Something for 9/11 Conspiracy loonies to read.

[SFC Ollie]

And again, the building never fell at free fall speed, only a part of it. The facade. Why? Because that's all that was still standing. Everything behind it had already fallen.

 

[Mr. Jones]

And again, the building never fell at free fall speed, only a part of it. The facade. Why? Because that's all that was still standing. Everything behind it had already fallen.

Yes the simultaneous removal of the load bearing columns will tend to do that, however the asymmetrical fire damage that was observed, could not account for that. The building should have toppled to the side of most damage and least resistance, and not fallen straight down.
NIST should release their model data so others can produce the same results.
Funny that NIST absolutely denied the 2.25 seconds of free fall, then had to admit to it, however never explaining it.
I guess they assume people like yourself will not ask questions, or think about it, or how such mass can be moved out of the way for this to occur.

 

[SFC Ollie]

None are so blind as those who refuse to see.

 

[paulitician]

None are so blind as those who refuse to see.

Yup.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv7BImVvEyk]WTC7 -- This is an Orange - YouTube[/ame]

 

[SFC Ollie]

And you still believe the video that does not show the 7 to 8 seconds of the internal collapse.

And answer me this; why is it when they are showing videos of controlled demolitions they have the audio of the explosions, but when they show the supposed controlled demolition of Building 7 they don't play the audio?

I know the answer, do you?

 

[paulitician]

And you still believe the video that does not show the 7 to 8 seconds of the internal collapse.

And answer me this; why is it when they are showing videos of controlled demolitions they have the audio of the explosions, but when they show the supposed controlled demolition of Building 7 they don't play the audio?

I know the answer, do you?

"Military Men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy." - Henry Kissinger

That's what New World Order Globalist assholes think about you. Still want to believe everything they tell you?

 

[daws101]

One of the biggest issues for 9/11 truthers seems to be their difficulty in comprehending how the crashes into the two main towers could have eventually caused the collapse of a third building.

Perhaps that is because NIST is not at all clear on just how that happened. Maybe you can explain it to us.
NIST in their report says that physical damage to the WTC 7 by the towers was NOT a cause of collapse or failure.
Why you defend a position that even NIST gave up on is beyond ignorant.
They don't even have a substantiated position on how the fires in WTC 7 even started.
The NIST authors have not proven their hypothesis regarding the fate of WTC 7, and the NIST conclusions are not based on physical evidence that can be tested and confirmed by others.
They frequently use the term " probable collapse sequence" to describe their hypothesis, but their report never quantifies this probability.
FEMA concluded that a fire induced collapse had only a low probability of occurrence.

Various hypotheses were considered for the initiation of complete global collapse. The possibilities considered by NIST included
(1) a fire-induced local failure leading to vertical and horizontal failure progression throughout the entire structural system, (2) a
fire-induced failure from burning diesel fuel leading to complete global collapse, and (3) a blast-induced demolition scenario.
According to NIST:

The leading hypothesis for the failure sequence that characterized
the initial local failure was based on fire-induced failure events in the
tenant floors.9
A heat-induced column failure hypothesis was quickly ruled out after concluding the fires were not hot enough for the duration of
time required to reduce the steel strength by 50 percent.
Therefore, it would not have been possible for a building contents fire to have heated a massive, insulated column such as Column 79 to the point of failure.10

In its brief dismissal of the controlled-demolition scenario, NIST argues that careful preparation of columns for demolition could not be accomplished without detection, and ''Controlled
demolition usually prepares most, if not all, interior columns in a building with explosive charges, not just one column."12

While NCSTAR authors imply that demolition of multiple columns would be required and unlikely, the same authors conclude that the
buckling failure of a single column was sufficient to trigger a complete progressive collapse of the entire building. If a single-
column failure could bring the entire building down, it does not matter how that column was removed.
If a man-made collapse required extensive preparation to
deliberately break every column on multiple floors, then a "natural" single-column failure could not possibly cause rapid, symmetrical,
and complete global collapse—straight down in classic controlled-demolition style.

Observations for WTC 7 do not
match the typical sequence of events
for a controlled demolition.
This collapse sequence is
inconsistent with a typical controlled
demolition…
13 --NIST

There are thousands of alert and well-informed citizens worldwide, including scientists, demolition experts, architects and structural engineers, who disagree with the preceding statements.

Furthermore, the collapse sequence referred to by NIST is the
one taking place during their computer simulation—a sequence of events invisible to witnesses and, to a significant extent,
under the control of NIST analysts.

Only fire-induced floor-system failure was seriously considered by NIST as the cause of collapse initiation. Abundant and well-
documented evidence suggesting the controlled demolition of WTC 7—including news videos, witnesses hearing explosions,
foreknowledge of the collapse, first-responder reports of molten metal in the debris, extreme surface temperatures recorded by NASA thermal imaging for weeks following the collapse, and evidence of melted structural steel—was simply ignored.14
It is difficult to imagine how anyone interested in establishing the likely technical cause of the building failure could
ignore evidence of a ''liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on
the steel."15
This was obviously not caused by an ordinary fire consuming only building contents.

http://www2.ae911truth.org/downloads/NIST_Analyses_Brookman.pdf?format=pdf

twoofer site ...invalid.

 

[daws101]

I wonder if anyone (meaning building engineers) has ever considered if any other columns were weakened by the fires that were burning for 7+ hours......

yes they did one weak beam could not could not have caused that collaspe


Conspiracy sites like to bring up the 'Symmetric Collapse' of building 7 and claim that the building should have fallen over to the south. They show grainy, dark photos of debris piles which were taken well after 9/11 and a debris pile with a grayish, smoky image of building 7 in the background. They deceptively show the north side which was relatively free of damage. As if the Tower should have reached over to the other side of the building and damaged that side too.

Here is what the debris pile looked like just after 9/11



Eerily, the north face is on the debris pile as if a shroud were laid gently over the dead building. It fell over after the majority of the building fell. This indicates that the south side of the building fell before the north. It's almost as if the buildings last words were "[This] did it!..".

And now comes the most important and telling fact in this photo. Note the west side (Right side in this photo) of the north face is pointing toward the east side (Left side of this photo) where the penthouse was. What caused this? It would not be unreasonable to expect the building to fall toward the path of least resistance. The path of least resistance in this case would be the hole in the back of the building and the hole left by the penthouse. Since the penthouse was on the east and the 20 story hole in the middle, that would make the east and middle the path of least resistance. The conspiracy sites agree with this theory but say it never happened. They say the fact that it didn't happen helps prove controlled demolition. But you see it happen here... What will they say now?

"But the building doesn't look like it fell over, it fell "in its own foot print" you might say. That's because it is impossible for a 47 story steel building to fall over like that. It's not a small steel reinforced concrete building like the ones shown as *Examples* of buildings which fell over. Building 7 is more like the towers, made up of many pieces put together. It's not so much a solid block as those steel reinforced concrete buildings.

This evidence supports the NIST contention that the building collapse progressed from the penthouse out as columns were weakened by the fires. The slow sinking of the penthouses, indicating the internal collapse of the building behind the visible north wall, took 8.2 seconds according to a NIST preliminary report. Seismograph trace of the collapse of WTC 7 indicates that parts of the building were hitting the ground for 18 seconds. This means the collapse took at least 18 seconds, of which only the last approximately 15 seconds are visible in videos: 8 seconds for the penthouses and 7 seconds for the north wall to come down.

Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - World Trade Center 7, Building 7

 

[paulitician]

...





To STFU and do as you're told!!!

 

[Rationalist1016]

The point is that a normal fire with only office material as combustibles, steel would not weaken, nor melt to cause damage to the steel, let alone cause a sudden onset of collapse.

"In WTC Building 5, this large column and beam buckled
on floor 8 of 9. The fire was fueled by office materials only.

Source: FEMA report on WTC 4, 5, and 6, page 15. Redirecting..."

Fire will INDEED weaken steel. That is why steel frame structures are "fire proofed".

 

[paulitician]

The point is that a normal fire with only office material as combustibles, steel would not weaken, nor melt to cause damage to the steel, let alone cause a sudden onset of collapse.

"In WTC Building 5, this large column and beam buckled
on floor 8 of 9. The fire was fueled by office materials only.

Source: FEMA report on WTC 4, 5, and 6, page 15. Redirecting..."

Fire will INDEED weaken steel. That is why steel frame structures are "fire proofed".

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.

 

[daws101]

...





To STFU and do as you're told!!!

that's called a dodge where I come from.

Spurred by conspiracy theorists' questions, investigators did look specifically at the possibility that explosives were involved. "Hypothetical blast events did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7," the report states, adding that investigators "found no evidence whose explanation required invocation of a blast event." Moreover, the smallest charge capable of initiating column failure "would have resulted in a sound level of 130 dB [decibels] to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile." Witnesses did not report hearing such a loud noise, nor is one audible on recordings of the collapse.



Read more: World Trade Center 7 Report Puts 9/11 Conspiracy Theory to Rest - Popular Mechanics

 

[paulitician]

...





To STFU and do as you're told!!!

that's called a dodge where I come from.

...





To get your Ass to GITMO!!!

Better?

 

[Rationalist1016]

The point is that a normal fire with only office material as combustibles, steel would not weaken, nor melt to cause damage to the steel, let alone cause a sudden onset of collapse.

"In WTC Building 5, this large column and beam buckled
on floor 8 of 9. The fire was fueled by office materials only.

Source: FEMA report on WTC 4, 5, and 6, page 15. Redirecting..."

Fire will INDEED weaken steel. That is why steel frame structures are "fire proofed".

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.

 

[Liability]

OK. WAR ON ALUMINUM.
Gawd blast murka !

Booger is still a Doucher, but his thumbnail is pretty amusing.

And, upon inspection, it's largely accurate.

 

[paulitician]

"In WTC Building 5, this large column and beam buckled
on floor 8 of 9. The fire was fueled by office materials only.

Source: FEMA report on WTC 4, 5, and 6, page 15. Redirecting..."

Fire will INDEED weaken steel. That is why steel frame structures are "fire proofed".

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.

The other buildings you mentioned were located directly beneath the towers and received far more damage than WTC 7 did. And they were all left standing. I pointed out the Murrah Building as just one example but there are many other examples showing what large buildings should look like after extensive damage. WTC 7 was incredibly unusual. Something just isn't right with this picture. It should have been better investigated. Unfortunately it's too late now. We'll never know what really happened.

 

[daws101]

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.

The other buildings you mentioned were located directly beneath the towers and received far more damage than WTC 7 did. And they were all left standing. I pointed out the Murrah Building as just one example but there are many other examples showing what large buildings should look like after extensive damage. WTC 7 was incredibly unusual. Something just isn't right with this picture. It should have been better investigated. Unfortunately it's too late now. We'll never know what really happened.

"The other buildings you mentioned were located directly beneath the towers and received far more damage than WTC 7 did."-aunt paulie
obviously not----if they had, they would have collapsed too

 

[paulitician]

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.

The other buildings you mentioned were located directly beneath the towers and received far more damage than WTC 7 did. And they were all left standing. I pointed out the Murrah Building as just one example but there are many other examples showing what large buildings should look like after extensive damage. WTC 7 was incredibly unusual. Something just isn't right with this picture. It should have been better investigated. Unfortunately it's too late now. We'll never know what really happened.

"The other buildings you mentioned were located directly beneath the towers and received far more damage than WTC 7 did."-aunt paulie
obviously not----if they had, they would have collapsed too

They were and they didn't.

 

[daws101]

The other buildings you mentioned were located directly beneath the towers and received far more damage than WTC 7 did. And they were all left standing. I pointed out the Murrah Building as just one example but there are many other examples showing what large buildings should look like after extensive damage. WTC 7 was incredibly unusual. Something just isn't right with this picture. It should have been better investigated. Unfortunately it's too late now. We'll never know what really happened.

"The other buildings you mentioned were located directly beneath the towers and received far more damage than WTC 7 did."-aunt paulie
obviously not----if they had, they would have collapsed too

They were and they didn't.

they did not burn for 7 hours so logically they could not have been as badly damaged (cue buzzer)thanks for playing!

 

[Rationalist1016]

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.

The other buildings you mentioned were located directly beneath the towers and received far more damage than WTC 7 did. And they were all left standing. I pointed out the Murrah Building as just one example but there are many other examples showing what large buildings should look like after extensive damage. WTC 7 was incredibly unusual. Something just isn't right with this picture. It should have been better investigated. Unfortunately it's too late now. We'll never know what really happened.

Yes, they were located beneath the towers and received more damage from the fall of the towers. But, they are still not and apples to apples comparisons to WTC 7. They were constructed differently and they were far "shorter" buildings. WTC 5 was 9 stories, as opposed to WTC 7 which was 47 stories. And also, there WAS structural failure in WTC 5 that was not caused by the initial impact of the towers. Floors collapsed between the 8th and 4th floors in eastern part of the building. Mainly due to the fires.
You say that WTC 7 was unusual. I agree. But these were "unusual" events. Unique circumstances. It's hard to compare the failure of a building that had parts of a larger building fall into it, to that of a "usual" office fire.