Alaska University Study Says WTC 7 Didn’t Fall Due To Fire

JustUs4All

Sweeper Upper Mod
I don't usually go all squirrely and all about stuff like this but I have always wondered how three buildings each fell in symetrically on top of themselves. that would require equal stress at each point of failure three times. This has always given me a hard time.
 
I don't usually go all squirrely and all about stuff like this but I have always wondered how three buildings each fell in symetrically on top of themselves. that would require equal stress at each point of failure three times. This has always given me a hard time.
Not me. That much weight is going to come straight down and as it collapses it takes out the floor below and the floor below, etc. etc. thus adding more mass to the part of the building that is collapsing. The increased mass causes the pancaking effect.
 

JustUs4All

Sweeper Upper Mod
Yeah, I know, but if one corner falls first it should tend to slide off to one side and I would think that force would be repeated as it pancaked, but then, I'm a bean counter not an architect.

I'm gonna go see if I still have any of that heavy duty tinfoil.
 
Yeah, I know, but if one corner falls first it should tend to slide off to one side and I would think that force would be repeated as it pancaked, but then, I'm a bean counter not an architect.

I'm gonna go see if I still have any of that heavy duty tinfoil.
If the point of impact were higher up the structure I would agree but in the case of the second tower coming down first the plane impacted it not quite halfway down the building. Accordingly the mass above the point of impact was so heavy that even though one corner was weakened more than the others the building was not able to "tip" in one direction or the other. It simply collapsed under its' own weight.

My heavy duty tinfoil hat awaits me at home, right beside the highball glass and it is after 5pm so officially it is now cocktail hour.
 
Yeah, let's blame our government instead of putting the blame squarely where it belongs - MUSLIM TERRORISTS!!
thats the REAL conspiracy. Getting intelligent people to think "the government" did it.
 

Flash

Senior Member
From Bulletheads article link:

Because all available evidence points to this controlled demolition as the most logical reason for Building 7's particular collapse pattern, serious questions now need answering. To wire a building of that size for implosion requires weeks of careful study and planning. Which means whoever wired the explosives knew far in advance of the September 11 plot. So who? And why? Perhaps Larry Silverstein has an answer. In July of 2001, 2 months before the attack, the new leaseholder of the Twin Towers and Building 7 took out a huge insurance policy on his buildings. In it, there was a special clause 'in case of terrorist attack'. As a result of the collapse of Building 7, Larry Silverstein pocketed almost $1 Billion, $500 million of it in profits. For the collapse of the Twin Towers, which he also owned, Silverstein argued in court that he should be compensated twice because two separate airplanes flew into his two separate buildings. And this, according to his argument, constituted two terrorist attacks. He won this argument, and was awarded $7 Billion for the Towers' collapse, quite a return for his initial investment.
 

NOYDB

Senior Member
People can't keep what they had for lunch a secret but blowing up a building is hidden.
 
I don't usually go all squirrely and all about stuff like this but I have always wondered how three buildings each fell in symetrically on top of themselves. that would require equal stress at each point of failure three times. This has always given me a hard time.
Yeah, I know, but if one corner falls first it should tend to slide off to one side and I would think that force would be repeated as it pancaked, but then, I'm a bean counter not an architect.

I'm gonna go see if I still have any of that heavy duty tinfoil.

Weight, pure & simple, weight. There were years of discussions amongst engineers and materials science geeks about how much the "in use" weight of each floor of the two WTC towers exceeded design limits. Those discussions were ongoing BEFORE 911. Tenants had piled literally megatons of paper, fire safes, tiles, granite and marble, even furniture inside those towers. The ugly part was that the higher you went in the Towers, the heavier the stuff the tenants stuffed onto the floors.

If the planes had hit above floor 90, it is possible that a partial collapse would not take it all. The lesser total weight might not have been enough to "domino" lower cores. If one of the planes had hit a tower below floor 45, one materials engineer told me, it was probable that the tower would topple instead of collapse. Then the initial instability of the first floor to weaken and collapse would have allowed the upper floors to "lean" far enough for them to fall over instead of collapse. Where the planes hit those towers was an absolute worst case for total destruction and loss of life.

The fuel in each commercial jet (both nearly fully fueled for cross country flights) penetrated several floors and entirely across the floors. The almost instant fires were hot enough to melt steel and there was enough flamable material (some of those megatons of paper in addition to the jet fuel - which is basically paraffin and kerosene) to maintain the fires long enough to powder the concrete core and melt the steel interior structure. Neither tower began to collapse evenly. The upper floors tilted, swayed, then - off center - began to fall into the floors below.

Due to the core and shell design of the WTC towers, as the floors above fell, the lower floors tended to collapse into the center of the remaining structure, contained and controlled by the steel shell. I cannot show you the math - simply because I do not understand it and cannot recreate it. But people who do know what they are talking about have said that both towers were doomed to collapse, mostly within their footprint, as soon as the concrete core began to crumble from the heat and stress. A lot was said in the 911 report about the steel shell, but it was the core that determined how the biuldings would fall!

When you get that tinfoil, be sure to pick up jumper cables to ground the foil skullcap and prevent brain shorts! :banginghe
 
Weight, pure & simple, weight. There were years of discussions amongst engineers and materials science geeks about how much the "in use" weight of each floor of the two WTC towers exceeded design limits. Those discussions were ongoing BEFORE 911. Tenants had piled literally megatons of paper, fire safes, tiles, granite and marble, even furniture inside those towers. The ugly part was that the higher you went in the Towers, the heavier the stuff the tenants stuffed onto the floors.

If the planes had hit above floor 90, it is possible that a partial collapse would not take it all. The lesser total weight might not have been enough to "domino" lower cores. If one of the planes had hit a tower below floor 45, one materials engineer told me, it was probable that the tower would topple instead of collapse. Then the initial instability of the first floor to weaken and collapse would have allowed the upper floors to "lean" far enough for them to fall over instead of collapse. Where the planes hit those towers was an absolute worst case for total destruction and loss of life.

The fuel in each commercial jet (both nearly fully fueled for cross country flights) penetrated several floors and entirely across the floors. The almost instant fires were hot enough to melt steel and there was enough flamable material (some of those megatons of paper in addition to the jet fuel - which is basically paraffin and kerosene) to maintain the fires long enough to powder the concrete core and melt the steel interior structure. Neither tower began to collapse evenly. The upper floors tilted, swayed, then - off center - began to fall into the floors below.

Due to the core and shell design of the WTC towers, as the floors above fell, the lower floors tended to collapse into the center of the remaining structure, contained and controlled by the steel shell. I cannot show you the math - simply because I do not understand it and cannot recreate it. But people who do know what they are talking about have said that both towers were doomed to collapse, mostly within their footprint, as soon as the concrete core began to crumble from the heat and stress. A lot was said in the 911 report about the steel shell, but it was the core that determined how the biuldings would fall!

When you get that tinfoil, be sure to pick up jumper cables to ground the foil skullcap and prevent brain shorts! :banginghe
And Tower 7?
 

ryanh487

Senior Member
Building 7 imploded perfectly. 64 vertical I-beams had to fail on the same level at the same moment for that to happen. An office furniture fire, as the report states as the cause, could not have possibly accomplished that.
 
Tower 7 is one of many, many things I do not know enough about to even guess.

JustUs4All questioned the WTC collapse - and I did have a chance, back in 2008, to have a long discussion with a couple of people who had studied the Twin Towers before 9/11 and participated in analysis of the collapse. So I could answer that one why.

I can support elfiii's assertion. Explosives were NOT used on building 7, specifically the internal structure was NOT weakened by explosives, causing a collapse - according to those same two materials science geeks (one a researcher, the other consulted to major construction firms). They did not speculate on the cause of the loss of WTC7 - we were talking about WTC1 and WTC2 - but they did dismiss the intentional destruction rumors about 7 during the discussion. I am reasonably certain that they were not pulling my leg because I was buying the beer.
 

NOYDB

Senior Member
An entire building isn't there anymore. But nobody notices.
 
Tower 7 is one of many, many things I do not know enough about to even guess.

JustUs4All questioned the WTC collapse - and I did have a chance, back in 2008, to have a long discussion with a couple of people who had studied the Twin Towers before 9/11 and participated in analysis of the collapse. So I could answer that one why.

I can support elfiii's assertion. Explosives were NOT used on building 7, specifically the internal structure was NOT weakened by explosives, causing a collapse - according to those same two materials science geeks (one a researcher, the other consulted to major construction firms). They did not speculate on the cause of the loss of WTC7 - we were talking about WTC1 and WTC2 - but they did dismiss the intentional destruction rumors about 7 during the discussion. I am reasonably certain that they were not pulling my leg because I was buying the beer.
It is my understanding that the metal from Tower 7 was cleaned up and gone within 2 weeks before anyone inspected it.
 
OK, I still don't know enough to guess what happened.
I absolutely understand.
The reasons for the Twin Towers make sense to me.
Tower 7 baffles me.
The official excuse was debris from the falling Twin Towers struck diesel tanks at the base of and to one side of Tower 7 and started the fire.
The fire was on 3 or 4 floors but up much higher than the bottom floors.
It is hard to imagine that the diesel caught those rooms on fire so far higher and not the bottom floors, and that enough diesel got there to produce hot enough flames long enough.
I think Building 7 is the only building of such modern construction to ever collapse from a fire.
Even if the galling towers damaged the foundation of 7, it collapsed from high to low in on itself. Seems strange. I certainly don't know it all let alone enough, but something does not seem right about that building collapsing.
 
What caused it then? Hmmmm?

Bombs placed in it strategically by agents at the behest of GWB?

Let’s just get it out in the open.
It is worth noting that George's brother Marvin was a principle in the company that provided security for the WTC, United Airlines, and Dulles airport. More still, that the CEO of Securacom was their cousin, Wirt Walker...
 
Top