Fire Consumes WTC 7-Size Skyscraper, Building Does [Archive]

View Full Version : Fire Consumes WTC 7-Size Skyscraper, Building Does

zilf

10-02-2009, 10:13 AM

http://www.infowars.com/fire-consumes-wtc-7-size-skyscraper-building-does-not-collapse/

hagbard_celine

10-02-2009, 04:23 PM

I thought it was a real building, but it's just swamp gas!:D:cool:

And when I saw that Windsor Tower in Madrid it was caused by electrical stimunation to the brain's temporal lobes!:rolleyes::D:p

white horse

10-02-2009, 09:03 PM

I thought it was a real building, but it's just swamp gas!:D:cool:

And when I saw that Windsor Tower in Madrid it was caused by electrical stimunation to the brain's temporal lobes!:rolleyes::D:p

What you actually think you are seeing is actually Venus reflecting off the shiny glass windows of the Beijing hotel :D

tabea_blumenschein

11-02-2009, 05:18 AM

I thought it was a real building, but it's just swamp gas!:D:cool:

And when I saw that Windsor Tower in Madrid it was caused by electrical stimunation to the brain's temporal lobes!:rolleyes::D:p

Suggested research project for hagbard_celine:

Find out what the Windsor Tower fire did to the steel in the building.

tabea_blumenschein

11-02-2009, 05:56 AM

A few of the many differences between the WTC7 fire and the Mandarin Tower fire:

There were no firefighting efforts at the WTC7 fire.

The two buildings employed totally different architectural designs.

The Mandarin Tower (unlike WTC7) was designed as a reinforced concrete frame plus core. (source (http://www.gulfconstructionworldwide.com/bkArticlesF.asp?IssueID=290&Section=1919&Article=10156))

WTC7 was built over a pre-existing structure.

WTC7 had large open spaces between columns.

The Mandarin Tower design undoubtedly took lessons learned from 9/11 into account. What, you thought those time-consuming, laborious, and expensive NIST investigations weren't about improving building safety?

~

It gives me great comfort to know that, unlike truthers, structural engineers and high-rise architects take building fires very seriously, and understand that high-rise buildings are not invulnerable to fire-induced collapses. Case in point - the Meridian Plaza fire in Philly. Did you know that firefighters were pulled back from that building because (drumroll please) ... a structural engineer on the scene feared a possible collapse of the building due to the duration and intensity of the fires!

~

Here's a research project for the rest of you:

Look up the e-mail addresses of some structural engineers or high-rise architects. Ask them to answer this question:

Large buildings will never, ever collapse due to fires of any size, intensity, or duration. (agree/disagree)

If you like, I'll set up a thread where you can post the answers you get.

tabea_blumenschein

11-02-2009, 06:50 AM

Case in point - the Meridian Plaza fire in Philly. Did you know that firefighters were pulled back from that building because (drumroll please) ... a structural engineer on the scene feared a possible collapse of the building due to the duration and intensity of the fires!

Here, let me provide a source for that claim:

Firefighting Operations Suspended

All interior firefighting efforts were halted after almost 11 hours of uninterrupted fire in the building. Consultation with a structural engineer and structural damage observed by units operating in the building led to the belief that there was a possibility of a pancake structural collapse of the fire damaged floors. Bearing this risk in mind along with the loss of three personnel and the lack of progress against the fire despite having secured adequate water pressure and flow for interior fire streams, an order was given to evacuate the building at 0700 on February 24. At the time of the evacuation, the fire appeared to be under control on the 22nd though 24th floors. It continued to bum on floors 25 and 26 and was spreading upward. There was a heavy smoke condition throughout most of the upper floors. The evacuation was completed by 0730.

(source (http://www.iklimnet.com/hotelfires/meridienplaza_thefire.html))

Like I was saying, I'm sure glad structural engineers take building fires seriously! Unlike some "truthers" I could mention ...

tabea_blumenschein

11-02-2009, 07:32 AM

Oh, and what about the McCormick Place - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia fire of 1967?

The 1960 exposition hall was destroyed in a spectacular 1967 fire, despite being thought fireproof by virtue of its steel and concrete construction. At the time of the fire, the building contained highly flammable exhibits, several hydrants were shut off, and the sprinklers proved inadequate. Thus the fire spread quickly and destructively, taking the life of a security guard.[3] A subsequent investigation found major flaws in the design and construction of the building, and led to a much better understanding of how modern steel and concrete structures can be vulnerable to fire.

Here is a link (http://www.nearwestgazette.com/Archive/2007/0507/mckfire.htm) to a news report where firefighters talk about the disaster.

While it is true the metal trusses holding up the ceiling never caught fire, they instead started melting, causing most of the building to collapse, he added.

Okay, truthers. It's your turn.

dangermouse

11-02-2009, 02:56 PM

ok and did the building fall in freefall speed , my guess is no ...

jiffy

11-02-2009, 06:21 PM

Okay, truthers. It's your turn.

With pleasure wise monkey

NO HIGH RISE BUILDING HAS EVER COLLAPSED FROM FIRE

same old same old an old "troll" comes along with ALL THE WRONG ANSWERS

As for your information the NIST report on WCT7 only came out in Nov 2008
(which you haven't read)

The building fell in free fall speed it actually accelerated (which you have to do to achieve free fall)

SO EXPLAIN TO ME WISE MONKEY HOW A BUILDING FALLS IN FREE FALL SPEED?

Don't even bother quoting the NIST report because if you have ANY understanding of Physics you would know that resistance = Friction= impossible free fall. They also admit that it fell in free fall "BUT" their free fall was 5.4 seconds (which is impossible)
They also wont release any of there data for the computer simulation, the program used is a industry standard program. (WHY?)

I don't need to email any engineers, 1: I have a friend of mine that is a building engineer 2: YOU CAN CONTACT THESE PPL
http://www.ae911truth.org/
There is only 594 on there:rolleyes:

Sadly I can hear you now, "only 594 out of millions".
Engineers are no different to anyone else. All they saw was a "Hollywood disaster movie"

Now go Troll away

white horse

11-02-2009, 08:42 PM

Large buildings will never, ever collapse due to fires of any size, intensity, or duration. (agree/disagree)
.

Why twist it?

Who ever said that?

I think people are pointing out that steel framed building sdo no tcollapse uniformly at free fall speed; WTC7 collapse was utterly unique.

hagbard_celine

12-02-2009, 12:56 PM

Suggested research project for hagbard_celine:

Find out what the Windsor Tower fire did to the steel in the building.

Yes I know, it eventually collapsed... after burning like a Guy Fawkes bonfire all night. And only part of the building came down. The media told us... after we started thinking about how it linked to WTC7;)... that the part that collpased was built like WTC7, while the rest of the building was strangely more fireporoof!:D

It's a good job Towering Inferno was made before all this controversy kicked, other wise it would be a really boring film!:D

Scene 1:
Paul Newman's character: "It seems we have a small fire in the lower floors... AAAHHHGHH!:eek:"

Scene 2:
(Skyscraper collpases into aheap of rubble... roll credits.)

tabea_blumenschein

13-02-2009, 04:32 AM

For what it's worth ...

Here's some of what the engineering firm ARUP had to say about the Madrid Windsor fire. (http://www.iklimnet.com/hotelfires/madrid_winsdor_fire_4.html)

Also, this page has a chart (http://www.iklimnet.com/hotelfires/madrid_winsdor_fire_2.html) showing that the upper floors collapsed within 5 hours of the start of the fire - despite several hours of firefighting efforts. In the case of WTC7, the building was involved for nearly 7 hours before it collapsed.

Here are some eyewitness accounts of the WTC7 fire from firefighters on the scene. (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/eyewitnessaccountsofwtc7fires) I think I trust those guys. After all, the cleanup crews would have known that the collapse of the building was attributed to fire. If they weren't finding tons and tons of scorched and burned debris among the rubble, wouldn't they have come forward with that news?

Oh, I forgot. The cleanup crews were "in on it". Never mind.

jiffy

13-02-2009, 10:31 AM

Your yet another f!cking troll, you said I quote "Okay, truthers. It's your turn".

Answer the points or go away :mad:

hugolast

13-02-2009, 01:29 PM

slartibartfast

13-02-2009, 03:37 PM

i thought the owner admitted it (WT7) was pulled down in an interview.

That is the issue, conspiracy theories taken as fact.

tabea_blumenschein

14-02-2009, 06:32 AM

With pleasure wise monkey

NO HIGH RISE BUILDING HAS EVER COLLAPSED FROM FIRE

same old same old an old "troll" comes along with ALL THE WRONG ANSWERS

As for your information the NIST report on WCT7 only came out in Nov 2008
(which you haven't read)

The building fell in free fall speed it actually accelerated (which you have to do to achieve free fall)

SO EXPLAIN TO ME WISE MONKEY HOW A BUILDING FALLS IN FREE FALL SPEED?

Don't even bother quoting the NIST report because if you have ANY understanding of Physics you would know that resistance = Friction= impossible free fall. They also admit that it fell in free fall "BUT" their free fall was 5.4 seconds (which is impossible)
They also wont release any of there data for the computer simulation, the program used is a industry standard program. (WHY?)

I don't need to email any engineers, 1: I have a friend of mine that is a building engineer 2: YOU CAN CONTACT THESE PPL
http://www.ae911truth.org/
There is only 594 on there:rolleyes:

Sadly I can hear you now, "only 594 out of millions".
Engineers are no different to anyone else. All they saw was a "Hollywood disaster movie"

Now go Troll away

Your yet another f!cking troll, you said I quote "Okay, truthers. It's your turn".

Answer the points or go away :mad:

My, how very grown up of you. Dale Carnegie, ever heard of him?

Okay, let's look at some of what you posted ...

No high rise building has ever collapsed from fire.

Yes, because in those other cases, there were massive firefighting efforts to bring the fires under control and then put them out. There were no firefighting efforts at WTC7. And the number of modern high rise fires is limited to begin with.

Jiffy, would you like to offer your opinion as to why the structural engineer at the Meridian Plaza fire in Philadelphia feared a collapse of the building?

And while you're at it, tell me why all these firefighters believed that WTC7 was going to collapse. (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/accountsofwtc7damage)

As for your information the NIST report on WCT7 only came out in Nov 2008
(which you haven't read)

The building fell in free fall speed it actually accelerated (which you have to do to achieve free fall)

SO EXPLAIN TO ME WISE MONKEY HOW A BUILDING FALLS IN FREE FALL SPEED?

I should just chuckle at this and pass on.

WTC7 was a 47 story building, and if we take each floor to be 12.3 feet in height, we get a total height for the building of:

h = 578 feet.

Acceleration due to gravity is:

g = 32.2 feet per second squared.

If we assume the building collapses with no resistance whatsoever - in other words, the downward acceleration is 1g over the duration of the collapse - we can find out how long it will take with this equation:

t = square root(2h/g)

Plugging in h and g and solving gives us a time of t = about 6 seconds.

But if the building is resisting the collapse, the downward acceleration over the duration of the collapse will be something less than 1g. We can work out the coefficient of g with this, slightly different equation:

k = 2h / gt^2

The "square" sign (^2) applies only to the time variable, t, in the denominator, not to the g.

If we solve this equation for t=7 seconds, we get a coefficient of k = 0.733. In other words, the downward acceleration of the building averaged only 23.6 feet per second-squared over the duration of the collapse.

Solving the equation for t=8 seconds gives us a coefficient of k = 0.561, which is a downward acceleration of 18 feet per second-squared over the duration of the collapse.

Neither one of those accelerations is anywhere NEAR "free fall."

Let's expand on that a bit.

The twin towers are usually assumed to be on the order of 500,000 tons each. Let's take WTC7 to be a third of that, or 166,666 tons. If you divide weights by number of floors, you'd find that this estimate has a single WTC7 floor weighing 1000 tons less than a single WTC1 or 2 floor. So our estimate seems reasonable.

We can roughly estimate the total gravitational potential energy of the building by assuming the center of mass is halfway up the building, which gives us:

GPE = mg * h/2

This equation has to be solved in SI (metric) units, but we get an answer of:

GPE = 1.44 * 10^11 joules

Let's work out a TNT equivalent of that to make the number more understandable. One kg of TNT = 4,184,000 joules, so dividing gives us:

GPE = equivalent of 34,401 kg of TNT.

Those two calculations for k come in handy right now. The energy dissipated during collapse will be:

GPE * (1 - k)

For case 1, a 7 second collapse with k = 0.733, we find that the energy dissipated during collapse = equivalent of 9185 kg of TNT (20,207 pounds worth).

For case 2, an 8 second collapse with k = 0.561, we find that the energy dissipated during collapse = equivalent of 15,102 kg of TNT (33,224 pounds worth).

~

So to conclude, we're looking at a collapse that accelerated somewhere between 0.561 and 0.733 the acceleration due to gravity, and an energy dissipation equivalent to between 20,000 and 33,000 pounds worth of TNT.

I don't see the problem with a 7 or 8 second collapse. Why do you?

Don't even bother quoting the NIST report because if you have ANY understanding of Physics you would know that resistance = Friction= impossible free fall. They also admit that it fell in free fall "BUT" their free fall was 5.4 seconds (which is impossible)

The entire building was not in "free fall". Only the northwest corner was, for the distance of a couple of stories, IIRC. The NW corner was actually measured as coming down at around 0.6 g when a larger portion of the collapse was considered. Sorry, no "smoking gun" here.

They also wont release any of there data for the computer simulation, the program used is a industry standard program. (WHY?)

Are you sure about this? The WTC1 and WTC2 computer models are available via a FOIA request.

I don't need to email any engineers, 1: I have a friend of mine that is a building engineer 2: YOU CAN CONTACT THESE PPL
http://www.ae911truth.org/
There is only 594 on there:rolleyes:

Sadly I can hear you now, "only 594 out of millions".
Engineers are no different to anyone else. All they saw was a "Hollywood disaster movie"

Now go Troll away

So you're one of those people who thinks AE911truth isn't disinfo? Okay ...

FYI, AE911truth recently named Anders Bjorkman as their "New Petitioner of the Month." If you don't know who Mr. Bjorkman is, he posts over at the JREF forums as Heiwa.

Heiwa has become a legend on those forums, due largely to the mindblowingly stupid "experiments" he posts. Here, have a look at these:

Heiwa's Pizza Box Experiment. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=125881)

Heiwa's Bathroom Scale Experiment. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=127318) (I think this is the one where he hilariously gets mass and weight confused later in the thread :D:D:D:D - but I'm too lazy to check right now).

Heiwa's Cheese Experiment. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3828724&postcount=218)

Heiwa's Sponge Experiment. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4381381&postcount=263) (Final paragraph.)

So, jiffy, tell me again why I should take AE911truth seriously ... ? :confused:

~

Oh, and one more thing. "Pull" is not demolition industry slang for "implode a building." I challenge anyone here to offer evidence that it is.

"The decision to clear a collapse zone around the building was actually made by Chief of Department FDNY Daniel Nigro: (http://911guide.googlepages.com/danielnigro)

Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff).

The reasons are as follows:

1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.
2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.
3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.
4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.

For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

Daniel Nigro concludes:

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.

I agree wholeheartedly.

~

Can't resist adding one more thing. I know how much truthers looove Gravy (Mark Roberts) from the JREF forums. Well, truthers, here's a lesson in reading comprehension (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/larrysilverstein%27s%22pullit%22quote) from Mr. Roberts, regarding the Larry Silverstein quote.

white horse

14-02-2009, 05:59 PM

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.

So the whole show was just one endless string of implausable coincidences?

NON of the theories have ANY merit whatosoever.

The whole thing happend for real as according to the OS - or is it just WTC7 you are refuting? Did WTC7 collapse due to fire, but the rest of it was an inside job?

Or was it Mohammad Atta with a plastic knife?

Why were the sprinkler systems of WTC7 switched off that morning...? security drill. [coincidence]

To go with all the other coincidences and improbabilities.