I have no trouble believing this at all, but it’s probably not for the reason you think.
I know what you are trying to do with this, so you might as well stop right there.
My point was if the fires were so bad there, they would not have even been able to get to windows to jump in the first place.
Just to those conditions. Stop playing word games.
Yet, there they were. Clearly, your speculation is not based on empirical evidence.
No, for the reasons stated in my OP
Are you syaing WTC 7 didn’t look like controlled demolition to you?
So you’re saying the fires weren’t so bad? All those people must have been morons for not walking down the stairs then, if the fires weren’t so bad. Corporate tools, AMIRITE?!
It didn’t look like a controlled demolition to me…but that’s only because I’ve actually seen controlled demolitions before.
Really, the response what better because of the drills? Have you even listened to the tapes?
Are you an expert in demolitions? Is there some kind of reason I should give any credence to your opinion of what the collapse looked like? I think the facts that we know - the building was severely damaged by falling debris, was on fire, and I think its sprinkler system failed - are adequate to explain what happened.
So if there is a fire in a large office building, the fire has to consume the entire floor instantly? It can’t be focused in particular areas? I think the crash knocked out most of the emergyency exits at and above the floors where the planes hit, but one of them still worked. That seems like a problem for your theory.
And here comes the “pull it” nonsense. Let me guess: you’re not only a demolitions expert, you used to be a NYC firefighter.
How many building collapses have you seen that were not controlled demolitions?
Ordinary furniture easily reaches 1000°F when burned. A steel-framed furniture store approximately the size of any one floor in the Towers caught fire completely collapsed within 50 minutes of being reported.
Then you have the Windsor Tower fire, which left the top half of the structural steel hanging off the building. Fire protection for the other half of the structural steel, except for parts of two floors, had been brought up to code before the fire started.
As for concrete, there’s the Skyline Towers collapse in the '73. 26 floors pancaked into the basement. No fire, explosives, earthquake, or jet impact needed, just a mistake during construction. The supports were removed too early and destabilized the concrete, which had not completely cured.
7 was built on a site that had been originally prepped for a building with a much smaller footprint. The southern side, which faced 1 & 2, had no direct contact with the ground. There is footage of 7 being hit by debris from 1.
So, if i understand you correctly, you are basically making the case that all three buildings were just hollow tubes with an inherently weak steel truss design connecting the floors to the main supports?
Well, no.
In a controlled demolition we see:
[ul]
[li]Months or weeks spent stripping the building and installing explosives and wiring and partially cutting key structural members[/li][li]No deformation of building structure before the explosives are set off[/li][li]Bright flashes of light, loud cracks, and many small puffs of black smoke as the explosives are set off[/li][li]Entire building falls in pieces straight down[/li][/ul]
In WTC7 we saw:
[ul]
[li]No reports of anyone installing explosives or wiring or pre-cutting structural beams[/li][li]Building on fire for many hours before the collapse[/li][li]Building visibly leaning and bulging before the collapse[/li][li]Evidence of internal structural failure as one of the mechanical penthouses fell into the building before the global collapse began[/li][li]No sounds of explosives going off[/li][li]No flashes of light or puffs of black smoke at key structural points[/li][li]Building falls unevenly, spilling across the street and badly damaging another building[/li][/ul]
So no, it didn’t look much like a controlled demolition.
You understand that about as correctly as you’ve understood any of the fact-based arguments given so far. Why don’t you stick to direct quotes, because your “paraphrasing” leaves a lot to be desired.
WTC 1 and 2 were exactly that. They were tube-in-tube structures, with large open spaces on every floor, and floor panels supported on steel trusses connected to the outer and inner tubes. This design was chosen because it was lightweight and let them have huge open offices on every floor. It is also a design which is very vulnerable to collapse from fire, as the large areas let fire spread easily and the lightweight steel trusses heat up and lose strength quickly.
WTC7 had a more complex structure. It was built over a pre-existing substation, which meant it had a large structural void in the middle for the first half-dozen floors. Above that there was a cross-truss structure which joined the building columns together, which the rest of the building structure was then built on top of. The actual final collapse of WTC7 seems to have begun in this truss structure, possible triggered by the failure of a single column that supported one of the mechanical penthouses on top of the building. The impact of the penthouse and other debris hitting the truss likely triggered a progressive collapse that basically yanked the support out from everything above the truss.
7 not only fell unevenly but went in opposite directions at nearly the same time. The southern face went south & west, into the bottom floors of the AT&T building while the northeast corner went northwest and fell on the CUNY building across the street.
I am aware of all the examples you gave, and once again I think that word games are being played. I said in my OP that WTC 7 was hit by debris.
It’s somewhat hard for me to get my thoughts across on a message board, but I think I was pretty clear I don’t think that buildings don’t collaspe like the way we see on 9/11 with out the help pf expolsives.
1&2 more than pancaked, those are huge parts of the buildings being blown hundreds of feet out that we see on in the pictures and videos.
You may say that’s because the buildings were so tall, but Windsor Tower didn’t expel it’s parts that way when it partialy collasped, and it was pretty tall.
That doesn’t happen in demolitions. That’s exactly what controlled demolitions are designed not to do.
People do not jump from highrise fires unless they are facing certain doom, BY FIRE. Smoke won’t do it.
Plenty of folks jumped from the towers.
The fires were intense, but not constant. People got trapped. Others could escape. The woman you reference in the entry hole later had to jump.
The drills had people in place. The tapes don’t have more than a moment of ‘is this real of a drill?’ ‘better’ is pretty relative since there was probably little they could do to stop the impacts, despite the bleatings of conspiracy nutters.