Major University Study Finds "Fire Did Not Bring Down Tower 7 On 9/11"

[Leo123]

Here are some excerpts from an, IMO, pretty good article that states the WTC collapse was NOT caused by fire alone. Nor was it caused by explosives. The cause is more complicated.

The WTC buildings were unique

"The towers were designed and built in the mid-1960s through the early 1970s. They represented a new approach to skyscrapers in that they were to be very lightweight and involved modular construction methods in order to accelerate the schedule and to reduce the costs."

The plane impact

"The early news reports noted how well the towers withstood the initial impact of the aircraft; however, when one recognizes that the buildings had more than 1,000 times the mass of the aircraft and had been designed to resist steady wind loads of 30 times the weight of the aircraft, this ability to withstand the initial impact is hardly surprising. Furthermore, since there was no significant wind on September 11, the outer perimeter columns were only stressed before the impact to around 1/3 of their 200 MPa design allowable."

"The only individual metal component of the aircraft that is comparable in strength to the box perimeter columns of the WTC is the keel beam at the bottom of the aircraft fuselage. While the aircraft impact undoubtedly destroyed several columns in the WTC perimeter wall, the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure. Of equal or even greater significance during this initial impact was the explosion when 90,000 L gallons of jet fuel, comprising nearly 1/3 of the aircraft’s weight, ignited. The ensuing fire was clearly the principal cause of the collapse"


The fire

"The temperature of the fire was not uniform everywhere, and the temperature on the outside of the box columns was clearly lower than on the side facing the fire. The temperature along the 18 m long joists was certainly not uniform. Given the thermal expansion of steel, a 150°C temperature difference from one location to another will produce yield-level residual stresses. This produced distortions in the slender structural steel, which resulted in buckling failures. Thus, the failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire."

The collapse

"Nearly every large building has a redundant design that allows for loss of one primary structural member, such as a column. However, when multiple members fail, the shifting loads eventually overstress the adjacent members and the collapse occurs like a row of dominoes falling down. "

"The perimeter tube design of the WTC was highly redundant. It survived the loss of several exterior columns due to aircraft impact, but the ensuing fire led to other steel failures. Many structural engineers believe that the weak points—the limiting factors on design allowables—were the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure (see Figure 5). With a 700 Pa floor design allowable, each floor should have been able to support approximately 1,300 t beyond its own weight. The total weight of each tower was about 500,000 t."

"The World Trade Center was not defectively designed. No designer of the WTC anticipated, nor should have anticipated, a 90,000 L Molotov cocktail on one of the building floors. Skyscrapers are designed to support themselves for three hours in a fire even if the sprinkler system fails to operate. This time should be long enough to evacuate the occupants. The WTC towers lasted for one to two hours—less than the design life, but only because the fire fuel load was so large. No normal office fires would fill 4,000 square meters of floor space in the seconds in which the WTC fire developed. Usually, the fire would take up to an hour to spread so uniformly across the width and breadth of the building. This was a very large and rapidly progressing fire (very high heat but not unusually high temperature)."

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation

Your source is a fossil fuel shill, so taken with a grain af salt as a credible source for your argument. And they're wrong about the design flaw being partly the cause of total near-freefall collapse..

In fact the most important design flaw was the use of asbestos.
Port loses claim for asbestos removal - Business Insurance

I never mentioned a design flaw, in fact, if you actually READ the link I posted is says the buildings were NOT subject to any design flaw. Apparently you didn't even READ the article. They were adequately designed. BTW 'fossil fuel' was partially to blame for the collapse who would no better and a fossil fuel expert? WTC conspiracy nuts are such stupid fucks.

you are hardly in any position to be calling ANYBODY except yourself of course, a WTC conspiracy nut stupid fuck as i just proved in my previous post.

He just took you to school that your source you used is a fossil fuel shill same as i got done just saying so anything that article says has ZERO credibility ESPECIALLY since it avoids bld 7 the crux of the 9/11 cover up commission.


Tell your boss shill Tom Eager,how he failed as he ALWAYS has to disprove explosives brought down the towers.

There

Here are some excerpts from an, IMO, pretty good article that states the WTC collapse was NOT caused by fire alone. Nor was it caused by explosives. The cause is more complicated.

The WTC buildings were unique

"The towers were designed and built in the mid-1960s through the early 1970s. They represented a new approach to skyscrapers in that they were to be very lightweight and involved modular construction methods in order to accelerate the schedule and to reduce the costs."

The plane impact

"The early news reports noted how well the towers withstood the initial impact of the aircraft; however, when one recognizes that the buildings had more than 1,000 times the mass of the aircraft and had been designed to resist steady wind loads of 30 times the weight of the aircraft, this ability to withstand the initial impact is hardly surprising. Furthermore, since there was no significant wind on September 11, the outer perimeter columns were only stressed before the impact to around 1/3 of their 200 MPa design allowable."

"The only individual metal component of the aircraft that is comparable in strength to the box perimeter columns of the WTC is the keel beam at the bottom of the aircraft fuselage. While the aircraft impact undoubtedly destroyed several columns in the WTC perimeter wall, the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure. Of equal or even greater significance during this initial impact was the explosion when 90,000 L gallons of jet fuel, comprising nearly 1/3 of the aircraft’s weight, ignited. The ensuing fire was clearly the principal cause of the collapse"


The fire

"The temperature of the fire was not uniform everywhere, and the temperature on the outside of the box columns was clearly lower than on the side facing the fire. The temperature along the 18 m long joists was certainly not uniform. Given the thermal expansion of steel, a 150°C temperature difference from one location to another will produce yield-level residual stresses. This produced distortions in the slender structural steel, which resulted in buckling failures. Thus, the failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire."

The collapse

"Nearly every large building has a redundant design that allows for loss of one primary structural member, such as a column. However, when multiple members fail, the shifting loads eventually overstress the adjacent members and the collapse occurs like a row of dominoes falling down. "

"The perimeter tube design of the WTC was highly redundant. It survived the loss of several exterior columns due to aircraft impact, but the ensuing fire led to other steel failures. Many structural engineers believe that the weak points—the limiting factors on design allowables—were the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure (see Figure 5). With a 700 Pa floor design allowable, each floor should have been able to support approximately 1,300 t beyond its own weight. The total weight of each tower was about 500,000 t."

"The World Trade Center was not defectively designed. No designer of the WTC anticipated, nor should have anticipated, a 90,000 L Molotov cocktail on one of the building floors. Skyscrapers are designed to support themselves for three hours in a fire even if the sprinkler system fails to operate. This time should be long enough to evacuate the occupants. The WTC towers lasted for one to two hours—less than the design life, but only because the fire fuel load was so large. No normal office fires would fill 4,000 square meters of floor space in the seconds in which the WTC fire developed. Usually, the fire would take up to an hour to spread so uniformly across the width and breadth of the building. This was a very large and rapidly progressing fire (very high heat but not unusually high temperature)."

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation

Your source is a fossil fuel shill, so taken with a grain af salt as a credible source for your argument. And they're wrong about the design flaw being partly the cause of total near-freefall collapse..

In fact the most important design flaw was the use of asbestos.
Port loses claim for asbestos removal - Business Insurance

I never mentioned a design flaw, in fact, if you actually READ the link I posted is says the buildings were NOT subject to any design flaw. Apparently you didn't even READ the article. They were adequately designed. BTW 'fossil fuel' was partially to blame for the collapse who would no better and a fossil fuel expert? WTC conspiracy nuts are such stupid fucks.

you are hardly in any position to be calling ANYBODY except yourself of course, a WTC conspiracy nut stupid fuck as i just proved in my previous post.

He just took you to school that your source you used is a fossil fuel shill same as i got done just saying so anything that article says has ZERO credibility ESPECIALLY since it avoids bld 7 the crux of the 9/11 cover up commission.


Tell your boss shill Tom Eager,how he failed as he ALWAYS has to disprove explosives brought down the towers.

You proved nothing, have no evidence and are spouting gibberish. Also, your hyperbole personal insults prove you are an ignorant dolt who has nothing to rebut what I said except insults and dissing the link.

 

[hjmick]

Coyote flacaltenn Dont Taz Me Bro AyeCantSeeYou WillHaftawaite can we get a "shut the fuck up" option for this forum?

 

[the other mike]

Coyote flacaltenn Dont Taz Me Bro AyeCantSeeYou WillHaftawaite can we get a "shut the fuck up" option for this forum?

No. Now shut the fuck up.

 

[flacaltenn]

Coyote flacaltenn Dont Taz Me Bro AyeCantSeeYou WillHaftawaite can we get a "shut the fuck up" option for this forum?

You do realize what forum you're in -- right? The exits are clearly marked with an organizational map of the BilderBerger organization and a "skull and bones"..... Call the mod hotline for an emergency extraction if they are holding you hostage...

 

[Care4all]

All I know, is that WTC 7... collapsing the way it did, when it was not hit by planes, makes no sense.... it looks like it was brought down.... plus there is the tape of where it seems like it was ordered to be brought down....

I have no dog in this hunt... it makes no sense to me as to why, it would be brought down... which is the main reason it's hard to be certain it was brought down, though my eyes witnessed it apparently, being brought down...???


yeah, a real mind twister...



But why would building 7 need to be brought down... even if you did believe in the conspiracy that buildings 1 and 2 were brought down???

 

[the other mike]

All I know, is that WTC 7... collapsing the way it did, when it was not hit by planes, makes no sense.... it looks like it was brought down.... plus there is the tape of where it seems like it was ordered to be brought down....

I have no dog in this hunt... it makes no sense to me as to why, it would be brought down... which is the main reason it's hard to be certain it was brought down, though my eyes witnessed it apparently, being brought down...???

yeah, a real mind twister...

But why would building 7 need to be brought down... even if you did believe in the conspiracy that buildings 1 and 2 were brought down???

So as the story goes, the original lease-holders of the property- NY Port Authority were on the hook for a huge multi $ million cleanup bill to remove asbestos from all the buildings. Now, in comes the new owner Larry Silverstein (who coincidentally just prior to the attacks took out an $8 billion insurance policy, and was not at his Tower 7 office that day). In other words, instead of losing a billion dollars, he made around $7 billion. That's one big question. And yes, he apparently gave the go ahead to "pull it". ( Tower 7)

The next question is why was all the steel cut up and removed, sent to China to be destroyed, before a criminal investigation could take place ? Ashecroft, Chertoff and Guiliani were in charge I believe.

Because the steel was recycled so quickly, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) hardly had any steel to examine from the three towers.
Part 10: Minimal Wreckage to Study

 

[LA RAM FAN]

The mainstream media will not cover this.

On September 11, 2001, at 5:20 p.m., World Trade Center Building 7 suddenly collapsed into its own footprint, falling at free fall speed for 2.5 seconds of its seven-second complete destruction. WTC 7 was not hit by a plane. After it collapsed, Americans were told that office fires caused a unique — never before seen — complete architectural failure leading to the building collapsing into its own footprint at the rate of gravity.

Major University Study Finds "Fire Did Not Bring Down Tower 7 On 9/11"

Yeah not surprisingly you never a peep from the msm media about this since it shoots down the governments version of events.lol

 

[the other mike]

Yeah not surprisingly you never a peep from the msm media about this since it shoots down the governments version of events.lol

Except by accident.

 

[candycorn]

Here are some excerpts from an, IMO, pretty good article that states the WTC collapse was NOT caused by fire alone. Nor was it caused by explosives. The cause is more complicated.

The WTC buildings were unique

"The towers were designed and built in the mid-1960s through the early 1970s. They represented a new approach to skyscrapers in that they were to be very lightweight and involved modular construction methods in order to accelerate the schedule and to reduce the costs."

The plane impact

"The early news reports noted how well the towers withstood the initial impact of the aircraft; however, when one recognizes that the buildings had more than 1,000 times the mass of the aircraft and had been designed to resist steady wind loads of 30 times the weight of the aircraft, this ability to withstand the initial impact is hardly surprising. Furthermore, since there was no significant wind on September 11, the outer perimeter columns were only stressed before the impact to around 1/3 of their 200 MPa design allowable."

"The only individual metal component of the aircraft that is comparable in strength to the box perimeter columns of the WTC is the keel beam at the bottom of the aircraft fuselage. While the aircraft impact undoubtedly destroyed several columns in the WTC perimeter wall, the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure. Of equal or even greater significance during this initial impact was the explosion when 90,000 L gallons of jet fuel, comprising nearly 1/3 of the aircraft’s weight, ignited. The ensuing fire was clearly the principal cause of the collapse"


The fire

"The temperature of the fire was not uniform everywhere, and the temperature on the outside of the box columns was clearly lower than on the side facing the fire. The temperature along the 18 m long joists was certainly not uniform. Given the thermal expansion of steel, a 150°C temperature difference from one location to another will produce yield-level residual stresses. This produced distortions in the slender structural steel, which resulted in buckling failures. Thus, the failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire."

The collapse

"Nearly every large building has a redundant design that allows for loss of one primary structural member, such as a column. However, when multiple members fail, the shifting loads eventually overstress the adjacent members and the collapse occurs like a row of dominoes falling down. "

"The perimeter tube design of the WTC was highly redundant. It survived the loss of several exterior columns due to aircraft impact, but the ensuing fire led to other steel failures. Many structural engineers believe that the weak points—the limiting factors on design allowables—were the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure (see Figure 5). With a 700 Pa floor design allowable, each floor should have been able to support approximately 1,300 t beyond its own weight. The total weight of each tower was about 500,000 t."

"The World Trade Center was not defectively designed. No designer of the WTC anticipated, nor should have anticipated, a 90,000 L Molotov cocktail on one of the building floors. Skyscrapers are designed to support themselves for three hours in a fire even if the sprinkler system fails to operate. This time should be long enough to evacuate the occupants. The WTC towers lasted for one to two hours—less than the design life, but only because the fire fuel load was so large. No normal office fires would fill 4,000 square meters of floor space in the seconds in which the WTC fire developed. Usually, the fire would take up to an hour to spread so uniformly across the width and breadth of the building. This was a very large and rapidly progressing fire (very high heat but not unusually high temperature)."

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation

Your source is a fossil fuel shill, so taken with a grain af salt as a credible source for your argument. And they're wrong about the design flaw being partly the cause of total near-freefall collapse..

In fact the most important design flaw was the use of asbestos.
Port loses claim for asbestos removal - Business Insurance

I never mentioned a design flaw, in fact, if you actually READ the link I posted is says the buildings were NOT subject to any design flaw. Apparently you didn't even READ the article. They were adequately designed. BTW 'fossil fuel' was partially to blame for the collapse who would no better and a fossil fuel expert? WTC conspiracy nuts are such stupid fucks.

stupid fuck conspiracy nuts are people like you who ignore the laws of physics that were violated that day as well as ignoring the witness testimonys of the witnesses many being credible firefighters experienced in the sound of explosives,and brushing off their testimonys that they heard explosives in the basements before the plane hit as them lying, stupid fuck conspiracy nuts are people like you who ignore there are thousands of architects and engineers as well as demolition experts said the towers were brought down by explosives.



stupid fuck conspiracy nuts are people like you who ignore the people who initially gave reports that did not go along with the governments version of events of hearing explosions, ended up dying in mysterious deaths.

oh and you REALLY lost your credibility there with that debunked that old tiresome debunked bullshit propaganda bullshit many independent investigaters debunked that the ensuing fires was the principal cause of the collapse.

Oh and that propaganda article does not even mentioned Bld 7 I see which is the crux of the 9/11 coverup commissions that i addressed in my first post and proved explosives brought it down


Oh and you are REALLY getting desperate trying in your failed desperate attempt to try and debunk his thread by using Thomas Eager as your source,he has been exposed as a paid shill on the government payroll same as you are. Eager must have heard about this thread and sent you here. total miserable fail shill.

You’re cute when you get all worked up. No less pathetic but cute