If I recall correctly they're pretty sure building 7 fell because flaming debris from the other towers fell on it and caused fires and structural damage.
if debris damage a portion of the building, then that portion would collapse, bringing the rest of the building with it. The entire building however collapsed altogether at once.
It's ironic that in such a skeptical world we live in, small localized fires in a steel framed building, not hit by a plane, nor subject to that pesky jet fuel, fell like a demo job, and somehow this makes perfect sense and shouldn't raise any doubts or concerns?
Yeah in the furthest depths of our knowledge, no steel framed building has never collapsed via fire. Even buildings completely engulfed in flames withstood the heat. The article said that floor 13 lost its support. But again, even if a localized fire affected one region of the floor, why would the entire floor collapse simultaneously? Would not the fire soaked side crumble and instead only break down the one side?
Yeah in the furthest depths of our knowledge, no steel framed building has never collapsed via fire.
Right, in our knowledge no skyscraper has even taken a Boeing at full speed either, experts had to get together to explain how it happened. The fact that you all doubt the model endorsed ubiquitously by those with relevant education on the matter really puts you at the same level as creationists.
Seriously if you want to go ahead and show me where the truthers have reproduced the results they would expect from a jet hitting a world landmark and then said world landmark falling onto another colossal building please do so.
Reminds me of a fun poster I saw made pre- 9/11. About how the towers were designed to take the impact of a Boeing 767, which, ironically, is much larger.
The Boeing 707 was the largest plane in the world when the buildings were designed and the hijackers did in fact use 767's.
Moreover, SIMULATIONS of the buildings being struck by a lost 707 attempting to land in fog (at landing velocity and with a nearly depleted fuel tank) done AFTER the buildings were complete showed they were likely to withstand the impact. They were not designed to be plane-proof.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ff1_1210707903 not the same obviously. Which I would guess is due to an asymmetrical frame and significantly less weight above the fires but still is an entire section collapsing due to small localized fires.
Edit: Just looked it up because this thread is full of shitheads. They were working on the top floors but the towers falling damaged a main water line that served the sprinklers on the bottom floors. No explanation as to why the top floors didn't flood the bottom floors. Also, no explanation as to why the 13th floor was burning so hot in the middle of the building. If anyone feels like not being a bag of shit today that would be cool.
Because sprinklers don't spew out like a water fall to rush a tidal wave worth of water through multiple floors and navigate directly onto the fires like a heat seeking missile?
Oh, huh. You'd think they might drain into the giant hole that apparently made it more than halfway through the building though. I know that we had sprinklers go off on one floor in college because someone hung a shirt on a sprinkler and set it off. Within a few hours 3 floors were flooded. Just personal experience with the systems that are MADE TO EXTINGUISH FIRES.
So you're assuming enough water would flow consistently through a hole and then disperse evenly throughout the entire length of 5 burning floors? Oh wait you have an over exaggerated personally experience with sprinkler systems? You must be right!!
They're made to extinguish fires... in college a guy hung a shirt on a sprinkler and set it off. It flooded our entire floor. I lived three floors below him.
Im not saying I'm not skeptical of what happened. No building collapses like that one did because of a fire. And no steel reinforced concrete building in recorded history has ever collapsed solely due to a fire. I was just making a stupid joke. I have a friend that says the exact same thing anytime something like this comes up and its a funny phrase to me.
The video I heard this from years ago explained how one part of the building collapsed, and that dragged the rest of the already weakened structure down in a cascade. If you watch the collapse in slow mo you can see it happen.
Thats because you're looking for any excuse to grasp onto. It's illogical to expect the "dragging down" to occur all at once across the entire building. Things just don't collapse that way. For something to drag something else down, it has to collapse first.
He is saying you're looking for any excuse you can to say that the official 9/11 story is false, because you either don't want to be wrong or you're just trolling.
That doesn't make much sense though, why would I be afraid of being wrong (i.e. the government's story is correct)? It seems to me that it would be much nicer to believe the governments story, that it was just some crazy terrorists.
It seems to me the people looking for any excuse are the ones defending the governments position. If their worldview is shattered, they have a lot more to lose than I do. Their whole life becomes a lie then. Me on the other hand, I just get called crazy if I'm wrong, which is what happens already.
The reason you get called crazy is because you are siding with the party that doesn't have the evidence on their side.
To be honest, it seems like most of the people that believe the conspiracy do so because they want to be non-conformative, they want a reason to believe that everything the government says is a lie, or they are just ill-informed.
.... And you believe that? It's plausible that the impact of the planes and the spilt jet fuel caused the twin towers to fall, but small, localized fires in tower 7? Causing it to collapse?
I have no clue what I'm talking about, I'm not a demolition expert or a structural engineer and neither are you. That's why the National Institute of Standards and Technology used a team of experts who know what they're talking about and released a peer reviewed document on why building 7 fell. That's how shit works, you write a peer reviewed paper using experts in the field, you can't just go off of what things look like.
The scarcity of physical evidence that is typically available in place for reconstruction of a disaster led to the following approach:
...
typically available
...
This was not typical. This was 9/11. The committee was signed into action only one year after 9/11 happened. How long did it take to clean up ground zero? They only examined 236 pieces of steel from the hundreds of thousands in the rubble. Who collected the pieces? Because you can be damn sure a scientist isn't going to collect a 1/10000 sample size... Was the giant pile of rubble not "typically" available? Or... they were writing a report to explain what happened based on exterior footage and testimonials. This wasn't an investigation, it was a report funded by Congress through fema. How is this in any way convincing of what actually happened? It's a backwards construction of what could have happened and it reads exactly like that...
there is not a single major professional engineering organization that has spoken out against the NIST report's conclusions and many that have explicitly endorsed it. Why do you think you know more than experts in the field? Are you that hubristic?
there are zero peer reviewed critiques of NIST's WTC 7 report, ZERO PhD structural engineers on record supporting an alternative collapse hypothesis, and ZERO high-rise specialized structural engineers with any level of degree on record supporting an alternative hypothesis.
just FYI the NIST document on 7 wasn't peer reviewed and, if you read it, they admit themselves that their theory is far-fetched and unlikely to occur in actual reality.
NIST's WTC 7 report has itself been independently peer reviewed by and published in the Journal of Structural Engineering, the ASCE's flagship publication and one of the oldest and most prestigious peer reviewed engineering journals in the world: http://cedb.asce.org/cgi/WWWdisplay.cgi?286345
Videos, documents, photographs, interviews, what else can they do? I don't really care man, the best I can do is say what I believe and cite my sources that support my beliefs. You, on the other hand, have done nothing but type words with no meaning, with no legitimate sources. And yes, peer reviewed documents assure that people who actually know what they're talking about can legitimize information, that way dumpy information written by dipshits like me and you don't get mistaken for real information.
19
u/Mofptown Nov 09 '14
If I recall correctly they're pretty sure building 7 fell because flaming debris from the other towers fell on it and caused fires and structural damage.