# An angle of the WTC collapse I'd never seen
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [July 19, 2010, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182 "2010-07-19T01:39:32Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 19
### Author:  [@Indistinguishable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indistinguishable)
#### Post date: [July 24, 2010, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/361 "2010-07-24T17:15:13Z")
Eh, I’m just going to reiterate what I said before:
The same intense hole-finding scrutiny you apply to the mainstream account, **ivan astikov**? Can you imagine what it would be like to apply that to all your proposed or hinted at alternative possibilities? Because that’s exactly what the rest of us are doing. We’re rejecting your proposals because they strike us as absurd and nonsensical. We’re doing the same thing you see yourself as doing.
If “the official story” were any of these alternative proposals, you’d be all over it like fucking that. You’d call it amateur, shoddy, see-through bullshit, and point out all the ways in which it utterly is contradicted by both the evidence and simple logic. And we’d all agree with you.
---
### Author:  [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)
#### Post date: [July 24, 2010, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/362 "2010-07-24T17:15:49Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#):
>
> What I’d like you to try and imagine tho’ is, if the other 2 towers hadn’t been attacked, and a bomb of some kind had caused the damage and resulting fires, would a reasonable person have expected that building to come down the way it did?
Given that said fires were being unfought, yes.
Take a look at the reports on the 1 Meridian Place building in Philadelphia, which burned in 1990. It had firefighting efforts for much of the fire, and even when internal efforts were abandoned the fire department pumped water on from nearby buildings. Despite these efforts, and much more robust construction system than WTC7, the building was stunningly close to collapsing. In fact the reason the internal firefighting efforts were abandoned was because the _city structural engineers were afraid of the building collapsing from the fire._
Seriously, why do you think firefighters fight fires in high-rise office buildings after they get everybody out? They could just set up perimeters to prevent the fire from spreading if that was the only threat. But it is not. An burning building left unfought will probably collapse and cause even more damage and fires.
---
### Author:  [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)
#### Post date: [July 24, 2010, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/363 "2010-07-24T17:21:12Z")
I think what is clear, is the buildings were of horrible design and construction. They were supposed to be able to withstand an airplane crash. Apparently they failed. Yet did the builder and architect get in any trouble? How about bldg 7. It did not get hit by a plane. Why did it not stay up?
Were they fined for not building to standards?
---
### Author:  [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)
#### Post date: [July 24, 2010, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/364 "2010-07-24T17:31:13Z")
> [@gonzomax](#):
>
> I think what is clear, is the buildings were of horrible design and construction. They were supposed to be able to withstand an airplane crash.
All indications were that the buildings did survive the impact. It was the fires that caused problems.
> [@](#):
>
> Apparently they failed. Yet did the builder and architect get in any trouble?
No. They built it to the standards of the time, which included smaller airplanes and a world where fanatics don’t fly fuel laden planes into their buildings.
> [@](#):
>
> How about bldg 7. It did not get hit by a plane. Why did it not stay up?
Why don’t you look up fire codes for steel construction some time. WTC7 lasted well beyond its rated level, but sadly most codes assume some kind of firefighting efforts will be made when the building catches fire.
> [@](#):
>
> Were they fined for not building to standards?
Why should they be? They came up to standards when designed. Maybe you should look at the people who added the heavy, equipment laden penthouses to WTC7 after it was built, or maybe you just want to set the standards so high that no building will ever be built.\*
\*As a subnote, the recently built Comcast building in Philadelphia was constructed with concrete core in order to prevent what happened to the towers. The construction strained local concrete resources to the limit such that almost all other projects were slowed or delayed - including emergency sewer repairs, street repair, and so on - for several months.
---
### Author:  [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)
#### Post date: [July 24, 2010, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/365 "2010-07-24T17:36:30Z")
> [@ironbender](#):
>
> To those who believe the OT without question, OK fine. Fire and damage caused by airplanes brought WTC 1&2 down. But, how do you explain WTC 7.
7 was hit by a large chunk of 1 and the side that faced the Towers had no direct contact with the ground.
> [@](#):
>
> _[Remember Madrid 2005?](http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/spain_fire_2005.html)_
Yeah, [all steel from 17 up collapsed.](http://www.jaimz.ca/images/STRUCTURE004.jpg)
At the time of the fire, the Windsor was being refurbished to bring it up to fire code. This required the installation of fire protection to the perimeter steel columns & the internal steel beams, a sprinkler system, and a new aluminum cladding system. Except for parts of the 9th and 15th floors, all steel from 17 down had been brought up to code.
> [@](#):
>
> _None of them collapsed into their own footprint at near free fall speed, like a controlled demolition, an implosion. In fact, they fell over sideways, more or less intact, Madrid did not collapse into a small pile of rubble._
[This is a “small pile of rubble”?](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6b/WTC_7_aerial_photo.jpg)
7 initially started falling to the north; the northeast corner crossed the street and [clipped the CUNY building at 30 West Broadway](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Fiterman_hall_damage.jpg). A few seconds into the collapse, which lasted at least 15 seconds starting with the Penthouse (even Dylan Avery has acknowledged this), the southwest corner separated and slid into the Verizon building.
> [@](#):
>
> _The fact is the damage to WTC 7 from the twins was confined to a corner of the building_
[This is a “corner”?](http://www.newhopepa.com/PlanetEarth/WTC091101/fema7.jpg) Firefighters on the scene described a 20-story gash in the southern façade.
> [@](#):
>
> _So I ask, how do you explain WTC 7?_
Being a Port Authority building, it was exempt from building & fire codes, which allowed 9 generator fuel tanks–up to 12,000 gallons–in the building. It was built over a ConEd substation on a site that had been prepped for a building with a much smaller footprint, leaving the southern façade with no direct ground support. Debris from 1 severed the sprinkler system, which had already been suffering from low pressure due to everything else that had been going on.
> [@Deputy Chief Peter Hayden](#):
>
> [W]e were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.
---
### Author:  [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)
#### Post date: [July 24, 2010, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/366 "2010-07-24T18:18:29Z")
> [@Mr.Miskatonic](#):
>
> [QUOTE=[911myths](http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_fire.html)]
> we are told that there were fires on the floors 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 19, 27 and 28
[/quote]
Also at least 6, 17, 21, and 30. Firefighter’s radios mention fires on 6, 7, 8, 17, 21, and 30 plus some sort of collapse on the south side.
---
### Author:  [@Indistinguishable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indistinguishable)
#### Post date: [July 24, 2010, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/367 "2010-07-24T18:32:52Z")
> [@Mr.Miskatonic](#):
>
> Why don’t you look up fire codes for steel construction some time. WTC7 lasted well beyond its rated level, but sadly most codes assume some kind of firefighting efforts will be made when the building catches fire.
Hm. This may be a naive question, but wasn’t the reason the initial firefighting efforts were called off on WTC7 that it seemed too dangerous to the firefighters, the building being in danger of collapse? In that case, your quoted retort seems a bit weak. (But I don’t really know anything, so please set me straight)
---
### Author:  [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)
#### Post date: [July 24, 2010, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/368 "2010-07-24T18:41:47Z")
> [@Mr.Miskatonic](#):
>
> > [@gonzomax](#):
> >
> > I think what is clear, is the buildings were of horrible design and construction. They were supposed to be able to withstand an airplane crash.
>
> All indications were that the buildings did survive the impact. It was the fires that caused problems.
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > Apparently they failed. Yet did the builder and architect get in any trouble?
>
> No. They built it to the standards of the time, which included smaller airplanes and a world where fanatics don’t fly fuel laden planes into their buildings.
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > How about bldg 7. It did not get hit by a plane. Why did it not stay up?
>
> Why don’t you look up fire codes for steel construction some time. WTC7 lasted well beyond its rated level, but sadly most codes assume some kind of firefighting efforts will be made when the building catches fire.
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > Were they fined for not building to standards?
>
> Why should they be? They came up to standards when designed. Maybe you should look at the people who added the heavy, equipment laden penthouses to WTC7 after it was built, or maybe you just want to set the standards so high that no building will ever be built.\*
>
> \*As a subnote, the recently built Comcast building in Philadelphia was constructed with concrete core in order to prevent what happened to the towers. The construction strained local concrete resources to the limit such that almost all other projects were slowed or delayed - including emergency sewer repairs, street repair, and so on - for several months.
You always build with safety factors. I am sure they build with a lot of room at the top for plane crashes. You do not build with minimum requirements to just get by.That is why I question the buildings construction.
---
### Author:  [@ivan\_astikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivan_astikov)
#### Post date: [July 24, 2010, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/369 "2010-07-24T18:47:25Z")
There seems to be 3 angles here [9-11 Research: 9-11 WTC Videos](http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/index.html#building7) and all 3 seem to indicate a uniform descent.
---
### Author:  [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)
#### Post date: [July 24, 2010, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/370 "2010-07-24T18:57:36Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#):
>
> There seems to be 3 angles here [9-11 Research: 9-11 WTC Videos](http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/index.html#building7) and all 3 seem to indicate a uniform descent.
[East side is headed toward the camera and the west side is headed away from the camera](http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/wtc7_collapse2.mpg); obviously a twisting motion there.
---
### Author:  [@ivan\_astikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivan_astikov)
#### Post date: [July 24, 2010, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/371 "2010-07-24T19:04:45Z")
Yes, obviously! :dubious:
---
### Author:  [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)
#### Post date: [July 24, 2010, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/372 "2010-07-24T19:07:36Z")
> [@gonzomax](#):
>
> You always build with safety factors. I am sure they build with a lot of room at the top for plane crashes. You do not build with minimum requirements to just get by.That is why I question the buildings construction.
The planes that brought down the WTC didn’t even exist at the time of construction, and are 50% heavier than the 707s that the towers were built to survive. In addition, a plane involved in an accidental collision while landing is going to be moving slower than a plane being deliberately rammed into the building with the intent to cause as much damage as possible.
---
### Author:  [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)
#### Post date: [July 24, 2010, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/373 "2010-07-24T19:16:11Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#):
>
> Yes, obviously! :dubious:
Yes, obiously it was not as symmetrical as many truthers told you.
[http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm](http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm)
> [@](#):
>
> Note just past building 7 is a small amount of debris on the white building behind it. (Building 7 is pile in the upper center-left of the photo. The white building is at the top center-left of the photo.) That building is to the north east corner of building 7. Note about 1/3rd of the east side of the building falling to the north in the photo below.
>
> ```
> Here is another photo from over Building 7. The white building is on the left. Note the debris from building 7 which crossed the street and landed on top of the white building.
>
> This suggests the building was split by the penthouse collapses most of the way down. One section went to the south-east while a smaller section went to the north. It wasn't that symmetrical.
>
> Below are snapshots from a video taken from the northeast of Building 7 just as it collapses. Note that it has just begun to collapse and it is already tilting to the south.
>
> Half way through and it's still tilted to the south. Note the west side of the building has come away from the west face around what used to be the 43rd floor. Light can be seen through the east face windows.
>
> Note the angle to the south has increased and so has the space between the west face and the rest of the building. The west face later lays on the Verizon building to the west. While it looks like it's about to hit the ground, it's still almost as high as the white building to the right. That makes it about 20 stories.
>
> If the majority of the building fell to the south-east based on the resulting debris locations, as conspiracy theorists point out, it is evidence for a normal collapse by fire. I think they're right.
>
> ```
---
### Author:  [@MsWhatsit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MsWhatsit)
#### Post date: [July 24, 2010, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/374 "2010-07-24T19:19:53Z")
I just wanted to drop in and say that personally I find this thread to be quite informative and appreciate all of the truther-debunking posts. I mean, not that I ever bought into the conspiracy theory in the first place, but some of the debunking info is interesting in its own right.
---
### Author:  [@Ibanez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibanez)
#### Post date: [July 24, 2010, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/375 "2010-07-24T19:20:36Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#):
>
> Did they also do a study to see what the effects of different amounts of deliberately placed explosives intended to bring about a gravity-induced collapse, might look like?
Irrelevant.
The results of their peer review study found that the building collapse due to planes striking the building resulting in a fire and structual damage.
Meaning, the buildings were able to collapse without explosives.
This sinking in yet ?
---
### Author:  [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)
#### Post date: [July 24, 2010, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/376 "2010-07-24T20:21:51Z")
> [@Indistinguishable](#):
>
> Hm. This may be a naive question, but wasn’t the reason the initial firefighting efforts were called off on WTC7 that it seemed too dangerous to the firefighters, the building being in danger of collapse? In that case, your quoted retort seems a bit weak. (But I don’t really know anything, so please set me straight)
Can you rephrase that?
WTC7 firefighting was called off for a number of reasons, not the least of which was that rescue efforts still needed to be done on the piles WTC1 & 2. Other factors were the rubble strewn terrain and the lack of water to the area. After the fires had been going for a while the effect of collapse would be a factor.
The point of my comment is that Gonzomax seems to be implying that WTC7 should have lasted through its fires because it was not hit with an airplane. That is wrong.
---
### Author:  [@Valgard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Valgard)
#### Post date: [July 24, 2010, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/377 "2010-07-24T20:33:40Z")
Come on **ivan astikov** , you participated in the thread I started last year when the NIST report on the collapse of WTC7 was released. You asked a lot of questions and we answered them. You’re asking the same stuff again like it’s brand new.
**ironbender** , the NIST report explains in some detail how WTC7 came down. There’s absolutely nothing mysterious about it at all, although if you don’t have some background in structural engineering, architecture, materials science or related fields you might have some questions. We’ve answered a ton of those questions in past threads on this but I have a BS & MS in structural engineering and will be happy to point you to the relevant stuff if you’re interested.
Here’s a link to the various studies and whatnot.
> **[World Trade Center Investigation](https://www.nist.gov/world-trade-center-investigation)**
>
> The collapse of the WTC buildings following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, was one of the worst buildin
And as I always do when this topic comes up and people express technical opinions that fly in the face of well-established facts, I’d like to ask this question to you:
What educational or work background do you have in any related field to structural collapse? Structural engineering, architecture, construction, failure analysis, materials science, fire safety, etc?
---
### Author:  [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)
#### Post date: [July 24, 2010, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/378 "2010-07-24T21:41:10Z")
> [@Valgard](#):
>
> Come on **ivan astikov** , you participated in the thread I started last year when the NIST report on the collapse of WTC7 was released. You asked a lot of questions and we answered them. You’re asking the same stuff again like it’s brand new.
:eek: If only this were . . . predicted . . . several . . . _hundred_\* posts ago . . .
\*Honestly probably several thousand, if you count back through enough threads.
You guys are trying to explain biology to a Christian fundie. He doesn’t _care_.
---
### Author:  [@user\_hostile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/user_hostile)
#### Post date: [July 24, 2010, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/379 "2010-07-24T22:02:39Z")
The Vanity Fair [article](http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/08/norad200608)talks about NORAD’s NE headquarters actions during 9/11. Suffice to say, confusion prevailed throughout the whole period. A cover-up of sorts did occur, but it was the military trying to show that they were on top of game–when in fact they totally scrogged the intercepts. The Pentagon (like any institution) was were pretty embarrassed that a bunch of amateurs thwarted them and were willing to lie to cover up their mistakes (and possible future appropriations).
---
### Author:  [@Trepa\_Mayfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trepa_Mayfield)
#### Post date: [July 24, 2010, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/380 "2010-07-24T22:27:30Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#):
>
> > [@Indistinguishable](#):
> >
> > Even before WTC 7 collapsed, there were noted concerns that the fires within would cause it to collapse. It wasn’t some great surprise, as a sudden bombing of that inconsequential building would have been.
>
> The two tallest buildings in NY had just fallen down; of course there were concerns it might fall down too.
>
> What I’d like you to try and imagine tho’ is, if the other 2 towers hadn’t been attacked, and a bomb of some kind had caused the damage and resulting fires, would a reasonable person have expected that building to come down the way it did?
Do you believe that there were explosives detonated in the Twin Towers on 9/11, or not?
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182.md?page=18)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182.md?page=20)