south tower as it continues to collapse ( in 10 to 12 second) just 56 minutes after impact

The building materials including the massive steel girders are being thrust laterally away from the building and until i see evidence that fires alone can do this i'll continue to believe the architects and engineers 911 truth that explosives were used .

If that makes me bonkers , then so be it

Edit ;

You start by saying that the steel didn't melt but there is ample evidence of molten steel , so where did it come from ?

as regards the picture, I recently saw a program where they explained something similar to the little clouds of smoke below the falling debris, It has something to do with the air pressure being created with something with that much weight falling. Imagine it like sitting on a balloon the air has got to go somewhere so it creates the way out which causes that reaction. Also did anyone watch the 9/11 surfer? well that explains this thing better then I could

[Daggers]

I wurz kidnapped by alienz.

It happund, dey just dunt wunt yu to kno the truth.

[Babylon]

Physics ?

The Twin Towers destruction exhibited all of the characteristics of destruction by explosives: (and some non-standard characteristics)

1. Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration

2. Improbable symmetry of debris distribution

3. Extremely rapid onset of destruction

4. Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes

5. Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally 600 ft at 60 mph

6. Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking

7. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds

8. 1200-foot-dia. debris field: no "pancaked" floors found

9. Isolated explosive ejections 20 40 stories below demolition front

10. Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame

11. Several tons of molten metal found under all 3 high-rises

12. Evidence of thermite incendiaries found by FEMA in steel samples

13. Evidence of explosives found in dust samples

14. No precedent for steel-framed high-rise collapse due to fire

And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.

1. Slow onset with large visible deformations

2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)

3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel

4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never collapsed

WTC Building 7, a 47-story high-rise not hit by an airplane, exhibits all the characteristics of classic controlled demolition with explosives: (and some non-standard characteristics)

1. Rapid onset of collapse

2. Sounds of explosions at ground floor - a full second prior to collapse

3. Symmetrical collapse through the path of greatest resistance at free-fall acceleration

4. Imploded, collapsing completely, and landed mostly in its own footprint

5. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds

6. Several tons of molten metal reported by numerous highly-qualified witnesses

7. Chemical signature of Thermite (high tech incendiary) found in solidified molten metal, and dust samples by physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.

8. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples

9. Expert corroboration from the top European Controlled Demolition professional

10. Fore-knowledge of collapse by media, NYPD, FDNY

Thanks for posting a list of nothing that has been answered over and over again... Got any evidence? Nope thought not.

And yes physics answers your question, very basic simple physics.

There is no point in even posting in here.

[purpleronnie]

Thanks for posting a list of nothing that has been answered over and over again... Got any evidence? Nope thought not.

And yes physics answers your question, very basic simple physics.

There is no point in even posting in here.

he dosen't like physics...see his post about the moon landings....they never took place you know.

He probably doesnt believe in gravity.

But if I told him I had an invisible washing machine orbiting my house....he'd believe that.

eh zingy