Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not to forget that at at the same time, charred bodies showed up in the Pentagon. Bodies with the right DNA, even.
Yeah, I saw those pictures of the bodies. I could have sworn that right after it happened, there was a video out that actually showed the plane flying into the building. I can't find it now so maybe it was pulled....or my memory is wrong.
Are these people claiming to know the extent of structural damage to 7?
If they are, based on what?
If not then their opinions can dismissed.
The government dismisses your theory.
It says WTC 7 was brought down by fire, not structural damage from falling debris.
The official narrative of relatively minor office fires on a few random floors, can cause total collapse of an entire modern skyscraper is pretty ridiculous, it never has before. But at least they are smart enough to know that asymmetrical structural damage does not cause symmetrical collapse of a modern steel-frame high-rise. Only expert planned controlled demolition can do that.
The heat from the uncontrolled fires caused steel floor beams and girders to thermally expand, leading to a chain of events that caused a key structural column to fail. The failure of this structural column then initiated a fire-induced progressive collapse of the entire building.
According to the report's probable collapse sequence, heat from the uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the lower floors of the east side of WTC 7, damaging the floor framing on multiple floors.
Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical column, Column 79, that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building (see Diagram 1). The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the 5th floor. Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of Column 79. This collapse of floors left Column 79 insufficiently supported in the east-west direction over nine stories.
The unsupported Column 79 then buckled and triggered an upward progression of floor system failures that reached the building's east penthouse. What followed in rapid succession was a series of structural failures. Failure first occurred all the way to the roof line-involving all three interior columns on the easternmost side of the building (79, 80, 81). Then, progressing from east to west across WTC 7, all of the columns failed in the core of the building (58 through 78). Finally, the entire façade collapsed.
How did the collapse of WTC 7 differ from the collapses of WTC 1 and WTC 2?
WTC 7 was unlike the WTC towers in many respects. WTC 7 was a more typical tall building in the design of its structural system. It was not struck by an aircraft. The collapse of WTC 7 was caused by a single initiating event-the failure of a northeast building column brought on by fire-induced damage to the adjacent flooring system and connections-which stands in contrast to the WTC 1 and WTC 2 failures, which were brought on by multiple factors, including structural damage caused by the aircraft impact, extensive dislodgement of the sprayed fire-resistive materials or fireproofing in the impacted region, and a weakening of the steel structures created by the fires.
The fires in WTC 7 were quite different from the fires in the WTC towers. Since WTC 7 was not doused with thousands of gallons of jet fuel, large areas of any floor were not ignited simultaneously as they were in the WTC towers. Instead, separate fires in WTC 7 broke out on different floors, most notably on Floors 7 to 9 and 11 to 13. The WTC 7 fires were similar to building contents fires that have occurred in several tall buildings where the automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present.
Last edited by cisco kid; 06-18-2017 at 11:00 PM..
Newsflash to our government: The recent London tower fire was much more serious than WTC 7.
A blazing inferno that engulfed the entire building
But it still stands
Why did it not collapse?
totally different construction
did the 'residential tower' have a ConED sub station build beneath it?? with 2 story high transformers??
did the 'residential tower' have 10' of thousand gallons of fuel tanks within it??
did the 'residential tower' have a ConED sub station build beneath it?? with 2 story high transformers??
did the 'residential tower' have 10' of thousand gallons of fuel tanks within it??
your twoofer appeal to false comparisons fails
Funny. Name one high-rise that has ever collapsed due to fire.
Should be easy since it happens all the time according to you.
did the 'residential tower' have a ConED sub station build beneath it?? with 2 story high transformers??
did the 'residential tower' have 10' of thousand gallons of fuel tanks within it??
Interesting theory about the substation. Too bad the government itself doesn't buy it.
25. Did the electrical substation beneath WTC 7 play a role in the fires or collapse?
No. There is no evidence that the electric substation contributed to the fires in WTC 7. The electrical substation continued working until 4:33 p.m. on Sept. 11, 2001. Alarms at the substation were monitored, and there were no signals except for one event early in the day. No smoke was observed emanating from the substation.
Special elements of the building's construction—namely trusses, girders, and cantilever overhangs, which were used to transfer loads from the building superstructure to the columns of the electric substation (over which WTC 7 was constructed) and foundation below—also did not play a significant role in the collapse.
What a bunch of nonsense. That's the only response your non-twoofer post deserves.
It is not. I already made it clear that Richard Gage's A&E troupe consists of very few engineers. Besides that, the only person I can find who ever had an actual connection to the WTC was a guy who said he work as an electrical contractor on the original construction in the 60s. Gage uses cardboard boxes to demonstrate the collapse on his YouTube video. Does that sound professional to you?
What you are trying to promote--for God knows what reason--sounds ridiculous to those of us who were there on 9/11 or worked at the site afterward. I know literally hundreds of engineers who were in the building that day and/or worked on the recovery and the rebuild. Some of them reviewed and commented on the draft NIST reports. Real engineers gathered at conferences worldwide in the wake of the collapses to study the construction and figure out how to build better and safer than before.
The idea that shadowy government figures were lurking about the WTC on 9/11 giving orders to the firefighters and the engineers, who complacently listened to them, is not even worthy of a bad movie script.
You kids sit reading crap on the Internet and swallow it without question. Get out into the real world.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.