Well, that just proves it, doesn’t it?
I know we can’t have a real discussion about 9/11 on this board, as this thread shows, but to me there are some problems with fire causing a total collaspe in WTC.
I think that this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Interstate_Tower_fire is pretty daming.
Or this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Meridian_Plaza. This fire lasted 18 hours.
Now, some may say that structural damage helped cause the total collaspe of WTC 7. We all know that it takes explosives to weaken these massive buildings enough to bring about a total collaspe.
Yet now we are supposed to believe that random fires and realtively minor damage can cause a total collaspe. That also just happens to look just like the controlled demolitions we’ve been seeing on TV for years. I mean really, just look at the videos of the collaspe.
WTC 1&2 were built to withstand the impact and resulting fire from a 707, an airplane about the same overall size of the 767’s that actually hit them. Really, the fires don’t look nearly as bad as the fire in the first link, probally because most all the jet fuel burned in those big fireballs outside the building. In fact, pictures show people standing in the holes where the airplanes hit.
Listen to the tapes of ATC on that day. They thought the attack might be part of one of the many “drills” going on that day. Do really believe that the “terrorists” just got lucky on picking 9/11?
I don’t have my own theory of 9/11, but the more questions I ask myself and others, the more I realize that the “offical” story is most likely a huge lie.
That’s because the conspiracy side has trouble bringing facts to the table.
No, we don’t.
We don’t?, I mean other than on 9/11, no building like this has ever totally collasped the way they did on 9/11 by any other means than explosives. Even earthquakes don’t cause the kind of collaspe we saw on that day.
I can link some pictures of earthquake caused collaspes if you like.
No, we all know that it doesn’t take explosives to cause the total collapse of a massive building.
You’re suggesting that the only way to ever weaken a skyscraper enough to bring it down is with an explosion?
Wrecking balls, earthquakes, heavy winds, tsunamis and even a guy with a torch and enough time would all like to speak with you.
None of the methods you describe bring buildings down in the way we saw on that day, and you all know that’s what I meant.
No, they weren’t.
After the towers had been designed, someone did some basic math to determine what would happen if a 707 trying to land at the nearby airport, low on fuel and lost in the fog, ran into the towers. They figured that the tower structure had enough redundancy to survive having an airplane-sized hole punched in it without instantly collapsing.
That’s the extent of the thought that went into planning for an airplane crashing into towers. And that analysis was correct - the basic structure didn’t instantly collapse as a result of the impact.
Nobody ever considered what the effect of having several whole floors of the building set on fire simultaneously would be on the structure. The building’s sprinkler system was designed to fight ordinary office fires. Even if the control lines and water mains had somehow survived the airplane impacts, which they didn’t, there simply wasn’t anywhere close to the capacity in water storage or flow rate to deal with a fire that size.
The degree to which a steel truss structure like the WTC towers is vulnerable to fire really wasn’t appreciated till after 9/11. Concrete structures, or concrete/steel truss hybrid structures like One Meridian Plaza, are far more resistant to collapse from prolonged fires.
Neither does an actual demolition. There are countless websites explaining this fact, and by coincidence, they’re more credible than the conspiracist sites.
No we don’t.
707:
length-136 ft.
wingspan-130 ft.
empty weight-103,145 lb.
767:
length-201 ft.
wingspan-170 ft.
empty weight-229,006 lb.
'Nuff said.
I think that you are incorrect, and are trying to confuse things by adding the whole “trying to land, low on fuel and lost in fog”. Nothing I’ve read mentioned 1&2 were built to withstand these specific conditons, but let’s assume your correct.
All that still can’t help explain WTC 7
I never said it was a controlled demolition, but point of fact, it didn’t really need to be. Once the planes hit 1&2, you could basically do whatever you wanted.
Even discounting the size differences already presented to you which you’ve not acknowledged, you don’t think there’s a difference between a plane trying to land and lost (therefore traveling slowly) and low on fuel (therefore low on fuel) and one traveling a full speed with enough fuel for a cross-country flight?
Yeah, many people jumped. Some burned to death. Others fell. I’m not sure that’s what any of them wanted.
I don’t think anybody was thinking the planes would be empty and I’ll conceed that the 767 can be heavier.
The Max TO weight of a 707-120B is 257,000 lbs.
The Max TO weight of a 707-320B is 330,000 lbs.
Both of these numbers are well within the range of your empty 767, so I stand by what I said. The two 767 and 707 are close to the same size.
Not really. Read the report:
"Unusually good application of fire resistive coating helped maintain structural integrity in fire. "
More to the point, 383 firefighters spent time fighting the fire - WTC7 had no firefighting efforts.
18 hours where the PFD never once stopped pumping water on the fire, as well as a structure that was steel in concrete.
Even with all the the building was on the verge of collapse during and after the fire.
No. Many other things can bring buildings to total collapse, including unfought fires.
Yet your ‘controlled demolitions’ make no sound, unlike every other controlled demolition in history. Your ‘random fires’ were pretty engulfing by the way.
The bolded part simply is not true. They had no way of calculating such damage when the built the thing.
Never mind that the fuel that didn’t explode outside set all the flammable materials inside ablaze
Unsurprising if you think about it. That is where the least amount of consumables remained.
Drills are run quite frequently. BTW, the drill actually meant a better response as people were in place, rather than in coffee breaks, etc. Not a net benefit for the terrorists.
You are completely wrong.
WTC7 was a steel truss framed building that was damaged by debris from the collapsing towers, which then had major fires permitted to burn over multiple floors for many hours afterwards. It was seen to be leaning and bulging some time before it actually collapsed. Indeed, the firefighters on scene evacuated the area precisely because they know that steel truss framed buildings tend to collapse after being on fire for long periods of time. It’s largely the same case as the collapse of the towers, except it took a good deal longer to collapse - probably due to having not been nearly as badly damaged initially. What’s to explain?
You said it looked exactly like a controlled demolition, you said explosives were used to weaken the buildings, and you said we explosives are the only way to destroy a building that size in that way. You’ve said you don’t have a specific theory, but it’s hard to work those opinions into some other theory.
It was on fire and pieces of the Twin Towers fell on it. Do you think that might explain it at all?
Like I said, nothing I’ve read says the buildings were meant to stand up to that specific condition. I’d really like to see where this idea is coming from