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.
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.
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?
All indications were that the buildings did survive the impact. It was the fires that caused problems.
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.
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.
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.
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.
7 initially started falling to the north; the northeast corner crossed the street and clipped the CUNY building at 30 West Broadway. 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.
This is a “corner”? Firefighters on the scene described a 20-story gash in the southern façade.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
The Vanity Fair articletalks 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).
