Eots why did wtc 7 collapse

[The Infidel]

so what ?..gravity. suddenly increased..?.or did the structures integrity suddenly decrease and if so...why ?

Yes.... it was on fire!

This is stupid.... Im out!

good because you are stupid if you think fire is an explanation for a complete collapse at near free fall speed...the only way NIST could explain this "extraordinary event" and the discovery of a "new kind of collapse"
is through a computer simulation that is clearly invalid

I bet you dont believe we landed on the moon either... and there are lil red men on Mars.
Eots... your just plain silly.

Have fun trying to prove the earth is flat and that fire dont melt steel.

What a wack job

 

[eots]

so then that leaves us with why

Elevated temperatures of steel decrease the yield strength; clearly a proven fact.

There you go again with facts!

this fact does not account for a complete and symmetrical collapse of a steel frame building at near free fall speed especially with unevenly distrusted office fires...the only way NIST could do that is with a flawed computer simulation with all the data tweaked to the lowest possible levels of probability and still it fails

 

[ohio_golfer]

so what ?..gravity. suddenly increased..?.or did the structures integrity suddenly decrease and if so...why ?

Yes.... it was on fire!

This is stupid.... Im out!

good because you are stupid if you think fire is an explanation for a complete collapse at near free fall speed...the only way NIST could explain this "extraordinary event" and the discovery of a "new kind of collapse"
is through a computer simulation that is clearly invalid

It's either free-fall speed or it isn't.

I saw 3 buildings collapse that day; 2 were hit by planes and 1 was hit by falling debris of another building. All 3 sustained structural damage and were on fire before they collapsed.

Other than that, there's is no evidence of anything else happening.

 

[ohio_golfer]

Elevated temperatures of steel decrease the yield strength; clearly a proven fact.

There you go again with facts!

this fact does not account for a complete and symmetrical collapse of a steel frame building at near free fall speed especially with unevenly distrusted office fires...the only way NIST could do that is with a flawed computer simulation with all the data tweaked to the lowest possible levels of probability and still it fails

You are free to offer your explanation and/or theory.

 

[eots]

Yes.... it was on fire!

This is stupid.... Im out!

good because you are stupid if you think fire is an explanation for a complete collapse at near free fall speed...the only way NIST could explain this "extraordinary event" and the discovery of a "new kind of collapse"
is through a computer simulation that is clearly invalid

I bet you dont believe we landed on the moon either... and there are lil red men on Mars.
Eots... your just plain silly.

Have fun trying to prove the earth is flat and that fire dont melt steel.

What a wack job

I bet.. people unable to debate with facts will inject strawmen into the debate...
in a flailing attempt to distract from that fact and...btw fire in and of itself will not melt steel...dumbass

 

[ohio_golfer]

...btw fire in and of itself will not melt steel...dumbass

The steel was not melted nor was it required to melt for the structure to fail.

Why do you bring that strawman into this discussion?

 

[eots]

Yes.... it was on fire!

This is stupid.... Im out!

good because you are stupid if you think fire is an explanation for a complete collapse at near free fall speed...the only way NIST could explain this "extraordinary event" and the discovery of a "new kind of collapse"
is through a computer simulation that is clearly invalid

It's either free-fall speed or it isn't.

I saw 3 buildings collapse that day; 2 were hit by planes and 1 was hit by falling debris of another building. All 3 sustained structural damage and were on fire before they collapsed.

Other than that, there's is no evidence of anything else happening.

thats one of the dumbest things of have ever heard of course something can be near free fall..it is a measurable thing..and NIST describes the collapse as near free fall... furthermore NIST states structural damage played no significant role in the collapse and that fire without damage would of created the same result

 

[eots]

...btw fire in and of itself will not melt steel...dumbass

The steel was not melted nor was it required to melt for the structure to fail.

Why do you bring that strawman into this discussion?

i

Have fun trying to prove the earth is flat and that fire dont melt steel.

it is not a strawman it is a correction to your "fire dont melt steel" comment

 

[ohio_golfer]

thats one of the dumbest things of have ever heard of course something can be near free fall..it is a measurable thing..and NIST describes the collapse as near free fall... furthermore NIST states structural damage played no significant role in the collapse and that fire without damage would of created the same result

So was it free-fall speed or not? And how does that tie into your yet to be announced theory?

 

[ohio_golfer]

...btw fire in and of itself will not melt steel...dumbass

The steel was not melted nor was it required to melt for the structure to fail.

Why do you bring that strawman into this discussion?

it is not a strawman it is a correction to your "fire dont melt steel" comment

I challenge you to link to a post where I stated "fire dont melt steel".

 

[Fizz]

"The many visual images (massive structural members being hurled horizontally, huge pyroclastic clouds, etc.) leave no doubt in my mind explosives were involved [in the destruction of the World Trade Center]." AE911Truth.org

wrong building.

 

[Fizz]

this is one unidentified person..

Miller from NYFD Engine 15. dont believe me then go ask him.
now he's identified. how does that change his statement?

and if he is correct then multiple identified first responders and nist and the computer simulation they base there conclusions on is invalid...

no.

 

[eots]

this is one unidentified person..

Miller from NYFD Engine 15. dont believe me then go ask him.
now he's identified. how does that change his statement?

and if he is correct then multiple identified first responders and nist and the computer simulation they base there conclusions on is invalid...

no.

you telling me ..who ..you say someone is is a unidentified firefighter to me and NIST calculated no such leans in it therefore there computer model would be invalid..you cant have it both ways

 

[eots]

The steel was not melted nor was it required to melt for the structure to fail.

Why do you bring that strawman into this discussion?

it is not a strawman it is a correction to your "fire dont melt steel" comment

I challenge you to link to a post where I stated "fire dont melt steel".

Have fun trying to prove the earth is flat and that fire dont melt steel

http://www.usmessageboard.com/conspiracy-theories/135509-eots-why-did-wtc-7-collapse-9.html

my apologizes it was infidel who thinks fire melts steel

 

[eots]

thats one of the dumbest things of have ever heard of course something can be near free fall..it is a measurable thing..and NIST describes the collapse as near free fall... furthermore NIST states structural damage played no significant role in the collapse and that fire without damage would of created the same result

So was it free-fall speed or not? And how does that tie into your yet to be announced theory?

a structure can not fall at freefall or near freefall and symmetrically unless all of the main supports fail at the same instance and there is little or no resistance

 

[KissMy]

There were Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS) battery rooms on some floors of the Twin Towers and Buildings 7. These battery rooms supplied continuous battery power to computers if the electricity failed for any reason. These batteries produce massive current that will melt steel. They contained tons of acid that eats through & erode steel & lead which melts at low temperatures [327 C (621 F)]. The heat from the fires in the debris pile could easily have melted this lead, the aluminum from the plane & aluminum from the tower's cladding which were the most likely to be the metals that were seen flowing from the 81st floor of Tower 2 & through the rubble pile.

NIST reported UPS in the 13th floor of Building 7 and the 81st floor of Tower 2. These batteries contained large quantities of acid that eat through & erode steel & concrete. This is the most likely cause of the eroded steel samples logged into forensic evidence from WTC-7.

 

[eots]

There were Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS) battery rooms on some floors of the Twin Towers and Buildings 7. These battery rooms supplied continuous battery power to computers if the electricity failed for any reason. These batteries produce massive current that will melt steel. They contained tons of acid that eats through & erode steel & lead which melts at low temperatures [327 C (621 F)]. The heat from the fires in the debris pile could easily have melted this lead, the aluminum from the plane & aluminum from the tower's cladding which were the most likely to be the metals that were seen flowing from the 81st floor of Tower 2 & through the rubble pile.

NIST reported UPS in the 13th floor of Building 7 and the 81st floor of Tower 2. These batteries contained large quantities of acid that eat through & erode steel & concrete. This is the most likely cause of the eroded steel samples logged into forensic evidence from WTC-7.

hey stoopid why don't you ever post a link..to your bullshit ??

 

[ohio_golfer]

it is not a strawman it is a correction to your "fire dont melt steel" comment

I challenge you to link to a post where I stated "fire dont melt steel".

Have fun trying to prove the earth is flat and that fire dont melt steel

That quoted post isn't from me, which is why you didn't link back to it.

Why is it "truthers" lie to make their case?

 

[eots]

I challenge you to link to a post where I stated "fire dont melt steel".

Have fun trying to prove the earth is flat and that fire dont melt steel

That quoted post isn't from me, which is why you didn't link back to it.

Why is it "truthers" lie to make their case?

my mistake,you are correct and it was infidel that believes fire melts steel
I got my "debunkers mixed up" ...it happens

 

[KissMy]

There were Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS) battery rooms on some floors of the Twin Towers and Buildings 7. These battery rooms supplied continuous battery power to computers if the electricity failed for any reason. These batteries produce massive current that will melt steel. They contained tons of acid that eats through & erode steel & lead which melts at low temperatures [327 C (621 F)]. The heat from the fires in the debris pile could easily have melted this lead, the aluminum from the plane & aluminum from the tower's cladding which were the most likely to be the metals that were seen flowing from the 81st floor of Tower 2 & through the rubble pile.

NIST reported UPS in the 13th floor of Building 7 and the 81st floor of Tower 2. These batteries contained large quantities of acid that eat through & erode steel & concrete. This is the most likely cause of the eroded steel samples logged into forensic evidence from WTC-7.

hey stoopid why don't you ever post a link..to your bullshit ??

NIST confirms "UPS" on 81st floor of WTC2 was power supply; may explain glowing "fountain"