Why WTC 7 Sabotaged

The BBQ Pit
161

Remember folks, the design of WTC7 was actually sound. No building has ever truly been designed to have multiple fires go completely unfought for several hours without consequence.

The claim that WTC7 was a shoddy design is also unfair. There were some factors that may have added to the buildings vulnerability - i.e. the mechanical penthouse on the roof was not part of the original design. And while it may not have been a major cause of the collapse, the extra load did not help matters.

The diesel fuel also was not a factor according to the NIST WTC7 report (not a lawsuit as gonzo alleges).

162

Huh…I thought I remembered reading somewhere that ruptured diesel fuel bunkers contributed to the fire in Building 7. That was a while ago, so if this has been found to be in error I guess I’d have to at least partially apologize to Mr. Gonzo…not that, on balance, it changes the fact that he’s an idiot, of course.

-XT

163

The natives of Pandora are really responsible for 9/11, knowing that we planned to use unobtanium to build our buildings. I think they are giant mutated wombats.

164

Wombats in Spaaaaaace!!!

[/Muppet Show flashback]

165

There was a court case that found the diesel fuel did not contribute. Have someone who can read explain it to you.
You are an engineer. You know damn well you way overdesign for safety factors. The company that built it was shocked that it fell. It was a new kind of construction that maximized the rental space. It was a failure. I doubt you will see that design used again.

166

Why don’t you explain it to me by linking to this court case so I can see for myself. I’m willing to concede that I may have been working under outdated information about the diesel bunkers, but I’d like to see some proof of that in this court case you mentioned.

I am, and I do…and I also know that you have to keep it within realistic limits. You COULD engineer a building to withstand just about anything…say, a nuke. The problem is, it would cost many times more than the building would be worth, so you’d make no money on it. If you are the government building a secure facility then that’s fine…you aren’t looking to make a profit on the building, merely to meet the design requirements of having it survive. However, if you are a private company building a building, then the expectation is that you aren’t going to lose a ton of money…so, you have constraints on how much you can over engineer.

I’ve seen nothing…NOTHING…that indicates that the buildings were flawed in design, or that cost cutting or corner cutting contributed to the failure of any of them. They were simply hit with a disaster outside of the parameters they were over engineered to withstand, and so they failed. If you have any EVIDENCE that this is incorrect, feel free to bring it out.

Then that should be easy to cite. From what I’ve read about Tower 7, it was no mystery that it fell, but if you have some information showing that the company that built it expected it to be able to withstand having a large percentage of the twin towers fall on it, then burn uncontrollably for half a day, feel free to bring it on.

I don’t know about that. From memory, it had a very large atrium (which, if my memory isn’t faulty, would tend to contradict the ‘maximize the rental space’ argument). Even if it was designed to ‘maximize the rental space’, so what? Did it not conform to the safety standards and other building ordinances dictated for building construction in the area? If you say no, it didn’t, then, again I ask you to cite a reputable source indicating so.

I’m sure that the standards and ordinances have been modified since the event. That said, a lot of the buildings in that area were one offs…unique structures that used new techniques and materials. So, saying that there may never be another with that design doesn’t really say much about the design itself.

If you’d like to cite some reputable sources saying that the reason the building fell was due to design flaws or shoddy design/workmanship, then feel free to do so. If not, I’m going to stick with the ‘building fell on it and set it on fire, which raged unchecked until it collapsed’ theory that I’ve read about in the past, since using Occam that seems the most plausible to me.

-XT

167

http://vincentdunn.com/wtc.html here is a fire chief pointing out the relaxation of bldg./ codes and poor design were huge contributions to the collapses. He knows something about codes and construction. You as always do not.

168

You used Occam wrongly. two towers hit by planes. They hit different floors. Weighed differently went at different speeds and angles. Both collapsed into their footprints. That is so unusual and unexpected that conspiracies developed trying to explain it. The third bldg. was less than half as tall, taking height out of the equation. It was not hit by an airplane and was not subjected to extremely hot airplane fuel.
three bldgs collapsed into their footprints. what do they have in common? The same design and construction. The simplest explanation is the design and build was flawed. It takes the most variables out. Therefore Occam says design and build was the problem.

169

Dishonest again. They built it to withstand a jet passenger plane crash. They did not build it to withstand a nuke. But they .I am sure overbuilt it to withstand far bigger plane. They both failed . That is bad construction and design. They screwed up.

170

They should not have allowed the buildings to be occupied until they tested them by flying jet passenger planes fully loaded with passengers and fuel into them. If they survived thoses crashes, they could have been opened. Wait, maybe they were testing the buildings. That’s the explanation for 1 and 2. But 7, that is still a conspiracy, no doubt about it. But I think it was just the truckers on the 23rd floor who found out there was no fuel.

171

xtisme, TriPolar, et al.: You seem to have forgotten two things:

(1) This is the Pit, not GD.
(2) Using logic on gonzomax (at least on this subject) is a waste of time

172

Logic as defined as agreeing with you? Sorry but the clear logic is on my side. I make no claims of conspiracy. I simply claim the construction and design was flawed. Three buildings with different conditions all fell in a way no other had ever. Perhaps you can pull a comfortable answer out of your sphincter. But the sad fact is the bldgs were of a new type that has been proven flawed.
You wont see that design used again, for an obvious reason.

173

Being subject to gravity.

174

No, you see, I’ve just been reading along in this thread - my only participation was because it talked about wombats and it was a funny pit thread. But then I noticed you’re applying the exact opposite of Occam’s razor.

A plane crashes into a building and bursts into flame. It’s high enough up that they fire can’t be fought effectively. The building collapses (in your words) “into its footprint.” Rinse and repeat for second building. The buildings did not fall over sideways on top of streets and neighboring buildings, killing thousands more people. For some reason, you take that as an indication of bad design. Sheesh, Gonzo, that’s great design.

175

You are a mod and that’s what you came up with? You should be embarrassed.
Remember when they fell. It was a WTF moment. Nobody thought a bldg could fall like that because it never happened before. NEVER. Buildings have burned before and not fallen. They have burned for a long, long time and stood. They have fallen apart and had walls fall.
What crappy logic. Want to bring a bldg ,down. I would suggest you burn the lower floors. The top ones are pretty self contained and would not impact the lower ones. There are lots of examples of bldgs burning on the top ,for a long time. No falling. None ever. And you suggest that is a good design that our 3 fell like a house of cards.
Occams Razor, the easiest explanation, the design sucked. That would explain why all 3 went down. You don’t have to conjure up an explanation for each and attempt to link them. They had one thing in common, same designer and builder.

176

The buildings didn’t fall into their own footprints. It would kinda cool if they had, actually.

Or is “their own footprints” code for something I’m missing?

177

They designed it to withstand the impact. They did not design it for the subsequent fires. They had no way to design for that. They could not even do the calculations for such fires (computer modeling being a bit limited in the late 60’s).

178

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.htmln Of course they could design it to resist fires. Here is the Madrid skyscraper that was engulfed in flames for 24 hours . It did not fall causing a huge poisonous cloud. Note how much flame there was. No buildings that have caught fire have dropped, except our 3. That is just another indication the design and build sucked.

179

Well, when you get around to building something over 1,000 feet tall, I guess we’ll have to start taking you seriously.

180

The thread is about WTC7. It was 47 stories. Now do you take it seriously?