Ground zero building catches fire, burns for 7 hours, doesn't collapse

jlew24asu

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

We were told in the media by Silverman (the guy who got big cash) it was unsalvagable. Hell, if I were him I be hoping on the insurance deal as well.

ok, so he said it was. I guess I'll leave this open for debate. although its crazy to think such a structure would be un-salvageable huh?

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

There are also video accounts of firefighters being told to stand around and let it burn instead of putting it out.

It still wouldn't have collapsed from fire and the minor structural damage though (according to all the official 9/11 engineers).

you are getting good at saying stuff like this with no back up. or something that even comes close to proof.

mammasan

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

We were told in the media by Silverman (the guy who got big cash) it was unsalvagable. Hell, if I were him I be hoping on the insurance deal as well.

There are also video accounts of firefighters being told to stand around and let it burn instead of putting it out.

It still wouldn't have collapsed from fire and the minor structural damage though (according to all the official 9/11 engineers).

When did the engineers examine the building? The time of their inspection is really critical to determining the accuracy of their report.

Also an engineer would have picked up on the tell tale signs of a demo job.

spiral out

stu gee wrote:

Why is it laughable? I think its a credible theory as to why it collapsed.

Id take people more seriously if you didnt come across as someone who thinks they know it all.

What some minor structural damage and small fires is reason? ok, like i said show me some proof of that happening before.

jlew24asu

spiral out wrote:

What some minor structural damage and small fires is reason? ok, like i said show me some proof of that happening before.

where are you guys getting MINIMAL damage and SMALL FIRES from???

there was nothing minimal or small about it

mammasan

Why is it that no one can answer as to when the inspection was carried out. Also what areas of the building where inspected? Did they only inspect the areas that where damaged by falling debris and fire or did they examine the foundation as well.

Solat13

This was on the History Channel last night as there was a special dealing with debunking the myths about 9/11. This was from the report made by Popular Mechanics Magazine:

Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors — along with the building's unusual construction — were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

jlew24asu wrote:

why wasnt it due to fire and hundreds of millions of tons of concrete and steel that crashed into the base?

because it's a boxed steel cage inside going all the way up, and everwhere supporting everything with extreme strength example: http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/89033/2/istockphoto_89033_steel_building_construction.jpg

It's an extremely strong and resilient construction method. This is why it's used.

All the many vertical columns can't just disappear at the exact same time.

This is what needs to happen for a free fall collapse in a steel building. The vertical supports would all have to snap at ever floor (and all at the same time) all the way down the entire building to get a free fall collapse..

It's physically impossible for that to happen. Especially in absolutely perfect symmetry.

It's just not enough to say it's "not likely". It's really an understatement how impossible it is to have a building do that from a little bit of damage.

Many, many parts of the building were not damaged at all....

Look at the Oklahoma building damage and it's still standing:
http://www.tedi.net/images/bomb.jpg

Steel buildings do not collapse. Not a single one has. Not like #7. Not ever.

stu gee

spiral out wrote:

What some minor structural damage and small fires is reason? ok, like i said show me some proof of that happening before.

It would probably be impossible to get proof as nothing like that had happened on that scale before, not even close!! I imagine the damage caused by those bulidings falling, which were fairly large structures i'll hope you agree, would be more than minor, perhaps more on the scale of a big fuck off earthquake actually!!

Now your tunr to give me proof that it happened the way you say it did. Remember, PROOF.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Solat13 wrote:

This was on the History Channel last night as there was a special dealing with debunking the myths about 9/11. This was from the report made by Popular Mechanics Magazine:

Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors — along with the building's unusual construction — were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.

Not a uniform collapse. So much of the building had 100% integrity. No way.

Look at the Oklahoma building. It should have done the same.

stu gee

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Not a uniform collapse. So much of the building had 100% integrity. No way.

Look at the Oklahoma building. It should have done the same.

Why should it have done the same? Im not saying i know everything about why a building falls or about different structures, but these were two very different buildings that had suffered two very different catastrophes.

Solat13

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Not a uniform collapse. So much of the building had 100% integrity. No way.

Look at the Oklahoma building. It should have done the same.

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

The perpetually perplexed will show you a photo of the Oklahoma City Federal Building and say "Gee, that didn't fall. If that didn't fall with more visible damage why should the WTC 7 fall?".

http://www.debunking911.com/okc.jpg

In someone’s need to question authority and seem smarter than the rest, they may forget an important fact. The OKC Federal building wasn't constructed the same as WTC7 and did not have its lower floors on fire for 6 hours. We can see clear as day that the building was not a tube in a tube design. We can see its lower floors weren't on fire. We can see the columns are covered in concrete. All from the same photo the conspiracy theorists use to show us how incredibly intelligent they are.

mammasan

Solat13 wrote:

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

The perpetually perplexed will show you a photo of the Oklahoma City Federal Building and say "Gee, that didn't fall. If that didn't fall with more visible damage why should the WTC 7 fall?".

http://www.debunking911.com/okc.jpg

In someone’s need to question authority and seem smarter than the rest, they may forget an important fact. The OKC Federal building wasn't constructed the same as WTC7 and did not have its lower floors on fire for 6 hours. We can see clear as day that the building was not a tube in a tube design. We can see its lower floors weren't on fire. We can see the columns are covered in concrete. All from the same photo the conspiracy theorists use to show us how incredibly intelligent they are.

Well done.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Solat13 wrote:

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

The perpetually perplexed will show you a photo of the Oklahoma City Federal Building and say "Gee, that didn't fall. If that didn't fall with more visible damage why should the WTC 7 fall?".

http://www.debunking911.com/okc.jpg

In someone’s need to question authority and seem smarter than the rest, they may forget an important fact. The OKC Federal building wasn't constructed the same as WTC7 and did not have its lower floors on fire for 6 hours. We can see clear as day that the building was not a tube in a tube design. We can see its lower floors weren't on fire. We can see the columns are covered in concrete. All from the same photo the conspiracy theorists use to show us how incredibly intelligent they are.

Regardless. Steel buildings do not collapse uniformly like #7 did from fire and random minor asymmetrical damage.

Actually fires do not even cause steel buildings to collapse.

jlew24asu

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Regardless. Steel buildings do not collapse uniformly like #7 did from fire and random minor asymmetrical damage.

Actually fires do not even cause steel buildings to collapse.

does fire weaken steel?

Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F. Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F

stu gee

Someone asked this before i think and wasnt answered, but why was the structure damage minor?

mammasan

jlew24asu wrote:

does fire weaken steel?

Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F. Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F

In the real world yes.

mammasan

stu gee wrote:

Someone asked this before i think and wasnt answered, but why was the structure damage minor?

The structural damage was not minor. FEMAs initial evaluation of WTC 7 was incorrect. Imagine that FEMA being wrong.

jlew24asu

mammasan wrote:

The structural damage was not minor. FEMAs initial evaluation of WTC 7 was incorrect. Imagine that FEMA being wrong.

its funny how people will say FEMA was 100% correct that there was minimal damage.

those same people will say, anything that comes from the government is total BS.

stu gee

jlew24asu wrote:

its funny how people will say FEMA was 100% correct that there was minimal damage.

those same people will say, anything that comes from the government is total BS.

Exactly. How do they choose what to believe? I think they just choose which ever way will benefit their argument at that point in time.

Cosmo

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

For 7 hours it burned...


"The 40 story Deutsche Bank building next to the ground zero site in New York, where the world trade center once stood, caught fire yesterday and burned intensely for seven hours without collapsing

This represents another modern day miracle in light of the commonly accepted premise that since 9/11, all steel buildings that suffer limited fire damage implode within two hours. This building had even suffered structural damage on 9/11 and had been partially dismantled.

The raging fire, which killed two firefighters, was finally declared under control late saturday afternoon, a full seven hours after it had begun to burn.

On 9/11 the south tower of the WTC burned for just 56 minutes before collapsing, while the north tower lasted around an hour and 45 minutes. According to the official transcripts of the firefighter tapes, fires in both towers were almost out immediately before the collapses. "

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2007/190807Building.htm

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070818.wnyfire0818/BNStory/International/home

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2007/08/18/4428875-ap.html


Feel free to google "Deutsche Bank fire"

...
Which floor of the Deutsche Bank building did the fuel laden Boeing 767 crash into?