Those buildings were left standing. They resembled what large buildings should look like after extensive damage. WTC 7 did not. I have posted photos of these buildngs and others like the Murrah Building which clearly show WTC 7 was very unusual to say the least. Fire did not cause that perfectly symmetrical rapid collapse.
That was not the point of that picture. The point was to argue the claim that "normal fire with only office material as combustibles, steel would not weaken, nor melt to cause damage to the steel". The picture shows that it DOES damage steel.
As for comparing WTC 7 to the Murrah building...............why? They were constructed completely different and damage done to them was completely different. I'm not sure what your comparison is supposed to point out.
As for the collapse of WTC 7, it was FAR from symmetrical. The east penthouse fell into the building far ahead of the exterior walls. So the interior was failing first, which is completely consistent with interior columns failing due to fire.
And don't forget, that the FDNY had many people survey that building in the hours before it fell. It was no surprise to them when it fell. They had been expecting it all afternoon.
Don't forget the FDNY had many that heard, and experienced explosions, that were denied to have been heard or existed by NIST. They were present at the scene too.
So the interior was failing first, which is completely consistent with interior columns failing due to fire.
Please post where this is so historically consistent, due to fire?
Fire attacks steel, and then the steel dissipates throughout the building, meaning that if by chance the load bearing steel supports fail, it would fail towards the weakest points first, causing a very uneven collapse, not the straight down demolition we all have seen.
Your comments are indicative of someone that has not studied in detail just how steel reacts to fire, nor how the NIST testing failed to prove what you and they are claiming indeed happened.
NIST has only a theory, a weak and improbable one at that, that does not fit with the observed results, and as a government agency needed a narrative that corresponded with the governments.
Planes, jet fuel, fires, but leave out much important, relevant facts, and even witnesses. Barry Jennings is first that comes to mind.
If NIST is so sure about its hypothesis then why wont they allow independent study of their computer model data for replication purposes? Why deny 2.25 secs. of freefall.
Why did they deny the shear studs, then change the story again?
Why did they change the floors the fires were on and their temps?
Because they were caught red handed lying, and these facts were pointed out to them.
But NIST being the top dog with top people doing the study had to be
checked on these things, and made to acknowledge real facts.
They tried to lie and were caught, and can not be trusted.
How the hell can anybody not expect to see the facade distort while all this internal collapsing was taking place?
Was the outside of the building NOT attached to the rest of the internal parts?
Why was the lobby destroyed prior to the collapse of the tower that
allegedly caused damage to WTC 7?
The penthouse is proof that the internal structure was taken out like would occur in a CD, NOT BY RANDOM FIRES.
Fire can not by its very nature remove all the support at the precise time to cause a straight down collapse for the first 2.25 seconds unless it stays put in one place and achieves the required temps, which NIST has no proof that it did, and if it did it would have collapsed to that side first in a staggered manner.
Steel-framed skyscrapers have never collapsed from fire, since theyÂ’re built from steel that doesnÂ’t melt below 2750 degrees Fahrenheit. No fuel, not even jet fuel, which is really just refined kerosene, will burn hotter than 1500 degrees Fahrenheit.
To understand this, one must familiarize themselves with the nature of fire, and its effect on steel, and the conservation of energy and momentum as well.
The assumption of constant velocity of the falling mass ignores the immediate deceleration which would be felt by the falling mass, unless the falling mass had no resistance, which of course NIST said there was.
So why did the buildings fall so fast, and just short of the time it would take to drop a billiard ball from the tops?
Reply to NIST
