Proof to put the 9/11 Truthers to bed in less than 2 mins

[LouderVol]

The planerls were also going at speeds that are impossible for a 747 to reach at sea level.

The entire government narrative is flimsy. I'm actually surprised there are still people who believe it.

and the conspiracies have it all figured out? you are making a hypocritical argument.

 

[hndog609]

The planerls were also going at speeds that are impossible for a 747 to reach at sea level.

The entire government narrative is flimsy. I'm actually surprised there are still people who believe it.

This is just a small example (of a much larger picture) of not having any idea what you're talking about. None of the planes involved was a 747. Also, a 757 can reach the speeds attributed to the 9/11 event. Don't get lost in the difference between things like VMO and VNE speeds and what a plane is capable of doing vs what it's rated to do when not being used on a suicide mission.

Of course, coming from a guy who was still buying the "free fall" collapse it shouldn't be surprising.

 

[Grand Vol]

This is just a small example (of a much larger picture) of not having any idea what you're talking about. None of the planes involved was a 747. Also, a 757 can reach the speeds attributed to the 9/11 event. Don't get lost in the difference between things like VMO and VNE speeds and what a plane is capable of doing vs what it's rated to do when not being used on a suicide mission.

Of course, coming from a guy who was still buying the "free fall" collapse it shouldn't be surprising.

Actually, I thought the planes were racist and sought out the buildings because they were dark colored.

White planes, dark buildings. Makes as much sense as anything else.

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

and the conspiracies have it all figured out? you are making a hypocritical argument.

Well this is your fallacy. The conspiracy doesn't have to have anything figured.

Merely pointing out flaws in the government narrative is sufficient.

The government is the one with the burden of proof. Not the people who are pointing out the flaws.

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

This is just a small example (of a much larger picture) of not having any idea what you're talking about. None of the planes involved was a 747. Also, a 757 can reach the speeds attributed to the 9/11 event. Don't get lost in the difference between things like VMO and VNE speeds and what a plane is capable of doing vs what it's rated to do when not being used on a suicide mission.

Of course, coming from a guy who was still buying the "free fall" collapse it shouldn't be surprising.

Not at sea level without ripping apart.

The max velocity of large aircraft is made while taking into consideration the fact they will be flying 30,000 feet in the air where there is less air resistance. At sea level the maximum speed the planes can go without suffering major damage is much lower than the max speeds they can get when they are 30,000 feet in the air.

 

[LouderVol]

Well this is your fallacy. The conspiracy doesn't have to have anything figured.

Merely pointing out flaws in the government narrative is sufficient.

The government is the one with the burden of proof. Not the people who are pointing out the flaws.

show me real flaws and I will agree. Now i definitely want to know what is on that 28 pages that is missing.

you are making a flat world argument. You are arguing the world is flat because of what you can perceive while ignoring the science and photographic evidence against it. but because you are calling some things into question you think that invalidates the argument that the world is a sphere is false?

I don't know of any fact or scientific theory, accepted or not, that doesn't have some questions and doubters. so the presence of questions or doubters in and of itself doesn't raise a red flag.

 

[hndog609]

Not at sea level without ripping apart.

The max velocity of large aircraft is made while taking into consideration the fact they will be flying 30,000 feet in the air where there is less air resistance. At sea level the maximum speed the planes can go without suffering major damage is much lower than the max speeds they can get when they are 30,000 feet in the air.

I'm fully aware and again, as stated earlier, you are incorrect because what you are trying to cite is based on intended usage. The planes involved (which again was not even the type of craft you originally cited) were in no way, shape or form being used in in manner covered in the user's manual. When the pilots don't give a damn about the safety/integrity of the aircraft the manufacturer's spec sheets go a bit out the window.

What do you think a submarine captain would say if you asked him how deep his craft could TRULY go? Once you understand the answer to that question (and it's a really, really easy answer) you'll have gained some insight on the other question.

 

[DC_Vol]

Here's what I get: it's damn embarrassment that this thread is the top of the politics forum.

I thought it was going to be wrapped up in 2 minutes, and here we are weeks later and the truthers still haven't gone to sleep.

 

[Orangedogsrule]

Well this is your fallacy. The conspiracy doesn't have to have anything figured.

Merely pointing out flaws in the government narrative is sufficient.

The government is the one with the burden of proof. Not the people who are pointing out the flaws.

Well, ya know, they have to be REAL flaws, instead of BS fairytales made up out of a lack of understanding of engineering and sciences or blinded by a predeliction towards believing wild conspiracy theories.

But rediculously parrotting "jet fuel don't burn unless atomized...jet fuel won't melt steel...the temps couldn't get that hot ...big jets don't fly that fast, yada yada yada, doesn't do anything but provide proof of the poster's lack of, or incapability of, understanding of the science behind the collapse of the WTC towers.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

But rediculously parrotting "jet fuel don't burn unless atomized...

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nL10C7FSbE[/youtube]

jet fuel won't melt steel...the temps couldn't get that hot

No, I even converted it to Farenheit!

Aluminum is a pyrophoric metal and it burns at 1800°C = 3272°F

1800°C = 3272°F

Also, from:

https://www.google.com/amp/www.popul...-trade-center/

...sic..."Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F

 

[Orangedogsrule]

Go ahead and post all these demos you wish. I can post just as many.

But think about this, the operating temperature of the jet engines was about 3600°F.

Perdue University produced this finite element analysis with a computer graphic overlay. They run several cases but pay attention to:

1: The physical structural damage the momentum of jet structure would impart.

2: The physical damage the mometum of the fuel in the two wing tanks and fuselage tank would impart.

3. A fuel particle dispersion analysis of the tanks as they are of course destroyed as they impact the steel structures.

https://youtu.be/gH02Eh44yUg

A huge fraction of that jet fuel in your demo above is turned into a mist as it's mass is continually impacting structural members, glass, furniture, stripping fireproofing off of steel. So...

We DO INDEED HAVE THAT ATOMIZATION YOUR DEMO SHOWS...easily.

But the silly thing about that demo?...instead of an ambient temperature small mouth mason jar where an no draft to feed oxygen to the flame is; put that jet fuel in a hot cookie sheet heated and it will burn just fine. As would pooled fuel which did not become globulized and explode or rapidly combust but settled onto what was now preheated surfaces, and it will and did burn.

And then there's the jet engines at about 3600F and their titanium turbine shafts getting stripped of their shrouds and vanes and all those superheated pieces igniting anything they touch that will burn.

BOOM! We have an inferno. And so much of the aluminum igniting and burning @ about 3200F, can puddle steel. Burning up against the steel there would be those little particles of iron/aluminum formed, and wow.

Now, watch this scientist's computer graphics development of a momentum impact failure simulation of the collapsing towers. It even accurately predicts the length of time it took for each tower to "freeeee fallllll". (chuckle, chuckle)

https://youtu.be/vzInIjD6nKw

And this one using the "Blender" program developing at least seven different collapse sequences where various material and structural propertys are varied..all producing virtually the same collapse sequence.

https://youtu.be/4_J7ak_IZXk

Once again, I'm done with this for a while. Maybe I'll come back for another episode of Fifty First Dates after I get all the Christmas stuff done and all the leaves up and read a couple of books, take the wife out a few times. Go fishing...
.....

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Go ahead and post all these demos you wish. I can post just as many.

But think about this, the operating temperature of the jet engines was about 3600°F.

Perdue University produced this finite element analysis with a computer graphic overlay. They run several cases but pay attention to:

1: The physical structural damage the momentum of jet structure would impart.

2: The physical damage the mometum of the fuel in the two wing tanks and fuselage tank would impart.

3. A fuel particle dispersion analysis of the tanks as they are of course destroyed as they impact the steel structures.

https://youtu.be/gH02Eh44yUg

A huge fraction of that jet fuel in your demo above is turned into a mist as it's mass is continually impacting structural members, glass, furniture, stripping fireproofing off of steel. So...

We DO INDEED HAVE THAT ATOMIZATION YOUR DEMO SHOWS...easily.

But the silly thing about that demo?...instead of an ambient temperature small mouth mason jar where an no draft to feed oxygen to the flame is; put that jet fuel in a hot cookie sheet heated and it will burn just fine. As would pooled fuel which did not become globulized and explode or rapidly combust but settled onto what was now preheated surfaces, and it will and did burn.

And then there's the jet engines at about 3600F and their titanium turbine shafts getting stripped of their shrouds and vanes and all those superheated pieces igniting anything they touch that will burn.

BOOM! We have an inferno. And so much of the aluminum igniting and burning @ about 3200F, can puddle steel. Burning up against the steel there would be those little particles of iron/aluminum formed, and wow.

Now, watch this scientist's computer graphics development of a momentum impact failure simulation of the collapsing towers. It even accurately predicts the length of time it took for each tower to "freeeee fallllll". (chuckle, chuckle)

https://youtu.be/vzInIjD6nKw

And this one using the "Blender" program developing at least seven different collapse sequences where various material and structural propertys are varied..all producing virtually the same collapse sequence.

https://youtu.be/4_J7ak_IZXk

Once again, I'm done with this for a while. Maybe I'll come back for another episode of Fifty First Dates after I get all the Christmas stuff done and all the leaves up and read a couple of books, take the wife out a few times. Go fishing...
.....

And as has been stated several times, what fuel that did burn on impact was burned immediately or soon after impact. It was not sitting there burning for an hour or for however long the towers were standing after impact before they began to collapse.

Still doesn't explain WTC 7...

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

And then there's the jet engines at about 3600F and their titanium turbine shafts getting stripped of their shrouds and vanes and all those superheated pieces igniting anything they touch that will burn.

BOOM! We have an inferno. And so much of the aluminum igniting and burning @ about 3200F, can puddle steel. Burning up against the steel there would be those little particles of iron/aluminum formed, and wow.

Where are you getting these temperature values from?

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

The jet fuel fire in the core was fed air by the chimney effect of the draft up the compromised service shafts. (elevators, stairs, hvac where fire dampers also compromised) While some large fraction of the fuel was consumed in the initial fireball, anyone with a smattering exposure to flame propagation in liquid combustibles would know it would not all burn up. But as the contained heat vaporized more and more, ...yep. And I do not want to hear the "throw a match in a can of desiel fuel, it'll go out. (jet fuel basically high grade desiel with an additive or two). You sure can light it if you hold a fire to it. It will burn cool in a pool. It will burn hotter when fire induced, chimney effect, drafts are available from the service core AND penetrated exterior walls.

There is no way you will convince me that the remaining jet fuel with the help of simple convection/chimney effect is going to burn hotter under these conditions (3200 F as you have been adamantly claiming) than jet fuel in a moving jet engine (which was shown in one of the links that you provided only burns to at most 1500 F).

 

[LouderVol]

There is no way you will convince me that the remaining jet fuel with the help of simple convection/chimney effect is going to burn hotter under these conditions (3200 F as you have been adamantly claiming) than jet fuel in a moving jet engine (which was shown in one of the links that you provided only burns to at most 1500 F).

depending on a crap ton of variables the wind in that chimney can easily reach 20+ mph. this isn't some light draft.

and he hasn't said the fuel burns at 3200 just that the jet engines operate at that.

 

[Orangedogsrule]

There is no way you will convince me that the remaining jet fuel with the help of simple convection/chimney effect is going to burn hotter under these conditions (3200 F as you have been adamantly claiming) than jet fuel in a moving jet engine (which was shown in one of the links that you provided only burns to at most 1500 F).

You have mis-understood my post Ras. Read it again and let it sink in. Let your subconsious work on it. Go back and read everything I have said in this whole thread. Jet fuel burn temps in *open air* (700°-1500°F) IS NOT jet fuel that has been oxygenated, compressed and atomized under high pressure nozzles into a jet engines combustion chamber and burns up to 3200°F.

Now all the fuel will not burn, but what does preheats building components that won't burn and ignites EVERYTHING it contacts on those damaged floors (furniture, computers, etc.) where the fuel entered the building that will.

What doesn't burn or continue through the building puddles on the rapidly heating floors and begins to burn at much lower fuel rich black smoke temps.

VOLATILITY

××××vvvv Especially vvvv××××
Not a backyard experimenter with obvious testing flaws

https://youtu.be/N2TMVDYpp2Q

××××^^^^ Especially ^^^^××××


Now, examine catenary action (sagging) of failing floor joists and the torque and tension they impart on their overheated interior and exterior column connections and that now many columns with the fire protection blasted away are exposed to a temperature EASILY, EASILY hot enough to render them no longer viable to support the floors above given all the physical collision damage to exterior and interior column systems.

And finally, from JOM the Journal of Minerals Metals and Materials Society.

The Role of Metallurgy in the NIST Investigation of the World Trade Center Towers Collapse

G'day

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

The September 11 Financial Heist: ?Follow The 9/11 Money Trail? | Global Research - Centre for Research on Globalization

Some of you need to take the government blindfold off and use your head for something other than a hat rack. We will likely never know all the details about how much shady stuff was connected with 9/11. But hey, keep on believing that the US govrenment is this dumb, little entity with little power and influence. That it had no reason or ability to cover something like 9/11 up.

The old saying is true, just follow the money.

 

[LouderVol]

The September 11 Financial Heist: ?Follow The 9/11 Money Trail? | Global Research - Centre for Research on Globalization

Some of you need to take the government blindfold off and use your head for something other than a hat rack. We will likely never know all the details about how much shady stuff was connected with 9/11. But hey, keep on believing that the US govrenment is this dumb, little entity with little power and influence. That it had no reason or ability to cover something like 9/11 up.

The old saying is true, just follow the money.

uhm maybe because there had already been a terrorist attack and that was part of the reason the port authority was getting rid of it because they couldn't insure it.

The deal was unusual in a variety of ways. Although the Port Authority carried only $1.5 billion of insurance coverage on the WTC complex, which earlier that year had been valued at $1.2 billion, Silverstein had insisted on doubling that amount, insuring the buildings for $3.55 billion. Silverstein’s insurance broker struggled to put that much coverage in place and ultimately had tosplit it among 25 dealers. The negotiations were so involved that only temporary contracts were in place for the insurance at the time the lease was signed and by September the contracts were still being finalized.

why is the below a red flag?

Silverstein’s group was also explicitly given the right to rebuild the structures if they were destroyed, and even to expand the amount of retail space on the site if rebuilding did take place.

why the frick wouldn't you be able to rebuild on that site? its in the middle of freaking New York City!

again, no **** Sherlok, what was he supposed to do give it an official mourning period before calling someone?

Within hours of the destruction of the Twin Towers on September 11th, Silverstein was on the phone to his lawyers, trying to determine if his insurance policies could “construe the attacks as two separate, insurable incidents rather than one.”

because the Port Authority wanted more space or werent happy with the floors they had. I forget the details but there was a lot of re-negotiations going on. not unusual on big deals. I am working on a 20+ million dollar project that got tied up for a year while people (lawyers) checked stuff out 20 million different ways.

Perhaps even more outrageously, in a secret deal in 2003, the Port Authority agreed to pay back 80% of their initial equity in the lease, but allowed the Silverstein group to maintain control of the site. The deal gave Silverstein, Goldman and Cayre $98 million of the $125 million they put down on the lease, and a further $130 million in insurance proceeds that were earmarked for the site’s rebuilding.

seriously are they asking why businesses developed a faster way to do business. and why a guy invested in billion dollar ventures would want world class services?

In 2000 SilverStream was contracted by Marsh to provide a technological solution beyond what we had done for any of the above-named companies; insofar as it would be used to electronically connect Marsh to its major business partners via internet portals, for the purpose of creating “paperless transactions” and expediting revenue and renewal cycles, and built from the ground up at the client’s site.

SilverStream provided a specific type of connectivity that was used to link AIG and Marsh & McLennan–the first two commercial companies on the planet to employ this type of transaction–and in fact Marsh was presented with something called the ACORD Award in the summer of 2001 for being the first commercial corporation to do so… and what you should take away from that is this: it means that no other companies were doing this type of transaction,so the question in your mind should be- what then were Marsh and AIG doing, and why did they need to leverage technologies that no other commercial entity on the face of the earth needed to conduct business?

from one of the links (audio so i can't quote) the meetings were set up only a week before. so apparently the guys targeting the towers got this all done in less than a week. wow.

The global conference call with Marsh’s IT staff on the morning of 9/11, a meeting that included the staff who were investigating the suspicious billing on the SilverStream deal, was confirmed in a 2006 interview with Marsh’s then-Chief Information Officer, Ellen Clarke.

wait someone within the tower used their inside knowledge of the terrorists attacks to make financial gains from the terrorist attacks while inside the targets of said terrorists attacks....

More details on the work come from an IDG News Service story posted to CNN.com in December 2001. Under the headline “Computer disk drives from WTC could yield clues,” the article notes: “An unexplained surge in transactions was recorded prior to the attacks, leading to speculation that someone might have profited from previous knowledge of the terrorist plot by moving sums of money. But because the facilities of many financial companies processing the transactions were housed in New York’s World Trade Center, destroyed in the blasts, it has until now been impossible to verify that suspicion.”

A Reuters article from the same time, later posted to Convar’s website, offers revealing glimpses into the investigation’s early results. It quotes Peter Herschel, Convar’s director at the time.

“The suspicion is that inside information about the attack was used to send financial transaction commands and authorizations in the belief that amid all the chaos the criminals would have, at the very least, a good head start. Of course it is also possible that there were perfectly legitimate reasons for the unusual rise in business volume. It could turn out that Americans went on an absolute shopping binge on that Tuesday morning. But at this point there are many transactions that cannot be accounted for. Not only the volume but the size of the transactions was far higher than usual for a day like that. There is a suspicion that these were possibly planned to take advantage of the chaos.”

thats all I have time for now.

and as far as I got they never mentioned the gold. disappointed.

 

[LouderVol]

and at least for me. all of the above could be true, some of it I do believe. but it doesn't make the whole thing (collapse) a conspiracy.

some of that article stank of the author looking for things to be offended over. OMG, it must be a conspiracy because these mega corporations were looking to make money, OMG.

 

[jamesd1628]

I haven't read this entire thread, nor do I intend to. The technical mumbo jumbo on jet fuel, etc., is well beyond my level of knowledge. My only question here is whether anyone has adequately explained WTC7:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnLcUxV1dPo

Is there any compelling theory indicating that WTC7 wasn't brought down by a controlled demolition? If so, I'd like to hear it.

 

[Orangedogsrule]

Louder makes very reasonable observations. Case in point is when the author questions why AIG and Marsh & McLennan would deploy the Silverstream "paperless office" business and accounting system.

And then, to foster his conspiracy theory, tells us what to think about that thus:
------------------------
..."and what you should take away from that is this: it means that no other companies were doing this type of transaction,
------------------------
Well gee, there was a "first" XXX company to employ Visi-Calc, the "first" PC based spreadsheet.

There was a "first" YYY company to deploy Oracle database.

There was a "first" ZZZ company to deploy Microsoft Office Professional.

And so, this should really, really make your inquiring mind wanna have an answer to:

..."the question in your mind should be- what then were XXX, YYY, & ZZZZ doing, and why did they need to leverage technologies that no other commercial entity on the face of the earth needed to conduct business"...
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This book about terrorism and Bin Laden, along with hundreds of other books, white papers, and memorandums written by non-partisan advisors to presidents, congress, and the military, was published before the 9/11 attacks.


'Bin Laden The Man Who Declared War on America'

Bin Laden: The Man Who Declared War on America by Yossef Bodansky | NOOK Book (eBook) | Barnes & Noble®

Here is a review posted at Barnes & Noble
--------------------------
☆☆☆☆☆ Required Reading

5513 days ago
Guest
This is an extremely informative and chilling book about the past and present chain of events. I recommend it to anyone who wants to understand the 'why's'. A warning though..after reading about Bin Laden, his motives and beliefs and the intricate details of the countries and individuals who've helped to further the Islamic jihad which drives him, you may be left feeling perhaps ignorance is bliss after all. However if, like me, you want to 'Know your enemy'...then read this book...get an education and a reality check.
-------------------------
The end of the Ottoman Caliphate declared by the westernized Ottoman Calif himself, the partitioning and repartitioning of the middle east through two world wars, the renewal of the nation of Israel, the Gulf war... unbelievably immense wealth from oil...the USSR/Afgani war...all have been included in the fury of the mujahadeen; the warrior jihadists.

Everyone has heard the old medical saying, "If you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras". But, of course rule out the zebras ... and rhinos.

So, if you want me to hear zebras, instead of the existing hoofbeats of Islamic jihad, thundering around the world and back through history to the origination of what is basically, fundamentally a murder cult, you better have every postulation supported with reasonable fact.

 

[LouderVol]

I haven't read this entire thread, nor do I intend to. The technical mumbo jumbo on jet fuel, etc., is well beyond my level of knowledge. My only question here is whether anyone has adequately explained WTC7:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnLcUxV1dPo

Is there any compelling theory indicating that WTC7 wasn't brought down by a controlled demolition? If so, I'd like to hear it.

I know this isn't fully appreciated by the masses; but buildings are not easy. Dozens of people work on building design. Hundreds, if not thousands, on construction (including the shop guys making the pieces). and then probably a dozen drawings reviewers and who knows how many inspectors. even with the technology, codes, and the history of buildings we as humans have, buildings still fall down. they do. its our job as professionals to make that as unlikely as possible. we get any one of 100 things wrong a building can fall down. a simple water leak can collapse a house by eroding foundations. one beam or joist not properly anchored (its always the contractors fault ) and your floor comes down. wood sheathing gets soggy and loses strength, good by shear wall, good bye house. and this doesn't get into external damages. wind, fire, trucks, planes, debri from other collapsing buildings, seismic.

all that to be said to make this point. once you have any one of those things a building can fall down without any nefarious origins. ask yourself, you are in a skyscraper that has fire on multiple floors, damage to several floors from falling debri; are you sticking around?

going into just about any building anywhere with a structural engineer. go up to any random structural column. ask him/her if that was suddenly gone if they would feel safe. just one. I guarantee that old guy would run out of there faster than you. or ask if he would feel safe cutting a slice out of one them, same response. buildings are not easy.

 

[jamesd1628]

I know this isn't fully appreciated by the masses; but buildings are not easy. Dozens of people work on building design. Hundreds, if not thousands, on construction (including the shop guys making the pieces). and then probably a dozen drawings reviewers and who knows how many inspectors. even with the technology, codes, and the history of buildings we as humans have, buildings still fall down. they do. its our job as professionals to make that as unlikely as possible. we get any one of 100 things wrong a building can fall down. a simple water leak can collapse a house by eroding foundations. one beam or joist not properly anchored (its always the contractors fault ) and your floor comes down. wood sheathing gets soggy and loses strength, good by shear wall, good bye house. and this doesn't get into external damages. wind, fire, trucks, planes, debri from other collapsing buildings, seismic.

all that to be said to make this point. once you have any one of those things a building can fall down without any nefarious origins. ask yourself, you are in a skyscraper that has fire on multiple floors, damage to several floors from falling debri; are you sticking around?

going into just about any building anywhere with a structural engineer. go up to any random structural column. ask him/her if that was suddenly gone if they would feel safe. just one. I guarantee that old guy would run out of there faster than you. or ask if he would feel safe cutting a slice out of one them, same response. buildings are not easy.

I don't doubt any of that one bit. But how many things have to be done incorrectly for a building to collapse straight down at free fall speed from a fire? Has that ever happened before? And the videos of the WTC7 collapse look exactly like every controlled demolition video I've ever seen. I just haven't seen any credible theory that debunks the proposition that it was a controlled demolition. And that's especially true in light of some of the audio we have surrounding its collapse.

 

[Orangedogsrule]

I haven't read this entire thread, nor do I intend to. The technical mumbo jumbo on jet fuel, etc., is well beyond my level of knowledge. My only question here is whether anyone has adequately explained WTC7:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnLcUxV1dPo

Is there any compelling theory indicating that WTC7 wasn't brought down by a controlled demolition? If so, I'd like to hear it.

A video exists, gotten by Freedom of Information Act and included in an article by The Daily Mail. It won't play on my cellphone, but there are photos, you can look it up.

However, here is a meaningful comment.
-------------------
..."The video shows up-close shots of the lower floors of World Trade Center Building 7, located just across the street from the Twin Towers, and focuses in on the exterior metal beams of Building 7 as they begin to buckle as they are overheated"...
---------------------------

Look at the image showing the WTC footprint. Inner circles show the extent to where inner service core columns and material were found. The outer circles are the extent of exterior "curtain wall" steel columns and material.

It is readily apparent that portions of the south and west curtain walls of Bldg 7 took a SEVERE beating as the north tower fell. At least 1/3 of the exterior face structural systems took momentum impact blows all over, or somewhere. Think about the term "cycles to failure'. Of course, for some debris, Bldg 7's design would absorb and shed the blows like water off a ducks back. Others, not so much. Others, like a blow to your shoulder with a 9 pound hammer. Seven structural columns were severed by falling debris. However NIST concludes, as these were on the south face (nearest to Tower 1) and the collapse of Bldg 7 started in the north end, the structural damage itself did not add to the collapse. It was totally thermal.

While we have forensic fire investigators yelping, 'No steel building ever collapsed from fire, even fully engulfed'. It's also true no steel building that has collapsed, has ever taken a barrage of large impacts on its structural system that would have definitely compromised some significant critical structural elements, and they had fires burning for SEVEN hours.

This article in Popular Mechanics shows the NIST report downplays any structural damage. Their modeling technique (which is of course questioned by truthers and even one of their own) shows that, because the sprinklers were out for several floors whose mains were severed by the WTC 1&2 collapse, the fires burned hot enough for long enough that a steel beam connection in THIS building, THIS BUILDING, failed.

Recall that steel can lose a significant amount of strength when heated above 450°F.

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

..."It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C. 4. This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range....

[ But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse"...

well

(For the Towers, it WAS the loss of so much structure PLUS the fires.)]

A.E. Cote, ed., Fire Protection Handbook 17th Edition (Quincy, MA: National Fire Protection Association, 1992), pp. 6-62 to 6-70.

https://www.nist.gov/el/faqs-nist-wtc-7-investigation

..."
Factors contributing to WTC 7's collapse included: the thermal expansion of building elements such as floor beams and girders, which occurred at temperatures hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in current practice for fire-resistance ratings; significant magnification of thermal expansion effects due to the long-span floors in the building; connections between structural elements that were designed to resist the vertical forces of gravity, not the thermally induced horizontal or lateral loads; and an overall structural system not designed to prevent fire-induced progressive collapse."...

 

[jamesd1628]

A video exists, gotten by Freedom of Information Act and included in an article by The Daily Mail. It won't play on my cellphone, but there are photos, you can look it up.

However, here is a meaningful comment.
-------------------
..."The video shows up-close shots of the lower floors of World Trade Center Building 7, located just across the street from the Twin Towers, and focuses in on the exterior metal beams of Building 7 as they begin to buckle as they are overheated"...
---------------------------

Look at the image showing the WTC footprint. Inner circles show the extent to where inner service core columns and material were found. The outer circles are the extent of exterior "curtain wall" steel columns and material.

It is readily apparent that portions of the south and west curtain walls of Bldg 7 took a SEVERE beating as the north tower fell. At least 1/3 of the exterior face structural systems took momentum impact blows all over, or somewhere. Think about the term "cycles to failure'. Of course, for some debris, Bldg 7's design would absorb and shed the blows like water off a ducks back. Others, not so much. Others, like a blow to your shoulder with a 9 pound hammer. Seven structural columns were severed by falling debris. However NIST concludes, as these were on the south face (nearest to Tower 1) and the collapse of Bldg 7 started in the north end, the structural damage itself did not add to the collapse. It was totally thermal.

While we have forensic fire investigators yelping, 'No steel building ever collapsed from fire, even fully engulfed'. It's also true no steel building that has collapsed, has ever taken a barrage of large impacts on its structural system that would have definitely compromised some significant critical structural elements, and they had fires burning for SEVEN hours.

This article in Popular Mechanics shows the NIST report downplays any structural damage. Their modeling technique (which is of course questioned by truthers and even one of their own) shows that, because the sprinklers were out for several floors whose mains were severed by the WTC 1&2 collapse, the fires burned hot enough for long enough that a steel beam connection in THIS building, THIS BUILDING, failed.

Recall that steel can lose a significant amount of strength when heated above 450°F.

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

..."It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C. 4. This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range....

[ But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse"...

well

(For the Towers, it WAS the loss of so much structure PLUS the fires.)]

A.E. Cote, ed., Fire Protection Handbook 17th Edition (Quincy, MA: National Fire Protection Association, 1992), pp. 6-62 to 6-70.

https://www.nist.gov/el/faqs-nist-wtc-7-investigation

..."
Factors contributing to WTC 7's collapse included: the thermal expansion of building elements such as floor beams and girders, which occurred at temperatures hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in current practice for fire-resistance ratings; significant magnification of thermal expansion effects due to the long-span floors in the building; connections between structural elements that were designed to resist the vertical forces of gravity, not the thermally induced horizontal or lateral loads; and an overall structural system not designed to prevent fire-induced progressive collapse."...

So the building was severely damaged by the debris from the two towers, and several floors were on fire for many hours, causing several support beams to weaken and eventually buckle. Fine, I can see that causing serious problems for the building and maybe even causing it to partially collapse and/or fall over. But causing it to collapse at free-fall speed into its own footprint? As I understand matters, a perfectly-executed controlled free-fall demolition takes a great deal of skill to accomplish. The chances that one happened accidentally under the described conditions seem infinitesimal. I find that theory harder to believe than the idea that there’s more to the story than we pleebs are allowed to know.