Mystery of WTC 7 - Conspiracy

[Webbo]

I remember seeing a programme with Fred Dibner in it where he demolished a chimney using just fire. Apparently it was common practise at one time.

 

(I appreciate that a chimney doesn't have a steel frame).

[Guest Bilo]

Arguing with conspiracy theorists is like arguing with religious fundamentalists about creationism. They will believe whatever suits their agenda, irrespective of the amount of evidence to the contrary. 

[Zingari]

I remember seeing a programme with Fred Dibner in it where he demolished a chimney using just fire. Apparently it was common practise at one time.

 

(I appreciate that a chimney doesn't have a steel frame).

Yes , that is quite a significant difference to a discussion regarding a collapse of a steel framed building . :xmasbiggrin:  

But , other than that,  the chimney would still  fall to one side ( taking the path of least resistance due to the carefully crafted damage caused by Fred ),. It doesn't fall into the spot where it's base is still present.  

And not only that  . it's still a controlled demolition , it didn't just happen.   Fred caused it  with carefully placed logs into the weakened structure where he'd removed masses of brick and masonry   its not just a random fire ,.( the burning logs cause the collapse as he has substituted them for the masonary)

Otherwise chimneys would fall over all the time considering the reason they exist is to take smoke away from roaring fires  :xmaswink:  :xmasbiggrin:

 

 

 

 

edit; 

i don't expect an answer to this anymore than i expect to get one regarding where the molten steel came from but;

 

Taken from NIST Website Q and A  ( question 11)

 

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm

 

The approach taken by NIST is summarized in NIST NCSTAR Report 1A, Section 3.6, and detailed in NIST NCSTAR Report 1-9, Section 12.5.3.

The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:

Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).

Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall) 

Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

 

How is stage 2 possible ? Free fall ? 

i thought freefall was only possible if an object is dropped with nothing offering resistence to slow it down 

 

 It means the building material below  is offering absolutely no resistance ( for between 1.75 and 4 secs ) to the rest of the building falling from above . it means that all the lower floors below the falling structure has just disappeared into thin air . 

[MooseBreath]

 

i don't expect an answer to this anymore than i expect to get one regarding where the molten steel came from but;

 

Taken from NIST Website Q and A  ( question 11)

 

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm

 

The approach taken by NIST is summarized in NIST NCSTAR Report 1A, Section 3.6, and detailed in NIST NCSTAR Report 1-9, Section 12.5.3.

The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:

Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).

Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall) 

Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

 

How is stage 2 possible ? Free fall ? 

i thought freefall was only possible if an object is dropped with nothing offering resistence to slow it down 

 

 It means the building material below  is offering absolutely no resistance ( for between 1.75 and 4 secs ) to the rest of the building falling from above . it means that all the lower floors below the falling structure has just disappeared into thin air . 

 

1) it wasn't molten steel

2) gravity tends to be a consistent force

[purpleronnie]

 

Yes , that is quite a significant difference to a discussion regarding a collapse of a steel framed building . :xmasbiggrin:  

But , other than that,  the chimney would still  fall to one side ( taking the path of least resistance due to the carefully crafted damage caused by Fred ),. It doesn't fall into the spot where it's base is still present.  

And not only that  . it's still a controlled demolition , it didn't just happen.   Fred caused it  with carefully placed logs into the weakened structure where he'd removed masses of brick and masonry   its not just a random fire ,.( the burning logs cause the collapse as he has substituted them for the masonary)

Otherwise chimneys would fall over all the time considering the reason they exist is to take smoke away from roaring fires  :xmaswink:  :xmasbiggrin:

 

 

 

 

edit; 

i don't expect an answer to this anymore than i expect to get one regarding where the molten steel came from but;

 

Taken from NIST Website Q and A  ( question 11)

 

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm

 

The approach taken by NIST is summarized in NIST NCSTAR Report 1A, Section 3.6, and detailed in NIST NCSTAR Report 1-9, Section 12.5.3.

The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:

Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).

Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall) 

Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

 

How is stage 2 possible ? Free fall ? 

i thought freefall was only possible if an object is dropped with nothing offering resistence to slow it down 

 

 It means the building material below  is offering absolutely no resistance ( for between 1.75 and 4 secs ) to the rest of the building falling from above . it means that all the lower floors below the falling structure has just disappeared into thin air . 

 

There's no evidence or report of molten steel specifically in the WTC 7 rubble.

 

[shen]

Ah so people are picking parts of the Nist reports that aligns with their conspiracy beliefs and dismiss the parts that don't.

 

Jesus wept, ronnie! I'm bloody stating the report, I'm not out to fool myself by deliberately ignoring parts of it. You are the one INSISTING that the structural damage was crucial to the collapse. Look here... they list the factors themselves. Do you see 'structural damage by falling debris' anywhere?

 

"Factors contributing to WTC 7's collapse included: the thermal expansion of building elements such as floor beams and girders, which occurred at temperatures hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in current practice for fire-resistance ratings; significant magnification of thermal expansion effects due to the long-span floors in the building; connections between structural elements that were designed to resist the vertical forces of gravity, not the thermally induced horizontal or lateral loads; and an overall structural system not designed to prevent fire-induced progressive collapse."

 

Just to ram it home (hopefully):

 

"Did debris from the collapse of WTC 1 cause damage to WTC 7's structure in a way that contributed to the building's collapse?

The debris from WTC 1 caused structural damage to the southwest region of WTC 7—severing seven exterior columns—but this structural damage did not initiate the collapse. The fires initiated by the debris, rather than the structural damage that resulted from the impacts, initiated the building's collapse after the fires grew and spread to the northeast region after several hours. The debris impact caused no damage to the spray-applied fire-resistive material that was applied to the steel columns, girders, and beams except in the immediate vicinity of the severed columns. The debris impact damage did play a secondary role in the last stages of the collapse sequence, where the exterior façade buckled at the lower floors where the impact damage was located. A separate analysis showed that even without the structural damage due to debris impact, WTC 7 would have collapsed in fires similar to those that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001. None of the large pieces of debris from WTC 2 hit WTC 7 because of the large distance between the two buildings." (source: http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm)

 

*Sigh*

 

Falling debris caused damage which started fires which collapsed the building. It's very, very simple.

You're trying to imply the falling debris had 'minimal effect' to use your own words

 

Oh forget it, Oz. This is frustrating me no end, because we're simply talking past one another. If you read the initial reply, I state exactly the same thing: The debris caused the fire (according to NIST), which turned out to be the primary cause for the collapse. What I had a beef with was the fact you mentioned the STRUCTURAL DAMAGE DONE BY THE FALLING DEBRIS was also of significant importance, when the report quite clearly stated that it was of very little importance and that the building would've collapsed either way.

 

Both of you will probably argue that I put way too much importance on rhetoric here, but seeing as 90% of this thread is down to constant misunderstanding, misuse of terminologies and baseless arguments, I find it pretty obvious that rhetoric is alpha and omega here...

[Zingari]

There's no evidence or report of molten steel specifically in the WTC 7 rubble.

 

it doesn't matter if it can be linked specifically to WTC 1,  2, or   7 , there shouldn't be molten steel  ANYWHERE in the rubble  of the WTC  or any of the basements.  Molten steel = temps too high for fires. Simples 

Where did it come from ?

[Zingari]

Here's a thought, what if there were charges placed in WTC7, but not placed there by the government, the main problem people have with the conspiracy theory is that the government did it, because to do so would make no sense, if you were looking for support to start a war, flying planes into WTC 1 and 2, would be more than enough.

 

But there is evidence that suggests that WTC7 was a controlled demolition, watching it fall compared to any other building collapse, and the fact that steel wouldn't melt at normaly temperatures caused by office fires, and when you compare the liklihood of the 2 scenarios, taking away all conspiracy aspects of it, I agree with Zing, that a controlled demolition seems a lot more likely.

 

But I don't believe that it was the US government, so why couldn't it have been part of the terrorist plot? This was the most extreme and well co-ordinated terrorist attack ever orchestrated, if we presume that they wanted to cripple the US, take out it's trading heart, military heart and wherever the fourth plane was going, then maybe they viewed WTC 7 as an important target. Weren't able to fly a plane into it, but managed to break in and set charges. If they were able to co-ordinate the hi-jacking of 4 planes, I believe they could be able to co-ordinate the planting of charges.

 

Reading the 2 arguments on here, I find Zing the most convincing in how WTC 7 came down (controlled charges), but not why (it makes no sense for the US government to do it).

Sorry captain , I've only just read your post again , i intended to reply earlier but got sidetracked. 

I do understand what you are saying and it 's not without a lot of credibility , but it still doesn't answer why the government , and just as  importantly the scientific institutions would want to   or are able to keep it covered up if it's foreign agents to blame .

 

The only reason for a cover up is surely to cover their own arses , whether that is to hide incompetence or involvement .

 

But please offer your explanation for this  if you think i'm wrong or missing something 

[MooseBreath]

it doesn't matter if it can be linked specifically to WTC 1, 2, or 7 , there shouldn't be molten steel ANYWHERE in the rubble of the WTC or any of the basements. Molten steel = temps too high for fires. Simples

Where did it come from ?

Can you find any real evidence of molten steel at WTC7, preferably a real paper not some 13-year-old's YouTube upload? (clue - you can't)

Let's assume you can, how is that evidence of a controlled demolition? Presumably you know (wait no, of course you don't know) that melting steel is part of no controlled demolition anywhere, ever.

[Captain...]

Sorry captain , I've only just read your post again , i intended to reply earlier but got sidetracked.

I do understand what you are saying and it 's not without a lot of credibility , but it still doesn't answer why the government , and just as importantly the scientific institutions would want to or are able to keep it covered up if it's foreign agents to blame .

The only reason for a cover up is surely to cover their own arses , whether that is to hide incompetence or involvement .

But please offer your explanation for this if you think i'm wrong or missing something

Probably just incompetence, without any actual physical evidence of cutter charges, they came up with a scenario to fit their hypothesis. When was the report commissioned and when did the questions over WTC7 come to light?

[Zingari]

Probably just incompetence, without any actual physical evidence of cutter charges, they came up with a scenario to fit their hypothesis. When was the report commissioned and when did the questions over WTC7 come to light?

I think the final report came out in 2008 , but according to their own Q and A site , they didn't have any access to the actual steel,  so make of that what you will.

The questions about the collapse  were being asked well before the report  and nothing in the report seemed to satisfy the doubters .NIST admit freefall , but don't explain how freefall of steel and masonry  can occur while simultaneously crushing the same materials below. 

 

As for incompetence , are you talking about incompetence regarding  the nist report or incompetence regarding the  security at the WTC  site if some sort of devices were planted by terrorists ? 

[Captain...]

I think the final report came out in 2008 , but according to their own Q and A site , they didn't have any access to the actual steel,  so make of that what you will.

The questions about the collapse  were being asked well before the report  and nothing in the report seemed to satisfy the doubters .NIST admit freefall , but don't explain how freefall of steel and masonry  can occur while simultaneously crushing the same materials below. 

 

As for incompetence , are you talking about incompetence regarding  the nist report or incompetence regarding the  security at the WTC  site if some sort of devices were planted by terrorists ? 

 

Mainly in compiling a report, starting with a hypothesis and finding evidence to support it, I imagine they looked for a way to explain how a building would collapse in that way rather than the actual cause of it, if you are saying they didn't have access to the steel, did they also not have access to the site of WTC 7 and were they able to actually sift through the rubble looking for evidence?

 

I just feel incompetence is a lot more likely than a conspiracy by the US government to blow up a building.

[Rincewind]

If the Government wanted to bow up their own buildings causing the massive loss of the ountry's people would they not pick a time when the building was virtually empty like  holiday time rather than a normal working day?

[MooseBreath]

NIST admit freefall , but don't explain how freefall of steel and masonry can occur while simultaneously crushing the same materials below.

So that proves controlled demolition how?

Once a building of that weight fails it's going to fall at about the same speed whether controlled or not. Gravity applies a consistent force. If you want to use the rate of descent as an argument, then i'd suggest you take a closer look, because it clearly shows significant deviations from what you'd expect had it been a controlled demolition. You probably don't know that of course because you're arguing in favour of a controlled demolition over the NIST report despite not knowing anything about controlled demolitions or having read the NIST report

[Zingari]

Here's a good little read taken from the Architects and Engineers site.  

 

The Official Account

 

WTC 7 collapsed because of fire alone.[5] Here are the central features of the collapse:

Intense heating on the 12th floor caused an overhead beam to lengthen, due to thermal expansion, and to push a 13th-floor girder off of the seat that had connected it to interior column #79.

This failure propagated for several floors, leaving column 79 unsupported, thereby causing it to buckle.  Nearby columns were unable to absorb the transfer of load. This inability initiated a progressive collapse, which led to catastrophic failure of the entire building.

This collapse of the building, which appeared to be sudden although in reality it was progressive, is shown to be plausible by computer simulations.

The mechanism behind the collapse is supported by graphical output, which is included in the NIST Final Report[6] and explained by animations posted on the NIST website.[7]

 

The Best Evidence

1. A building undergoing progressive collapse would come down in a sequential manner. Sections would be expected to fail as they lost support. However, from measurements of the collapse time, it could not have been progressive or sequential:

 

From the time of the collapse of the East Penthouse to the onset of global collapse, the building appeared, from all external signs, to retain its overall integrity. The transition from total support to freefall was sudden.[8] The building fell with a horizontal roofline, implying that catastrophic failure across the entire width of the building (100 meters east to west) occurred virtually simultaneously within a fraction of a second.

The building buckled horizontally near the middle about 1.5 seconds prior to the onset of freefall, but this was not accompanied by downward motion. The building retained its full height until the onset of global collapse. The initial downward motion, measured at the northwest corner of the building, was a sudden transition to freefall.>

2. In addition to the fact that the collapse of a steel-framed building entering into freefall in the absence of explosives to remove the steel supports is inherently implausible, the graphical output from NIST’s computer simulations does not match the actual observations at all. The two cases presented in NIST’s Final Report represent two, very different, scenarios:

 

In one of these, damage caused by debris from the North Tower collapse was a contributing factor.

In the other one, there is no mention of debris-caused damage.

The scenario that included debris-caused damage to the south face of WTC 7 somewhat resembled the observed fall, but NIST concluded that debris-caused damage was not a significant factor in the collapse.

 

It is quite apparent, from even casual inspection, that the simulation does not account for observations:

 

The simulated building shows marked deformations that would be easily detectable from exterior views.[9] These were not observed.

The actual building did not even undergo window breakage during the interval leading up to the freefall collapse, whereas window breakage was quite conspicuous during the much smaller local collapse under the East Penthouse.  If, as NIST reported, the interior collapse of the majority of the building had been actually occurring, one would expect window breakage to be at least as evident as what was observed in the smaller collapse event.

When the simulated building starts to collapse, it does not enter freefall, whereas freefall is the most notable aspect of the actual collapse and the feature most in need of explanation.

The animation depicting the collapse of the simulated building is cut short. It does not cover the entire period of observed freefall. 

Therefore, NIST cannot justify its claim that freefall was consistent with its sequential collapse model. In fact, freefall is not consistent with any collapse model that does not involve the sudden removal of all supports across the entire width of the building.

 

3. In statements following the release of NIST’s Final Report, project director Shyam Sunder still struggled to come to terms with the reality of the observed period of freefall.  His claim, presumably speaking for NIST, was that we are not seeing the actual collapse, but only the north facade of the building. According to this explanation, the interior collapsed first (in progressive collapse, as described by their model), leaving the facade to fall at freefall as a separate event.

 

This explanation does not pass scrutiny, however, for four reasons:

 

There is video footage showing both the north and west faces of the building.  Both of these faces, along with the corners connecting to the south and east faces of the building, appear to remain stable and intact until the sudden onset of free fall.

The West Penthouse, and therefore the interior structure that supported it, did not fail until about a second before the onset of freefall. Therefore the interior of the building got no more than about half a story head start.[10]

Even though the smaller collapse of the East Penthouse brought about a brief period of window breakage, no further windows were broken until the onset of freefall, so it is not believable that total internal collapse was occurring.

The roiling clouds of debris that raced down the street, often likened to pyroclastic flow, did not occur until the visible collapse of the building. If the interior of the building had collapsed earlier, we would expect the flow of debris to have started earlier.

 

 

Conclusion

 

We can conclude that the computer simulations do not, in fact, correlate to the key features of the building collapse. NIST’s attempt to “decouple†developments in the unseen interior of the building from what happened to its easily observable exterior is, therefore, contrary to evidence. NIST’s position appears to be no more than an attempt to evade legitimate questions.

 

This conclusion is reinforced by NIST’s refusal to release its computer models, combined with the fact that progressive collapse resulting in freefall could never be replicated experimentally – for the simple reason that a progressive collapse involving freefall is physically impossible.

[purpleronnie]

If any of the conspiracy theorists come up with any evidence (that they must be hiding :xmaslaugh: ) that proves the biggest cover up in history then maybe they should team up with some media outlet and collect the Pulitzer.

[Rincewind]

went into the Works today they have a sale (closing down0 and they have a book DVD set £2.99 JFK Conspiracy Therories.

Probably rubbish though. Just had to smile when I saw it.

[purpleronnie]

 

it doesn't matter if it can be linked specifically to WTC 1,  2, or   7 , there shouldn't be molten steel  ANYWHERE in the rubble  of the WTC  or any of the basements.  Molten steel = temps too high for fires. Simples 

Where did it come from ?

 

Are you sure it was there or do you just believe it? There are many examples of reports of "molten steel" outside of 9/11.

[Zingari]

Are you sure it was there or do you just believe it? There are many examples of reports of "molten steel" outside of 9/11.

Ordinary  fires cannot melt steel  .

if it can please show me examples of it because i worked with steel for 20 years and never in all that time did i see steel reach temperatures anywhere near hot enough to melt it. It takes oxy acetylene torches , or blast furnaces etc . And in the highly unlikely event of the temperature being high enough , it would have to be throughout the whole building and in the case of the South tower , all happening within an hour of the impact with workers and firefighters still inside.  

 

 

Yes I believe there was molten steel at the WTC .site. Why not? 

 

Presumably you are now going to direct me to one of the many debunking sites that keep springing up. There are far too many to read , but i really have read a few . The problem is these sites themselves are contradictory .

 

But broadly speaking they broadly fall into 3 main categories

 

 A , Complete denial there is any molten steel because fire cannot  reach high enough temps. ( john gross Nist  etc) . Meaning the buildings collapsed without temps hot enough to melt steel but was the result of expansion and warping simultaneously shattering the joints.  ( contradicting B and C )

 

B Acceptance of molten steel , but it was caused plane impact and raging fiires , meaning that simple fire can reach temperatures capable of melting steel thus causing a collapse. ( contradicting A and C)

 

C Reactions underground after the collapse . Meaning that the molten steel appeared "after" the buildings collapsed and so was not a factor in the

collapse( contradicting A and B ? )

 

So  it seems the debunkers can't agree which is the true debunking theory  , because to accept any option you needs to dismiss the other 2. If you accept A  then B and C become false etc etc. 

 

Are there any other debunking theories that don't fall broadly into the 3 I've stated ?  If so please direct me to it , but of course it will probably have to contradict A,B,and C.

 

So why not accept there was molten steel that wasn't caused by ordinary fire and it resulted in the collapse   ? result = controlled demolition .

 

i really am getting too old for all this , :xmasbiggrin:  :xmaswink:

[purpleronnie]

 

 

 

Yes I believe there was molten steel at the WTC .site. Why not? 

 

 

 

no proof then?...thought not.

[Zingari]

no proof then?...thought not.

 

At the risk of being very very repetetive , please watch this 3 minute video containing evidence of "molten steel" .

Even Rudy fookin Giuliana  is saying there was  temps of 2000 degrees( is he lying about it too?

 

http://youtu.be/tm3Ot1JxNdE

[MooseBreath]

Where's the evidence of molten steel? They're saying "molten steel" but do they know the difference between steel made hot enough to lose strength and molten, or that incandescence doesn't imply the steel was molten?

What relevance to this supposed "molten steel" found at the twin towers have to WTC7?

[purpleronnie]

Nope

 

 

At the risk of being very very repetetive , please watch this 3 minute video containing evidence of "molten steel" .

Even Rudy fookin Giuliana  is saying there was  temps of 2000 degrees( is he lying about it too?

 

http://youtu.be/tm3Ot1JxNdE

 

Nope couldn't see any molten metal either.

[Zingari]

Where's the evidence of molten steel? They're saying "molten steel" but do they know the difference between steel made hot enough to lose strength and molten, or that incandescence doesn't imply the steel was molten?

What relevance to this supposed "molten steel" found at the twin towers have to WTC7?

did you hear what was being said ? do you actually know how steel becomes "fused" together  ?

show me an example of metal beams being fused together ( ie welded) using ordinary fire , you can even use jet fuel if you want  , i'd love to see it .

 

i accept it's nothing directly to do with 7 but there shouldn't be any molten steel anywhere at the site.

[Mike Oxlong]

So, the US government want to bring down WTC 7 as part of some broader plan to go to war. They have infinite resources and expertise to utilise but the best they can do is bring down the building in a way that is said to be entirely consistent with a controlled demolition. Right, I think I understand!